;)
Why Aren’t More People Being Saved in America Today?
Posted by David Rogers in Church & Missions
It seems to me that fewer people are coming to Christ and being saved today in America than in other times. I don’t have hard statistics. For those who are interested, I suggest you check out Ed Stetzer, or George Barna, or someone else who specializes in investigating these types of things. I do know that, from a global perspective, this is not necessarily the case. There are places in the world today where many, many people are coming to Christ and the church is growing by leaps and bounds. There are also some places and local congregations in the United States today where relatively large numbers of people are coming to Christ. But, I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume most of you would agree with me that, in general, evangelistic results today in America are languishing. As Southern Baptists, we are no exception to this trend. But, why is it more people aren’t being saved in America today?
In this post, I am not going to give the answer. I am not sure I know the answer. What I am going to do is throw out some possible answers, and leave it open for us, who are interested in this question (and I hope many of us are) to discuss amongst ourselves the possible answers. My hope and prayer is that perhaps this discussion can shed some light on the subject, and lead us forward toward the goal of more people coming to Christ, rather than pointing the finger of blame at others, and/or beating ourselves over the head.
For some, the answer to this question is simply that God has elected some to eternal life, and others to eternal condemnation, and it is not our place to second-guess God. I don’t really want to go there with this post, either, though. I will leave it to others in other places to discuss these matters (if anyone is curious about my take on this, which is admittedly not very sophisticated, you can see it here). What I want to discuss here are the human factors and variables in evangelistic results.
For instance, if no one ever shared the gospel with lost folks, I think it is a pretty fair assumption that no one (or very few) would get saved. And, at least on the plane on which we live our lives, day-in and day-out, this depends on whether we decide to share the gospel or not. As Romans 10:14 clearly says, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
So, one reason why more people are not being saved (among possibly others) is, evidently, because more people are not sharing Christ with lost folks. But, why is it that more people are not sharing Christ? Is it because we are lazy? Is it because our hearts are hard and we don’t love the lost and are not concerned for their souls? Is it because we are afraid? Is it because we don’t know how to go about it, or how to get a handle on it?
It has been pointed out by some that the presence of vocational evangelists among us is down from what it once was, and that, in times past, a significant number of professions of faith in our churches have been tied to “annual church revivals.” But that is likely related to the fact that local churches themselves are sponsoring fewer evangelistic campaigns. And, that is perhaps related to the fact that it is harder to get people—especially lost people—to come to evangelistic campaigns than it once was. And, we have to ask ourselves, even if we are calling in fewer itinerant evangelists to proclaim the gospel, to what degree do we have truly anointed evangelistic preaching in the pulpits of our churches Sunday after Sunday.
It has long been known that effective public evangelism is closely tied to faithful personal soul winning. If people are going to get saved at church, somebody has to take the initiative to see to it that lost people get to church in the first place. Traditionally, many churches have had a focus on door-to-door evangelistic visitation. It seems, however, that that is not as popular as it once was. Why is that? Has it become more difficult to do effective door-to-door work? Are people more reluctant to open the door? Are we, as Christians, more reluctant to intrude on people’s privacy than we once were?
In our churches, we have gone through all sorts of evangelism training programs. We have taught the Roman Road. We have taught how to use the Four Spiritual Laws. We have taught EE. We have taught CWT. We have taught FAITH. We have taught The Way of the Master. We have taught GPS, etc., etc. I am not opposed to evangelism training. I suppose it would not be out of line to ask ourselves where we would be today, if we hadn’t carried out all these evangelism training programs in the past. But, then again, that doesn’t seem to be the silver bullet, either.
It has been observed that the number of those claiming to have the gift of evangelism has declined in recent years. Is this because God has stopped sovereignly distributing this gift quite as profusely as He did in the past? Or, are there other explanations? Is it, perhaps, that the typical profile of a gifted “evangelist” seems a little more daunting, and a little bit less like how we want to see ourselves, than what it did at sometime in the past? The course Becoming a Contagious Christian attempts to get around this, claiming that all of us are called to evangelize, but not all are called to use the same evangelistic style. God gifts each one of us differently, and we need to discover how he has gifted us, and operate primarily within our area of gifting. I think this is a helpful observation.
Maybe, in some cases, we’ve stopped making the main thing the main thing. Maybe, in some churches, we’ve begun to focus more on social work, culture warring, politics, or self-help, etc. than on getting lost souls into heaven. Maybe, in other cases, we’ve done so much of an overkill on full-force, straight-ahead, in-your-face evangelism, the ground is burned over, and no one wants to listen to us.
