This post is offered to raise some questions on the subject of evangelism in general and open-air preaching in specific. Questions that I have been pondering – off and on – for some time.
As a student of church history and the communication of the Gospel, it is apparent to me that many of the scenarios taking place in today’s public arena are new. This does not make them wrong, it just makes them new. Whether it is an itinerant preacher on a public campus or believers preaching to the crowds who file into a sporting event – this scenario of evangelism/preaching is unprecedented in both general church and biblical history.
I say it is unprecedented, not because men and women have never publicly proclaimed the Gospel – they have, so this is not new. What is new, what makes it unprecedented is the relationship between preacher/evangelist and his audience. What is new is the starting position of the audience, the presuppositions they bring to their hearing of the Gospel… in this sense the contemporary scenario is unprecedented. A least in the history of the western church.
From a pragmatic perspective It makes me wonder what is the intended outcome of open-air preaching to the masses? If the masses do not share a biblical worldview, if they do not share a foundational morality, what is the expected outcome of preaching biblical prohibitions? If they have “been-there, done-that” as far as the concept of judgment or Hell is concerned, is that threat going to have any effect?
This leads me to a theological perspective; why preach law and condemnation to people who are incapable of responding anyway? If we were commanded to do this, doing so would make more sense to me even if it were not pragmatic and appeared theologically nonsensical. Those issues would not matter if there were command or precedent in the Scripture.
Yet, from a biblical perspective I cannot find any parallel example or command. There are examples of public preaching in the Scriptures to be sure, but all the examples I can think of either involve preaching to a people who have a common worldview (e.g., prophets preaching to Israel, Jesus preaching to the crowds, Paul in the synagogues) or preaching in a context where the audience expects such a thing and is predisposed to consider them (e.g., Paul on Mars Hill).
Even more problematic is the fact that such preaching, as it is often carried out, seems to be inconsistent with the command to be salt and light, to be an aroma of life, to be ambassadors for Christ, to live in such a way that even unbelievers glorify God because of our contribution to society. Scripture is full of metaphors like these that illustrate how the church is to strive to be viewed by outsiders. And setting out to preach to complete strangers in such a way that is guaranteed to just make them mad, or in such a way as to just be easily ignore, does not fulfill any of these metaphors.
I do not want to assign or discuss motives, I exhort you to refrain as well. I have no doubt that those who preach at me as I head into a game are very sincere. I have no doubt the banners they wave about Hell and sin and Jesus and death are designed to show the love of Christ. I understand that they see themselves as agents of God proclaiming the truths of Scripture. Maybe they are – hence raising the question. Yet, is that really the kind of glory and attention God is seeking? Is this really the aroma he wants his church to emit?
As far as I am concerned the jury is still out. But as I ponder these questions I am being influenced by these facts: 1) open-air preaching to stranger-pagans who are not interested in the message has no biblical example or command and 2) we are to behave in a manner that, in as much as possible, causes the world to thank God we are here. And I just do not see how open-air preaching is consistent with either of these.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
113 Comments(+Add)
So the people that have no interest are not included in the command:
What about Noah, who was a preacher of righteousness? Jonah? Jeremiah? Isaiah? Ezekiel? Samuel? Hosea?…The list in the OT is incredible!
Paul preached the Gospel all across the Mediterranean to all kinds of stranger pagans. Of course, He would start out with the Synagogue. The philosophers were Pagans. The churches were made up of former pagans.
This is not a very thoughtful piece. Think about Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Johnathan Edwards, E.M. Bounds, Dwight Moody, and the list goes on. The first and second great awakening were the results of open air preaching.
My friend, you are way off base on this one.
your example of jonah is one note worthy exception. thanks
i’m not sure why you feel the need to start the comments with an accusatory question you know is false, a list of examples that i addressed in the op (as if i never thought of them), and a swipe at my intelligence.
you are an angry man and i do not understand why.
i welcome your responses to my other questions, if you care to refrain from being nasty…
again, thanks for the example of jonah.
Isaiah 6:8Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 11Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.13But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
Perhaps the result is to confirm judgment; Perhaps as it says in
It seems God sends preachers/prophets for multiple reasons.
I guess Jesus did not fulfill the scriptural command according to you…. 14 times in the book of John (that we know about) people got so angry at Jesus they wanted to kill him.
How the church is to be viewed is not to be confused with the message we are called to preach. We are to be examples of the Gospel, to be sure, in all that we do, how we treat one another, how we fellowship, how we love. When people see the result of a changed life it is a powerful testimony to the Gospel. However, that should not change the message, for the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation…for all who would believe.
Remember, when placed in an open wound salt stings. Light can blind. Those who are in darkness HATE the light…they will scurry away from it because they love their sins.
