I have to say, I got a chuckle out of one of Ingrid’s recent articles, where she claims that CBS’ 48 Hours contacted her (and that she turned them down) for an interview for an upcoming show on a camp that is training 700 kids to become Christian Missionaries.

In explaining why she turned them down, she says:

Sorry CBS. We’re not going to help you in your vicious attack on Christians.

To which I wondered if the completed thought might be “because we don’t need your help to do it.  We work alone.”

Seriously, though, I am glad that, if she was asked, she turned them down.  I wouldn’t want her speaking for the church in any capacity.  As for whether the sponsors of the camp or responsible Christians should have turned them down, I would think that would be a bad idea:  If it becomes a smear job, there will be many who will see through it.  If it does not (and it doesn’t appear to be headed that direction), how better to put a good foot forward.

Do I think CBS (or the kids at the camp) will push all the ‘right’ theological buttons?  Probably not.  Do I think that it is a good thing for Christians to be seen as promoting missions and building character in their youth?  Certainly.  Do I think an invitation from a non-Christian newsgroup should receive this response:

That’s like Adolf Hitler calling to ask if you want to be featured in one of his latest “documentaries” on the Jewish issue. Opposing views are welcomed. Just don’t be surprised that when you finally screen the film you find that they have edited in lice crawling over your face.

I would hope the answer would be a self-evident “No”…

The ends don’t justify the means, but is it possible that the ends justify the exclusion of some means?

In Britain, a website did a man-on-the-street kind of study:

Representatives from price comparison website, www.moneysupermarket.com wandered the streets this morning wearing sandwich boards offering a free £5 note to anyone who asked. Despite encountering over 1800 people, only 28 passers by bothered to take advantage of the offer.

That’s a whole lot of people who wouldn’t ask for the money.  If you follow the link to the press release, you’ll find the reasons people gave for not asking for the money (cynicism, unbelief, and embarrasment) and the conclusions drawn about people’s attitudes toward money in Britain.  But, I’m more interested in what that says about the effectiveness of the form of communication.  How much more would cynicism, unbelief, and embarrasment  come into play when the message is religious and/or negative?

I’ll admit (before it comes up in the comments) that sandwich boards aren’t all that popular among street evangelists (as far as I know), but signage seems to be holding strong among protestors and other angry people trying to communicate a point.  I just can’t see signs being an effective way of communicating the most important truth ever, especially after reading the story above.

Tags: evangelism, sandwich board, street preaching