Maybe, in some cases, we’ve isolated ourselves in Christian ghettos, and we don’t have any non-Christian friends. I know, in my own case, since I’ve come home from Spain, that has been a problem for me. If we are not intentional in seeking out relationships with non-Christians, especially in the case of those of us who are in full-time Christian ministry, it can be easy to find ourselves relating only to other Christians. Others who work secular jobs, or who have unbelieving family members, don’t necessarily have the same problem.
In addition to all this, even when we share the gospel faithfully on a regular basis, if we don’t do it in a way that is understandable, the results will not be as positive as if we did it in a way that was more understandable. With actual languages, this is undeniably true. If we talk about Jesus to someone all day long in English, but they only understand Spanish, it is going to be hard to get very far with them. The truth is our society is getting more and more culturally diverse. Even among those people who speak English as a first language, many times, their cultural presuppositions and backgrounds are so different from ours, it is hard for us to understand them, and for them to understand us.
Closely related to the factor of cultural language are stumbling blocks that get in the way of our communication. Is it possible that, in some cases, the reason more people are not getting saved is they can’t hear our words because our actions are speaking so loud? Perhaps actions and words of some in the Christian community have prejudiced lost people to us, and even though we ourselves have done nothing to erect this barrier, it nonetheless exists. Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Are our constant bickering and the divisions among us getting in the way of more people coming to Christ? Have we perhaps communicated the idea that being a Christian is all about taking a particular political viewpoint? Have we de facto eliminated, right off the block, all the people who are on the other side of the spectrum politically from us? Are we so separate from the world we don’t have anything to do with them, and they don’t want to have anything to do with us? Or, are we too much like the world? Do the people of the world not see anything different about us that might make them interested to know about what we have? Could it be, perhaps, that Christian television (or, at least, a certain type of programming) has made Christians such a laughing stock in this country that people are reluctant to jump on board?
A whole other line of thinking has to do with spiritual causes. Are we not praying for lost souls the way we ought? Do we not have more spiritual awakening, in terms of lost souls being open to the gospel and multitudes being saved, because we have not had, first of all, true revival among ourselves? Is God, perhaps, holding back a greater spiritual harvest, waiting on us, as His people, to truly get right with Him first?
Perhaps a part of the reason why more people are not coming to Christ does not have so much to do with us as the gospel communicators as it does with the condition of the harvest field itself. Perhaps we live in a time and cultural setting of thorny soil, in which, in comparison to other times and cultural settings, “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and [cause] it [to prove] unfruitful” (Mark 4:19).
Perhaps there are certain intellectual challenges today that are harder to deal with than they were in other times. Perhaps the evolutionists, atheists, and universalists have done such a good job at communicating their message, many people are unable to give a fair listen to our message.
What do you think…?
1. Which of these factors do you think are the most significant?
2. Have I left anything out that you would include?
3. What are some practical steps we can take to counteract these factors?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Why aren’t more people being saved in America today?
First thing that came to mind was the word: ‘Hypocrisy’
My uneducated opinion from the pew:
Weak discipleship and weak preaching lead to weak Christians who look pretty much like the rest of the world. 16+ Million members, 10 +/- Million of whom cannot be found, ought to suggest there’s too much ease in Canaan-land. Buildings are being built and paid for, budgets are being met, so all is well.
Except it’s not, and the fact that the GCRTF didn’t address the terrible laxity in discipleship tells you the problem goes ‘way beyond just the local church. Those who ought to see this, don’t, which tells me God is still in the business of hardening whom He will harden, and blinding those He will blind. I just never really expected it to be folks in the church.
Or not. But my opinion, nonetheless.
Answer: Because the “church” is robbing God just as the OT priests of old. Millions and millions of dollars, give “to God” by God’s people to do “God’s work” are being hoarded to pay for nothing more than staff salaries, budgets and buildings, all while ministry and outreach opportunities are being cut “until giving increases.” And the second geneation of mega church leaders (Brunson, Gaines, Jeffress, Ed Young, Osteen, etc. continue to siphon off these funds to enrich themselves and their own brand names. And they all support each other and justify their salaries and lifestyles. I realize there are still thousands of true pastors and churches, but they do not have the money and influence to broadcast themselves nationally and to buy advertising locally, to grow like these guys.
These guys appeal to a certain base, but that base is content to worship the celebrity pastor, tell people about their church and their pastor and sit in the pew. This will not reach people.
Greed, combined with celebrity worship, has left us with expensive country clubs for Christians with huge operation expenses. And the goals of these churches? Raise more money to build more buildings and to pay expenses.
And if you dare question this, by email or blog, your wife will get trespassed and you will be slandered in the paper. See fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com.
Short answer to quote Johnny Cochran: “If you can’t trust the messengers, how can you trust the message?”
