The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly Commentaries
|
Missional VS. Evangelical
May 21, 2007
S. Michael Craven
While surveying the news recently, I came across a small but disturbing story that grabbed my attention. A California pediatrician reportedly refused to treat a baby girl because her mother had tattoos. The doctor, whose name I won’t mention, says “his Christian faith has inspired him to enforce certain standards in his medical practice, and that means no tattoos, no body piercings, and no gum chewing.” The article goes on, “After taking one look at Tasha Childress, who has both tattoos and piercings, [the doctor] asked her and her daughter to leave.” The shunned mother, speaking about her daughter, said, “She had to go that entire night with her ear infection with no medicine because he has his policy; it isn’t right.”
This action deeply troubled me and I hope troubles you as well. However, it doesn’t completely surprise me either, given so much that is off the mark within American “Christian” culture. I realize it is “risky” to publicly criticize the church and/or the actions of other Christians, however, this should not prevent us from constructive critique when the public actions of some professing Christians are so obviously inconsistent with biblical teaching. I do, however, think some boundaries apply, which is why I see no need to publicly name this particular brother. The responsibility to personally confront this man’s conduct rests with the leadership of his local church.
What concerns me most is what kind of culture has developed within the American Church to produce such legalistic thinking that it borders on the inhumane. Also, is this same legalistic, almost antagonistic culture present, in greater or lesser degrees, throughout the American Church and if so, why?
Sadly, I think it may be more prevalent than we might want to admit. I think some of this can be attributed to what many 20th century churches came to effectively define and teach as the Church’s only mission in the world: evangelism. While the modern evangelical movement has much to commend it, one possible side effect, which is proving counterproductive, is the reduction of the Christian’s role in the world to nothing more than evangelism at its most basic level. In other words, the only thing that really matters is sharing the personal plan of salvation. The practical effect of this has been the substitution of immersion and engagement in the world with programmatic “interactions” with the world—what I call “drive-by evangelism.” While there are a number of negative effects I could associate with this shift, suffice it to say, at the very least it has rendered Christianity less relevant by reducing it to nothing more than a “private” belief.
The modern-day reliance upon evangelism “programs” often results in formulaic, impersonal presentations that rely more on logic and less on love. Leonard Sweet here adds helpful insight:
The church has taught evangelism as a meeting of two antagonists—one righteous and right, the other dead wrong. The point of evangelism, according to this school of thought, is to win an argument. Evangelism also has been taught as a spiritual sales pitch, more nuanced perhaps than a religious argument but still relying on high pressure and ultimately committed to closing the deal. And if not an argument or a sales pitch, the gospel is neutered and reduced to an objective, nonrelational exercise in logic. The strategy is to convince others, not to appeal to them. (The Gospel According to Starbucks, Waterbrook Press, 2007)
I realize I am generalizing here and I am in no way suggesting that we should stop training Christians to share the gospel. However, the point I am pressing is related to what we understand our relationship to the world to be, how we share the “good news” and the attitude we have toward those outside the Church. True evangelism should be relational not operational! This theme of “two antagonists” meeting characterizes the mindset of many Christians I meet. They seem to see the world in terms of “us versus them,” when in fact, it is us versus him: Satan. (Ephesians 6:12) This same attitude seems to explain the doctor’s ill-conceived policy. Call me crazy but I don’t see Jesus being very supportive of a policy that would allow children to suffer because of the appearance of their parents.
Christianity is not just a set of ideas or propositions to which one agrees; it is a lived faith that transforms individuals and the world. Following Christ encompasses every aspect of life and all of its ugliness, sorrow, and pain. It is precisely into this world of ugliness, sorrow, and pain, with its “tattooed and pierced” people, that we are to bring beauty, comfort, and mercy, working to redeem all of God’s creation! This means being “missional.”
So rather than being “evangelical” in the terms that Leonard Sweet describes, perhaps we should consider returning to being “missional” in the manner of our first and second century brothers and sisters.
What does it mean to be “missional”? Missional means: to participate in the mission of Jesus in the world, to incarnate in the experiences of our lives and our communities the good news of God’s love for the world. Being missional means we act more like a rescue force that is determined to stay until all are rescued rather than a commando unit which occasionally enters hostile territory to harass the enemy! Being missional means we endeavor to develop real and meaningful relationships with those that God, in His providence, has brought into our lives—to first demonstrate the love of Christ and then be ready with an answer for the hope that is within us.
