In my blog a few days ago about the Pearl Jam performance, I referenced something Eddie Vedder said about the “incredible value” of each and every person at the show. I was impressed by hearing that. I thought it was good.
While walking to our parking place after the final show, I sarcastically pointed out to my pastor friend the “effective evangelism” that someone was attempting with a bullhorn and a few giant banners as tens of thousands of people streamed out of Zilker Park. I thought about grabbing the bullhorn, telling the zealous believers to “trust me” and then telling them about how what Eddie Vedder had just told them (about their intrinsic and incredible value) was true, and how they didn’t need mean-spirited jerk telling them that they were going to hell, but that their value came from their Creator, Who cared about them dearly and didn’t hate them for having a good time. But, of course, I just kept my mouth shut … until now. Like any believer, I acknowledge the reality of hell and the future Great White Throne judgment of God, but I believe that the context of the situation might best be served with another approach. Is it possible that we can sometimes blame our approach as being the offensive thing, rather than chalking it up as “the stumbling block” that Jesus pointed it out as? I’m not suggesting a “watering down” of the Gospel message, but just questioning the method with which we deliver the subject of sin and repentance. Is it appropriate to bring up child-rearing and godly parenting in this context? Isn’t that part of solid Bible teaching? Should we be talking about Bible prophecy or speaking in tongues? What is essential? What is stylistic preference? What is Spirit-led and what is force fed?
I know I’m not the judge of this evangelist. I assume that he does what he does out of a deep love for Jesus. He willingly sets himself up for ridicule, cursing and rejection as a price willing to pay for His Lord. Perhaps he is fulfilling his calling as best he knows how, which might be precisely what our heavenly Father desires for him to do. I could be wrong. I’ve done open air preaching before, so it’s not like I’m questioning something that’s alien to me. I know that people came out to the wilderness to hear John the Baptist. I’m not sure he went to the local hangout where people drank wine and caroused or entertained themselves, though. When Paul argued with the philosophers at Mars Hill, he apparently went to the location where ideas were commonly bantered about. The preaching that we hear about in the book of Acts was often in the hostile context of Christians being arrested and accused of crimes against their society. They spoke up in the context where people were confronting them. Perhaps we would do well to wait to defend the Gospel until it is attacked. I don’t know.
In a way, this kind of preaching is like sales. You’re “approaching” people (their ears) with a message (something to sell) and you’re hoping that they make a decision (buy in) after they hear the offer. Some “sales” might actually get made, but is it worth the price? A lot of times the “price” we talk about is the hurt feelings we might face from the rejection our listeners vent towards us. That’s neither here nor there. Of course we should be willing to face that kind of rejection if we’re going to stand up for Jesus. I’m talking about another kind of price – one that’s probably way more important.
“If one person gets saved,” is the thought, “then it’s all worth it.” But what if there are people’s hearts that get hardened to the Gospel as a result? Are you responsible for that, too? Terry Scott Taylor (the lead singer for The Lost Dogs, Daniel Amos and the Swirling Eddies) once made a solo album that was spliced with lots of comedy. In his “Miracle Faith Telethon of Love” he look at the “Fruit O Ministry Tote Board,” which “counted up the number of souls saved by this ministry and subtracted the number of hearts permanently hardened to the Gospel by this ministry for a grand fruit o’ ministry total.” Turns out they were in the red, with the vast majority of their fruit turning people off to the Gospel.
I’m inspired by the preaching of Peter in the book of Acts. I think back to stirring sermons, like “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” or even “Hell’s Best Kept Secret.” These are powerful moments where words are spoken that act like a two-edged sword that pierces the heart. I’m guessing that the latter two were delivered in a revival meeting where lots and lots of believers (along with a number of non-believers) were gathered to hear the message. They were expecting it. Peter was in a situation where people were expecting him to maybe offer up a spoken defense on his behalf of his behavior, which he and his friends were in trouble for. This modern day (so-called) “equivalent” is more like someone who stands outside of a brothel waiting for a man who’s just enslaved himself to a prostitute (and vice-versa) and wags a finger at him, scolding him for such a shameful act. The problem with preaching to a crowd leaving a concert is that it’s not the same thing. Is listening to music that’s not consciously devoted to God a sin? It certainly could be. So could a baseball game or going to a garage sale. People caught up in the activities of life could be turning their backs to God and neglecting His incredible gift of salvation. But if we’re going to scold people for every possible act of ignoring God and His goodness, we’ve certainly lost the plot, haven’t we?
Certainly obedience would trump any of these criticisms, but if we can’t question what we’re doing, how can we ever improve or repent?
I consider myself a preacher of sorts and I hope to preach more in the future, so it’s not like I’m trying to shoot down evangelism. Absolutely not. I just think that perhaps opening up a dialog like this can help sharpen believers and help us bear more fruit. What do you think? What is a better way?
Comments