I think there are several factors that contribute to what we see now:
1. Technology has changed our culture. Of course, technological changes can be used for good and for bad. It seems to me, however, that the forces of evil are using technology for evil purposes much more effectively than we are using technology for good purposes. Mass media usage is expensive. “Christian television,” for example, has some good programs, but it has many unfortunate examples of syncretism (prosperity gospel, etc.) that do more harm than good. Individual Christians could do more to engage non-Christians online, but as we have seen in the blogging world when Christians debate Christians, people seem to be less civil online than they would be in person. It has become increasingly difficult to form relationships with our neighbors in person as they spend more and more of their spare time in front of a television or a computer.
2. Our culture, generally speaking, is less receptive to the gospel now than it was in 1972 when we had our highest number of baptisms. Some groups and individuals in America are more receptive than other groups and individuals, but in general our entire country is less receptive to the gospel than it was decades ago. When a culture becomes less receptive, a witness can evangelize and pray as hard as he did earlier while seeing fewer conversions. This same phenomenon has occurred in South Korea. The South Koreans are working and praying as hard as they did decades ago, but they are not seeing the same results as they did when their culture was more receptive. Effective methodology becomes more important when a culture is in the middle range of receptivity.
3. Our country has become more culturally diverse. In terms of evangelistic methodology, one size does not fit all. We must effectively contextualize without compromising any biblical principles. Immigration has radically changed the evangelistic landscape in America. Our traditional demographic group has decreased in size as a percent of the population. We must do more carefully planned cross-cultural evangelism if we want to increase the effectiveness of our witness in America.
4. People, for whatever reason, are less willing to devote time to church activities than they were decades ago. Many of our effective discipleship activities involved small groups (e.g., RAs, GAs, Church Training/Training Union). In an interactive small group, discipleship can occur quite naturally. We tend to remember things better when we are active learners than when we are passive learners. In many families, both spouses work, either because of necessity or because of material desires. When both spouses arrive home from work, they may have to cook, clean house, take the kids to school activities (which are now plentiful and are in direct competition with church activities). Church activities are often given a low priority. Many people do not want to attend Sunday night activities or mid-week activities, and thus many churches have cut back on the discipleship groups they offer. I can remember the days when school activities did not compete with church activities. I can also remember the days when couples did not spend so much money to go to weekend baseball tournaments, etc.
5. The public schools in many cases have brought in curricula that go beyond neutrality and actually oppose some tenets of the Christian worldview. The theological playing field is not level. The church has the students for one or two hours on a Sunday. Often, the parents do not disciple their own children. Thus, we should not be surprised when students are biased against the Christian worldview.
David,
One of my best friends regularly goes on two different college campuses once a week to evangelize and he said this about what he had observed:
The hardest people to talk to about the gospel are not the unchurched pagans, but the students who grew up in evangelical, Bible believing churches
He thinks they grew up in the church not being told to examine themselves to see if they were in the faith or not.
Hello David,
This is Dustin S. Segers, the “friend” Benji Ramsaur referred to in comment # 6. Indeed, the most difficult people I speak to when evangelizing are faux “christians”. Nearly all of them describe a “conversion experience” when they “came forward”, “got baptized” at an emotional youth rally when they were either child or a young teenager; yet after the first year in college they ditch it all for some brand of unbelief. Frankly, given the hokey nature of much of what goes by the name “evagelicalism” these days, I can certainly understand a false convert ditching all the nonsense for something that seems more rational and/or allow them to enjoy hedonism for a season. Some of these kids confess that they were reared in SBC homes yet nearly all of them can’t even begin to tell me how a person is reconciled to God using even the most basic terms.
When I begin to probe a little deeper with follow-up questions, it’s clear that they haven’t a clue what the gospel actually is; i.e., they can’t communicate what man’s greatest problem is (sin), the solution to that problem (the cross), nor can many of them tell me Whom I need to be reconciled to (an offended God). I actually had a guy last semester tell me that if I wanted to pray to the oak tree on the front lawn of the campus and call the oak tree “Jesus” that would be sufficient to reconcile me to God. I’m *not* kidding.
My weekly evangelism experiences are telling me that young people coming out of evangelical homes that profess to be Christians don’t know the basic rudiments of the gospel. Most of them are worshiping the god of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and not the Triune God of Scripture. Sometimes when I try to explain the gospel to them they get offended and accuse me of preaching a false gospel.
The sad thing is this: American churches with their shopping mall mentality have for the most part produced these kids. After all, your congregations are what you preach. What I have said thus far may sound harsh and blunt, but I face it every Tuesday and Friday at two local secular colleges. I will once again face it tomorrow morning.
Given when I’ve said thus far, one of the best things pastors could do is go to a local secular college one time per week and ask young people questions like these:
“Can anything happen?”
