Is our understanding of evangelism too narrow?

Several years ago I  heard a lecture about evangelism by Professor George Hunter III of Asbury Theological Seminary based on his book The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West...Again. He suggested that American Protestantism has tended to view evangelism in what he calls "the Roman way." The Roman way proceeds like this: 1) Preach the Christian message; 2) Invite people to decide for Christ; 3) Accept them into Christian fellowship.

Hunter was proposing an alternative possibility that he called "the Celtic way." In the Celtic way: 1) People are accepted into Christian community; 2)  They hear and experience the Christian message; 3) They decide for Christ.

In telling his own story, he was even more casual. He described his  experience of becoming a Christian this way: As a teenager he began participating in a local church youth group. After a while he decided he pretty much believed the same things they believed so he joined the youth group and the church.

It seems to me that there is even a third  form of evangelism which is exemplified by Ruth Graham, Billy's wife. When a reporter asked her when she was born again, she replied that it must have been when she was in the cradle because she has accepted Jesus as her Savior as long as she can remember. Perhaps this could be called "the cradle way."

Many American evangelicals seem to understand evangelism only in the Roman model, with a particular emphasis on a crisis paradigm of repentance. Yes, for some new Christians, there may be a dramatic sense of sin from which they repent suddenly when they decide to accept Jesus as their Savior. I grew up with an oft-repeated story  of the town drunk kneeling at the Communion railing during a revival and throwing his whiskey flask and cigarettes toward the altar. I am  not knocking such dramatic and sudden conversion experiences; I am simply arguing that they are not necessarily the norm.

Adolescent conversions can be particularly traumatic and dramatic especially  if they are fueled by guilt about behaviors having to do with sex or drugs. But this is not always the case.  Some adolescents become Christians by making a decision to do so through confirmation classes. Trauma and drama does not make a decision to be a follower of Jesus Christ more valid. This is just as true with adults.   

I suspect that there are many people who come to Christ in the way  George Hunter did, and others who come to Christ in the way  Ruth Graham did. These experiences are just as real and profound. To emphasize sudden repentance as more valid than evolving awareness and repentance may actually keep people away from the discipleship journey.

I am not arguing against repentance. I am arguing for repentance as a gradual as well as a sudden process. I am arguing against litmus tests for Christian experience. Anyone who decides to be a follower of Jesus should be welcomed without reservation or question.

Comments

[Douglas Asbury]

Through the Emmaus Community I got to know a saint who at that time was in her 70s who came to Christ through what you call the Ruth Graham way.
Looking back on my own experience, growing up in the church and then becoming a church musician in my first career period, I was what I'll call a "passive Christian," doing much more receiving from Christ and the Church than giving. In my early 30s I became much more of an "active Christian," asking God, "What do you want from me?" That led me to hear God's call to ordained ministry, which I have followed the past 20+ years.
The Walk to Emmaus added a depth dimension to my following of Christ; and the 2-year Academy for Spiritual Formation added yet another dimension. I eventually came to ask God, "How can my being gay and Christian serve you?" I'm in the process of listening to God's answer and seeking to live in faithfulness to it.
May the Church recognize and serve the many means by which Christ draws all people to himself.

[Revwilly]

Dean,
In a post I made a few days ago I talked about the problem of trust or the lack thereof. Conservatives don't trust liberals etc.. I am not exempt from that.

I can't really disagree with anything you said in this well written piece on evangelism. In fact I strongly agree with your position. But here is where I struggle. When you say that people should be welcomed without question I see that as a subtle way of you saying, for example that a gay couple should be welcomed into membership with no questions asked.

I may be completey wrong, but because of my struggle with trusting some liberals I tend to jump to conclusions. Do you understand what I am saying? And I would be quick to say that conservatives have given liberals many reasons not to trust us. I hope this made sense.

