OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: from Courageous Christians United

[Trout]

METHODOLOGY STATEMENT

We at Courageous Christians United (hereafter CCU) enjoy doing ministry in various forms. We go in front of high schools to minister. We minister door to door. We minister at BYU. And we even do relational ministry with people of various faiths. But we primarily love being outside the buildings of other faiths for various reasons.

First, it is a good place to meet people. Of course it is a great place to meet people of that particular faith, but it's also a great place to meet people from various faiths who are passing by. These people from differing faiths need the Lord too, and they also need to be inoculated (as do unsuspecting Christians) from joining the particular faith that we minister in front of.

Second, it is typically where more people will see and hear our message. We simply can reach more people than if we spend an entire afternoon going door to door, for example.

Third, the Apostle Paul told us to emulate him as he emulates Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1). Paul's custom was going to the synagogues to reason with the Jews (e.g., Acts 17:1-3). Christ Himself also went to a place of worship to persuade people (e.g., when He would cleanse the temple of its robbers, and debate with the Pharisees).

As for the claim that these religions are not standing in front of our churches, we wish they would. It would really show how concerned they were about us. Further, following the golden rule, we do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. So of course we wish these people of other faiths would do what we do in front of our churches.

Finally in this regard, what should we care about how other faiths conduct their ministry? We are not them, so why must we act like them? We don't whine about them coming to our homes, so why should they whine about us ministering on public property in front of their places of worship?

When we do this, we enjoy preaching and holding up signs to advertise various web sites. We believe that this is one of the most effective uses of our time in getting the word out to as many people as we can. By definition, anyone who does monologues and holds up signs will be able to reach more people with the gospel than someone who is resolved to simply have dialogues or pass tracts out to people. And the person who God uses to do the former will naturally have more people changed by the gospel than the latter will. That is just simply a fact. Dialogues are far and few between, and not many people will take tracts. Everyone, even in cars that pass by, see the signs, and people within ear shot will get confronted with the truth whether they like it or not.

We really believe in the transforming power of the word of God. The word of God will not return void, but it will accomplish what God has sent it out to do (Isaiah 55:11). The word of God is described as a seed that is thrown out on all sorts of soil (Matthew 13:18ff.). Hebrews 4:12 says that the word of God is "powerful," "sharper than any two-edged sword," and "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (King James Version). It is this mysterious power that changes minds and hearts. And that is why 1 Corinthians 1:21 says, "[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Raising one's "voice like a trumpet" as Isaiah did (58:1), and holding up signs are simply means to get the word out to more people. It has nothing to do with hate. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with love, because these approaches are means in which more people may be saved.

Having said this, it should be noted that we also engage in conversations with people and pass tracts out in addition to preaching and carrying signs. CCU is a flexible apologetics ministry, open to a variety of ways to reach people. We encourage respectful confrontations on all sorts of levels.

These broad levels include room for what may be called "relational evangelism." The latter must be careful though to be intentional about confronting at some point with the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, bearing in mind to "[w]alk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time" (Colossians 4:5, KJV).

People are dying every minute without the freedom Christ has to offer, and are headed for an eternity in hell. Since these individuals are trapped by ideas hostile to Christianity, CCU exists to "persuade men" as "Christ's love compels us" (2 Corinthians 5:11 and 14, NIV).

But the question is often asked, "Shouldn't you be concerned about turning off more people than you can reach by your preferred method?" The simple answer is we would be concerned about this if we really did not believe in the transforming power of the word of God. Preaching and carrying signs are traditional and legitimate means that God uses to save people, and we have seen it work with more positive results than negative. For those negative results, displaying the truth still serves a purpose in not allowing unbelievers to have an excuse when they stand before God.

The all holy Judge will not make allowances for unbelievers who did not like some evangelist's approach. This is not to give carte blanche in doing whatever to get the gospel out (although there is still something to rejoice over even when it goes out via improper ways as Philippians 1:14-18 say). Rather, it is simply to say that blaming the actions of others is not going to cut it before God.

But even if it won't cut it, why would we still do things that may repel people from accepting the gospel? If this is the case, then why were not the biblical preachers worried about this potential problem? Perhaps a response to this would be, because they were instructed by the Lord to do their monologues. If that is the case, then who is to say we haven't been? We take it that we have been. Further, the burden of proof seems to be on the individual detractor to demonstrate why we should not do what we do even if we are delusional about the Lord specifically instructing us. We were not instructed of the Lord to eat cereal as opposed to eggs this morning, so why would we have to have special instructions from Him prior to eating or prior to hearing by what way we are to get the gospel out? We submit that it is only micro-managers that try to get us to perform their chosen style of ministry.

We understand the need to be "all things to all men, that I by all means might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22, KJV), and we try to emulate that, but no one particular method is going to work with all people. The goal is to be like Christ and preach the gospel in all sorts of ways. And if you are always so worried about having everyone speak well of you, then you certainly are not following Christ. He said, "Woe to you, when all men speak well unto you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26, KJV). As Walter Martin used to say, "We aren't here to win popularity contests." So if you remain faithful to Christ, you can expect to be hated, since the world hated Him first (John 15:18-21 and 1 Jn. 3:13).

Further, other confrontational methods like simply passing tracts out to people in front of their gatherings are also deemed as highly offensive. And whatever legitimate rationale is used to defend simply doing this, the same legitimate rationale may be used for performing our preferred method. Of course, you may not even like the "confrontational" ministry of politely passing tracts out in front of these places, but again, why try to micro-manage everyone into your particular dislikes?

The issue of "turn off" is not the issue. It is not the "trump card" to determine ministry approach. The issue is how can we best reach the masses with the gospel when people are dying and going to hell everyday? With this perspective, it becomes more understandable why we do what we do. It seems more reasonable that some things are worth the risk of offending others' sensitivities if the message has a chance to get to them. Of course no one likes to be wakened up in the middle of night. But if one's house is on fire, the offense (whether by phone, doorbell, breaking windows, etc.) is understandably justified... and we dare say respectful. We judge that using a sign and preaching, among other methods, are of the best ways to get the word out to as many as possible. It is worth whatever offense is perceived. We know our motives are right before God, and people (other faiths, and unfortunately even Christians) are always going to whine about them and our approach in this life. They will all stand before God like we will, and we believe on that day they will all thank us for all the efforts we made to keep so many out of hell.

CCU will thus continue to encourage offensive Christian apologetics. The term "offensive" is used not to convey disrespect, but to convey our pro-active efforts and our refusal to simply play defense with our faith.

For more on these issues of ministry approach, please see Bill McKeever's Witnessing "Rules of Engagement".

