Its good to be on your blog! I appreciate the Scot McKnight article, reaffirming old truths that I've known AND taught myself.
A lingering question remains: to what extent should Christians engage in relationship making with evangelism as the explicit (or nearly explicit) purpose and aim?
I know many Christians (including myself) who have very few non-Christian relationships. Many Christians lack desire to make new friendships, as they are content with their social circles. Often these social circles are filled with "already Christians" or those who have known the Christian friend for so long that they continue to enjoy friendship and "agree to disagree."
Many of the people in my church lament their lack of "success" in evangelism. And while reminders of the Holy Spirit's necessary role are helpful, most adults find their evangelistic efforts through love and relationship relatively fruitless.
Christianity Today just published also has an article on evangelical conversion growth lagging behind national population growth.
Is this an indication that the Spirit is not converting hearts? Or that people aren't evangelizing? Or that more friendships are needed to open the door to more conversions?
Western Europeans frequently speak of their high standards of living, relatively high enjoyment of relationships and friendships, yet the God question seems largely - and frighteningly - irrelevant. Where are we in the US in our current context?
Thanks for your comment. If I'm reading it correctly, you are saying that there seems to be a disconnect in how we live as followers of Jesus in relationship with others, and this call to invite others into that same kind of relationship.
The approach of relational evangelism that I've heard presented in the Church is suspect in its motivation - I develop a relationship with a person for the purpose of being able to 'witness' to them. This might sound good, on the one hand, but this motivation for relationship uses the other to accomplish a different goal. "I relate to you so that I can evangelize you."
Here's the problem as I see it, this approach misses the restoring power of the gospel to bring, in part, human beings into right relationships with each other. The focus becomes entirely on aquiring a conversion and misses the large picture of the Gospel that Jesus declared which makes right/new all things.
So what about the Western European approach to life? I think that we see ourselves in the future by looking at them in the present. How can they highly value relationship and not be interested in Jesus? Quite simply, relationship is a context not content. The focus of my relationship with others is the same as the focus of my life. If the focus of my life is to live as a follower of Jesus then my relationship will take on the same tone.
I think the fact that our lives are so disjointed adds to this problem. We seem to have different reasons for each of the things that we do. Am I here typing this because of a desire to love God and love people? Do I go to work because I love God? Try and stop me from talking about what is new in my life and I am excited about. When I was training for a marathon last year I ended up talking to dozens of people about my training and their running experiences. Now that I am not training, the subject does not come up.
If we continue with the line of thinking begun by Troy... what fuels that continued passion for God?
Seems like a profoundly silly question to even ask, perhaps even teetering on irreverence and heresy itself, but nonetheless I see it in the faith community I'm a part of -- the passion ebbs and flows.
If that really is the case, then where does this leave us in a pluralistic extremely busy culture? Where one minute (as Troy's example) its marathon, the next its Obama vs. Clinton, the next its my new puppy, the next its my church is having a big event that I'm getting excited about.
Hundreds of years ago the church WAS the center of activity and community. That is no longer the case. The church is but one competing voice in a pluralistic and busy culture.
I have two observations on this change where the 'church' has moved from the uniting principle in a given neighborhood to simply one of many options for social interaction.
First, I think this soceital shift has uncovered a dynamic that might have been true even when the 'church' was the center of communal life. And that is that the idea of 'church' has been and continues to be a social option to be engaged in for one's own benefit. So even when the 'church' was the primary unifying principle in a given neighborhood, this was more about less accessible alternatives for social activity as well as transportation limitations. This caused neighborhoods to look within for engagement, rather than opting for more distant pursuits. To this end, I think that this change is good.
Second, however, I am concerned that this continued view of the 'church' as one option among many further erodes the formation of a real community of faith that serves as a contrast society to the world. There are a number of affinity groups who gather weekly, for example the UMD Bulldog Hockey fans who have passionate and dedicated gatherings during the season at their sanctuary at the DECC. More passion and dedication might well be seen there than in the sanctuaries who accumulate people on Sunday mornings. My point, if it is not clear is that 'church' must mean more than a gathering about which we are passionate. Instead, if we are to see 'church' become something about which we are passionate in life it needs to become the community of faith in/through which we live our lives for the sake of the world. These are radically different ideas, perhaps even more so that realize.
I don't get it. What does this mean "if we are to see 'church' become something about which we are passionate in life it needs to become the community of faith in/through which we live our lives for the sake of the world."
Are you talking about something different than just spending enough time with Jesus to get excited about what He is doing in our lives?
Thanks for the question. Yes, I do mean more than spending time with Jesus, although this certainly should be a major priority. What I was trying to say is that if Church is going to move from one of the various fads that we go through - where I am passionate about it for a time and then move on to other pursuits - then we are going to need to change our perspective about what Church is. My thought is that Church rightly understood is the community of the followers of Jesus in/through which we do life for the sake of the world; as oppossed to a place or event that we go to one day a week.
I am talking about being passionate about Jesus. I am not talking about various fads that seem to take turns at center stage. I am talking about a people that spend time with Jesus. Then the Church becomes a group of people that are passionate about Jesus.
Oh yes! My fad comment was not intended to try to describe your position. Yes, a people who are passionate about Jesus defining the Church...very good!
11 comments:
Jeff,
Its good to be on your blog! I appreciate the Scot McKnight article, reaffirming old truths that I've known AND taught myself.
