Must Read Article -- "Ethical Evangelism

Pastor Nathan Lino, of Northeast Houston Baptist Church wrote a great article on evangelism. He is a personal friend of mine and is someone I highly respect for his walk with the Lord.

March 20, 2008

ETHICAL EVANGELISM

“Relevance” and “contextualization” are the two buzz words in evangelism circles today. Relevance is the term that is employed when referring to effectiveness. In today’s evangelism world, if one is not effective in reaching lost people then they are said to be no longer relevant or irrelevant. In its simplest form, contextualization refers to communicating the Gospel message in terms that are appropriate and understandable to one’s audience. For example, I would expect those who teach our church’s empty nesters to present the Gospel differently than those who teach our third graders. I preach differently in our seminary chapels, where the audience knows theological terminology, than I do at inner city missions in Houston. A significant number of churches today make almost all their ministry decisions and plans based on contextualization and relevance. I believe much good can and has come from discussions related to these two issues.

I also believe much harm is being done to the Kingdom in the name of contextualization and relevance. For example, if relevance deals with a church’s effectiveness, what is the measuring stick? Numerical attendance? If a church’s goal is to get as many people in the doors as possible, then that church will pursue almost any program/ministry/approach/style that will get ever growing numbers of people in the door. And as the numbers come in, that church will deem itself “relevant” in reaching today’s lost culture. However, to be logically consistent, this line of thinking also has to consider the churches that aren’t drawing huge crowds to be “irrelevant”. This is a dangerous line of thinking. Take John 6 for example. Jesus feeds about 20,000+ people (5,000 men besides women and children in a day without contraceptives). That is quite the numerical attendance and is comparable to the biggest churches in America today. However, in the same chapter, Jesus says to His audience in verse 56, “He who eats of My flesh and drinks of My blood abides in Me and I in Him.” In a culture that considered blood to be religiously unclean, the audience quickly rejected Christ’s message. The chapter says the audience grumbled and argued over the sermon. Verse 66 says Christ’s huge following left Him after that sermon, and Jesus turned to the twelve disciples and asked them if they were going to leave Him also. In one sermon, Christ’s numerical attendance shrunk 20,000 to 12. Must we conclude that Christ’s ministry was “irrelevant”? (As an aside, I want to acknowledge that this line of thinking should make no sense coming from a pastor whose church is realizing a record number of people involved in overseas missions, conducting a large construction program because there are too many people to fit into the building we currently have, looking for staff, checking into offsite parking/shuttle options because we have no more room in our parking lot on Sunday mornings, etc. but, bear with me.) Based on Christ’s ministry, relevance cannot be measured by numerical attendance. Yet, in today’s church culture, numerical attendance is everything. An American church is considered relevant when there are lots of bodies in the worship center and irrelevant when there aren’t. This logic has led the American church down a road that is damaging the Kingdom. Before I flesh that out, let me briefly discuss contextualization.

If contextualization is communicating the Gospel to an audience in a way that they can understand it, how does one evaluate how good they are at contextualization? If I stand in front of 2,000 people and present the Gospel, how do I know if I what I said was clear to them? The defacto measuring stick of contextualization by the American church has become numerical results. Someone who gets a good numerical response when presenting the Gospel is considered a leader in the contextualization of the Gospel. But such thinking is problematic. If contextualization is to be measured by numerical results, then eventually and inevitably the Gospel message will get watered down so that more people will “respond”. The standard of salvation will be adjusted downward, and that is what I believe we are seeing in the American church today. The Gospel is often presented as an equitable contract between the lost person and God. “If you will turn to Jesus, He will be your friend.” “If you will invite Jesus into your heart, He will provide for you.” “If you will trust Jesus, He will watch over you.” We sell the Gospel to people based on what they will get from God in this lifetime which means their motive for turning to Christ is the impending blessings God wants to pour into their lives.

The American church has walked herself into the buzz saw of numerical results driven ministry. Misguided measuring sticks are driving the discussions of relevance and contextualization, and the American church is in troubled waters. We need a wake up call. We are doing much damage to the Kingdom of God. We are telling people who have not reached the biblical standard of salvation that they are saved. We are telling lost people, whom we have pronounced redeemed, that they can be decision making members of our faith communities. We are leading people who have no intention of making personal sacrifices for the sake of the Kingdom in singing I Am a Friend of God. We are baptizing people who have no intention of choosing the Lord Jesus’ will over their own will when inevitable conflicts arise between them and God. In short, we have reached a day in the American church where we have given ourselves the authority to adjust the biblical standard of salvation, and we are reaping what we have sowed. Prayer meetings are empty. Churches are doing well if they can get 20% of their members to share their faith during the week. Sacrificial service in the church is on the list of spiritual extinction, Americans willing to die for the faith are a rare breed, and personal safety on mission trips is of more importance to church members than getting the Gospel to lost people. In Southern Baptist life, the IMB has more money set aside to fund new missionaries than we have missionary candidates in the pipeline. Nasty church conflict is now the norm, and there is little respect for the office of the pastor. Pastors are preaching sermons initiated by requests from their congregation instead of the time they spend on their face before God. Our already sad baptism numbers are padded by churches that count individuals who are being baptized for the second and third time. Just a few years ago, LifeWay produced a survey that showed, on average, only 40% of a church’s recorded baptism numbers are first time baptisms.

