Speak the Gospel, Use Deeds When Necessary
This article presents a somewhat different viewpoint than what New Wine presented at the conference. I agree with some of what he’s trying to get at, but have a little trouble with some of his conclusions. Thoughts?
And it does include both St. Francis and evangelism, so it’s officially a series on the New Wine blog.
I’m not buying it. I may be off base here, but it sounds like he needs to step down from the pulpit and out of the bubble he’s in. I don’t know of a single Christian leader who would not take the opportunity to share the gospel–in words or otherwise–given a willing audience.
The question of how we should best communicate the gospel is a healthy one that deserves careful attention. I do not believe that we began asking this question because we fear sharing the good news. No, it’s actually the opposite. We have a passion for sharing it, but are finding that some methods of the past are not as effective today.
Worse than that, those of us who are knee deep in our secular society, trying our best to share the Good News, see so clearly the damage done by those who have failed at strong-arm evangelism. There was once a time when Christians had enough respect to preach in the marketplace and be heard. Sadly, we have lost that respect and our audience. Christianity, in the minds of popular culture, equates to hypocrisy, televangelists, corruption, and judging others.
This a time for innovation and open-mindedness, not dogmatism. The truth is both actions and words can be effective at times. There is no need to take sides here. These just different tools in the toolbox to meet the same end.
I do not know about the conference or its themes, or who this man is, or his background so my thoughts should be regarded as lightly as possible.
I am familiar with that quote and quite fond of it and am saddened to hear that Francis may not have said it. Either way, however, he would by no means be the first to present such an idea. In fact, that very approach has been the a primary factor of Eastern thought for a very long time.
Any cursory glance of a Taoist text, particularly the Chuang Tzu will reveal illuminated men (sages, teachers, whatever) who are sought out but do not seek out. They are even loathe to share their understanding at times because of a wariness advised by none other than Jesus himself: pearls, swine and untimely death.
Kahlil Gibran’s “Thoughts and Meditations” contains an anecdote of similar bent and no doubt countless other texts, if perused, would yeild similar results.
I would like to point out that the man behind this article is most likely approaching Christianity and its message from a Western perspective, an understanable move since modern day American Christianity is possibly irrevocably infused with Western ideas, cultural truths and values and the Cartesian dualistic foundation of analytic scrutiny that allows many a scholar, with their 30/40/50/60/70 years of life to calously dimiss, amidst dersive laughter, the beliefs and working traditions of societies many hundred times their seniors.
This is not to say that the Western viewpoint is inherently misinformed but it is certainly not correct; that is the nature of viewpoints.
However, tragically, when we are unaware of how our cultural biases and beliefs inform beliefs greater than a mere culture, we often treat them synonymously and thus denigrate the one while inappropriately elevating the other. (An aside, this arguement becames much more comprehensible after learning a second language, because language is culture and culture is contextual)
I would also like to add that the Western, particularly of late American, approach to a “problem” is to locate the core issue and destroy it. This is at the heart of our medical and intellectual processes. Contrasted to, say, a holistic approach which would strive for symbiosis and balance over annihlation.
From this perspective I believe the author’s arguement is well made, there is evil in the world, evil and ignorance and only, to use his words, “wimps” weak-hearted, head-in-the-sand naifs would emrbace an ideology that promoted silence over joyful shouting (or angry shouting as the case may be). This is because, somehow, after thousands of years of loving the solitude and intimacy of the quiet places and times, we have associated an absence of words and noise with a lack of things to say and express.
I would humbly suggest that the author consider another world view, even if only to challenge his convictions in his own. I would recommend also “Silence” a novel and upcoming film, the prior of which was written by shuzaku endo.
I fear that as Mike observed, the strong arm approach has accomplished what it set out to, what it can only do; vanquish its foes. Christ, I would perhaps to bodly assume, was not interested in convincing peeople of what He believed. As the article’s writer observed, He performed a miracle, then commented on the nature of the reality that made it possible. He did not ask for contributions or pledges or promises or member lists, He did not demand a vow. He took an action then explained why and if asked He would offer advise. We can spin His teachings to compliment any format but aside from the woman caught in adultery (who I would wager questioned him wordlessly with tear stained eyes) and the incident at the temple, teaching was preceded by a request, as were miracles.
I would offer in response to Mike’s final thought that perhaps rather than an innovative new approach to a tired framework that has been used and misused an entirely new approach might serve better. Because as Grant Morrison observed in his essay “Pop Magic” (paraphrased) “Whether for a system or against it both sides support and further the system, giving their enegry and time, their lives to it. To escape the system one must create something entirely different, entirely separate from it.”
So perhaps the best way to help others interface with the reality of Christ is to interface with it ourselves and share that experience. I wouldn’t dare begin to lay down a method for doing this, but maybe a little prayer and meditation maybe something else, maybe something new. If we are in fact interested in a change. Otherwise, we can no doubt make some small adjustments to an already tredless wheel which, I would predict, will bring us back to arguements that produce nothing new except anger.
But these are all just wednesday morning musings from a country where convserations like this one are likely never to occur. Thanks for the opportunity
Yeah I gotta say I have a very hard time with this article. Yes, perhaps preaching “hell, fire and brimstone” was an affective evangelistic tool in St. Francis’ day (as the writer interprets it)– but let us not forget this message was coming directly from a very humble, Christ-like man. I would argue that today’s hell, fire and brimstone messages are not coming from the humble, Christ-like lives and mouths of Christians, but rather, judgmental and prideful ones (a generalization, I know). And, no matter how absolutely key it is that we use both actions and words in a genuine loving, truthful manner, words emphasized over actions will never be the more affective method in today’s postmodern, church-wounded age–or St Francis’ age. I think the writer failed to take careful consideration into the context and specific age which St. Francis and we today are engaging.
I agree… funny how St. Francis has become a mirror, people tend to see themselves in him. But everything I have heard historically has said he was a compassionate and passionate do-er and preacher. The quote may not be his, but the idea behind it definitely reflects a lot of his life and what he taught those who followed him.