The Gospel does spread relationally, and family and friends act as "bridges of God" by which the Gospel spreads. However, a much better approach than looking for new friends who will feel that you are being insincere, is to love and bless your existing network of friends and strive to truly enlarge that and to truly make relationships for sake of making relationships, not as an underhanded ploy to foist your wares on them like a cheap salesman.
Pergy, this is a big problem in Greenville. My sister works at Bob Jones University, plays in a "Christian" volleyball league, and goes to Heritage Bible Church. In a typical week, she might not see a single person who is not a professing Christian. How should she seek to evangelize?
4. It seems contrary to the Great Commission in that it imposes a severe limit on the number of people to whom the gospel is proclaimed. Genuine relationships take time to build, so one has to wonder how many such people could be reached with the gospel as opposed to a widespread outreach to strangers.
I think it has a broad meaning. There is definitely an evangelistic implication in that we are to be God's instruments in bringing people to Christ. But I think the most important aspect is that we are to be pouring our lives into others, training them in the Scriptures, and sending them into the world to do likewise. We see Jesus doing this with his 12, and we see Paul doing this with Timothy.
4. It seems contrary to the Great Commission in that it imposes a severe limit on the number of people to whom the gospel is proclaimed. Genuine relationships take time to build, so one has to wonder how many such people could be reached with the gospel as opposed to a widespread outreach to strangers.
Yes, and to go into ALL the world. Who are we to target a subset of humanity for the gospel when we know full well that we could bring the gospel to more? Is that what Jesus had in mind?
Here is an interesting explanation with numbers:
**If 1,000 people were converted every day, it would take 15,000 years for the whole world to be reached (that is assuming a static population).
**If a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1, and then spur on his disciple to do the same while starting a new one year discipleship with another person...and so on and so on, it would take 37 years to reach the whole world.
I'd agree with this if Jesus actually told his disciples, "Go and disciple one person and then instruct that one person to disciple one more." Instead he said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." Hardly "each one reach one," that.
Yes, and to go into ALL the world. Who are we to target a subset of humanity for the gospel when we know full well that we could bring the gospel to more? Is that what Jesus had in mind?
I didn't say that we were supposed to limit the gospel to anyone. Certainly we are to take the gospel message into all the world, but that is not on an individual basis. In other words, I am not supposed to go to one country and evangelize on Tuesday and then go to a different country on Wednesday. We, as the church, are to reach the whole world.
But we also need to realize where our time is best spent. I think Scripture suggests that our time is best spent in establishing relationships and training our brothers and sisters in the faith. The command in the great commission is to "make disciples".
I'd agree with this if Jesus actually told his disciples, "Go and disciple one person and then instruct that one person to disciple one more." Instead he said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." Hardly "each one reach one," that.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not suggesting that we only minister to one person per year. I'm just pointing out that if we took discipleship seriously, it's impact could be massive. I worry that sometimes the modern church is more concerned with numbers (i.e. how many people can we evangelize) than making disciples. To make disciples takes time, and we are often not willing to invest that.
Yes, and to go into ALL the world. Who are we to target a subset of humanity for the gospel when we know full well that we could bring the gospel to more? Is that what Jesus had in mind?
I didn't say that we were supposed to limit the gospel to anyone. Certainly we are to take the gospel message into all the world, but that is not on an individual basis. In other words, I am not supposed to go to one country and evangelize on Tuesday and then go to a different country on Wednesday. We, as the church, are to reach the whole world.
But we also need to realize where our time is best spent. I think Scripture suggests that our time is best spent in establishing relationships and training our brothers and sisters in the faith.
Indeed it is. Should we make disciples, then, of people who are believers or unbelievers?
I'd agree with this if Jesus actually told his disciples, "Go and disciple one person and then instruct that one person to disciple one more." Instead he said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." Hardly "each one reach one," that.
Okay, now I'm confused. You said, "a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1,' which pretty clearly indicates one person reaching just one person in one year.
