I was away this past week speaking at the Ecclesia Network National Gathering along with Alan and Deb Hirsch. What a hoot that was! One of the issues I engaged for about an hour was “The Way We Speak About and Practice Salvation.” I argued that the ways we have often practiced the salvation we receive in Christ, and by derivation discipleship, have trained us as a people for moral duplicity.
Among other things, I said:
- We separate justification from sanctification in a Lutheranized fashion. Law and Grace are held separate yet together (simul justus at peccator) in the same person. We do this because we fear any appearance that salvation can be earned via works. Righteousness can only be imputed. Any participation in that salvation must be avoided lest we think we can earn our salvation through effort. The result is an inherent disconnect between what we believe and what we do.
- We then practice a Cartesianized sanctification, where the Bible/preacher tells us what to do, the mind hears the information and understands it, and then tells the body what to do. This never works because it takes no account for desire; the way desire is shaped and formed. The most these methods can do is repress desire.
- We give no account for desire in our discipleship. Our soteriology is “get saved and join the military” – the white-knuckle approach. And then, when there is no where else to go with one’s desire (indeed the issue is rarely even considered), desire must by default go wherever the culture would take it. This ends in duplicity.
- We perceive the love of God (agape) as a unilateral unconditional gift from God. We are told we can never add anything to it. Of course this is true. Yet, the impression is that a response to that gift can never be truly ours (it must be the work of God also). An ordered ever flowing response to God can never be an inextricable part of that same love- grace action received by us from God. We are therefore left passive. (I am thinking of Milbank’s work on gift here). This is another aspect of what separates our status in God from the life we live and participate in.
- We package the gospel often into a transaction. Playing off the Reformed penal view of the atonement exclusively, we make the gospel into God has done a., you do b. and you receive c. from God as a gift. And that’s it. You’re done (in a sense) although strangely you’re not. By packaging salvation as a transaction in this way, it puts the subject in control of God and His salvation. Again, the subject cannot be formed by something it has chosen as a consumer for certain benefits. It can only receive those benefits passively.
ALL OF THE ABOVE LEAVES US HELPLESS IN THE WORLD OF DESIRE THAT FORMS US TOWARDS WEALTH ACCUMULATION, CAPITALIST IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM, PERSONAL PLEASURE AND OTHER ASSORTED CULTURAL FORMATIONS. WE ARE IN ESSENCE, IN AN UNSUSPECTING WAY, FORMED FOR MORAL DUPLICITY, EVER SAYING ONE THING, YET FINDING OURSELVES DOING ANOTHER. Worse, these inherent theological problems with our soteriology disconnect salvation, from the telos (end purposes) of God’s righteousness in the world. It disconnects salvation from the Mission of God for the whole world.
Next post, I want to illustrate some of these points by looking at the famous Bridge Illustration that many of us grew up on and is used as the primary catechetical tool for salvation in many evangelical churches. (I also want to offer some models of spiritual formation as discipleship as an alternative)
We at our church have been talking for months how we desperately need another teaching tool to initiate new coverts into God’s salvation for the world in Christ. Something that would teach in simple ways the Huge Salvation of God that He is Doing in Christ that we are invited to participate into. We (or at least I have) decided the Bridge Illustration has been a disaster for Christian discipleship in the most recent period (last twenty years) of church history in the N America.
How do you all feel about the Bridge Illustration? Do you see any of the above weaknesses in it? Do you have a tool for initiating new converts into the basics of Life in Christ and His Mission?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David,
As someone who came to faith through the charismatic movement and then was discipled through a variety of evangelical youth and college ministries, I have to admit the first thing that comes to mind when reading this post is that old story about the Lone Ranger and Tonto seeing a fierce band of Indians (sorry, a group of Native Americans pursuing the work of liberation) approaching. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, “What are we going to do, Tonto?” And Tonto replies, “What do you mean we, Kimosabe?”