I find it difficult to restrict any kind of preaching. But the content needs to be examined. The law is done. We are commanded to lift up Jesus and be witnesses of Him. Some use the theological teaching about the law being a schoolmaster and they think they need to continue doing that when in fact that transition is done.
I have no problem with open air preaching or (as I do) standing at a busy intersection holding up a large sign that says:
Be ready! Jesus is coming back!
And as much as I disagree with John’s content, I will always admire his passion for the lost and I have little doubt that although he may turn off some, others may in fact be reached by the word. But the challenge is always to be broken over the plight of the lost and refuse to receive any satisfaction, much less praise, for your own efforts in evangelism. I do find the pictures distasteful and self serving. And those kind of pictures are usually used to say look how we witness and others do not, look how the sinners hate it, look how we gave them the truth, look how we were persecuted, etc., etc., and etc..
It breeds self righteousness.
This cannot be the litmus test. I grew up in a church where, when you would share the gospel with someone, and they were highly offended, then you figuratively patted yourself on the back. But if people were not offended, then you were ineffective.
Yes, the gospel is offensive to its enemies. But if people get upset at me because I’m a jerk, that’s not persecution. I’m just a jack-ass.
For the most part it was the religious party bosses that got angry with Jesus, or people that were stirred up by them. Sinners were attracted.
RE 3: you offer Isaiah again as if I had not distinguished between current open air preaching and O T prophets… as if we still live under the law… as if there were prophets today.
none of which are true.
the command was given to us, not jesus… whether or not he lived up to it is moot.
but more importantly, as rick pointed out, those that got mad at jesus were the religious leaders of the day – so (just like your example of isaiah) the parallel employed by you fails the corresponding test. jesus preaching to those who had bastardized the faith has no connect with open-air preachiong to stanger-pagans.
further, sinners were attracted – which does fulfill the commands in question.
i agree, but we are not talking about the content of the message, we are talking about how it is delivered… and whether or not doing so in a manner guaranteed to turn people away, make them mad, make the church look bad… is an appropriate method.
i agree rick.
The choice is simple: Do we preach a message of hope, or a message of condemnation? Do we desire to be the Holy Spirit, or should we lift up Jesus and allow the Spirit to bring sinners to Him?
Reac the book of Acts and you will find the messages were Christ centered and did not use the law. When the jailor asked Paul about how to be saved, Paul never mentions the law or any ceremony. He just says believe!
OK, BUT these open air preaching sessions were not ad hoc railings at audiences on a street corner. They were by and large advertised meetings made by traveling evangelists who had already had existing pastorates and who were at one time or another traveling on well publicized circuits. These are not by and large examples of ad hoc “street corner” preaching (although with further research I can’t say this **never** happened). So, John this does not support your point.
Open-air preaching, or rather open-air rhetorical performance, was simply the way ideas were discussed in Greco-Roman culture in the first century. It wasn’t uncommon for philosophers to travel from town to town speaking in the agora, spreading their ideas. It was simply a common method of communication.
In today’s world, it’s generally not how ideas are presented. First of all, literacy is much higher and printed text in both paper and electronic form is ubiquitous. In the ancient world, books and scrolls were not something that most people owned or even saw very often. So information for most people was spread orally. Listening to speeches in public was simply part of everyday life.
I prefer open air blogging….
#13 – Good point.
#15 –
interesting hermeneutic and theological perspective. taking something useful and helpful like salt and light and turning them into something that causes pain and harm. is that what you mean to do?
jesus clearly used the salt metaphor in the sense that it preserves and enhances – not causes pain.
jesus clearly used the light metaphor in the sense a lamp enlightens a room – not causing harm to someone’s senses.
i reject your cart blanc belief that all those who are in darkness HATE the light – ’tis true of some – but not all.
your interpretation of these metaphors reveals a lot about what you think the gospel is and how it should be “used”… that christians are to inflict pain and harm and that those w/o christ are to be viewed as insects. i see how your actions are consistent with this belief.
#17 Then you disagree with Jesus.
no – i disagree with your interpretation of jesus.
#19 Please exegete what you believe Jesus meant? Jesus said those who do evil hate the light…pretty clear.
jesus said, “for everyone who does wicked things hates the light…” – you have turned it into to just plain “everyone.”
Jesus is quoting, or at least alluding to, Isaiah 9:2 in that passage.
The Jews, who should have seen the light and loved the light, did not, and therefore are missing out on the Messiah. It’s not really meant to be a generic statement about pagans.
i find your interpretation that being salt and light may mean pain and blindness to be interesting.
turning light into something that blinds people may very well be a great metaphor for behavior that actually turns people away from god, that causes them to run from the light…
turning salt into something that increases pain may very well be a great metaphor for behavior that makes a wound worse.
Confronted with contextual exegesis…
*chirp* *chirp*….
