I agree but honestly think that there are two things involved:

Sharing the faith is hard. Few have ever scaled that mountain and when they/we stand at the base looking up at what looms above we seek a different rout to the summit or head over to another more comfortable summit: like social justice, programing and other things Most of which require us to only really deal with those who are already Christians. so it is comfortable and safe. Easier to yell at a baptist tan to tell a unbeliever the gospel.

Second, I think few know how to tell the Gospel with confidence. The "how" of the matter is something that I have experienced to be a snag for folks. What points to hit how to transition in to a spiritual conversation and so on. I am not talking about having to have a canned presentation ready but I think that the more our culture becomes multi cultured, multi spiritual multi everything there is a great need for people to understand the faith to a point that they can accurately explain the gospel in the mist of so much variety. And I think few fell ready for that.

It's my/the pastor's fault. Ouch huh?

I've heard that nothing needs saying quite so often as that which goes without saying. IMO, the paragraphs in this post are well described by that thought.

Couple of thoughts: one is that we seem, still, to view the "gospel", and our individual duty to help spread it, as a "presentation" rather than a "conversation". By definition, as witness is someone who has had a firshand experience, about which he is called to give direct testimony.

The second is that I believe we undershoot our estimate of what everybody else is doing. I've been several forms of presbyterian, and the gospel we told then was the same one we tell, now that I are a Baptist. I mean ... Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge PRESBYTERIAN did come up with Evangelism Explosion, which us Baptists thought enough of to copy and "re-gift" as CWT.

Bob Clevland said "we seem, still, to view the "gospel", and our individual duty to help spread it, as a "presentation" rather than a "conversation"."
There are those who need to hear this but not most of us. The idea that the gospel can or should not be presented as a presentation is not biblical at all. Most know that we are not to be rude and to love our neighbor but this (conversation) is not a prerequasit of the Gospel. There where many instances of Gospel "presentations" in the scripture and few issues of converstaion.
Don't get me wrong I believe the best means by which to reach our cultures now is by conversation, thought full diologe but it is a "presentation conversation." You and I do have something to present and it must be done because the gospel is not (in truth)up for debate.

Bob Clevland said "we seem, still, to view the "gospel", and our individual duty to help spread it, as a "presentation" rather than a "conversation"."
There are those who need to hear this but not most of us. The idea that the gospel can or should not be presented as a presentation is not biblical at all. Most know that we are not to be rude and to love our neighbor but this (conversation) is not a prerequisite of the Gospel. There where many instances of Gospel "presentations" in the scripture and few issues of conversation.
Don't get me wrong I believe the best means by which to reach our cultures now is by conversation, thought full dialogue but it is a "presentation conversation." You and I do have something to present and it must be done because the gospel is not (in truth) up for debate.

Simply, amen brother!!!

Speaking as a Charismatic - I wholeheartedly agree. It is not my task to get everyone to speak in tongues, it is my task to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for a great, honest post, Ed!

Nice Ed. Just co wrote a book for which you kindly wrote the Foreword which I believe agrees much with this. Movements matter if Jesus, not our personal causes, is Lord of the movement. I am smelling what you are stewing.

Stetzerific. Best thing ever. Quite witty too (1, 2, 3 John!).

It is much easier to be mad about something than to actually try and convert people. Gospelizing people is hard, even harder than arguing with other church people about church stuff. This is easy to receive form someone who has obviously put a lot of thought into how to do church Biblically. Thanks Ed.

Ed,

I so appreciate your writing on this topic. As we are preparing to plant a church in our area, you have hit the major topic of the discussion of the core group here.
We have been in a series of discussions relating to how we want to get started. To a person, we have all said that we want to win lost people and get them into this church plant. We want new believers; not cast-offs, nor do we want disenfranchised believers. We want to knock on doors, preach on street corners, hand out tracts, and meet people were they are. Each one of us knows that this is what Christ would have us do because sharing the gospel is a natural response to the lostness of man.
We have no programed presentation, just people who love Christ and do not want anyone in this area going to hell without hearing of the saving grace of God from their lips.

Agree.

I preached on John 17 yesterday, and one of the several ways Jesus' prayer is so daunting in its implications is, when he transitions to the "I am sending them as you have sent me" mission type stuff, he holds out as causes the two things Christians find the most daunting/difficult:

a) unity with other believers
b) evangelizing the lost

This is our task: 2 Corinthians 5:14-21; 6:1-2. Nuff said!

Ed,

Good piece. I have a question in light of the article and your conversation with David Fitch. David remarked that the conversion process is now not an instant, but more like a 5 year process. You agreed with that to some extent (though probably not 5 years). With longer conversions taking place, how can we define the great line between cause and gospel? Is it possible that some of these long conversions involve a conversion to cause prior than a conversion to the gospel?

Ed,

Good piece. I have a question in light of the article and your conversation with David Fitch. David remarked that the conversion process is now not an instant, but more like a 5 year process. You agreed with that to some extent (though probably not 5 years). With longer conversions taking place, how can we define the great line between cause and gospel? Is it possible that some of these long conversions involve a conversion to cause prior than a conversion to the gospel?

