Anyway we need more post salvation transformation, not just more “sinner’s prayer” scalps.

I’ve been reading True Spirituality by Francis Schaeffer, and he says it this way. In a sense a person’s natural birthday could be looked at as the most important day of his life, because without that the person wouldn’t exist. In another sense, it becomes less and less important as a person lives his life, because he must do what he must to stay alive. The same could be said in a spiritual sense. Yes, getting someone to make an intitial commitment to Christ is important, it gets them in the Kingdom. But what they do to stay in the Kingdom and how they grow in the Kingdom is what really becomes important. I’m not arguing Salvation thorugh works at all, but rather Salvation through faith, which produce Christian who are naturally growing and doing good works.

The thing I would say about Paul is that I don’t think we can pit the teaching of Jesus and Paul against each other. We have to remember to Paul was for the most part writing to people who were already Christians. It seems to me that a large amount the content in his epistles were instructions on how to actually live the Christian life.

Some of this might be getting into the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” (on which there is a decent article in the newest version of Christianity Today about), but I don’t even think that matters so much with what we’re talking about now. It is clear to me that Paul was writing to the congregations he wrote to ensure they stayed on the right path. I don’t think he saw a disconnect between discipleship and evangelism.

To use narratives as the foundation is inherantly precarious as we can see from even a comparison between Matthew and Mark. Salvation is a state, the journey is reckoning ourselves alive unto Christ. Many emergents so micro-manage some of this terminology that it obscures rather than illuminates.

If Jesus should tarry, the danger is that in the future people will tweek their lifstyle in order to appear consistant with the kingdom model and miss the born again experience without which they will never see heaven. Additionally, Jesus will be ackowledged as a way shower rather than the Passover Lamb of God and His life on earth will be followed without a conversion of faith that is sealed by the Holy Spirit.

I’m not saying that all emergents will morph into this, but some of the teaching will lend itself to this scenarion. Just like teaching cold, hard Biblical facts without compassion and humility leads to what we see in some of the blogasphere.

“Fire insurance” is only half of the equation – see John 3:16 and 17

The kingdom of God is not only about compassion and relationship. By definition, the kingdom is experienced in community where things are the way as God would have them be. In this world, the kingdom will be incomplete until Jesus comes to complete it.

What did Jesus preach? What did he have his disciples preach prior to his cruxifixion (before which, and in some cases, even after, his disciples didn’t understand the “gospel” in terms of an atonement for our sin)? The kingdom of God!

At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. (Luke 4:42-44)

When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:1-2)

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (Luke 16:16)

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is among you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. (Acts 19:8-9)

They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. (Acts 28:23)

For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28:30-31)

When would the kingdom come? First off, we know it was described by Jesus and John the Baptist as “at hand” – a Hebraism meaning something that you can reach out and touch. Secondly, Jesus tells us directly:

And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” Mark 9:1

In the Hebraic teaching of the Kingdom, God saved, God saves and God will save. First, he saved His people before they knew Him (Exodus 6:7, Romans 5:8). Next, He saves his people and blesses them for the purpose of blessing the rest of the world (Genesis 12:12, Matthew 5:13-16; Romans 15). Then, at the end of it all, He brings the church as his bride into his Father’s house in matrimony (John 14:2, Revelation 19-22). The people of God already have a taste of ‘eternal life’, because the bride of Christ has existed, unbroken, since it was brought out of Egypt by the Father.

Salvation is about the journey, not the destination. When we talk about ‘being saved’, we miss this because we are only focusing on the destination.

“Fire insurance” is certainly a part of Jesus’ message, but it isn’t anywhere near complete.

I agree with exhibited compassion and that many times I’ve seen some believer’s lifestyles hinder the message, but that just means we must pay attention to that aspect in order to make our preaching more effective. I personally think the “kingdom” definition is over worked, it is just another way of defining the difference between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God’s dear Son.

