rambling reality check

Tonight I spoke on the phone with a good friend of mine from twenty years ago who is almost the last guy I would have predicted would become a Christian. Not that he was antagonistic to the faith, but when we were close, he just seemed to have an attitude of self-sufficiency -- no need for God. (Actually, I was pretty much of the same mindset, so I probably shouldn't talk. But isn't it easy to assume that your spiritual journey is not something any of your "old friends" would be able to relate to?)

As it turns out, my friend is not only a Christian, he's plugged into a good Bible believing church and was recently leading one of their home Bible studies. Wow!

It kind of shames me, because it highlights my guilt in forgetting that God can work in anybody's life. It also shames me in that I can't claim I had any part in my friend's journey to conversion, even though, maybe I could have.

I think sharing the Gospel to friends is a hard thing to do well. I'm not too bad at putting "pebbles in people's shoes," sharing points of apologetics and giving them something to contemplate. And while there's an important place for that, to be sure, it's also important to eventually share the crux of the Gospel. And I have a hard time working that in.

This is where I'm sort of schizophrenic about my critique of "seeker sensitive" ministry strategies. When it comes time for me to share the Gospel, I definitely try to frame it artfully to help get the hearer past negative preconceptions to a clear understanding the message. (And sometimes my motivation is a fear of rejection, which I think is clearly a wrong motivation.) But even so, I don't think I should ever change the content of the message in order to garner acceptance. For instance, I shouldn't say Christianity is fundamentally about having a relationship with God -- which a lot of Christians do -- when really Christianity is fundamentally about receiving atonement for my sins and living my life as Christ's disciple in obedience to His commands.

My friends need to understand the message accurately and then decide for themselves what they're going to do with it. And it's not appropriate for me feel responsible for that outcome because the responsibility is solely theirs. They need to reject the offer of forgiveness out of the rebelliousness of their hearts, not because they don't personally sense a need for "a relationship with God" or don't personally like the music or programs at some particular church. They've got a "disease" called sin, and the "cure" isn't "relationship." The cure is becoming repentant, pleading for forgiveness, and obtaining it. The message of this religion is not, "Love means never having to say I'm sorry," and we shouldn't imply that it is by deemphasizing the imperativeness of redemption in our message.

I will likely expound on this at some later date, but my impression is that one of the most effective "lures" for the Gospel is to demonstrate love for people by addressing their temporal, non-spiritual needs. Doing so gets their attention, because they see that the love we speak of is real. (And loving them in this way is commanded by God, too.) Wasn't this what Jesus did with His healings? He addressed not only the spiritual need of the person, but also the physical. When we meet people's needs, I think we find we have less motivation to cloak "the message" or be silent with it. "Those that have ears" will be receptive.