Couldn't agree more, Bob. I can't think of any one-on-one gospel communication in scripture that wasn't a true conversation -- tailored specifically to the situation at hand. A better presentation isn't the answer. A genuine witness is.

Sweet!!! Nicely put Ed.

I need to say nothing else.

"They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death."

(Revelation 12:11, NIV)

i totally agree with you, ed! when my husband, gordon-i believe you two have met :), and i moved to garner, nc to plant a church we specifically wanted to convert nonbelievers (or pre-christians). the mission of our church is to create community and engage community. being in the south, our goal was to not convert the baptists into presbyterians. we're not all "Godless".

Yes yes. Well written. We need to be about causes, of course, but our primary mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, whatever flavor of Christianity we embrace.

Great article/post, Ed. It seems that we need to be refocused.... this is what came to mind when reading your post. This convicted me of what you are talking about. A guy who didn't care about his own cause... but the cause of Christ. ...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM&e

Ed,

Thank you for your great article. It is a good wake up call to all of us that the real mission is making disciples. What are we doing if all of our efforts don't produce life change. I know that God has been pounding me with this message lately.

Well said.

Awesome thought. Imagine if we all stopped practicing religion and instead just lived our faith. People might actually want what we have. Thanks for writing this.

Ed, are these the new stereotypes? I wrestle with what can easily appear like gross over-simplifications. Yet I know these exist. But are the the small part or the larger whole?

Good Post Ed.

And, I think there is obviously much more to discuss on issues such as these. I think there are 2 things at stake here and we can't forsake either one. Primarily we MUST proclaim Christ for all to hear in hopes of bringing converts into the fold of Christ. There is no question in my mind about that. Likewise, when the converts DO come to Christ we MUST properly disciple them (ie, teach them solid theology, show them what the Bible is, teach them how to read God's Word via a true Christocentric Hermeneutic).

Forsaking either category is never wise. For if we do, we end up having "converts" to Christianity that only want to discuss the "3 Johns" rather than present the gospel to their neighbor.

We must preach the gospel AND develop proper views of God in regard to our salvation and those around us.

However, me must remember to FIRST focus on leading the lost sheep into the fold, then begin the introduction of solid Christ Centered Theology, grace-filled correction, necessary discipleship and proper teaching while reciprocating the desire in the new convert to spread the Gospel instead of simply propagating their own well intentioned Philosophies.

(side note: in defense of the "3 Johns", I believe the aim in what they teach and preach/preached is not to cause division but rather to urge believers on to be Christ centered in all that they do. This includes leading converts into the fold. The Theology they preach and affirm as some people would say is not merely a "soteriology" of "how" God saves but rather "a Theology of who God is, ie his grace, mercy and justice". This part is just opinion...disregard if you don't agree lolz...)

I agree with many of the ideas regarding the difficulity of sharing the gospel because it is especially difficult considerng where I am from. But that said, I will play devil's advocate and ask why are we so concerned about the few converts in church? Are we spreading the gospel because we want to boast about the number of people you have led to Christ? Is the church only about converting people or is here to love and help people with their needs?

The Bible teaches us to go forth and spread the good news. Ministry isn't about sharing the news it's also about helping a need. If we look at Jesus's ministry, HE just didn't teach the good news, HE also met people's needs.
As soon as someone comes through those doors, Christians expect almost instantanious change but they also forget that people whether they are non christians (new convers)or seasoned Christians that everyone has needs and baggage that needs to be addressed before, during and after that change.
It's been my experience that most Christians and churches are all centered about bringing people to Jesus but they forget about the long term effects? This article has only spoke about the lack of converts and has not addressed the reasons behind the low numbers. Are these churches doing something to reach the community such as offering an after school program for children, or a soup kitchen or are they simply complaining about the low numbers without doing any work.
It seems as if Christians (especially evangelical Christians) are concentrated on putting someone's name on that book of life, that after it's done, they aren't willing to put in the long term effort to help people with their faith. In addition, it's easy to boast and say we've converted X number of people to Christ; we have X converts, but I ask what's being done to help people who arrive at the churches with their baggage and needs? Are they going to be turned away because right now they have said no to Jesus or are they going to be loved anyway and have their other needs filled. Then when they do say yes to Jesus, does the church or ministry have the support networks, or programs to help people? If the answer is yes, churches will maintain their new members. If the answer is no, converts will leave, and they will venture back into the world with noone or nowhere to support them through their new Christian journey. This lack of support will cause them to fall because they have not been equipped to handle the challenges of being a Christian. It's not easy being a Christian in this day and age.

Therefore as great as Jesus's message is, unless we look inside our churches and Christian organizations, and see what's being done to fullfill those needs, we are wasting our time. People will come only if their needs can be met.

If we want to plant churches and see existing ones to grow, we also need to think about the needs of the community. Churches in my area are growing because needs are being met.
The concept of ministry is changing and with that the concept of bringing converts into the Christian church. Before we start talking only about converting people, we also need to ask how can we help them.

