Heaven tickets
Heaven. Hell. How do we talk to people about this in our new context? Is there more to heaven than just not going to hell? What is heaven anyway? (Check out this great video from Google!) What is hell?
Lots of questions... not many answers. I'm wondering these days about "evangelism" and how we do it in this postmodern context. As a base line I think we can all agree that relationship is a must as the beginning. What next?
I personally react very strongly against those folks who do the "heavy sell" trying to scare people into heaven or try to "do evangelism" through some sort of information share only. What about you? How do we share faith? How do we share our story? How do we invite others to faith?
If I reject the traditional "roman road" way or the fact, faith feeling, or the four spiritual flaws...er.... laws, then what do I embrace? Let's pursue this together
16 comments:
I'm not sure that we can simply state that relationship is a beginning point, Bri. I think that we must see relationship as the i ching, the ultimate, the goal. Relationship is heaven, which is the ingredient that has been lost when we ask, "Do you know Jesus as your personal blah blah blah..." Relationship is the whole of what Christians hope (or should hope) to attain. Which is why we practice such steps as "love your neighbor as yourself," "love God above all others in order to love all others as God intended," and the unspoken reciprocal of these, "love yourself as you plan to love others".
Perhaps what I would suggest is that we will more successfully evangelize through action rather than convicing words and arguments. I deal with a number of juveniles so sick of Christians that they seek to argue the invalidity of that religion. But they fail to understand that authentic faith needs no words of commendation or proof. The authenticity is somewhere in the pudding, so to speak, the actions of the individual and community; the willingness of both to risk hell - literally to enter into it - in order that all might taste of "heaven".
Great point Kipper! Where I am headed does indeed involve just that premise. I wonder though, what do we say when someone says, "I want what you have, how do I get there?" Do we have any responsibility to help give them language to their belief? Where in the process is the poetic role and what words can we use? It seems to me that I'm often bagging "Do you know Jesus as your personal blah, blah, blah..." and other such language, but what words can I use, should I use?
I'm not even trying to buy into the whole model per se, but I am trying to recognize that when we have opportunity to re-imagine, what is it that we should say?
Let me stew on that one for a bit, Bri. My initial response is to suggest that we have let our theological language and preconceptions shape the relationships we hope to have with others rather than letting those relationships shape our theological language. We're at the point now where we are willing to let relationship shape our thinking/opinions/beliefs; but perhaps, as you suggest, we need to let it proceed one step further and shape the language.
But again, just my initial thoughts. Let me get back to you on this... perhaps with a bit more input from others...
info does not equal life.
i think it's important to distinguish faith from "set of beliefs" and maybe lean more to the definition of faith as what your life is sourced out of or based on (again, the whole "based on" sounds like foundationalism, but the goal is more along the lines of what Jesus talks about in the sermon on the mount when he says if you build your life on my words you'll be like the wise man).
I can only speak to this as out of a story that happened to me the other day. Aubrey and I were in a restaurant with some really good friends late at night. It was a diner, actually. One of those places that people go to sober up before going home for the night. So my friends and I are having a blast, hooting and laughing. We even got our waitress in on the laughter. But twice our server asked, "are you drunk?" And both times we assured her that we were not, but that we were instead just having a good time. But the second time she asked the question she said, "Are you drunk? B/c if you are, I want to know where you're getting it."
So. The question was asked. I pushed the question away and again assured her we were not drunk, but instead that we had lots of coffee and enjoyed each others company.
But as I drove away from that night, the question rang in my spirit, and I realized that had been a potential inroads for some type of spiritual conversation. Not necessarily a conversion conversation, but something that might plant a seed.
And I began to think through, what I could have said...
"No we're not drunk...but if you want to know where we're getting this...I can tell you...the most important things to me in life are two fold and they actually rhyme...not because I'm a poet, but because they do...anyway, those words are pray and play. for me those are the two most important aspects of life. I gotta be able to connect with God and that affects everything else."
Now that may sound cheesy, but it's me. And it's true to my life. It's not four spiritual laws and there isn't even a mention of Christ in there...but that could have been a seed or a starter...
Maybe you two could have done something better for that conversation.
I think that the Roman Road might work for somebody. Not me. And the four spiritual laws might work for another person. Again not me. Telling my life story might work for another person. Talking about Jesus as human might work for another person.