I'm just pointing out that if we took discipleship seriously, it's impact could be massive.
Okay, now I'm confused. You said, "a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1,' which pretty clearly indicates one person reaching just one person in one year.
Okay, now I'm confused. You said, "a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1,' which pretty clearly indicates one person reaching just one person in one year.
Okay, now I'm confused. You said, "a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1,' which pretty clearly indicates one person reaching just one person in one year.
So I'm not a mathematician--is that scenario possibly true? If so, can a math guy tell me how!
I see 365,000 people converted in year one.
Then 365,000 more in year two.
Then 365,000 more in year three.
etc.
= 13,505,000 in 37 years so definitely not the whole world, i get that part.
versus
workers year oneYou
workers year two You and Your convert
workers year threeYou, your convert, your 2nd convert and Your convert's first convert
workers year fourYou, your first convert, your first convert's first convert, your first convert's 2nd convert, your 2nd convert, your second convert's first convert
1 in year one
2 more in year two
4 more in year three
6 more in year four?????????
4 years =13 (if my sketchy math is actually correct.) I don't know how 37 years is going to build more than 13,505,000 let alone the whole population, but I am admittedly dense in math.
This is where I get stuck. Who knows math? I know this is probably a very basic formula, but I cannot figure out what to be adding!! I think it should have exponents, but I basically forget what to do with those. For shame. Don't send your kids to public school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Pilger
4. It seems contrary to the Great Commission in that it imposes a severe limit on the number of people to whom the gospel is proclaimed. Genuine relationships take time to build, so one has to wonder how many such people could be reached with the gospel as opposed to a widespread outreach to strangers.
I disagree with this. The Great Commission is not to go witness to as many people as you can. It is to make disciples.
Here is an interesting explanation with numbers:
**If 1,000 people were converted every day, it would take 15,000 years for the whole world to be reached (that is assuming a static population).
**If a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1, and then spur on his disciple to do the same while starting a new one year discipleship with another person...and so on and so on, it would take 37 years to reach the whole world.
This doesn't make much sense. I don't understand the numbers or the significance. I'm sure more than a 1,000 people are converted every day. But I miss the point. Discipleship is part of the gospel.
Anyway, most Christians go years without sharing the gospel with anyone. Most churches don't try to go out and share the gospel. I think we need to encourage more gospel not less. It's something many Christians just think someone else does.
...This is where I get stuck. Who knows math? I know this is probably a very basic formula, but I cannot figure out what to be adding!! I think it should have exponents, but I basically forget what to do with those. For shame. Don't send your kids to public school.
Jessi,
I got a little lost in your math. You are right that it is a very basic formula.
Year 1, you have 1 person discipling. After that it doubles every year.
Has anyone heard of the "chess board" analogy? A man asks a king for one grain of rice on one square of the chess board, two grains on the second square, four grains on the third, eight on the fourth, etc. By the time the king gets through with all sixty-four squares on the chess board, he had given away enough rice to feed the entire world with over a ton of rice per person.
That's how this would work:
**If a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1, and then spur on his disciple to do the same while starting a new one year discipleship with another person...and so on and so on, it would take 37 years to reach the whole world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Pilger
4. It seems contrary to the Great Commission in that it imposes a severe limit on the number of people to whom the gospel is proclaimed. Genuine relationships take time to build, so one has to wonder how many such people could be reached with the gospel as opposed to a widespread outreach to strangers.
I disagree with this. The Great Commission is not to go witness to as many people as you can. It is to make disciples.
Here is an interesting explanation with numbers:
**If 1,000 people were converted every day, it would take 15,000 years for the whole world to be reached (that is assuming a static population).
**If a single person took a full year to disciple another person 1-on-1, and then spur on his disciple to do the same while starting a new one year discipleship with another person...and so on and so on, it would take 37 years to reach the whole world.