[Dean Snyder]

Willy

I did not have a specific situation in mind. What I had in mind was a sense that I am hearing more rigidity in general in discussions about membership, and who is allowed in and who is out. Certainly the issue of sexual orientation is always before us, but some of us disagree so fundamentally about this that this discussion will not solve our disagreements. I myself would not blink an eye about receiving a gay couple into membership regardless of our understanding of Christian experience and conversion, etc., because I assume that gay people can be Christian disciples while being in a gay relationship as much I can being in a relationship with Jane.

On the other hand, the way we think about conversion is not irrelevant: To my mind, all of us are on a journey of discipleship, gay and straight, male and female, etc. All of us need to figure out how to be Jesus' disciples whether our body is gay or straight. In this life, we have no way to be Jesus' disciples except in the bodies we have been given. I know you and I believe differently about what this means. My bias is to accept folk at their place in the journey, to encourage prayer, Bible study, dialogue, and to listen as they discern what this means for them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than to assume that I can study the Bible for them and tell them what to do and how to live or how their journey will turn out. I know no one should experience shame because of their physical self.

Even in my preaching I try to share my engagement with Scripture, my discernments, my insights, my struggles in such a way as not to tell people what they need to believe but to encourage them to engage Scripture and the spiritual journey with Christ for themselves. I try to model the spiritual life rather than to dictate its rules and laws.

Also, so far as I know myself, I think I trust you, Rev. Willy. You have always been direct and straightforward about what you think and believe, whether we have agreed or disagreed. I try to be that way as well, although I am not sure that I am always as clear as you are about what I think. But I think my commitment to a church where gay folk are fully welcomed and affirmed is clear and I am hiding nothing. I think I can still think clearly about things without everything i think and do being driven to acheive this goal, just as I do not think everything yopu think or do is driven by how it will effect the church's position on sexual orientation.
Dean

[Mike]

Dean--

Just to toss out a semi-random thought about evangelizing, but why is that Methodists don't seem to send out missionaries the way that Pentecostals or Mormons do? One of the best exegeses I've ever seen was of a painting of Christ standing by a door in a garden. He is patiently waiting, perhaps having just knocked, but the door has no handle: he cannot enter until someone lets him in. Why aren't Methodists knocking at doors?

[Craig Moore]

Dean

Here we go again. How can our body be gay and our spirit be in harmony with God? Doesn't that sound like the old heresy of gnosticism? Whereby the spirit of man is good and the body can still be sinful. Romans 8 tells us that we "live according to the Spirit or according to the flesh." Paul doesn't mention living according to each and there is no mention of an inbetween state. I was wondering what your concept of regeneration or tranformation may be.

[Dean Snyder]

Mike

Interesting question. I think we are nervous about being intrusive. The question is how to be radically welcoming without being intrusive. Knocking at doors risks turning many people off (I don't like when people knock at my door to sell me something even if it is religion); yet, many people are so isolated and lonely that knocking at their door at the right time may be an effective way to reach them.

I've also wondered about phone evangelism, which turns off a lot of people (I regularly tell salespeople I will not buy anything or donate to anything as the result of a phone call because I don't want to encourage this way of doing business; people do it because it works. If it stopped working they'd stop doing it) but, on the other hand, phone evangelism also seems to hit a certain percentage of people just at the right moment.

I'd be interested in other folk's experiences and thinking with door-to-door and phone evangelism.

[Dean Snyder]

Craig

Yes. Here we do go again. It is not sexuality that is sinful because it is part of the flesh. It is things like greed, lust, selfishness, avarice, impatience, and ennui (all the things that come out of our mouths) that are expressions of the flesh or the worldly or the merely material.

It is the spirit of commitment, faithfulness, integrity, caring, honesty, closeness, generosity etc., that is spiritual. This is what it means to live by the Spirit.

I think you and I disagree because you think these quailtities can occur only in heterosexual relationships and I believe (I think I know because I have seen it) that they can occur in same-sex relationships as well.

