All Things To All Men = Anything Goes Evangelism?

This simply shows how little you know about the emergent church.

 

All about Grace... you said "without compromise" at the end of the second to last post. I'm sorry, but bringing NASCAR into the church, is compromise (to me).

 

Sticking with the gospel as Paul instructed Timothy and also preaching the gospel to every creature doesnt include exposing ourself to evil, walking the edge of the precipice by immersing ourself in The DiVinci Code and using shallow 'feel-good' techniques of many contemporary preachers who appeal to the ego, preaching money management, relationships, career issues, and any other thing except directing sinners to repent and seek the face of God and ask for His mercy! The gospel is pure and should be delivered to sinners as such!

 

So it appears that "active" rebellion is not going to be tolerated in the emergent church! And how much passive rebellion is O.K. in the name of winning souls?

 

How is it a compromise of the gospel itself?

 

Isnt this discussion confusing two different things?

A regular church service can and should include certain aspects of evangelism, but it is not in and of itself an evangelistic outreach. Evangelism is going out into the community and telling people the gospel. A church can also have evangelistic meetings, in which they invite the lost in en masse in order to hear the gospel.

Id see more of a problem with the Nascar "stunt" if the church had passed out church memberships along with the Nascar picture.

 

Joseph, thanks for posting the thread and the link to the Founder's blog. Here are a few of my thoughts on I Cor. 9:19-23.

What does "all things to all" mean? Some think it means we can use great flexibility of methods to preach the gospel. Others go further, suggesting we must do "whatever it takes" to reach the lost (perhaps even reaching the unstated conclusion that the end justifies the means). Was the apostle Paul advocating using any available gimic or whatever it takes to further the cause? Does I Cor. 9 suggest that? Does the historical account of his ministry demonstrate that?

I Cor. 9: 19-23 means something quite different than what many of us have been taught -- we must be willing to yield our rights for the sake of the gospel -- a meaning that will harmonize with both the context and what the Scriptures reveal about how Paul conducted his life and ministry.

The broad context is an entire letter written by the Apostle to clarify doctrine and practice and to correct error in the Corinthian church. The letter may be readily divided into two main parts: Chapters 1-6, in which Paul deals with issues that had been reported to him (cf. 1:11 & 5:1) and Chapters 7-16, in which Paul deals with questions sent to him by the church (see 7:1). These are usually introduced by the words "now concerning" or "now touching" (peri de).

The immediate context is Paul's addressing the question of whether to eat meat offered to idols (Chapters 8-10). Paul stated that every Christian had the right (liberty, freedom, power) to buy and each such meat. It is only meat and an idol is nothing. But the freedom should be given up if this becomes a stumblingblock to a weak brother (8:9-13). Paul was not asking them to do something he wouldn't do himself (8:13). These are not mere words for effect. In Chapter nine he illustrates the principle and fortifies his case by the example of his own practice.

Paul's example was that he had given up some of his rights and privileges in preference to the furtherance of the gospel (cf. 9:23, 10:33). Paul shows that it was his right as an apostle to receive some maintenance or support by the Corinthian church. Yet he emphatically states that he (and Barnabas) had not used this power (exousia, right, freedom) "lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ".

Placed in context, we see verses 19-23 as Paul's next example of the principle. Paul was free -- both a free born Roman citizen and a free child of God -- yet he has voluntarily become a servant in order to gain as many as possible. Though he was free from the law, in his dealings with the Jews, he would if necessary lay aside his freedom in order to gain Jewish converts (as in Acts 16:1-3). He would deal similarly -- laying aside his rights -- in dealing with Gentiles and weak brothers.

We shouldn't interpret Paul's phrase "all things to all" based on our own preconceived ideas, but by his own practice. Are we, like Paul, willing to give up, if necessary, every right we have and every privilege we enjoy in order to further the gospel? If not, perhaps we have not learned the true meaning of I Cor. 9:19-23.

 

rlvaughn...AMEN!

