Incessant Rambling

I find it fun to go through times like I am currently. I’ve been pretty frustrated with a lot of things, and stressed with the amount of things in which I am involved. So, when I get on a soapbox like I have been lately with evangelism, it’s gratifying to have it affirmed by the things around me.

Not more than 24 hours after this post, I happened upon a link to Issue 4, 2006 of the WCA News. The particular issue happens to be focused heavily on evangelism and affirmed everything that has been floating in my head lately. I’ll pull out some highlights, but please take some time to read the issue in your spare time.

The first article, titled “Evangelism in 3-D” highlights Willow’s 3-D philosophy: Develop Friendships, Discover Stories and Discern Next Steps. Here’s a quip about the root problem of evangelism today:

People hate evangelism. Christians shy away from it. They’re afraid of it, discouraged by it and feel guilty when they fail to drag a seeker across the line of faith. If Christians dread evangelism, non-Christians despise it. They feel pressured, preached at, cornered, judged, condemned and reduced to spiritual projects. “Somewhere along the line, we’ve forgotten what evangelism is really about and we’ve reduced the process to simply inviting people to a weekend service,� says Willow Creek’s Director of Neighborhood Evangelism, Garry Poole. This is a problem.

This is a serious problem, folks. The statement “…they fail to drag a seeker across the line of faith” sums it up too plainly. This isn’t a task at which we can fail.

The same article also offers some responses to the question “what is your knee-jerk reaction to the word evangelism?” You can read for yourself to see some pretty scary responses. Poole also had this to say:

“We needed to shift from ‘doing community in the church’ to ‘doing church in the community,’�

And this:

Developing friendships is showing an authentic interest in their interests. “Don’t try to be interesting, just be interested.�

And this:

And whatever you do, don’t view your neighbor as a project. No one wants to be reduced to a spiritual project just so you can check them off your list.

How many times do we write a name down on a card and… yeah. Poole said this, too:

Christians often view evangelism as getting the seeker to listen to us while we share a verbal witness — give our testimony in the hopes they will better understand the gospel… We’re omitting a critical part of the process — the other person’s story. Non-Christians are eager to tell their stories.

Amen, brother. I am in the midst of another amazing book titled The Revolutionary Communicator. The first principle in that book is that communication is about listening. People just want someone to listen and be authentic.

There is a great deal more to learn from that article, but let’s move on to one by Bill Hybels, the Senior Pastor at Willow. In Just Walk Across the Room (also the title of his new book), Bill describes a relationship he had with his son’s childhood soccer coach, Brian. It is a relationship that was Spirit-led and took years to yield a new believer, surprising no one more than Bill himself. He nurtured the relationship on Brian’s terms, serving him, listening to him and just being a friend. Relationships and serving others goes a very long way to expanding the Kingdom.

And finally, an article titled Connections: The Bridge to Grace, also highlights the importance of relationships with an interesting story. The author’s wife was in the middle of an evangelism course and had an assignment to have evanglistic conversations each week (what is an “evangelistic” conversation, anyway?). He describes a conversation where her close friend opened up and shared some things that completely redefined their relationship…

A soul connection was made. For the first time in many years, this friend saw Jesus and the church in a different light — a very positive light!

Interestingly, though…

…she flunked with an “F”… because she failed to present the plan of salvation… and that was the assignment.

Granted, this was an assignment for a graded class, but sadly, I feel like this is exactly how we view our role in evangelism — an assignment that gets graded.

While tracts, strategies and events are brilliant tools perfect for certain situations, evangelism is about “walking across the room” and building relationships. The Bible tells us to be prepared to answer questions, but not to shout those answers to those who are not listening.

I didn’t plan on writing this, but I felt the need. Who knows if there will be more. Stay tuned.

A recent Bible Study led to a discussion on asking for signs from God. How do we know it’s a sign from God? What do we say to those who need to “see to believe?” It turned into a discussion about “the lost” and “the non-believers” and how we as Christians prove God’s existence to “them”.

Only recently have I felt our church making an effort to tear down that invisible wall around our group of believers and really make our community more than an afterthought. Evangelism tends to be something we make about “us and them” and appears in events like we’re doing this weekend which, while effective, is just an event.

We as Christians continue on with our defensive bubble, asking those around us to come in and hear what we have to say, or with this idea that we have something to prove. We make Christianity more about religion than about relationships.