A “missional” Christian doctor in the story above would have treated this child and showed Christ-like love and acceptance to Tasha, tattoos, tongue stud, and all! A missional Christian would have sent Tasha out saying, “I think that guy’s one of those Christians; he was so kind and I think he really cares about me and my daughter.” A missional Christian would have looked beyond the tattoos and piercings and saw a woman who bears the image of God.
© 2007 by S. Michael Craven
|
|
Responses
|
|
Response from : Suzanne Brownlow |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 8:59 AM
|
|
I agree. We, Christians, should be more missional. We should consider how our bombs are impacting our mission to evangelize. It is not Christ's command to go into all the world and bring "destruction." It is to bring "the Gospel." And we cannot do that if we are blowing the villages of potential converts. Christians need to oppose the war in Iraq - not support it. America should use restrained power in dealing with other nations. Intervening (where 3,400 of our soldiers and 65,000 Iraqis have died so far!) is immoral.
http://www.BelieversAgainstTheWar.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : John Wallace |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 10:30 AM
|
|
Thank you for the article. You are making an important point here. If we are to remain culturally relevant, we need to adjust our strategies to include more relationship building. Whether or not this is more "New Testament", I think is debatable. I think it's just smart. Secular sales/service organizations have been talking about this for years. The "hard sell" simply isn't working for them anymore although it used to work. I don't question the motives of evangelicals who have used "hard sell" methods for years. However, there is no question that these methods are producing diminishing returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Eric Hogue |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 12:05 PM
|
|
Michael,
You're spot on, time for us toput away the formulas and put on love. Build a relationship, hug a neck and get messy in today's culture. Let grace have it days, from one ragamuffin to another.
http://www.erichogue.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Jeannie Bargen |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 12:28 PM
|
|
Thank-you for your thoughtful articles. I would just add to the end of this article...."and take the time to share the gospel with her, which is the most important need she and her daughter have". Blessings on your day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : mark flora swick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : R B |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 1:51 PM
|
|
Wow - talk about missing the point of Dr. Me-rlll's issue! So a missional Christian should give up his personal beliefs (biblical or not) and run his business as the masses/public determine, and if he does not, he has hell to pay? It appears to me, after reading a few articles on the 'Net to get more details which were not in your article (the local Bakersfield newspaper's article to name one - http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/105015.html), that the Doctor had well-communicated/documented guidelines in his office for ALL of his patients. "If you want me/us to treat you in our office, here's how you will conduct yourself, for the sake of ALL of my/our patients." (my paraphrase)
When the guidelines were actually enforced, Ms. Childress no doubt felt entitled to being offended and let the media community know of how "bad" of a Christian this evil man was to her and her baby.
Please deal with the real issue, without questioning this man's commitment to Christ, the Hippocratic Oath, etc. Instead of lauding this Doctor and his organization for DARING to live out their faith/beliefs (right or wrong, Biblical or not) in their workplace, they get slammed . . . because of ONE client who didn't like the level of service provided. Would I have handled the situation in a different manner - maybe. Does it matter? No!
I applaud Christ-ian Medic al Services for allowing the Dr. to provide services in line with his convictions and not do business-by-the-masses.
Your article smacks of Christian socialism and communitarianism - shame on you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Cole Whitney |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 2:19 PM
|
|
Agreed. The man was not following Jesus Christ when he turned away the sick. He missed a chance to show the gospel in action, which is far more powerful than preaching. More is caught by our actions than taught by our words. The greatest commandment from Jesus Christ was to love God and love others. "God is love." He said, "If you love me, you will obey me." That man did not obey God, but we all fall short. Sadly, when we do fall short of God's perfect standard of love (sacrificial love), we miss the Father's blessing.
God has so much for us if we would only obey Him.
Thanks Michael. God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Nancy |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 2:22 PM
|
|
I'm ashamed that anyone who professes the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ could ever believe that this action would be condoned by Jesus. My first thoughts, after my initial reaction, were of Jesus' encounter with the Gentile mother who begged the Lord to heal her daughter. After testing her belief, Christ was amazed at her faith. Instead of telling her to get out of His space, He commended her for her faith and sent her on her way promising that her daughter was healed. How can we, who are sinful and owe so much for our salvation, do any less. I pray this doctor will meet someone who will explain his unloving attitude toward this woman. I also pray that the mother who was treated so unkindly will meet another Christian who will wrap her in their arms and love her in the true name of Jesus Christ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : S. Michael Craven |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 2:55 PM
|
|
Dear D.B.