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in evangelicalism (much of it bemused to be sure) and never once encountered the Bridge diagram. Of course I know what it is. I know it has influenced millions of people. I agree with your critique of it. I also know quite a few people (most of them Boomers) who became Christians through it. But speaking as someone who travels pretty widely in North American evangelicalism, your we protests too much.
Anyway, that’s not really why I wrote. I have just read the galleys of a book I am very excited about, because it answers so many of the concerns you express (and I share) about “our” deficient soteriology. James Choung’s _True Story,_ coming out from InterVarsity Press this spring, actually has the kind of tool you say you are looking for.
Check out the book page, or even more fun, check out the video.
Is it perfect? Perhaps not. Is it a tremendous improvement on the bridge diagram that actually can serve the purposes the bridge diagram uniquely did–something memorable that can be explained in a few minutes? Yes.
(Disclosure: James was a colleague in campus ministry many years ago.)
Thanks for all the provocative critiques you are offering of the church.
Andy
David,
As someone who came to faith through the charismatic movement and then was discipled through a variety of evangelical youth and college ministries, I have to admit the first thing that comes to mind when reading this post is that old story about the Lone Ranger and Tonto seeing a fierce band of Indians (sorry, a group of Native Americans pursuing the work of liberation) approaching. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, “What are we going to do, Tonto?” And Tonto replies, “What do you mean we, Kimosabe?”
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in evangelicalism (much of it bemused to be sure) and never once encountered the Bridge diagram. Of course I know what it is. I know it has influenced millions of people. I agree with your critique of it. I also know quite a few people (most of them Boomers) who became Christians through it. But speaking as someone who travels pretty widely in North American evangelicalism, your we protests too much.
Anyway, that’s not really why I wrote. I have just read the galleys of a book I am very excited about, because it answers so many of the concerns you express (and I share) about “our” deficient soteriology. James Choung’s _True Story,_ coming out from InterVarsity Press this spring, actually has the kind of tool you say you are looking for.
Check out the book page, or even more fun, check out the video.
Is it perfect? Perhaps not. Is it a tremendous improvement on the bridge diagram that actually can serve the purposes the bridge diagram uniquely did–something memorable that can be explained in a few minutes? Yes.
(Disclosure: James was a colleague in campus ministry many years ago.)
Thanks for all the provocative critiques you are offering of the church.
Andy
I grew up non-charismatic evangelical and saw a lot of the bridge diagram. I was even trained to “witness” with it. I’ll be glad to see something else take its place as a model of salvation. It’s not the bridge illustration is false – it’s just inadequate. Once you get across, you are good to go, what’s left to do or be? It’s more about my sin than God’s love. And there’s not mystery or wonder in it.
I grew up non-charismatic evangelical and saw a lot of the bridge diagram. I was even trained to “witness” with it. I’ll be glad to see something else take its place as a model of salvation. It’s not the bridge illustration is false – it’s just inadequate. Once you get across, you are good to go, what’s left to do or be? It’s more about my sin than God’s love. And there’s not mystery or wonder in it.
Like tricia, I think the bridge diagram is inadequate, and ultimately unhelpful. I think it ends up answering questions nobody’s asking anymore.
I noticed Scot McKnight blogging through Tom Wright’s new book Surprised By Hope, in which he engages some of those issues… i.e. how we talk about salvation and eschatology has huge implications for mission. “Going to heaven when you die” is a half-truth that doesn’t take the resurrection of the BODY into full consideration… the two issues seem related – the “Bridge” assumes a transaction that’s been completed, and now we just kind of hang out and wait for God to wrap things up. But taking a bigger view of salvation means that there is work to do, that we are to (in Tom Wright’s words) implement the achievement of Christ.
I think I have a hard time separating the illustration itself with the context in which I learned it. I was participating in a teen “street evangelism” program, and since then my perspective about Jesus has changed and grown enormously. The Bridge Illustration feels so passé to me, so unfashionable and witless, like the New Kids on the Block and acid-bleached jeans. But I can’t separate those associations from the illustration enough to say whether I think it is fatally flawed.