Based on what I see in the American church today, it appears that few churches realize what a mess we are in. Most of the churches that do recognize the problem are trying to program their way to a healthier state. However, the problem cannot be fixed through leadership style, church structure or programming. The problem can only be fixed through salvation. If we will return to the biblical standard of salvation and only allow genuinely saved people into membership, our churches will regain their spiritual vibrancy. If we will make lost people meet the biblical standard of salvation, they will desire the Lordship of Christ once they are saved. They will hunger for the Word of God. They will serve sacrificially. They will sell all they have and move to Yemen as missionaries. They will share their faith. They will see the effectiveness of prayer. We will see genuine life change. The American church, and that includes mine, needs to return to the biblical standard of salvation.

I’d like to remind you of Christ’s sermon in Luke 14:25-35 during which He provided the standard of salvation. The premise of the passage is that a decision as significant as becoming a follower of Christ should not be made without first considering the cost involved. The decision should not be made emotionally or frivolously (see Parable of the Sower), but with serious consideration given to the price that may have to be paid. In vs. 28-30, Christ provides the illustration of how foolish it would be to begin a large construction project without first making sure that one can financially and logistically support the work that has to be done. In vs. 31-32 Christ provides the illustration of how foolish it would be to go to war without first making sure one has the resources and personnel to win the fight. His point is that in much the same way, it is foolish to rush into a decision to become a follower of Christ without first counting the cost.

In vs. 26 and 33 He provides examples of the types of sacrifices that may be required of a believer: family, one’s own life, and one’s possessions. A follower of Christ needs to understand that the day could come that for the good of the Kingdom, one’s relationship with their family, one’s possessions, and even one’s own life may have to be sacrificed. And Christ clearly says that if one is not willing to pay that kind of price, then they are not ready to be saved. Wow. Strong words. Hard words. Harsh words. But, the fact that the passage sounds hard to us is evidence of how far we have lowered the bar of salvation. Christ was preaching to LOST people. In their lost state they were to consider the price to be paid and if they couldn’t pay that price, they weren’t ready to be saved. Wow. Christ modeled this kind of evangelism for us in Luke 18:18 with the story of the rich young ruler. He came to Christ as a lost man and asked in vs. 18 what it would take for him to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him that to demonstrate his readiness to pay the price for the sake of the Kingdom, the ruler was to go and sell his possessions and give away the money. A lost man was asked to be willing to pay the price for the sake of the Kingdom and when he was unwilling, he was deemed unready for salvation. Jesus expects a willingness to pay a significant price for the Kingdom from day one in a believer’s walk with Christ. Wow.

This is the biblical standard of salvation. This is the standard a church must maintain with its ministries. As for NEHBC, this will be our standard. We will kindly, firmly, and urgently call the lost world to this standard of salvation. We will do everything we can to help lost people move to this point in their lives. We will teach, counsel, encourage, rebuke, urge, beg, and plead as much as we have to in order to give every lost person we can the opportunity at salvation. In other words, we will do everything we can do help them get up and over the bar, but we will not lower the bar. And I think therein is how the American church got into our predicament. Through our love for people, our desire to see lost people saved, and our hunger for the Kingdom of God to grow, we got so passionate about helping people over the bar that we started lowering the bar to accommodate them. We forgot that we are not allowed to touch the bar. It is time for our churches to put the bar back where it belongs and focus our attention on helping people clear it. Will a church’s numerical numbers go down? Probably. Will there be fewer baptisms? Probably. Might you be criticized by the lost members of your congregation? Definitely. Will you be told you are too hard on the lost people? Probably. Will lots of your visitors filter through your church and end up going to visit the church down the road that has lowered the bar? Probably. But, will you ever shrink your church from thousands to twelve in one sermon? Unlikely. But, if irrelevant means holding the bar of salvation to the biblical standard, I’m willing to be irrelevant; how about you?