This is a bit of a repetition of a previous post, but I was asked to write 'A Thought for the Month' for one of the church newsletters and I'm posting it here in the spirit of 'don't let a good piece of writing go to waste'.
===
A few weeks ago, 'The Church Times' carried an interview with the American Christian author Philip Yancey who will be appearing at The Greenbelt Festival this year. Yancey is one of my favourite Christian authors because he often seems to provide one important thought that leaves a person thinking for a long time afterwards, even if it was something that you knew already!
In this interview, Yancey said: 'Jesus said the truth shall set you free, and he came to give life in all its fullness. If it doesn't sound like good news, it's not the gospel. If it's not setting you free and enlarging life, then it's not Jesus's message.'
I think that this is an important nugget of wisdom because it gives us two 'touchstones' of what our Christian lives can look like if we are faithful to the gospel: freedom and an enlarged life. But this idea seems to make some people nervous. Indeed, I think that there will always be individuals in all cultures and faiths who will be made nervous by any teaching that tries to set human beings free rather than to control them.
Scripture makes it clear that Christian freedom is not about the pursuit of private pleasure, but rather that it about the pursuit of justice and goodness and righteousness. The simplest illustration of this is that warm feeling we get when we help another person out or when we contribute our time or money to a worthwhile cause. Indeed, psychology understands that looking outside of our own welfare to the welfare of others is fundamental to mental health and to a life well-lived.
There are many voices in our culture that will try to tell us that the message of Jesus is not a good news story. Some will tell us that Jesus' message is bad news because they wish to discredit Christianity. Others behave as if they believe that God's love for humanity depends on our good behaviour, so their message to us is that we'd better strive for perfection rather than rest in the assurance that we're forgiven sinners.
But Yancey's idea is a good touchstone. Ask yourself 'Does this action, thought, or message point people to the love of God or to the love of others? Will it result in freedom and an enlarged life for everyone and not just for those who already have power?' If it does, then it is good news and it is God-honouring.
May the blessing of God be with us all as we endeavour to demonstrate his good news in our lives!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Rings
|
|
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(139)
-
▼
April
(23)
- Theology - What is it Good For?
- Debate
- Offensive to Vegetarians!
- Day of Prayer for Zimbabwe
- Good for a Laugh
- Zimbabwe
- Good News
- The Realities of Being a Small Fellowship
- Churches concern at Zimbabwe violence
- Local Elections - May 2008
- Kathy on Grace
- Thoughts on 'The Priesthood of All Believers'
- Persecution?
- Sermon Blogging
- And the sheep know his car...
- Keeping a Time Sheet
- Doubt
- Death Threats to Gay Christian Leaders
- I Think I Might be 'Emerging'
- Christians and Violence
- Thinking Faith
- Church Burnout?
- Methodist Ministers' Pension Scheme
-
▼
April
(23)
Links
About Me
- PamBG
- I am Pam Berardinelli Garrud (PamBG), a 54 year old wife, daughter and beloved child of God. Ordained as a minister (pastor) in the Methodist Church of Great Britain, in 2009 I re-immigrated back to Northeast Ohio with my London-born husband after 20 years residence in the UK. I am seeking to serve God by loving God and my neighbor in the ministry of hospital chaplaincy. Prior to becoming a minister, I worked in the pensions industry. The views expressed in this Blog are purely my own and do not represent the official views of any denomination, group or organization.
11 comments:
Forgiven sinners requires repenting. Why else would John the Baptist say "Repent and be Baptized", "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near." or "If YOU confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus..." Even in Acts the Apostles when preaching would admonish people to "repent and be Baptized". Now I'm not saying Baptism is for Salvation but the point here is that one must enter into what God did on the cross that was made available to all. Grace is a gift that must be unwrapped to experience. If it isn't unwrapped it is truly not received. Even Rev 3:23 gives indication of this as well. To suggest that this is NOT "Good News" seems rather odd in light of the fact that without Faith in Christ one is dead. It becomes Good News in that we don't have to experience death but new life. dh
DH, I don't know what you think I'm suggesting is not the good news.
Does repentance point people to the love of God and the love of others? Yes.
Therefore it is good news.
Where did you get the idea that I"m opposing repentance?
I guess I'm trying to understand who the the post is directed to with regard to Yancey's quote? Many people have said that Salvation from hell to heaven by Faith in Christ alone is not "Good News". I didn't know if that would what is being addressed by Yancey or not. I never got the impression that you were against my understanding of Good News. I'm just trying to understand to who does Yancey take issue with and/or yourself which I'm not sure on? Any insight would be aprreciated in that it is difficult to find out the problems that this post attempts to address. dh
DH, well, speaking for myself, I'm not taking issue with anyone.
I was simply trying to say that 'that which enlarges life and points to God is Good News and that which closes down life and points away from God is Bad News.'
For instance, 'proper repentance' enlarges life and points to God. This is Good News.
A parent telling their child every single day: 'You are a bad boy, you are a bad person, you are worthless' closes down life and points away from God.
It's theologically true that we're all sinners, but if you tell your child every day that they are worthless, you're not actually helping them find God. Does that make sense?
I can't speak for Yancey, but he talks of having grown up in a culture where men were called non-Christians for having long hair and women non-Christians for wearing skirts that were 'too short'. So I suspect he and I are saying similar things.
Wow, I think we agree more than I realized. I think reading this helps me to have a proper attitude when sharing the Gospel: 1) is it for the benefit of the person to the Glory of God? 2) is it said in an attitude of love for the person hearing? 3) Am I speaking the truth in love or am I a clanging gong with my attitude in relaying truth?. I still think one needs to define that which " enlarges life and points to God". This is where some controversy can arise. dh
I still think one needs to define that which " enlarges life and points to God". This is where some controversy can arise.