Christianity is not exclusive. It isn’t something we do. It is something we are. I believe the self-inflicted bubble has contributed more to the angst against believers than anything else. Where is the humility in being set apart? We take that so literally that we seclude ourselves. Or, in a thinly veiled attempt at evangelism, we try to convince this “them” that we have something “they” should want.
It is not our job to prove anything. It is our job to serve those in need. It is our job to serve those not in need. The Holy Spirit does the tugging.

Please, do not take this to mean that I’m against sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ or that I’m encouraging a strictly passive approach to sharing (or not sharing) the Gospel. I believe wholeheartedly in the Great Commission. I just feel like we tend to look at it more as a job or an obligation than a heartfelt desire to expand the Kingdom. We put such emphasis on telling people about Jesus, that we completely skip over the first step of building a relationship and meeting the needs of people.

If we truly want to make a difference, there is no convincing to be done. There is only serving.

Church plants are springing up every five miles all over the nation. Each has the same basic purpose, but with completely different motives. This concerns me. I agree with the basis of the idea that church needs to change. However, I think we need to be very very careful as to how we approach it.

Movements have been labeled Missional, Emerging, Reformission, etc. We’re not dealing with movements. We don’t need a name. We’re dealing with people. By labeling these movements, we’re boxing ourselves in. We must be very careful to not build cookie-cutter approaches of how to “do church” into these movements. Challenge all you want, but understand your audience before you just plain make things worse.

There is a book by George Barna titled Revolution. I won’t write a book report or even review it here (maybe later). However, he labels this group of people rethinking church as “revolutionaries.” I love the term. My mom thinks it conjures images of war. Webster defines “revolution” as:

a sudden, complete or marked change in something

Culture has changed since Jesus’ time. Culture has changed since your church was founded. Culture has changed since you were born. We need to embrace change or we’re going to be seriously irrelevant if we aren’t already.

Where we have to be extremely careful is the fine line between revolution and rebellion. I’ve spoken to too many people involved in planting a new church that say something along the lines of “We’re going to be a church for people burned by the church.” Right away you’re founding your body on rebellion, a dangerous ideal. You’re saying that church is bad (it probably is), and we’re going to do it better (you probably will). What you’re also saying is that “church pissed us off, so we’re going to show you how church really should be done.” Stop now.

I’ve actually heard the statement “church should be done like this.” Church should be “done” however best addresses the needs of the culture in your community.

God can’t bless a bitter attitude. What God can bless is meeting people’s needs. Take that exact same group of people who have been “burned” by the church and find out what else they have in common. Just take out the “we’re frustrated” piece and focus on building honest, positive relationships. So what if they’ve been burned by the church. The point is building a relationship with the one true God, not a group of people called a church.

Yes, church needs to change. We need to get up out of the pews and make a difference in whatever culture is around us (there are probably several vastly different cultures within a five-mile radius of your church building or your home - pick one).

We need to be smart about how we spark change. Saying “church sucks” may work to inspire some folks (it did me), but it would anger others, backfiring completely. We could spend weeks talking about who’s problem that is. Sure, the people who get angry when challenged shouldn’t be angered by the idea of change, but I have a feeling we can make much more progress with more effective communication.

Understand your culture. Build relationships. Change what needs to be changed. Just please, please, please communicate effectively. Your message may be right on, but if you don’t understand your audience, or you communicate that message poorly, you’re going to have bigger problems than you started with.

Since the pilot, the television in our house has been tuned to NBC on Monday nights for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It’s a beautfiul portrayal of the pressures that surround entertainment in this day and age. At the same time that special interest groups are fighting for their right to free speech, other groups are fighting to silence that which sheds negative light on their particular message.

NBS, the fictional network that airs the fictional SNL clone, Studio 60, heavily controls what sketches make it to air. If small-market Terra Haute is threatening to not air the show, NBS balks. That was then. In the pilot, the current producer freaks mid-show (it airs live, as does SNL) and walks on camera to slam the censorship that is a result of ridiculous political correctness for the sake of art. This, my friend, is real life.

The show continues and we find that the newly hired president of NBS actually stands up for art, by refusing to continue the micro-managing, hiring back the ex-writer and producer that were on the show in its hey-day, and brute-forcing her way through protests, small markets refusing to air the show, etc. All of this leads to newfound success on the fictional network and show.

So, what’s the point? Several articles and conversations have recommended a boycott because of the token sketch causing the ruckus at the fictional Studio 60, titled “Crazy Christians”. Though it airs, we never get to see the sketch, so we have nothing to go by but the fictional show’s frenzy. Also at the forefront of the criticism of the show is how the female lead is portrayed as a hardline Christian and somewhat “nutty”. Because the show paints Christians in a negative light, and makes fun of this seemingly “nutty” group of people, we, as Christians, should not watch the show, regardless of its entertainment value.