I feel compelled to respond to your charges and given the fact that you did not include your e-mail address, I have no choice but to respond publicly. I would have preferred to communicate my response privately.
You argue that the doctor in question is only enforcing his "personal beliefs." With this I would agree - they are his "personal" beliefs and not necessarily representative of Christian teaching. However, he claims that his actions (and his policy) ARE consistent with Christian teaching. This is the point with which I disagree. The doctor, as well as you, seem to confuse conservatism with Christianity. These are not the same and frankly this idea represents the "fundamentalism" that has become synonymous with the political right. While there is much in common between Christianity and conservative values - Christianity is not and never should be a political movement. Christianity transcends politics and has the love of Christ as its distinguishing characteristic and power. The doctor's policy may be "practical" for his purposes but it is unloving for Christ's purposes, which should govern our affairs in all things. As for Christian "socialism" and "communitarianism," I am not even sure what you mean. If acting in love and charity toward others is "socialistic" then I guess I am a "Christian socialist." Frankly, your response and the attitude it expresses is exactly what my article is addressing. You have just confirmed that this antagonistic approach to culture is alive and well in the contemporary Church - I pray the Lord forgive us...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Gregg Schuler |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 3:37 PM
|
|
YES! Convicted! Help to break my heart for the lost and for those whom I find repulsive. Thank you for reminding me that all are held in God's love not one iota more or less than another and that I should take that as our my for how I treat all people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Steve Ehrenzeller |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 4:04 PM
|
|
Thank you for the reminder your article brings to look at each person as a loved creation of God, no more and no less loved by Him than I am.
As such I must make a few remarks in response to R.B.'s comments. "Socialism" or "communitarianism" are terms used to speak of actions that are forced or enforced by some institution of authority, most commonly referring to government. What Mr. Craven is trying to do is appeal to the love exihibited by Christ in His ministry on earth and His relationship with mankind throughout history. Perhaps the most obvious example that would apply to this situation is the encounter with the woman caught in adultry. In mercy, he saved the woman from a physical stoning and a spiritual condemnation at the hands of men "standing on their beliefs and convictions". Christ's response is a challenge to every Christian. He resisted those who would condemn her, offering her the gospel in a nutshell, but then left her with the command to "go and sin no more". Christ made no compromise in His convictions. But what he also did was cut the legs out from underneath the selfrighteousness of those who brought her to Him. He made it clear that the most deeply held conviction that each Christian should hold is that we are ALL lost without Him and that we should see all people as equally worthy, or better unworthy, of the crumbs that fall from the Master's table. I believe that Mr. Craven is appealing not to some forced "socialistic" response from the doctor but rather to a charitable act of kindness motivated from the deeply held conviction that "but by the grace of God, there go I". Every part of our lives should be a thank offering to God for providing a salvation that we could never ever earn. May God bless your ministry as you are obedient to Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Laura |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 9:33 PM
|
|
Although I think your conclusion is right, I would not publicly criticize this person until I spoke with him. Perhaps he misapplies or his conscience is convicted by Leviticus 19:28. And Exodus 20:5 could apply to your statement of doubt that God might "visit the iniquities" of parents upon their children. Finally, an earache is not usually a life-threatening problem. (To put the best construction on it, I would hope the M.D. would treat in a more dire case.) In fact, many pediatricians recommend against treatment of ear infections at least initially because the body can usually fight them off, and possibly developing resistance to antibiotics (by host or germ) can outweigh the benefits of treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : alan garner |
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 11:05 PM
|
|
Well said! I grew up in a "soul-winning" Fundamental Baptist church that used the propositional/arguementary approach to "evangelism". They seemed, as do some Evangelicals, to miss the point that the Gospel is "good news" - not winning a debate or recruiting new church members. It's sharing the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ-speaking as His ambassadors and adoring disciples. The Scriptures declare plainly that it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. Our goal is to see people reconciled and reunited to God. I do not minimize the need to share the bad news of how Sin separates us from our holy God. That is the dark canvas upon which the glorious Gospel may be displayed. But even Jesus said that "God sent not His Son into the World to condemn the World, but to save it" (John 3:17). Jesus didn't argue with Nicodemus - He appealed to the Rabbi's need to escape the condemnation that tormented his heart. People already innately know that they stand condemned before God's holiness. What they need is great news that Jesus took their condemnation and offers them a new beginning, a new birth, and a new relationship with God as they put their trust in Him alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Marian Humphrey |
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 8:13 AM
|
|
Good Morning!
