Morisy on Mission's False Dichotomy
Ann Morisy makes an interesting observation.
I've been thinking of this recently in that our youth work is often misunderstood. We do youth work without any strings attached, no epilogue, no videos, no clever stories of Jesus and 10 Lepers. Just Youth work!
Periodically we get well meaning people being vocal about us not being evangelistic enough, tutting and huffing behind our backs! - I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who fail to see the beauty of the Kingdom in action; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who struggle to connect with something that stands alone in value; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who fail to see the love and respect; who fail to see the re-building of self esteem in young people; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who are content to allow mission to drift into a sequential or consecutive process - or worse content as Geoff Ryan puts it - "to seek to entice people into our fold with innocuous deceptions..".
I smile without irony when young people come to church naturally because of natural uncontrived relationships that 'these people' haven't got near nurturing because they are too busy eyeing up their next evangelistic scalp. I smile when these young people bring friends, I smile because when Kate picks up Bethan from club tonight, some of those young people moan at Kate for not being at church on Sunday afternoon!
I think of these people and I think....Funny!
Even funnier when you read the gospels and see Jesus constantly working the angles to get the final evangelistic word in. Funnier still when you see the means to an end philosophy of Jesus in action. Side splitting when you see Jesus manipulating situations to fire off an evangelistic tirade. Tear streaming please stop stomach agony - when you see Jesus in action you see his mission drifting into a sequential or consecutive process. Actually not funny at all because what we see is grace, love, justice and compassion naturally and authentically in action so where did the need for a sequential or consecutive process come from?
I'm foxed if I know!
----
ps - I really have learned to smile!!
"Bosch urges us to work for a closer interrelationship between social action and enabling people to embrace the Christian faith. Whilst intellectually we might assent to this it is more difficult to translate into action. Almost without exception our efforts to integrate work for justice with the recognition of Christ's unique saving power seems to drift into a sequential or consecutive process, with either social action or evangelism being treated as prior to the other" (2004:Pp12)Morisy, A.(2004) Journeying Out: A New Approach to Christian Mission
So we get people being vocal about us not being evangelistic enough - I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who fail to see the beauty of the Kingdom in action
Funny how we struggle with allowing mission to drift into a sequential or consecutive process. What we do has to have the evangelistic last word anything less is a cop out, a dilution. Never comfortable with allowing salvation, fullness, wholeness to shine through, never comfortable in settling for the value of the action in itself.I've been thinking of this recently in that our youth work is often misunderstood. We do youth work without any strings attached, no epilogue, no videos, no clever stories of Jesus and 10 Lepers. Just Youth work!
Periodically we get well meaning people being vocal about us not being evangelistic enough, tutting and huffing behind our backs! - I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who fail to see the beauty of the Kingdom in action; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who struggle to connect with something that stands alone in value; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who fail to see the love and respect; who fail to see the re-building of self esteem in young people; I've learned to smile at the irony of these people who are content to allow mission to drift into a sequential or consecutive process - or worse content as Geoff Ryan puts it - "to seek to entice people into our fold with innocuous deceptions..".
I smile without irony when young people come to church naturally because of natural uncontrived relationships that 'these people' haven't got near nurturing because they are too busy eyeing up their next evangelistic scalp. I smile when these young people bring friends, I smile because when Kate picks up Bethan from club tonight, some of those young people moan at Kate for not being at church on Sunday afternoon!
I think of these people and I think....Funny!
Even funnier when you read the gospels and see Jesus constantly working the angles to get the final evangelistic word in. Funnier still when you see the means to an end philosophy of Jesus in action. Side splitting when you see Jesus manipulating situations to fire off an evangelistic tirade. Tear streaming please stop stomach agony - when you see Jesus in action you see his mission drifting into a sequential or consecutive process. Actually not funny at all because what we see is grace, love, justice and compassion naturally and authentically in action so where did the need for a sequential or consecutive process come from?
I'm foxed if I know!
----
ps - I really have learned to smile!!
Comments
Friendship evangelism is (in my humble opinion) the right method for today, however friendship that doesn't end in the gospel 'word' being shared is like 'soup and soap' without the 'Salvation'.