“What is truth?”
“Does absolute truth exist?”
“Can we be certain of anything?”
“How is a person reconciled to God?”
“Where do morals come from?”
Per my experience, our country is not as much gospel hardened as it is gospel ignorant.
May God have mercy on us all,
Pastor Dustin S. Segers
http://www.graceinthetriad.com
pastordustin@gmail.com
“Our culture, generally speaking, is less receptive to the gospel now than it was in 1972 when we had our highest number of baptisms.”
And many baptist churches seem stuck in that year.
Interesting input so far.
Any ideas on what could be done to improve the situation?
Unfortunately, the biggest problem that affects me is…well, me. While it is important to study cultural and church trends, in the end, we will be held accountable for our own race and how well we ran. And we must be intentional, and make the most of every opportunity. We have all of eternity to praise Him but only a few short years to tell others about Him.
Pick any of the following:
First, Satan has blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts.
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” John 12:40
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” 2 Cor. 4:3,4
Second, Christians are confused about the work of grace and the work of the flesh.
“Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality.” 2 Cor. 8:1,2
“But as you abound in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us—see that you abound in this grace also.” Verse 7
Third, we may be about to experience a great revival.
“Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,” Romans 5:20
Fourth, we may be about to experience the rapture.
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” Matthew 24:37
Fifth, so called Christians today are schizophrenic in their faith and flesh.
“But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” James 1:6-8
Great post, Dave. The second point above is what I taught in Sunday School this past Lord’s Day. Many of today’s Christian has been taught that our walk is not of works, yet, everything we present is as though we have to do something. We are receiveing the wrong message and need to understand what grace is all about.
I’d say part of the problem is the unregenerate among us. Cultural Christianity has never cost us anything and we don’t expect it to. We’re content to “do” church instead of to live by the Spirit. And those of us who are involved in ministry find that we’re ministering to Christians all the time and we’re no longer in the culture at large. If my primary contact with unbelievers is maybe through work and in the checkout line at the store, I’m not going to be very effective at sharing the gospel.
There is a short sermon from Jeff Iorg that I’ve really been thinking about lately called, “Breaking out of the Christian Sub-Culture.” If you’re unfamiliar with it and you feel like either 1) Christians are taking up all of your ministry time or 2) You haven’t been engaging unbelievers, you need to check it out.
David R., you asked:
“Any ideas on what could be done to improve the situation?”
I don’t think there is one panacea. I do think we should strive to be as efficient as we can be in sowing the gospel seed. Good stewardship is important in this regard. At the same time, we must avoid syncretism as we seek to effectively contextualize the gospel. Anything we do should be in accord with biblical principles. Andreas Kostenberger at SEBTS stressed these points:
“Reflection on the church’s mission should be predicated on the affirmation of the full and sole authority of Scripture. Unless the church’s convictions regarding its mission and strategies are committed to the authority of Scripture, the purity of its missionary thought and practice will be compromised. . . . The gospel is conceived in the New Testament in terms of stewardship and responsibility.”
Kostenberger, “Twelve Theses on the Church’s Mission in the Twenty-first Century,” Chapter 6 in Missionshift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium, ed. David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 64.
While we must be faithful in acting according to biblical principles, there is some flexibility in regard to methodology. Elmer Towns wrote an interesting article about the changes he has seen in the evangelistic methodology utilized at Thomas Road Baptist Church through the decades:
“The following phrase explains the difference. ‘Methods are many, principles are few; methods may change, but principles never do.’ . . . During the 1950s, Jerry Falwell built this church to national prominence by making one hundred home visits a day attempting to win people to Jesus Christ, i.e., soul-winning evangelism. Then with the emergence of the Church Growth movement, Falwell became a leader in the national Church Growth movement. He started using bus evangelism, radio and TV evangelism, mailings evangelism, billboard evangelism, phone evangelism, etc. His emphasis was on using ‘every available means,’ to cause the church to grow. However today, Thomas Road has a full-time missions director who directs servant evangelism into the immediate neighborhood, across the state, and around the world. The listing of endeavors takes three typed pages, in two columns. The church attempts to build credibility for the preaching of the gospel through charity or social action done for people in the community with such activities as Habitat for Humanity, replenishing city parks at $10,000 each, helping widows and single moms, a free medical clinic every Wednesday night for those with no health insurance or Medicaid/Medicare, rebuilding churches in Houston after Hurricane Ike and churches in southern Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina, and taking mission trips yearly (Liberty University and Thomas Road will make 1,000 trips abroad each year).”
Towns, “Changing Paradigms of Evangelism: Three Generational Views,” Great Commission Research Journal 1, no. 2 (Winter 2010): 157-160.