Dean

[John]

I think that it would be helpful to start using the language of evangelism again. Stuff like "saved" and "lost". Too often, we think of church as a social club and that if a person doesn't accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior, then it's okay.

We need to preach and teach that there is a literal Hell, and the unsaved are going there. We need to teach that one isn't saved by showing up on Sundays and dressing nicely, but through the redemptive blood of Christ alone.

But we don't hear this. We describe those outside the camp as "unchurched" instead of "unsaved". And until we do start talking like this, the clergy and laity have no motivation to spread the Gospel -- after all, there are no eternal consequences for the lost.

[Craig Moore]

Dean

Are we to understand that sexuality is like eating and drinking, only a bodily function that is neither good or bad? I would say that is true in a marriage relationship between a man and woman, but no where in the Bible do I see God's approval of sexual relationships outside the marriage relationship between a man and woman. It is not even suggested. Show me where commited gay sexual relationships are approved of in scripture. Any sexual relationships outside of male/female marriage is considered sexual immorality in the Bible, and sexual immorality is sin. I see your view of Christians with gay bodies as a resurrection of Gnosticism, which holds that a person can maintain his holiness while at the same time grovelling in fleshly indulgence. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. But from time to time I will ask you to defend what I consider a false view of scripture. I still wonder what your view of regeneration is.

[Dean Snyder]

Craig

I am not saying what you say I am. What we do with our bodies is an important matter to our own well-being and to the good of the community. I am just saying that the important thing is the quality of the relationship and that these qualities can be just as present in a same-sex relationship as a different-sex relationship. In fact for those born gay, the only way they may be able to reach our highest ideals for marriage is in a same-sex marriage.

If we want to be biblical, the same principles applied to Gentiles in NT times now need to be applied to gay folk, who are the other and the supposedly "unclean" in our time. I am sure you fully embrace the inclusion of Jew and Gentile in the church, which would really be a bold movement wfollowing the lead of the Holty Spirit if you lived in New Testament times. How is God calling us to apply these principles today in our time?

But we have to relate to real people, listen to real people, observe the manifestations of the Spirit among real people, and not operate out of stereotypes. Also, as long as we communicate the message that gay people are not welcome in our churches unless they hide their true identity and pretend to be like us, we will never get to know them and our interpretation of Scripture will be purely theoretical and abstract.

You seem to rule out the possibility of the gifts of the Spirit being manifested in same-sex relationships. I say that I have seen just as much fleshly indulgence in straight people as among gay folk. If self-indulgence is the quality you are looking to condemn, you will not find it more present in gay people than straight. So, if this is your concern, go after self-indulgence in any relationship, don't go after gay folk.

Sorry if I am rambly. It is a busy day.
Dean

[Revwilly]

If it was my posting that got the conversation going on homosexuality I regret that. Evangelism is a much more important topic to discuss. It is essential that we be better equipped and understand how we can better offer Christ to a lost and hurting world. Maybe if we focused more on evangelism and less on the homosexual issue we would grow as a church.

[patti]

Hey, I must be naive or something...but I totally didn't think of sexuality from this post. This post made me think of that song, "They will know we are Christians by our love..." Not, "How could we possibly accept sinners into our fellowship?" Well, I'm a sinner and I bet you are, too.

[Revwilly]

Patti,
You are almost right. I am a saint to sins. There is a difference.

[Douglas Asbury]

A couple of my good friends are pastors in growing congregations that focus on making disciples for Jesus Christ. Several times in conversations with them over the years they have lamented to me that they wish the Church could stop spending so much energy wrangling about homosexuality and focus on the business of evangelizing the world. It has always disturbed me that they see these two issues as separate.

I have tried to make the point that gay folks need to be evangelized just as much as everyone else. We need to be told of God’s love for us and have that love demonstrated to us in ways we can recognize it. (And the way gay folks are evangelized will tell others how they can expect to be treated by the Church as well.)

