Why I Like John MacArthur

Okay...so I have had some real issues with John MacArthur, et al lately on certain things, but this is a good reminder of why I do like the man and believe that he is truly a defender of the faith. This is interesting, not because of what he says, we are used to that, but where he is saying it at. He is on the set of TBN and the audience is enjoying what he is saying. I am hoping that this got around to the whackos around TBN so that they can learn what the Gospel actually is. It is funny to watch Kirk Cameron lob some easy ones over the net for MacArthur to smash, and his corny Mike Seaver smile when he does it reveals them clearly.

I do believe that there is some over correction within the two videos, but probably needed to be said considering the audience and venue. Thanks to Steve Brown for pointing me over to Reformed Baptist.

Read More......

Evangelism for Today: The Way of the Master?

This is a post within a greater series called, "Evangelism for Today." I want to go through the major ways in which Christians evangelize today and look to the positive and negative aspects of each and then in the end, try and show a balanced way to show the love of Christ through the spoken and living Gospel.

What I want to do with this post is consider those evangelism techniques that involve scripting. I will focus in on The Way of the Master since I have seen many of the materials used, bought many of the materials used and participated in much of what they stand for.

There are other scripting techniques for sure, and they would probably have some of the same positives and negative aspects to them as well.

The Way of the Master, and techniques like it, gives the person a set of parameters to stay within as they teach the gospel to another. They have an almost definitive beginning and definitive end, whereas the one who is evangelizing has ways to ask questions to make sure that the listener gets to the “end” of the conversation. Usually these techniques have loose scripts to follow along with a visual to catch the eye of the listener as a conversation starter.

The Positive Aspects

The things that I like about this technique is that it gives those that aren’t sure how to converse about the gospel a way to engage those around them. Most of the time people aren’t sure how to engage or how to answer questions that some might pose if they start to evangelize. The way that these techniques are designed is to make sure you keep the listener on topic, so that you direct the conversation.

The Way of the Master presents the law well and gives the answer to our sin with the presentation of part of the Gospel. Not only that, they have a lot of ways to engage others to get the conversation started so that you are just running up to someone and saying, “How is your day, well…you’re going to hell.” Although it almost says this, it doesn’t quite go that far.

I do believe that these aspects of presentation is very faithful to making sure that those who don’t know their sin, will be clear on what the bible says about the law, hell and the gospel. For this, I am greatly encouraged by this method of sharing the Gospel.

The Negative Aspects

The parts I have a problem with in these methods is that the one who is being evangelized is ignored. The Way of the Master actually teaches its students to not answer the questions that are posed by the listener, but to get them back on track as far as the script is concerned. So, if you are presenting the gospel and they ask a question about the Crusades, you quickly defer and get the listener back to the method you are using. So, before the “conversation” is even started, the goal is presentation, not really the care for the individual. Jesus never did this. He cared for the listener and answered their questions, because he loved the person he was speaking to.

The Way of the Master would say that you are showing the greatest love to the individual because you are sharing the gospel with them. But, if you already have your answers ready, before the questions are asked, that is showing a huge lack of sentivity to the person you are speaking to.

"If one gives answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13)

I think Proverbs speaks directly against this method in this way. We are to listen to those we are speaking to, not bringing a pre scripted design that makes sure that the listener doesn’t drive the presentation. I would ask, “Shouldn’t we know the gospel so well that we allow the listener to ask their questions and we show that we care that we answer them with a gospel centered answer?” Ignoring or carelessly answering their questions will just show them what they already thought, “The Christian doesn’t really care about me, they just care about pushing their gospel on me.”

The other part of this scripting that really bothers me is the fact that you don’t get to know the person you are speaking to at all. You just assume that they need to know that they have broken the law of God. But, what if they already know this? Further contempt of their sin will not be helpful and can actually be further damage done that isn’t needed. The person might need the encouragement of the gospel more than they need to know that they are a sinner. Whether we think it or not, some people already know that they are dreadful sinners and believe that there is no out, but that they are destined for hell. We must know our hearers and not take them for granted. Scripting does not allow for this and sometimes completely ignores the actual person we are talking to.

I am not sure about the other scripts provided, but The Way of the Master, that I have heard, doesn’t make the resurrection of Christ a center part of the presentation. This is why I said that the Way of the Master presents part of the Gospel. If we look at the presentation that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection is the very center of the Gospel, not just an aberration. Without the resurrection, we are said to be a people to be pitied and have no hope.

So, although scripting seems like a very sufficient way to present the gospel, I believe it leaves out a very intricate part: the one being evangelized. It seems like they just become a sidebar in the conversation. I don’t doubt that those who do the Way of the Master, or Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, have the best intentions, but I just believe that there are some glaring issues with this method as a whole. I believe we need to know more about those who we speak the gospel to by way of asking them questions and then just listenint to them. To many times I personally, and have seen personally, that evangelizing becomes a numbers game where those that are being evangelized become a number with no name and no soul.