As in the six blind men illustration, so can one magnify something about Jesus which gives a skewed, and even worong, mischaracterization of the Redeemer. Jesus Himself said He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (interesting word study here – same word for world as in John 3:16. Calvin anyone? )
Preaching the law is not only self righteous, it dedges the valley of death called the Old Covenant and presents Jesus as a hard taskmaster rather than a suffering servant who gave Himself for the sins of the world. The gospel must be good news or it is no gospel at all.
#25 It is good news- for those who will repent and believe (two sides of the same coin). It is for the humble, those who realize they cannot do it on their own, they cannot please God with their own goodness.
That is what makes grace so amazing! For the humble, the contrite, God takes their debt and makes it His own, and He pays it completely based on His goodness, not theirs.
FOr the proud, the law is a taskmaster, because they believe they can fulfill it. Jesus came to fulfill or complete the law, but the religious proud prefer to do it their own way; Jesus PLUS _________. That is not grace.
The law is a tool, as it says in 1 Timothy 1:6ff. It does not make us righteous, it makes us aware of sin and how we all fall short. Jesus’ active obedience is the only way to fulfill the law. Though we have sinned, we can be seen as righteous through Christ when it comes to the law. That is grace.
” For the humble, the contrite…”
You mean for those who God makes humble aqnd contrite. The entire process is divine solataire, if you are a Calvinist.
where in the old or new testaments are we told to preach law to pagans? the storyline of the bible clearly uses the law in various ways… and the old testament prophets preached the law to those under it – that is jews. so i am not sure i agree with the expectation of preaching law to stranger-pagans.
while i my be on the fence yet about that – i am clearly opposed to twisting the metaphors of the church in the world (salt and light and aroma) into something offensive that causes pains, harm, and drives a further wedge between people and god.
I listened to some of your crosstalk interview, John, and how can you say that Jesus died for those people and that He can cleanse them from all their sins? How do you know that, and if you tell them that and they are not the elect, you are in fact lying.
as a point of clarification, i agree with pastorboy that the law is there to show people their sin… as a standard which they cannot live up to. on the other hand, i think it noteworthy that the very passage he brings up also highlights the fact that some preachers misuse the law as well.
Which law? Moses? Which part of that law do you cull out? Please show me from Acts where the law figured predominantly in the preaching.
I don’t really believe that the law’s purpose, at least it’s primary purpose, was as a negative motivator. It was not there to simply be a standard which the Jews could not possibly live up to. In fact, that’s not how any orthodox Jew alive today would describe the law. They view the Torah as gift from God, and they treat is as such.
The problem wasn’t with the Torah itself. The problem was with the people’s hearts, and the law was powerless to change that. So when Jesus came He fulfilled the Law perfectly by walking in perfect fellowship and obedience with the Father. In essence, He fulfilled what Israel should have done, but did not (whether or not they actually could have is sort of an interesting hypothetical question, but moot in this discussion).
In the OT, there were men who were called righteous or men after God’s own heart, and it certainly wasn’t because they fulfilled the law perfectly. They were called righteous because they loved God and knew Him intimately. They understood His character. So I think basing the Gospel on the law really shrinks it to something a lot smaller than it is. The Gospel isn’t just about our sin or our inability to live to a certain standard. The Gospel is about God’s faithfulness to us and His work to replace our hearts with His.
The gospel is all about redemption. I wonder why most open air preachers go to college campuses or spring break beaches or other places where they deem especially sinful. How about preaching at little league gatherings or financial seminars or tea party gatherings?
You preach at Rob Bell’s church, but why not outside the First Baptist? It seems like selective sinners provide a foundation for greater sensationalism.
rick, my op was not specifically about open-air preachers like pastorboy – though he is the most obvious example. I also included, as an example, the fact that every sporting event i attend (on a professional or collegiate level) i must run a gauntlet of preachers as well.
so while some do seem to select for greater sensationalism, not all do. that said, i suspect pastorboy’s response would be the motivation is not sensationalism, but greater need.
phil,
what would you say paul meant when he wrote to timothy about the law?
Greater need? More totally depraved?
well.. i see your point rick…
Neil, I’m no Phil, that’s for sure. But since I agree with his point, I would like to take a stab at the passage in Timothy. I love that you brought it up, because it’s a thought-provoking couple of verses in response to Phil’s observation.
In the beginning, when Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden, there was no need for the law. God and man fellowshipped and communed as God originally designed us to do. After man fell, he sewed the fig leaves to cover his shame in an act of self-righteousness. And God had to create a covering for him. This is, in my opinion, the heart behind the law. It was for protection and covering of God’s chosen people.
When the original ten laws were given to Moses to give to the nation of Israel, the heart behind the laws was love and protection. But the Israelites figuratively sewed their own fig leave outfits by trying to get around the laws. And so God gave them more laws, and more and more and more. All the time, the heart behind the law was love and protection.