When we gay folk are told – as the pastor in Virginia recently did – that we aren’t acceptable as persons who wish to pledge themselves to become disciples of Jesus Christ, what are we to think? Do we want to be part of a body that looks at us as unworthy material for salvation? Would anyone want to be viewed that way? Even if it were true that homosexual activity were a sin - and regular readers here will know I don't per se - is the issue in joining a church that we accept the Church’s definition of sin, or that we are brought into relationship with the living Christ, in which relationship we will discover more and more what sin looks like in our lives and be able to eradicate it, with God’s help?

Here is the critical theological/ecclesiological issue for me in that regard. Does salvation happen outside the Church, so that one must be rightly directed in all facets of one’s life in order to gain admittance to the fellowship of believers? Or does salvation happen inside the Church, in communion with Christ and Christ’s people, where we develop mutually supportive and accountable relationships with one another - in which we come to know Christ more fully - and gradually develop a larger and larger stake in being part of this fellowship (with Christ and fellow Christians)?

This is why a couple of posts back I speculated that, had John Wesley been the pastor in that Virginia church, he would have accepted the partnered gay man into membership. Wesley knew that salvation happens within the Church. Outside the Church, no one has any system of support or accountability that will both help them and challenge them to become holy. If people must be holy in specific ways in order to enter the Church, then why should they join, if they can become holy without the Church in ways that finally make them acceptable to enter, why should they bother joining the Church?

Do we need the Church to become holy, or do we need to be holy to become a part of the Church? Does Christ meet us where we are and take us to where he wants us to be, or does Christ demand that we be someplace specific before he agrees to complete the task of our salvation and our sanctification? And if there’s some other way to frame these questions than the one I’m choosing, please feel free to offer your suggestions.

[Craig Moore]

I don't think gays are unworthy material for salvation. They are sinners so they qualify. Salvation is a divine event in which Christ saves us from the guilt and consequences of our sins and then regenerates us, whereby our character is changed and we become new creations in Christ. Love, encouragement, accountablility and support may come from the church community, but the power to change hearts and lifestyles only comes from God. Evangelicals have no problem with evangelizing gays, we just strongly resist the trend to embrace their lifestyle choice as compatible with Biblical teachings.

[Douglas Asbury]

Craig,

I would invite you to read Lev. 18.6-23 and explain a couple of things to me. First, why does God need to describe the specific relationships of the person addressed to the women with whom that person is not supposed to have sex? That is, why couldn't God simply say, "Have sex with your wife/wives only, and with no other women?" Second, do you notice a woman who is likely to be in the family who is not among those designated? Does this mean the person can legitimately have sex with her? Third, who do you imagine is being addressed by this passage? That is, is the person male or female or might the person be either? What status in his or her milieu has he or she? Is it someone highborn or lowborn, or might it be either? Is it someone wealthy or poor, or might it be either? Is it someone powerful or not particularly powerful, or might it be either? And fourth, after the enumeration of all the women with whom not to have sex, why is there just a catch-all statement in vs. 22 relative to men? Why not enumerate all the men with whom the person is not to have sex, especially if the person addressed might be a woman as much as a man?

I'd be very interested in your analysis.

[Craig Moore]

Doug

What you obviously have here in this text is a code of sexual ethics that differ from those practiced by the pagan Canaanite culture. God is instructing his people not to participate in their permissive sexual culture. Specifically, not to have sex with female relatives, avoid adultery, child sacrafice and yes homosexuality and finally bestiality. These are the sexual standards God's people were to maintain when they settled among the Canaanites who apparently were tolerant of these practices. No doubt all of them have been upheld in most modern societies as a way to regulate healthy family life and sexual behavior. I see absolutely no suggestion that male homosexuality should be permitted. In this list of prohibited sexual acts I noticed that incest and lesbianism is missing. Now that is a question worth looking at.

[John Wilks]

"Here we go again. How can our body be gay and our spirit be in harmony with God?"