AaG, When I said compromise, I was not referring directly about the compromise of the gospel itself (although there are some issues there as well), but within the church. We as a church have compromised our purity and holiness in order to try and convert the "non-elect." I believe that the Bible is clear when Jesus says "ALL that the Father gives to Me will come to Me." Christ will lose none of His sheep. As a believer, a natural outflowing of the Holy Spirit living within me is to tell people about Jesus. However, our job, as pastors, is to primarily "feed the sheep" (2 Tim). What happens when we become like the world in order to get "everybody saved" is that many of the new "converts" are still unregenerate. How many would "deny themselves, take up their cross, and truely follow Christ?" How many love their families more than they do Jesus? How many have really counted the cost? What results is church growth, many baptisms, large numbers to report to the association, etc... but a very weak church. Imagine what it would be like in our American army in Iraq if the soldiers would not be willing to "die for the cause" or not really be loyal to the commander and chief? You would have a weak and ineffective army will many who would bail out when the going got tough....that is what many churches look like today.

 

If you do not mean compromising the gospel itself, then there is really not an issue is there? Everything else is second-tier issues.

I also believe those that the Father draws will come. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

I could also paint the opposite picture of the MAJORITY of churches in America that baptize few if any people in an entire year and represent the sad reality that MOST churches in America are so inward-focused that they cannot see outside their own walls.

I always find it amusing when people rant about the sad state of the evangelical church in America that has compromised on the altar of relevance and yet the vast majority of churches represent the exact opposite. It will be a great day when extreme Calvinists become more concerned about churches that reach no one than churches that reach masses of which some may not "stick". But then again the extreme Calvinistic churches of which I am aware fall in the category of reaching only a few, so perhaps therein lies the problem as well.

God is sovereign enough to use whatever means He desires (even NASCAR).

God-centered, emergent, seeker-aware, and evangelical ...

 

Does this passage have a place in the discussion?

Philippians 1:15-18 "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice."

 

I have no major qualms with this interpretation. These verses are straightforward. Obviously Paul is saying he is willing to sacrifice in order to further the gospel, but that is not his ONLY point. He also makes it clear that he becomes "all things to ALL men" so that some might be saved. What Paul is describing (and practices in Acts) is missional ministry. Paul understands his audience and culture and contextualizes the gospel within that framework. He does not present the gospel the same way to the Jews as he does to the Gentiles as he does on Mars Hill as he does in Ephesus or Berea, etc. He understands his cultural context and packages the gospel in a way that will communicate God's message within a context. Unless you simply read from a Bible, you practice contextualization. That is not the issue here. The issue is what contextualization should be deemed appropriate and what should not. It does not matter if you are singing all hymns, sitting on pews, in a stained-glass type building, your are contextualizing the message (it may be a 17th century context but still a context).

Paul maintained a balance of contextualizing and contending. Contending prevents us from sacrificing the message itself but contextualization enables us to present the message in a way that is ... scary word here: relevant ... to our audience.

 

It does for me. I recognize the reality that God uses different types of ministry and people to spread His word. My reformed tendencies allow me to trust God's sovereignty enough to see His work outside of my own preferences. I will rarely criticize those who are reaching people because I believe God does draw and humans respond. Yet I also know He draws through the weak, finite methods of humans (even preaching itself is limited by our own weaknesses). For that reason, I rejoice when people are coming to faith in Christ regardless of whether the method employed is my preferred taste or not. If the gospel is not compromised, go for it.

 

All about Grace, I wrote my post as a direct response to Joseph’s original post, and have not read everything in this thread (though I probably should have). You mention contextualization here, so I went back and looked at previous threads to try to determine your exact meaning. I would request that you further define what you mean when you use the term. In one place I take it that you mean learning the culture we’re in and using that wisdom in engaging the people of the culture. I have no particular problem with that definition, though we would probably disagree on some of the practical outworkings of “contextualizing”. But later you seem to go further and almost everything becomes contextualizing – from using song books to sitting in a pew. You wrote, “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.” And, “Unless you simply read from a Bible, you practice contextualization.” If so, it would seem that even using a “book” Bible instead of a scroll or standing instead of sitting should not be free from being called “contextualizing”. For the sake of better understanding and engaging you in meaningful discourse, I would appreciate further clarification on that. Thanks.

I agree that sacrifice is not his only point, but probably would not agree with the totality of what you accept as "all things to ALL men". In context I see the statements of 19-23 as referencing how Paul gave up whatever he needed to in order to deal with particular people – though I am free, I become their servant. The church did not require circumcision – there was freedom or liberty in that area – but it was not wrong, so in order to not be a stumblingblock, Timothy was circumcised (Acts 16:1ff.; cf. 9:20). Paul's refusal of receiving support from the Corinthians is probably one illustration of this principle at work with the Gentiles (cf. III John 7; 9:21), and the situation of the meat offered to idols refers to weak brethren (cf. 9:22).

