Since we are on the topic of evangelistic tactics:
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 20th, 2009 at 4:58 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Evangelism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
96 Comments(+Add)
I don’t see anything here, Neil…
Hmmm… the video shows up for me.
It shows for me in both IE and FF.
Here is a Link to it at Patrol:
LINK
Who wouldn’t love to slap that guy just once
… speaking of evangelism tactics:
A priest, a baptist preacher, and a rabbi go for a walk in the woods one day. They decide on a contest that will prove which of them is better at his job. It is determined that each will take a shot a converting a bear to his religion.
The priest begins: “When I found a bear, I read to him from the catechism,
and sprinking him with holy water. Next week is his first communion.”
“I found a bear by the stream,” says the preacher, “and preached God’s word to him. The bear was so full of the spirit that he let me baptize him”.
They both look down at the rabbi, who is lying on a gurney in a full body cast. “Looking back,” he says, “maybe I shouldn’t have started with the circumcision.”
Only if, after that encounter, he talks about being persecuted for his faith.
I get it now… must have been that I was checking it from behind a firewall…
Why do you place stuff on that has Blasphemy and makes a mockery of something you postmoderns appreciate so much- an attempt to be ‘relevant’
Pastorboy,
When you use a word too much and inappropriately (like a valley girl used “awesome”) it becomes meaningless.
This video mocks people – not the Lord. It is not blasphemous.
And if you think this guy is what it means to be relevant…
I still contend that in many ways overly aggressive evangelism is better than passive evangelism.
key word neil- attempt.
Also, the girl uses the Lords name as a curse word. Blasphemeous.
The seminarian is a straw man, hence the comic aspect. I get it. I don’t appreciate it, much like the strawman in Nooma’s Bullhorn guy.
I have often wondered why there were not any instances of relationship evangelism in the book of Acts. And if given the choice between a caustic gospel preacher and an “interesting spiritual concepts” preacher, I am forced to choose the gospel preacher.
I could not accept either choice…….nor do I think we would have to.
Oh….BTW, I thougt the video was funny most likely, more so, as I have cross paths with qutie a few like the new graduate in the video.
Although there are some who believe I hate those who love the Lord and share the Gospel, the rest know this not to be the case.
I concur with Rick, to a point, that poorly attempted evangelism is better than none at all.
.
.
.
Yet, there comes a point, a point where evangelism actually drives people away that it becomes – not some attempt that should be lauded – it becomes a strumbling block that should be scorned.
Let Jesus be the stumbling block, not our methods.
Repeatedly, in the Acts of the Apostles we see the evangelists going into a synagogue and arguing from the scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. Often it was at the invitation of the synagogue (until their reputation for preaching Jesus crucified started to precede them).
This is not a form of relationship evangelism in its most watery sense – but it does show a balanced approach. even when Paul preached in the open air, he did so in a context wherein such things were expected.
I can remember a time, with no little embarrassment, shortly after I came to Christ, that I resembled that guy.
Sure, the video is funny. But it serves a purpose.
To those who do not evangelism it affords a poke…
To those who do evangelism, but in such a way as to confuse the Gospel (e.g. the Bait and Switch thread) or become a stumbling block themselves (e.g. bullhorn guy) it also serves as a poke.
I was much worse than that guy.
#14 The people who are lost are already driven away, dead in trespasses and sins. There is none that seek after God.
A dead man can no more respond to relationship than he can to ‘yelling’. He must be regenerated before he can respond, like Jesus calling Lazarus from the tomb.
Relationship evangelism is the ultimate bait and switch. Lets make friends so that we can eventually share our faith with them. LOL! I call it the Amway method.
I can get enough of a relationship with someone inside of 60 seconds to be able to share faith with them; at least plant a seed. If I live near that person, relationship building and living a life in front of them comes after that.
the metaphors in comments 18 and 19 contradict each other…
18 – people are dead, cannot respond, we cannot drive them farther away…
19 – …at least plant a seed…
What’s the point in planting seeds in dead soil?
I agree that some relationship evangelism can be bait and switch.
Yet, using the video as our example, this guy clearly had a relationship with these folks already.
That said, I was not advocating relationship evangelism anyway…
While I agree that it is God who draws people to himself. I reject your out that people who are spiritually dead cannot be driven farther from the Gospel.
If you believe it is possible to plant seeds that draw people closer to the Gospel, if you believe you can remove obstacles of resistance or unbelief – the opposite is possible as well.