So then Jesus, the Messiah, arrives on the scene. He fulfills the law, not merely to be the scapegoat for sin, but to be the true Mediator between God and man. He reconciles all, Jews and Gentiles, to God through His life and death and resurrection. And the covenant that God made with Abraham is carried out in Jesus Christ, and in all who place their faith in Him.
So when Paul writes to Timothy about the law, he could be saying that the law is not for those who live righteously and who pursue God and who continue in the fellowship and communion that God ordained from the beginning. But the law is still to protect, in love, those who are living contrary to it. Its main purpose is not just to show us where we fall short. Yes, it does that. But the law is good. The law is love. And Jesus Christ did not abolish it, but instead fulfilled it. Therefore, those who are living contrary to it can only be restored to fellowship with God through Jesus Christ.
What Nathanael said…
N.T. Wright has used the metaphor of the law as a map that indicates danger but doesn’t necessarily tell you which way to go. It offers protection, as Nathanael said, but it can’t change a person’s motivations and heart.
It seems that Paul was perhaps having issues with Judaizers or someone like them in Ephesus and he was reminding Timothy that Christians are not the one who need the law any longer. A person who knows the layout of the land doesn’t need a map to keep them from getting lost in the wilderness. Those who are lost can benefit from a map if they are wise enough to do so.
So it’s not that I totally disagree with everything PB has said. I just disagree with the spirit of it to a large degree. The law isn’t God’s way of catching people in technicalities so He can send them to hell. It was His way of protecting His covenant people until the covenant reached fulfillment. I’ve heard some street preachers talk about the law and say things like, “did you ever steal a piece of candy when you were a kid? You’re a thief and God will send you to hell!” No lie… To me that simply makes God out to be a monster who’s incapable of forgiveness. It’s missing the whole intention of Scripture.
I think that is right. Even though every culture has some form of law, the Law (10 commandments so to speak) was written specifically to a specific people–the Israelites; and, to be sure, it was given to them *after* they had been redeemed from Egypt.
That’s not to say that they were lawless beforehand, but the Law is God’s way for his covenant people to live.
Does that make sense?
“but the Law is God’s way for his covenant people to live.”
Christ is the end of the law to all who believe.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
so, one can preach the law if they like, fashioning themselves after the prophets… but they do so in defiance of christ fulfilling the law and without any biblical injunction to do so?
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son“
Rick,
So, you deny that the Law came after the redemption from Egypt? Much in the same way that the Sermon on the Mount came after our own redemption?
I don’t think that ‘the law is the end’ means what you are insinuating that it means.
jerry
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
#40 But now the law is written on all men’s hearts….
‘now’?
I think Paul said in Romans that even those without ‘Law’ or ‘law’ had an idea about right and wrong.
‘now’ is a bad choice of words as if a time ever existed when law didn’t exist.
Rick,
I’m sorry, but I think you are confounding the issue here unless, of course, you are an anarchist. I don’t think what you are saying is that we, since law is done away with, are free to live any old way we want to live.
“You think I have come to do away with the Law,” Jesus said.
or
“You have heard it said, but I say unto you.”
I don’t think the law was done away with in quite the way you think it was–regardless of how much KJV English you use or how many boldface quotations you cite.
jerry
My contention is that there was never a time in the history of man when man was saved by law or Law. I’m fairly certain man has always been saved by grace. So, then, we have to find a new reason for the existence of the Law and the law.
#49 I agree. But the law is a tutor, or, as Martin Luther called it, a mirror that shows the truth of man’s condition before God.
John,
How did this all work out for you?
http://gawker.com/5678721/college-kids-go-demonstrate-at-anti+gay-preachers-church
The law WAS a tutor that led to the redemption in Jesus. Jesus has come. The law is now abolished. And I do not mean governmental laws (speeding, theft, etc.), I mean the OT law has fulfilled its divine purpose, and one of its stengths was the embedded death it would experience after the cross and resurrection.
“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”
We do not live in law, nor dio we preach the law. We preach Christ and His gospel, and we live in the Spirit.
One man drives on the highway and he sees speed signs, but he seems unable to abide by the law. He exceeds the speed limit.
Another man drives on a highway where there are no speed limits. But inside him is the guide who speaks to him when he goes too fast, and in fact that guide helps him drive safely.
Law vs. grace.
Law vs. love.
Moses vs. Christ.
Striving to convince people that they are sinners is a man centerede message.
We must present Christ in word and in deed. believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. John 3: 16.
It’s not that I disagree with the sentiment you’re getting at, Rick. I just don’t like using the word “versus” when comparing these pairs because it implies that Moses or the Law was working against Christ. That simply wasn’t the case.