Karen,

I don't think you're seeing the context of Ed's article. He's not saying just preach salvation and leave people to deal with their own physical/social/emotional/economic problems. He's warning against focusing so much on ministering to these other needs that we neglect the deeper spiritual needs. He's warning against gaining converts to a "cause" (homeless ministry, after-school programs for at-risk youth, etc.), often just getting Christians from other churches to come get involved in the projects your church is doing, while never presenting the life-changing gospel and bringing new people to Christ.

It's both/and. Ministering to temporal needs AND presenting God's offer of salvation for their souls.

Ed,
Great article as always. Look forward to seeing you at Ridgecrest and the Innovative Church Conf. at Thomas Rd Baptist.
I think a lot of the discussion between the groups you mentioned is the definition of the word "convert". I think "convert" and "crowd" should be defined. It seems whenever Jesus had a "crowd" He either spoke in parables or shared the high cost of following Him and being a disciple... the "crowds" split and the true "converts" stayed.
We must have a clear Gospel presentation or we may end up with a "crowd" that we call "converts".

Good reminder to all of us, Ed. Unfortunately, I think way too much of our effort as Christians is channeled toward convincing other Christians to play on our team as opposed to our efforts in evangelism. Of course, this typically results in nothing but church hopping. I think way too often we're aiming our efforts in the wrong direction. Is it not amazing that it's far easier to change our worship program or our website than it is to tell a neighbor about Christ?

On a similar note I just read your article in the Jan/Feb issue of Preaching magazine. As the senior pastor of a church that adds 300+ members a year with fully 1/3 of those through baptism, I want to thank you for recognizing that relevant topical preaching is not of Satan. Although my messages are topical and often use many visuals, they are always biblically based. I receive much criticism from local pastors for "not preaching the Word". Thanks for voicing support for the way many of us who proclaim the gospel feel led to present a very important message.
PAstor Ken Duggan

the way we've said it around here at healing place church for a while now is that our method must continually change in order communicate with the culture around us, but the Message must never change.

you're right on here, ed. good stuff.

Thanks, Ben,

Ken, I will be putting the preaching article up on the blog tomorrow. Be sure to check it out.

Karen, I am not sure of your objection. I do think we need to share and show the love of Christ. However, my point is that a movement that converts people to a cause but not Christ is not helpful.

Ed

Amen! Thanks for being right on target. You always have a way of keeping everyone on task concerning the message. Let's keep the main thing the main thing!

Ed – Thanks for the article. I fear the divisions in the body of Christ today over our efforts to make sure we are doing ministry "right" – and the inordinate amounts of time we spend critiquing those who are doing it wrong, reminds me of the Corinthian church. As we establish our spiritual superiority, we are in reality proving our depravity. As we polish up our apologetic, clean up society, realign the church, and helping people live better and more authentically – the end result is not much by way of eternity.

"The concept of ministry is changing and with that the concept of bringing converts into the Christian church. Before we start talking only about converting people, we also need to ask how can we help them."

Karen it is dangerous to lose the idea of conversion in Christianity. In fact without conversion we just have a social action club. I hope we have learned that from the mainline denominations that have fallen prey to that idea. Also if you have read much from Ed you would realize that he is not lets get people converted and leave them hanging.

this has got to be the best article of the year so far! i am just saddened that stetzer didn't work in us methodists. i would have loved to see what was said of us.

personally i am taking the day to repent of my excuses and share with someone today the clarity of this short message and the gospel message.

ed, thanks for being edgy and to the point.

(and if you had to fit methodists in there, [all methodist not just umc we are independent methodists] what would you say?)

G'day Ed..
Excellent article..
This is why I endorse the FAITH programme ... whether it has faults or not, its emphasis is getting the church members out and witnessing. Every day now (for the last month) my first FAITH group (we are only up to week 4!) tell me of witnessing experiences where they have shared the full FAITH outline. Many of these folks are coming to our church or other churches.
A bit of confidence in how to share the gospel relationally goes a long long way.
Steve

Actually, the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement has seen a decline over the last few years in the emphasis of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

Speaking as a Reformed charismatic, I approve of this message.

It is not about me recruiting people to Calvinist. It is ALL about glorifying the name of and preaching and teaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Like Piper said, Christ is the only banner I want to wave.

Would John Calvin want it any other way?

Thanks, Ed, for reminding us how easy it is to be close but not on target.
Our group wrestles with this constantly - helping church planters develop their way of sharing good news. We're still looking.

As a token mainliner (thought very evangelical) I want you to know this is at work in our churches as well. We count it as a real victory when conservatives and fundamentalists join us and call our churches so "freeing." (please spare me the comments we have our own problems I know). At times we almost feel like our job is to get fundies to have a little fun and remind divocred people that it is not the end of the world and to NOT do evangelism- all in the name of evangelism.

The "pope" of our church is preaching this Wednesday at Obama's prayer service- which is cool. But so many of us think SHE will be able to show other Christians how cool and progressive we are. And then we call that evangelism. Sad, so sad.

Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim, TIL ALL THE WORLD- adores his holy name.