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.

[Conductor42]

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" 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" 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.

[Conductor42]

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

[Conductor42]

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.

[Conductor42]

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" 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.