R. M. Sivulka
President, Courageous Christians United
Rob@CourageousChristiansUnited.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=

NOTICE- The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Chytraeus]

This is not just offensive as opposed to defensive, it is offensive in the meaning of it offends the sensibilities. It seems your preferred form of "Evangelism" is what is commonly known as sheep stealing. Since you used the word "church" to describe the place you prefer to do your "Evangelism", you have made it clear that these are people who read the same Bible you do, who claim to believe in the same God you do, whose sins are forgiven by the same Christ you claim to follow. Your only complaint against them is that they hold some particular article of doctrine that you feel to be in error. Because of this error, you believe they are condemned and going to hell, never mind that this Word of God that you believe to be so effectual, is read there every Sunday. Apparently you only think that Word of God is effective when read in your churches. Who called you to steal sheep from a called pastors care. It is God who gave him care of those children. If you have disagreements with what he teaches, perhaps you should take it up with the pastor, rather than to stand outside his church on Sunday morning and steel the sheep God has given to his care.

[Trout]

This is not just offensive as opposed to defensive, it is offensive in the meaning of it offends the sensibilities. It seems your preferred form of "Evangelism" is what is commonly known as sheep stealing. Since you used the word "church" to describe the place you prefer to do your "Evangelism", you have made it clear that these are people who read the same Bible you do, who claim to believe in the same God you do, whose sins are forgiven by the same Christ you claim to follow. Your only complaint against them is that they hold some particular article of doctrine that you feel to be in error. Because of this error, you believe they are condemned and going to hell, never mind that this Word of God that you believe to be so effectual, is read there every Sunday. Apparently you only think that Word of God is effective when read in your churches. Who called you to steal sheep from a called pastors care. It is God who gave him care of those children. If you have disagreements with what he teaches, perhaps you should take it up with the pastor, rather than to stand outside his church on Sunday morning and steel the sheep God has given to his care.

You will find the author standing outside the LDS church. I would hardly call it sheep stealing.

[Chytraeus]

You will find the author standing outside the LDS church. I would hardly call it sheep stealing.

No, in the case of the LDS, which not only teaches doctrines clearly contrary to Scripture, but also has two other three other books besides Scripture which it regards as holy, they are not a church, but a cult. However, my experience with them tells me that the average Christian is not even remotely prepared to defend against the LDS. They are too well trained.

However, where else might I find you? Would you be found in front of a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox church? What about Lutheran or Anglican? Where do you draw the line? Since you did not say in your article, you left it open that you are little different than many independent Christians believe all who baptize infants as less than fully Christian.

However, even in the case of the LDS, I think a more straight forward approach is less deceptive. Jesus spoke of two kinds of preachers of the Gospel, those who enter by the gate, the proper shepherd who is openly called to care for their spiritual needs, and the one who sneaks in over the fence, the one who tires to seduce another's sheep from the fold.

You yourself seem to know that the approach you use is less than honorable, since you seem to have the need to defend it. Unless you have been specifically called as an evangelist to the Mormons, there is serious question whether God is in this work. I also am not in favor of the door-to-door approach. If people would just share the Gospel with their neighbors, co-workers, and those they meet in day-to-day business, so much more would be done. Of course, for this to work, people would have to be living in those day to day activities as Christians, otherwise their lives would contradict anything they have to say.

[Trout]

No, in the case of the LDS, which not only teaches doctrines clearly contrary to Scripture, but also has two other three other books besides Scripture which it regards as holy, they are not a church, but a cult. However, my experience with them tells me that the average Christian is not even remotely prepared to defend against the LDS. They are too well trained.

The author of the article isn't the average Christian, he's very well prepared to preach the Gospel to the LDS people. I've stood with him a few times at LDS places of worship handing out tracts and engaging in dialog with the LDS people, he's a neat Christian.


However, where else might I find you? Would you be found in front of a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox church? What about Lutheran or Anglican? Where do you draw the line? Since you did not say in your article, you left it open that you are little different than many independent Christians believe all who baptize infants as less than fully Christian.

I can't speak for the author, but I probably wouldn't be found standing in front of one of those churches you mentioned, from my experience with the author he mainly focuses on cults.


However, even in the case of the LDS, I think a more straight forward approach is less deceptive. Jesus spoke of two kinds of preachers of the Gospel, those who enter by the gate, the proper shepherd who is openly called to care for their spiritual needs, and the one who sneaks in over the fence, the one who tires to seduce another's sheep from the fold.

If there is a phrase that describes the author I believe it would be straight forward. he's not representing a denomination when he's on the street, he's representing Jesus.


You yourself seem to know that the approach you use is less than honorable, since you seem to have the need to defend it.

It needs to be defended due to the notion that many Christians feel as though confrontational evangelism shouldn't be practised, in my view, those Christians are mistaken.


Unless you have been specifically called as an evangelist to the Mormons, there is serious question whether God is in this work.

If you find yourself equipped to do so and lead to do so and given opportunity to do so, why wouldn't you want to do it?


I also am not in favor of the door-to-door approach. If people would just share the Gospel with their neighbors, co-workers, and those they meet in day-to-day business, so much more would be done. Of course, for this to work, people would have to be living in those day to day activities as Christians, otherwise their lives would contradict anything they have to say.

There is certainly truth to your above quote, but it in no way diminishes the role of the confrontational evangelist, rather it compliments it.

[Timothy Leary]

You preach at BYU? You've got guts.

[Zguy28]

Guys got some zeal, I'll give him that. I don't know about what he said about tracts though. I have a team of evangelists who go out every weekend and we probably only get about 1 rejection for every 100 tracts. We also give out "Invitation (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=188411&event=CF)" CD's by Rick Warren. Despite my low opinion of Rick's theology, it is a fairly good tool. Pass it out along with a tract.

[Leroy]

I don't know about what he said about tracts though. I have a team of evangelists who go out every weekend and we probably only get about 1 rejection for every 100 tracts.



Can I ask where you pass out tracts and to whom? Passing out tracts in front of an LDS temples in Utah targets specifically LDS, they know what your there for and they are very unreceptive.

We also give out "Invitation (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=188411&event=CF)" CD's by Rick Warren. Despite my low opinion of Rick's theology, it is a fairly good tool. Pass it out along with a tract.

IMO, LDS believers wouldn't have a problem with anything that Rick Warren has written, his theology is to watered down to be contrary to almost any belief. It's mine and others beliefs that if you don't properly represent the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, LDS people can simple go there marry way with the false belief that there doctrines fall in line with biblical doctrines.

[Chytraeus]

If you find yourself equipped to do so and lead to do so and given opportunity to do so, why wouldn't you want to do it?