Some people fail to see the humor in this real world fight against Studio 60. The show ignores the protests and boycotts of Bible-belt markets and airs the sketch anyway. They poke fun at the protests. Yet, here is the same group of people, in real life, boycotting a show that is poking fun at the group boycotting the subject of the show. Seems kind of counterproductive, no?

Besides the fact that I enjoy the entertainment value and humor of the show, I see something that we as Christians can take away from it. Lose the bubble mentality. Look at the show from the perspective of the “other side.” They’re writing the material into the show because that’s how they see us. Why give them more ammunition by taking the defensive and boycotting the show that is making fun of us boycotting?

Rather than fight against the show, use it as research. Find out what they’re really trying to say. Is it simply humor for humor’s sake? Satire? Probably, but let’s assume for a moment these people really do hate Christians and are using Studio 60 as their platform. Find out why, and embrace it. What a concept, huh?

We as Christians too often take the defensive approach. Sure, there is reverse discrimination happening all over the place these days for the sake of political correctness. By taking the defensive approach, we build this little bubble around us and prolong the idea that “Christians are crazy.” When people think of Christians, they think of protests, annoying “ram-it-down-your-throat” evangelism, boycotts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Joel Osteen. Why prolong the insanity? We don’t want to listen to what they have to say about us, but we’ll talk all day and night about what’s wrong with them. People, believe me, we have our flaws too.

Remember, Studio 60 is an entertainment program. You may not think it’s entertaining, but don’t make it your platform for saying “Christians aren’t crazy.” We may not be crazy, but the rest of the world sure thinks we are. By doing exactly what they say we do by being crazy, we don’t help our cause any. It’s time we actually do something to change the world’s opinion of us and speak their language.

We don’t have to change the message, but we definitely have to change they way we present it.

I have a post regarding relevance in Christianity in the works, but felt I needed to get something off my chest. In any industry, one must first define it’s market and meet the needs of that market the best that they can. It is common practice to shoot for an 80% success rate when discussing groups of people. If you can reach 80% of the people 20% of the time, you’re succeeding.

The same holds true in ministry as well. Too many times churches set lofty goals to reach their entire community for Christ, and they attempt to do so in only one or two ways. A block party here, a Christmas pageant there, etc. While these are great in Theory (I’ve always wanted to live there), there is no possible way to succeed with these goals in mind. While you may say “wait, dude, anything is possible with God, right?” I’ll respond with yes, but God also does things differently for different groups of people. The Corinthians, the Thessalonians, the Romans, all received very different messages that were relevant to their specific needs.

What we as A Church - a single group of God-fearing Christians - must do is to break the masses up into smaller groups of people and reach them in ways that are relevant to them. Church A then ministers to one group while Church B ministers to another. Why work against each other and expect Church A to be everything to everyone. It won’t work. If you encounter someone at Church A not being reached, let them know about Church B, or even better, Church C that just started around the corner.

We do this so well with international missions, breaking people groups up and providing materials in their language, storyboards, and dramatic presentations, how come we forget that there are multiple groups of people right outside our doors? Just because we all live in the same community doesn’t mean we all worship the same way.

If Church A happens to have two services, and is still missing their target(s - there could be more than one), maybe a third service, or modifying one of the existing two is in order. It isn’t about a single style of worship or about the music, it is how best to relate the message in away that is relevant to their target audience.

There has been an uprising of community churches with multiple campuses or satellites. This is not only to cover a larger geographic area (churches are all about numbers, you know), but is also to be more relevant to different groups of people in the community.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to be relevant in our presentation, because the distractions wouldn’t exist. Our vision of God would be clear and the desire to know Him would be inherent in all of us (it truly is, but we don’t realize it) from the start. Therefore we would already be at the point of “What can I do for Him” rather than the selfish, human “what can He do for me?”

The problem here is that the people we’re trying to bring into the church and minister to are not able to grasp a concept of “what can I do for Him.” That takes time. We must first be patient and understand that before they can get there, they need to understand “What can He do for me?”

Speak their language. Be relevant. Be passionate. Don’t be afraid to point someone in a different direction (not the same as turning them away) that speaks to them. Work together. If you want to be more things to more people, realize that it’s going to take time & effort and can’t be accomplished in one or two ways.