Using Lent as an evangelistic opportunity - syncretism or strategic outreach?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Hello,

If a church were to hold a Lenten service to talk about the Gospel to Catholics, what do you think?

What factors would make this permissible or not?

If it were held as a "Come find out about Lent?" versus, "Come celebrate Lent?" would this be better?
 
I was recently introduced to this idea. I wouldn't call it syncretism, but such practices may not go well with ex-roman catholics unless they are told beforehand what is being done.
 
Let us make use of the means that God has appointed to us in His Word:

1. Biblical worship (i.e., proper elements);
2. Biblical calendar (i.e., Sabbath done weekly, Lord's Supper done often).

We have no assurance whatsoever that the Lord will bless "Lenten services".

Wrong thinking:

"Let's do everything that we think might work."

Right thinking:

"Let's do everything that God says will work."
 
I know there are gospel preaching churches that try to do something for Lent, some even advocating it as an outreach opportunity or something that will make those former Catholics comfortable. However, Tim is right about doing what God says will work.

Ultimately, I view Lent as good opportunity to talk about why Lent is unnecessary. We don't need a Worship Service to do that.
 
The Reformed Episcopal Church I attended while in the States always had a series of Lenten lectures during the week. They weren't worship services, but lectures (usually by a guest speaker) on a set topic. I always found them informative and edifying.
 
Our church in a heavily RC neighborhood. Louisville has so many RCs that the fast food restaurants all advertisement their fish sandwiches during this time of the year (even Home Run Burgers).

So, we're thinking about having a sausage cookout every Friday during the month of March. What say ye?
 
Sorry Perg, I haven't had time to start a new post like you suggested on the other thread.

I see two main issues afoot: 1) if we are allowed to have a gathering to worship/hear biblical instruction on a Wednesday, and 2) is it wise to use something that is most often blasphemous as an evangelistic tool, though what we do and teach is biblical. I believe that 'yes', we are allowed to have non-holy day gatherings, and it 'depends' how a lent service is marketed. Generally I would say that I don't think it is wise, but I will leave the possibility of it open, so long as it is simply viewed as any other Wednesday night service, though there may be a particular theme (i.e., man's depravity and the Gospel) given the date.
 
What do we call a special preaching or lecture session coinciding with lent? Is this a worship service? Must we do a full liturgy? Is it really preaching if we give a historical lecture? What if we are open and upfront about our motives (hold it at church, call it a talk about the history of lent). I suppose it need not even be held at church.

Whitefield and other evangelists preached in many venues other than church and upon many occasions.

How do we know when it is a worship service or not? It would seem lectures or even a dialogue or discussion or even debate would be "authorized."

It seems many evangelicals don't care about how worship is to be done. Are we also making an error by being so worried about how outreach is done that we don't engage in it at all?

How can we be vigorous and aggressive in our use of this opportunity even while guarding the RPW?
 
AThornquist said:
Sorry Perg, I haven't had time to start a new post like you suggested on the other thread.

I see two main issues afoot: 1) if we are allowed to have a gathering to worship/hear biblical instruction on a Wednesday, and 2) is it wise to use something that is most often blasphemous as an evangelistic tool, though what we do and teach is biblical. I believe that 'yes', we are allowed to have non-holy day gatherings, and it 'depends' how a lent service is marketed. Generally I would say that I don't think it is wise, but I will leave the possibility of it open, so long as it is simply viewed as any other Wednesday night service, though there may be a particular theme (i.e., man's depravity and the Gospel) given the date.
Click to expand...

Thanks, we just posted at the same time maybe.
 
Marrow Man said:
Our church in a heavily RC neighborhood. Louisville has so many RCs that the fast food restaurants all advertisement their fish sandwiches during this time of the year (even Home Run Burgers).

So, we're thinking about having a sausage cookout every Friday during the month of March. What say ye?
Click to expand...

Sage or hot?
 
I'm still thinking through these things, but I am interested in the relationship between non-holy day observances, such as Lent and Christmas. If Christmas observances are fairly normal in Protestantism, why are Lent observances seen as being so weird to many of us?
 
AThornquist said:
I'm still thinking through these things, but I am interested in the relationship between non-holy day observances, such as Lent and Christmas. If Christmas observances are fairly normal in Protestantism, why are Lent observances seen as being so weird to many of us?
Click to expand...

I don't find Lent weird. I find just as much man made problem contained in both of them.
 