This doesn't make much sense. I don't understand the numbers or the significance. I'm sure more than a 1,000 people are converted every day. But I miss the point. Discipleship is part of the gospel.
It seems I caused a problem with the numbers. I guess I never should have mentioned it.
I was not suggesting that this be the strategy or that the numbers themselves are significant. All I was doing was trying to emphasize the importance of discipleship, not mere evangelism. If we poured our lives into those who are younger in the faith and then trained them to do the same, the snowball affect would be massive. I'm not trying to say anything radical, just pointing out that we don't take discipleship seriously enough.
It has been my experience that proponents of friendship evangelism have used this more as an excuse not to share the gospel. I think it is one form of evangelism that can be effective, but it is not the only one. Jesus and the woman at the well, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul at Mars Hill are just three examples off the top of my head where no prior friendship had been established.
On top of that, the closer and more intimate your friendship becomes, the harder it will probably be to share the gospel with them out of fear that the intimacy will be lost.
Aside from that (and I think I've mentioned this before), I can't get around the fact that it is just plain dishonest to pursue a friendship with someone with a hidden agenda. No matter how many proponents of FE I speak with, I can never understand how they can do this to someone else in good conscience.
Just out of curiosity, who came up with the expression, "friendship evangelism"? What is the rationale for having such this expression? Is the way we share the gospel with friends different from the way we share the gospel with people who are not our friends?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A guy It has been my experience that proponents of friendship evangelism have used this more as an excuse not to share the gospel.
On top of that, the closer and more intimate your friendship becomes, the harder it will probably be to share the gospel with them out of fear that the intimacy will be lost.
Aside from that (and I think I've mentioned this before), I can't get around the fact that it is just plain dishonest to pursue a friendship with someone with a hidden agenda. No matter how many proponents of FE I speak with, I can never understand how they can do this to someone else in good conscience.
This is very true, and something all too easy a trap to fall into when something potentially promising comes up. Even the other day, I realize I made a slip in this area of wanting to be someone's friend mostly out of an agenda.
Evangelizing friends in a way that is not dishonest has the following components:
*Developing friendships with people because you share common interests, be it the same vocation, hobbies, or other interests.
*In the course of the friendship as you become closer religion and why you believe what you do naturally and organically develops from your conversations.
*When those conversations happen and you get an icy response, you continue being friends with the person, because you share the same interests and similar reasons for befriending someone.
*Being willing to hear the other person's viewpoint and perspective. It can't be a one-way street.
*Being willing to be emotional support in times of difficulty, assist them professionally/academically, and the like, just as you would for any of your other friends that you care about.
*Talking about more than just religion or outreach to the person. Being willing to never once mention Christianity or some apologetic argument in a discussion, but just talking about a variety of things, both ordinary and extraordinary.
*Being willing to be a friend in terms of emotional support in times of difficulty, providing professional/academic connections, socializing with each other's friends - in general, treating them as you would an ordinary friend and not as a special project t
*Not dropping off the face of the planet or smothering them with attention if they do convert and become active in the church.
*Finally, and most importantly, ask yourself whether you have any reason to be friends besides you wanting to evangelize them. If this person never becomes Christian, would you still have a reason to be friends?
I say these not as an experienced practioner, but as one with lots of failures in this regard and bad motives that still come up from time to time for friendship choices.
Just out of curiosity, who came up with the expression, "friendship evangelism"? What is the rationale for having such this expression? Is the way we share the gospel with friends different from the way we share the gospel with people who are not our friends?
I think the phrase came about to stress that the method was informal, out of the church, and was a dialogue and not monologue (from a pulpit) and was evidenced by acts of love and relationship instead of the mere dissemination of cognitive facts.
The Gospel does spread relationally, and family and friends act as "bridges of God" by which the Gospel spreads. However, a much better approach than looking for new friends who will feel that you are being insincere, is to love and bless your existing network of friends and strive to truly enlarge that and to truly make relationships for sake of making relationships, not as an underhanded ploy to foist your wares on them like a cheap salesman.