Scripting definitely needs to listen more and speak less. Be ready to answer the questions of those that are being spoken to instead of being ready to ask your next question.

So, although there are some good aspects of scripting, or with the Way of the Master, I don’t believe it is an end all, and believe it actually has some very big holes that can’t go unnoticed.

Read More......

Evangelism for Today: Part I

I have been around the church for my whole life. My dad was a lay pastor for the SBC all around southern Oklahoma until I was 12 years old. Then we moved up to Seattle where my dad, again, was called to be a lay pastor. I have done so many different kinds of evangelism it is close to ridiculous and very overwhelming. I also own an investment firm and have been an investment advisor for the past 10 years. It is easy to see the crossover in marketing my business and marketing Jesus. I know that sounds weird and crass, but it is true. The way some of us evangelize is simply by marketing Christ, hoping our clientele will buy Jesus instead of Mohammad or Gandhi. The saying in my business is that whether you do seminars, direct mailers, cold calling, etc. they are all equally ineffective, so just pick one and put all your might into it.

Sometimes I feel like this with evangelism. We are fighting a fight that seems impossible, and truly is without the Holy Spirit. We see the battle and it looks like we are losing, our evangelism, like marketing, seems to all be equally ineffective. The issue here though, is that evangelism and marketing are not equals. We cannot just look at results and deem one to be better than another. Although I know a lot of people do this within Christendom, this is not a godly way to go about ensuring the faithful proclamation of God's gospel.

Now, do we simply throw out looking at numbers of conversion altogether and ignore it? I would say no. But, my point is that numbers cannot be our end all to what makes a faithful proclamation.

What me must do is be faithful in our contextualization of the Gospel message to those around us. We must balance our culture with how we proclaim. Will this change the message? Not with a faithful proclamation. We have to know that although we might change how we tell the message, the message itself is still the same. We are sinners in need of a Saviour who came, lived among us, died for us and rose for us so that he might bring us to God. How to get this across to some might prove to be a difficult one and one that requires some thought by the one delivering the message. The problem today is less thought is going on and more and more people are just buying into other's marketing techniques without looking at the culture Christ has called them. Just because it works in Florida, doesn't mean that it will work in Seattle, or in Nampula, Mozambique.

How I tell the gospel to one of my 60 year old clients is going to be very different than how I tell the gospel to one of my buddies who hangs out with me watching football and smoking stogies. Notice the way I tell them is different, but not the actual message. The way that I go about telling the message to someone who is homeless and starving will also be quite different. I would say that if you are telling/showing the gospel in the same way to each of these groups, you are being careless with your gospel proclamation.

What I want to explore in the next few posts is in what ways people are currently sharing the Gospel and then give you my conclusion on some ways that are faithful to the word of God in how the message is presented.

I will be upfront. I have been involved in a lot of different ways in sharing. I have gone door to door, I have handed out tracts, gone to and participated in tent revivals, I have done The Way of the Master Method, I have fed the homeless, I have done some missions work and I have also done the "smile and hope they notice I am a Christian" method. I am hoping to get some discussion while we go through these different methods and try to show a good biblical understanding of what it means to be a faithful minister of the Gospel of Christ.

Read More......

John Stott and The Way of the Master

I am currently reading Christian Mission in the Modern World by John Stott and have come across something that makes me wonder what Stott thinks of such forms of evangelism as "The Way of the Master." I used to really like The Way of the Master, but have turned to questions its methods. I wasn't sure why, and I know that most of those who are using it do love Jesus and want to do the will of Him. But, I think Stott nailed it on the head. He wrote this book in 1975 but InterVarsity Press has an updated version, and when I am done this book will get a very positive review as it is needed to be read by both the Emergent streams and IFB streams of what some call "Christianity." To give you some context, Stott is walking the reader through true Christian dialogue with non-Christians and what we should refrain from and what we should also purport. Here is the quote, which is the fourth point that Stott makes about true dialogue:

Fourth, true dialogue is a mark of sensitivity. Christian evangelism falls into disrepute when it degenerates into stereotypes. It is impossible to evangelize by fixed formulae. To force a conversation along predetermined lines in order to reach a predetermined destination is to show oneself grievously lacking in sensitivity both to the actual needs of our friend and to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Such insensitivity is therefore a failure in both faith and love. Dialogue, however, to quote from Canon Max Warren "is in its very essence an attempt at mutual 'listening,' listening in order to understand. Understanding is its reward" (from unpublished paper entitled "Presence and Proclamation," read at a European Consultation on Mission Studies in April 1968). It is at this point which was picked up in the Lausanne Covenant, which contains two references to dialogue. On the one hand it says firmly that we "reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies (para. 3). But on the other it says with equal firmness that "that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand" is actually "indispensable to evangelism" (para. 4). The principle was stated centuries ago in the book of Proverbs: "If one gives answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame" (Proverbs 18:13)

John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, pp. 110-111

Read More......