It does not matter in the least what I find myself equipped to do, it matters what God calls me to do, and that call always comes through His Church. Even St. Paul did not go out evangelizing until the Church, led by the Spirit, called him, prayed for him, laid hands on him, and sent him out to do it. No minister of God calls himself. The Apostles were called by Christ, they founded the church upon the Word which they were sent to proclaim. Through that Church others were then called and brought to the Apostles for laying on of hands, a pattern which has been continued ever since by all true Christian churches. The Church calls men to be ministers and they bring them before already called pastors to have their call confirmed and the special anointing of the Spirit passed on to them through the laying on of hands. Today much of the training and confirming is done by special institutions created by the Church for this job called Seminaries. This is a good practice as long as the Church maintains oversight of the professors, weeding out the wolfs who sneak in from time to time. But the principle that no one is to make or proclaim themselves a preacher, evangelists, pastor or teacher without a proper call from the Church and proper ordination by those who are already ordained is quite biblical, and to set it aside for whatever each person feels "equipped" to do is to replace godly order with chaos. It is begging for wolves to sneak in, while God's men are left standing outside the gate waiting to be invited in. Rick Warren is one of the wolves, a self made pastor who has done more to make sinners secure in their sin than most atheists do in a lifetime.

[Timothy Leary]

It's mine and others beliefs that if you don't properly represent the differences between Mormonism and Christianity, LDS people can simple go there marry way with the false belief that there doctrines fall in line with biblical doctrines.

True that, but that also means properly understanding what modern LDS Doctrine is. You need to understand it from their perspective, else you're bound to offend them to the point that they will have nothing to do with you. Understanding where they are coming from is critical to any discussion. You can't just go in and start screaming "Brigham Young taught that Adam was God!" or "Mormons aren't Christians!"

[Leroy]

True that, but that also means properly understanding what modern LDS Doctrine is. You need to understand it from their perspective, else you're bound to offend them to the point that they will have nothing to do with you. Understanding where they are coming from is critical to any discussion.[/.quote]

You can't just go in and start screaming "Brigham Young taught that Adam was God!" or "Mormons aren't Christians!"

God uses each christian as He chooses, some He may use with a softer approach, and some He may use to offend, I talked with the pastor of a christian church in Park City, he was confronted by a christian outside the LDS temple grounds, and offended to the point where he wanted to research what the christian had said, defend LDS beliefs concerning the offensive statements, the end result was he found the christian's statements were true and renounced his mormon beliefs.

My point is that some people need to be offended to be woken, God knows who they are and the only way to reach them, to make the statement "You need to understand it from their perspective, else you're bound to offend them to the point that they will have nothing to do with you. Understanding where they are coming from is critical to any discussion." takes the providence of God out of the picture

[Timothy Leary]

There is a difference between being offended because you were honest with them, and offending them just to be a jerk. The latter is condemned.

[Trout]

There is a difference between being offended because you were honest with them, and offending them just to be a jerk. The latter is condemned.

God can even use the latter, DJ.

[Timothy Leary]

God can use anything, good or evil. Doesn't make it right.

[Your confused]

Guys got some zeal, I'll give him that. I don't know about what he said about tracts though. I have a team of evangelists who go out every weekend and we probably only get about 1 rejection for every 100 tracts. We also give out "Invitation (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=188411&event=CF)" CD's by Rick Warren. Despite my low opinion of Rick's theology, it is a fairly good tool. Pass it out along with a tract.

Really? You have a 99% rate at handing out tracts? Great glad to hear that you randomly through Jesus at people and 99% of them accept him. That's even better than Jesus himself.

[Trout]

God can use anything, good or evil. Doesn't make it right.

Yes, it does.

[Your confused]

Another great idea...Ed Phelps has really advanced the kingdom with his "God hates Fags" campaign. Oh wait maybe that's too offensive.

You have no way to determine what God has done through Phelps.


You're exactly right God can use everything; we're assured of that in scripture. But I don't see where that gives us license to be an idiot.

No, we're idiots by nature, God can use our idiocy to further the Kingdom.

[Your confused]

You have no way to determine what God has done through Phelps..

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.

No, we're idiots by nature, God can use our idiocy to further the Kingdom.

Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to throw out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.

[Kelp]

God can even use the latter, DJ.
Of course he can, does that mean I should go up to someone with a gun in my hand and say, "except Jesus or I'll blow you away."? Of course not, that would be wrong. But the fact that God can use it doesn't mean that I should go do it.

All that Neo was saying, as far as I can see, is that it is encumbered upon us to correctly and honestly represent Mormon heresies. The fact that God can use someone who runs up to a Mormon, spouts some piece of missinfromation, calls them a dirty sinner, and runs off does not mean that it is right for us to behave so sloppily. You need to actually present a cogent case for why they need Jesus, not just assume that if you can get them mad enough, they'll do it themselves.

[Kelp]

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.



Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to through out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.
Did you just respond to yourself?

[Your confused]

@ DEE DEE

No I was confused on the quoting system. I was responding to a first page post.

It's corrected now.

[Kelp]

Oh. Ok.

[Trout]

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.

How did you determine that?



Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to throw out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.

You're being offensive right now toward me. How dare you, hypocrite.

[Trout]

Of course he can, does that mean I should go up to someone with a gun in my hand and say, "except Jesus or I'll blow you away."? Of course not, that would be wrong. But the fact that God can use it doesn't mean that I should go do it.

Even if you did do that, God could use that to further His Kingdom.


All that Neo was saying, as far as I can see, is that it is encumbered upon us to correctly and honestly represent Mormon heresies. The fact that God can use someone who runs up to a Mormon, spouts some piece of missinfromation, calls them a dirty sinner, and runs off does not mean that it is right for us to behave so sloppily. You need to actually present a cogent case for why they need Jesus, not just assume that if you can get them mad enough, they'll do it themselves.

Shame on John the Baptist . . . telling people they needed to repent, what a hatemonger.

[Kelp]

Even if you did do that, God could use that to further His Kingdom.Is there an echo in here :lol:. I just said that. So do you wanna start the Death Threats for Jesus Club or should I? Seeing as how God's potential ends justify every one of our possible means....



Shame on John the Baptist . . . telling people they needed to repent, what a hatemonger.
John the Baptist spoke honestly and let the message offend. He did not missrepresnt the way that the people thought and what the nature of their errors were. He used Scripture to convince the people that they needed to repent. I'm not against loudness or passion, I'm against sloppiness and
treating people like they're stupid. It seems like a lot of what passes as confrontational evangelism degerates into contentless sloganeering. I don't know if these folks in the article are that way and I hope they aren't.

[Trout]

Is there an echo in here :lol:. I just said that. So do you wanna start the Death Threats for Jesus Club or should I? Seeing as how God's potential ends justify every one of our possible means....

I think you should start the, "Club any Christians you find offensive" ministry.

So all Christians don't believe the same about evangelism . . . :nsm: so what?


John the Baptist spoke honestly and let the message offend. He did not missrepresnt the way that the people thought and what the nature of their errors were. He used Scripture to convince the people that they needed to repent. I'm not against loudness or passion, I'm against sloppiness and
treating people like they're stupid. It seems like a lot of what passes as confrontational evangelism degerates into contentless sloganeering. I don't know if these folks in the article are that way and I hope they aren't.