Pergy, this is a big problem in Greenville. My sister works at Bob Jones University, plays in a "Christian" volleyball league, and goes to Heritage Bible Church. In a typical week, she might not see a single person who is not a professing Christian. How should she seek to evangelize?
versus
workers year oneYou
workers year two You and Your convert
workers year threeYou, your convert, your 2nd convert and Your convert's first convert
workers year fourYou, your first convert, your first convert's first convert, your first convert's 2nd convert, your 2nd convert, your second convert's first convert
1 in year one
2 more in year two
4 more in year three
6 more in year four?????????
4 years =13 (if my sketchy math is actually correct.) I don't know how 37 years is going to build more than 13,505,000 let alone the whole population, but I am admittedly dense in math.
This is where I get stuck. Who knows math? I know this is probably a very basic formula, but I cannot figure out what to be adding!! I think it should have exponents, but I basically forget what to do with those. For shame. Don't send your kids to public school.
It's exponential. Keep multiplying out the numbers 37 times. You're reproducing reproducers. You reproduce one reproducer in one year, who in turn reproduces another reproducer in a year along side you, it starts slow but grows quickly later on. Kinda like compound interest. But I think you get the point. In discipleship you produce a disciple who will in turn produce more disciples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A guy It has been my experience that proponents of friendship evangelism have used this more as an excuse not to share the gospel.
On top of that, the closer and more intimate your friendship becomes, the harder it will probably be to share the gospel with them out of fear that the intimacy will be lost.
Aside from that (and I think I've mentioned this before), I can't get around the fact that it is just plain dishonest to pursue a friendship with someone with a hidden agenda. No matter how many proponents of FE I speak with, I can never understand how they can do this to someone else in good conscience.
This is very true, and something all too easy a trap to fall into when something potentially promising comes up. Even the other day, I realize I made a slip in this area of wanting to be someone's friend mostly out of an agenda.
Evangelizing friends in a way that is not dishonest has the following components:
*Developing friendships with people because you share common interests, be it the same vocation, hobbies, or other interests.
*In the course of the friendship as you become closer religion and why you believe what you do naturally and organically develops from your conversations.
*When those conversations happen and you get an icy response, you continue being friends with the person, because you share the same interests and similar reasons for befriending someone.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. What you are suggesting here is sincere friendship not driven by an agenda. I've had a friendship with a guy for several years now that began because we shared an interest. Spiritual conversations came up eventually, and at one point I gave him a booklet or tract of some kind. To my knowledge he has not come to Christ, but we are still friends and stay in touch (he has since moved to another state).
*Finally, and most importantly, ask yourself whether you have any reason to be friends besides you wanting to evangelize them. If this person never becomes Christian, would you still have a reason to be friends?
This reminds me of the debates we used to have in my "fundy" days. It was the Sword of the Lord/Jack Hyles axis of drive by conversions vs the Liberty/TTU/Southwide Baptist "you cant talk to people you don't know" fight of the late 80's to early 90's.
I am surprised to see it popping up here.
Did not Jesus upset the religious people of his day by spending all of his time with sinners? Did he not teach us by his example that discipleship is a multi-year process?
The most successful evangelist in the history of the church was probably St Patrick. I would recomend a study of his life & method to anyone who desires to see real life & culture changing evangelism. He spent years loving people who were very unlovely. He lived with the people he prayed for.
He did not just accost them in a public space, then move on after they had signed a card.
Our job is not to get cards filled out, but to make disciples. QED.
On top of that, the closer and more intimate your friendship becomes, the harder it will probably be to share the gospel with them out of fear that the intimacy will be lost.
If you really cared about someone you would want what is best for them regardless of the cost. Even if you were risking you friendship with that person, because you care more about that person's soul than that friendship. If you hold back the gospel because you want to keep everything nice then you are not a mature Christian and you do not really care about your "friend." Which begs the question as to whether you are really their friend.