The trend toward servant evangelism may result from the lowered receptivity in America. It is more difficult now to gain a hearing for the gospel, and thus many Christians try to build loving relationships or in some way (e.g., servant evangelism) earn the right to be respectfully heard. The danger, of course, with servant evangelism is that the potential witness who is serving lost folks may not get around to actually proclaiming the plan of salvation. Hopefully we all agree that the ultimate act of love is to share the plan of salvation.
David,
I think you’ve done an admirable job cataloging the outward signs and symptoms. I’m not sure you’ve hit on the cause(s). Nor am I sure that if we knew the cause (assuming there is a single one), that we would be prepared to effect a cure. The doctors who diagnosed my father-in-law’s prostate cancer had no problem recognizing the symptoms and identifying the cause of the disease. None of this, however, had any bearing on the ultimate outcome. They tried some treatments including some surgery, but in the end, he still died from the disease.
I’m not saying Christianity in America is headed down the same path as Christianity across Europe, but the older I get the less convinced I am that navel-gazing followed by an enlightened understanding of The Problem will necessarily result in a cure. Let’s just say that I’m a little skeptical of anyone who claims to know what The Problem is because they often have The Cure in their back pocket and it looks not unlike a program. 40 years of implementing programs doesn’t seem to have stemmed the decline.
Do I have any answers? Not really. But I am also willing to confess that I’m not even sure we are asking the right questions. I’m thinking maybe John Daly has more insight into the real cause than any of us.
David asked,
“Any ideas on what could be done to improve the situation?”
Yes:
1. Preach and teach the gospel. Many people padding the pews in evangelical churches are simply unregenerate. Teach through 1st John and explain the marks of a God-lover from that epistle.
2. Practice loving and patient church discipline per Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5, etc. When people refuse to repent, you move through the 4 steps of Matthew 18:15-17 and excommunicate them from your church. Of course, for many pastors, this would be a suicide mission as even attempting such a practice in many evangelical churches would get them fired and or reduce the size of their congregation to such an extent that they would be forced to go bivocational.
This book may provide some insight: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/im-book-review-the-divine-commodity
I’ve not read it, but the review is intriguing.
Amazon reviews look promising too: http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Commodity-Discovering-Consumer-Christianity/dp/0310283752/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282658427&sr=8-1
More good comments, everyone. I don’t really want to take on the role of resident expert on this question, weighing in on the merits, or lack thereof, of each one’s opinion, since I am a learner myself.
I do think the variety of opinions expressed is interesting, though. It seems to me the answer(s) we give to this question many times determine the focus of our ministry. Also, many of us, who, on the surface, appear to be in disagreement, are just advocating alternative routes to the same intended destination.
Now, I’m going to do just what I said I wasn’t going to do: weigh in on some opinions.
I agree John Daly’s comment probably hits the mark as well as any. We each one have to ask this question personally of ourselves, before pointing the finger elsewhere.
I also think, other than John’s observation, the answer is a combination of everyone else’s observations. A potential problem is isolating any one factor as THE CAUSE. That is a big part of what makes this so complex. But, neither do I think that gives us a good excuse to throw up our hands and say, “What’s the use?”
I’d still love to hear any other observations and/or recommendations any of you may have about all this.
Andrew,
Thanks for the link. That message was indeed helpful.
Dave,
Maybe the church of Acts could ask the same question you ask. They experienced tremendous growth and that type of growth was never mentioned again. However, neither was the question raised about why people were not getting saved.
Whatever results exist today coupled with what we are commanded to do by the One who has been given all power in heaven and earth may determine why the salvation rate has subsided in America. Then again, it is His plan and grace that determines the course of His history.
Requiring transparency and accountability of how the money is being spent would be one factor that would help. But you will never see these pastors agree to that. If people knew what they made in most cases, there would be an outrage, and like the pastor above mentioned, they would have to become bivocational to keep their millionaire lifestyles. (I am still thinking of the megas of course.) People are waking up to the fact that they are being asked to sacrifice and give “to God” when in reality all they see is more staff, more overhead, more buildings and maintenance, more advertising, more Holy Land trips and cruises, and less real ministry to the poor, orphan and widow.
Also, maybe it is good that “less” are being “saved.” Perhaps more “true” converts are being won, while we have less people walking an aisle and joining these country clubs. And maybe numbers were inflated in the past. I would rather see 1000 true converts, than have mega churches reporting 10,000 baptized that went forward, filled out a card, and started giving money to their respective budgets.
Idea for improvement:
A lot of Christian people need to stop being afraid of this Commandment:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. — John 13:34.”
There is so much turmoil among Christians and the world sees this.