PB,
Strictly speaking, the video is not a “straw man.” A straw man is a logical fallacy whereby the speaker defeats a weakened version of an opponent’s argument under the guise of actually responding to the opponent’s argument.
This video is better characterized as a parody or a spoof.
I think the distinction is important.
You often present many of your ideas in “us v. them” language. If someone disagrees with you, then that usually means that they hate the gospel, Jesus, etc., and their actions reflect a desire to stop you at whatever cost. Hence, the video isn’t meant to be funny, it’s just an attack on you and what you do. It’s part and parcel of the forces of darkness fighting against you, a force of light and power.
But the video isn’t an attack, and it is not just another attempt to destroy what you do. Rather, the video is simply a parody of how some Christians act around non-Christians. It’s finding humor in the idea that a few Christians have a hard time in speaking without resorting to platitudes, cliches, and complete non-sequiturs.
In that sense, I think it’s spot-on.
#22
My seeds cannot come to life without being planted, and God is the one who waters them, indeed, who gives the soil life.
You sound like a Calvinist….not that there is anything wrong with that
A Calvinistic view of evangelism removes urgency or compassion. All you are doing is preaching to dead people as you look for the “Bingo!” , I found an elect.
Funny, I was thinking the same of you… but calling me a Calvinist is at least better than your recent accusations – though I thought I was being contra-calvin.
That said, I believe it is possible for the heart to be hardened…
#23
The comments made in this thread were an attack, and refering to another thread.
Ruach
#25 No, I just preach to everybody as though they are dead in trespasses and sins, children of wrath as the Bible describes those who are not saved.
#26
That is a hyper-calvinist assertion, and I reject it from a Biblical perspective.
PB:
I wasn’t referring to the comments, I was referring to the video, and your statement that the “seminarian was a strawman.”
That statement is pure nonsense.
The video is not an attack, it’s a reflection of how Christians are thought to behave.
Those are two separate things.
If you see yourself in that video, so be it, if you don’t, you don’t.
I suppose, if you are gonna ascribe any disagreement as an attack – then so be it.
I believe it is possible to present the Gospel in a manner that the net result is to drive people farther form Jesus.
#29 No, I am much more direct. If these were my friends, they would already know where I stood in relation to Jesus by my life and by my words. I would not try to trick them or weave into conversation lamely the name of Jesus.
#30 Wll, the note on top of the video was clear, as were some of the comments. We are already dead in trespasses in sin; we cannot get any deader. We are already condemned, we cannot get more condemned.
Exactly. You were the one who said the soil was dead – not me.
I hate they, he said, he said, motif… but apparently we need a recap:
me – do not drive people farther form the Gospel.
you – they are dead, they cannot be driven farther, I plant seeds
me – plant seeds in dead soil?
you – I reject your hyper-Calvinism…
me – ok, let’s try this again…
Pastorboy,
I am not sure what it is about conversations with you – but I am amazed at how you repeatedly address things no one is advocating.
For example: in the Bait and Switch thread you keep talking about the truth of creation – when no one denied it.
Fro example: in this thread you talk about people being lost and condemned – when no one is denying that.
I agree, those outside Christ cannot get any deader. But their hearts can be softened and/or hardened – as soil can – to mix metaphors.
I have clearly stated my motivation for posting the video.
If that is not good enough for you, if you insist on rejecting my statements for interpretations of you own – there is nothing I can do about that.
All Calvinism is hyper.
This brings up an interesting tension, for those who see tensions in Scripture.
On the one hand believers are dead, spiritually, and no one comes to the father lest they be drawn.
On the other hand, hearts can be hardened, this is clear from example and command.
And what do we do with teachings of Jesus, such as the parable of the soil. If the soil is absolutely and completely incapable of softening or hardening – why the parable?
Neil – What you call tension I call teaching. There is little doubt that sinners can seek God but cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said he wanted to gather the Jews but they would not. They would not? If God wanted to gather them He just needs to gather them.
this video is one of those litmust tests:
if you hate it/have a problem with it, then you’re probably part of the problem…
litmus.
“litmust” i know not what that may be…but it certainly doesn’t sound pleasant..
maybe it’s an ODM fragrance?
Litmust…for the discerner in you…
also available as an after shower moisturizer.
This is my favorite quote on this thread.
#41
I am glad I could provide such joy, Joe.
