What's in a name?

There are three things I've seen this morning that have made me cringe at the faulty worldview of society. I'm not saying that my worldview is correct, but the need to run from the problem that humanity has self-diagnosed simply because they can't think up a sufficient answer is worrying. I'm basically saying that what I believe is more correct than the general secular public (the general secular public believing they don't believe anything).

The first thing I saw was a poster on the back of a bus that states: "The Power of Me can tackle bullying." (This isn't right.)

The second thing I saw was a poster on the side of a bus that states: "You can choose to stop abuse." (This is wrong)

And the third things was a newspaper headline that claimed a 5 year old girl had been raped, leading to question about what her life would be like in the future.

The first two made me angry by the blatant attempt at society trying to save itself from self-destruction, while the last one made me utterly frustrated at the general medias need to express more bad news. It's starting to get the better of me. Day after day I read of people being harmed in a variety of unoriginal ways, and equally people offending, and the papers give the usual doom and gloom with not real look at any possible hope. I've had enough. Who, in their right mind and day-to-day reading, decide that the best way of finding out what's going on in the world is to read about more death, assault, abuse, poverty, famine, disease, and general depravity? Equally, who thinks a good way to make money is to fill pages and pages of recycled paper with the same stories as every other week but with names of people and places, and ages, changed?

Society has reached a stand still. Nothing is improving. We have gadgets and gizmo's that make us find out about this non-improvement faster than the week before, but I wouldn't call that an improvement. I'd call that masochistic. I don't mean to rant but it does really grind my gears.

You know what else grinds my gears? The posters on buses that I mentioned.

How can we improve society when 80% of the population have chosen to follow their own "enlightened" path, instead of learning from the past 6000 years of human history and realising something has to change?

As part of Western culture I can't say I'm not to blame, but if there's no realisation that things won't improve by doing things the way they've always been done, then I won't continue to be associated with such a deprived way of life. The trouble with the past 50 years has been the need to include everyone, offend no one, and save everyone from everyone else with protective barriers meaning children won't get the right discipline in their situations, adults won't get the right discipline in their situations, and, if you think that you can't do your job anymore, you can sue your boss. I'm getting to my point. I just seem to be coming across as a profoundly angry man; which I suppose I am.

What you may have come to realise is I believe that all this...boils down to Jesus.

And it's enough with the chit-chat...Jesus is the message that people need to hear. It's the thing that empowers and releases the people from their own depravity. Bullying is never about having to stand up to the person who bullies, the answer to it is that the bully himself interacts with people in a way that he knows works, and keeps him in survival mode. It's that basic. The bully wouldn't act the way he does without good cause that boils down to the fact that, in every case, whether it's bullying which we don't particularly like or lying which we don't think is that bad, or abuse, or murder, it boils down to the fact that the sinner (the person bullying, lying, abusing, or murdering) was first sinned against. It becomes a vicious cycle that is always traceable back to a need to create a survival mode of keeping people at a sufficient distance to remain ourselves.

In reality, to know all this helps no one. To know Jesus came to demonstrate such freedom is much more vital knowledge. What's coming around is the need to realise that the gospel (the good news that Jesus is Lord/King over all things because he was raised from the dead) is the power of God in motion. It's power (not the power of ME) is the thing that will be able to effectively fight bullying or abuse because it doesn't just bring freedom to the bullied and abused, but it also brings reconciliation between the bully and the bullied. This is something that has been decided unthinkable, but it is the power and wisdom of Yahweh, not some human concept.

To finish with a story, a girl (let's call her Jane) was sharing something in a school assembly. She spent a short 15 minutes in front of 200 or so teenagers telling them the most important thing for them to was 'follow your heart.' It was a passionate message, and the children were clapping her and thinking, 'this is a good message, I like this philosophy.'

Afterward a friend who had come to listen to her share asked her a simple question. 'Would you have said the same thing if you'd know that a young Hitler was sitting in the audience? Or a young Staling, or Genghis Khan?'

She replied, 'I'd never thought of that.' As shock filled her face she realised the mistake she'd made. She had assumed that the human heart is primarily a source of good. Which it isn't really.

The trouble with telling people that 'the power of ME can tackle bullying' is that there will be a portion of people who will interpret the message to think that, with enough will power, they can reverse the roles and become the bully.

I'll leave it there I think.

This Hope (08)

I recently read an article called 'What Evangelism Isn't' and then went on to list 3 examples of things considered evangelism which he then said it wasn't. The first was personal testimony, the second helping the poor, and the third apologetics. I then read some responses to the article...