I so look forward to reading more of your views! What a breath-of-fresh-air-message!
Christians will be known by their love. It's a rule based Christianity that continually got our biblical ancestors in trouble!
I've been on both sides of the fence between relationship and self righteousness. The latter is not a pretty picture and crippled, perhaps for life, some dear friendships I had!
Amazingly, it's in a humanistic cafe, that I have found and learned acceptance and healing. Talk about humbling! Just by "being" in that place, people ask questions AND challenge me at times. When they do, my "best" response is either NONE or my style of a SHORT parable, or a tiny testimony. St. Frances said to go out and share the gospel, and use words once in a while if you have too.
When I do lapse into a "Bible thumping" dissertation, the café staff suddenly gets busy or I get blank stares. I guess some people would think that's a time for being grateful for persecution, but I think it's a clanging gong! (LOL)
The bottom line is this: When I spend time communicating with my supposed best friend; Father, healer, etc. (coming deeper into His presence, seeking His face not His hand resting in Him, and allowing Him to change ME), then I seem to connect well with some folks and not be offended much by those who reject me. There seems to be in me a small measure of compassion and ability to see Jesus in others as well as similarities to me.
When I think I've got it all together, I slip into fear which makes me jump right into rule based fences (defenses), and a desire to defend God, ala Peter-cutting-off-an-ear style. Just like that, I can be Mrs. Know-It-All and then feel hurt and justify self righteousness. That kind of mind set is what drives us, I believe, into the "whining we poor rejected Christians" the rest of the world loves to hate!
Thanks for letting me share!
Marian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Jon Stallings |
|
|
|
May 22, 2007 9:52 AM
|
|
Great article. I recently heard my Pastor state that "often ministry is messy." We have to be willing to get dirty to reach out. We can always show the love of Christ without compromising our values. Christ can redeem all, if we are willing to show Christ to all.
http://blog.redeemersway.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : David Jones |
|
|
|
May 23, 2007 8:44 AM
|
|
Thank you for the article. It was insightful and confronts a real problem in our churches today. I really appreciate your willingness to speak about this issue without naming our brother in Christ.
God Bless
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : jim freeland |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 5:01 AM
|
|
as i read your article i recalled all the tuesday nights (for 16 years) that i did exactly what you described.I sowed the seed ,but at what expense .now i realize the error of my ways
thank you,jim freeland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Fred Baker |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 6:02 AM
|
|
AMEN! Well done my brother! As a bivocational pastor, I am deeply concerned with the doctrine of the Pharisees that seems to be so prevalent today and I must be ever vigilant that my "concern" doesn't lead me down the same path. Thank you for a well written, thought provoking, heart stirring, and self-examination provoking article. AMEN!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Vince Valenti |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 7:21 AM
|
|
Michael,
I appreciate your article. I am not sure why some Christians expect the unbelievers to act as other than unbelievers. It is the unbelievers, the lost, that Jesus came to seek and save - not the self-righteouss -i.e the doctor. This doctor is an embarrassment to the medical profesion, his church, and the Lord Jesus Christ - if he is a Christian.
However, I don't think we need a new word to define what a Christian is and how he ought to behave. The word "Christian" should be enough. Perhaps the problem is that the word "Christian" has lost significance. But a new term, will in time, be affected by the same problems. Perhaps, we should focus on a biblical definition of a "Christian" starting with a clear presentation and understanding of the Gospel.
-Vince
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Trini Corchado |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 7:43 AM
|
|
Thank you for a great article. I have seen the same attitude among christians and how we are going back to the pharisees way. Let's hope that we can turn this around and show the love of God and see people as He saw them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Cyle Clayton |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 7:54 AM
|
|
The doctor in your Crosswalk published article on Drive-By Evangelism was nuts. I have a question, thought. I was a researcher for years, and perhaps I am too heavily influenced by that. My question is this. Is there any statistical proof that relational evangelism is any more or less effective than operational evangelism. Here's what I find. When our church does operational evangelism, the people in our church become relationally evangelistic. When we practice relational evangelism, it eventually degenerates into no evangelism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Julie |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 8:29 AM
|
|
I agree totally. Jesus would never turn away a child because of a parents "sin". For that matter tattoos are a gray area anyway. Jesus never said not to have tattoos or piercings. Personally I believe it falls under treat you body as Christ's home and wouldn't do it personally, but I find it hard to believe that Jesus would have turned away even the mother. Jesus harshest comments were reserved for the Pharisees who acted like this doctor. He welcomed the worst sinners of his time to have meals with him. He was here to reach a lost world. Misguided Christians such as this doctor turn more people away from Jesus. How receptive do you think this woman and her friends are to Christ now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Wendell |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 9:46 AM
|
|
Very good article. I feel sorry for both the little girl and her mother. That doctor you mentioned may have just thrown up a stumbling block that could keep that woman from ever accepting Christ.