Craig-
The Eastern Orthodox Church has adpoted the posistion that while homosexual activity is sinful, homosexual orienation is not.

In other words, should someone who's sex drive is entirly geared toward same-sex attraction and yet that person embraces a life of celebacy for the sake of Christ, then their body would be gay but their spirit be in harmony with God.

I don't think that is what Dean had in mind, but it is food for thought.

I plan to do a write-up on my blog this weekend on the Eastern Orthodox position, but in case I don't get around to it or if you don't read my blog, here is a link you might be interested in:
http://www.light-n-life.com/newsletters/06-09-2004.htm

[gavin]

allen roxburgh had much of the same type of explanation for evangelism and conversion experiences as the celt's.

to me it really does make more sense these days. people are much more savy and have the wait and see attitudes or perspectives. i'll join you, see what you all are about, then i'll get vested into what it is you are interested in.. God takes it from there

[Craig Moore]

A celebate gay person I would not consider sinning. I am referring to a practicing gay person. I think if a person seems to be inclined to being gay, he/she must practice the same restraint that a single person is commanded to adhere to and trust the Holy Spirit to give victory over tempatation.

[Tony Rose]

I hope my post will help explain why this discussion on evangelism has turned into a two threaded discussion on homosexuality, and will also help to answer some questions raised.

This discussion on evangelism methods is an important one in our culture because it goes right to the issue of “what is the church for” vs. “what is the church supposed to be doing.”

Those you describe as having the “Roman way” view of evangelism, whereas repentance is expected in order to “join” in membership, see “the church” as being the “assembly of the delivered ones” – those that “have been saved/delivered.” And consequently they believe that “what the church is to be doing” is: going outside of the church and evangelizing sinners.

The “Celtic” view you describe, where anyone with any belief is accepted “into membership” and then those that are already in the church can evangelize them from within, is a concept that is foreign to Scripture, and is putting the cart before the horse (repentance last instead of first).

So that we aren’t knocking down straw men, I think it is important to define positions properly. I see in this thread that those who agree with what you call the “Roman way” view have been misunderstood in their definition of “membership.” Douglass said earlier in his post that “when we gay folk are told – as the pastor in Virginia recently did – that we aren’t acceptable as persons who wish to pledge themselves to become disciples of Jesus Christ…” Doug stood up a straw man to be knocked down, because this is not the position of that pastor. In fact, that pastor had invited the gay man into complete fellowship and had not excluded him from any church functions. However, since the public membership acceptance ceremony in the front of the UMC hymnal has the pastor ask the person desiring official membership, “Do you repent of your sins,” the pastor could not accept his official membership, since this question was answered in the negative.

Doug also asked “is the issue in joining a church that we accept the Church’s definition of sin, or that we are brought into relationship with the living Christ in which relationship we will discover more and more what sin looks like in our lives and be able to eradicate it, with God’s help?” Actually Doug, the issue isn’t whether we accept the Church’s definition of sin, but if we accept what Christ said that we do when we are confronted with our sin. Jesus said “unless you repent you will perish.” The point is, not that we have our theology exactly correct before we join the church, but rather - are we obedient to God in what He has already laid out clearly for us to understand and obey? We aren’t “brought into relationship with the living Christ” as you say, if we are unrepentant. If a person truly “wishes to pledge themselves to become disciples of Jesus Christ” as you put it, they will first indicate this by being repentant of their sins. If one is unrepentant of their sins through either rebellion, or through redefinition of “sin,” or both, then they are indicating from the start that they do not truly “wish to pledge themselves to become disciples of Jesus Christ” and are unable to be “brought into a relationship with the living Christ.” This attitude make it impossible to “discover more and more what sin looks like in our lives” because the unrepentant person has already decided that their particular sin is not sin, and has been accepted without repentance.