It is a site better than feeding, clothing, housing, etc. Without proclaiming Christ verbally. The former without the latter, Oprah can do with all her millions. The latter without the former may be perceived as empty words. We must do both, or it is not the Gospel.
It is disengenuous in the same way to build a relationship with someone over months and years only because you want to convert them. It is the ultimate bait and switch. Why not share the good news with everyone you meet and demonstrate Christ by the way you live?
I got nothing against good preaching, but sometimes just talking to people one human to another is sufficient.
I agree with preaching/sharing the gospel is paramount. However Jesus did say:
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Leading Christ revealing lives is not bait and switch, it is watering. Of course with the gospel it is indistinguishable from a kind Hindu.
First of all, I’m going to assume that you are being rhetorical, even without 1000’s of comments that indicate you have no idea what rhetorical statements actually are.
Lastly, I will admit I wonder how much you actually look like Christ, but that’s just me. Go ahead and prove me right by insulting my pastor now.
Being an irritant is counter productive to any thread discussion. Insults and constant swipes do harm to any exchange designed to establish truth.
And let me say that from what I’ve seen of Bell, Rollins, etc. I have no criticism of their outward lives which seem to be compassionate and humble. (Even Rollin’s appearance is counter hedonistic!)
Who is your Pastor again?
#47 – Irritant alert.
Yes, to hell with that pesky friendship stuff…
I actually believe that being a friend to someone without a specific agenda is perfectly fine. Ultimately, it’s not us who converts anyone anyway. We need to quit looking at people like targets on whom we’re dropping gospel bombs.
It is ultimately disingenuous to give out fish sandwitches in order for people to stay and listen.
Who does that? I am saying that we simply need to share the good news. God does the converting. This is a straw man comment
You can obey Christ in one area and not follow Him in others. And if sharing the good news is nothing more than a game of “Battleship” then it is without eternal purpose.
And I contend that the method employed should not have the unintended consequence of driving them farther away.
But, I suppose denying you can drive someone farther away resolves one of any worry or responsibility for behavior.
I wonder if our favorite ODM’s would say that of Haggard – for example.
“But, I suppose denying you can drive someone farther away resolves one of any worry or responsibility for behavior.”
Calvinism in a nutshell.
Yet, before that, sometimes we need to (as Miroslav Volf would say, although his brother-in-law Peter Kuzmic says Miroslav got this from him) – sometimes we need to first “Clean the face of Jesus.”
#50…Jesus the original bait and switcher!
I agree befriending people just to share the Gospel may be “bait & switch.” And I agree with Rick, as well, that just feeding people so they stick around is disingenuous.
But I would say that Jesus feeding the 5,000 validates ministries of compassion in their own right.
But that is not really the question of the OP.
The more I think, if you really befriend someone, then it does not matter if your original intent was with hopes of sharing the gospel. If the friendship is contingent on their response – it’s not really friendship.
So I am inclined to reject the notion that it is disingenuous, or bait and switch to develop relationships with the hopes of leading someone to Christ.
I was being sarcastic. Compassion is a part of redemption. Fish sandwhiches can be used to make sinners listen.
BTW – Later on Jesus observed that some followed Him because of the fish sandwhiches. I assume He knew that before hand.
I’m beginning to think PB is incapable of using strawman correctly. Or perhaps it’s just code he uses when he wants to say “I disagree.”
It is definitely a parody, but since the purpose was not to divert it probably does not fit the straw man definition.
The purpose of the red herring is to divert, the purpose of the straw man is to kick over a parody of the other sides’ opinion- that is a weakened argument.
You are missing the point. Jesus was not a friendship evangelist, Joe. Jesus told the truth, most people hated Him for it. Very few followed Him as a result of the miracles and the teaching, especially when he made very clear that the world would hate them as it hates Him.
Friendship evangelism rarely works, because very rarely will someone sacrifice a hard built friendship by sharing the Gospel for fear they might lose the friendship. It is really bait and switch when you present the gospel to this friend, and you reject the friend when they reject Jesus. Usually, they reject you, and then because of the pain, you gain a greater fear of evangelizing.
Actually, if you look at the statistics on how people become Christians, a plurality of people credit making a decision to follow Christ to the influence of a friend or relative (from Barna).