In loving we listen to the Spirit and to the hearts of others. In a relationship we can have a sense of the questions that people are asking. If the people are searching for authenticity, then we need to present that side of the coin. If people are looking for facts, then we need to send them to Lee Strobel. We can tell them that it may not be our style, but we can also tell them that it may work for them.
Oh my...this has been long. And slightly incoherent.
Also, your doug pagitt link is no longer up to date...he moved his blog...
You both raise an interesting point in that our relationships with people don't necessarily have to be close for us to value them, love them, care about them as people - children of God, creations, fellow humanity containing the spark of God... and it is in this relationship (even if I haven't even talked to them) that my heart for them begins. It is here that perhaps the purest form of "evangelism" may begin.
A wise man once told me, "caring about someone begins by seeing them as your teacher". This is the kind of valuing that I am refering to.
But none of this speaks to the language that is required at some point.
so you want words...meaningless words?
so if we are to think of the words that we are going to use, don't we need to know who we are talking to?
if i am going to try to speak into someone's life, i will try to use words that they are familiar with. i'll probably use some church words, and then explain them.
so maybe we should have words that are valuable to us, that give me insight into the character of God and the basics of reality. then i can use those words on a regular basis...(I hear a cricket chirping...)
Of course, any communications expert will explain that there is more to communicating something than mere words. Our words are merely the expression of everything that has gone before them, that which lies underneath. Perhaps that is why we refer to Jesus as the Word. He never spoke intrusively, though often pointedly. All that was his being was poured out into his words. And all that was his being was intended to be our being as well.
Maybe the problem with so many of our words is that truthfully we have no idea who we (them and us) are supposed to be?
i think "transformer" language is good.
something that indicates that God is one who shapes us...
Josh invited me to join this conversation. My name is Jordan, I live in Seattle, I like coffee. So anyway, here a few toughts I have. It appears to me that the gospel has become another commodity in our culture. Church's offer services, programs, facilities, salvation, ect... All of these things are talyor made for the individual, right down to my personal savior. Jesus of course is the ultimate commodity. You sell everything you have (in our culture, 75 minutes on a Sunday morning, entertain a small group of church members at your house once a month, drop a check in the plate) and you recieve an eternity in heaven.
In my opinion we need to move far away from the gospel being a commodity. But that leaves us with the question of what is the gospel? To be honest I am really not quite sure anymore. But here goes my best shot. (My rational for starting here is that if we are going to present the gospel to someone who is unaware of it we need to know what it is.)
The gospel is an invitation to serve
(I thought about using the word love instead of serve, but I think the word love has gotten so watered down in our culture. Maybe not, maybe one of you could think of a better word. Serve could conjure up negative feelings though. Jesus said "You are not my servants but my friends." And I want that spirit to be in my words.)
Thats what I think the gospel is. It isn't a ticket to heaven, it is invitation to be like God. And I think the best way to describe God is "The One Who Serves."
Imagine what our faith communities would look like if they were full of people who were converted to service. It wouldn't be a group of people after the best product (services, programs, pastors, music). It would be a group of people united in mission to serve.
So then, how would I invite someone into the gospel, into God, into a faith community. I would invite them to serve. Through serving they would better understand who God is, what the gospel is, and what communities who follow the gospel are all about.
If the gospel is another commodity though, its luster will soon ware, and it will be exchanged for the next thing that tastes good.
old model: instruct, invite, incorporate
new model: include, invite, instruct
A question from the bleachers:
Who says we have to talk in terms of "personal" + "Jesus" + "saved from the flames of hell"?
Isn't that a holdover from Bill Bright's (may he rest in peace) contribution to late 20th Century evangelicalism?
Isn't the gospel something like: "Look, the way the Bible tells the story, God made everything. We screwed it up and keep screwing it up. (insert data/story about how screwed up life/the world/the environment/relationships et al are) Then along comes Jesus. He lives, teaches as a rock star, is killed for his ideas, but then in a moment of triumph beats back the one thing we all are doomed to face because we keep screwing it up--namely death. Because of that EVERYthing is going to be restored.
So sorry for all the crap you've seen Christians put other people through. They didn't get it. Sorry for the crap in your life that you didn't deserve. Sorry that it's so hard to own up to how screwed up we all are. In spite of all that, because Jesus is resurrected, everything is going to be restored. Want in on the project?"
Doesn't the whole heaven/hell, "do you know Jesus as your personal blah blah" thing start from a reading of Scripture that begins in Genesis 3 and ends somewhere around the rapture found on the end times chart in "A Distant Thunder?"
