Church good at evangelization

[temporal1]

A frequent reference on this forum:

FB / Faith Builders
https://www.fbep.org/
https://www.fbep.org/about/personnel/

[barnhart]

I have some pretty narrow views on evangelizing so I'll share them here - YMMV

If I had to guess, I would say your differences from Anabaptists on evangelism stem from a difference in worldview/philosophy of anthropology and not so much from level of fervor, energy or demonstration of the supernatural.

The common anthropology of Evangelicalism starts at the fall in Gen 3 and ends with the great Judgement in Revelation 19-20. The things that lie outside those parameters are de-emphasized and have little import on this life.

I propose the doctrine of the kingdom of God combines those things into a more unified view of God's work with people. If the world was created good and will be restored in wholeness, the drive to escape it and "fly away" is replaced by a confidence God is still working his plan through the world, not inspite of it. This is one of the strengths of Anabaptism, not a weakness. The whole of life becomes a sacred walk of cooperation with a creative, powerful God, even things like milking cows, washing dishes, offering a cup of cold water and gathering with other believers.

[silentreader]

I have some pretty narrow views on evangelizing so I'll share them here - YMMV

If I had to guess, I would say your differences from Anabaptists on evangelism stem from a difference in worldview/philosophy of anthropology and not so much from level of fervor, energy or demonstration of the supernatural.

The common anthropology of Evangelicalism starts at the fall in Gen 3 and ends with the great Judgement in Revelation 19-20. The things that lie outside those parameters are de-emphasized and have little import on this life.

I propose the doctrine of the kingdom of God combines those things into a more unified view of God's work with people. If the world was created good and will be restored in wholeness, the drive to escape it and "fly away" is replaced by a confidence God is still working his plan through the world, not inspite of it. This is one of the strengths of Anabaptism, not a weakness. The whole of life becomes a sacred walk of cooperation with a creative, powerful God, even things like milking cows, washing dishes, offering a cup of cold water and gathering with other believers.

Throughout this discussion I have wondered whether churches "good at evangelization" don't generally de-emphasize or ignore this passage from
James:1:19-27

Know this, my beloved brothers. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, laying aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in gentleness receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But become doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he looked at himself and has gone away, he immediately forgot what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of freedom, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does.

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious while not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

But perhaps James is still considered an "epistle of straw".

[Sudsy]

I have some pretty narrow views on evangelizing so I'll share them here - YMMV

If I had to guess, I would say your differences from Anabaptists on evangelism stem from a difference in worldview/philosophy of anthropology and not so much from level of fervor, energy or demonstration of the supernatural.

The common anthropology of Evangelicalism starts at the fall in Gen 3 and ends with the great Judgement in Revelation 19-20. The things that lie outside those parameters are de-emphasized and have little import on this life.

I propose the doctrine of the kingdom of God combines those things into a more unified view of God's work with people. If the world was created good and will be restored in wholeness, the drive to escape it and "fly away" is replaced by a confidence God is still working his plan through the world, not inspite of it. This is one of the strengths of Anabaptism, not a weakness. The whole of life becomes a sacred walk of cooperation with a creative, powerful God, even things like milking cows, washing dishes, offering a cup of cold water and gathering with other believers.

That is an interesting view and I may not be grasping exactly all that you are saying.

In the 'evangelistic arm' (for lack of better term) of Anabaptism as in the MBs and others is not just to "fly away" and escape it but rather to be part of the process of God working in the world for people to put their faith and trust in Jesus for their salvation. I agree it sure is a co-operation with God but one to bring sinners to repentance. This new birth experience begins a life of co-operating with God and yes, if truly born again, all areas of one's life will be working with God in His drawing others to Himself. That, to me, is what Kingdom living is about. Bringing others into this Kingdom way of life and becoming ambassadors of that Kingdom. And that is my understanding of what early Anabaptism was about and how they initially grew so fast.

With that said, any forum of evangelism that is not life changing with a new desire to follow Christ as the Holy Spirit leads, is suspect to me. Not that we will obtain a perfect state of sanctification in this life either but Kingdom living is a life quite different from worldly interests and concerns. If you are saying that there are evangelical groups that present Christianity from primarily a 'free ticket to heaven' and not a life changing walk with God, then this appears to me to be true also. On the other hand, what I see in our area, are many, if not most, Anabaptist groups that do not evangelize (as in sharing the Gospel in a way that reaches the lost) and are only growing through big families. This, I believe, is a major weakness amongst those Anabaptists and it shows an uncaring attitude regarding the salvation of others.

Correct me if I mis-understood. I'm blaming old age as to why my comprehension on some things is not as sharp as it once was.

[Sudsy]

I have some pretty narrow views on evangelizing so I'll share them here - YMMV

If I had to guess, I would say your differences from Anabaptists on evangelism stem from a difference in worldview/philosophy of anthropology and not so much from level of fervor, energy or demonstration of the supernatural.

