All Things To All Men = Anything Goes Evangelism?

I am not debating with MacArthur. You have yet to show where MacArthur has proven anything. Leave him out of this discussion. I simply want to know from YOU what texts provide do's and dont's for methodologies.

 

Everything about the NASCAR stunt (and others) rings of peddling or marketeering the Gospel. Everything about Jesus and the apostles is the opposite of that. Jesus preaching from a boat is not the same as inducing people to come see NASCAR memorabilia. If people want to go to a NASCAR event and share the Gospel with people, then I'm down with that (and that would be a better analogy to Jesus preaching from a boat).

Again, a gimmick does not have to involve deceit or trickery. One who trusts in the sovereignty of God does not need to stoop to gimmickry to help God out. He's given us the means - preaching the Word, witnessing to people, acts of mercy and compassion, inviting people, etc. - all of which are found in Scripture, and none of which involve gimmickry.

 

Yes he has given us the means, which also involves becoming "all things to all men" - which I guess brings us full circle.

Surely you do not think that people who use means other than those you prefer believe they are "helping God out."

And yes the NASCAR promotion could qualify within the categories you list above. And yes there is a "marketing" element within evangelism itself (regardless of the method employed).

At the end of the day you are still left with the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong, sinful, or unethical about the use of a NASCAR car.

 

I choose to go with the means patterned by Jesus and the Apostles - preach, teach, personal witness, invite, acts of mercy and compassion. This NASCAR stunt, I think, falls into, "everything is lawful, but not everything is helpful" - no, it cannot be pinned down as a sin per se, but it definitely does not follow the pattern that we see in the New Testament. And the question is, why have we come to this point in the Church that we feel that our man-made patterns are better than those showed in Scripture?

 

By the way, I checked through my posts to make sure - I've never said the NASCAR gimmick was inherently sinful. What? Are we only allowed to criticize things that are inherently sinful? What about unwise or immature? What about lacking a Biblical worldview? That is what these gimmicks suffer from. Does something have to be classified as outright sin before we can criticize it or even discuss it?

 

Church is where we worship God. Granted, the temple of the Holy Spirit is know within us (as believers), were not the tabernacle, temple, etc.. places set up to worship God also (in addition to pointing to Christ)? If so, can you imagine this kind of non-sense being done in these places?

Also, for some thought and opinions...
Remember in Exodus 32, as Moses comes down the Mnt. and Aaron is down playing with the Israelites. The Israelites where left without Moses and Aaron decided to make a golden calf from their jewelry. The make the idol and worship it, then Aaron said in v.5 "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." (NIV)

Why was Aaron wanting to mix idolitry with a festival to Yahweh? What was God's feelings on this matter? I think His anger BURNED against the Israelites!

Is this what we are doing as we mix idols/paganism/etc.. (Santa, Easter Bunny, NASCAR, etc) with the things of God?

 

Right, it's like "we'll have a Jehova party tomorrow!". Give Jesus a big hand! (crowd applauds)

 

And again I would simply ask for consistency on this issue. The list of patterns and practices that have been added since NT times is endless. Every church practices them.

Obviously not. Discussion is always healthy. But since, as you admit, the practice falls into the "wisdom" category, we remember it is a matter of preference.


I believe I forgot to answer your prescriptive/descriptive point about Paul at Mars Hill. I would simply say we see Paul demonstrating/practicing the "all things" principle. It is descriptive but definitely demonstrates Paul's use of the principle.

 

No more than I can imagine a piano, organ, pews, nursery, etc.

And yes church is a place to worship God.

 

I do not classify wisdom issues as merely matters of preference. I see them as worldview issues, which are of great importance. Matters of preference in my thinking are in the realm of, "Do you like chocolate or vanilla?"

The "all things" principle is contextualization, which I'm fine with. But I draw the line at gimmickry.

By the way, Paul's primary attitude in I Cor. 9 is that he is a servant (v. 19). Sometimes Christians use these verses as an excuse to look cool before the world and to gain the applause of men, to which the attitude of servanthood is barely noticeable or completely nonexistent.