The simple fact is that it takes more of my time and energy to be dedicated to a long-term relationship with one person compared to giving 100 people tracts. I may think I’m reaching more people by giving the tracts away, but in reality, I’m probably not. Also, I find that the emphasis on efficiency and the sheer mass-production mentality of the more public types of evangelism is almost opposite the values of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is all about going the furthest for the least and quietly expanding by “power under” methods, not trying to have the biggest and loudest presentation.
Actually, if Jesus were walking the earth today, people would probably tell Him to get His act together. I mean investing the vast majority of your time in a group of 12 largely uneducated guys along with hanging out with some women whose reputations are far from good. Doesn’t He realize that having an effective ministry means you don’t have time to invest in such a small group of people?
I actually believe that one reason Jesus chose the twelve was simply for the fact that He realized that humans were created to be social creatures. Even the Son of God couldn’t do it all by Himself and realized at some level He needed human interaction.
This is, or course, true. it is also moot to the discussion.
Talk about a straw man… this is a good example. You have built a very specific and weak scenario, as if it were the norm or only option, then torn it down.
First problem:
If you have built a true friendship you won’t reject the person if they reject Christ.
Second problem:
If you have built a friendship, placing no conditions on it, they won’t reject you because of Christ.
Third problem:
Even if they do, this does not necessarily lead to less evangelism – any more that standing on a street-corner being rejected by strangers would (except in the latter you have a greater chance of being hated – which is a consolation prize since they hated Jesus too).
I’m not sure I buy into the whole “Jesus told the truth and therefore people hated him for it.” While it is true people hated him we should ask who those people were. They were the ones with religious status and those who figured they had the corner market on orthodoxy and praxy.
The “sinners” and those on the outside did not hate Jesus. Just the opposite. They flocked to him. Time and time again we find that Jesus is overwhelmed with people not because he was a jerk but because of his “compassion.”
I think if we are truly living the gospel of Jesus we too would find people jockeying to get around us because they see love, not judgment.
This is true – but so what? Neither was Paul in the strictest sense – though he did use relationships.
We live in a different time. We live in a culture saturated by negative examples of Christianity. We live in a place where people have been both inoculated against the faith and driven farther from it – too often by the behavior of believers themselves.
cf. #55
Maybe friendship evangelism would work if you were actually a friend…
I could give you lots and lots of examples of friendship evangelism working in my own life.
I really hate that we have to tack the word “evangelism” onto everything in Christian circles to somehow justify doing it. I’ve had people tell me they were doing all sorts of things – like going to help with Salvation Army, for instance – and they say, I’m going to do some “service evangelism”. Really? Why not just do everything you do in a God-honoring way. Why do we have to make ourselves feel better by calling it “evangelism”.
I think Jesus simply loved people. That’s all we are called to do as well. If we’re sensitive to the Holy Spirit, we will know when to say what, and God will guide us where we are needed. I feel that most ministries that claim to emphasize evangelism are simply piling burdens on people’s shoulders.
There are two major errors in Pastorboy’s argument against friendship evangelism.
The first is the assumption that receiving Christ is a contingency… that is the person rejects Christ they will/must be rejected.
The second is the statement “rarely works.” (And here I think his modernism is showing). On what are we judging if it works?
In its simplest for “evangelism” means to present good news – the results are not necessarily a factor.
Besides, I’m not sure (thinking generically here) confrontational evangelists would want to judge their method by results.
It’s naive to think there is only one way to evangelize or that one way is better than all others in some universal sense.
it is just as naive to think Scripture is interested in offering us some sort of “how to” book about evangelism – as if to say “if you do these 3 things, but NOT these 3, you will be right and God will smile upon you.”
The irony is this: People who think like that turn Scripture into some sort of “Purpose Driven” How-To book.
Chad,
I suspect Pastorboy would not say one way is superior. He is simply reacting to what is perceived as an attack against his favored method by belittling what he assumes is our/my favored method.
Really, he could have just stopped at his assertion that it is impossible to drive people farther from the Gospel.
Although if the ODM’s held that position it would gut them of a lot of their rhetoric (cf. #53).
You give PB too much credit…
He pretty much tells us all the time that his method(s) are superior.
Jesus wasn’t an evangelist because Jesus IS the Evangel.
“most people hated Jesus for telling the truth”…
where do we get that?
i see in Scripture some people hating him…like pharisees and self-righteous people whose power was threatened by the person/message of Jesus–
basically just like ODM’s and their sycophants…
but there is clear evidence that others loved Jesus…
“most hated him”…whatever.
talk about re-making Jesus in your image.
