All Things To All Men = Anything Goes Evangelism?

Of course we are to use means. Inviting people to church is a means, but not a gimmick. Whether you do that through word of mouth or advertising on the radio or paper - that's all fine. But as soon as you induce people with something other than the Gospel, then it most likely rises to gimmickry. The NASCAR spectacle is a gimmick, no question about it. I don't think we should use gimmicks to attract people to church. Means yes, gimmicks no.

 

Come on. Now you are going to say BG is not "genuinely concerned for the sinner"?

What I am saying is that I have no means of determining whether BG encourages people to simply return to their RCC churches (or whatever type of church). Perhaps BG's role is simply to preach the simple message of Jesus Christ in the context where God has opened the door and it is the responsibility of local churches to disciple. I do know that from my experience of working with the BG events, that follow-up consisted of personal counseling at the event itself and follow-up info sent to an evangelical church in that community. But that was merely one event. I can't speak for every BG event in the history of his ministry.

And if you think BG's approach is slick salesmanship you must not have heard him speak. His message is actually very simple and straightforward.

I am not sure how this turned into a BG discussion. I will try and stay focused on the discussion at hand -- methodology in local churches.

I can live with that -- they are my opinion based on experience. I would love to be shown otherwise.

And your statement about Warren simply reveals your lack of familiarity with him. He is very clear that he does not promote the methods of Saddleback. He is the first to say that the purposes of the church transcend methodological issues.

I can also agree with this. I have over 50 of his books and they are all very biblically based. I can also everything I have read from Warren is very biblically-based as well.

Bible-based is not the issue here. What we are talking about is one step removed from exegesis.

Actually it is very well known and recognized that the two Johns (Mac & Piper) have grown their churches primarily through church transfers -- people looking to go "deeper". I am sure neither of them would argue this point.

Agreed. That does not mean he is any more right when it comes to methodological issues.

Your words - not mine.

Yet I still stand by my remark about Finney and others. I have discovered a tendency among the extremists to not only critique but criticize, judge, and devalue the ministries of those who have a difference of opinion on matters such as Calvinism. Go back to J.D.'s initial comment where he suggested Warren-types refuse to receive instruction from those who are more discerning and learned.

 

Of course we are to use means. Inviting people to church is a means, but not a gimmick. Whether you do that through word of mouth or advertising on the radio or paper - that's all fine. But as soon as you induce people with something other than the Gospel, then it most likely rises to gimmickry. The NASCAR spectacle is a gimmick, no question about it. I don't think we should use gimmicks to attract people to church. Means yes, gimmicks no. </font>[/QUOTE]It amazes me in the hundreds of discussions I have been involved in regarding this matter that people fail to see their own inconsistencies in this discussion.

You do not get to determine what is a gimmick and what is not. You can make that call for the people God has provided for you to lead, but you cannot make it for others. What is a "means" to you is a "gimmick" to others. Other would argue that newspaper or radio ads are gimmicky.

The bottom line still remains: was the gospel of Jesus Christ compromised? If not, you have no scriptural authority to denounce it as wrong or gimmicky. Personal opinion rights? Sure Biblical authority rights? Far from it

 

Of course we are to use means. Inviting people to church is a means, but not a gimmick. Whether you do that through word of mouth or advertising on the radio or paper - that's all fine. But as soon as you induce people with something other than the Gospel, then it most likely rises to gimmickry. The NASCAR spectacle is a gimmick, no question about it. I don't think we should use gimmicks to attract people to church. Means yes, gimmicks no. </font>[/QUOTE]It amazes me in the hundreds of discussions I have been involved in regarding this matter that people fail to see their own inconsistencies in this discussion.

You do not get to determine what is a gimmick and what is not. You can make that call for the people God has provided for you to lead, but you cannot make it for others. What is a "means" to you is a "gimmick" to others. Other would argue that newspaper or radio ads are gimmicky.

