tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post353890976759993323..comments2023-08-04T04:00:19.328-07:00Comments on Sojourner's Song: Thinking About EvangelismAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16511120181544360746noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post-75402068346477271742006-10-12T23:02:00.000-07:002006-10-12T23:02:00.000-07:00Actually, Max, I think we agree.
I did not intend...Actually, Max, I think we agree.<br /><br />I did not intend to introduce an antithesis between "truth-falsities" and "people." As you say, that is to deny reality. I am only suggesting that we reverse the order. Sort of like bringing the seeker to the truth instead of bringing the truth to the seeker. <br /><br />That should have been clearer. Thank you for clarifying.<br /><br />I see your point regarding evangelistic pragmatism. It was likely rather unfair of me to quote Boyd piecemeal but I was trying to save space. I wanted to quote the whole section. I think his analysis is much deeper than simple pragmatism, but I'll just have to let you read it for yourself. <br /><br />That said, I can't escape the feeling that we are in need of a little "pragmatism," (or common sense, if you prefer,) in our interaction and dealings with people. Follow the Spirit, yes, and if the Spirit leads you to do or say something outrageously ridiculous, you are a fool if you don't. <br /><br />But we have to take the blinders off. We have to take responsibility, at least in part, for the culture being turned away from Christianity <i>by the wrong things.</i> (<a href=http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Sa/1Sa002.html#17>1 Samuel 2:17</a>) Too much of the current version smacks of consumerism, reductionism, and a host of other 'ism's and schisms that just don't belong in the Kingdom. <br /><br />I really appreciate everyone's input that makes this type of discussion possible.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16511120181544360746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post-54270544526416858982006-10-12T21:35:00.000-07:002006-10-12T21:35:00.000-07:00Yes, I must take friendly issue with this one.
I ...Yes, I must take friendly issue with this one.<br /><br />I must say, I was a bit startled by your second paragraph. “In evangelism, it isn't so much about what I think is true, or what you think is false; it's a matter of the conscience, both mine and yours.” It is interesting to note that Paul says they commend themselves to everyone’s conscience by “...the open statement of the truth...” This means dealing with “truths-falsities”. Granted, Paul wasn’t always doing this in the context of a rigorous philosophical debate, or through “fire and brimstone” preaching, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t dealing with truth and error. If you step away from truth and falsities, you step away from reality. <br /><br />Your point is well taken that I can build arguments up to the moon, and give enough answers to fill a textbook, and still not answer the heart behind the questions most people ask. I believe this is because the hardest questions are really existential in nature, even if they’re couched in logical terms. (And the final answer is not just an abstract proposition, but a person.) If you are saying that we need to guard against becoming too absorbed in abstract argumentation that we lose sight of the individual, I’m right behind you. However, I believe the distinction between dealing with truths-falsities, and dealing with people is an unjustified, and hopeless one really. (The whole point of evangelism, whether it is public preaching or casual coffee-cup discussion, is to share the truth (that is, the reality) of Christ.) <br /><br />Although I do think we need to take our cultural context into account, I’m troubled by someone who bases an argument against confrontational evangelism on how “most people in America” would respond. It seems to me that this level of pragmatism is inexcusable. <br /><br />Thanks for keeping your blog active. Whether I agree or disagree, it is always interesting reading. <br /><br />-MaxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post-90841645997495842942006-10-11T23:16:00.000-07:002006-10-11T23:16:00.000-07:00Hey, another thing I agree with you on! Maybe you’...Hey, another thing I agree with you on! Maybe you’re not so bad after all :).<br /><br />Comfort's tactics hit home, and hit it hard, when dealing with Christian's fallen from grace or simply those that have a "Christian" background. Like you mentioned, this is principle of communication, that we relate to one another based on understood perspectives, or paradigms.<br /><br />Yet in nearly every other encounter this would seem a clumsy way to interact with someone... banking entirely on the hope that they will believe what you are saying and become overwhelmed with guilt.<br /><br />Probably the only thing and did not like was the brief allusion to relationship evangelism right there at the end. I don't know of an example of this in scripture. Usually we see one of two scenarios that are repeatable: speaking to crowds and conversations with individuals. There are, of course, much more elaborate stories of miracles and the like, and yet little or no in the way of on-going relationships (beyond that of a crowd following you around... sort of like Keith Green as he housed and fed all those unbelievers... not necessarily as "friends" but as "people" and with the objective of teaching them about the Lord).<br /><br />Bravo.<br /><br />-GarrettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post-23766309045945936892006-10-11T21:23:00.000-07:002006-10-11T21:23:00.000-07:00I had a long response all typed out, but my comput...I had a long response all typed out, but my computer decided to ditch that web page. I'll do another one maybe tommorrow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31175562.post-65336319265175298032006-10-11T15:33:00.000-07:002006-10-11T15:33:00.000-07:00I like the last paragraph. Right on.
pete.I like the last paragraph. Right on.<br /><br />pete.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com