[This is a response toTrevor's blog about the comments by this guy to an original Infuse blog post. Because of the length of the post, I've shortened it. To read all of what I thought, just click here.
Perhaps if you're into initiating confrontational evangelism (curiously rare in Jesus' ministry, though people were constantly approaching him and being confrontational), being "on the offensive" you can get into the mindset that you have the gift of offensiveness, and your mission from God is to argue with people.
Unfortunately, no discussion actually exists there. A discussion works best when both people are humble enough to be pursuing more than their ego - seeking for their understanding to agree more with truth.
Without a discussion, and only an argument, is it even something you want to enter into anyway? That seems to go against the idea of evangelism originally presented in the Infuse blog (link at the top of the post). Jesus tended to end those situations pretty quickly and move on by confusing them with a parable or getting them stuck with a question of his own.
When Paul wrote the churches he said to do our part to live at peace with everyone, and to have speech seasoned with salt. I fear that those seeking to always show confrontation, correction, and whatever else it is that is perceived as self-righteous spite by their targets - that they've lost their saltiness.
I do think we need to always be open to the intellectually and spiritually honest discussion with these same people, but we don't need to get into the argument. The Bible says some harsh things to those trying to stir up controversy in the church.
Sinners were attracted to Jesus, not repulsed. His response? Sit down with them and eat. He did this with Matthew the tax collector, he did this with Zaccheaus. The result of one meal with Jesus? They followed him. And without tracts, the church grew.
I don't have a problem with street evangelism. I've been very involved in some of these efforts. I have a problem with the excessive pride that some who claim to follow Christ, and by so displaying their sin while trying to present the gospel repel those who would be super attracted to Jesus, just by eating matzo and drinking wine with him.
Question for Trevor - and to see if he reads the blog - you reference something along the lines of a problem of shallowness in the church being that many think that because they repeat certain words on a tract as a prayer they're good to go and don't actually have to follow Jesus with their lives.
Do you think that it's the same problem when people think that to evanglize they just have to go out and say certain words in a certain presentation, and they're good to go and don't actually have to show Jesus by their lives?
Hi Jon--
Your question at the end of the post hits it right on for me. Unfortunately we found this awkward way of seperating proclamation of the gospel and the life that results from transformation by that gospel. I don't think you can truly live out faith and never talk about it or talk about it all the time without clear evidence of living it.
Thanks for the post. I think it encompasses my thoughts well.
Hope I passed!!