The arguments created by those who are trying to spread what they term ‘the gospel’ are sometimes so strident and fraught with frustration and anger towards their audience that the audience can’t see Christ in their manner. This prideful anger becomes the focus, and not the Lord Christ.
But Our Lord spoke of this: that we find our life in Him, the Eternal Living Word. And once there, we are at peace with one another.
The world needs this witness.
David:
I concede the following note I posted this morning at SBCVoices where your Dad’s name has inveighled itself into the Discussion of the NYC Mosque; the dicussion woulda better fit in your post a month ago on religion and Politics, but I did want to bring it to your attention in real time as the ed.com post this morning rasies questions about your recnet comments weighting your Dad’s assertion in 99 on the founding of the Moral Majority.
Hope things are otherwise well.
Adrian Rogers, Ed McAteer and Billy Graham:
Hariette, Coincidentally I came across this item this morning I wouldhope you would look at.
David Rogers, Adrian’s son, and I have developped an online friendship of sorts at various blogs, mostly SBCImpact. I posted a few items at his blog LoveEachStone three years ago.
I wouldn’t say he would call me his best friend, but I think our online conversations are cordial, bordering on frank and straightforward on occasion, especially recently on the death of Cecil Sherman where David drifted over to baptistlife.com for a few posts.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16574
This morning Bruce Prescott in the link above raises some question about Adrian Rogers role with Ed McAteer in the creation of the Religious Right and its key positioning in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. At a minimum it would raise questions about David’s contention his Father was virginal in these matters, in re a recent declaration, about a month ago atSBCImpact where David said in 99 Adrian Rogers washed his hands of the Moral Majority and told Falwell that was not where his emphasis was.
This essay by Bruce Prescott shades it all a little differently, to say the least.
David R.
It is a good and necessary question.
I wonder sometimes if the answer is in the matter of not being a “satisfied user” of the Christian faith. If we are not convinced that it is true, we are reluctant to encourage anyone else to trust “it”.
We can explain “it” but not sure about recommending “it”. I am speaking of course of me and the person sitting in the pew next to me every Sunday.
Also, if the sermon each Sunday is continuing repeat of “get saved” but never ever explains how to live after “getting saved”, how are we to know of the joy that is to be complete in us as believers.
Another problem.
Sharing the truth of the gospel means to get involved into the messy excuse of a life that an unbeliever lives and offer an alternate to the emptiness they have at the end of each day. One beggar telling another where to find bread. It takes up “my time” to do all that. And then after they decide to accept the truth of the gospel, I am still involved in the mess as they start to learn the basics of Christian living. It is not some saying of a prayer with them but being there with and for them as they grow. That means a relationship with 2 orphanage Roma products that got kicked out the state orphanage at 18 or so with no skills for life but they, a young man and his pregnant girlfriend, show up at our church each week needing help. We have decided the best help we can give them is Christ not just local money until next week. We will use a children’s Bible story book to explain Jesus and go from there. It will be messy but necessary. It would help if they spoke or understood English or me understanding them.
Today I had lunch with three Iranian young men who came to Christ a few weeks ago. They are eager for Bible knowledge but today may be the last meeting because the local government has refused them refugee status. They must now sneak across a border to another country and try again to get a legal status. The local government has told them to go home to Iran and being a Christian there is not a problem. I love these guys but it causes me pain that I would not have if I had not gotten into a relationship with them.
I will always choose the relationship.
Is this answer close to the reality of declining decisions for Christ?
Keep the good and necessary questions coming. Thank you David.
Charles
Stephen,
I think you may be guilty of throwing in a little spin with what was actually said. The only thing I commented on, related to my father’s relationship with Falwell, and the Moral Majority, was the direct quote, in this comment:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/07/19/whats-more-important-theology-or-saving-america/comment-page-2/#comment-53770
I think the tendency in regard to a question like this is to blame whatever I don’t like for the problem and promote whatever I like as the solution. We have all been conditioned by watching our politicians at work to look at a crisis and see the enemy as the responsible party.
However, I will tell you what I think. Acts 2:42-47 has been formative for my pastoral ministry. In the early church, they devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching (which became, in time, the Word), the fellowship, breaking of bread (possible reference to communion/worship) and prayer. Then, the passage goes on to tell how the power of God is displayed in the church. Verse 47 sums it up, “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
Evangelistic success was the product of a healthy church. I’m no scientist, but I know that one of the first products of disease and sickness in nature is the loss of the ability to reproduce. Spiritually healthy churches filled with spiritually-healthy Christians reproduce. When churches are sick (theologically, morally, divided/fighting, apathetic – fill in the blank) that church will tend to NOT reproduce.
Simple.
Because most of our energies have been diverted to preach the counterfeit gospel of Americanism. As counterfeits go, it’s probably the best ever, but still it is counterfeit.