The message (spoken, preached, written, etc.) is the only conduit for enlightening a sinner’s heart, our lives can be used to demonstrate Christ through a human life. A person wanders into a church and hears the gospel and responds and is saved. He does not know the preacher or the people around him.

The Comfort article is a response to some who take the “kingdom” thing too far, and some emergents elevate lifestyle to the level of the Word as a response to some abrasive fundamentalists.

The message is the core. Everything else can be used to substantiate the message, but my life is a reflection of my discipleship not part of the message.

In America, it seems to me, though, that many people have heard the message, but don’t believe it because they don’t see a lot of Christians actually living it. It would probably go a long way for Christians in America to actually love their neighbors in a more practical way.

Like I said before, though, if we are sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in different situations, He will guide as what to do and what to say. He knows the condition of people’s hearts and exactly what they need to hear or see.

I agree and disagree… “Saved” encompasses two distinct, but linked, parts – the gospel and the kingdom of God. The spoken gospel can get to the first, but does not necessarily imply the second. Without both, what we’re really talking about moves back into the region of ‘fire insurance’ – which isn’t a bad thing, but isn’t a complete gospel…

There can never be a blurring of the lines between the Word and lifestyle. Mormons are very gracious and so are many irreligious people. The Word must always be the foundation and can never be equated with any lifestyle no matter how glowing.

I thought that the Ray Comfort article was largely attacking a straw man, because I don’t know offhand of any Christian organizations who take the supposed St. Francis quote to mean never speak the message. I’ve heard it before, and I always just assumed it was saying you can’t just preach to people and think that is your only duty as a Christian. Sharing the gospel is really a lifestyle.

The problem is that we’ve actually had this conversation with Ken before on a number of occasions, and he has placed all the emphasis on the method (preaching) as opposed to the message, which is one of the chief downfalls of the watchdawggie crowd, which often finds itself quibbling about externals.

What has been continually pushed by the Ray Comfort supporters in the past has been the importance of the method, with a rather arrogant supposition that any other message produces “false converts” (to use Ray’s own words). I do not doubt that Ray’s method works for some, but its emphasis is fully on the eternal in neglect of the temporal, which completely misses out on the message of the kingdom.

This discussion also hitches itself to the modern vs. post-modern debate. Whether we like it or not, our society – particularly in GenX and below – is increasingly postmodern (which has both positives and negatives), and as it moves in that direction, the primary methods of persuasion move from exposition to more of a Rabbinic or Socratic one (which Ray has adapted, I would agree, into his method, which is why it does seem a big step forward over many other open-air methods). However, open-air methods still miss the relational aspect that is most needed, or it still sees ‘relationships with unbelievers’ as part of a means toward an end (i.e. “loving with an agenda”). In short, it often misses the importance of actual love, settling for being a clanging cymbal.

When I use the word “love”, I am referring to the holistic definition, not just a “I’m OK, you’re OK” kind of thing, and also not the “new fundamentalist” version, either:

Love your God: Determine what it means for you to obey God, based heavily on tradition or your own social mores and – possibly – the Bible (insofar as the Ten Commandments are concerned), and then expect everyone else to “obey God” based on your definition. If they don’t, they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate. Additionally, to love God means to know exactly how He works and does not work and to know all the ‘Christianese’ terms which define these workings, along with all the right soteriology, and to then expect everyone else to understand God exactly the way you do. If they don’t, they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate.

Love your Neighbor: Step 1: If your ‘neighbor’ is somewhere between mistaken and apostate (see “Love your God”), your first and foremost duty is to make them see the error of their ways, and if they do not, to warn everybody else that they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate, and by all means mock them and distort anything/everything that makes them mistaken or apostate in your eyes. Step 2: If they are still around after Step 1, and if they are in need, it might be a nice thing to do to help them out.

If it is harder to witness to a friend than a stranger (per Jane’s comment on the other site), that reveals something about us, and goes back to my point on how the open-air method is more of an expedient cop-out than something to be worn as a badge of honor…