That is an incomplete characterization. Jesus was a herald of the gospel. He went town to town preaching the way of salvation. The apostles who followed did the same thing.
I am not saying that other things don’t accompany this, but let’s not mischaracterize here.
Love is an extremely powerful thing that works hand-in-hand with the word preached. A life that is light in a dark world is powerful as well.
I remember reading somewhere that the most powerful preaching occurs when the person speaking embodies their message.
Neil makes a good observation in #69. This is true. Right now I am starting a church (praise God, after 1 month, my own brother decided to follow the Lord last night!) and I am seeing firsthand the indifference people have towards anything called ‘church’. If they are/were Catholic, the moment you say ‘church’ they smell incense, think of priests and the hum-drum stand/sit/kneel. If they are/were Pentecostal, they automatically think of some hypocritical preacher who stole church money or committed adultery. It’s a generalization, but seems to hold true much of the time.
We are fighting a difficult battle to be sure, but I believe that the Lord will save when His word is preached and our lives reflect that preaching – ie: that we actually embody our message.
We have to be careful here as well. Look back on the day of Pentecost and there were only 120 in the upper room. Paul talks of 500 being seen of Christ, but like in any day (including ours) I doubt people “loved” Jesus – they liked his fish and bread, the liked the miracles, his preaching and so forth. But 500? That’s less than 1% fraction of people who heard him speak. But the majority of people, again like today, were fickle.
We have to differentiate between those who he appealed to and those who were committed to Him and His message. A vast difference.
How can saying “Jesus loved people” be an incomplete characterization? If there ever was a complete representation of what love was/is, it was Jesus’ life. Jesus wasn’t simply a herald of the gospel. As Nathan said, He was the Gospel. If we don’t love people, we don’t know the gospel. It’s that simple.
I have been giving a lot of thought lately to Jesus’ words, “The poor will always be with you.” I think I have been wrong about the meaning of that for a long time.
What if what Jesus really meant by this was that so long as the Church embodies the way of Jesus, the Kingdom way, then the poor will always be near them for it is there that they know they will find justice, love and mercy? In other words, if we are not surrounded by the poor, the marginalized, the sick, the oppressed – then perhaps we are not being the Church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps if we just “be the Church” we wouldn’t have to have “evangelism programs.”
Of course, it is difficult these days for the poor or the sick or the oppressed to desire to come to the people of the Church when many within the Church are adept at making justifications for going to war, ignoring or kicking out the immigrant or fighting against things like universal health care.
Funny how these same people flocked around Jesus. Why not us?
Phil, saying Jesus “simply” loved people gives the impression that he did little else but heal, feed and do miracles.
Undoubtedly, love underlies everything he did and does. But he made demands of discipleship. He was not satisfied with people claiming a lightweight faith without commitment and dedication. Likewise the apostles. And likewise it should be with us.
But if you are called to ministry, you are to be a herald as well. To speak the truth in love. We are to get to the core of the matter which is the soul languishing in sin, darkness and separation from God. That is what Jesus aimed at.
No, that’s only if your defining love in the narrowest of ways. Love may mean that we say things that people don’t want to hear sometimes, and it may mean calling them to some form of sacrifice. So I stand by what I said – Jesus simply loved people.
Paul C.,
Cool about your brother.
This whole thing was the basis of Kimball’s book They Like Jesus but not the Church.
#64 Barna also says that something like 78% in this country are Christians. If that were true, this country and the moral condition thereof would look a whole lot different.
#65 He did do it all by Himself; He laid down His life and took it up again…He died to be glorified so the whole world would know (John 12:20ff) The disciples were weak and frightened until He gave them the Holy Spirit.
#72 Correct- evangelism is about obedience, not effectiveness. I am quoting my own observed data in terms of friendship evangelism. In my life, I have made many converts this way. Unfortunately, they liked Jesus because they liked me, and they were my converts, not true fruit bearing converts.
#77 When Jesus died, and was resurrected, there were 120 in the prayer room, 500 who witnessed his ascention into heaven. I would have to guess after the first open air meeting where 3000 more came to Christ that was still a very insignificant part of the population. After all, he did feed 5000 men (not counting women and children) where were they counted among His disciples? Even the people who welcomed Him into Jerusalem (John 12) were at his trial screaming crucify Him!
#79 Just saw it Paul. Salient point.
#83 I love people. Thats why I warn them!
So you are offering how you failed as evidence that the method is inferior?