In another post, you or others talk about NASCAR. What illustration in Paul's ministry in the book of Acts provides the principle for this practice?

I don’t really disagree with your words, though I would probably disagree in practice. I think it probably boils to what you say: “The issue is what contextualization should be deemed appropriate and what should not.” Awhile back I wrote this on my blog: “The way Christians and churches relate to culture in any place and time may change according to those times and places. But the culture of gathering believers, which exists outside of and independent from world governments, cultures and standards, is universal and timeless, having neither command to change nor necessity to conform.” You would probably agree with the first sentence, but possibly not the second one. So we possibly do not agree on what is appropriate contextualization, depending on what you mean by the term.

Concerning PastorSBC’s question about Philippians 1:15-18 having a place in the discussion, I would also agree that it does. Again, I agree with your response in part. When you say, though, “If the gospel is not compromised, go for it” I don’t think I can agree, unless I misunderstand you. Paul was rejoicing in the fact that the gospel was preached. Certainly some of the “antis” come up short here! But if he had his “druthers”, he would have rather had both – that the gospel was preached AND that it be preached sincerely, without envy or strife. So on the one hand, I see submission to what is taking place – that it is better than the gospel not being preached – but not recommendation that it should be done that way. So I can't just say to someone "go for it."

God is sovereign and may do as He pleases. We are servants, and should do as He commands. Therefore I have no problem with God calling anyone to Him any way He chooses. I am limited to work within His commands. If He commands that I not kill, then when or if I do, I am under the condemnation of His law. He is God; if He chooses to kill He has done nothing wrong. I have a friend, now the wife of a Baptist minister, who traces her profession to the work of a Methodist bus ministry when she was younger. I can rejoice in that without having to support a Methodist bus ministry or agree that the Methodist views on salvation, church membership, baptism, security, etc are OK.

I Cor. 9:19-23 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

 

Contextualization has to do with taking the gospel and applying it in a context conducive to my culture. To illustrate, if a missionary goes to China, we expect them to learn the Chinese culture (including language, music, food, the list is endless). It would be foolish to try and bring Western culture and a Western way of "doing church" into a Far Eastern culture. The gospel must be contextualized. The same is true in Western culture. It would be foolish for me on the West Coast to try and "do church" the way it is done on the East Coast. Contextualizing the gospel involves becoming a student of the culture in which I live and engaging that culture with the timeless message of Jesus Christ. I am a student of the way people live life in my culture (their language, way of thinking, musical preferences, what they watch, etc.). I then take the message of the gospel and use means that will connect with the hearer. It is the same reason I would learn Chinese if I moved to China - I want to "speak the language" of the people where God has placed me.

This has nothing to do with "helping" God or talking people into becoming followers of Jesus Christ through gimmicks. It has everything to do with contextualization.

When I say that outside of reading the Bible one is contextualizing, I simply mean that whenever a church/pastor makes a decision regarding "doing church" they are in some way contextualizing. Take something absurd like having air-conditioning or a nursery or pews or songbooks. The moment I decide to involve those elements into the worship experience, I am making a contextual decision. I am appealling to a certain portion of my culture and I am choosing to "not appeal" to others (for instance if I am doing church in the desert and choose to disregard air-conditioning, I am eliminating a certain portion of the population). Every church makes decisions regarding contextualization (whether they know it or not).

Obviously contextualization focuses primarily on how the gospel will be presented, but again every decision regarding how church will or will not be done plays a part in contextualizing the gospel. Even the stories I choose to tell in a sermon lend themselves to a certain portion of my audience and ignore the others.

I have not suggested I would use the NASCAR idea but then again I am not in a culture where that would connect with my hearers (even choosing not to use it is a contextualizing decision). What I have cautioned against is condemning a church that uses a cultural tool like NASCAR to gather people for evangelistic purposes. As I have argued earlier, nonbelievers have no genuine, pure spiritual reason to gather and hear the gospel. A tool like NASCAR could be employed as a cultural element that could attract people to come and hear the gospel. I am not endorsing a bait-and-switch tactic that promotes one thing and then "bam" they are hit with the gospel. From all evidence, those who attended the event knew they were coming to a church and all that entails.