Yes, some controversy can arise at this point in the process, but I think that, more often than not, the process can still help to clarify situations.
Pam, what did you think about the rest of my most recent reply with regard to sharing the Gospel? I think many people in my "camp" if they followed these things, not changes the words of the message for they are true, there wouldn't be this "stigma" associated with "us" and maybe those who are repelled from our "camp" would be in our "camp". dh
DH, I can't really answer your comment because I don't really know what sort of evangelistic techniques you're talking about. And I didn't really intend this as a process for evangelization.
Let's say, hypothetically, some one is telling their teenager 'You're going to hell, young man, if you don't change your ways!' then I think what you are saying is probably right.
Are you talking about an evangelistic process which operates by 1) Giving people some doctrine about salvation; 2) Telling them that God loves them and they should repent; 3) Trying to close the sale with some sort of 'call' - either an altar call or a personal appeal?
I object to that because I think it just serves to inoculate people against Christianity by giving them a small dose of it. I'm sure that the people who evangelise in this way don't intend to point away from God; in fact, I think their intentions are the opposite. I just don't think it works well.
Does this answer your question? I don't really understand what sort of 'camp' you are talking about.
Your response totally answered my question and thanks for the clarifying point. I do, however, believe one must confess with their heart, soul and mind what is said here: "an evangelistic process which operates by 1) Giving people some doctrine about salvation; 2) Telling them that God loves them and they should repent; 3) Trying to close the sale with some sort of 'call' - either an altar call or a personal appeal?" I believe many people who say they live for God but don't confess with their heart, soul and mind the passage "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved." really aren't Believers. It requires repentence (heart, soul and mind), asking Jesus into ones heart, soul and mind and giving ones entire being over to the Lordship of Christ heart, soul and mind. Just doing what Jesus said or the Bible says is not enough for "Without Faith it is impossible to please God."
However, I do agree with you that the evangelism technique in question doesn't work if people only obtain a "head knowledge" of what it means to be "saved" or just "prays a prayer" for ones "mind". At the same time there are many people who don't give their minds over to Christ and just do good works from the Bible. So I can see evangelism without the "evangelistic process in question" as having the same affect of pushing people away.
We should reject outright the "evangelistic process in question" but do it in such a way that ones entire life is changed. For me there is a seperation between Salvation and Sanctification. Sanctification requires discipleship and the "working out of ones Faith, from Faith to Faith". Salvation is the beginning of the relationship when one gives their heart, soul and mind over to Christ through repentence and acceptence of Christ.
We mustn't give people the false impression that they are Believers if in fact htey aren't. That problem can arise from both "evangelistic process" when done incorrectly.
With regard to the "camp" part. I just believe those who are Evangelical right get a bad rap by people thinking they are "harsh", "hell" and the like when it is in fact rhe extreme in the group that do it with a wrong attitude. When people hear the message from "extremes in my camp" they "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when what is said is in fact 100% true it just might not be the appropriate time to say it. My take is if it was said at the approriate time and said with a right Spirit then people who are "Evangelical left", "atheists", "agnostic", "false religions", etc. might not have such a hostile rejection outright of the doctrines in question. dh
Do you have any further insight?
It requires repentence (heart, soul and mind), asking Jesus into ones heart, soul and mind and giving ones entire being over to the Lordship of Christ heart, soul and mind. Just doing what Jesus said or the Bible says is not enough for "Without Faith it is impossible to please God."
DH, I really don't understand why you feel the need to add these 'howevers'.
I'm not saying 'It's perfectly OK to be someone who comes to church on Sunday and who doesn't believe in Christ.'
So I can see evangelism without the "evangelistic process in question" as having the same affect of pushing people away.
Er, possibly. I don't know what you have in mind. I have in mind helping people to come to the knowledge of God in Christ as the Spirit speaks to them rather than someone deciding 'It's time Mary accepts Christ, so I'm going to nag her until she does'. (By the way, I see the fruits of parents who have tried to nag their kids to accept Christ.)
We mustn't give people the false impression that they are Believers if in fact htey aren't. That problem can arise from both "evangelistic process" when done incorrectly.
See, I don't even know what you mean by that. This implies that I'm going to tell someone 'Yes, you are a real believer'. I'm not going to *tell* anyone that they are a 'real' believer or that they are a 'fake believer'. I might observe to someone that their life does or does not bear evidence of the fruits of the Spirit, but only if I have actually gained their trust first.
I think we agree no one should nag. However, if someone asks or if a preacher happens to give a sermon and asks people if they are interested in accepting Christ for an "alter call" what is the big deal. I don't see those things as "nagging people". If someone says it in a "nagging way" then yes in the extreme I would totally agree with. This is a case where the evangelization process is defined by the extreme within a particular view. I feel we shouldn't "reject outright".
Asking a person if they would like to accept Christ I don't see as nagging. It reminds me of the passage "How can they hear in whom they haven't heard? and How can they hear without a preacher?" At the same time I totally agree that nagging should never be allowed.
I also believe we can find out after getting to know them first by asking them "Have you ever accepted Christ as your Savior?" If they say "no" then they are not a Believer and this comes from what Scripture says not what I say. So when I hear "we can't tell" I disagree to a point. At the same time, it requires discernment on our part to see the fruit if one is a Believer or not or just a "backslider" but we all know that we are human and not all discernment is from the Holy spirit. For me from Scripture the Gospel isn't some broad definition but it is the "Power of God for Salvation to everyone who Believes." one can also conclude from this passage that forv those who don't Believe it shows one does not have Salvation by way of their "lack of Belief". "Without Faith it is impossible to please God." dh
Post a Comment