The common anthropology of Evangelicalism starts at the fall in Gen 3 and ends with the great Judgement in Revelation 19-20. The things that lie outside those parameters are de-emphasized and have little import on this life.

I propose the doctrine of the kingdom of God combines those things into a more unified view of God's work with people. If the world was created good and will be restored in wholeness, the drive to escape it and "fly away" is replaced by a confidence God is still working his plan through the world, not inspite of it. This is one of the strengths of Anabaptism, not a weakness. The whole of life becomes a sacred walk of cooperation with a creative, powerful God, even things like milking cows, washing dishes, offering a cup of cold water and gathering with other believers.

Throughout this discussion I have wondered whether churches "good at evangelization" don't generally de-emphasize or ignore this passage from
James:1:19-27

Know this, my beloved brothers. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, laying aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in gentleness receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But become doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he looked at himself and has gone away, he immediately forgot what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of freedom, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does.

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious while not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

But perhaps James is still considered an "epistle of straw".

I do not believe the underlined is saying these two things are all that pure religion requires literally. But rather the first one regarding visiting is an example of being concerned and doing something about the state of others. In other words, pure religion is not just about ourselves and caring for ourselves. Secondly, pure religion is not about keeping one unstained in the way the Pharisees practised it by not touching certain things but rather not allowing worldly, sinful practises to be our practises.

James also says in the previous verse that if we can't control what we say (and post) and are appearing to be religious when in fact, we are not as religious as we are putting on that we are, then our religion is not having any benefit to us or others. That is worth considering as we share our beliefs and ways of talking to one another.

I think many of us do not agree with Martin Luther calling James an "epistle of straw" if it meant Luther thought it doesn't belong in the scriptures. However, some believe that is not what Luther meant by that phrase.

[silentreader]

If I had to guess, I would say your differences from Anabaptists on evangelism stem from a difference in worldview/philosophy of anthropology and not so much from level of fervor, energy or demonstration of the supernatural.

The common anthropology of Evangelicalism starts at the fall in Gen 3 and ends with the great Judgement in Revelation 19-20. The things that lie outside those parameters are de-emphasized and have little import on this life.

I propose the doctrine of the kingdom of God combines those things into a more unified view of God's work with people. If the world was created good and will be restored in wholeness, the drive to escape it and "fly away" is replaced by a confidence God is still working his plan through the world, not inspite of it. This is one of the strengths of Anabaptism, not a weakness. The whole of life becomes a sacred walk of cooperation with a creative, powerful God, even things like milking cows, washing dishes, offering a cup of cold water and gathering with other believers.

Throughout this discussion I have wondered whether churches "good at evangelization" don't generally de-emphasize or ignore this passage from
James:1:19-27

Know this, my beloved brothers. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, laying aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in gentleness receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But become doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he looked at himself and has gone away, he immediately forgot what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of freedom, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does.

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious while not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

But perhaps James is still considered an "epistle of straw".

I do not believe the underlined is saying these two things are all that pure religion requires literally. But rather the first one regarding visiting is an example of being concerned and doing something about the state of others. In other words, pure religion is not just about ourselves and caring for ourselves. Secondly, pure religion is not about keeping one unstained in the way the Pharisees practised it by not touching certain things but rather not allowing worldly, sinful practises to be our practises.

James also says in the previous verse that if we can't control what we say (and post) and are appearing to be religious when in fact, we are not as religious as we are putting on that we are, then our religion is not having any benefit to us or others. That is worth considering as we share our beliefs and ways of talking to one another.

I think many of us do not agree with Martin Luther calling James an "epistle of straw" if it meant Luther thought it doesn't belong in the scriptures. However, some believe that is not what Luther meant by that phrase.

I was not suggesting "only". I was suggesting probably an overlooked important part.

[Sudsy]

Throughout this discussion I have wondered whether churches "good at evangelization" don't generally de-emphasize or ignore this passage from
James:1:19-27



But perhaps James is still considered an "epistle of straw".

I do not believe the underlined is saying these two things are all that pure religion requires literally. But rather the first one regarding visiting is an example of being concerned and doing something about the state of others. In other words, pure religion is not just about ourselves and caring for ourselves. Secondly, pure religion is not about keeping one unstained in the way the Pharisees practised it by not touching certain things but rather not allowing worldly, sinful practises to be our practises.

James also says in the previous verse that if we can't control what we say (and post) and are appearing to be religious when in fact, we are not as religious as we are putting on that we are, then our religion is not having any benefit to us or others. That is worth considering as we share our beliefs and ways of talking to one another.

I think many of us do not agree with Martin Luther calling James an "epistle of straw" if it meant Luther thought it doesn't belong in the scriptures. However, some believe that is not what Luther meant by that phrase.

I was not suggesting "only". I was suggesting probably an overlooked important part.

This could be. I don't recall any sermons on the bolded text but have heard many sermons on becoming doers of the word and not hearers only in the first paragraph and the 'everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger' part.

