Thread: An analogy that I appreciated about evangelism vs. judging

At Bible Study last night another lady in the group shared this analogy:

If you saw someone drowning, you wouldn't just say, "Hey, you are drowning." So it goes with those lost in their sin.

To squash an argument that may come--I know how our brains work here--I do think if the person didn't believe they were drowning, they may not accept help, so declaring the problem might be necessary. But we would never think it acceptable to ONLY tell the drowning person of his imminent death. However, I know as far as other people's sins go, I am often very willing to stop at that.

What think ye?

It's a poor analogy in this sense- you don't need the Holy Spirit to awaken you to the fact that if drowning, you would need help and know it. The Gospel is, in effect, telling someone that they are drowning, but the analogy lends to Arminianism in as much as it implies that there is more you, as an evangel, can do. Telling the drowning person he needs to be saved is all you can do: Only God can make him grab the life ring.

Theognome

I think C.S. Lewis used an analogy like that, though I'm not sure if it were on this topic.

A further problem with this analogy is that they're not drowning. They're dead.

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

Thank you. The analogy is quite sound when one considers the intended point of application. Analogies always fail when they are overextended.

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

No, I understand that. My problem is with the assumptions that underlie such an analogy. As has been pointed out already, it implies that any sinner has the power and the desire to grab for the life ring.

Clearly, the sinner is in dire straits, and should be told such.... and yes, there obviously needs to be more communication than that. However, the presentation of the gospel cannot take place without clarity on the first issue (that they are in dire straits). There is little worse than a presentation of "Christ is the answer" without telling them the question.

Originally Posted by Theognome

It's a poor analogy in this sense- you don't need the Holy Spirit to awaken you to the fact that if drowning, you would need help and know it. The Gospel is, in effect, telling someone that they are drowning, but the analogy lends to Arminianism in as much as it implies that there is more you, as an evangel, can do. Telling the drowning person he needs to be saved is all you can do: Only God can make him grab the life ring.

Theognome

Right, but just judging a sinner for his sins is not all that we can do. Doesn't faith come by the hearing of the word? I am sure God could save people without the word being preached, but He chooses to use people to bring the word to others.

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

That was exactly the point! And even more specifically, we cannot be satisfied to just point out sins, we need to point to the solution!

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

Thank you. The analogy is quite sound when one considers the intended point of application. Analogies always fail when they are overextended.

Good point. We could try to make this analogy say any number of things...I am glad you got what I appreciated in it!

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 09:34:36 EST-----

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

No, I understand that. My problem is with the assumptions that underlie such an analogy. As has been pointed out already, it implies that any sinner has the power and the desire to grab for the life ring.
This analogy speaks not at all of the sinner/drowner grabbing the ring.


Clearly, the sinner is in dire straits, and should be told such.... and yes, there obviously needs to be more communication than that. However, the presentation of the gospel cannot take place without clarity on the first issue (that they are in dire straits). There is little worse than a presentation of "Christ is the answer" without telling them the question.

Which is why I added my disclaimer. The OP clearly says that the sinner does need to know he sins. I don't see how you see this as saying "Christ is the answer," without sharing the question. The point is, we should not stop at the question.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

No, I understand that. My problem is with the assumptions that underlie such an analogy. As has been pointed out already, it implies that any sinner has the power and the desire to grab for the life ring.

Clearly, the sinner is in dire straits, and should be told such.... and yes, there obviously needs to be more communication than that. However, the presentation of the gospel cannot take place without clarity on the first issue (that they are in dire straits). There is little worse than a presentation of "Christ is the answer" without telling them the question.

Maybe we could change the analogy and make the drowning person a zombie.

Because a zombie is dead and still can move....WOW, now that's freaky! Then, the Holy Spirit might desire to re-animate and change that zombie back into a normal person.


Then, once that zombie turned back into a normal person, they are then immune from further zombie bites and could not corpsify any longer. So, that is like perseverance of the saints.


Now THAT's a good analogy!

When I was sharing this analogy with my husband last night, he said, "It's more likely we'll be saying, 'Hey, they're drowning.'"

This analogy isn't at all about what the drowning person must do to know Christ (grab the ring and save himself or be plucked from the water--of course, we know he must be plucked), but how we as Christians should be loving--and not merely judging--the lost. This probably spoke to me because I have a problem getting passed other people's sins.

Originally Posted by he beholds

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by py3ak

The point of the analogy isn't to set out the condition of the sinner, nearly as much that given that the sinner is in a desperate condition, we can't content ourselves with remarking, "Hey, you're in a desperate condition."

No, I understand that. My problem is with the assumptions that underlie such an analogy. As has been pointed out already, it implies that any sinner has the power and the desire to grab for the life ring.
This analogy speaks not at all of the sinner/drowner grabbing the ring.


Clearly, the sinner is in dire straits, and should be told such.... and yes, there obviously needs to be more communication than that. However, the presentation of the gospel cannot take place without clarity on the first issue (that they are in dire straits). There is little worse than a presentation of "Christ is the answer" without telling them the question.

Which is why I added my disclaimer. The OP clearly says that the sinner does need to know he sins. I don't see how you see this as saying "Christ is the answer," without sharing the question. The point is, we should not stop at the question.

I wasn't saying anything about you, Jessi. I was contrasting the error of saying only "You are a sinner" vs. "Christ is the way". There is a school of thought in which Christ is presented as the solution to all life's problems, but the chief problem, that the sinner is guilty, is never brought up. My point in bringing this up is to say that the "you are a sinner" bad news MUST be presented in any evangelistic situation, or the good news is nonsensical.