The biggest competitor to the gospel in India is Hinduism, in Saudi Arabia is Islam, and in America is Americanism.
Paul,
I think there is much truth in what you say here.
It is my hope that those who may be “offended” by what you say can hear it as the comment of someone who is not anti-American, but rather pro-gospel.
Everyone else,
Some more great comments. Christiane, Charles, and Dave M., I believe, all touch on some very important aspects in all this.
David, I hope so as well.
I love America in the sense that it is the nation to which I was called to be an indigenous missionary.
I love America in the sense that there has been unprecedented opportunity for the freedom of preaching the gospel, here and abroad.
I love America in the sense that it is the place of my natural birth, and would never be disloyal to it (preferring another earthly kingdom over it).
However, I find Americanism to be a false gospel, and our primary competition as evangelicals.
I may be an anachronism. I think I see earthly kingdoms much the same as evangelicals did a century ago when progressive patriotism really got going. Actually, I’d be happy if our perspective on end times and the need to see people saved returned to where we were in the 70s. We had a healthy cynicism of the world back then. And we were successful back then–hello.
Where is Jesus in the American Dream again? Apparently standing behind Mammon in the picture.
My beef is that most evangelical conservatives are anything but today–they are simply foot-dragging progressives. John MacArthur seems to be one of the few high profile evangelicals who understand this.
Thank you for understanding, David. You are part of the remnant.
Here is an article discussing what I’m seeing in college students who come from evangelical homes:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/27/almost.christian/
The article intimates that those who come from evangelical backgrounds are better grounded in their faith, but that’s not what I’m seeing on campuses here in Greensboro, NC. Frankly, when it comes to content, most of the time I really can’t tell much difference between the kid that grew up in a theologically liberal UMC versus one that has an SBC background.
That was an interesting article.
David:
I was wondering if from your time in Spain you may have garnered any wisdom in regard a harsh turn the discussion is taking about dialogue with the Muslim community; your experience in Europe and how you would approach this matter.
In your view is it all for nought? Do you see any good coming from discussions Martin Accad of the Baptist Seminary in Beirut, and Denton Lotz, the brother in law of Anne Graham Lotz are part of.
See the latest pretty hard line thoughts of Lydia and CB SCott at http://www.sbcvoices.com on the MOsque in NYC.
Would be interested to see if you have a comment to make at that site as many folks go back and forth from this site to that one to discuss SBC matters.
Thanks,
Sfox
Stephen,
I have not had time yet to read the entire thread over at SBC Voices. Nor am I familiar with the discussions with Martin Accad and Denton Lotz (certainly much to the chagrin of some, I dare to ask, Do you have a link for that?).
In the meantime, here is an interesting link for you. I think the pastor and church referenced here are taking an interesting approach to this, and one that, in the long run, will likely be more effective for evangelism, and more honoring to the Lord we love and serve:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/aug/28/common-threads/?partner=popular
David, I disagree with your comment #32. Heartsong Church in Memphis is allowing groups of Muslims to pray to their god in the church building. You said that this is “honoring to the Lord.” I don’t think it honors God at all. I noticed on Heartsong’s website that they claim to provide an “accepting environment.” There are some things, however, that a church cannot accept. I fully realize that church buildings are not described in the New Testament. Church members met in houses or in open spaces. There are some things, however, that I would not allow in my house. I would not allow the members of a Satanic cult to gather and pray to Satan in my house, and I would also not allow Muslims to gather and pray to their god in my house. It is a matter of stewardship. My house is dedicated to God, and as the spiritual leader of my family, I am to be a responsible steward. I don’t want anything to happen there that would not glorify God (e.g., no pornography, violence, or Satan worship). When a church invests the Lord’s money and builds a church building, I believe that the members should want everything that happens in that building to glorify God. Allowing a group of Muslims to pray in the church building may indicate some form of tolerance, but it does not glorify God. Islam distorts the truth about Jesus Christ. While some members of the surrounding community may think that Heartsong is very tolerant in some sense, some members of the community may conclude that Heartsong is making a theological statement of tolerance that is unacceptable to us in the biblical sense. To be more specific, some members of the community might conclude that Heartsong (by its actions) is saying that it’s all good, that there are many paths to God, and that Islam is one such path. I believe we can be warm and loving toward Muslims without providing a place for them to gather and pray in our church buildings.
Interesting, Dave. If you were at a meal in a Muslim’s house, would you expect him to let you say grace? Yet you would not allow a Muslim in your house to pray his prayer.
I think there is a distinction between being neighborly and being theologically proper. The Good Samaritan was neighborly, but he was hardly theologically proper. However, in the story Jesus told, he was more in conformity with the law of God than the priest and the Levite who passed by.