I should clarify: when I asked why Lent observances are seen as "weird to many of us," I should have more correctly asked why Lent is weird to most of the Christians I know, whereas Christmas observances are perfectly normal. I've never been to a Lent service in my life, nor have any of my family. It sounds so... weird. :)
 
AThornquist said:
I'm still thinking through these things, but I am interested in the relationship between non-holy day observances, such as Lent and Christmas. If Christmas observances are fairly normal in Protestantism, why are Lent observances seen as being so weird to many of us?
Click to expand...

1) Santa Claus and all the related cultural baggage.

2) Lent is more easily identified with Romish behavior. (Lent ironically is very similar to Ramadan).
 
I don't know why the Catholics would go to a lenten service at a non-Catholic service anyway. Now maybe a sort-of one-time Catholic might be induced to attend some kind of church when reminded that it is lent... But then the mechanics of who comes and how depends on the church. I don't want to get too creative in imagining how any one specific church would go about subtly reminding the public that it is "lent" and oh also this specific church exists and you should visit.

You could have a "come find out about lent" discussion before/after a regular Wednesday night service?
 
Sacrilege and syncretism are brought to mind. If you cant beat them, join them? When I hear of 'christians' even talking about using Lent for any purpose I wonder, 'Whatever happened to the Reformation?' To compare anything at all the the great sacrifice of Christ is just horrific to me!
 
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
(Lent ironically is very similar to Ramadan).
Click to expand...

And those who evangelize Muslims know that Ramadan is a great time to engage them in spiritual discussions, because they're thinking about spiritual things already. Such evangelists use Ramadan as an opportunity to preach the gospel... without actually participating in Ramadan in any way.

Likewise, Paul used interest in the false gods of Athens as an opportunity to preach about the true God... without actually participating in idol worship.

So in the same way, couldn't a church use the occasion of Lent as an opportunity to preach the gospel without actually participating in Lent? I can think of a half dozen good reasons why I'd question participating in Lent by having a "lenten service." But if some preaching or teaching on the topic of Lent provides an opportunity to reach people with the gospel, that's a good thing.

In the days and weeks following 9-11, many preachers addressed those happenings in sermons, hoping to speak to needs and fears their listeners were feeling at that time. That's good pastoring. And no one mistook that for endorsement of 9-11. In the same way, a sermon or teaching time about Lent is not at all the same thing as celebration or endorsement of Lent. We should not be so afraid of unauthorized holidays that we refuse to acknowledge Lent or to address whatever spiritual concerns are on the minds of folks in our community at a given time of year.

So Perg... I think what you described (as some special teaching, not a lenten service itself) might be a good idea in some communities/situations.
 
JoannaV said:
I don't know why the Catholics would go to a lenten service at a non-Catholic service anyway.
Click to expand...

My church gets Catholics attending all the time. It's because we preach the gospel, which is like living water to people withering under the hot sun of works righteousness, and word gets around. A number of families have believed in Christ, left the Catholic church and joined us.

So would we have a lenten service? No, that would be like taking them back to what they left. But might Catholics show up if a church is addressing the self-interested behaviors that surround Lent and offering something better? Absolutely. You'd be surprised how many Catholics might visit a Protestant church when they find one that cares about them and preaches the grace of Jesus. If a church is welcoming, this can indeed happen.
 
My workmates, who are not Christians told me that they saw young people walking around town yesterday (Wednsday) with Xs on their foreheads. That tells me that these people are ready for a discussion about Lent. But not sure about holding a Lent service just to get them into 'our church'. RCs would be highly suspicious about any church known for its 'Reformed' tradition doing that.
 
Dr. Clark over on his blog flouted Calvin,

Then the superstitions observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby perform some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven. And it is strange how men of acute judgment could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly (which he must have done had he meant to lay down a law for an anniversary fast), but once only, when preparing for the promulgation of the gospel. Nor does he fast after the manner of men, as he would have done had he meant to invite men to imitation; he rather gives an example, by which he may raise all to admire rather than study to imitate him. In short, the nature of his fast is not different from that which Moses observed when he received the law at the hand of the Lord (Exodus 24:18; 34:14:28). For, seeing that that miracle was performed in Moses to establish the law, it behoved not to be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem inferior to the law. But from that day, it never occurred to any one, under pretense of imitating Moses, to set up a similar form of fast among the Israelites. Nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, though they had inclination and zeal enough for all pious exercises; for though it is said of Elijah that he passed forty days without meat and drink (1 Kings:19:8), this was merely in order that the people might recognise that he was raised up to maintain the law, from which almost the whole of Israel had revolted. It was therefore merely false zeal, replete with superstition, which set up a fast under the title and pretext of imitating Christ; although there was then a strange diversity in the mode of the fast, as is related by Cassiodorus in the ninth book of the History of Socrates: “The Romans,” says he, “had only three weeks, but their last was continuous, except on the Lord’s day and the Sabbath. The Greeks and Illvrians had, some as, others seven, but the f’ast was at intervals. Nor did they differ less in the kind of food: some used only bread and water, others added vegetables; others had no objection to fish and fowls; others made no difference in their food.” Augustine also makes mention of this difference in his latter epistle to Januarius.—Calvin, Institutes 4.12.20
Click to expand...
 