After all, we can not help but use analogies to speak of God, and they will all fall short of His glory. The Bridge Illustration may be inadequate, but then, all of our words are. I don’t plan on approaching a stranger on the street with a “4 Spiritual Laws” tract any time soon, but I’m not convinced the illustration really is intrinsically more harmful than helpful.
… I either jumped, fell, or was pushed off the bridge.
… I either jumped, fell, or was pushed off the bridge.
It was great to be with you again Dave. You are a brilliant man.
It was great to be with you again Dave. You are a brilliant man.
I recently used the Bridge Illustration with my youth group so we could talk about what was wrong with it.
One of the main problems is that it presents and individual problem and an individual separated from God. It does not speak to separation from each other or from the rest of creation.
I recently used the Bridge Illustration with my youth group so we could talk about what was wrong with it.
One of the main problems is that it presents and individual problem and an individual separated from God. It does not speak to separation from each other or from the rest of creation.
Andy,
thanks for the words. The book recommendation looks excellent. I agree that the Bridge Illusration is losing its prominence. However it is telling, that a major evangelical mega church in the area still uses it as their primary discipleship tool. I of course find it helpful in understanding and exploring the lack behind the ways we have talked and practiced soteriology within evangelicalism
and Brian I think you have said that just right.
Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments.
Andy,
thanks for the words. The book recommendation looks excellent. I agree that the Bridge Illusration is losing its prominence. However it is telling, that a major evangelical mega church in the area still uses it as their primary discipleship tool. I of course find it helpful in understanding and exploring the lack behind the ways we have talked and practiced soteriology within evangelicalism
and Brian I think you have said that just right.
Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments.
Hi David and Brian -
First, David, on rereading my post sounds a bit defensive (or prickly, or something). Sorry about that, truly not intended.
Brian’s point is exactly on target, and this is why I’m so excited about James Choung’s “evangelism tool”: it beautifully describes all three separations (from God, one another, and creation). Really amazing.
Andy
Hi David and Brian -
First, David, on rereading my post sounds a bit defensive (or prickly, or something). Sorry about that, truly not intended.
Brian’s point is exactly on target, and this is why I’m so excited about James Choung’s “evangelism tool”: it beautifully describes all three separations (from God, one another, and creation). Really amazing.
Andy
I’ve used the bridge primarily as an opening for continued dialogue and as a means of assessment than as an evangelism tool. That is, after summarizing the problem of separation from God and the solution in Christ, I observe that one can hear that from 5 perspectives:
-on humanity’s side and neither interested nor running away;
-on humanity’s side and interested;
-on humanity’s side and running away;
-on the bridge even as I listen;
-on the side of reunion with God, having trusted in him.
Then I ask a simple question, “where do you think you are?”
Nope, I don’t press for an “evangelistic close” unless the person is really seeking to connect with God in Christ.
I’ve used the bridge primarily as an opening for continued dialogue and as a means of assessment than as an evangelism tool. That is, after summarizing the problem of separation from God and the solution in Christ, I observe that one can hear that from 5 perspectives:
-on humanity’s side and neither interested nor running away;
-on humanity’s side and interested;
-on humanity’s side and running away;
-on the bridge even as I listen;
-on the side of reunion with God, having trusted in him.
Then I ask a simple question, “where do you think you are?”
Nope, I don’t press for an “evangelistic close” unless the person is really seeking to connect with God in Christ.
Looking forward to your continued posts on the Bridge. I am on staff with a campus church in Champaign and we have been wrestling with this for several years. In the ’90′s we were “All Bridge, all the time.” But as we have rediscovered a bigger, deeper Story, it has left us unsatisfied with the Bridge but unsure of what other “tools” are out there or whether we should try to share the gospel in a few minutes or hours. Thanks for taking on this evangelical sacred cow!