And I'm against someone who is silent about the Gospel because they're afraid to offend.

I'm glad those that I encountered who preached the Gospel to me did so in an offensive enough manner to get my attention.

[Your confused]

How did you determine that?.

Well with running the danger of a cyclical argument. How do you determine "all methods of evagelism" have benefited the Kingdom?

But for the sake of argument google "Phelps" and see what most bloggers (christian and non) are saying about this self proclaimed "prophet" of God.



You're being offensive right now toward me. How dare you, hypocrite.

I'm assuming that your being "witty" but incase you're not I offer this rebuttal.

The word of God cannot contradict itself. For instance "that which you of done unto the least of these you have done unto me" or "speak the truth in love" can not coexist with a theology of marginalization.

Equally so a by "whatever means necessary approach" that is nothing more than a mass marketing of the gospel is offensive to most (non-believers) and contradictory to scriptures mandates about how to make a true disciple. All missionaries to foreign countries undergo intensive culture training so as not to offend. So why is it that we assume if we bombard people with an in your face gospel message; without understanding their "culture"; we are actually doing a good work.

[Kelp]

So all Christians don't believe the same about evangelism . . . :nsm: so what?Well, it's no particular skin off my back, I was just trying to figure out what you guys are actually suggesting. So, here's what it looks like to me: If anything evangelisitc that God might use to advance His kingdom automatical becomes a right action, as you said to Yoshi back there(EDIT to add: in post 15), then it follows that if I decided to, say, blows some unbeliever's kneecaps off with a gun because I thought that might be what it takes for God to get through to him, I am not, in fact, quilty of sin but am performing a laudable deed of evangelism?



And I'm against someone who is silent about the Gospel because they're afraid to offend.Same here. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm glad those that I encountered who preached the Gospel to me did so in an offensive enough manner to get my attention.I don't know what they did. Assuming for a second that they did not preach in an optimal manner, I'm still glad that God used their methods to get through to you. However, being a Calvinist you believe, as I do, that God inscrutably makes up His elect. The fact that you are saved has nothing to do with what those evangelists should have done, if they did indeed do something wrong.

[Trout]

Well with running the danger of a cyclical argument. How do you determine "all methods of evagelism" have benefited the Kingdom?

Look, you made the statement, "It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns."

I just thought you might want to back up such a slanderous statement as that.

I think Phelps is nutty, I think he goes way overboard, but I wouldn't say that he's "harmed the Gospel of Christ".


But for the sake of argument google "Phelps" and see what most bloggers (christian and non) are saying about this self proclaimed "prophet" of God.

You're making an appeal to the majority, that's not how Christianity works.

Most marriages end in divorce, does that mean marriage is wrong?


I'm assuming that your being "witty" but incase you're not I offer this rebuttal. The word of God cannot contradict itself. For instance "that which you of done unto the least of these you have done unto me" or "speak the truth in love" can not coexist with a theology of marginalization.

In the Psalms we read, "answer a fool according to his folly" we also read, "answer not a fool according to his folly". It seems that there is a time and place for each answer.

There's also a time and place for the street preacher.


Equally so a by "whatever means necessary approach" that is nothing more than a mass marketing of the gospel is offensive to most (non-believers) and contradictory to scriptures mandates about how to make a true disciple. All missionaries to foreign countries undergo intensive culture training so as not to offend. So why is it that we assume if we bombard people with an in your face gospel message; without understanding their "culture" we are actually doing a good work.

Why do you think Paul was stoned? Why do you think he was thrown in jail?

Was it because of his totally understanding and sensitive ways in the face of a new culture?

[Trout]

Well, it's no particular skin off my back, I was just trying to figure out what you guys are actually suggesting. So, here's what it looks like to me: If anything evangelisitc that God might use to advance His kingdom automatical becomes a right action, as you said to Yoshi back there(EDIT to add: in post 15), then it follows that if I decided to, say, blows some unbeliever's kneecaps off with a gun because I thought that might be what it takes for God to get through to him, I am not, in fact, quilty of sin but am performing a laudable deed of evangelism?

You can do something evil and God can use it to further the Kingdom.


I don't know what they did. Assuming for a second that they did not preach in an optimal manner, I'm still glad that God used their methods to get through to you. However, being a Calvinist you believe, as I do, that God inscrutably makes up His elect. The fact that you are saved has nothing to do with what those evangelists should have done, if they did indeed do something wrong.

What? :huh:

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Maybe they were predestined to preach to me in language that would be effective?

[Kelp]

You can do something evil and God can use it to further the Kingdom.
Yes He can. Does that mean that I should seek to do evil things just because God might use them? Of course not.




How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Maybe they were predestined to preach to me in language that would be effective?
Could have been. Doesn't mean that it was right of them to do so. It doesn't mean that we should seek to offend people that way.

[Your confused]

Look, you made the statement, "It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns."

I just thought you might want to back up such a slanderous statement as that.

I think Phelps is nutty, I think he goes way overboard, but I wouldn't say that he's "harmed the Gospel of Christ".


On the point that Phelps is nutty we agree. The fact that he's harmed the case of Christ is probably hyperbole on my part. I see your point that Phelps could probably do little harm to Christs work in the lives of people. However would you agree that the image that he creates about Christians makes it harder to have honest dialogue about the truths of Christ.


You're making an appeal to the majority, that's not how Christianity works.

Most marriages end in divorce, does that mean marriage is wrong?.


My appeal was not to the majority nor was it to gain consesus to my point. It was to strengthen that fact that Phelps makes it difficult; because of the perception he creates with his "evangelism" syle to have honest dialogue.

In the Psalms we read, "answer a fool according to his folly" we also read, "answer not a fool according to his folly". It seems that there is a time and place for each answer..


Actually the verse in Proverbs 26:4 reads "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself"

I have yet to find the Psalms scripture? If you could provide a verse that would be helpful.

There's also a time and place for the street preacher.

Agreed. It's not for me to decide when and who that is; that's according to the spirit. According to the original post; the basis for this type of evangelism was to use the same tactics that the Mormons and other religions use. It's those motives that I question.

I would also argue (again) that standing on a street corner screaming about the coming wrath of God does not (at a maximum efficiency) in this culture win anybody to Christ. I've read the N.T. on multiple occasions and the only time I say Jesus (my example for evangelism) warn of hell and damnation is when addressing the religious of the day.


Why do you think Paul was stoned? Why do you think he was thrown in jail?
Was it because of his totally understanding and sensitive ways in the face of a new culture?

For the same reason Jesus was crucified.

After several go-a-rounds it's apparent to me that we have very different ideas and thoughts about evangelism. So I will concede that you and I are called differently to serve Christ in the same Great Commission.

Trust that I'm praying for you tonight.

Sincerely
Y.C.

[Trout]

Yes He can. Does that mean that I should seek to do evil things just because God might use them? Of course not.