 

Based on your definition and preferences.

And that is

Each ministry must decide whether the methods they employ are wise or unwise for their cultural context in order to communicate the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. What may be unwise for your context may not be unwise in another and vice versa. And that is contextualization.

Even preaching itself is a methodological decision.

 

It is not my definition of gimmick - it is 1 of 3 alternative defitions found in the American Heritage dictionary.

Preaching is found all through Scripture as a means/method. Gimmickry is not.

 

Actually I meant your definition of what qualifies as a gimmick and what does not.

 

All about Grace,

Yes you are right about the piano, organ, etc.. However, those items assist in our worship of the Savior. How does a race car? People worship race cars thoughout my area of the country. They often miss our services to bow down to them.

 

The purpose of the gathering was primarily evangelism - not "worship" per se.

People bow down to the god of music in my city but that does not keep us from using it. People worship their children - doesn't keep us from having a kids ministry. People worship money - doesn't keep us from taking an offering.

If the NASCAR event does not help you proclaim a contextual gospel in your culture, don't use it. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong somewhere else.

 

Maybe a church could set up a beer tent to draw lost people (many say it is only a sin to get drunk...not to drink). Then they can give a quick devotion and call for an altar call! But don't forget, make sure you have a keg shaped baptistry (i.e. a fire truck in Arkansas...some of you know what I am talking about) and dunk-em and count-em. OK, let me get serious...

I think things have gotten way out of hand in this "relevant" stuff to try and reach the "lost and dying world." Where does Faith come from? God. It comes to whom? The elect. Through what? Hearing the Word of God. Is this right? So why don't Christians go to the NASCAR event and tell people about Jesus? We are to GO and make disciples... And even better, get on the load speaker and during the prayer...give the gospel!

 

A Somewhat Relevant Cartoon

Click the link.

 

Don't put it past some churches to use beer. I visited an episcible (sp?) church one time that had beer in the fellowship hall after service. I'm not making it up. And as for (hickup) catholics, well...

When I went to basic training in 1979 for the Air Force, they made us go to church. There services were (1) Catholic, and (2) Protestant; and that was it. So I went to the protestant church. Now mind you, at the time I was a young, somewhat liberal, Methodist. So I walked into the chapel and they called it a "gospel" service. A rock/blues/motown style band began playing and everyone started dancing. All of them. The same guys that were cursing God because the AF was making them go to church were now talking about how "cool" this church was. As they were jerking and jumping about, they were crying out things like "this is the way church oughta be!" Even as a liberal I was disgusted with what I saw - a bunch of reprobates that couldn't care less about the things of God, revelling around in something called a chapel in something called a worship service.

What the emergent church doesn't want to accept is that true gospel preaching ATTRACTS the elect in God's time; and REPELLS the reprobate, which it indeed should.

It is not God's will that the reprobate should be comforted by preaching. It should be an agony to his soul, even as he refuses to repent in his last breath of life. Modern preaching does not and will not do this. They think if people are entertained they will be saved.

And sadly, many fundamental churches are no different. They will do anything to avoid little johnny being bored.

Here is the bible way:

1 Cor 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

J.D.

I love what you said: "What the emergent church doesn't want to accept is that true gospel preaching ATTRACTS the elect in God's time; and REPELLS the reprobate, which it indeed should."

You are exactly right.

 

Go back and re-read the thread. I have dealt briefly with the fire truck baptistry already. To suggest it is a "dunk-em & count-em" mentality is deceptive at best based on the evidence. I happen to know the involved parties personally so be careful what falsehoods you promote in that discussion.

As far as the "relevant" issue, it is amusing to see someone write the church is out of hand with the "relevant" stuff. If anything, the average church is completely out of touch with their missional context. It has nothing to do with relevance and everything to do with being missional.

And who says these people don't go to the NASCAR events to share the gospel. Surely you recognize that this is not an either/or issue. And until you are able to pinpoint the elect, we will simply seek to share as broadly and frequently as possible without compromise.