The illustrations you give from the life of Christ seem to suggest that this is not what you’re saying so maybe I have misunderstood you?
I agree that initially we give the ‘friendship’ as it is with no strings attached but inwardly our motive for giving it will always be the hope that we get the chance to witness.
Two quotes from Booth:
“I must assert in the most unqualified way that it is primarily and mainly for the sake of saving the soul that I seek the salvation of the body.”
And again,
“To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labor. You must in some way or other graft upon the man's nature a new nature, which has in it the element of the Divine.”
Surely our aim must always be to constantly and carefully look for that opening where we can wedge in the 'word' (as it were). If we just love for love's sake (a truly noble thing to do) then we'll just become yet another well meaning humanitarian organisation.
I see no need for process (sequential or consecutive), indeed an attempt at such processes simply get in the way. Like Railton we need to be 'natural' evaneglists (i.e. so in tune with Christ that we act as he would have acted)again you seem to be suggesting in this in your gospel references.
I'm sure I've misunderstood you...
Love and prayers Andrew
Andrew if you have heard that I am not bothered about evangelism; that I am not bothered about taking opportunites to make Jesus known; that I am content to just keep my mouth shut - yes you have misunderstood me!
I've responded to Matts epistle over at his blog and it is to you aswell.
Two thoughts I would discuss further over coffee!
I have emails everyday making friends with me from Nigeria who have millions of pounds and all they need is my bank account!!
Secondly have we a narrow understanding of Salvation if it is limited to a pardon from God (which before we slip into more misunderstanding - I don't - you'll be pleased - deny!!! :o)) How do related concepts of Shalom, Jubilee, healing , fullness, wholeness fit into our understanding of teh word salvation. When were they shaved off the concept of salvation?
Thanks for your contribution.
Love and prayers reciprocated!
The chat over a coffe sounds like a wonderful idea (as long as it's fairtrade!)
I don't for one minute think that you are not interested in evangelism and I am interested in hearing your wider definition of the same.
My only concern is (and I am sure it is yours too) that we (TSA) are involved in 1001 activities that serve the public, but if our aim is 'souls' then if we were a private company we would have been bankrupt decades ago.
I believe the only true way to quantify the value of mission/evangelism is to look at souls saved (i.e converts who in themselves become soul-winners).
The greatest commandment is to love God, then to love man and not to go into the world and 'preach', however 'saving' someone from an eternity of regret and 'gnashing teeth' is probably a greater act of love than temporarily easing their pain down here.
This of course turns the debate into a theological one - what is our concept of heaven, hell, temptation, the devil, holiness et al.
That conversation is probably better had over coffee :-)
Yes of course I will love where love is not returned and I will also love and serve where there is absolutely no hope of evangelical success if the immediate demand and the Spirit of Christ prompts such a Christian reaction. The Good Samaritan was not an evangelist but the man who told his tale most definitely was.
There is of course one motive even greater than evangelism that is that 'men might see my (genuine) good works and give glory to God.
I suppose the real answer to the dichotomy is that love is a fruit and should always be the Christian's natural reaction whereas evangelism is a responsibility which is accepted with a varying degree of enthusiasm.
In a true Christian both are mandatory.
Love and prayers
Andrew :-)
Andrew - I'not sure it is a wider definition more an understanding of evangelism in terms of Moltmann assertion "Evangelism is mission but mission is not merely evangelism" (1977). So if mission isn't a euphemism for evangelism what is it - my scrolling banner is a constant reminder to me!
Love as a motivation can't really be argued with - and I totally agree, it also helps to identify teh difference I perceive between 'motive' and 'strings attached'. The latter for me has teh feel of small print which worries me when social action is used as a means to an end. I'm not sure taht unconditional love has small print!
The other point that I think people fail to see is that unconditional love is very provocative. People ask questions when they don't understand what is going on or why somethnig is being done. In an era of 'thanks but no thanks' people asking questions that only teh gospel answers is not a bad thing.
Heaven and Hell? definately better had over coffee - have you read Rob Bells Velvet Elvis?
