Here’s an interesting comparison.
A post about strippers and the gospel, raising questions about how to evangelize those who are very far removed from Christian morality, gets 3 comments. Meanwhile, the two posts on Col 3:16 and instrumental music get 160 comments. Could this mean that we in the Churches of Christ remain a bit overly focused on our internal disputes?
I mean, I thought sure I could garner some comment traffic by saying “naked” and “stripper” in the same post! But evidently we find the a cappella music question more interesting by far.
So I’m not going to express my views on Stories 1 and 2 just yet. Rather, I leave for the readers the questions —
1. Is the church in Story 1 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
2. Is the church in Story 2 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
I worked with Landon Saunders many years ago and one of the things he talked about frequently is that when Christians are focused internally, they are generally missing the point, and probably fighting with each other, rather than fighting Satan.
Demonstrating against evil doesn't make any difference.
Loving and caring is what Jesus called us to do.
160 to 3. Too funny. Wait… maybe that isn't supposed to be funny.
Depends on what one thinks the message of the Gospel truly is…Some think that they need to condemn every sin and every sinner that won't listen to their version of what is right and wrong…So there message is that God is gonna make you burn in hell for all eternity…that's there "good news." The second church just loves on people where they are…sort of like what Jesus did…"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Their message is Love, Compassion and Redemption based on what He did for them…One is exclusion, the other is relationship…
Which would you prefer from God? I know which I need.
Hey, since I posted on both topics, I will at least claim I am consistent. I do personally believe both topics are important.
I did not comment on your post – but I did copy it (with links and attribution) with a comment and a question. My comment was that Jay posed an interesting question. My question was, "What do you think of Jay's question?" So far, no comments received!
Jay, this is responding to your two questions:
1. Is the church in Story 1 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
2. Is the church in Story 2 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
My answers:
1. Is the church in Story 1 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
Is that church right? If by right, one means persuading in the correct manner, then I say – no.
Unwise – depends on one's answer to 1a. I say yes, they are unwise.
Guilty of Sin – again depends on one's answer to 1a. I cannot say that they are "sinning" per se, but they seem to be coming real close to judgmentalism and that seems to violate Matthew 7.1-5.
2. Is the church in Story 2 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
Is that church right? If by right, one means persuading in the correct manner, then I say – yes. They may not be carrying out everything perfectly, but they are definitely revealing more of Jesus and true compassion than the church in the first question.
Unwise – depends on one's answer to 2a. If I read the article correctly, the Christian women are going to the strippers, the men are not. It takes a mature Christian to enter into that environment, but it would seem that the Christian females would be able to interact and not become "otherwise" affected. It would also depend on how they purge themselves afterwards, they are entering into a den of darkness and darkness has a way of staying attached, if not purged.
Guilty of Sin – again depends on one's answer to 2a. I am going to say – no. But they could be, while they are not being judgmental, they could be lusting. But who knows.
My Conclusion
The second church is doing far more for the cause of Christ than the first. The first church is damaging the reputation of the Church and Christians everywhere, unfortunately though they seem to represent a greater percentage of how Christians and the Church at large behaves. By "greater percentage" I am not sure if that is a large minority, or representative of a small majority, but either way, there are too many.
The second church represents the minority of Christians who are willing to risk reputation and life to actually "seek and save" the lost, may God bless their efforts.
Jay, another thought.
I hate to say this, and I am not trying to stir up trouble, but I think this, too, is true. With the ratio that has been mentioned in comparing your posts, I would have to say it goes beyond "overly focused on our internal disputes". It seems that it has come to the point that we have "strained the gnat and swallowed the camel".
I didn't comment on the young Christians ministering to the strippers for a day because it took me that long to find this information. How many can remember Bob Harrington, The Chaplain of Bourbon Street?
http://www.thechaplain.com/homepage.html
He ministered to those who made money on New Orleans' (in)famous Bourbon Street – makes the strip clubs of the story Jay mentioned look like a ladies tea party.
Harrington was doing a great mission until he succumbed to the fame he had received. He stopped influencing and instead was influenced. I note that there is a young man involved in the ministry to the strippers. I pray that he is able to resist the obvious temptations he will face. I pray that the young ladies involved will also be able to resist the temptations they will face. They are doing a wonderful mission to a group of women who have lived tough lives and could use some love.
Yes, we are to condemn wrong. The cliche "hate the sin and love the sinner" is still true. It is, however, a fine line that is all too easy to trip over and we find ourselves hating the sinner just as much as the sin.
Oh, and why did so many people comment on instrumental music? I think because so many have been drug through fights over it. The wounds are deep and fresh and still burning.
On the lack of "public" reaction: Could it be that by agreeing with the method and message of the 2nd group and condemning the 1st, we might actually have to look a little deeper into our own feelings and attitudes? These two stories caused this reaction within me and I certainly didn't want to be forthcoming with what I found!
It's so much easier to argue something (instruments) that doesn't have much relevance.