I don't necessarily disagree with the second sentence in the sense that believers are called to gather is a universal command. I am not exactly sure what you mean by a church is not obligated to change or conform. I would have to know what you mean by those two terms (change/conform). I would say that missional thinking demands change in the sense that I am constantly seeking to communicate the gospel in a way that effectively presents the message. The Great Awakenings saw many people come to Christ but I am not sure we need to be standing in fields with thousands of people and no P.A. systems screaming at the top of our lungs for people to hear. Different time-different culture-same message. Thankfully people saw the necessity of changing.

Paul was also speaking about "impure motives" and "selfish gain". Obviously I do not commend impure motives and selfish gain, but at the same time (as Paul) I cannot be the judge of motives. I have to guard my own heart and contextualize according to my own beliefs and preferences and simply rejoice when God uses other means/methods to bring people to faith.

I can agree with this statement. Again I would say that there are many methods I see with which I disagree or would not support, but that does not prevent me from rejoicing that God uses other means/methods - which does provide a certain credibility. What I want to guard against and what I have witnesses on numerous occasions is the attitude that my way is the only proper way. What I want to guard against is criticizing those who do things a little differently but whom God is evidently using to bring people into the kingdom.

 

Here is a question about contextualization -

If our church methods are always determined by our context, then two churches in the same area (let's say, within 5 miles of each other) should use the exact same methods, correct? Otherwise, one church isn't being "missional" enough, and therefore, they are being disobedient to the Great Commission. For instance, the NASCAR event - if this is deemed as appropriate contextualization, then all the other churches in that area should be doing the same thing, otherwise they are not being missional enough and are disobedient to the Great Commission.

 

I have not read all of this tread, so i'm sure if this has already been said. Having come from a church that went the way of PD church I see its harm more then good. Its not so much the drawing of more people, its the mind set that is wrong.

I went to the best Bible based Church in my area for 25 years. When new leadership wanted to "grow" they wanted to tone down the "church" to make the unchurched feel welcome. They changed the music. They wanted a business flare, so they put in coffee shops. Words were dropped from the message. Words like sin and hell and damnation. Doctrine was to deep for the unchurched, so we had messages on life. The "churched" ...those that were there before this stated became hungry for the word and left and now the church is full...yes many more go there, but full of the world.

Church is for the local body. It is to worship God together in like mine. Worship is and always should be about God. When our goal is to be like the world, we follow the world and guess what....WE WILL BE JUST LIKE THE WORLD.

This can happen even if the church does not go down the path of the PD church. Its a mind-set, a way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with a big screen showing the words to the songs. There is nothing wrong with using that same screen to post verses from the message up for all to see. Yet what I saw was people didn't see the need to bring their Bible. In one years time, half of the Bibles in peoples hands were missing. Its much easier to not carry one..and just look at the screen.

Nothing wrong with websites. I design websites myself. A church can place this weeks message on the site for all to read. If you want to take the boat out on Sunday, no big deal, download the message when you get home. We can have life in all ways. High tech life has made it much easier to live and worship God.

No need to take the time to play the keyboard. Tape the music...or program the music on Friday into your computer. It is much easier this way and frees you up for things you want to do most.

Missions giving is down....but the good news is light shows and sound units are way up.

If your changes are to make your life better, you are missing the point of worship. Worship is not about us, its all about God. Can we not play the keyboard? Can we not hold a song book? Can we not carry our Bibles? Can we not give up a boat trip? Do we have to drop words found in the Bible, because they may make others feel sinful?

Are any of these things wrong alone? No.

What COULD be wrong is why we do them.


WORSHIP IS ALL ABOUT GOD!! Why are we changing to be more like the world? Does God have no place in Church? Should we not look for better ways to worship Him, and not just better ways to look like the world?

Why water down the message?
Why drop doctrine?
Why sing easy songs?

Is God not worth the very best?



In Christ..James

 

ooops...posted 2 times

 

Thank you JArthur for your post. It mirrors the volumes of posts I've seen on some other forums, like the one that used to be at challies.com. What makes the CGM such an influence is its disarming subtlety. Who can oppose something so full of love and good intentions? Who can rightly oppose the winning of thousands of souls? And so any opposition to the workings of emergent, seeker-sensitive churches, can quickly be labeled as narrow-minded, unloving, etc. Thick books have been written about it so I can't add anything that hasn't been said out there already but here's some things maybe a few have not considered.

