Nobody wants to feel that they have been manipulated. So, can the same actions be done by one person in love, and by another person in a manipulating way? I was actually saved after I heard a sermon on going to hell without salvation (and I was the only unsaved person in the church). But preceding that, I was invited to church by my Christian friend, and greeted warmly by the church members, who sincerely seemed concerned about my spiritual distance from God. The sermon convicted me; I think that love motivated this group. I didn’t respond right away, and I never felt any pressure. But I can also see this same type of presentation being done in a guilt-inducing, pressurized way, just to get “results.” I guess I am saying that love alone has always been God’s motivation to save us. Compassion should be our guide as well.

Well said, “seeker.” While Hell is a reality and part of salvation is the opportunity to spend eternity with God, the greater gospel motivation should be love and the experience of being a part of God’s kingdom here and now. However, love certainly says the hard things and confronts where needed, so we can’t pretend like it’s wrong to talk about sin and Hell. But the motivation must be genuine love, not manipulation, fear, guilt, or a desire to see greater conversion numbers.

It seems to me that Jesus was often very laid back, when compaired with many preachers. He put the facts before the crowd, such as pointing to the broad or narrow way, and then leaves it up to the hearer to decide. Or he said “follow me”, and that is it. No more pressure. Yes, Jesus did talk about hell, and the consequences of going the wrong way, but it is more informational than scare tactics; again it is more a presentation, these are the facts, now you decide. The other thing that is noticable about Jesus, verses a frequent evangelical presentation, is that we tend to think that we must give all the fact, “the way of salvation” or the “five spiritual laws” and so on, whereas Jesus seems remarkably lax in not grasping this “one opportunity”. Why is this?
The answer I think must be a belief that this is in his Fathers hands, it is the Father who calls, our job is to present the facts. In our desire to pressure and present all the facts at one moment, we suggest that we think it is we who call, and we have an over emphasis on what I do, without a sufficient belief that the Lord will follow up what we say, by continuing to work in that persons life. On the other hand, the call on us is to make disciples, which is a much more extensive and complete work that merely pressing for a decision. We are called to take time and effort in a persons life, so that they will come to be disciples of Jesus.
In the context of the discussion, the question is, do we have a deep conviction that God will work in a persons life, using what we say, to call people to himself. I think if we alow God His place, it will have a profound affect on the way we behave in relationship to the call of others.

Gordon, while I wouldn’t use the word “laid-back” to describe Jesus, I think what you see is less of an urgency on His part. Jesus had the opportunity to have tens of thousands following him everywhere he went, yet He consistently made it hard for them to really be committed, telling the rich young ruler to sell all he had and the crowd after he fed the multitudes that in order to enter the kingdom they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Certainly Jesus wanted all to be saved and to follow Him, but He definitely went about that goal a different way than we would. If we had 4000 coming to our church, would we really up the commitment level to the point where half would leave? I doubt we’d have the humility to do really be like Jesus in that situation.

This whole discussion is of great interest to me because I so distinctly remember the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when the great pentecostal/charismatic movement began, and spread quite rapidly through many denominatons - and spawned a pretty agressive “evangelical” movement whose main purpose was to “win” souls for Christ. I lived in Pittsburgh at the time, which was home to the early formation of this movement. I myself got caught up in the movement for awhile. However, having a quieter and less agressive personality, I found myself unable to BOLDLY go up to someone and ask them if they were “saved” (a ludicrous question anyway, since that is between a person and God, and we have no right to ask or judge, in my opinion, since God sees the heart and He alone knows the true state of anyone’s relationship with Him.) I also remember the almost FANATIC, and definitely frenetic, energy with which “Born-Again” Christians literally “accosted” people with their enthusiasm and their determination to make everyone become “Born-Again”! It was during this period that the term “Jesus Freak” was first used — and I think the term itself reflects the reaction that most people (Christian or not) had toward this very “pushy” group of people known as “Born-Again” Christians. I know first-hand that, at least in my circle of friends, family, and acquaintances, this agressive, accusational, “scare tactic” and annoying insistence and “mania” caused more harm than good in the long run. People literally would go out of their way to avoid these “crazy” people. Christians and non-Christians alike were quite “turned off” by the “happy-happy-happy” presentation of these so-called Christians. This is not to say that every “Born-Again” Christian of that era was fake or insincere - not at all! I believe the majority of these men and women truly loved God and wanted others to know Jesus. But this, then, gets back to the original question posed by Pastor Eric in his essay: “Does the means justify the end in our efforts to share the Love of God with others, and to increase the NUMBERS of “believers”? I think not. If we follow Jesus through the gospels and watch how he interacted with people (mostly common, ordinary people like you and me, or people who felt like and indeed WERE outcasts in their society), we see a gentle, compassionate Man who saw the needs of the individuals who came to Him or to whom He came. We see a Man who LOVED others, and who, rather than judging/condemning them, or embarrassing them in front of others, simply and quietly healed their bodies and souls and commended their faith, and lovingly encouraged them to “go and sin no more”. People loved Him and followed Him everywhere, eager to hear what He had to say because what He had to say was relevant to their lives and offered them HOPE. So, my conclusion is that the end (or even the worthy goal) does NOT justify the means When we are “pushy” and aggressive, and annoyingly insistent; when we take pride in the NUMBER of persons “we” have brought to “salvation” by convincing them that being a “Born-Again” Christian is the only way (because there is only one other alternative, and that is to refuse this offer and end up in hell!), then we are not doing what Jesus would have us do, and that is “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind and your whole strength” and “LOVE your neighbor”! Address their corporal needs, in LOVE! Extend compassionate LOVE to their emotional pain. Offer gentle LOVE and HOPE to those who are down-trodden in any way. Yes, it’s okay to tell them about Jesus, and about forgiveness, and about how much God loves them — but not until they have seen GOD’S LOVE at work in and through you. That is the Great Commandment: “Go spread the gospel (good news) to all nations (by spreading it to individuals). And what is that Gospel? It is the Gospel of Love.