The bottom line still remains: was the gospel of Jesus Christ compromised? If not, you have no scriptural authority to denounce it as wrong or gimmicky. Personal opinion rights? Sure Biblical authority rights? Far from it </font>[/QUOTE]From the definition I provided above (and that is what I am basing it on), the NASCAR thing was certainly a gimmick. I do not see Jesus or the disciples employing such tactics. Do I see them inviting people? Yes. Performing acts of mercy and compassion? Yes. Do I see them inviting people to come see a piece of the Pyramids in exchange for a Gospel presentation? No. And that is precisely what the NASCAR thing did. Did it compromise the Gospel? I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of compromise. Watered-down, diluted or confused might be better words. Can someone be saved at an event like that? Yes. Does that make the method right? No.

 

And I showed that your definition was incomplete.

We don't know what the early church did. Besides the events of the early church are primarily descriptive and not prescriptive. What we do know is that Paul said to contextualize the gospel and then at least on one occasion employed a pop culture means to do so. NASCAR is a pop culture means.

Neither does it make it wrong.

It is a matter of preference.

 

I heard an old pastor in Indiana say one time, "I am a firm believer in getting people in the door by hook or by crook and then we lay the gospel on them."

I am not against holding events to share the Gospel with people.

But doesn't the "by hook or by crook" mindset do more to push people away from Christ than draw people to Him?

 

Come on. Now you are going to say BG is not "genuinely concerned for the sinner"? </font>[/QUOTE] All we can judge is what people do. What would be your explanation? Even if he just hasn't considered the consequences... that is still a lack of concern for not thinking it through... but I doubt this is the case. I don't know why it isn't a concern for him. Perhaps he has truly bought into the non-sense that as long as one makes a profession none of their other beliefs matter.

I simply don't know. However it does appear that he sends converts back into biblically unsound churches. That is by definition a lack of proper concern. Perhaps I should have used "proper" instead of "genuine" before.

What I am saying is that I have no means of determining whether BG encourages people to simply return to their RCC churches (or whatever type of church). Perhaps BG's role is simply to preach the simple message of Jesus Christ in the context where God has opened the door and it is the responsibility of local churches to disciple.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you can cite a biblical mandate for that sort of thing. Paul certainly concerned himself with what happened in the congregations he established.

If that is the case, perhaps my info is bad. I would be interested in knowing how he did that in the old USSR.

Of course I have. One of the things that bothers me is that there is very little that is objectionable in his messages.

I have never heard of anyone who was offended by BG's message... but every biblical preacher of the gospel offended those who didn't want to hear it.

Very well and good. But if his m.o. is to send new believers back into corrupt churches, he isn't supporting/preaching the whole gospel.

I can live with that -- they are my opinion based on experience. I would love to be shown otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE] Somehow I don't think you would love nor admit that you had been shown wrong on this particular point.

So "The Purpose Driven Church" was written for what purpose?

Actually it is very well known and recognized that the two Johns (Mac & Piper) have grown their churches primarily through church transfers -- people looking to go "deeper". I am sure neither of them would argue this point.</font>[/QUOTE] That didn't quite answer the question but I don't want to prod you for "proof" since I know it would be terribly difficult to do... and not worth your time considering its limited value to the discussion.

Agreed. That does not mean he is any more right when it comes to methodological issues. </font>[/QUOTE] It does when he uses the Bible as the example of the methods we should use- Asserting that which is consistent with the Bible's methods are to be preferred against those based on marketing strategies.

Your words - not mine.</font>[/QUOTE] It was a question based on your persistent poisoning of the well with the use of "extremist" to reference those who would criticize the methods of these men.

So now you judge instead? "Extremists" who view the methods of such men through the lens of scripture have nothing to apologize to you about.

Useless. I don't have enough info to judge whether Warren does or not.

 

I can't say what God has called Billy Graham to do. Evidently BG believes God has called him to preach the gospel to unbelievers. I can't say there is a scriptural prohibition against this type of calling. I am certain he is not motivated to send people back to corrupt churches as you suggest.