A lingering question remains: to what extent should Christians engage in relationship making with evangelism as the explicit (or nearly explicit) purpose and aim?
I know many Christians (including myself) who have very few non-Christian relationships. Many Christians lack desire to make new friendships, as they are content with their social circles. Often these social circles are filled with "already Christians" or those who have known the Christian friend for so long that they continue to enjoy friendship and "agree to disagree."
Many of the people in my church lament their lack of "success" in evangelism. And while reminders of the Holy Spirit's necessary role are helpful, most adults find their evangelistic efforts through love and relationship relatively fruitless.
Christianity Today just published also has an article on evangelical conversion growth lagging behind national population growth.
Is this an indication that the Spirit is not converting hearts? Or that people aren't evangelizing? Or that more friendships are needed to open the door to more conversions?
Western Europeans frequently speak of their high standards of living, relatively high enjoyment of relationships and friendships, yet the God question seems largely - and frighteningly - irrelevant. Where are we in the US in our current context?
Many questions
REV
REV,
Thanks for your comment. If I'm reading it correctly, you are saying that there seems to be a disconnect in how we live as followers of Jesus in relationship with others, and this call to invite others into that same kind of relationship.
The approach of relational evangelism that I've heard presented in the Church is suspect in its motivation - I develop a relationship with a person for the purpose of being able to 'witness' to them. This might sound good, on the one hand, but this motivation for relationship uses the other to accomplish a different goal. "I relate to you so that I can evangelize you."
Here's the problem as I see it, this approach misses the restoring power of the gospel to bring, in part, human beings into right relationships with each other. The focus becomes entirely on aquiring a conversion and misses the large picture of the Gospel that Jesus declared which makes right/new all things.
So what about the Western European approach to life? I think that we see ourselves in the future by looking at them in the present. How can they highly value relationship and not be interested in Jesus? Quite simply, relationship is a context not content. The focus of my relationship with others is the same as the focus of my life. If the focus of my life is to live as a follower of Jesus then my relationship will take on the same tone.
What do you think?
Jeff
I think the fact that our lives are so disjointed adds to this problem. We seem to have different reasons for each of the things that we do. Am I here typing this because of a desire to love God and love people?
Do I go to work because I love God?
Try and stop me from talking about what is new in my life and I am excited about. When I was training for a marathon last year I ended up talking to dozens of people about my training and their running experiences. Now that I am not training, the subject does not come up.
Good point Troy! Your comment indicates to me that the need then is to continue to cultivate a passion for following Jesus.
Passion in a pluralistic culture.
If we continue with the line of thinking begun by Troy... what fuels that continued passion for God?
Seems like a profoundly silly question to even ask, perhaps even teetering on irreverence and heresy itself, but nonetheless I see it in the faith community I'm a part of -- the passion ebbs and flows.
If that really is the case, then where does this leave us in a pluralistic extremely busy culture? Where one minute (as Troy's example) its marathon, the next its Obama vs. Clinton, the next its my new puppy, the next its my church is having a big event that I'm getting excited about.
Hundreds of years ago the church WAS the center of activity and community. That is no longer the case. The church is but one competing voice in a pluralistic and busy culture.
How does this affect us???
REV
I have two observations on this change where the 'church' has moved from the uniting principle in a given neighborhood to simply one of many options for social interaction.
First, I think this soceital shift has uncovered a dynamic that might have been true even when the 'church' was the center of communal life. And that is that the idea of 'church' has been and continues to be a social option to be engaged in for one's own benefit. So even when the 'church' was the primary unifying principle in a given neighborhood, this was more about less accessible alternatives for social activity as well as transportation limitations. This caused neighborhoods to look within for engagement, rather than opting for more distant pursuits. To this end, I think that this change is good.
Second, however, I am concerned that this continued view of the 'church' as one option among many further erodes the formation of a real community of faith that serves as a contrast society to the world. There are a number of affinity groups who gather weekly, for example the UMD Bulldog Hockey fans who have passionate and dedicated gatherings during the season at their sanctuary at the DECC. More passion and dedication might well be seen there than in the sanctuaries who accumulate people on Sunday mornings. My point, if it is not clear is that 'church' must mean more than a gathering about which we are passionate. Instead, if we are to see 'church' become something about which we are passionate in life it needs to become the community of faith in/through which we live our lives for the sake of the world. These are radically different ideas, perhaps even more so that realize.
Preach it brother!
Amen!
How ON EARTH do we begin???
REV
I don't get it. What does this mean "if we are to see 'church' become something about which we are passionate in life it needs to become the community of faith in/through which we live our lives for the sake of the world."
Are you talking about something different than just spending enough time with Jesus to get excited about what He is doing in our lives?
Hi Troy,
Thanks for the question. Yes, I do mean more than spending time with Jesus, although this certainly should be a major priority. What I was trying to say is that if Church is going to move from one of the various fads that we go through - where I am passionate about it for a time and then move on to other pursuits - then we are going to need to change our perspective about what Church is. My thought is that Church rightly understood is the community of the followers of Jesus in/through which we do life for the sake of the world; as oppossed to a place or event that we go to one day a week.
Does that make more sense?
I am talking about being passionate about Jesus. I am not talking about various fads that seem to take turns at center stage. I am talking about a people that spend time with Jesus. Then the Church becomes a group of people that are passionate about Jesus.
Oh yes! My fad comment was not intended to try to describe your position. Yes, a people who are passionate about Jesus defining the Church...very good!
Post a Comment