PDC is the "christian" version of Total Quality Management. It's a system that disarms opposition by a false democratic process. It is false because it goes beyond majority rule in that it is a manipulated outcome, overseen by a facilitator who suppresses any opposition to the predetermined outcome. Dissenters are ostracized and remove themselves from the conversation as they are shamed by the manipulated majority into keeping silent. This process continues until the desired outcome is achieved - the outcome which the facilitators intended all along while they hide behind the false cover of a supposedly democratic process. I've seen it in work and in church.

This is the method that PDC pastor's snuff out all opposition to their plans. The dissenting minority not only is out-voted, but is removed entirely from the process. The end result is usually that the older folks in the church who generally oppose the new methods, unless they are shamed into changing their minds, are asked to leave the church - not by words - but by implication that their voices are no longer welcome in the conversation.

So Rick Warren can play Purple Haze to his congregation and justify it with a multitude of "good words". And he can write articles in the Ladies Home Journal in which Jesus is never mentioned, right next to the articles about having better sex and rather than outcry, his church grows even larger. And Joel Osteen can deny Christ on national television and the emergent church barely notices. Nothing wrong with a little sin in a noble cause, right? See in insidiousness of it?

 

Each church must make their own contextualization and missional decisions. They do anyway. The moment I choose to use only hymns or praise & worship or blended or whatever - I am choosing to focus on a particular segment of the population (regardless of whether I am conscious of it or not). Every decision to "do church" in a certain way lends itself to a certain portion of the congregation and community.

That is why 2 churches can co-exist in the same region and be totally different. Being missional does not mean I must try and "attract" or "understand" every demographic in my community. I have to focus on those that we are best equipped to reach. For instance, it would be foolish for me to try and focus our ministry on reaching the spanish-speaking Hispanics in our community. Do you know why? I don't speak Spanish. Missional thinking however causes me to think of ways I can create an environment that will communicate the gospel to them in ways that will connect to them.

Every leader and church must come to grips with how they will fulfill the Great Commission. They will contextualize the message somehow. They must simply decide how that will happen (many times it simply happens by default based on past traditions). I would say MOST churches in America are definitely being disobedient to the Great Commission. In our cultural context (American culture), it is hard for me to imagine there is any church in any size town or city that should not consistently see people come to faith in Christ and be baptized. Yet the vast majority of churches do not. Above anything else that tells me most churches are not obedient to the Great Commission. And consequently that does come back to the absence of a missional mindset.

Contextualization should never look the same in any given situation (although it may have similar characteristics). It should be influenced by the leader, church, and culture around them.

 

JArthur ~ I would say a couple of things ...

1. Obviously churches make mistakes in transitioning. At the same time, any time a church transitions to a more outward focus there are those who seek to find another church where they can be "fed" (whatever that means).

2. If a Christian is depending on an hour on Sunday morning - 30 minutes from a pastor - for their spiritual growth. They have more dependence problems and should seek to grow in their own quiet time and personal discipleship.

3. Contextualization has nothing to do with "watering down the message, dropping doctrine, or singing easy songs." It may have to do with how the message is presented, the language that is used, and music that engages the heart and mind. For example, it would be foolish for me to go to a foreign culture and talk about "propitiation" if they have no word system that complements that teaching. I would have to find a different way to communicate the concept (have you ever read Peace Child?). That does not mean I am "dropping the doctrine". It simply means I am aware of the culture and take the necessary steps to communicate that truth in that culture (remember the Unknown God altar in Acts 17).

4. No one is arguing worship is not about God. Of course it is. Nonbelievers cannot truly worship God in the proper sense of the word (although inanimate objects apparantly can and I believe God can receive glory through other means -- another discussion). However there is the idea in I Cor 14 that believers should be aware and conscious of unbelievers who may be present (perhaps sensitive is a good word - as I would be sensitive to guests who are in my house). Also a church must decide what environments will serve what purpose. You would not disagree it would be appropriate for a church to have an event designed primarily for evangelism. So then, the issue becomes one of timing - when should it happen and how often? Some churches choose Sunday morning at 11:00 am. Nothing wrong with that as long as the church is also seeking to provide discipleship at other times.

5. Contextualization has nothing to do with trying to "be like the world." Wordliness has nothing to do with technology, etc. It has to do with a mindset where I am more focused on the temporary/here & now than I am on eternal matters. But then again, most people in this discussion know that. It is just easy to throw terms out like "being like the world" to justify one's decisions.