I know I have been given opportunities to preach the gospel in particular venues where I have no idea what happened post-event. I believe if a person truly understands and embraces the gospel, it will transform his/her life. God is bigger than the failures of humans to make sure every person who accepts the gospel in every context finds an evangelical church of your preference. Not an excuse not to disciple or follow-up but there are definitely different situations where follow-up largely depends on true spiritual transformation in the heart of the convert. Enough on BG.

It is hard to argue with experience. Let me ask you. Do you think those who hold an extreme view of Calvinism have a tendency to focus on the insiders more than the outsiders?

Come on. These pitches are for softball.
Warren makes it clear that PDC is not written to get people to adopt Saddleback's methods. It is written to talk about what makes a church healthy. Here's a couple of quotes from the opening pages:

Straight from the horse's mouth.

The proof is there and not that hard to find. Bethlehem (Piper) has never baptized even 40 people in a single year. Unbelievable for a church of thousands. Where else would the thousands come from?

Most of what MacArthur argues against is straw men. He is a master at attacking extremes. This is evident throughout most of his works on the "contemporary" church.

I have already shown the inconsistency of a regulative principle of Scripture, thus the "preferred Bible methods" argument is moot. If you want to provide the "preferred Bible methods" and offer examples of churches that only employ those methods, then this could be a reasonable discussion in that direction. Otherwise it remains a moot point.

Judging? What are you talking about? It has been my experience that those I would classify as "extremist" have a tendency to criticize those who differ from them. What is judgmental about that? I am simply stating the fact of my experience. Are you suggesting there is not a tendency among certain branches of Calvinism to criticize men like Rick Warren? Have you visited Founders.org recently? Give me a break.

And please do not patronize such criticism with the old "lens of Scripture" argument. It is simply another way of saying "we understand the Bible - you don't".

If you want to deal with the text I'm in favor. Just get it started.

 

I don't know that you and I could agree on a definition of what a "extremist" is. I would more limit it to hypers... to which I would answer: Yes. The concentrate on insiders exclusively.

However, you seem to be implying that folks like Spurgeon or Edwards could be considered "extreme" in their beliefs... and they were evangelistic.

 

Again, I read very little after Piper. I couldn't and wouldn't want to defend him.

 

Still didn't see an answer to the question. If he didn't think his methods for "healthy thus growing churches" should be emulated, why would he write and market a book that detailed them?

This is actually a benign question that doesn't even assume he is wrong.

 

That is precisely what you just did to Piper and MacArthur and whoever it is that you are referring to as "extremists".

 

Ah, so now in one stroke you criticize and attempt to limit what I can do.

In fact it is not another way of saying "we understand the Bible- you don't" when one side uses the Bible and practices sound exegesis while the other does not.

 

No. Spurgeon and Edwards ministered in different times and cultures. Their methodologies are irrelevant to the discussion. I am talking present day (although Spurgeon did fill up the Tab with methods considered "questionable" by others - as did Edwards with his illustrative depictions, a method in itself).

The same reason I answer the question all the time ... what does your church do? And the same reason I tell people what we do but they must contextualize the gospel in their own culture. Warren is clear about this. Anyone who has heard him at all knows this.

I am not criticizing them or calling them extremist (although Mac is extreme in his methodological criticisms at times). I am simply saying that evidence shows their churches have grown through church transfers. That is fine for them but it does not make those who grow churches (speaking humanly here) through other means any less right than they are.

I read the two Johns frequently. No criticism. Simply observation. I simply recognize God can use different methods as long as they do not violate the gospel itself. And I do not believe me or John Mac are the final determiners of what qualifies and what does not.

Here we go. I knew it was only a matter of time.
One practices exegesis - one does not. Give me a break. And who said anything about sides? As I have said before, I am a Reformed-minded, missional-emergent-seeker-type. That does not put me on either side to the exclusion of the other. I also have a PhD in NT from Southern Seminary so I am willing to exegete any passage you desire. As I said last post, name the text.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. Put up or ...

 

Yo create that situation when you label one side "extreme".

Choose your own where you have a difference with JM concerning the contemporary church and prove him wrong. Show the flaws of his exegesis. It is after all you who is labeling him "extreme".

