All Things To All Men = Anything Goes Evangelism?

Of course. God has used the imperfect efforts of men throughout history to accomplish his will.

The question is whether these method are like Edwards' that will have a deep permanent impact or like Finney. One quote I read about Finney detailed how whole towns would come out to his revivals, get emotional, make statements of faith, then return to their old ways within a few weeks... all of them.

 

I'm glad you made this post. It addresses a couple of important points.

I am not sure the two can be completely bifurcated. After all, Paul commends the idea that our worship will lead to evangelism. We are both agreed that God's holiness (or any other attribute) should not be violated.

This statement almost makes me laugh. I am not sure you even recognize the arrogance of what you wrote. 1. The line of appropriate & inappropriate is subjective ("I don't know"). 2. You are the determiner of what is right and evil (or perhaps I should say your nose is the determiner). 3. "Warrenites" should be corrected by those who have better discernment (those who are the determiners of what is right and wrong).

Can you even recognize the arrogance and insult of a statement like this?

I have never found a person who practices the regulative principle with consistency. If you have pews, a pulpit, hymnals, a piano, an organ, A/C, a sound system, carpet, a parking lot, a building, a church sign, a nursery, a children's program, ad infinitim, then you are inconsistent in your practice of the regulative principle. None of these things are found in Scripture and they are all means and methods.

The issue is contextualization. More about that in a moment.

Again this is almost amusing to read. Many of my emergent and seeker-sensitive friends would find it quite ironic that they have been identified as a subculture that is rebellious to the greater culture. I will only speak to the emergent movement at this point. The heart of the emergent movement rests on the idea of being missional within a culture.

Simply put, gospel + church + culture = missional.
Gospel + church - culture = fundamentalism
Gospel + culture - church = parachurch
Culture + church - gospel = liberalism

I am glad you use the missionary illustration becuase it is one of the best ones for the theology and philosophy behind the emergent church. Missional churches believe every believer is called to be a missionary within their given culture. We are not to retreat from culture and create a Christian subculture. We are to engage culture. We are to be students of our culture. We are to know their language, arts, stories, etc. This is called "contextualizing" the gospel (all things to all men). We recognize the call to contend for the faith within culture and we seek to strike a balance between contextualization and contending.

Missional thinking should transcend theological systems such as Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., but very few theological subcultures such as Calvinists seem to be able to strike the balance between contextualization and contending. They are so protective of their theological system that they are overprotective of their methodological implimentations. There is a group of emergents who are very Reformed and yet maintain a philosophy of ministry that is very progressive.

In recent weeks, discussions have surfaced in evangelical circles about issues like fire truck baptistries and other things that appear to be "over the top" attractional methods. I simply believe these means have to be considered in light of a contextualization. A fire truck baptistry may be appropriate within a certain context. What has been made clear in that discussion is that each child who is baptized is counseled more than once regarding their commitment to Christ. That being the case, the fire truck baptistry is merely a means of celebration that connects to a child. Contextualization.

I will stop for now because this post is getting too long. I would simply suggest that "all things to all men" has to do with contextualization which is one important element of being a missional church.

 

Again you prove my point -- you compare the efforts of those who differ to Finney (false conversions).

On a side note, do a study some time on the culture in which Edwards did ministry. Compare city sizes, spiritual awareness of the places Edwards preached, the types of people who lived in that day, etc. It is a great study that shows how different we must approach ministry from Edwards.

 

Again you prove my point -- you compare the efforts of those who differ to Finney (false conversions). </font>[/QUOTE] No I didn't. You are just so zealous to prove your "point" that you read what you wanted to see into what I wrote.

I said the "question" is.... Finney played on people's sentiments leading to a number of false conversions.

Edwards was apparently about as unemotional as you can get. His ministry was so effectively used of God in making true converts that it literally changed history.

These are relative extremes. On the one hand, you have someone who might have been strong on "method" but weak on actual results. On the other, you had one with virtually no worldly appeal who achieved great actual results.