Commenter 1

We need to have a way of spreading good news to
the wealthy and the well and the educated who have too many answers and too much
to eat and have no need of a doctor. They also give to the poor but they are
wealthy enough to do it. However, their souls need saving by Jesus too. The way
to reach their heart is to shock them by our becoming poor and yet still feeding
the poor ourselves from what little we have, even while we are poor. We must
become simple and poor yet generous and kind. We must give up wealthy lifestyles
and give up our education and give up our health and yet still minister in joy
and thanksgiving to the educated and the wealthy who have not been redeemed.
They must surely be ashamed when we who were once wealthy have stepped down and
become outcasts for the kingdom. Too many pastors want to be called reverend and
want to be revered for their learning and hold high positions and be consulted
by politicians and attend town functions and parties and be highly regarded.

Commenter 2

Excellent article! I am surprised at how many
of the commenter's want to hold onto a weaker version of evangelism where merely
feeding the hungry, or merely helping the poor is held up as equivalent to
preaching the gospel. Yes, those things are important, but there is no
difference between the service work of the atheist and the Christian if the
gospel is not preached.

Commenter 3

The ridiculousness of this article just
highlights what a false category 'evangelism' is. Jesus didn't worry about what
evangelism is and isn't and neither should we. He preached the Kingdom, he
healed the sick, he fed the hungry, he invited the outcast in. Let's go do the
same.

You may guess that the one I agree with the most is the third commenter. The funny thing about the three examples set by the author of the article is that they don't carry at all the same thrust. Jesus practiced primarily the encouragement of feeding of the poor, followed by personal testimony (in some form), and I saw very little apologetics (the defense of the faith). How on earth did apologetics even get in there?

When Jesus walked the earth He was beginning to realise what He had to do. He was becoming more and more self aware and, by the time He first stood up (or sat down, because that was the tradition of teachers in those days) in front of a great crowd in the temple He had pretty much worked out His mission. Even though It upset everyone He began something that we could call evangelism. Or just plain mission (pretty much the same thing). His life was a demonstration of something greater, and it was His life that made everything after it possible - the growing of disciples, the church, the Spirit falling on so many, people being set free and healed, etc. His demonstration was a representation of the gospel, or the kingdom, or a mixture of both. By welcoming in the outcast, or going out to the outcast so they can be brought in Jesus was demonstrating the love that would be ultimately shown in it's fullness on the cross.

By living the life He led, healing the sick, helping the needy, pointing out the religious, and shaming the people against God, He demonstrated the Gospel giving Himself opportunities to then explain Himself. Saying things along the lines of, "The kingdom of God is like.." What happens when actions are piled onto actions, and the actions aren't self motivated ways of building self image but, in fact, gospel, Jesus-motivated acts of pure love because they were first loved by God the actions force the person at the thrust of it to be challenged by their own worldview. When someone acting a certain way doesn't make sense the natural thing to do is challenge it.

Jesus living His life the way He did challenged people in more than just showing them they might be wrong. It was practically a living attack on their lifestyle. It challenged the self-righteous the most in His day, because they were right and their living made everyone else feel rotten. Nowadays the lifestyle of Jesus would be similar but it would cut through the heart of all those people who think themselves as right and the ultimate authority. He would challenge racism, sexism, prejudices against the ugly (or the pretty), hatred against people who are rich or poor, in need or comfortable, healthy or sick, whatever the thing that divided communities He would challenge. Imagine that kind of character. You would ask questions straight off, or at least challenge their authority.

This is the lifestyle that all disciples of Jesus are called to. A lifestyle that attacks (a better word may be 'intrudes') the worldview of everyone not yet adopted into His family.

That's a long way round of saying I think apologetics is a poor excuse for evangelism. It's no use to unbelievers, non-Christians, whatever you want to call it. The Wisdom of God (the thing that makes the whole life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus make sense) is foolishness to anyone who isn't born again. Arguing about facts whether truly factual or not won't create converts. People will be persuaded but that's only another step.

True evangelism is the lifestyle that forces questions to be asked and speaking words in line with the lifestyle that explains and reinforces the kingdom of God. And it's interesting that in the book of Jonah, Jonah's gospel presentation goes: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" That's it. No lengthy explanations of the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation of God in Jesus, or the doctrines of grace and love from God. I suppose it's that classic argument that St. Francis of Assisi used - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." I don't think he's completely right, but he's got a better idea than 'preach the gospel, if necessary demonstrate it.'