Looking forward to your continued posts on the Bridge. I am on staff with a campus church in Champaign and we have been wrestling with this for several years. In the ’90′s we were “All Bridge, all the time.” But as we have rediscovered a bigger, deeper Story, it has left us unsatisfied with the Bridge but unsure of what other “tools” are out there or whether we should try to share the gospel in a few minutes or hours. Thanks for taking on this evangelical sacred cow!
It isn’t perfect, but I have lately been using the story from second kings 6:24- 7:20 of the siege of Samaria. The short version is that Samaria is trapped in a terrible siege and have fallen to cannibalism. Four lepers decide to take a chance on fleeing the city only to find that God has secured the victory already and the enemy is defeated. After they celebrate they return to tell the king that the victory has been won. The king is sure that it is too good to be true and will not investigate. But one of his officials convinces him to check it out.
This helps me talk about who Christians are (people who live in light of the victory that God has won) and what they need to do (investigate the promise that God has won a victory) and it connects with a life of discipleship (not just sitting on the other side of the bridge but faithfully living under the lordship of Christ who has won a victory for us.
I also find that many people I work with (18-28) resonate with the image of a siege as a way to talk about the fate our the world without the intervention from God.
It isn’t perfect, but it allows me to talk about an image of God’s intervening salvation in our lives without getting lost in specific atonement theories.
It isn’t perfect, but I have lately been using the story from second kings 6:24- 7:20 of the siege of Samaria. The short version is that Samaria is trapped in a terrible siege and have fallen to cannibalism. Four lepers decide to take a chance on fleeing the city only to find that God has secured the victory already and the enemy is defeated. After they celebrate they return to tell the king that the victory has been won. The king is sure that it is too good to be true and will not investigate. But one of his officials convinces him to check it out.
This helps me talk about who Christians are (people who live in light of the victory that God has won) and what they need to do (investigate the promise that God has won a victory) and it connects with a life of discipleship (not just sitting on the other side of the bridge but faithfully living under the lordship of Christ who has won a victory for us.
I also find that many people I work with (18-28) resonate with the image of a siege as a way to talk about the fate our the world without the intervention from God.
It isn’t perfect, but it allows me to talk about an image of God’s intervening salvation in our lives without getting lost in specific atonement theories.
My thoughts on some of the problems with the bridge diagram:
-salvation is a one-time event or at most a constant choice about which “side” you’re on rather than a path, a development, a lifestyle, a growth
-Faith/action. It is true that the salvation offered by Christ is not something to be earned, but it is not merely a statement or feeling. Christ-following is a lifestyle that includes both feeling (devotion, admiration, love, respect) and action (service, learning, discipline, prayer/communion).
-The bridge feels shallow and cheesy. Unlike a real human experience. There is no emotion or depth involved in crossing a bridge. Think of Jesus’ metaphors about the lost sheep, the lost coin, the pearl in the field . . . these carry emotional weight as well as a picture of action.
How about using evolution as the new tool?
Most people are familiar with evolution through biology class. It has the transformative element to it -we become new creatures in Christ slowly, over time, through many changes of the heart. It connects individuals to a community -we become part of the bride of Christ- the next stage of evolution.
Like all tools to explain the gospel, this one focuses on one aspect of salvation.
It leaves unanswered questions, but so does nearly every other script such as the wordless book, the bead braclet, Evangecube, Way of the Master, Evangelism Explosion, Four Spiritual Laws, Romans road and so on.
Tracts likewise focus on one aspect of the full story.
Is the gospel about salvation, justification, adoption? Is it about forgiveness, life purpose, or Osteenistic happyiness?
Is the gospel a hammer to crush a person with the 10 commandments first than then scare the hell out of them?
Any attempt to reduce the gospel to a set of 3 or 4 propositions will leave out some of the richness of the gospel’s fullness.
I still use the bridge as my default setting, but it’s one peice in the skill set of scripts.
I modify it based on conversational and relational context.
It’s still a very effective tool in other cultures as it does simplify the explanation of the gospel.
Pastor Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
Pastor Chris, I shall not soon forget your phrase “Osteenistic happiness.” Thanks for that. Question, do you mean to suggest that any evangelistic “tool” is disqualified because it reduces the gospel thereby initiating new believers into a false understanding? Does your observation imply there is no other way for initiation into salvation except via an immersion into an alive Body of Christ and a catechetical system ala Hyppolytus of the third century requiring a three year journey into baptism? Of course, I suspect the only reason Hyppolytus’ version worked was people were forced to enter it via Roman Constantinianism.
Interested in yours and others’ comments
I don’t disqualify any tool.
Rather, I simply point out the short comings of multiple tools.
They are all useful (I was using the bead bracelet yesterday), as long as we recognize their limits in not being able to explain the richness of the gospel.
The gospel is more glorious than one 4 point outline.
Does one have to agree to believe a certain number of points? If so, which one?
Is conversion a matter of intellectual assent to 3 propositions?
Or is it a lifestyle change to start following after the way of Jesus and learning along the way?
Maybe an example:
The WOTM preachers have reduced conversion to mental agreement to their propositions — if you don’t follow the right formula, your conversion has misfired and you are a false convert, because you didn’t agree to the right set of facts.
In my life, I believed first, and then it took me 5 months or more to understand all the richness of that belief. I’m still learning some of the richness of grace.
My conversion misfired according to WOTM practicioners, because I didn’t hear the law first.
Pastor Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
I really appreciate the fact that the “bridge illustration” is being discussed. Far too often, we take our ministry tools and ministry models for granted.
A few months ago, some high school students from China unexpectantly came to my classroom. Wanting to seize the opportunity, I invited the other students to share about the bridge illlustration with the visiting students. I was surprised to find that the Christian students were hesitant and uninterested to talk about it.
I gave my best attempt at sharing the bridge illustration with the Chinese students, but it was much harder than I originally thought. (It had been a while since I had last heard it used.) To start with, the illustration can seem fairly boring to emerging generations — maybe because a diagram of a bridge has less impact than it did years ago. It is too “heady” for some, I suppose, and not very experiential.
Beyond that, it appeared that the Chinese students did not relate to the illustration at all. The concept of being separated from God, and the immense problem that causes, did not seem to sink in. I shouldn’t have been surprised, but they were not very interested in the stick figure and the bridge that I had drawn on the board. So rather than focusing on Jesus and what He did, I felt like I wasted my time with an ineffective illustration.
I do agree that “The gospel is more glorious than one 4 point outline.” My experience using the bridge illustration with high school students and some Chinese students only reinforced that idea for me. If we use illustrations, they will not always be effective; in fact, they will often be ineffective. It is much better, in my opinion, to focus on Christ, and not to rely too heavily on illustrations not found in Scripture.
Thankfully, God plants seeds in many different ways. As we make our best efforts to share the Gospel, those efforts are watered and nurtured along the way. I trust that God is still working in their hearts, even though my efforts now seem pretty feeble.
- Joel Jupp
Yet I too have used it, even recently, with a great impact.
The illustration was abundantly clear because the person was ready to receive Christ as was the Ethopian Eunuch.
Maybe its not so much about what is the right tool, but is it the right time?
Perhaps our illustrations fail to connect because we are a little premature in sharing illustrutations with someone who is not yet as thirsty as the Eunuch was.
Pastor Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
Quite an important and interesting conversation.
It seems to me that it is a very Modern/Enlightenment idea to think that we can arrive at a new universal illustration to replace the ones already in place. As Pastor Chris has so eloquently pointed out these all have their limitations even in a Modern world. Moreover, it seems, again as Pastor Chris has pointed out, that the response seems more to do with the person than with the illustration. Is this person ready to meet Jesus?
So, my question would be why should we be attempting to find the next universal illustration? In a Postmodern context many illustrations may be useful. We need the imagination and presence of the Holy Spirit to discern how and what to say as we discover where the other person is in their journey. This can only be realistically done in relationship over time. Will there be exceptions to this pattern? Of course, because God does not follow rules or patterns. He is always at work and can work in any way he pleases.
Scot McKnight’s book, “A Community Called Atonement” uses a golf bag metaphor to illustrate that we need all the atonement theories “in our bag” in order to begin to explain the atonement.
I suppose this is what others are saying here too. Maybe not toss “The Bridge” but realize it’s incomplete and we need others “in our bag.”
Could be, but I must say that the limitations of The Bridge still bother me a bit.
Enjoying all the comments…
traveler … I think you’re right … and I might even say the Bridge illustration had its place within certain Christendom contexts. What I think we’re looking for is a way to communicate the gospel and be hospital in a way that does not reduce it (too much?) for our given context. I think we do need ways to communicate and invite even if time-bound, culture bound.No way am I looking for a universal technique.
Blessings .. DF
While I don’t particularly share your mounting dislike of the bridge illustration (I would only share your opinions if it was meant to encapsulate Christianity rather than begin the job of introducing one to it), I don’t particularly love it either.
I have also been struggling to figure out how to introduce people to the faith in a way that I am happy with. MacLaren, in his book The Secret Message of Jesus uses the illustration of a new country. I’ve thought about photocopying that and sharing it with people.
What have you guys come up with??
Hey David,
Great thoughts. Couldn’t agree more. How ’bout that…we’re finally on the same page!
Norton
One of the things that makes me the most uncomfortable with drawing the Bridge is the way I use the Bible when sharing. For example, I want to explain to my friend that God is just, so the Bridge says “Read Psalm 11:7 or Romans 2:11″. These single verse proof texts always leave me feeling uncomfortable because it is taking sound bytes from the Bible to make them prove a point – one that may be true but is not necessarily the main point of the author.
One of the things that makes me the most uncomfortable with drawing the Bridge is the way I use the Bible when sharing. For example, I want to explain to my friend that God is just, so the Bridge says “Read Psalm 11:7 or Romans 2:11″. These single verse proof texts always leave me feeling uncomfortable because it is taking sound bytes from the Bible to make them prove a point – one that may be true but is not necessarily the main point of the author.
It was interesting to come across this today, as nearly two months ago I started the outline of a blog post on this very topic… I’ve posted it as is to share it with all of you.
I find the “umbrella analogy” to be a great alternative to the bridge — which hinges on the rather abstract notion of being separated from God.
Instead, the umbrella hinges on the recognition that we are standing in this storm that we know as life (as a result of our sin), with nothing to protect us from that storm — unless we step underneath the umbrella (Jesus) that God has provided for us. Check it out…
In my mind, it provides a better opportunity to connect with an unbeliever who may not have an intuituve desire for God (yet), and it’s a much richer story from which to jump off into the deeper matters of justification, sanctification, faith vs. works and so on.
Granted, it does not get at the elements of atoning sacrifice so well, but Jesus himself used MANY parables to illustrate the kingdom of God — why would we think we could do better by be being more “efficient”?!?
I pretty much grew up with the bridge illustration.
6th grade Bible camp
Jr. High Sunday School curriculum.
Young Life
Navigators
…lastly, during a spiritual lapse, Moody Bible Institutes Theology 101 Correspondance Course
In the end, I’m with Ben. The parables of Jesus need to be ‘resurrected’ as primary methods of understanding and explaining the atonement.
I pretty much grew up with the bridge illustration.
6th grade Bible camp
Jr. High Sunday School curriculum.
Young Life
Navigators
…lastly, during a spiritual lapse, Moody Bible Institutes Theology 101 Correspondance Course
In the end, I’m with Ben. The parables of Jesus need to be ‘resurrected’ as primary methods of understanding and explaining the atonement.
Last night I saw a video of a “skit” (that word does not do it justice however).