 

1. I am not sure what you classify as "gimmicks" ... I guess miracles might be considered gimmicks by some.

2. Again I am seeking consistency here. Does your church have A/C? seats for people? a parking lot? a children's ministry? These are all means to attract and keep people coming.

3. There is no doubt the early church attracted thousands of people. Many of them came simply because miracles were being performed. What was important is that once they arrived, they heard the gospel.

The moment a pastor or church employs sermon illustrations, hymn books, paintings, pews, pulpits, a piano, an organ, etc. they are using contextual means to present the gospel. Those means may be 100-500 years outdated, but they are means nonetheless.

The only way a person can be consistent with the regulative-type arguments is to simply stand and read the Bible with no added comments, illustrations, stories, songs, etc. Everything else is contextualization at some level.

 

If I misread, here is a simple question: where would you put a Rick Warren on the scale between Finney & Edwards?

You might also take into account someone like Whitfield who was very different from Edwards theologically and methodologically (although methods were limited as the culture in that day was) but was used by God to reach perhaps more people than Edwards (or a Billy Sunday or D.L. Moody). All of these examples simply show that God uses people all over the scale theologically and methodologically.

I might also add that you might be careful comparing Edwards and Finney in that I believe it has been shown that Billy Graham's conversion can be traced back to the ministry of Charles Finney - there's a lasting generational impact for you!

 

If I misread, here is a simple question: where would you put a Rick Warren on the scale between Finney & Edwards?</font>[/QUOTE] Difficult to say as far as effects. I know some people have benefited from his approaches to personal behavior. But I don't know anyone personally converted by him or if his ministry has a great number of false conversions.

For instance, I know some disciples of Hyles and have read first hand accounts of his own ministry. Their brand of pushy salesmanship appears to produce a large number of false conversions. He used "gimmicks" of his own to get to people's emotions... perhaps a different target audience than say Graham or some other purveyor of easy believism.

As for where I would place Warren- Based on my limited knowledge, somewhere in between but leaning more toward Finney.

Didn't say He couldn't. I do think there are limits though of how much we should attempt to appeal to the flesh or "trick" someone into hearing/accepting the gospel.

Not from my perspective. Graham became very compromised doctrinally. In spite of the claims of maybe millions saved, the question that arises in my mind is "Where are they?" I have never personally met anyone converted under Graham's preaching and I certainly don't see evidence of whole churches filled with them serving and growing in the Lord.

In fact, I have seen similar accusations against Graham as against Finney. He goes through a town. People make professions. Go to church for awhile... then disappear.

 

Fair enough. I live in the West so I am very familiar with Warren's minstry and impact. I have met many who have come to Christ through the ministry of Saddleback.

What I have yet to meet is someone who has come to Christ through the ministry of an extreme Calvinist. Even a PCA guy like Kennedy is often criticized in his evangelistic "method" of asking people to commit their life to Christ. Have you seen the discussion elsewhere about the call for people to make a "decision" for Jesus Christ? Extremism always lends itself to the ridiculous.

Of course most extreme Calvinists claim to be uninterested in numbers until they are pushed with someone like Graham or Warren and then suddenly numbers become important (usually in the context of number of false conversions).

As does every evangelical I know.

Not surprised by your opinion of Graham, and yet God has used him to make a lasting impact (in spite of your opinion of his doctrinal compromise). Would you say he has comprised the gospel itself???

And actually I have met several individuals who came to Christ through BG's ministry.

Since number of genuine conversions seem so important to you, do you think each of us should post how many people we have personally led to Christ recently?

Or better yet, have you ever met anyone personally led to Christ by John Piper or John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul?

 

As proof that God can use anyone to bring someone to Christ, my father was saved by watching...get this...Ernest Angeley!

 

Who would you consider extreme and do you think I would lock arms with them?

Again depends on who you consider extreme. Genuine concern for the purity of the gospel isn't a vice.