I'll come back in here with three main things:
1) Jordan - welcome! I appreciate your comments and question on "what is the gospel?" That is a great conversation and one explored a few other times in my blog so I appreciate the heart of it very much and I do think it is central to the ways in which we approach this question. Kipper's points about relationship help me approach my "gospel" question. Your thoughts on service do to. However if God is only a God who serves, then who does he serve? If he serves me then why should I ever expect anything but health, wealth and a large screen TV? What if God's heart was that we would all be "ONE" (John 17)? While I do think serving one another is a good thing (see Matthew 22), but isn't more than just about one another and also about God? Perhaps I'm splitting too many hairs here, because I'm all for a sent community rather than a bunkered down one.
2) Scott, I appreciate your thoughts here on recognizing where the "get out of hell for free card" comes from, but I want to challenge your particular version of the gospel. It seems that you are saying that when God is around physically (the garden and Jesus) then things are really good, but when He's not, then things are really bad. I wonder if another version of the story could be that God is always trying to redeem his people and that He's always at work and that His kingdom is always advancing, even in his "absence", perhaps more so - "those who follow will do greater works...". I guess for me it's not just about future restoration, its about restoration now. And then.
3) The main point I'm getting at in this does have to do with "what is the gospel?" But what I want to know is how we would answer that to friends, people we know, people who are thirsty? We would have to use some words (even if the main part of our message was our relationship and our actions) to tell this story in our life. We would have to be able to use phrases and terms that are hopefully found in Scripture and are true to the whole context of the story. After all, Jesus did use words, phrases, stories and parables. Things that were real in his everday world become examples and metaphors of the Kingdom unfolding.
Think of your best friend. What would you say to him or her to describe your faith? And if she/he actually asked you how they could live that kind of life too... what would you say? I'm with many who don't want to talk about getting out of hell, or self-centered and gratifying faith, or "personal relationship with Jesus who is in my heart (where? down in my heart), or use the four spiritual flaws or the Roman road... etc, etc. But what then would I say?
Whether or not you are a Christian, the moment we are born we are thrust into the midst of a story. From birth we struggle to find our place in that story, many times getting bowled over by those rushing by to advance their place, occassionally pausing to notice those trampled by the stampeding crowds.
Perhaps it's just my interpretation of my own experience with others, but what seemed to matter most was not me telling them the story they found themselves part of (for the most part, people like figuring it out for themselves, except for my daughter who always wants the unexplained part of the movies clarified right then); nor did they want a lecture on the subtle nuiances of the story. Rather what they wanted was someone to share the story with, to share their part and for someone else to share their part.
In other words, the most highly effective communication of the Gospel I ever claimed were those instances when I merged my story - maybe even allowing myself to be side-tracked from whatever previously perceived goal I had - with the stories of others, allowing the blending to redefine my story and make me more aware of the greater boundaries of the story of which we were and are all apart.
Now you can define this as narrative theology if you need to, and go to great lengths to fashion a reasonable grip on it - to pour the water in a cup if you need. But people today are more interested in participation than the lethargic imbibement of Christian principles and doctrine. Hence the vital role of sacraments in worship, not to mention the energetic singing of modern worship bands. It is why Israel, at first anyway, did not just tell the story but re-enacted it. A more subtle version of this can be seen in modern counseling which seeks not so much to give answers to individuals but to ask the right questions which will allow the individual to find their own answers and thus be agents of their own healing.
Now granted, for many that last statement will wreak of blasphemy. First of all, it was a totally different context than religious. And secondly, every counselor understands that healing does not occur alone even though we allow the individual to take ownership of their own healing. Perhaps that is the guiding point I'm trying to suggest: that we find a way(s) for people to take ownership of this Story, rather than trying to retain ownership for ourselves or thrust our own version down their throats.
Bri-izzle -
Clarifying my comments.
I was attempting to frame the Gospel in terms of the narrative flow of Scripture (i.e., Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration) rather than talk in terms, as you put it, of God's absence=bad things, etc.
And I was attempting to say it in terms that a person not from our subculture might grab onto it (being from the subculture, that's a hard thing for me to do). So no, I wasn't saying or implying that bad things happen when God is not physically present (e.g., the garden and the Jesus), simply trying to reframe the "evangelism thing" in terms of the Gospel narrative.
Post a Comment