I think of it like this. If you’re building a cathedral, there would be all sort of temporary scaffolding used during the construction to support the structure while other members are being put in place. At the end of construction, the scaffolding would have fulfilled its purpose, and would be removed. Now perhaps there are people who’ve invested their lives in studying the scaffolding – getting to know every joint and every little detail about it. They say, “wait, this is beautiful – we can’t get rid of it”. Of course, the architect would say, “you’re scaffolding fulfilled its purpose – look at this beautiful cathedral we were able to build because of it!” So, the scaffolding wasn’t working against the cause – it actually played a very important supporting role. It’s just no longer needed.
I agree completely. But those who suggest leaving up the scaffolding are actually detracting from the beauty of the cathedral. When the creator of the scaffodlding made it, he placed within them a self destruction device which would activate when the last brick was laid.
The strength of the law was its prophetic abolishment when the brillaince of Christ came and made it obsolete. In fact, in many ways, preaching the law is at odds with Christ and His grace.
As I was reading these comments, it reminded me of this little story I wrote last year: http://www.borrowedbreath.com/2009/06/25/adopted/
I think the difference between preaching the law to hope people arrive at the hope of the gospel is a very round-about way to present the good news.
In this little story, the king did not provide a list of hoops for the beggar girl to jump through. He showered her with love and adopted her. That’s the good news. There will be plenty of time for us to realize we fall short. But, in my opinion, that is not the best starting point.
A wonderful story of God’s grace, Nathanael. I enjoy your God given literary talents. God’s grace is not offered to those who accurately see their sin since none of us meet that standard. His grace is given to those who believe in His Son.
I wrote something similar as well.
HERE.
Nice, Rick, even if your literary skills are inferior to mine.
Great adaptation of Jesus’ parable.
tutor and mirror are such nice metaphors… yet when yielded by you (from what i have seen and what you have said), like salt and light they become things that hurt people… not help.
so just as you say salt burns and light blinds – would you say tutors are also like this?
#51
I am not anti-gay, I love happy people!
It is all in God’s sovereign plan! I hope and pray that many people get saved even though most articles written about this have just been about homosexuality and not the grace that was offered on that day. That is a tragedy.
Where, oh Where, is the hate???
Turn on, tune in, and drop out.
The Prophet Timothy Leary
#59
Well, if you are angry at the mirror then you can smash it, or get one like the witch in sleeping beauty that would tell lies to her. A mirror just reveals the truth about how one looks. A mirror is pretty merciless; it just reveals truth.
I am so glad that by the grace of God the truth about myself can become the truth of Christ (2 Cor 5:21)
John, what passage of Scripture refers to the law as a mirror?
The truth about me is that I am loved beyond comprehension by the Creator of the universe. This is true whether I know it or not and whether or not I believe it. The fact that I am a sinner does not diminish this truth. It obscure my view of it and it prevents me from living in it.
I don’t think that Jesus ever has to tell “sinners” in the gospels that they are sinners. They know it, and they live in shame because of it. What Jesus tells them, and what amazes them, is that they are loved, and that they will be included in God’s Kingdom. The people who need to come to the realization that they don’t have it all together are the religious people who think they actually do.
We must make a colloquial distinction between the different usages of the word “law”. God’s Word is often referred to as the law. But the law about which we are referring is the OT law and specifically the law of Moses.
Rick, unless I’m mistaken, most of the time that the NT uses the term “the law,” it is referring to the Torah. So that is the way I’m using it.
Rick is kind of right. It’s what makes the passages that refer to the “law” so confusing. Sometimes Paul actually means “Torah” when he’s talking about the law, other times he’s talking about “works of the Law” he’s referring to things like circumcision. Then you have Romans where Paul is talking about Adam and refers to law – which is God’s commandment to Adam. On top of all that, Paul also talks about the “Law of Christ”. If a person isn’t careful, it’s easy to combine and/or confuse these terms.
if this is all so undeserved, how is it you have the reputation for hating gays when other christians on that campus do not?
you are either missing the point… or avoiding it.
This is less about how you are received, as if you are a mirror that cannot help what it reflects.
you compared yourself to salt that burns and light that blinds. these uses are contrary to the manner in which the bible employs these metaphors.
so even if the law were a tutor – which is s good thing – you (following what you have said about yourself) turn it into the teacher from the video above – an abusive, judgmental, schoolmaster.
this is not about how the message is received. it is about how the message is delivered – if we can call it delivered at all.
Preaching against homsexuality obscures the gospel. Go preach on Wall street against greed and avarice. In fact, do an inventory as to how many parishoners live significantly above their means and are in debt because of it.
Just preach the gospel and let the Spirit do what is rightfully His ministry.
The gospel without an awareness of a need is like giving a cure without giving the diagnosis for the disease.
The law is a mirror, it exposes flaws that we cannot see even though our conscience bears witness. Our conscience is seared so often time because we suppress the truth in our unrighteousness.