Not surprised by your opinion of Graham, and yet God has used him to make a lasting impact (in spite of your opinion of his doctrinal compromise). Would you say he has comprised the gospel itself???</font>[/QUOTE] To one degree or another, yes. When he is willing to send a convert back into the Catholic church knowing that it teaches a false gospel... then he has compromised the gospel.

Not unless we are promoting ourselves as the way it ought to be done as these high profile guys or else their close followers have done.

No. And though I have little doubt that people are being saved under their ministries... I haven't seen them brag about the numbers of people they are attracting either. Most of Graham's radio broadcasts end with reports of how many people made professions at one crusade or another. Certainly Warren is numbers oriented.

 

1. I am not sure what you classify as "gimmicks" ... I guess miracles might be considered gimmicks by some.

2. Again I am seeking consistency here. Does your church have A/C? seats for people? a parking lot? a children's ministry? These are all means to attract and keep people coming.

3. There is no doubt the early church attracted thousands of people. Many of them came simply because miracles were being performed. What was important is that once they arrived, they heard the gospel. </font>[/QUOTE]Having a building is not a gimmick. It's a necessity if you are going to assemble more than 20 people or so. And having reasonable creature comforts like AC is not gimmicky. Of course, that can depend on the context. If we were in a Third World country where AC was only affordable for the very rich, and one church happened to have AC and tried to use that as an enticement over the other non-AC churches, then it could rise to gimmicktry.

This is a wisdom issue, not necessarily cut and dried. But I think most reasonable people would agree that having AC is not a gimmick, while renting a famous NASCAR car to attract a crowd is a gimmick.

Why did Jesus and the early church attract crowds? You've yet to show the reason they attracted crowds was through the use of gimmicks.

 

Were Whitefield and Edwards very far apart theologically?

Anyway, Andy got a good point again. Wisdom is the issue.

And I think the regulative principle has been misrepresented. It isn't that every one will agree without exception if the RP is used. It's that there will be an anchoring effect on the mechanics of church.

And the life and works of Finney should be studied by every Christian. He, more or less, is the father of modern revivalism. We've been dealing with the burnt-over results ever since.

 

And I know a guy who was saved at a Carman concert. The irony is that he is now a 5-pointer that has to admit to others that he was saved through a means that he now criticizes.

 

I would not use names for those I consider extreme. And I have no idea where you stand.

I can say if your theology hinders your evangelistic efforts (if you are more inward-focused than outward-focused) or causes you to consistently criticize those who are different than you - it is a sign of extremism.

And neither is genuine concern for the lost.

1. This a constant accusation that has little warrant.

2. Do you think your concern here shows a lack of confidence in the power of the gospel?

Did I mention a judge of motives as one of the signs?

Also any time a MacArthur or Piper comes out against "seeker-sensitive" or any other movement with which they disagree, they are promoting their methodological beliefs on how it ought to be done.

There's a reason for that ... growth through transfers does not make for good "bragging" material but that is for another discussion.

 

Not gimmicks but they are methods - which is really what this discussion boils down to.

I agree this is a wisdom issues which is not necessarily cut and dry, which is why we need to be careful judging motives and criticizing those who draw the line at a different place as somehow "compromising the gospel."

I know a lot of "reasonable" people who would argue attracting a crowd to hear the gospel through a cultural means is very wise.

I have no intention of showing they attracted crowds through the use of gimmicks. I don't believe they used gimmicks (although some might call miracles gimmicky). The point is that they attracted crowds through means that caused people to want to hear what they had to say.

Remember only J.D.'s nose gets to determine what methods are good and what methods are evil. I am just thankful A/C is okay because the desert gets quite warm in July & August.

 

My mistake. I said Whitefield and meant Wesley.

I agree completely. Wisdom is the issue. But in this instance, wisdom does not need to be separated from contextualization -- Paul's "all things to all men" point as demonstrated on Mars Hill.