Holiness - for me is the heartbeat of mission, but I have had to ask myself have I ever been in situations where I have used programme to trick people into the kingdom. Covert Evangelism! I have to be honest and say there have been such manipulations in the past. It makes me feel ill because I can't equate it to the mind of christ - how unchrist-like is that - what part of a holy God does that represent - again worth more room than here!
Thanks for the converstaion!
Perhaps when you take up spiritual responsibility (along with your brother) for my other half we can have that coffee.
As a postscript, to me mission is 'the salvation of the world' and anything and everything that contributes to that is 'mission' - I suppose that for me that makes mission and evangelism synonomous.
As for tricking people into the kingdom don't beat yourself up too much. Did Jesus invite himself to Zac's for tea merely for his company or did he have an ulterior motive?
Let's get together some time.
Mission and Evangelism synonomous? - that leaves to a very 2D understanding. So I struggle with that.
Evnagelism to me would be the proclamation of teh Good News; mission is more than that and needs to capture the full flavour of God's mission as we see through Jesus' life. So as God's 'sent' church we are called to love, to serve, to preach, to taech, to heal, to liberate - so it becomes more a question of being than doing.Evangelism taht flows from that foundation probably has a longer shelf life?
BTW - Have you read Tomlin's Provocative Church?
I myself am opposed to the sort of mission that has "strings attached". Here in Latvia there have been many cases where people could only gain help and support if they were prepared to listen to the gospel. This goes totally against what I believe the Church is called to do and is done out of a single mindness that throws love out of the window. Yes we are to evangelise but we must also love!
How do we balance the two aspects? I wish I knew, and indeed this is one of the things that we are striving to do in Latvia.
For me personally, I think Gordon's Bosch quote in his marquee is the important point. If we can reach a point where all our mission comes out of the heart of God then our evangelism becomes a natural part of all our mission. If we are doing our mission with God's heart then His love should shine through everything we do and create far more opportunity for the Gospel to speak into the lives of those we love, help and support.
Helpful to have the dichotomy that concerns you clarified. It clearly occurs in various ways for various reasons.
You said that it occurs when social action fails to point beyond itself to the source of true love, hope and salvation - the scourge of liberal theology. Hey - not just the liberals! We felt the tug of it in the SA from the very beginning of the Darkest England scheme. William and Bramwell pleaded with their audiences in the first two Int. Social Councils not to let this continue and to get back to the priority of evangelism. For myself, I feel this temptation every day - it's the seductive pull towards respectability, pleasing the public, dishing out soup and soap on the world's terms instead of God's.
At the same time as aiming to practice evangelism and social action as a seamless, integrated whole, I believe in the absolute priority of evangelism. Two reasons: one, because the new birth is the only true foundation for healing and wholeness (early Salvationists prophetically insisted on this - Andrew's quote), and two, because evangelism deals with eternity. In fact, I would prefer to think of evangelism as being the most effective means of achieving social action - it is the bedrock and summit of personal transformation.
That's why I feel that the memorable formula 'saving souls, growing saints and serving suffering humanity' is unhelpful, as it implies an equality of priority. The best way to serve a suffering person is to lead them to the new birth in Christ, and from there into the blessing of a clean heart.
So, yes, I believe we are singing from the same hymn sheet, but the idea of serving for its own sake (or youth work for its own sake) just doesn't resonate with me - perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your principles and methods.
I'm after a constant seamless integration worked out in every encounter and event. Jesus in word and action all the time. Barth: The ministry of the community is essentially and in all forms and circumstances the declaration of the Gospel.
You method of separating out youth work and evangelistic events feels like it travels in the other direction - or am I missing something? It feels slightly schizophrenic: today I'm a youth worker and tomorrow I'm an evangelist. Even if we had the resources in Forestdale, I can't really see a rationale for going
down that road.
BTW, I don't understand why you come in for the criticism you described if you are doing the evangelistic events as well - odd.
I'm still prodding and probing on this - hope that's OK! Thanks again for your kind response.
Keeping pushing on in your wonderful ministry!
Matt
My wrestle and I sense the cause of this conversation is how does offering a gift of our church to our communities - in whatever form it may take - represent the heart of God when the only aim of that gift is to get into position to let go both barrels evangelistically? When people realise our agenda - the only thing we manage to shoot is ourselves in the foot!