Phil’s view is so postmodern, the fact is that God’s common grace is shown to all, but his salvic grace is only available to His children, those who have repented and trusted in Him alone.
Better to be warned today, before the day of judgment when you WILL be judged by God and there is NO second chance! Better to receive His mercy and His salvic grace while you can! His kindness ought to lead you to repentance.
I wonder sometimes if you actually you even read the passages you copy and paste here, PB. That passage from Romans is disproving what you’re trying to say. Paul is saying that even Gentiles who don’t have the law have the ability to fulfill it because the Spirit has written it on their consciences. Paul goes out of his way to say that simply hearing the law or even being given law isn’t necessarily a thing that gives anyone any additional peace. The law doesn’t convict people of sin – the Spirit does!
Paul then goes on to say in Romans 3 that the advantage of being given the law is that God entrusted His people with His word. So the advantage isn’t that people are more aware of their sinfulness, per se. The advantage is that they are in a position of relationship with God, and because of that relationship God demonstrate His faithfulness to them.
A major motif in Romans is that neither group has room to boast – those who have the law or those who don’t. They both are in dire need of grace. Fortunately for them, Christ has offered that grace to all.
As I have said many times, I was saved because I heard that Jesus was returning. I had no law based knowledge of my sin although I knew I was a sinner.
actually, phil’s position (right or wrong) is not “so postmodern” – it’s much older than that.
if i can find the link again, i’ll post an article i read recently. it was written at the dawn of modernism warning of its dangers. funny how these things play out.
again – i agree with your motivation (as far as I can tell) and your message (in general).
what is troubling is your attitude and method. are you really warning people when your methods serve only to offend and enrage? are you really serving as a mirror when you routinely burn and blind?
PB is reacting as if I’m a universalist of some sort – I’m not. All I’ve said is that God’s grace and unconditional love is available to all. I believe God unconditionally loves every human, but not everyone reciprocates that love. As far as judgment goes, I think that judgment begins in the house of God.
People outside the Kingdom are facing judgment right now in the sense that they are living in the consequences of their choices. As far as what draws those people into the Kingdom, my experience is that those drawn by fear are quick to turn away. Those drawn by awe and wonder tend to become more awestruck as time goes by.
re 61: you are right pastorboy, i saw no hate from you or the others.
re 61: i do not understand the motivation to stand and yell at people.
i particularly felt sorry for the guy standing next to the preacher just trying to make a living selling snow-cones… i feel sorry for him in the sense he had to endure it. more importantly, i mourn for the image of god that the preaching created/confirmed in his mind.
of course, if you view him as someone who only confirms his status as an evil doer when he rejects your message it makes pathetic sense.
these were not examples of being salt.
these were not examples of being light.
these were not examples of behavior that would cause the unbeliever to glorify god that the church exists.
this was not an aroma of life.
you may use the metaphor of the law being a mirror, but that metaphor is never used of the relationship of the church to the world (like salt and light and aroma). it is used of the relationship of the believer to the word (not just the law btw).
Funny, but I think the focus has been on one type of situation, to the exclusion of the second… for clarification…
The Law and Gospel are BOTH needed for salvation (I think we all agree on that), but the question is whether preaching Law before Gospel is “putting the cart before the horse.”
The simple answer is “sometimes”…
If someone feels the weight of their sin and recognizes their sinfulness, then The Law is not what they need, they need the Gospel. They need to know that no matter how bad they are, Jesus loved them enough to die for them personally and redeem them.
On the other hand, if someone feels like they are doing “just fine”, that over all their good deeds out weight their bad, or that what they are doing is not sin, just self preservation, or looking out for themselves, then they do not need the Gospel, they need the Law to show them that they need the Gospel.
Now, how do we know when someone needs Law or Gospel? That one requires alot of prayer and above all, getting to know the person so that you have “the right” to share Christ with them. If you haven’t earned “the right” to share Christ by becoming someone’s friend and understanding their situation, you probably should wait to share…
mike – that makes a lot of sense, though i need to ponder your distinctions a bit more.
i have never liked the phrase “earned ‘the right’ to share Christ” – we do not need the right, we have the mandate from god.
on the other hand, since you put it in quotation makes i assume you mean it in the sense of understanding the personal situation, of developing enough of a relationship that saying such things is permissible.
mike – there is one ting that the gay person knows without it being shouted to them in a park – and that is the bible as interpreted by most condemn the homosexual act. so even if this is a situation where the law is needed – they already know it… and the continually condescension is only off-putting.
I disagree. The gospel contains no law whatsoever. And the verbiage about feeling the weight of their sin etc. is doctrinal language that is rarely understood by a lost sinner.
We are called to preach the gospel and let the Spirit do His work. Most people feel they are fine on some level. There is no law, and the apostles hardly ever referred to it. In fact, Paul’s greatest enemies were those who insisted he preach the law.
