OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: from Courageous Christians United

[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.

Romans 10:14

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? 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.

[Glenn P]

: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.

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.

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.

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.

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