"If we are doing our mission with God's heart then His love should shine through everything we do and create far more opportunity for the Gospel to speak into the lives of those we love, help and support."
Bingo!! Graeme - for me that is the nail struck firmly on the head. Authentic evangelism stemming from the missio dei
Thanks
I for one would like to see where this thought process goes and its not easy within comments on the blog!
Graeme
Interesting heritage stuff - here's one I picked up - Seems Booth suffered disquiet on the old dichotomy too..
'What about The Salvation Army proper? Has it suffered from the competition of the Social Work?' Booth responded "I know what you mean, but in my estimation it is all the Army proper. We want to abolish these distinctions..." (The War Cry, 1889).
If young people are invited to come to youth club under the clear understanding that faith will be shared openly - fine I'm happy, it is in the open. It's when youth work or any community work is offered as bait I start to squirm I would go as far as saying it verges on the lines of deceit and that is definately not an attribute of CHrist.
In our situation we choose to live our lives out with our young people and through the strength of our realtionships share our lives which obviously means our faith is central. We run other events where the content is more explicitly christian - people are told what they are coming to!! I don't think that would indicate schizophrenia. Our proclamation I would hope was more obvious rather than covert!
Thanks for the dialogue - where do you stand on Moltmann - "Evangelism is mission but mission is not merely evangelism" (1977).
One last caricature - When in 1880 - Booth confronted Bramwell about the men sleeping under the bridges. It is significant that he didn't say "great... look at the evangelistic opportunity we have with these vulnerable men let's evangelise them when they are at their lowest" but he said, "do something...!".
I've been thinking all day about this subject and I'm trying to work things through myself before posting again. Suffice to say that I can't get the words of Albert Orsborn's song out of my head this afternoon and evening. I suspect he came pretty close to hitting the nail on the head as well, and I'll leave you with his words!
The Saviour of men came to seek and to save
The souls who were lost to the good;
His Spirit was moved for the world which he loved
With the boundless compassion of God.
And still there are fields where the laborers are few,
And still there are souls without bread,
And still eyes that weep where the darkness is deep,
And still straying sheep to be led.
Except I am moved with compassion,
How dwelleth thy Spirit in me?
In word and in deed
Burning love is my need;
I know I can find this in thee.
O is not the Christ 'midst the crowd of today
Whose questioning cries do not cease?
And will he not show to the hearts that would know
The things that belong to their peace?
But how shall they hear if the preacher forbear
Or lack in compassionate zeal?
Or how shall hearts move with the Master's own love,
Without his anointing and seal?
It is not with might to establish the right,
Nor yet with the wise to give rest;
The mind cannot show what the heart longs to know
Nor comfort a people distressed.
O Saviour of men, touch my spirit again,
And grant that thy servant may be
Intense every day, as I labor and pray,
Both instant and constant for thee.
Albert Orsborn
This ties in with what i mentioned to Andrew about the breadth of our understanding of the biblical word and concept of Salvation.
Rob Bell - talks about Salvation in terms of living more and more in harmony with God, a process that will go on forever which takes it beyond just the 'legal transaction' (his words) undersatnding of salvation.
social salvation seems to close the dichotomy for me too - funny I read that John Wesley used to refer to the same concept as 'social holiness' (Matt - have you come across that?)
In fact since John goes on to say that 'whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him' (1 John 4:16) I reckon I might just be happy loving for the sake of it!
Maybe the following is going to keep things stirred up here... let's see!
Gordon asked about the Moltmann aphorism: "Evangelism is mission but mission is not merely evangelism.". I had to scour my memory for the essay I did in College at some unearthly hour of the night for Phil Garnham...
'Evangelism' is defined directly from the NT and is about proclamation of the gospel. I think 'Mission' is Missio (Latin) derivative from apostello (Greek): 'to send'. So a useful working definition is that mission is everything the church is sent by Christ to do in the world: "As the Father sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Our 'mission' is plainly much wider than proclamation of the gospel. But, salvation, for the whole person here and for eternity, is the goal of mission, which makes that proclamation indispensable: "How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" (Romans 10). I'm aiming for Jesus in word and action all the time - that for me sums up mission.