I did notice you failed to address the issues raised in my previous post regarding this matter.

How?

That's quite a statement ("every" Christian) but I agree his life and works are an interesting study (as are all the Great Awakening boys).

I also admit Finney serves as a whipping post for a lot of extremist who fail to acknowledge God's sovereign workings through a misguided dude like Finney (with all of his theological and methodological weaknesses). I would simply evoke the Phil 1 principle with Finney.

Someone better record that last paragraph - a Reformed-minded, emergent-missional-seeker type who acknowledges God's sovereignty through a guy like Finney.

 

Definition of "gimmick": an attention-getting stratagem or inducement.

Jesus or the disciples performing miracles were not intended as attention-getting stratagem or inducement. That may have been a consequence of the miracles, but that was not their intent. Do you agree that was not their intent?

Now, consider the NASCAR thing. What was their intent? Was it not merely an attention-getting stratagem or inducement? Of course it was. Now you may say that their ultimate end-game was honorable, but that does not erase the fact that it was a gimmick. Jesus and the disciples did not use gimmicks. They did not go around advertising Jesus' next miracle so as to attract a crowd. The NASCAR thing and other similar stunts are premeditated, intentional gimmicks to attract a crowd.

 

Are you saying it is untrue? I only mentioned Catholicism. Someone genuinely concerned for the sinner would attempt to send them into a biblically sound church.

No. I shows a lack of confidence in churches that are not doctrinally sound and a very real concern of the harm that can be done to a new believer who attends one.

I haven't really studied your stand either but if you are implying that BG believes God will handle it after he gets 'em saved... that would be very interesting. Somehow it takes slick, emotional appeals/salesmanship to get one saved but afterwards you can just cut'em loose being sure that God will ensure their discipleship, right?

I believe God will ensure both but that we as Christians haves responsibilities concerning both evangelism and discipleship. I would consider it a total abdication of the discipleship responsibility to send a new believer back to or into a doctrinally corrupt church.

Did I mention a judge of motives as one of the signs?</font>[/QUOTE] Your "signs" are matters of YOUR opinion. As for their motives, Warren's promotion of his methods is without question. He's written and marketed several books to that end.

What I have read from MacArthur has been very Bible-based... not based on his personal methods biases. I don't read after Piper very much.

There's a reason for that ... growth through transfers does not make for good "bragging" material but that is for another discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the making of unsupported generalizations a sign of?

FTR, even though I don't know anyone personally won to Christ by JM, I do know several who have become stronger Christians and better witnesses due to his ministry including myself.

 

Why are you trying to poison the well with comments like this?

One can't be critical of Finney, Graham, Warren, et al without being an extremist? I don't think so. In spite of the good God might have distilled out of Finney's errors... his errors are still very much a legitimate point of discussion.

 

Actually you short-changed the definition in that its primary definition has to do with trickery or deceit. It also has to do with the promotion of a particular object. But then again, this is not really about word definitions. It is about whether a church can employ a certain method like a NASCAR driver/car to attract a crowd in order to present the gospel to that crowd. You seem to think they cannot. I personally do not judge the motives of this church or situation. I do know there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful with NASCAR itself (I could insert a redneck type joke here but will abstain), and it does seem that this church wanted to have an evangelistic event for people to hear the gospel. In their context, that meant NASCAR. Good for them.

I do know that the ministry of Jesus, the apostles, and the Early church attracted large crowds of people who heard the gospel. We are unsure what type of "marketing" made that possible. But we also know that large crowds do not gather without some level of marketing (even if it is word of mouth about a guy who can heal the sick).

While the end does not always justify the means, neither is the means illegitimate just because it does not meet your (or my) standard of preference. If the gospel is not compromised (and there is no indication it was), then it is a matter of preference.

Here's a question for you: do you believe there is any room in the church for attracting a crowd through some means in order for that crowd to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ? In other words is there room for attractional events for the sole purpose of evangelism?