The Celtic view you describe has been accepted by much of Christianity today, and it is done so in order to avoid “the offense of the cross.” Scripture tells us that the message of the cross is offensive to those that are perishing (because they are unrepentant), but much of the church today has decided that we can avoid this offense by bringing unrepentant sinners into the church first, and then “loving” them through “acceptance” and “tolerance” (of their sin), to the cross. This becomes the alternate plan, instead of explaining (in love of course) that there is judgment to those who reject repentance. However, Jesus himself rejected this model of evangelism because when he ran into unrepentant sinners, he confronted them with their sin and explained to them the necessity of repentance.

One problem with the “Celtic view” is that is does not help those who are “on a journey,” in the church, but unrepentant - if they die before they repent. In our country alone over 174,000 die everyday. If your church chooses this model, how does it accommodate for the fact that it is very likely that some souls will die before they hear and accept the message of repentance, by which only, they can be saved, according to Jesus’ own words? The people who were on the Titanic were “on a journey,” but they were in ignorance that there were not enough lifeboats. In the end, the sign posted on the wall for family members to inquire of status, only had two columns: “Souls Saved” and “Souls Lost.” If we worship the journey instead of being obedient to the commands of Jesus, we can make sinners be so comfortable in their sin that they never hear or realize their need to repent. This is not “love.”

Another problem with this plan of evangelism is that since one uses it to avoid the initial “offense of the cross,” then it is likely that one will continue in avoiding the “offense of the cross.” We see this all over the Christian landscape, where many churches are removing crosses, changing their worship styles, and doing many things in order to appeal to the “unchurched.” If we appeal to the “unchurched” through fleshly means in order to get them in the pews, and use man-made methods to avoid “offending them” with the message of repentance, then we make it even harder to give them the true message later, after they have become comfortable with being “accepted” as unrepentant sinners.

And lastly, one issue that exposes not only the unbiblical method of the “Celtic view,” but also the logic of it, is this: If the goal is to bring sinners into the church, and let those in the church who are already saved, evangelize them, then what happens when you get more unsaved than saved in the church? Who “evangelizes” who? At that point, you have more of a “secular club” than a church of God being an effective witness in the world. Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This is precisely why today many churches are growing so much. Sinners are coming, not expected to be repentant, and then the church is overwhelmed with unrepentant sinners who are coming to hear about the love of God, or a 5 point sermon on how to have a better marriage, leadership skills, etc. Once this environment is created, the true message of salvation is unwelcome and attacked as being “narrow-minded” or “bigoted” or “18th century.” A perfect environment is then created to cultivate many who think they are on the right path, but in the end they are on the broad road that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13). This is why Jesus said that on judgment day that many will say, “'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matt 7:22-23).

In comparison, Scripture teaches a very different concept of what “church is for.” Scripture teaches “what fellowship does light have with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). Scripture teaches that when we are “saved” we are “delivered” from darkness to light, from error to truth, from sin unto righteousness. The “Church” is the “assembly” of those who have already experienced this transformation. Someone who has not had this transformation, who is still in darkness, error, and sin, should not feel “comfortable” at all in this environment. Don’t twist what I am saying to mean that I am advocating being “hateful” or refusing people to be part of services. God forbid! Not at all, visitors who are unsaved are great opportunities for evangelism. But they should not be allowed to “take over” the church and run how “church is done” because they might be offended that there is a cross on the wall, an organ in the room, or that some people have on ties. Likewise, the message should not be watered down to remove the “offense of the cross” so that they never hear what is required of them to be saved: “"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15). This is what Jesus meant when he said that we should not lose our “saltiness.” If the church merges with the world and waters down the message in order to appeal to the flesh, the message does just that, it loses its saltiness.

John Wesley understood very well that focusing on bringing the sinner into church without repentance was the wrong approach. Churches that focus only on the “love of God” without doing as Paul did, and preach the “whole counsel of God,” is why we have so many large churches today that have millions who are “on a journey,” but are in ignorance that there aren’t enough lifeboats (the message isn’t sufficient for salvation), because their pastor or church will never tell them that repentance (of all sin) is required. That is why he made these famous statements:

“Before I can preach love, mercy, and grace, I must preach sin, Law, and judgment.” - John Wesley.