No, what that means is, you can do things that you think aren't evil, but in reality they are evil and God can still use them for His glory.


Could have been. Doesn't mean that it was right of them to do so. It doesn't mean that we should seek to offend people that way.

What? :huh: They preached the fire and brimstone Gospel, I responded to Christ's call. Where's the bad?

[Trout]

On the point that Phelps is nutty we agree. The fact that he's harmed the case of Christ is probably hyperbole on my part. I see your point that Phelps could probably do little harm to Christs work in the lives of people. However would you agree that the image that he creates about Christians makes it harder to have honest dialogue about the truths of Christ.

Not at all, it provokes dialog between Christians and non-Christians about correct Christianity. Phelps gives us a platform we wouldn't otherwise have.


My appeal was not to the majority nor was it to gain consesus to my point. It was to strengthen that fact that Phelps makes it difficult; because of the perception he creates with his "evangelism" syle to have honest dialogue.

I think Phelps' method has prompted many an honest dialog.


Actually the verse in Proverbs 26:4 reads "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself"

I have yet to find the Psalms scripture? If you could provide a verse that would be helpful.

The verses I mentioned are in Proverbs, my bad.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


Agreed. It's not for me to decide when and who that is; that's according to the spirit. According to the original post; the basis for this type of evangelism was to use the same tactics that the Mormons and other religions use. It's those motives that I question.

Going out and meeting the people where they are you question?



I would also argue (again) that standing on a street corner screaming about the coming wrath of God does not (at a maximum efficiency) in this culture win anybody to Christ.

Odd, I know people who've come to Christ by such preaching. I guess they'd be nobodies.



I've read the N.T. on multiple occasions and the only time I say Jesus (my example for evangelism) warn of hell and damnation is when addressing the religious of the day.

And?



For the same reason Jesus was crucified.

Because he claimed to be God and was proclaimed King of the Jews?

No, he was stoned and jailed because he was extremely offensive.



After several go-a-rounds it's apparent to me that we have very different ideas and thoughts about evangelism. So I will concede that you and I are called differently to serve Christ in the same Great Commission.

Trust that I'm praying for you tonight.

Sincerely
Y.C.

I think we may have different callings, sure enough, but I wouldn't dream of telling you that yours was harmful to Christ's kingdom.

[Your confused]

@ Trout,

Okay so let's agree to disagree.

Phelps has stimulated dialogue. But he has also harmed the message of Christ.
As someone who has spoken to the man and witnessed him in action he is harmful to the Christ I serve. As someone who ministers to the Gay community I'VE HAD DIALOGUE with people who have been turned off by his message and they want nothing to do with God.
Phelps message marganalizes people....CHRIST NEVER DID THAT! His gross misrepresentation of Gospel (Yes I know Leviticus says...) is not only negligent evangelism but it borders on heresy. This is my last word on Phelps.







The verses I mentioned are in Proverbs, my bad.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. .

Again the spirit should be your lead in this. You can not arbitrarily decide when you use those verses. Standing in front of building passing out bible tracts proclaiming "Christ is the Way" is truth but truth without context will ring false for MOST (not all) people.



Going out and meeting the people where they are you question?.

Not at all. I do question a monolithic approach to evangelism. Again context.
My definition of meeting people where they are is understanding where they are first. With a broader understanding than "They are going to Hell".




Odd, I know people who've come to Christ by such preaching. I guess they'd be nobodies..

Reread what I wrote I said it works but not at a maximum efficiency. And again I say that these tactics (having done street preaching myself) have a more negative effective than positive.



Because he claimed to be God and was proclaimed King of the Jews?

No, he was stoned and jailed because he was extremely offensive..

Debatable point!

You brought up Paul so heres what Paul said about evangelism.

1 Corinthians 9
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.



I think we may have different callings, sure enough, but I wouldn't dream of telling you that yours was harmful to Christ's kingdom.

I conceded that point and clarified.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:miyamoto:

[Trout]

@ Trout,

Okay so let's agree to disagree.

I agree, you have some wrong ideas.


Phelps has stimulated dialogue. But he has also harmed the message of Christ.

Phelps doesn't have the power to harm the message of Christ, at least not the Christ I serve.


As someone who has spoken to the man and witnessed him in action he is harmful to the Christ I serve.

Well, put away your wimpy, simpering Christ and follow the strong one.


As someone who ministers to the Gay community I'VE HAD DIALOGUE with people who have been turned off by his message and they want nothing to do with God.

There you go, Phelps opened the door of dialog for you and you were to busy apologizing for Christianity to get the message across.


Phelps message marganalizes people....CHRIST NEVER DID THAT!

CHRIST'S message marginalizes people, it's His way or the highway, now that's what I call marginalization.


His gross misrepresentation of Gospel (Yes I know Leviticus says...) is not only negligent evangelism but it borders on heresy. This is my last word on Phelps.

His "gross misinterpretation" gave you opportunity you wouldn't have otherwise had.


Again the spirit should be your lead in this. You can not arbitrarily decide when you use those verses. Standing in front of building passing out bible tracts proclaiming "Christ is the Way" is truth but truth without context will ring false for MOST (not all) people.

I'm not out to reach "most" people, I want to reach one person.


Not at all. I do question a monolithic approach to evangelism. Again context.
My definition of meeting people where they are is understanding where they are first. With a broader understanding than "They are going to Hell".

Have you ever read, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Bunyan? I would venture to say it was and continues to be an extremely effective evangelistic tool.


Reread what I wrote I said it works but not at a maximum efficiency. And again I say that these tactics (having done street preaching myself) have a more negative effective than positive.

God says His word doesn't come back void. Just because the people who hear it don't immediately prostrate themselves doesn't mean it wasn't effective. :duh:


Debatable point!

You brought up Paul so heres what Paul said about evangelism.

1 Corinthians 9
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

So why did they stone him? Because he sucked up to every culture and religious idea?

[Leroy]

I find it very disappointing that there are Christians that are very critical of other Christians witnessing techniques. If they don’t agree, or it’s different they become very critical, they throw around terms like “they are wrong” “to aggressive” “intolerant” “damaging the message of Christ” “mean spirited” etc.

In a way they take the roll of God, judging Christians actions, making the assumption that God has ran all the ways of witnessing through them and they have the final say on what are the only ways to reach people. These Christians look over the shoulder of every messenger, critiquing the messenger and the message, like they have all the information, like they know all the intricacies of each circumstance, like they have been given the power of omniscience.

They also believe that the work and message of Christ can be so easily damaged, that it is such a delicate message, that mere human actions can damage it, damage it beyond repair! They believe that God can still be defeated by evil.

A message or delivery that they determine is to aggressive, they immediately compare that message and the messenger with the most egregious message and messenger they can drum up, and unfairly compare it to a shooting off of kneecaps type of activity, they unrightly pad the evidence, shinning the most unfavorable light on it as possible, basically doing the same exact thing that they are so critical of.