This touches on the difficulties I raised that opened up this discussion. Serving the community or the building of relationships 'for its own sake' - this just seems to me to be an idea quite alien to the New Testament. It's to exchange one false dichotomy for another.
But there are practical difficulties, and here's where I want to bite back in on the old 'false dichotomy' question. Means to an end...
The Founder espoused a blatant 'means to an end' missiology: "I must confess that it is primarily to save the soul that I seek the salvation of the body" and to pick another, "You cannot preach to a man on an empty stomach." I'm with the old man here. Let me illustrate.
Come with me to a squalid council flat near Forestdale. My friend Des sits in there day after day surrounded by grimy, yellow walls and cracked windows. He is a broken man - an alcoholic with epilepsy - two things that really don't fit together. When I first met him, it was him against the world - I, like everyone, was treated with absolute suspicion. It was not a time to read out John 3:16.
I covenanted with God to befriend the friendless, and I've tried to do that with Des. Because his need of Christ has been so apparent from the beginning, my goal throughout has been to open up a way for him to find Christ. My caring for him 'has value' in itself, but not nearly enough value! Only Jesus is the pearl of great price! My caring must become wedded to words that declare the beauty of the good news. So I love this man, and my love is intended to be the means by which he discovers a love vastly greater than mine.
In this sense, John 4 - the woman at the well - is 'means to an end' missiology. Jesus didn’t begin with John 3:16. He began with a revolutionary, unconditional acceptance of this fallen woman, and led her from there to worship. And his method has love written all over it.
When the sleeves are rolled up, social action is very often prior to evangelism, and there is a ‘sequential’ or ‘consecutive’ process. This reality needn’t compromise the integration of social action and evangelism. Nor need it compromise mission’s New Testament integrity and essential motive of love.
…And unlike other forums everyone is agreeing to disagree without falling out (Hallelujah)
Rather than try and pick up on all of the excellent points which have been made let me take the conversation of at a slight tangent…
Did Christ ever love for love’s sake? Or was his love (God’s love) always expressed within an eternal context. My earlier example to Gordon was Zachaeus – when Jesus invited himself to tea did he have an ulterior motive (other than cakes and crumpets)? Indeed did he seek out Zachaeus, target him (via tea) in order to ‘bring salvation to this house’?
Let me play devil’s advocate here. Take the parable of the sheep and the goats, the sheep got into heaven because of their pure motives (i.e. love for love’s sake), however, what about the naked, imprisoned, hungry etc. what was their eternal fate? This parable was told to bring balance to a theology that had a pretty poor concept of love and mercy and was hidebound by a cold legalistic hypocrisy. For all of its faults I am not sure that TSA could be accused of having such a biased theology.
It seems to me that our theology if it is slightly out of balance veers in the other direction! Rather than recite this parable at Officer’s Councils Jesus, in my opinion, would probably be more likely to look at some of our ‘social services’ and their poor evangelical return and be telling us to ‘shake the dust off our feet and move on.”
A real-life example (dilemma):
I know of a Corps that has a coffee shop and charity shop which is mainly frequented by the elderly. Many of these elderly are already ‘Christians’. Recently, drug addicts began to attend the two venues and scared off the elderly regulars. So the drug addicts (who’s reasons for entering the venues were dubious) were barred. This raises a few questions.
Is the exisitng venture merely a subsidised coffee and charity shop for the elderly – a secular extension to over 60’s? In other words is it exclusive or open to all?
If the shops are unsuitable for junkies where can they go? In other words is their an urgent need for a drug users drop-in centre?
If the Corps cannot resource both programmes which should come first? Tea, coffee and second hand clothes for elderly nominal Christians or a drop in centre for drug addicts?
How do you determine which of these ventures gets your support? Certainly the elderly option is probably the easiest to run, but ease of operation should not be a consideration.
Surely the only way you can make a practical decision (prayer is a given!) is to consider the evangelical merits of the two ‘needs’.
My personal opinion is that the elderly option ought to be provided by someone like ‘help the aged’. However, one could argue just as eloquently that the second option should be provided by a humanitarian drug support group.
