"Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
Luke 14: 34-15:2
I love how the gospel writers put their narratives together. Each of the authors took the same material and information, and they crafted it for different audiences. These gospels were not read with their chapter divisions. Those were added much later. Instead, the narrative of Jesus' life and ministry read like an action packed play.
In Luke 15, Jesus declares the heart of God for the lost. With the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost sons, Jesus declares God great concern and pursuing love for the lost.
What is often missed is how he concludes what we read as Luke 14. "Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall it be restored?" What is he talking about? In the context, this small section is told by Luke between Jesus' teaching on the cost of being a disciple and the reality that the "sinners" of the day loved him (found him "salty') and the religious teachers grumbled at this fact.
Matthew uses this teaching of Jesus concerning salt in a different way, and it is found in a different place. Does this show an error? No! I am sure Jesus used this phrase often in its ministry. It has many applications. I believe it is clear that Luke is using it here to illustrate the reality of disciples being the preserving influence to the sinners that God is passionately pursuing. Jesus is the perfect example of a follower of God. He pursues and is attractive to sinners. Unfortunately, this also means the religious folks sometimes do not understand him!
This week I began an eight week series in our evening time together on the topic of evangelism in a postmodern world. As I shared with the congregation, this topic worries me. Why? I shared that 90% of churches say they wish to grow, but 90% of these churches are not really willing to follow through to grow. I also shared that 90% of believers claim they want to reach out to friends, neighbors, and co-workers, but about 90% of them rarely follow through.
See why I am nervous? These claims are rather controversial! Yet, in my experience I have found it to be true. One of my favorite stats I have seen to illustrate this lack of personal evangelism was a survey taken of mainline Presbyterians. The findings concluded that on average a Presbyterian congregant invites someone to church once every 17 years! Wow.
I will say that I moved from a church in Maine that was willing to change so it could grow to a church in Seattle that I believe is willing to change so it can grow. The problem is that change within a church or an individual is so difficult and full of pitfalls!
Why is this the case? As individuals, I often hear excuses about their gifting, the difficulty of the culture, their work environment, their desire to answer questions if asked but not to be pushy. Honestly, I have offered all of these excuses myself!
In the book we are using as supplemental reading during the series, Rick Richardson's Evangelism Outside the Box, all of these reasons are called self-perception boxes. Richardson argues that all of us develop "boxes" that we put around God and how God can work through us in evangelism. I believe for most of us, our self-perception boxes greatly hinder our personal evangelism.
Richardson also mentions several other boxes that hinder effective evangelism. These include the theology box, the sacred practices box, and the strategies and structures box. While each of these boxes can apply to individuals, I think they particularly apply to churches and groups of believers.
What does this mean? I agree with Richardson that often our churches say one thing, but their practical theology, their sacred practices, and their outreach strategies belie their claims. In other words, what we actually do and believe put roadblocks in the way of effective outreach!
I do not have space in this post to describe all that this means for each box. Lord willing, I will deal with each of these boxes with examples in upcoming posts. Instead, I would like to ask several questions that will serve as diagnostic tests for our ability to do outreach.
First, do pre-Christians find you and your church environment compelling? "Sinners" were attracted to Jesus during his time on earth, and they are still attracted to Jesus in our postmodern world!
Second, do you, perhaps even subconsciously, shy away from inviting people to your church because you know its worship and practice are not attractive to people today? Why is this? Is the gospel proclaimed? Are you ashamed of the gospel or are the "sacred practices" of the church more geared to the culture of the 1950s than our current postmodern culture?
After my lecture on evangelism we had a question and answer time. Two questions/observations posed during this time and after the meeting have stuck with me. I wish to share them to help kick off the discussion on evangelism in our postmodern world.
The first was a statement that personal evangelism seems so much harder in Seattle than it did when this individual lived in Atlanta. She shared that in Atlanta even people at work were more than willing to talk about spiritual things. In Seattle, it is not only harder, but also dangerous. You could lose your job, clients, and respect if you mention spiritual issues.
I could not agree more! In a secular culture like Seattle, we are much more postmodern than Atlanta. Religion is seen as irrelevant and perhaps immoral imposition on culture. For someone raised in the Church, attending Christian schools, and marrying a strong Christian, this change is most likely confusing and disorienting.
I must be honest, I find it exciting. Our postmodern culture looks more like first century Roman culture than the American culture of the 1950s. It appears that Paul and the disciples did a good job reaching that ancient culture. By the grace of God, we can also!
Yet, if we wish to reach these folks with the gospel, we most likely will need new methods, strategies, and even practices that deal with the questions of the day. Knowing these questions and then answering them effectively in community is why I am teaching the class and why I am the pastor of a church that wants to be effective in ministry in a postmodern culture.
This leads to the second statement/question. On the way out, I was told that about 20 years ago, being "seeker-sensitive" was all the rage. This individual did not think this movement was helpful and he did not want to return to these ideas.
What does this mean? Does it mean we should not copy Bill Hybels and Willow Creek? Of course this is true! Each church must be who God has made them to be. Copying other ministry styles and leaders does not work most of the time.
Yet, Jesus tells us in Luke 15 that God's heart is to pursue and search for those who are lost. If we wish to be a disciple of Jesus, should we not have the same heart? Should we not seek to be the salt that preserves and saturates this culture? Again, of course this is true!
As I see it, one of the biggest problems with copying "seeker-sensitive" church was they misunderstood what the pioneering leaders in the movement wanted to do. These pioneers sought to take the gospel to the lost. In their particular places and local cultures, they were successful. Yet, Atlanta, Chicago, and Seattle are all so different! Taking a effective ministry to a suburb of Chicago and applying the ministry strategy to downtown Seattle is foolish. In fact, I have heard that "seeker-sensitive" church have found they are ineffective in reaching the 40s and under postmoderns. They thought their strategy was universal, but instead they are finding it was only very effective in reaching suburban baby-boomers (and I would add marked by consumerism). As a result, they are changing their strategies to reach a new generation.
What is the constant? The gospel is a life-changing message. It applies to every culture throughout time. It is the source of our power and our hope. The gospel is needed by all, and it compels us outward to others. In other words, the gospel is always seeking pre-Christians because God is always seeking the lost.
Returning to my diagnostic questions, is your church and your personal message of what God has done in Christ (the gospel) compelling to not-yet-believers? It should be. If it is not, the way we communicate most likely hinders the message from challenging and transforming individuals and communities.
Thankfully, we can change the way we communicate by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It may be hard. In fact change is always hard. Yet, it can be done.
I do hope to return to this topic often in the coming weeks and months. May the Lord transform us so we can proclaim Jesus so others can hear. Amen and amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment