Evangelism Thought Experiment

[Parakaleo]

I love my neighbors very much. I pray for them on a regular basis. I also despise false teaching and pray that my neighbors would escape from the clutches of people who would turn them into merchandise (2 Pet. 2:3). In light of this, I've come up with a series of questions to help me think through different conversations in which I may well find myself. I'd love to hear some responses.

Q1. If a person who attended an apostate church came to you directly and asked what you think is unbiblical about their church, would you tell them?

Q2. If yes, would you still tell them if a third person (who also attends the apostate church, but didn't ask to hear your thoughts) was also in the conversation?

Q3. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was a deacon or elder or board member of said apostate church?

Q4. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was the pastor of said apostate church?

Q5. Is there any variation of hypothetical audience to the conversation where you would not tell someone who asked you directly your reasons for believing their church to be apostate?

Q6. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't directly asked, but indirectly asked? Like someone who said, "If anyone can tell me why my church is apostate, I'd sure like to hear it."

Q7. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but someone only mentioned their serious qualms about their apostate church?

Q8. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but found yourself in a conversation with someone expressing their warm feelings toward their apostate church?

 

[Pergamum]

I would tell it to whomever whenever. I've told Mslms of the errors of Islam even when they've been in government position and interrogating me and checking my visa (glad the paperwork was all good).

If your audience quiets your witness due to fear or embarrassment this is a bad sign. The best time is always now to speak the truth to people who need it. If we confess Him before men, He will confess us before our Father in heaven.

 

[Parakaleo]

I would tell it to whomever whenever.

That's pretty much what I was building to. I mean, if you answer yes to 1 and 2, you might as well admit that social pressure is the only thing that would keep you from answering yes to the rest. Because you've already said you're willing to declare something to someone who didn't solicit it.

 

[Pergamum]

That's pretty much what I was building to. I mean, if you answer yes to 1 and 2, you might as well admit that social pressure is the only thing that would keep you from answering yes to the rest. Because you've already said you're willing to declare something to someone who didn't solicit it.

I don't believe in being unnecessarily rude. I have seen too many street preachers who do that, and I think there is a difference in preaching TO and preaching AT someone. But we should always try to tell people the truth in a way they can understand and receive.

 

[TheOldCourse]

That's pretty much what I was building to. I mean, if you answer yes to 1 and 2, you might as well admit that social pressure is the only thing that would keep you from answering yes to the rest. Because you've already said you're willing to declare something to someone who didn't solicit it.

Declaring something in the presence of an observer who did not solicit it is not the same as declaring something to a person who did not solicit it.

 

[Pergamum]

Preaching to unwilling pedestrians on the street with high volume amplification is not justified. The Gospel is an invitation, not a hammer to beat people over the head with.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Generally speaking, I depend upon the leading of the HS to guide me in these things. If a nail needs a hammer, so be it.
Most of my personal evangelism has changed over the years; most all of my exposition is directed at my sin now. I don't really need to direct the condemnation towards any individual as I have my hands full, even now, on myself. When I am done, even after making mention that I am IN Christ and the benefit that comes with that, most the hearers get the picture, because of that! But yea, I am gentle where gentleness is warranted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." [Ezekiel 33:6]

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." [Ephesians 6:12]

 

[John P]

1. Yes (Eph. 4:15)
2. It depends. If the other member was a Christian then I would, but if he was a nonbeliever, I would avoid arguing to follow the Bible's decree on said manners.
3. In this case I totally would (Jas. 5:19)
4. Yes (Eph. 4:15, Jas. 5:19)
5. If the audience was non-Christian, I would simply share the gospel. I would tell how Jesus died for our sins and we are saved by grace through faith.
6. Again, depending on the audience. If this person was openly misconstruing the gospel then I would say something (2 Pet. 3:16), but if he was not then it is best to have contentions over Christianity in private, as the Scriptures tell us to do.
7. I would say that I agree if the qualms are correct.
8. I would try to talk to them privately. But again, if they are openly misconstruing the gospel then I must defend the gospel.

 

[Jack K]

I mean, if you answer yes to 1 and 2, you might as well admit that social pressure is the only thing that would keep you from answering yes to the rest.

I think my answer does change according to the situation and those present, but I do not think social pressure is the reason my answer changes.