Besides, how is it the little girl's fault that her mother had tattoos or piercings? Funny that Jesus never checked for people living up to a certain standard before he healed them.
I pray that the doctor will repent of his attitude and that God will somehow overcome the poor impression this mother mus have of Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Don Ward |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 10:07 AM
|
|
Thanks for your insights...it fit real well into my recent sermon on Acts 15 and the freedom from cultural imperialism the early church possessed. Sadly this individual brother who put this lady and her sick child off, will likely be commended by his church- they may have taught him to think this way. Rather than view her as a mission field to be understood, cared for, and yes, if need be, evangelized, he viewed her as unwashed, and unclean...thanks for the reminder of our need to see our task more widely than a one way chat...
http://www.gcchurch.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Rose |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 1:56 PM
|
|
That doctor was a Pharasee not a Christian! He should have shown her the love of Christ by treating her daughter, yes, but to truly be doing the will of Christ he would have gone the "second mile" by doing what he could to restore the image of Christ within her. Perhaps he could have offered his patients the opportunity to take healthful living classes that would then lead into a group Bible study. After that,and only after, his patients could benefit from evangelistic meetings.
http://www.rosesdevotional.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Chris Jerrett |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 3:14 PM
|
|
I do not believe that this man is a true christian. I volunteer in an organization many hours in a week and I meet many different people. I look at each one as another chance to show that person my God who loves everyone who is willing to serve Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Todd Chas |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 3:25 PM
|
|
Dear Michael,
Missional, relational, evangelical acts can and should seamlessly run together. Many times it does and persons in evangelical churches are often the ones exhibiting the love. As a reader and a believer, taking an example of a nutcase doctor who wouldn't treat a child because her mother had a tatoo and then comparing that to the evangelical church is kind of a stretch. I mean, it is an effective bizarre example and story to introduce our need to love like God first loved us and love because we are loved by the Lord in ways beyond our comprehension as stated in Ephesians 3. But to draw any significant comparison of the extremest doctor to Bible-believing, evangelical churches appears to be like killing a knat with a sledge hammer.
However, I completely agree with your conclusion that we should relationally exhibit love first and then share a wonderful hope that we have within. I certainly need to work on that one myself.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Jon Kile |
|
|
|
May 24, 2007 5:07 PM
|
|
Michael,
Hopefully your missional doctor would go even further and not just have the woman wonder if the doctor was a Christian. The prayer is that she would both see the truth lived out and hear it from his lips. I wish that would have been made more clear. Truly loving people means to show them the love of Christ - and then of course - telling them how they can be saved from the wrath to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Jay Hoffman |
|
|
|
May 25, 2007 6:49 AM
|
|
Good story, But the first thing you must see is that these people and their churches ARE NOT Christians! Just because someone call themselves a Christian doesn't make it so.To be a Christian means to love Christ more than your so called church, and hate the world and all that is in it. To call these people Christian is an insult to all true Christians. The other thing is that satan runs those people and their churches. They kicked out Jesus and sent satan an engraved invation.
In Christ Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Roger McCune |
|
|
|
May 25, 2007 10:44 AM
|
|
Dear Michael,
You wrote a very good article, one that address a huge dynamic concerning the church in the world. But it is also about living in a perception about how God wants us to act versus letting Him live in us by the Spirit and in His truth.
The Lord, through some tough trials, has been leading me to know His grace and unsurpassing love to a place where I delight in being with sinners. They are no longer "them" but someone that Jesus died for. He has lead me to a place where I have relationship with the drunk and lowly every day. Yes, each day I am confronted with a prideful attitude toward them which the Holy Spirit helps me address. This I know, that He dwells in my heart and when I walk into the life of a pagan, Jesus is present. I believe that and live with that in the forfront of my mind.