Paul, when addressing the men at Athens, never used the law. He proclaimed the God who these idolaters were seeking. Bingo!
Mike, you bring up some good points…providing we come from the angle that people “need the Gospel.” I’m assuming that you use that phrase synonymously with needing Jesus.
We’ve had several instances lately in our local body where people were drawn, not by their “need of the Gospel,” but by the love of Christ. And they began to realize the reality of the love of Christ and surrendered their lives to Him.
The gospel cannot find its base in condemnation. If people are faced with the law and how much they fall short, their turning to Christ is merely to escape punishment. But if they are drawn by the good news that the God of the universe is also the Redeemer of mankind, and can be their Redeemer, the motive is love. The difference is being reconciled to God from the curse, versus coming to Christ to avoid being punished for not keeping the law.
My $.02
#85 – Exactly.
For Christ came not into the world to condemn the world…
For God so loved the world…
For I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be unto all people…
And all that jazz.
Phil agreed with me earlier. And now Rick does. I must be way off base.
The Gospel can of course find it’s base in the Law. If someone feels they are doing just fine, why would they care if the God of the universe loves them or not?
Besides what does it matter if someone’s initial reason for seeking Christ is a get out of he’ll free pass or a desire to assuage their conscience?
Many beautiful relationships start from rocky beginnings and grow to beautiful things… Especially when God is involved.
#79
The guy selling snow cones was a believer and was praising the Lord that we were there. It was actually frozen lemonade and he brought me some after I got done preaching and asked for some tracts he could hand out
#80 Mike, I put it like this: Law to the proud (who think they are alright) and grace to the humble (aware of their sin/need)
well that’s good; i guess. would you care to address some of the other issues/questions?
You are assuming that you can always discern who is in either of these groups. Often people who act like the biggest blowhards are really quite insecure and people who seem to be humble are just good at hiding behind masks.
I just think we should consistently treat people with respect and love. Jesus could rightly call Pharisees out because He could perfectly discern their hearts and motives. I don’t know that any of us can do that. There may be times when it is appropriate to call people out, but I don’t think it should be standard operating procedure.
I put it like this: The gospel to the proud (lost) and the gospel to the humble (lost).
The law/grace construct is man made. There is only grace.
I knew I was a sinner in the generic sense in 1975. Everyone realizes they are not perfect. But I wasn’t broken over my sin at all. But I was drawn to Jesus when I became convinced He was real and returning. This entire issue of preaching against sin to “totally depracved sinners” is a subtle form of self righteousness.
And even more baffling is when Calvinists, who believe in irresistable grace, are so adamant about the “correct” way to preach to the lost. Just preach the gospel with the emphasis on Jesus Christ and let the Spirit draw all men.
But of course when you publicize your own evangelistic efforts as much as you evangelize then you must claim you are doing it God’s way. The whole thing is permeated by self righteousness both subliminal and overt. And when you are “persecuted” it only lends more material to support your God approved theory.
In the end, and seemingly by design, you have made your evangelism the main issue and not Jesus and sinners who need redemption. Stay tuned for more documentaries about us.
#92
Then you would throw your pearls before swine, who claim they have no need of God because of how good they are. The law is a great diagnostic tool, it reveals how lost we are.
People who lie, cheat, steal, blaspheme, etc. simply compare themselves to other lost people, saying I am better than most, and worse than some, therefore I am okay. Until they have an understanding that their sin is against God alone, and that there is no good work they can do to make atonement for it, then they will stay in that position and never be saved.
While I honor how you came to Christ, Rick, the simple fact of the matter is that most people today think they are righteous or can gain their own righteousness. The Bible disputes that notion, and gives us a tool to help people self diagnose. I do not know people’s hearts , as you say. I do know that there is ‘no one righteous’ and that ‘each man proclaims his own goodness’, and that ‘the heart is deceitfully wicked above all things’.
And I do preach grace.
Many, like me, desire eternal life. Most lost people are incapable of seeing the seriousness of their sin. After I was aved i still practiced quite a few sinful habits until the Spirit helped me see them and forsake them. That is why I do not deal with a gay person’s sexual sin directly until after he believes upon the Lord Jesus.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
This may or may not be true. I’ve met people who seem secure in their own righteousness. And I’ve met more people who are not, but feel rejected by good, church people.
The answer is not to yell at them to “stop sinning” which is something that neither you nor I can do in our own strength.
I honestly have met relatively few self-righteous people in my life, and of those I’d say most of them were Christians. I think as far as the general population goes, it doesn’t surprise me that people get defensive when they are told they are basically worthless worms who God wants to strike dead. They should get defensive.
The problem is I just reject pastorboy’s basic premises about people and God’s relationship to them.