As things stand, the charity shop has a manager and an assistant manager (as does the coffee shop) and both shops have a full staff of volunteers. The evangelical returns on both ventures is close to nil. Yet the resources in staff, money and space is substantial. One questions whether for TSA such a venture is a waste of staff, money and space?
I cannot think of one single act, healing, forgiveness, friendship offered by Christ that didn’t happen in an eternal context. Indeed everything that Jesus did was in effect evangelical.
To manipulate people into the kingdom is plainly wrong. To be Christian is plainly right. If a Christian ‘loves’ he will always be looking for evangelical opportunities. To be totally honest I think the whole dichotomy thing is largely imagined, I cannot see a contradiction?
For a Christian (as for Christ) there is no such thing as love in isolation, or mission in isolation, or service in isolation - there is just Christianity which at different times will be all of these things but at all times will be evangelistic.
Love and prayers Andrew
With you (Matt) 100% - I’d say your definition deserves to be more than a working definition. Of course when our missiology is framed by our understanding of Christology we’re into kingdom territory. In the sense that what shaped Jesus mission should shape ours. Jesus’ message was his life and that life seems to me centred profoundly for Jesus in the announcement that the reign God is at hand. With that to understand mission we need to get to grips with concepts God’s plan for his creation in terms of jubilee, shalom, salvation, the whole story of redemption and far more. So when we serve we do it to point beyond ourselves to the originator the author of true hope, love, mercy, grace and salvation – that is the crux we’re not in the business of just meeting needs. But by virtue of what is done the kingdom is demonstrated.
But I think we both are saying that doesn’t happen in a vacuum where people say either mine is a social ministry or mine is an evangelistic ministry. That is what I see as being missions blind spot. So we agree that mission as demonstrated by Jesus is wider than proclamation of the gospel – the danger however arises when we slip into the vacuum without realising it and allow mission to become some kind of church growth fad. The other danger of course is when we fail to proclaim.
Des is a helpful illustration – of course you will continue to love Des unconditionally, and because of that love you want Des to have the fullness that you have in Christ. It seems to me that there is no ‘sequential’ or ‘consecutive’ process involved because you are authentically embodying the kingdom where 'mission' is plainly much wider than proclamation of the gospel – but proclamation is essential.
SHeep and the Goats (inso much as you have done this to the least you have done unto me) juxtaposed your "...Jesus, in my opinion, would probably be more likely to look at some of our ‘social services’ and their poor evangelical return and be telling us to ‘shake the dust off our feet and move on." comment. Hmm yep you get gold for devils advocate - lol.
I guess Jesus made a right pigs ear of the 10 lepers on that criteria ;o)
You say disagreement I say creative tension!! Just to clarify something though.
I haven't said that we shouldn't evangelise. I have said that in my opinion to use a piece of community work, social action, loving your neighbourhood, fleshing out the gospel whatever you want to call it as a means to hide the evangelistic hook - is wrong, deceitful, certainly not christlike therefore unholy and points people away from the kingdom.
As for Francis of Assisi - there you go again with your deconstruction, and questioning of meta-narratives!
Elderly people in a charity shop, my guess pretty lonely, craving family, community. Perhaps on the margins of society ,looked over, maybe feeling inadequate a strain to family and the welfare state. Drug users again pretty marginal in society, modern day lepers, looked down on regarded with suspicion. Rack with guilt for effects on family and loved ones, full of regret for wrong choices.
What would Jesus Do (is that still in or is that passe now ;o)) I think he would get involved - why because that is what the kingdom of God is about, the reign of God that was his life. He'd love them and show a different way of life, he'd listen to their stories, laugh with them, build their self esteem - give them hope, show them mercy grace and hope, restore them so that they and people looking on from the sidelines would look at him and be amazed.
- Or he might shake the dust from his shoes because they represented a waste of time.
(Sorry andrew I'm pushing for silver in the devils advocate award - nothing could beat teh sheep and goats :o))
He says “To live in harmony with God (dwelling in the kingdom?) one does not need to attend church. There are those in our churches who are not in harmony with God. It is difficult for us to tell whether others are in harmony with God or not. Living in harmony is not a scientific formula, thus a specific prayer or adherance to a set doctrine are not neccesary. A Spritual Awakening is neccesary. we can not live in harmony with God and at odds with creation. To live in harmony also means we must follow Christs example, primarily Christ went to the unloved, unwell, rejected, and outcast.”