I think the problem is making converts not disciples – which evangelism should include but was lost, far to often, through the moderist era.
Thanks Neil…
Regarding “They Like Jesus But Not the Church” there was actually a really interesting study done recently (The Gospel for iGens)… basically, people love the caricature that they’ve built of Jesus. Jesus can be anyone you want him to be if you haven’t read the gospel or have only been exposed to a slanted version (ie: prosperity, Osteen, etc).
So, I don’t believe that phrase at all.
We need to understand that fundamentally people haven’t changed. People love those who are no longer around and Jesus was clear on this.
I find this fact astounding: when Moses was leading the people of Israel they were rebellious, disobedient, idolatrous, mistrusting and so on. Several times they wanted to stone him, turn their backs on him and God. They tried to usurp his authority.
Fast forward to Jesus’ day and you see a group of people who had basically idolized Moses. But if they had been around him back in the day, they would have done the same thing. But now he’s dead and can’t tell us what to do! Let’s lift him up.
Just like an art piece that goes up in value after the artist dies.
Today, every Sunday we quote Paul and seem to lift him up. But why was he rejected by his own churches (ie: Corinth)? Why did no one stand with him? Why did he end up saying that only Luke is with him? He died with only a few around him.
So when people say they Love Jesus, Not the Church, they’re essentially saying “We love a god we’ve created in our minds that doesn’t intrude on our day to day.”
The core of man sits in darkness. John 3: “men loved darkness rather than light.”
“Unfortunately, they liked Jesus because they liked me.”
How do you reconcile this statement with Matthew 5:16?
In fact, how do you reconcile anything ODMs do with Matthew 5:16?
Where are you getting your population numbers? 500 would 1% of 50,000. Historians estimate that the population of Jerusalem, the population center in the region where Christ ministered was about 80,000. During festivals, it may have swelled up to 250,000. But even if every single one of those people heard Christ speak, which they didn’t, your 1% number doesn’t make sense. Also, Jesus spent a large part of His time on earth ministering in much less populated areas. We simply don’t know what the lasting impact of his visits in many of these areas were.
The remarkable thing isn’t that so few people followed Jesus. It was that enough people were following Him in less than 100 years after His death and resurrection, that they were seen as a potential threat to the Empire.
I do believe Jesus said some things to “weed out” some people, but I believe had to do more with His intentions to enter Jerusalem without a huge hoard of followers who potentially cause problems in the way instigating riots or whatnot.
People were drawn to Christ, and I believe He was drawn to people. The whole numbers thing is sort of a moot point.
“Never before has the church within a culture made such inroads, established such relationships, produced such massive amounts of literature, and claimed such large numbers with so little impact.”
David Wilkerson
Kimball addresses that issue in the book. He says most like a Pop Culture Jesus. There are deficiencies to be sure – like the whole being God thing…
But his point it, much of what they are attracted to in Jesus IS biblical, is a true impression of Jesus.
#90: Wow. What truth… but sad.
Forgot how detail oriented you are Phil
But Jesus traveled outside of Jerusalem. Anyways, my point was that only a very small fraction of people were committed to Christ. The masses enjoyed him, liked the fireworks and the food, but once the show was over went home. That’s the same today to a large extent.
Which one? The one who tells men that it’s not good enough just to give mental assent to Him, but commands that “if any man be my disciple, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me”? Or the one who says you need to “eat my flesh and drink my blood”?
My guess is they like a Jesus of their own making. A cobbled together caricature they’ve gleaned from external observation.
i didn’t know we were able to know the definitive motive people had for “loving Jesus”…especially 2000 years after the fact.
#93
nathan, if you read the scripture, and understood it, you would see this fact- the fact that many followed, and did not have a saving belief in Jesus- mentioned in the Gospels and epistles MULTIPLE times- Especially in the book of John.
*Rob Bell was not mentioned in this post
yeah, but that’s THOSE people in a specific moment.
my contention is that we can’t make a sweeping generalization about people just because some people loved for the wrong reasons.
thanks…it has nothing to do with a particular scripture passage about particular people…
i hope this helps you actually understand what i’m getting at.
all this assessing of motives in the past or present is a waste of time.
everyone has a degree of disordered love for God that rises out of wrong reasons…even “the elect”/committed believers, etc. etc.
humans can’t escape it.
so there’s no point belaboring it.
unless you want to have something else to sniff at…
God knows hearts, God will do the separating…
sheeesh.