Here's a thought – perhaps this is a false dichotomy. Jesus was sometimes confrontational. This Pastor Bill Dunfee believes that a higher power has tasked him with shutting down the strip club. What if his belief is correct? Surely we could agree that God can make good come out of either approach. I'm not advocating a confrontational approach. Just wondering whether it's always inappropriate…
I think the traditional church has to at address the reality that evangelism done wrong will turn people off from God forever.
In other words, the mentality of "if I can just reach one person by doing this" is an unacceptable attitude when by reaching the one I push 100 away from the love of Christ.
I would maybe phrase the questions Jay is asking along these lines:
1. How likely is the church in story 1 to move the hearts of the outsiders towards Christ? How likely are they to move the hearts of the outsiders away from Christ?
2. How likely in the church in story 2 to move the hearts of the outsiders towards Christ? How likely are they to move the hearts of the outsiders away from Christ?
We are to call outsiders to Christ, allowing God to then change the heart over the course of a lifetime of following and fellowship. We are not to call others to a specific morality and then let Christ move into that moral space.
Adam,
I would hesitate to categorize a protest march as a form of evangelism … but there may be some that do.
Regardless, I agree with your point.
Because I've been deeply involved in national politics during my career, at various times people have asked me about abortion, as a political & legislative matter. I don't want to divert this topic to abortion.
However, often we are faced with this choice, [1] argue with someone over abortion, or strip joints, or whatever; versus [2] build a relationship with them that will allow us to introduce them to the Jesus of the New Testament.
Often these are mutually exclusive. We simply cannot succeed at both. So, which is more important.
I choose [2]
I'd say it could have been easily avoided to make Col 3:16 a debate on Instrumental Music, Jay. You could ahve focussed on edifying one another, of letting the Word of Christ dwell ruichliy among us. But you chose to make a case for instrumental music from this text, and you know full well – from your experience – that this triggers one of these endless debates on IM, which is an unsolved issue among the churches of Christ and an open wound for many.
So, why does it surprize you that this post just led to where it had to lead? (Don't play innocent, Jay 😉 )
Whereas the other story was a bit too obvious to disagree upon. We can as well count it as a good sign, that we do agree on this truly more important matter, Jay. So I say 3:160 in this light is actually fantastic!
Alexander
Not trying to moderate, just felt these guys made some good points.
Dwayne: Good thoughts on the deep wounds.
Ryan: I actually identify with your statement, I responded the same, and until Jay made this post, I set the information aside.
Emmett: Good thought provoker.
Adam: I like your questions, saving 1 at the expense of 100 is the wrong approach; this is why I thought Jay's questions about "wise" were appropriate. Your closing thought is spot on.
David: nice encapsulation.
Alexander: you are correct in your statement "the other story was a bit too obvious to disagree upon".
Thought/Post #1:
To me, the most glaring example of Christ's work is in how the path is being cleared. Think about it: If you owned a gentleman's club, would you want a bunch of Jesus freaks coming in and convicting your girls right before they walk out on stage?
For these girls to make money, they've got to be acting in a way that attracts guys. Generally, the MO is to act as raunchy and slutty as possible. "Does your wife ever allow you to xyz with her? I LOVE that." Now, throw in some conviction and it HAS to make a difference.
Anyway, I was just thinking how unbelievable it is that the manager(s) is allowing them the opportunity to meet with girls on his property — knowing it likely isn't good for business.
In itself, that shows me where the presence of God is at in that moment.
Thought/Post #2:
To the point of "160 posts vs. 3 posts."
My answer won't be popular. I believe the reason, Jay, is laziness. And to be fair, I'd charge the progressive side with laziness, as well as the legalistic side.
Me, Jay, Price, Alexander, Laymond the Oil Baron, etc. can sit at our computer and peck out a post on what Justin Martyr meant by the word "psallo" in one of his papers from 65 A.D. and go to sleep that night feeling that we've served God well.
I think laziness is the basis of legalism. Who cares if we do feed the poor if we haven't even succeeded in keeping our congregation/Church doctrinally pure? And we go to work gaining knowledge.
Knowledge accumulation is a lot easier than Christ-like service. You don't have to take risks, you don't have to get dirty, etc. And under the guise of doctrinal purity, we remain safe at home in cyber-debates.
Now, someone is going to throw up a false dilemma and say, "So are you saying we shouldn't care about what the bible says — anything goes as long as we are feeding the poor?!" Of course not. But, like anything, a balance is needed. And right now the balance is heavily weighted to the side of knowledge accumulation.
I blame the preachers and editors. One of their strengths/gifts is knowledge. And instead of simply using that gift, they've led the rest of us to believe it is the most important gift for us to have, too.
That is why we have the 160/3 ratio. Like Ray said above, going into the gentleman's club puts you in the lion's den. Face to face with Satan. Waaaay easier just to sit at home in the safety of our office den and talk about IM.
Jerry,
Thanks for helping to spread the article about. I think the question is of critical importance to the contemporary Churches of Christ.
I am just now reading these since I've been busy, but I also copied the first link and sent it to several people with questions to challenge us (including me) how that could look in our neck of the woods. This is the externally focused exicting stuff I wish we heard more about in all venues of Christianity.