I make the assumption, partly thru knowledge and partly because of the nature of man that these non confrontational Christians, live in fear of sharing their faith, a proactive stance of sharing the gospel makes their knees quake and their stomach ache, there emotions rise as they think of any kind of confrontation. They let their feeling and emotions override all other thoughts or actions, when it comes to thoughts of telling someone that there beliefs are wrong, that hell is real, and that there is only one way to God.
It solidifies and justifies their fears when they see confrontations and hear people say how much they are turned off. They feel the only way to justify there inaction is to attack the message and messenger instead of what is truly the purpose to which we as Christians are to do, and that’s is to be led by Christ, not second guess other Christians and the path God has chosen for them to walk down.

They take the immediate statements from the offended as the final and only result, when in fact they have no idea what God is doing, what God is using, what it takes to reach each individual, and what is really happening in the heart of the offended person.

It seems as though Paul had this same type of discussion about preaching techniques in Philippi, and made the statement to the believing Philippians “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.” Maybe these critical christians should listen to Paul’s words concerning this same subject.

[Your confused]

To Trout,
If your using a 250 year old text (rather than biblical examples) to back up your stance on how to reach a culture in 2007 than we have further to go then I thought. And for the record Bunyan wrote "Pilgrims Progress" not "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God." Jonathan Edwards wrote that. I've read both and understand them well. What point were you making by referencing it? I don't think you really want to get into the social context of why Edwards wrote that sermon. It had very little to do with evangelizing and more to do with waking up a stagnant/apathetic Puritan congregation. Your claims of it still being an effective evangelistic tool is hilarious.

If you can't see that your evangelism style is offensive (rather you admit its offensive but you make no apologies) than all my wrangling with you is going to be in vain.

By your own admission you were converted by the hell and damnation gospel (which I find no record for in the Gospel) then because it worked for you it should work for everyone. My concessions to you were that your "style" may win some. However I still hold firm that your "style" is offensive.

Your statements of me serving a wimpy Christ are somewhat hilarious. I make no apologies for my faith to anyone. But I do spend a lot of time convincing people that the "sign wavers" are misguided, God doesn't hate them and that message isn't true Christianity. After that is resolved then I share with them the power of Christ to set them free.

Now I've visited CCU's website (by the way could you have gotten one more cross in the video) and most of the stats claimed there are patently false. The pictures are hilarious and I particularly like the message board posts. But my favorite was the mailbag...Good stuff except I'm curious why every letter in favor of Rob was maticulous in grammer but every letter not in favor was littered with grammatical errors. I also can't wait to see Rob using his new "bullhorn" at the UT pageant in June. Boy won't that be exciting "JOSEPHLIED.COM!!!!!! MUHAMMADLIED.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!TRUERIGHTEOUSNESS.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!!TURN OR BURN!!!!!" and maybe there will be enough money left over to go back to El Cajon and indiscriminately plaster cars with the every popular "Ted Bundy, cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer and the Third Reich are soul mates because they were all addicted to pornography." slogan. Boy the Love of Christ will just be shouted those days. But hey if even one person comes to Christ it will be worth it. Even if it reinforces in a 1000 peoples eyes that Christian are just hate-mongers. Maybe for added measure you can chant "We love you we just hate your sin" that really works with the gay community. And it would certainly help me out. Because "clanging cymbals" and "resounding gongs" are some of my favorite sounds.

To LEROY:
Your words are "In a way they take the roll of God, judging Christians actions, making the assumption that God has ran all the ways of witnessing through them and they have the final say on what are the only ways to reach people. These Christians look over the shoulder of every messenger, critiquing the messenger and the message, like they have all the information, like they know all the intricacies of each circumstance, like they have been given the power of omniscience."

I don't claim to know every detail about every situation. My complaint with CCU is they don't either; they just wave their signs, hang out on exressway overpasses, and essential mass market the Gospel. And it is offensive to most people including Christians. It makes our evangelism harder.

Your Phillipians verse is a proof-text and not the full breadth of the letter to the Phillipians.

[Trout]

To Trout,
If your using a 250 year old text (rather than biblical examples) to back up your stance on how to reach a culture in 2007 than we have further to go then I thought.

Why? People have the same spiritual need, they don't need a watered down, wishy-washy feel good Gospel.

Using your same logic, the NT was written too long ago to be an effective tool in today's culture.

It seems you've been drinking the post-modern KoolAid.


And for the record Bunyan wrote "Pilgrims Progress" not "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God." Jonathan Edwards wrote that.

Ooops, you're right. It wasn't Bunyan, again, my bad.


I've read both and understand them well. What point were you making by referencing it?

I was making the point that Edwards used the threat of an angry God to prompt people to action.


I don't think you really want to get into the social context of why Edwards wrote that sermon. It had very little to do with evangelizing and more to do with waking up a stagnant/apathetic Puritan congregation.

No, it was written to the unregenerate, many of whom fill churches on Sunday.


Your claims of it still being an effective evangelistic tool is hilarious.

It's hilarious to someone who doesn't know the power of God.


If you can't see that your evangelism style is offensive (rather you admit its offensive but you make no apologies) than all my wrangling with you is going to be in vain.

Why would you want to convince me that my style was wrong?


By your own admission you were converted by the hell and damnation gospel (which I find no record for in the Gospel) then because it worked for you it should work for everyone. My concessions to you were that your "style" may win some. However I still hold firm that your "style" is offensive.

Some need to be reached in an offensive way, others do not. There's much diversity within the Body of Christ, there's room for all types of evangelism. The problem lies with those, like yourself, who seek to condemn confrontational style evangelism with a broad brush.


Your statements of me serving a wimpy Christ are somewhat hilarious.

You said that the Christ you serve was injured by Fred Phelps, if that isn't the definition of wimpy, I don't know what it'd be.


I make no apologies for my faith to anyone.

Of course not, you're too busy apologizing for us offensive Christians. :lmbo:


But I do spend a lot of time convincing people that the "sign wavers" are misguided, God doesn't hate them and that message isn't true Christianity.

I really like how you condemn every sign waver as misguided, very tolerant of you.


After that is resolved then I share with them the power of Christ to set them free.

Set them free from what?


Now I've visited CCU's website (by the way could you have gotten one more cross in the video)

1) I didn't have anything to do with the video, I'm not affiliated with CCU.

2) I see three crosses on the Home Page, probably representing some Biblical event that doesn't work in today's culture.

3) Don't be offended at the cross.


and most of the stats claimed there are patently false.

Care to back up your statement?