It isn’t a device like “the bridge” that can be shared at any time or any place, but in today’s internet world it can be shared readily with anyone who has internet access.
Here it is: Lifehouse’s Everything Skit
I’m a pretty logical/unemotional guy, and this really hit me in a way that choked me up. Last 1-1/2 minutes in particular are incredibly powerful.
Like any parable or analogy it is not perfect, but I’d be interested to hear how others react to it — both believers and unbelievers.
As a college campus missionary, I explain God’s love and our need all the time through the one-verse bridge illustration, which is the same illustration but shorter and coming from Rom. 3:23 alone. I see people all the time that are floored by the illustration and have seen many people come to Christ and grow and mature in Christ. Is the illustration flawed?? Absolutely not, the vessel is. Try building a relationship with a person first. Don’t let this little illustration be the only means of evangelism with this person, let it simply be a tool that goes along with your life; the ultimate means of evangelism.
My generation of Christ followers is full of nay-sayers that want to point fingers at our parents generation and tell how what they did doesn’t work and everything. Relational evangelism accompanied by an illustration like this works fine. We see the fruit all the time.
I’m sorry, I meant to say Rom. 6:23. Romans 3:23 is part of the full length bridge. A pretty good explanation of the one-verse bridge is at http://www.navigators.org/us/resources/illustrations/items/One%20Verse%20Evangelism . After sharing this illustration at a discussion group in the dorms for non-believers, one girl asked if she could keep the illustration. She hung it on her wall and from what I hear from her hall-mates, it’s still there. She had heard her whole life about salvation, but never had it finally clicked like that night. Must not be too out-dated of an illustration; that was 4 months ago!
The bridge illustration is a great and simple way to share the salvation in Jesus Christ. I spent a whole summer in Jacksonville, Florida at a summer training program with the Navigators. We learned the bridge and shared it with strangers on the beach for 5 weeks, two hours a week. You would be amazed at how many people no so little about Jesus’ death on the cross. The one part in the bridge that is vital and makes it an effective evangelical tool, is the testimony. People can relate to your story and walk with Christ. We also have to take into account people that this is a great conversation starter, a good lead into a spiritual conversation. Great things happened this last summer on the Jax beach, and the bridge was a huge part of it.
The bridge illustration is a great tool – but it’s just that, a tool. The bridge illustration isn’t the Gospel – it’s a way that we can help to make the Gospel a little clearer to those who haven’t heard it before. But similar to 1 Corinthians 3, I think sometimes churches and para-church organisations may put more emphasis on the tool, rather than the Gospel itself.
I believe it’s fair to say there will never be a 10-15 min explanation that can reveal the full depth of the Gospel. I’m only 20, but I believe that even in decades to come, I’ll never cease to be amazed at the Gospel of Jesus. But tools like the bridge illustration can help those who no nothing about Jesus, to give them an idea about who Jesus is and what He did. It shows a need, and shows how Jesus can fulfil that need. But what the bridge illustration lacks is follow-up – and no matter what tool, that is vital for anyone who has just received Christ.
But ultimately, no matter what tool we use, we need to rely on God. Paul said that he planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. Every person, church and organisation may have their different methods – but at the end of the day, are we humble enough to get down on our knees and pray for the salvation of those we shared the good news with?
[...] Fitch has a good series of posts and discussion about some of the theological questions about the Bridge as a gospel script. The comments raise great issues, and point to some other scripts. (See also Part 2 and Part [...]
Your inability to recognize the bridge for its purpose and intent is painfully obvious. To waste time discussing it, and not be actively sharing the gospel is a greater weakeness of your choice. Get out there! Be mature and share the love of God, the message of salvation —-or—-be a good church person and critique the work of others. “… in pretence or in truth Christ is proclaimed, and in this I will rejoice”
[...] That question opened up a 2 hour conversation about relating to God, having our sin forgiven, having his presence in our life, and all sorts of stuff. I use the bridge illustration as my script (even if there are some shortcomings in it). [...]