John Wesley also told his evangelist trainees that when they preached, people should either get angry or get converted. No doubt, he wasn’t speaking about the “Jesus loves you” gospel, but about sin, Law righteousness, judgment, and hell. The Lord blessed his inability to ignore “offending the unchurched” and his preaching the “whole council of God.” We only need to read a few pages of his journal to see how he lived what he preached:

Here's a sample from John Wesley's journal (18th-century Anglican clergyman, evangelist, and cofounder of Methodism).

Sunday, A.M., May 5 Preached in St. Anne's. Was asked not to come back anymore.

Sunday, P.M., May 5 Preached in St. John's. Deacons said "Get out and stay out."

Sunday, A.M., May 12 Preached in St. Jude's. Can't go back there, either.

Sunday, A.M., May 19 Preached in St. Somebody Else's. Deacons called special meeting and said I couldn't return.

Sunday, P.M., May 19 Preached on street. Kicked off street.

Sunday, A.M., May 26 Preached in meadow. Chased out of meadow as bull was turned loose during service.

Sunday, A.M., June 2 Preached out at the edge of town. Kicked off the highway.

Sunday, P.M., June 2 Afternoon, preached in a pasture. Ten thousand people came out to hear me.

Needless to say, your speculation about John Wesley being the pastor at the church in Virginia completely ignores the history that Mr. Wesley left behind in his preaching of repentance. John Wesley would have done just as the Apostle Paul did in 1 Corinthians 5 with the unrepentant adulterer.

The issue is not the “sin in discussion” which happens to be homosexuality; it is the method of evangelism that is proper. The issue is “what is the church” and “what is the church to be doing?” The church is the “assembly of those already delivered, working in Biblical fashion to evangelize those that aren’t.”

The church is not a conglomeration of the saved and unsaved in order to hope that the saved influence the unsaved through acceptance and tolerance of sin. And “what the church is to be doing” is to be speaking the truth in love, and preaching, as Wesley did, and as Paul did, and as Jesus did: Using the law, to bring sinners to Christ, so that they may repent and be saved. Stroking sinners’ egos with inoffensive methods while they are “on a journey” only leads them to a grave without a Savior.

He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. (Prov. 13:21)

`They see what I do,
but they don't perceive its meaning.
They hear my words,
but they don't understand.
So they will not turn from their sins
and be forgiven.' (Mark 4:12)

[Craig Moore]

Magnificent Tony!!

[Dean Snyder]

Since we are quoting Scripture in an accusatory, finger-pointing way, let me try a couple:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them.” Matt. 23: 13

“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.” Mark 9: 42

"And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, "This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them." Mark 15: 2

Then here is the NIV translation of Luke 7: 36-50

Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

(Darn, Luke must have left out the part about Jesus saying he didn't want her hanging out around him anymore unless she repented.

I suspect Luke also got the part about her being forgiven much because she loved much wrong. That sounds too liberal for Jesus, as though love ever was a justification for anything. He must have meant to say: "You have been forgiven much because you groveled and repented the way Simon thought you should, so that he could go on feeling superior to you.)

Hard to believe all of us are following the same Jesus, isn't it? I follow a Jesus who was welcoming to prodigals --no questions asked-- and whom the common people heard gladly because his yoke was easy and his burden was light. I follow a Jesus who was very hard on the self-rightous and self-congratulatory who though they knew who was in and who was out, but who welcomed those others judged inferior with arms wide open.

[Chris]

Dean, I appreciate your (original, way-up-there) post, and value your blog and its insights.

[Craig Moore]

Dean

Are you calling us Pharisee's? That doesn't sound very inclusive or tolerant. Yes, I welcome sinners but I don't give them the false assurance that it is OK to continue in their sins.