I know so little about Warren beyond what I've heard that I wouldn't quite label him anything. As I said, my question was benign and not intended to be leading.

 

And I showed that your definition was incomplete.

We don't know what the early church did. Besides the events of the early church are primarily descriptive and not prescriptive. What we do know is that Paul said to contextualize the gospel and then at least on one occasion employed a pop culture means to do so. NASCAR is a pop culture means.

Neither does it make it wrong.

It is a matter of preference. </font>[/QUOTE]The definition I gave was 1 of 3 alternative definitions given in my American Heritage dictionary. It is not incomplete, it is an alternative. Some gimmicks are merely attention-getting or inducive. Some even rise to the level of trickery. I think both of us agree that use of trickery is wrong, so that definition of gimmick is irrelevant to our discussion. The alternative definition that is relevant is the one I posted above - "attention-getting stratagem or inducement."

There is a difference between contextualization ("CX") and gimmicks. CX attempts to communicate the Gospel in terms that the hearer can understand - the use of illustrations or parables are examples. What Paul did in Acts 17 is a good example of CX, as you pointed out. A gimmick, like the NASCAR stunt, is not CX in that it is not used to communicate the Gospel. It is used as an inducement to get people to hear the Gospel. If a preacher wants to use an illustration that includes NASCAR in some way, that can be CX. But if a preacher says, "Come see this famous racing car," in exchange for a Gospel presentation, that is gimmickry.

BTW, if you claim that Acts is merely descriptive and not prescriptive, then your support of CX per Acts 17 is not valid either. You can't have it both ways in that regard. I agree that the historical accounts are not the same as didactic teaching, but they are useful for us in our methods. And I do not see the use of gimmicks by Jesus or the apostles.

 

BTW I didn't know that references to my nose and the name "Warren" would be so controversial. Being relatively new to this forum, I made the mistake of thinking that PDC, PDL, and Warrenism were already hashed-out issues and Warren had been duely labeled a heretick as on some other boards. Sorry for touching nerves.

 

Obvioulsy there are extremes in every camp. I am on the same "side" as MacArthur and others (theologically).

Cop out. Don't raise the issue of textual exegesis and then refuse to even support your arguments without a text. We can begin with any text in the NT that defines methodological do's and dont's.

 

Cop out. Don't raise the issue of textual exegesis and then refuse to even support your arguments without a text. We can begin with any text in the NT that defines methodological do's and dont's. </font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't. I simply said that JM used sound biblical exegesis to support his conclusions. You implied he didn't. That leaves the burden of proof on you. Otherwise, you are asking me to "prove" the soundness of every thing he's ever written until I happen to run across some place where you disagree.

 

We can argue semantics and word definitions all day. The bottom line is this: did this church deceive people into coming to hear the gospel? Did they compromise the gospel message? Did they use some sort of "gimmick" that led people to believe they were coming for one reason and then realized it was something entirely different? Is it unethical or wrong to attract a crowd for the purpose of evangelism through some means other than a simple gospel message?

Based on these questions, there seems to be no evidence the church was advertising itself as anything other than what it is and does: a church where you will hear a message about Jesus Christ.

Here's the bottom line for me: because of my theology, I believe people are unable to respond to the message of Jesus Christ without a drawing of the Spirit. I will not get bogged down with the arguments of when regeneration takes place, etc. What I do know is that God draws and humans respond. For that reason, I am never under the false impression that unbelievers will come to church for any "pure" motive. Why would they? Therefore, I am willing to do things to attract them as long as those things do not take away from the gospel itself. About 40% of our attendance on an average Sunday are unbelievers. We have not used a NASCAR event to get them there, but I would also be foolish to assume they are there for some "pure" motive -- like to hear a gospel message. Again it is simple for me: I don't care why they are there. What I do care about is what they experience when they are there.

If Jesus can teach in fields and from boats (which was his context), then why can't his message be delivered in the context of today's culture (NASCAR cars, etc.)? If we truly believe in God's sovereignty in salvation with the understanding that God works through human means, then why should we criticize a means that attracts people for the purpose of hearing the gospel (as long as the people are not deceived)?