Gloria - wow, thanks for your reflection on this issue. It helps to hear the perspective of someone who has seen that in the long run the means that use alarm and urgency often are more harmful to the name of Jesus than good. Think of all that has to be undone in sharing about Christianity with the average person. Many people have negative connotations associated with “born agains”, “evangelicals”, and even “Christians”, and often those issues need to be listened to and addressed before we can even begin to share the truth about Jesus and what it means to follow Him. We need to be careful that we do not further aggravate the situation by using manipulative means, even if they are achieving worthy ends in the short run.

Go Eric! I was skeptical of that whole 4 percent thing right from the start. While this generation may not hold to all the truths of the Evangelical right, they are committed to truth in other ways, like how I treat my neighbor and love the poor (which is more similar to Jesus than spouting idle theology). As for Luce, I couldn’t help but pick up a whiff of hypocrisy at the Battle Cry rally: He assailed corporations for trying to “put their brand on you,” but his selling “Battle Cry” backpacks and shirts was readily encouraged, if not righteous behavior! Why does the church (or so many American churches) buy this stuff? Because we believe in methods, salesmanship and any tactic other than relationships. That’s why Six Flags tickets are a good motivator rather than simple friendship, compassion and love. Ugh! “For him who has ears, let him hear. “Listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” “The Spirit gives life,” but the ways of the flesh lead to death.

Adam - Thanks for your thoughts. Like I said in my post, I want to be careful to criticize a fellow believer or ministry, especially one who is seeing such great results, even if some tactics are questionable. Lord knows that none of us would hold up to careful scrutiny if we were ministering on a national platform. Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that following Jesus is more than subscribing to a set of beliefs but more about how we live. I don’t see Jesus checking the theology of his disciples often, but I do see Him teaching often about how a disciple should live. I believe that as more and more Christians and churches focus on fulfilling God’s mission instead of subscribing to a set of beliefs, we will see greater unity in the church and show greater charity to those who have different opinions on secondary issues of the faith. And isn’t that how Jesus said all would know that He is our Lord, by our love for one another?

I’m all for wake-up calls, especially when they are from God. But if it’s a wake-up call based on statistics or trends, then the factual basis needs to be there. Yes, Eric - Christian organizations (and preachers) - need to be held to account. Not that they need to be factually correct on everything they say. No. That would stifle the Holy Spirit. But if they are trying to argue a point from a factual basis then the facts need to be right.

I think that Barbara Lacosse’s “conversations” ministry is just great. It’s given me an idea for down here.

Eddie Alexander

Thanks Eddie - may we be careful about our preaching and teaching so that we do not use sensationalism that is not based on fact in order to stir up people to action. It may work in the short run, but in the long run you’ll end up with a lot of disillusioned people.

one more comment on adam’s comment - the teen mania branding comes from the belief that as long as the message is godly, let’s use whatever medium we can to communicate it, as well as the belief that secular is “bad” and christian is “good”. Perhaps more thought should be given to the actual media itself - what do so-called “Christian” t-shirts & backpacks do to the gospel? What are they actually communicating about Jesus and our faith? My fear is that they can either communicate “we want to retreat from the world and create our alternative universe where everything is Christian” or “we convert people just like corporations do, through advertising and marketing, not through relationships and service.” It’s worth thinking about the messages those sort of things send.