I appreciate your comments and very much agree, as you might remember from earlier comments I’ve made on your evangelism posts.

I know that you and Scot McKnight know each other. I’m wondering have you seen his latest post declaring a new network of emergent folks–apparently to be founded by him and Dan Kimball–who care about evangelism? What do you think about that?

I have been reading through Romans and have discovered that there is no nice way to tell people that they actually do need to be saved by Jesus. Paul spares no time in telling people that they are truly messed up and that there is no hope for them on their own. It doesn’t take a sermon on hell to get people to realize this, one look at the world should be enough to convince people that Utopia is a joke. Human beings can’t fix this place and with just a slightly closer look it is just as evident that they can’t even fix themselves.

It doesn’t take long to make that point. Conversion doesn’t take long, discipleship does. Why can’t we recognize the difference? Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is (all around you), repent and believe the Good News!” (Mark 1:15) It seems that Jesus had a pretty simple and straightforward plan to bring people into His kingdom. Maybe it would work for us as well.

Anyways, it seems to me that, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit to ourselves that there exists no compelling evidence for the existence of a perfect person who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, and who loves you and me with an infinite love. Stories in a book are not sufficient evidence. Personal feelings are not sufficient evidence. There exists no evidence sufficient to compel belief that such a person exists.

As Lindbeck pointed out, when the Crusader said “Jesus is Lord” and then cut off the Muslim’s head … he understood what that meant quite differently that the Anabaptists a few hundred years later.

So we have to “translate” and initiate in ways that take into account the cultural resourses to make sense of “Jesus is Lord”..

Len .. and t .. I think these are good provoking suggestions …

Peace

I appreciate your position. There are, of course, many smart folks who feel and think the same, and there are many smart folks who disagree, at least insofar as the existence of God is concerned. I personally don’t buy the arguments for athiesm, but I certainly wouldn’t say anyone is insane for buying them. Relatedly, I’ve seen too many miracles to buy that material is all that exists.

I’m personally not convinced that the internet is the best place to discuss these issues, but it beats not discussing them at all, I suppose. The link to my blog should be in my name above if you want to discuss it further with me.

There are no invisible people. Invisible people do not exist. This includes the gods and goddesses about whom we can read in various texts. They do not exist. It is not sane to believe that one is surrounded by invisible people, or that one can communicate with invisible people, including any invisible gods or goddesses.

I look forward to reading any of your thoughts.

On balance, we emphasized proclamation and word nearly to the exclusion of performance and Spirit. Maybe one of the legacies of modernity was to push us so far into Christology and the related soteriological questions that we had no space for Pneumatology and the ontological questions. Nor could we have any regard for process and mystery. Yong and others are arguing that we need now to recover a more robust Trinitarianism, and that would mean beginning with a Spirit-Christology. I think his arguments are compelling and would go a long way toward a recovery of humility and fallibility in all these things, and help loosen our grip (and the corollary, relearn dependence on the Spirit who “blows where He wills” regardless of our need to nail it all down).

We talk about the invitation to apprenticeship as directed to each individual but too big a task to be done alone. We've used, among other things, the 12 steps–done with others–as a process we recommend for actually getting on board with Jesus (as opposed to just saying so).

We also talk about 'receiving' God's reign or governing–his leadership, his provision, protection, his agendas–through Christ. We'll sometimes mention about how this was Jesus' chief message, and is also the practical focus of the 12 steps. 'Receiving' Christ's kingdom is also both an event and a process to learn to trust the norms, the history, and the directions of this king and his people and to make it ours. We talk about the availability of entering God's government as good news and also as a warning: the time has come to stop following/trusting contrary leadership and powers whose judgment has already been announced. This is the only ship that's going to keep sailing. God is offering amnesty, training, life, love, real humanity, etc.–trust this and get on board with Jesus. It's time to stop working against him; learn to work with him and for him.

Well that's too long. Thanks for throwing the thought out in the emerging church.

One closely related issue is loose talk about the Kingdom of God. We don’t build the Kingdom or bring about the Kingdom or work for the Kingdom. All that has already been done by the King. We witness to the Kingdom and pray for it to come. We expect it when the King returns; in the meantime we make it (fleetingly) visible in our corporate obedience and when we preach Jesus Christ we are preaching the Kingdom.

Some of the ideas you mention (God at work in the world and we just go and join in) seem to me to be re-cycled 1960′s Secular Theology. The “build the kingdom” talk (which you hear everywhere in Evangelical circles today) is re-cycled 19th Cen. social gospel talk.

As for what conversion looks like in missional churches, surely it looks like Christian conversion has always looked like: hearing the Gospel, repentence and faith, baptism, catechesis, membership in a local church. Doesn’t it?