The pictures are hilarious and I particularly like the message board posts. But my favorite was the mailbag...Good stuff except I'm curious why every letter in favor of Rob was maticulous in grammer but every letter not in favor was littered with grammatical errors. I also can't wait to see Rob using his new "bullhorn" at the UT pageant in June. Boy won't that be exciting "JOSEPHLIED.COM!!!!!! MUHAMMADLIED.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!TRUERIGHTEOUSNESS.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!!TURN OR BURN!!!!!" and maybe there will be enough money left over to go back to El Cajon and indiscriminately plaster cars with the every popular "Ted Bundy, cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer and the Third Reich are soul mates because they were all addicted to pornography." slogan. Boy the Love of Christ will just be shouted those days. But hey if even one person comes to Christ it will be worth it. Even if it reinforces in a 1000 peoples eyes that Christian are just hate-mongers. Maybe for added measure you can chant "We love you we just hate your sin" that really works with the gay community. And it would certainly help me out. Because "clanging cymbals" and "resounding gongs" are some of my favorite sounds.

I don't feel the need to defend Rob, he's quite capable of that himself, I've spent some time with Rob and know what kind of a person he is and know how effective he's been at preaching the Gospel to those who need to hear it. God has used Rob to bring many to Christ.


I don't claim to know every detail about every situation. My complaint with CCU is they don't either; they just wave their signs, hang out on exressway overpasses, and essential mass market the Gospel. And it is offensive to most people including Christians. It makes our evangelism harder.

That statement proves your ignorance in regards to Rob and his ministry.

[Leroy]

To LEROY:
Your words are "In a way they take the roll of God, judging Christians actions, making the assumption that God has ran all the ways of witnessing through them and they have the final say on what are the only ways to reach people. These Christians look over the shoulder of every messenger, critiquing the messenger and the message, like they have all the information, like they know all the intricacies of each circumstance, like they have been given the power of omniscience."

I don't claim to know every detail about every situation. My complaint with CCU is they don't either;

Yes you do, you claim by concluding your way of witnessing is good and a more aggressive way of witnessing is bad.



they just wave their signs, hang out on exressway overpasses, and essential mass market the Gospel.

Your conclusions is that no one should do this, how self-righteously pompous of you


And it is offensive to most people including Christians.

The cross is offensive to those whom are perishing.


It makes our evangelism harder.

And your form of evangelism may make someone else’s evangelism harder, what’s your point. Should every body step out of the way for the one and only self proclaimed Pope of Evangelism?

,

Your Phillipians verse is a proof-text and not the full breadth of the letter to the Phillipians.

And this letter to the Philippians’ is just one book of the bible, should I have quoted the entire bible, I assumed you had your own.

[Kelp]

Trout, Leroy. I would like to end my part of this conversation and agree to disagree. You have your interpretation and I have mine. I bear you no ill will and I'm sorry if I hurt or offended either one of you.

God bless.

[Trout]

Yes you do, you claim by concluding your way of witnessing is good and a more aggressive way of witnessing is bad.

He claims that not only is it bad and only reaches a few, but it makes it harder for him to evangelize . . . even though he admitted that his evangelism method is to first expose the sign-wavers as misguided. :lmbo:


Your conclusions is that no one should do this, how self-righteously pompous of you

How dare you say that to someone who works with the gay community. :lmbo:


The cross is offensive to those whom are perishing.

The cross was 2000 years ago, it doesn't work in today's world Leroy. Today's evangelist must first deny sin . . . except for the sin found in sign wavers.


And your form of evangelism may make someone else’s evangelism harder, what’s your point. Should every body step out of the way for the one and only self proclaimed Pope of Evangelism?

No, you should run around desperately apologizing for the behavior of "offensive" Christians.

Remember what the Pope of Evangelism told us:


Standing in front of building passing out bible tracts proclaiming "Christ is the Way" is truth but truth without context will ring false for MOST (not all) people.

Keep your Bible to yourself, Leroy.


And this letter to the Philippians’ is just one book of the bible, should I have quoted the entire bible, I assumed you had your own.

throwing out Bible verses doesn't ring true for the Pope, Leroy.

[Trout]

Trout, Leroy. I would like to end my part of this conversation and agree to disagree. You have your interpretation and I have mine. I bear you no ill will and I'm sorry if I hurt or offended either one of you.

God bless.

Kelp,

Thanks for your input, I am neither offended nor hurt.

If you were to spend a couple days with Leroy and I doing some street evangelism you'd have a better idea what we're all about. We're not in the Phelps category by any stretch of the imagination.

Trout

[Kelp]

Okay. I think I'd like that. Some day :smile:

[Leroy]

Trout, I had to rub my eyes a couple of times, I couldn’t believe what I was reading when I read most of this clowns posts.



Your claims of it still being an effective evangelistic tool is hilarious.

Is he making this claim about these fantastic old writers, and the classic books they wrote? That is unbelievable.

Actually if you whistle the theme of “Love Boat” as you read his posts, and think of him as the happy go lucky gopher, it makes more sense.

[Trout]

Trout, I had to rub my eyes a couple of times, I couldn’t believe what I was reading when I read most of this clowns posts.

Is he making this claim about these fantastic old writers, and the classic books they wrote? That is unbelievable.

I remember reading "Grace abounding to the chief of Sinners" in stunned admiration. Remember the first time you read Pilgrim's Progress?

Christianity has a rich history that we can draw upon, to say that something was written 250 years ago and therefore not relevant today is to miss out on a wealth of blessing.


Actually if you whistle the theme of “Love Boat” as you read his posts, and think of him as the happy go lucky gopher, it makes more sense.

Love won't hurt anymore
It's an open smile on a friendly shore.
Yes LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! It's LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! (hey-ah!)

[Your confused]

He claims that not only is it bad and only reaches a few, but it makes it harder for him to evangelize . . . even though he admitted that his evangelism method is to first expose the sign-wavers as misguided. :lmbo:.

Clarification: Re-read post #34 then re-read your response #36.

How dare you say that to someone who works with the gay community. :lmbo:.

How dare you...Nevermind



The cross was 2000 years ago, it doesn't work in today's world Leroy. Today's evangelist must first deny sin . . . except for the sin found in sign wavers..

Nobody ever said anything about denying sin. Nor did I say you were sinners. Your inference



No, you should run around desperately apologizing for the behavior of "offensive" Christians..

Nobody said I "desperately apologize". Again your inference

Remember what the Pope of Evangelism told us:.

I never claimed to have it all right nor did I claim you have it all wrong I merely stated on mulitple occasions its offensive to most. Which you agree with and say that's what makes it effective (I disagree). Leroy pointed out people who don't engage in your "style" are weak Christians (again an attack on personhood)

Another thing about this pointing out that your "style" is offensive (which you say is accurate) makes me a Pope. I'm a Reformed Pastor which makes me a Calvinist. But we do recite the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and baptize infants. So I guess some Catholic traditions are hold overs. If I was a Pope it would only be for the car and the hat.