This is a very big statement.
No problem with the content – it is Bill’s opinion.
However it is an opinion that I can’t possibly sign up to as a Salvationist.
As a Salvationist, attendance at the Army (church) is the fulfilment of part of my vocation. TSA is far from perfect and is (as Bill suggests) peopled with some who are not in harmony with God. However, for me it still presents the best organised approach to evangelism and mission (am I guilty of tautology here?). I want to be at ‘church’ and If I didn’t want to attend I think it would be fair to question the reality and quality of my salvation.
Bill also says “My problem with modern evangelism is this: It focuses on only the eternal It focuses on a scientific salvation, right doctrine + Right prayer=eternal salvation or something along those lines. It places the emphasis of salvation us on the wrong person. We do not save anyone. Salvation is something that happens when the person makes the choice to open thier lives up to the kingdom.”
Bill, as Christians, our focus has to be on the eternal, Jesus repeatedly places it there.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God”
“Do not store up treasure on earth…”
“You cannot serve two masters….”
“Better to lose a limb than to be cast into hell…”
“The parable of the wealthy farmer and his barns” et.c etc.
This world, the lost, the hungry, the naked, our service, salvation – whatever you wish to name – as Christians we have to always be placing these things in an eternal context – if we don’t we will get things out of context!
When I allow God to use me to bring someone into a relationship with him then I do ‘save them’. If I drag someone out of a burning building and drop them before a waiting paramedic it may be the paramedic who restores their heartbeat but unless I had dragged them from the building they would have died. I know exactly what you are saying and I don’t want to get into a argument about semantics. But if we followed your logic through and we stopped evangelising (on the basis that God saves) it would be interesting to see how many people Christ would be able to save without our help (Gordon: does this earn me another Godl for Devil’s advocate!)
Salvation happens when someone ‘believes’, salvation comes by faith and faith comes through hearing…
“ How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Romans 10:14-15)
Bill sums up “Finally, modern evangelism sets up an us vs. them battle. Christ was always inclusive unless he was dealing with religious people.”
Two comments:
1) Evangelism is an us vs them battle. The ‘us’ is the evangelist and the “them” is the demonic strongholds that restrain and blind the unsaved.
2) Jesus was inclusive to everyone –even the religious.
What is sometimes seen as Christ’s exclusivity in favour of the non-religious is simply his expectation of higher standards. Sinners like Matthew, Zachaeus and the woman caught in adultery were shown enoromous patieince and grace whereas the Pharisees who should have known better were condemned – but they were all part of his target audience J
L&P Andrew
Jesus fed the five thousand because he was 'moved with compassion' – but Jesus did not love outside of an eternal context.
In John 6:26-27 we read
“Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Jesus is clearly saying, I’m on to you! You are following me because you are hoping I will meet your physical needs but that is not my immediate priority’
As Christians practicing incarnational ministries delivering a social gospel we must remember at all times that ‘Man cannot live by bread alone!”
L&P Andrew
http://www.beyondthebrook.blogspot.com/
Love and prayers Andrew
The Kingdom of heaven starts for us the moment we believe but it continues and has its fulfilment in the future. Therefore everything we do has to consider the eternal context.
It would be impossible for me to enjoy citizenship of the kingdom here and now yet be denied the same when I die. The proof of the pudding as far as my faith is concerned will be seen when I cross the Jordan.
If you use traditional and generally acepted definitions then there is (in my opinion) a difference between 'salvation' and 'holiness'.
Many Christians are 'justified' and 'forgiven' but not set apart. However, although I do not consider them to be the same thing I would agree that they are part of the same process.
L&P Andrew
Matt since you worked at club from 1994 - 2000 you know as well as I do!!! [shakes head :o)] In all that time did you either never proclaim through your natural relationships with Jamie and the crew - or were you ever part of offering all the facilities as a means to get your evangelism in through the back door?