Finally, I become a bit uneasy when we label what it is we do in the world such as evangelistic or missional. It seems to me that attitude puts us into a work mode rather than a life style. It is merely Jesus going to where the people live.
Again, Michael you are headed in the direction of knowing the lost.
Roger McCune
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Nona Wayne |
|
|
|
May 25, 2007 4:19 PM
|
|
I also read the news report about the doctor who refused service and I thought it was wrong to do so. However, I subsequently read that there was another side to the story making it incorrect as reported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Janel |
|
|
|
May 27, 2007 2:11 AM
|
|
The article you have written here is exactly on target & unfortunately true. I praise God for restoring the proper and true heart of evangelism which incorporates the body, mind, and soul of those we reach out to & that we are not just about "closing a deal." What I want to address, however, is the terms used. When I read the title, "Missional vs. Evangelical," I actually thought you would address an entirely different are of concern within the church....and that is the opposite trend where some have lost sight of the need to share the gospel and instead have become merely do-gooders. Whether it is fear that hinders us from making the gospel message clear to those we are reaching out to, whether we have become so busy meeting the physical and emotional needs that we have forgotten to expressly state the need to repent, whether it be ignorance or whatever the case, many of us have become "missional" without being "evangelical," and what will it profit us to bring people out of hunger or poverty for a moment but to lose them forever in Hell? I am only lovingly challenging your terminology and wondering if we cannot find an even better expressions which makes certain that the evangelism piece is not missing from the missional piece. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Kevin |
|
|
|
May 27, 2007 7:36 AM
|
|
I am sometimes amazed when I read that some christians omit the fact that Jesus loves us, tattos and all. I would wonder, while this young lady had tattos that are seen, has this doctor looked his heart where the tattos he has that are hidden and unseen? That her sins are no worse than his sins? Has he thought about the probability that God sent her there to see what real christians are and find the love of God in Christ by the love and kindness the good doctor might have shown her? Possibly the good doctor may want to read about the woman at the well recorded in the Gospel of John, or possibly the woman caught in adultry, or the sinful woman that annointed Jesus' feet and washed them with her hair. Or he might look at Galatians 6:15, "faith expressing itself through love. Regardless of what the good doctor thought about the woman and her tattos, she is one of God's creation and Jesus loves her enough to have gone to the cross for her. What right do we have to shun her because of something she has done that we don't agree with. Try as I might, I can't find one instance recorded in Scripture where Jesus told anyone to clean up, get rid of your tattos and I will then help you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : John Gilman |
|
|
|
June 14, 2007 11:21 AM
|
|
It's probably important to recognize that one large goal of MSM is to make Christians look bad. Also we should discipline ourselves to remember if it's in a news story, it is too rare to be meaningful in policy.
For the author to highlight a six-sigma story from a newspaper was just a little hyperbolic. His point that Christians generally act like moralizing brutes, really runs counter to my own experience. It runs counter to most people's experience, because it made the paper. It runs counter to his experience, because he didn't use a personal illustration.
The author also committed the very sin he railed against in the piece, by judging and moralizing over those who judge and moralize. It's an example of the double standards of the Left, and I think it's important not to fall for it. After all, the doctor's heart is probably in the right place. A much better tone for the article would be one expressing love for the judgemental individual. The author might start by eliminating quotes around "Christians" with whom he disagrees.
Assuming the story was correct - the doctor didn't treat the daughter, to hold a mother accountable to his standards - was wrong twice. First, you don't hold the innocent accountable for the guilty. Second, you have to have a pre-existing relationship to teach through accountability. If the author had made those points explicitly, he'd have had a far more effective piece.
http://www.childprotectionreform.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Bob Jenkins |
|
|
|
July 10, 2007 6:54 AM
|
|
I agree with this article. In keeping with the heart of the gospels, Jesus would have accepted the tatooed mother and baby and would have repremanded the doctor for being the pharisee he apparently is. Thanks for printing the piece. (From a Jesus and Brennen Manning fan in K.C.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Scott Holder |
|
|
|
July 4, 2008 8:02 AM
|
|
"True evangelism should be relational not operational!"