Sometimes I think we give so much attention to our religious duty that we miss opportunities to do God’s work.
My bad, Mike, there are so many Dave/Davids I forgot you weren’t one.
Mike (Baptist Theologue),
You make some good points. I am going to have to chew on this one some more. Also, my guess is that the article does not tell it all. I will be interested to hear further comments and explanations from the leadership at Heartsong.
I do agree, for sure, that, as Christians, and in the church, we should be careful not to communicate approval of and/or unity with the Muslim religion. What I am still trying to work out is to what degree allowing them to use your facilities does this.
Rick, if I were at a meal at a Muslim’s house, I would not expect him to let me say grace. If he did allow me to say grace, I would do so. I would also not expect the Muslim to allow me to share the gospel with him in his house. If he did allow me to share the gospel in his house, depending on whether or not I thought it was the right time to do so, I would share the gospel with the Muslim and invite him to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith.
David, I look forward to hearing your comments after you chew on the issue for a while.
Thank you Mike (Baptist Theologue) for #33 and #37. Loving and firm, with the clear distinction between social tolerance and “pc” tolerance which has run amok. Christ’s church (and those places dedicated in His name) are not for “Tea Party” groups nor for those who deny the faith in the only begotten Son of God – and you did so with a whole lot more compassion than I could have mustered. Thank you.
Rob
Mike,
Maybe you can help me as I think this through.
1. Do you think there is ever an appropriate time to open up the property of an Evangelical church for the use of a non-Christian group?
2. If so, where do you draw the line between appropriate situations to do this and inappropriate ones?
Mike,
I am currently working on editing my dad’s sermons. I just came across the following illustration:
——————-
I was reading awhile back about a Christian in North Africa who was in the army, and someone asked this Christian, “Why are you a Christian?” He was an army officer. He said, “I’ll tell you why.” He said, “On a particular day, we went out on a march. It was almost a forced march. We were tired and weary. We slugged through the mud all day long. Our boots were dirty, and our clothes were heavy. We came into the headquarters; we came into the barracks. We were cross; we were irritable.”
He said, “When I came in, there was an orderly—a young man, a part of our outfit—who had already come in, cleaned up, was kneeling down by his bed saying his prayers with his head bowed.” He said, “When I saw that man, somehow I became so irritated and so aggravated at him I took one of my dirty, muddy boots, and I hit him on the side of the head with it.” He said, “The young man paused for a moment and continued his prayers.” He said, “When I awoke the next morning, both of my boots were beautifully polished and set by my bed by that young man.” He said, “That’s what brought me to Christ.”
———————
As I continue to think about the Heartsong situation, I find myself (in part, thanks to your word on this) leaning more to the position that, perhaps, allowing the Muslims to use their church building for Muslim worship was not the best option. However, I think, if I were in the same situation, it would be important to pray God would guide me to an alternative similar to the one in the illustration above to show them the love of Christ.
I would still love to hear your take on my two questions in #40, though.
David, I see your point in #41. If we handle adversity well, we may be more effective in sharing the gospel with particular people. In #40 you asked:
“1. Do you think there is ever an appropriate time to open up the property of an Evangelical church for the use of a non-Christian group?”
Yes. For example, let’s assume that a disaster occurs near a church building in a sparsely populated area and that a religiously neutral medical group desperately needs the church building for the provision of emergency medical care. Let’s also assume that no Christian medical group is available. If the church members are allowed to practice their faith in appropriate ways during the time that the neutral organization is using the church building for emergency medical care, then I would enthusiastically endorse the use of the church building by the neutral group.
You also asked:
“2. If so, where do you draw the line between appropriate situations to do this and inappropriate ones?”
Again, I would ask the following question: Does the proposed usage of the church building glorify God? If the neutral medical group provides skilled medical care (which cannot be duplicated at that point in time by Christians) at the same time that the church members are practicing their faith in appropriate ways, then God will be glorified. The Christians are simply using a neutral tool to lovingly minister to other people.
Mike,
I agree.
There will no doubt be some situations that are not so black and white. It seems clear to me, for instance, that the example you give of the “neutral group” providing medical care is something that glorifies God, and that Muslim worship in and of itself is something that does not glorify God. Other situations will probably not be so clear-cut. I would say, for instance, that granting Muslims the freedom to worship in the way they choose does glorify God. And, serving and being kind to Muslims also glorifies God.
Also, there will be times when people will do things on church property that do not glorify God, and this is, for all practical purposes, unavoidable. But, inviting someone onto church property for the specific purpose of doing something that ipso facto does not glorify God is a different matter.
The general principle of “Does it glorify God or not?” is a good one.
Thanks for helping me think through this.
You’re welcome. Talk to you later.