#97
I could care less if you reject my premise; The only thing that is important is to ask yourself “Is it true” then check if it is true in the Bible. In case you want to dismiss the below as ‘its only PAUL’… most of this came from the Psalms.
The last two verses are huge in this discussion of law to present the Gospel. The law shuts the mouth, because the law makes one guilty before God, and brings an awareness of guilt. No one is justified by the law, it is only by grace.
John, this is your perspective. Fine. But to broad-stroke evangelism to your perspective is a little bold. For you and your understanding of the gospel, presenting the condemnation of the law is foundational to presenting the good news of the gospel. And you’ve seen fruit from this method.
Others of us view this as slightly counter-productive. And our experience has shown that starting out with love has born the fruit of repentance in those who are drawn to the love of God.
Your emphasizing in bold type certain verses does not bolster your argument. It just doesn’t…unless you’re already convinced that you are right.
“I honestly have met relatively few self-righteous people in my life, and of those I’d say most of them were Christians.”
A great observation. That has been my experience as well.
and you think people will come to this realization by being shouted at?
while i saw no hate in the clip you provided, i saw no grace either
re 97 –
you lack balance, biblical/theological ballance pastorboy. for every verse you post about people lacking righteousness i could post a verse to the opposite.
this is not to say the bible is self-contradictory… it’s the dilemma of biblical truth. some swing to far in the “we are good” direction… some swing too far in the opposite direction.
re – 97
it’s interesting you are still posting more bible verses when you refuse to address the erroneous manner in which you posted them before.
heaping misapplied verse upon misapplied verse does not fortify your argument.
the bottom line remains; your style of evangelism, however honorable motivated, is contrary to the new testaments command that we should be salt and light and an aroma of life… that your behavior should cause those gays to thank you for being there – not pissing them off so much that they hate the church all the more.
it appears, and here i tread lightly because i do not want to assign motives… yet it appears you revel in, that you really enjoy making people mad at the gospel.
as i asked in the op – is this really the kind of “glory” god is seeking from his church?
PB, you seem to view the Bible almost like Swiss Army knife where you can pull out different verses to apply to different situations and people, regardless of context. Romans wasn’t written to pagans – it was written to Christians. Paul was writing to remind these Christians of different background that none of them have any grounds to boast or see themselves as better than anyone else.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t use Scripture in an evangelistic context, although, I’ve often wondered what good quoting the Bible to people who most likely don’t care what it says either way is. I think people come to Christ through revelation of Him by the Holy Spirit, primarily. I’ve heard all sorts of stories by different people through different means, but not all of them, and probably not even a majority of them, involve some sort of crushing recognition of sinfulness. Mostly people become aware of Christ’s great love for them. I actually think that is what you see in the early church. They were known for their love for each other and for their love and devotion to Christ. People were attracted to that, not turned off by it. So this idea that unless we’re universally hated we aren’t doing the will of God is simply wrong.
i trust the truth, when delivered and understood, the truth can have an effect beyond our expectation. not that the bible is some kind of incantation… but it does contain power that normal words do not.
that said, delivering the truth wrapped around a brick can be just as detrimental
and harmful as may be helpful.
Imagine a steak dinner with mashed potatos and string beans. Then imagine that dinner served on a trash can lid. The hungry person refuses to eat it but you can claim you offered food to him.
That is the gospel when served on a platter of condemnation and caustic confrontation. The person refuses ti listen but you can claim you preached the truth to him.
steve taylor wrote a song a while back called “i just wanna know.”
in the chorus he asks:
“i just wanna know – am i pulling people closer?”
then he says:
“i just wanna be pulling them to you.”
this is a great question to ask. a great goal to live.
on the flip-side, it is also good to ask:
“i just wanna know am i pushing people farther?”
then say:
“i don’t wanna be driving them from you.”
Salt is passive. In a well-cooked dish, salt is necessary. But it merely adds to the good flavor of the meal. If you taste the salt, then you put in too much. Our lives are to enhance the presence of the Spirit of the resurrected Christ in this world. If my personality gets in the way of His movement, then I’m like a dish that has too much salt. It is inedible.
Light is proactive. It reveals what the darkness hides. It illuminates the mind. It makes known the truth of God. But too much light is like an oncoming vehicle with high beams blaring on a rainy night on a windy country road. It is actually detrimental.
i guess we never will get any answers from pastorboy about how evangelism that is painful (salt burns) and harmful (light blinds) to stranger/pagans is at all consistent with the biblical metaphors.
to push the metaphor, i’d say salt is not passive… it does actively work to enhance the food.
at the risk of offering a better way of saying it – it is active, but it is undetectable… it is not overtly noticeable.
then add – If you taste the salt, then you put in too much. Our lives are to enhance the presence of the Spirit of the resurrected Christ in this world. If my personality gets in the way of His movement, then I’m like a dish that has too much salt. It is inedible.
John,
Why did you post two empty comments?