[Sudsy]

Anyone here that is active in a church where the members is good at doing evangelization?

Eg. Maybe the church members talk about Jesus and the gospel on the square in the town, maybe in a organised way. Or maybe a church where most members use to talk about Jesus to people they meet.

Seems to me 'a church where the members is good at doing evangelization' would be considered 'good' if they are getting results. As in everything else in life, when we are doing things 'good' we normally mean we are getting the good results expected. One description puts it this way -

Evangelism is the term we use to refer to the preaching of the Gospel. It comes from the same Greek word for gospel (euangelion) and means, literally, “gospeling.” When we evangelize we are “gospeling” — we are spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The expectation or fruit of these efforts is to see people born again and entering into a new way of life following Jesus.

If a church is not growing with unchurched people becoming Christians (being born again), they are likely a backslidden church. They have left their first love for Christ and have lost their zeal to see others become Christians.

If this view is not what others would call being 'good at evangelism', then I am curious what their view is.

[temporal1]

Sudsy:
If this view is not what others would call being 'good at evangelism', then I am curious what their view is.

i was hoping plain would stop in again before i responded to your post on the former page.
others have responded, probably doing a better job than i.

now at 9 pages, i’ve read various views, and i’m enjoying the discussion.
only one member seems intent that evangelism is done in one way, even plain described her beliefs to include “not limited.”
P.7:

plain wrote:
.. It's not limited. As I did write, we need many different kinds of evangelisation, and, I think, we need to (also) use words. Not towards customers, clients, and subordinates. But when we have a chance, when it is "wisely" to say something, to a colleague, friend, someone we meet etc. ..

Proverbs 20:12
https://biblehub.com/proverbs/20-12.htm

11Even a young man is known by his actions—whether his conduct is pure and upright.
12Ears that hear and eyes that see— the LORD has made them both.
13Do not love sleep, or you will grow poor; open your eyes, and you will have plenty of food.…

We can be told many things, but until we’re ready+willing to hear, it falls on deaf ears.
i attribute this to the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit decides it’s time, we will hear. “Hear” meaning, understand.
(Not a reference to Calvinism.)

i think barnhart explains probable philosophical differences above.
no one is suggesting you should change, you are not effective; yours is not the only way God provides.

The Gospel has been shared many ways in 2000+ years, men come+go, the Word endures. It’s supernatural.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy:
If this view is not what others would call being 'good at evangelism', then I am curious what their view is.

i was hoping plain would stop in again before i responded to your post on the former page.
others have responded, probably doing a better job than i.

now at 9 pages, i’ve read various views, and i’m enjoying the discussion.
only one member seems intent that evangelism is done in one way, even plain described her beliefs to include “not limited.”

I just read this post. I don't know if you are referring to me as the 'member seems intent that evangelism is done in one way' but if you were that is incorrect. What I have pointed out using scripture is that evangelism requires words, words on how to be saved. Some believe they can avoid telling people that they need to be born again and they avoid confronting people with this fact.

P.7:

plain wrote:
.. It's not limited. As I did write, we need many different kinds of evangelisation, and, I think, we need to (also) use words. Not towards customers, clients, and subordinates. But when we have a chance, when it is "wisely" to say something, to a colleague, friend, someone we meet etc. ..

Proverbs 20:12
https://biblehub.com/proverbs/20-12.htm

11Even a young man is known by his actions—whether his conduct is pure and upright.
12Ears that hear and eyes that see— the LORD has made them both.
13Do not love sleep, or you will grow poor; open your eyes, and you will have plenty of food.…

We can be told many things, but until we’re ready+willing to hear, it falls on deaf ears.
i attribute this to the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit decides it’s time, we will hear. “Hear” meaning, understand.
(Not a reference to Calvinism.)

I believe for some people the Holy Spirit can take much time, sometimes years, of speaking to a person about their soul as scripture says He strives with man. Others hear and respond quickly. I have witnessed both. However, if a local church is planting the seed, watering the seed and not reaping a harvest of new born again souls then perhaps what they are sowing and/or watering is missing what is required to have a harvest.

i think barnhart explains probable philosophical differences above.
no one is suggesting you should change, you are not effective; yours is not the only way God provides.

Again, if you are referring to me by the 'you' and 'yours', then I am not suggesting how it works but sharing what scripture says in Romans 10:14-15. And my understanding on who is sent is all of us are sent to proclaim the Gospel.

The Gospel has been shared many ways in 2000+ years, men come+go, the Word endures. It’s supernatural.

There are various ways the Gospel is shared (street meetings, coffee houses, church sermons, personal contacts, etc, etc) but the Gospel message is one message of what Jesus did to save us from our sins. Apostle Paul calls it that which is 'of first importance' in the Gospel. It is the message that causes one to be born again when it is believed in the heart. The supernatural happens when one's heart is changed to a new way of life.