The answer is no to both - by virtue of your relationships with the guys you were able to express the source of your hope naturally and the only way that wasn't compromised was that what was offered was transparent no hidden agendas - it was all in the open.
To me - and I would suggest you follow the FD thought process through particularly the work of Myers - unless we are saying to people that access our resources "we are going to have a good hour and a half on the facilities then we are going to try and evangelise you" - it is easy to be seen as being guilty of stealth evangelism. Hardly a kingdom value!
However I think I can see where the confusion might be arising. Care needs to be exercised with the concept of word and action (worthy as it is) in that it doesn't slip into using action as a covert precurser to get to the word - that to me seems deceitful, graceless and pushed to its extreme certainly conditional. Bonhoeffer talks about peddling cheap grace??
Dichotomous!
People ask questions when they see something they don't understand - grace filled actions are provocative that's why I'm like a dog with a bone on this one - because I want people to be attracted to the kingdom not repelled.
I didn't really want to play the 'fruit' card but you know our context and would understand how excited we are in that we had 9 young people come on sunday to worship that are connected to the Youth Club - testimony I feel to the hard work put into maintaining authentic relationships with these young people.
Dichotomous - I don't think so. Uncompromised natural process - I hope so!Authentic holistic mission built on grace - I hope so!
PS - teh Bruggemann quote is thanks to you and a book you recommended!
Interesting last response to Reidy (it is GOOD to have the man landing in the blogosphere!).
One question, then, because you know from earlier posts my perplexity at the apparent expression in your youth work methods of the very dichotomy you are trying to eliminate, or another similar to it. I keep thinking: if he's closing the dichotomy in his mind, why not in his method?
Here's the prod/probe question - as you've put your logic on the table, I'm pushing for rigour!
Why do you not tell your young people up front: "we are going to have a good hour and a half on the facilities every week, and then we hope that you will eventually come to church and hear the gospel, or at least hear it informally from one of our workers"?
Stealth by any other name? ;o)
With admiration and appreciation,
Matt
Maybe this will help. Having led our reflection/prayers which happens before club every night I had to run home for something - one young person waiting outside asked "are they still praying for us...?!" Nothing hidden, they know what we stand for, they know what is important to us in terms of our faith - stealth I don't think so! Morisy speaks of the power of the Principle of Obliquity (that unspoken tacit expression).
So one young person sees something in what we do and who we are and asks I'd like to come on Sunday - do we say no! Course not. When he says do you mind if I bring a friend - do we say no! Course not. When his friends says do you mind if I bring a friend - do we say no! Course not. When someone hears them talking about church and how much they enjoyed it and they ask if they can come - do we say no! Course not. Had he thought we were using the youth club as an opportunity to 'wedge the word' in I wonder how far that process would have got -I'll ask him tonight at club.
So has youth club been used a church growth gimmick? or has the youth club through demonstrating kingdom values been used to provoke questions and a process of discovery that we have been invited to join and be part of?
You know from my posts that we do youth club differently to Poplar - we do the up-front spiritual stuff one-to-one, in small groups, with a crowd. There are discussions, there is teaching, there is creative praying and so on - all with unchurched young people. On Monday, for example, we had Cadet Martyn Watson share his testimony and take questions - the impact was very powerful. This seemed the obvious way to go about things four and a half years ago, and it still does. The natural question for me, driving some of my prodding, is: Why would anyone not want to do this stuff in their youth club? Why yank it out and confine it to Sunday morning? It's the very stuff at the heart of mission!
The idea that this approach might somehow compromise authentic relationships simply doesn't arise here - why would it? On the contrary, I feel it tends towards authenticity, because we are being as transparent (i.e. true to ourselves) as our young people.
As for stealth - that would seem to me by definition to be a pitfall more likely in any church activity that didn't include up front evangelism.
So I remain a bit bemused - if you've closed the dichotomy in your thinking, I still (I know - 'duh') don't get why you don't express that closure in your youth club by doing the whole mission bag in it.
That bemusement doesn't stop me feeling that your heart and integrity are magnificent - I pray for the lavish blessing of God on all your tremendous work with young people in Poplar. Keep doing it.
Thanks again for great and gracious dialogue :o)
Matt