The gospel should be adorned with love, wisdom, and tact. The smaller the gathering, and the better you know those with whom you're speaking, the easier it is to present concerns in a loving, wise-for-the-moment, tactful manner. Telling what's wrong with a particular, named church is a highly critical activity, and people bristle at criticism. To criticize effectively and lovingly requires sensitivity to this.

I might answer yes in many of your scenarios, depending on the situation and my relationship to the people. But I don't just stand on the street corner and run through a list of churches in town, telling everything I think is wrong with each of them. Even if I get the truth of it right, that method will turn people off because it's heavy on criticism and light on gentleness. Folks will wonder, rightly, whether I really care about the people in those churches or just feel a need to be critical of others.

Effectively bringing up concerns about another's church requires a deft touch, plus prayer, and usually a loving investment in the person's life. Of course, we will sometimes point out concerns even when we've not yet made that investment, but we should realize the impact will be greater when we've invested more.

By the way, in your list of scenarios, I think I would be most likely to bring up criticisms when speaking one-on-one with the church's pastor. He is in a position to expect such challenges, and is the sort of person I need to be very clear with from the outset of our relationship.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Solicitation of a response to falsehood creates a 9th commandment burden on the believer. Merely being in the presence of a declaration of falsehood does not unless to remain silent would imply acquiescence or concurrence to the falsehood which is highly situation dependent.

If you would argue that, beyond the 9th commandment, there is a positive ministerial/evangelistic burden (in which the ordained status of the hearer may factor in) when in the presence of a non-believer and given an opportunity to speak, then of course everything is a yes as the solicitation is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Parakaleo]

Some excellent responses here. Thanks, all.

Knowing when to speak and how is a key facet of wisdom and wisdom is always situation-dependent.

If you would argue that, beyond the 9th commandment, there is a positive ministerial/evangelistic burden (in which the ordained status of the hearer may factor in) when in the presence of a non-believer and given an opportunity to speak, then of course everything is a yes as the solicitation is irrelevant to the question.

I'm glad you pointed this out. I do think calling matters a lot to this experiment. I recall Paul telling the Corinthians necessity is laid upon him, woe to him if he does not preach the gospel. And, to the Romans, that there is a debt he owes to the Gentiles, to declare God's Word to them.

 

[brendanchatt]

Ezekiel 33:6

Wow, amazing. That's very relevant. Without taking the time to answer the OP and acknowledge all the balanced commenting, I just want to say I really appreciate you mentioning this.

 

[TylerRay]

I love my neighbors very much. I pray for them on a regular basis. I also despise false teaching and pray that my neighbors would escape from the clutches of people who would turn them into merchandise (2 Pet. 2:3). In light of this, I've come up with a series of questions to help me think through different conversations in which I may well find myself. I'd love to hear some responses.

Q1. If a person who attended an apostate church came to you directly and asked what you think is unbiblical about their church, would you tell them?

Q2. If yes, would you still tell them if a third person (who also attends the apostate church, but didn't ask to hear your thoughts) was also in the conversation?

Q3. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was a deacon or elder or board member of said apostate church?

Q4. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was the pastor of said apostate church?

Q5. Is there any variation of hypothetical audience to the conversation where you would not tell someone who asked you directly your reasons for believing their church to be apostate?

Q6. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't directly asked, but indirectly asked? Like someone who said, "If anyone can tell me why my church is apostate, I'd sure like to hear it."

Q7. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but someone only mentioned their serious qualms about their apostate church?

Q8. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but found yourself in a conversation with someone expressing their warm feelings toward their apostate church?

Yes to 1-4, and I would do it charitably.
No to 5.
6 & 7. No, but my comments would be more careful and nuanced. Tact is key.
8. A lot of it depends on the circumstances. Again, tact is key.

I'll add that there is an important distinction between an officer of the church performing the functions of his office (i.e., evangelizing), and a private Christian bearing witness when called upon to do so. Passages such as Ezekiel 33 refer to officers with a charge distinct from the responsibilities of private Christians.

 

[Parakaleo]

Follow-up question. Luther posting 95 Theses on the door of the church in Wittenburg. Comparable or not to a modern day pastor writing a hard-hitting, but completely truthful, review of a local apostate church on Google?

 

[RamistThomist]

Follow-up question. Luther posting 95 Theses on the door of the church in Wittenburg. Comparable or not to a modern day pastor writing a hard-hitting, but completely truthful, review of a local apostate church on Google?

