The greatest form of evangelism?

For so many reasons, when the church thinks of evangelism it generally thinks of two things.

1. Something that people do on street corners (and then there are feelings/opinions about that
2. A marketing campaign

This post will address the second point.

Evangelism is not marketing.

We tend to think that a slick marketing campaign is the way to get people into the doors. Or that new pastors will bring new people. Or that if we only had the newest building then families would join the church. Or if we had the greatest bible studies or program for people to come to during the week that they would abandon their other obligations and come to church.

But the fact of the matter is there is only one thing in the history of the church that has ever worked to bring people into the faith and lead to transformed lives.

And it is not a new building or a new sign. (Do you know that there is a church that does not have a sign in front of it?!) It is not a program or a study. It is not new pastors or new leadership. The one thing that has always lead to transformation is a church that has generous people.

Generosity is the greatest evangelism that we have. It is the greatest practice that we have that shows people who we are and what we are about. Because when we see a generous life it is so compelling that we cannot help but be drawn into it and learn more.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video:

This Is My Home from Mark on Vimeo.

People don’t come back to this man’s home because of the collection of odd and peculiar items in the home. No! People come back to this man’s home and bring friends because of his hospitality, his invitation, his generosity.

Everyone is compelled to see a person who lives out the generous life. Because deep down everyone knows generosity is the way we ought to be. Everyone longs to know how to live the life that gives everything yet grows all the richer.

Historically, Christians are people who are defined by generosity. We are the people who look at what we have and say “All this isn’t ours! We’re just like an overseer! And if [someone] tells us that “this is mine.” We’ll tell them, “You know what? It’s yours? It’s yours!” We give it.”

Generosity is not a marketing campaign, it is a lifestyle.

So Church, temper the desire for good marketing with the spiritual practice of generosity and see the greatest form of evangelism at work.

How the church could talk about every hot button issue of all time

In case you have not read the last post, I would encourage you to do so not only to see where this post is coming from but also to see a bit of the irony laced within it.

When preachers preach sermons designed to fill a need, like the best ways to "invite people to church" or "have a conversation with an atheist", preachers are ultimately doing the congregation a disservice.

What these sermons are really doing is providing fish for people to eat, which will fill them up and make us feel good for a time, but when we grow hungry again we come back to the source (the preacher) for more food. You may have heard it said, "Sunday is where I get fed" or "Worship is where I am filled up." The concern is that these words are really too true.

Are we setting up sermons to be places where people come to be fed? Is the sermon nothing more than a dish that is prepared by the preacher only to be served up on Sunday morning?

Rather than preaching sermons that fill a need, preachers need to preach so that people walk away with a fishing pole and bait, not just another fish for the day. 

Take for instance the idea that preachers preach about the homosexuality issue. This is a specific issue, so specific in fact that once the church decides on what the "answer" is to the debate, the answer they come up with will not help in any other conversation.

The church may preach they are against homosexuality for a set of reasons - they understand scripture in this way or "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sort of argument. The church then can check that issue off the board as now they have the answer to the homosexual conversation.

But then there is a new conversation - what about transgender people or people who are born one sex physically but are another sex mentally? The "answers" from the homosexual conversation are not helpful in this new issue/conversation and the church must start a new conversation. Thus the problem with application preaching.

However, if the church were to preach their understanding of, say Anthropology, then the answers that come into focus can be applicable to other questions.

If the church understood that in Christianity, all people are created in the image of God and all people matter to God and that God called all creation very good. If we focus on how Christianity and Anthropology intersect, then we not only come up with answers to the homosexual conversation but also to the transgender conversation.

Anthropology is not something that is easily "applied" into our lives through three points and a poem. When we preach to these larger ideas then we give the congregation a bit of credit for actually having the brain to think through their own answers to specific issues. When we preach to the larger ideas we are teaching people how to fish. 

3 keys to manage you money and becomes more attractive to the opposite sex - sort of.

There is a lot of focus these days on what is being called "application preaching". That is preaching that focuses on things to apply into your life, such as three keys to healthy relationships or ways to manage money or any other how to sermon series you can imagine.

The thought is, and it is not a bad one, preachers need to say something that is relevant and something that people can walk away with and implement it into their lives. And because everyone has access to information through the internet, preachers do not need to focus on sharing information but how to apply that information.

According to Bob Farr and Kay Kotan in their book, Renovate or Die: 10 Ways to Focus Your Church on Mission, application preaching begins with the need of the congregation rather than a prescribed scripture (often called the lectionary).

Here is the rub that I have. Starting with a need and then giving the solution sounds a lot like an infomercial.

Preachers can then find needs that need to be filled. Yes, it gives people something they can walk away with, but it also creates a co-dependency that is really unhealthy in the long run.

The preacher gives you the solution to a need in your life, then when you have another need we then turn to the preacher and ask them to teach a series on that new need. It works for preachers too because then people will return looking to have their needs meet.

You have heard that when you give someone a fish they can eat for a day. Giving people fish everyday creates a co-dependency. You need me for fish, I need you to make me feel like I am doing good in the world.

I thought preachers are supposed to teach people to fish? I thought we are called to liberate break unhealthy co-dependent relationships? I though we are called to empower people and give them the tools to figure out how to address their own needs?

Martin Luther was angry at the Church for a number of reasons and one of those reasons was people had an unhealthy co-dependency with the church. The church was the only place where you could hear the Bible and it was read in a language you may not understand so you had to listen to the priest tell you what it said.

To combat this co-dependent way of doing church, Luther decided to translate the Bible into German and print the thing on the press for all to have.

If preachers are preaching to fill the needs in your life, then how are we doing anything different? I would propose that preaching is different. It is not a sales pitch in order for you to come back next week.

That is what blogs are for.

So come back in two days and I will submit a response to "application preaching".

(Hows that for co-dependent!)

Missing the point of college and religion

Freakonomics had a podcast ᔥ in which one of the people interviewed mentioned something about college that got me thinking about church.

He mentioned that those who attend college do so to obtain credit hours, but too many attend college for a degree. Think about that.

College is that place where most students are not learning a set of skills but different ways of seeing. We learn what it means to be a product of the Enlightenment and how that influences a great number of things that we "know". We gain a new language with words like "post-modern", "historical-critical", "behaviorism" and "meta-narrative" in order to understand the world in new ways. We are invited to see that as we sail closer to the island of the known the broader the shore of mystery becomes. We have reduced going to college to getting a degree, a slip of paper, a certificate of completion. As a means to an end, rather than a end unto itself.

Similarly, many of us (religious and atheist) view religion in the same way. As a means to an end.

I hear that people don't need religion to lean to be a good person or a moral individual. True.

But this is not the point of religion.

Like college religion at its best is designed not to get you somewhere but to teach you to see.

It is a shame that so many of us view college and religion as only worth it if it will provide me something in the future. The fact of the matter is, neither religion or college is set up to do that. They are institutions that are in place to help people see in ways they could not get on their own.