We have a heavy R.C. population here in Chicago. I use Lent to shop for meat; supply and demand dictates better prices on red meat.....;)
 
well, a Lent service would make ex-roman catholics uncomfortable, not more at home. At least in Latin america, when somebody leaves the roman church, they want to know nothing about anything concerning it
 
AThornquist said:
I see two main issues afoot: 1) if we are allowed to have a gathering to worship/hear biblical instruction on a Wednesday, and 2) is it wise to use something that is most often blasphemous as an evangelistic tool, though what we do and teach is biblical. I believe that 'yes', we are allowed to have non-holy day gatherings, and it 'depends' how a lent service is marketed. Generally I would say that I don't think it is wise, but I will leave the possibility of it open, so long as it is simply viewed as any other Wednesday night service, though there may be a particular theme (i.e., man's depravity and the Gospel) given the date.
Click to expand...

Andrew, what is an evangelistic tool, and where is the concept discussed in the Scriptures?

The Scriptures know only of the plain preaching of the Word.

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. -1 Cor 2: 1-4
Click to expand...
 
I don't mean to sound rude but I don't understand what is so difficult to understand, Tyler. Are you genuinely ignorant of the definition of "tool" and the relevant Biblical concepts of becoming all things to all men, contextualization, Paul's use of public venues to preach, his quotation of secular writings, and his use of idols to point to the true and living God?
 
Hint: in the theological distinction of element and circumstance, "evangelistic tool" is synonymous with a stragetic circumstance. It is untrue to say that the Scriptures know "only of the plain preaching of the Word"; Scripture knows also of the circumstances of preaching and the means men of God have used to facilitate and buttress preaching, e.g. in the ministry of Paul.
 
AThornquist said:
I don't mean to sound rude but I don't understand what is so difficult to understand, Tyler. Are you genuinely ignorant of the definition of "tool" and the relevant Biblical concepts of becoming all things to all men, contextualization, Paul's use of public venues to preach, his quotation of secular writings, and his use of idols to point to the true and living God?
Click to expand...


AThornquist said:
Hint: in the theological distinction of element and circumstance, "evangelistic tool" is synonymous with a stragetic circumstance. It is untrue to say that the Scriptures know "only of the plain preaching of the Word"; Scripture knows also of the circumstances of preaching and the means men of God have used to facilitate and buttress preaching, e.g. in the ministry of Paul.
Click to expand...

The introduction of Holy Days and religious ordinances, both of which Lent is made up of, is elemental and not circumstantial. Even when they are being used to mirror antichristian worship for evangelistic purposes. Paul did not participate in pagan worship (or model the Church's worship on it) in order to "be all things to all men."
 
The ministry of Paul was the ministry of a preacher, an evangelist, etc. It was most certainly his calling to take venues such as the synagogue, and the agora to speak of Christ, (See Acts 17.16-17) and then when given the opportunity to speak to the philosophers of his day at Mars Hill it was also his calling to do so. Making their idolatry one of the points of his Gospel sermon, commanding repentance from those idols, and that upon Mars Hill is a far cry from ordering *Church* worship services around the worship ordinances of men. If a Church that finds herself in a location where Roman Catholicism is particularly prevalent, during the week, scheduled classes on why she does not celebrate Lent, or other human accretions to the worship of the Living God, she is obviously free to do so, and to invite as many Roman Catholics as she wishes, and may God bless her efforts. However, the worship *services* of the Church are *services* that we render to God, and are therefore regulated by His preceptive desire, and cannot be changed to suit the passing and fickle desires of men.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Dying well as an apologetic and evangelistic witness
Replies
13
Views
3K
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
Dr. Bob Gonzales
  • Locked
Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?
4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
20K
MW
M
D
  • Locked
Using the truth of John 6:44 in outreach
Replies
17
Views
3K
Der Pilger
D
P
  • Locked
Other missionaries using Mother Teresa as an example of a good missionary
Replies
4
Views
2K
Curt
Curt
D
  • Locked
Evangelistic Friendship
Replies
17
Views
3K
Der Pilger
D
Back
Top