Luther operated from within that church.

 

[RamistThomist]

Specifically, what's the nature of the apostasy? That, and the community dynamic, would shape my response. I probably wouldn't do an op-ed in the local paper, not only because of the backlash, but that type of "several-levels" removed almost never works.

Luther's approach was more dispassionate than we make it out to be. He calmly posted the theses for debate within the univeristy.

As to the actual apostasy, is it on the level of:

Oneness Pentecostals
Boston Church of Christ
Santa Muerta cult (probably not)

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Q1. If a person who attended an apostate church came to you directly and asked what you think is unbiblical about their church, would you tell them?

Yes.

Q2. If yes, would you still tell them if a third person (who also attends the apostate church, but didn't ask to hear your thoughts) was also in the conversation?

Yes.

Q3. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was a deacon or elder or board member of said apostate church?

Yes.

Q4. If yes, would you still tell them if the third person was the pastor of said apostate church?

Yes.

Q5. Is there any variation of hypothetical audience to the conversation where you would not tell someone who asked you directly your reasons for believing their church to be apostate?

I can't imagine one.

Q6. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't directly asked, but indirectly asked? Like someone who said, "If anyone can tell me why my church is apostate, I'd sure like to hear it."

That would depend on the situation. But I certainly would view that as an opportunity to share with them the unchanging truth of God's Word.

Q7. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but someone only mentioned their serious qualms about their apostate church?

Perhaps they would be different in their tone, but not in their substance.

Q8. Would your answers to any of the previous be different if you weren't asked at all, but found yourself in a conversation with someone expressing their warm feelings toward their apostate church?

My words might not be the same, but their meaning would be.

 

[RamistThomist]

What kind of church is it? Knowing that would help frame the answers.

 

[Parakaleo]

What kind of church is it? Knowing that would help frame the answers.

We could say it's a prosperity-gospel church, for the sake of argument. They teach God wants people to be wealthy as a result of faith in Christ.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

In all of these scenarios, I think that it is important to remember that Christ alone is the Lord and your Lord. This means that the person asking the question isn't and thus your answer should always be one that endeavors to bear the best witness in the circumstance to the one who is the Lord and your Lord.

What you are always bound to do is to give a reason for the hope that is yours in Christ (who, within, by the Holy Spirit, is the hope of glory). My being asked to critique a particular church upon a moment's notice is not necessarily what I am called to do; perhaps in the situation it is, so I proceed to do so, as one always must, in a way that is as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.

I think that Jack's answer particularly points here, as I would most likely go "toe-to-toe", if that's what the situation warrants (and if I take that approach with anyone here), with the Pastor. I also sense from Jacob's hesitancy something that I think quite fitting: we don't let the interlocutor set the plate. This does not mean that we don't engage someone in such a situation, but we must keep in mind that our task is ultimately to hold forth the law and the gospel: our lost condition and Christ as the sole remedy for such. Refuting apostasy may well be quite important in the particular situation. Or not.

I've found another thing important to keep in mind in apologetic/evangelistic encounters: a fool can always ask more questions than a wise man can answer. Our Lord routinely recast questions in encounters so that He answered what his questioner(s) really needed to hear. All this is to say, that I would have no problem addressing persons who wish to hear (which does need to be ascertained in all the scenarios in which parties are present who didn't inquire) about what's wrong with a health-wealth gospel or a myriad of errors, heresies, cults, etc., always keeping in mind my calling to give an answer to the hope that is mine (that is ours) in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace,
Alan

 

[earl40]

"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." [Ezekiel 33:6]
[Ephesians 6:12]

Not wanting to add any substance to the conversation other to say that "the watchman" is not us Joe Blows in the pew.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Right, Earl.

And the watchman here is also not warning the world in a general way of impending danger but the covenant community (or those who might have associated themselves with the covenant community). The nearest equivalent is a minister warning the congregation of false doctrine as a regular part of the ministry of the Word.

I would not say that, by extension, this would have no applicability whatsoever to laymen, but its primary focus and use would be for those appointed as a watchmen to warn God's people.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Dachaser]

We could say it's a prosperity-gospel church, for the sake of argument. They teach God wants people to be wealthy as a result of faith in Christ.

Too bad neither Jesus nor His own Apostles experienced that, were they all lacking in having enough faith?