Let's go back through the posts; it began with people questioning CCU methodolgy, which I'm assuming is why it was posted; for discussion or attention. When I expressed my views on the methodology; you began attacking my personhood. "clown" "Pope of Evangelism" "wimpy Christ" etc...In essence you questioned my relationship with Christ. In fact you infered that I don't believe in the Cross of Christ.

Early on I point out the fruits of the spirit and you dismiss it. In fact your argument becomes in essence "because I'm offensive" that allows the Spirit to work. That argument is non-sequiter to me.

Then I say.

"After several go-a-rounds it's apparent to me that we have very different ideas and thoughts about evangelism. So I will concede that you and I are called differently to serve Christ in the same Great Commission.

Trust that I'm praying for you tonight."

You respond with post #33. Again the Love that is so evident in your methodology just comes shining through.



In regards to Jonathan Edwards I would encourage you to really understand the culture in which he first preached that sermon. Never did I deny it a powerful sermon; I did however scoff at the idea that if you handed it out today it would have the same effect on this culture.

Trout you say your different than Phelps; what makes you different? I mean I see a recognizable difference but what does the non-christian see. Is it possible that in the mind of non-christian the two are the same? If so; isn't it important for me to clarify first?


Keep your Bible to yourself, Leroy.

throwing out Bible verses doesn't ring true for the Pope, Leroy.

Leroy I do own a whole Bible that's why I pointed out your proof-text. Again really understand the hermenuetics of Phillipians before you go spouting off with a portion of scripture that defends your position. I would get into it with you but perhaps on another thread.

Finally to the statements I made about CCU in my last post. The stats that Rob points out about the numbers of people leaving mainline religions for cults is false. There is no statistical data to back up that claim. It's a scare tactic to invoke a call to action. As previously alluded to by others; it's a dis-honesty approach to justify an honest gain.
Everything else I mentioned (the mailbag, the crosses in the video, the message board) all appear to be a play on emotion. It too is dishonest. The El Cajon incident is just crazy. CCU was protesting an adult bookstore by distributing flyers on peoples windshields. Then when asked to stop; they argue they have a right to do so and their first amendment was violated. But they want to Government to step on the rights of the bookstore. You can't defend yourself with a "right" and then deny that right to someone else.

For you (trout) to say that you don't need to defend Rob; what have you been doing on this board then?

This is my last post on this subject. Thanks for the dialogue.

Sincerely,
YC

P.S.
Since you guys are taking song requests: I'd like to hear "The wonderous Cross" "Amazing Grace" and "It is well with my soul"

[Leroy]

I never claimed to have it all right nor did I claim you have it all wrong I merely stated on mulitple occasions its offensive to most.

You claimed “that message isn't true Christianity” you inferred Christians that do this kind of evangelism are ” just hate-mongers” you claim that being an offense is unbiblical “Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive” when clearly Paul said the cross is an offense to those that are perishing, you also state it’s ” contradictory to scriptures mandates about how to make a true disciple”

Pretty much a claim that this type of street evangelism is all wrong.

How can you make blanket statements like And again I say that these tactics (having done street preaching myself) have a more negative effective than positive. unless you have some kind of supernatural insight into the work of God and the hearts of all men?


Leroy pointed out people who don't engage in your "style" are weak Christians (again an attack on personhood)

What I said was that people that complain about another Christians witnessing techniques “They let their feeling and emotions override all other thoughts or actions, when it comes to thoughts of telling someone that there beliefs are wrong, that hell is real, and that there is only one way to God… They take the immediate statements from the offended as the final and only result, when in fact they have no idea what God is doing, what God is using, what it takes to reach each individual, and what is really happening in the heart of the offended person.” You coined the word ”weak”

You bring up fruits; do you assume that fruitful efforts are only ones that show immediate fruits? Can a fruit be the fact that someone follows the leading of God and instead of washing his car, or fixing the back fence, goes out and passes out tracts, talks to passerby about God, could that possibly be the fruits spoken about in the bible, or is it just about conversion numbers.


Leroy I do own a whole Bible that's why I pointed out your proof-text. Again really understand the hermenuetics of Phillipians before you go spouting off with a portion of scripture that defends your position. I would get into it with you but perhaps on another thread.

In other words, this scripture torpedoed your point and you need another thread to properly spin it in your direction.

[Your confused]

I make the assumption, partly thru knowledge and partly because of the nature of man that these non confrontational Christians, live in fear of sharing their faith, a proactive stance of sharing the gospel makes their knees quake and their stomach ache, there emotions rise as they think of any kind of confrontation. They let their feeling and emotions override all other thoughts or actions, when it comes to thoughts of telling someone that there beliefs are wrong, that hell is real, and that there is only one way to God. :eek:

[Trout]

You can not arbitrarily decide when you use those verses. Standing in front of building passing out bible tracts proclaiming "Christ is the Way" is truth but truth without context will ring false for MOST (not all) people.

I think this point is an indicator of an oversight on your part, Confused.

Perhaps the groundwork has been established through someone else, and they are at the point in time when they need to hear, "Christ is the way".

Evangelism isn't a solo endeavor, it's more of a team sport.

Personally, I hope my unsaved loved ones are hearing the Gospel in every effective way possible, if it's a sign waver, so be it, if it's a more relational approach, so be it.


For you (trout) to say that you don't need to defend Rob; what have you been doing on this board then?

I'm defending a methodology, the confrontational evangelism style.


Finally to the statements I made about CCU in my last post. The stats that Rob points out about the numbers of people leaving mainline religions for cults is false. There is no statistical data to back up that claim. It's a scare tactic to invoke a call to action. As previously alluded to by others; it's a dis-honesty approach to justify an honest gain.

So you just think the stats are wrong, since you admit you have no data to prove otherwise . . . who's dishonest now? :oooo: I guess that tactic is OK when you're attacking a methodology you find offensive.


I did however scoff at the idea that if you handed it out today it would have the same effect on this culture.

I didn't say that, thanks for misrepresenting my comment.


Let's go back through the posts; it began with people questioning CCU methodolgy, which I'm assuming is why it was posted; for discussion or attention. When I expressed my views on the methodology; you began attacking my personhood. "clown" "Pope of Evangelism" "wimpy Christ" etc...In essence you questioned my relationship with Christ.

Leroy very aptly pointed out your duplicity in the above statement.


In fact you infered that I don't believe in the Cross of Christ.

You seemed offended with the 3 crosses on CCU's homepage.

[Your confused]

Originally posted by confused:
"I did however scoff at the idea that if you handed it out today it would have the same effect on this culture. "

I didn't say that, thanks for misrepresenting my comment..

Trout said Post # 36
Have you ever read, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Bunyan? I would venture to say it was and continues to be an extremely effective evangelistic tool.

[Trout]

Trout said Post # 36
Have you ever read, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Bunyan? I would venture to say it was and continues to be an extremely effective evangelistic tool.

Thank you for clarifying what I said.