Thank goodness (and God) we can actually get a glimpse into the life of Jesus and see how He dealt with issues like this. Which group of people did He reject? He condemned the Pharisees (religious right - fundamentalists) for their hard hearts and religiosity. He ministered to the people in need - regardless of their backgrounds. There were leaders (Nicodemus) and outcasts (woman at the well, Mary Magdalene). Jesus ministered without condemning the person for their previous acts. Jesus' actions were always about building a relationship with the people. That is what the good news should be: We CAN have a relationship with God because of Jesus! Why would we or should we ever turn anyone away because of their past? Did God do that with us? No! In spite of our past (or maybe because of it?) God loved us enough to redeem us. That idea carries with it the payment (in full) for something in order to buy it back, to pay a ransom, to free from what causes distress or harm. If we try to judge other people, then we will be judged by that same judgment. When we judge others, we don't redeem - not as a general rule. We don't release people from harms them or causes them distress. It is obvious the doctor in the story missed this opportunity by refusing to treat a patient based on his own judgment of the person by her outward appearance.
I’ll never forget seeing David Ring preach in Dallas. I knew he has a physical disability; he was born with Cerebral Palsy. When he came out to preach he was dressed in a suit. He spoke of how God takes the disabled and gives them ability. Then he asked this question: “I have Cerebral Palsy. That is my disability. What is yours?” He went on to talk about appearances and then removed his suit coat. He looked good before he took the coat off; however, when he removed the coat, we could all see that the shirt underneath was ripped to shreds. His point was made.
We judge based on what we see on the outside. God looks in the heart. Did this doctor make a judgment call based on the woman’s appearance? Yes. He did it before he ever met her. He based it on his teachings which he obviously received somewhere along the way. If it was in a local church, then he was misled by the teacher. If he obtained this on his own, then he missed the council of godly believers. If it came from some theological institution, then the Pharisees’ work was perpetuated – which is nothing more than the blind leading the blind.
It all comes down to helping lost people be found by Jesus. Some don’t know they are lost; others do. In either case, it takes a relationship with Jesus to come out of bondage (out of the hostage situation in which Satan has us). If we, as Christ-followers, don’t introduce people to Jesus through relational efforts, they are not going to find Him and be found by Him. Yes, He can do it without us; however, He has chosen us to be involved in the work, and He gives us the privilege of introducing people to the Creator of the Universe and Redeemer of all mankind. Why miss that opportunity for the sake of some religious teaching? Religion will never get us where the relationship with Jesus will take us!
http://www.crosspointinc.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Sharon |
|
|
|
July 4, 2008 2:32 PM
|
|
What a sad state when we won't treat those whose appearance or way of life offends us! Aren't those exactly the people Jesus would have us serve. As a physician or any other health care provider, we are meant to serve the people God brings into our care whether with love, compassion and with the love of Jesus shining through our every move. Jesus only condemned those who professed to be good Religious men for being hypocrites. I thank God that the people he put in my path before I knew Him were kind and loving, not condemning. And I pray I can become the missional example of Jesus' love to all I care for, even those whose lifestyle I would not embrace for myself but know that by the grace of God I was saved from hell and that by extending that grace to others, I can show the way to Christ. Well written, well said, and keep on challenging those of us warming the pews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Tom |
|
|
|
July 5, 2008 1:43 AM
|
|
I agree completely with you Micahel. If I were to share the Gospel in that manner while in Paraguay on a mission next week, I would be completely ineffective with the very people we are attempting to reach for Christ. I have left two "Bible" churches in the past six years for this very reason: legalistic and jugdemental attitudes that make people run the other way. These uncaring Pharasitical individuals might do well to read Micah 6:8 and reconsider their warped and selfish thinking.
http://www.savedbthisgrace.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Wendy Orestano |
|
|
|
July 5, 2008 7:05 AM
|
|
Thank you so much for this wonderful article; it is so true & so prevalent. We need more Christians with the courage to speak up (in love) like this. Bless you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : jeff wood |
|
|
|
July 7, 2008 7:40 AM
|
|
your article on evangilizim finally helped me to see the separation of a created culture in the church and the world. I will be checking out your web site, keep up the good work. Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Martin J. Ferenc |
|
|
|
July 8, 2008 1:41 PM
|
|
AMEN! We are to be doers of the word, not hearers only; decieving ourselves. We are the image of Jesus to our lost world & Jesus died that not one should perish, NO NOT ONE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Rosa |
|
|
|
July 14, 2008 3:02 AM
|
|
I read about the doctor that refused to help a child because he judged the mother. How sad, for all of them. He is going to be very surprised when death overtakes him and he finds himself rejected because he lacked love and compassion that the Lord commands us to have and demonstrate to this world. I thank you for your very insightful comments. God bless your ministry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to This Article
Navigation Key
|
