Is the model we use to convert others wrong?

[Im_A]

Now i have posted something on here before, and it may have similiar contents, but i am greatly disturbed with something. i look forward to talking to my friends about this tomorrow at church.

i am greatly disturbed with the model of outreach. someone who doesn't believe in God, comes to you with a question, and we are trained to be able to quote scripture after scripture to supposedly "convince" someone of a belief system that is solely based on faith. I have not seen the good in that for several years, and just recently, it has greatly disturbed, to almost the point of anger.

it seems comical to me, that any Christian would even fathom the idea of quoting scripture to someone who doesn't believe in the same thing. now of course, i see nothing wrong with saying that you believe in this and that, because you believe it is in the Bible, and if the other side gets more curiosity to know where it is at in the Bible, then yes, overflow them with the proof, in love of course, but it is the beginning stages that are concerning me.

the bible says to speak the words of truth to the world, (my paraphrase of many verses in scripture), but is that boggeled down to old and modern translataions of scripture? quote what book, and what verse number it is, and your doing just fine, while the non-Christian is pushed away.

my reason for this "disturbance" is because the time Christ preached, the things He talked about were Revolutionary to everyone. The Romans themselves were afraid of this. Christ spoke on their level, because He was a Jew, but the idea that He was proclaiming that the scripture actually meant a Saviour from our sins and the gift of eternal life and new life instead of a religious militant leader. so today, here we are trying to continue this Revolution that Christ started over 2000 years ago, but the times are different. people, especiall in america, God and Jesus is common knowledge to most. they know the story without quoting scripture notes. so my question is, the people that stand out there with scripture on a sign, the people that when engaging with an atheist or someone of anther belief and pounding them with their notes from a book they believe in, when basically the otherside does the same thing in reaction, and nothing is gained. it is like we are programmed by the modern church, to convince others and not to make disciples. how were we disciplined as children? our parents were constantly there, around us to say, "No" or to explain this or that because they loved us. So i believe, hope and pray that the next stage of Christianity goes into a spiritual sage. we tell people about Christ in logical, and plausible manners, hold off from quoting scripture notes from a study, till their heart is ready to give in to God, to comfort what they are feeling inside. to stick around with them, for the sole pupose because we love people. Be a spiritual sage, instead of a teacher. stop saying we know it all, and only admit that the only thing we know is that Christ is the Saviour of the World, and admit our misunderstandings and dobuts. engage with them with no reason at all, but love and friendship with another human being. look at them, as not another statistic, or another count for heaven, or even with an agenda, but look at them with eyes that maybe we can learn something from them and they can learn something for us.

i wish that was the model, but sadly enough, i am not convinced it is the model yet. it greatly distrubs me too. makes me angry that we are forsaking great spiritual conversations because of pride or elitism.

ok that is enough for now from me. i look forward to anything has anything to add or say. God Bless you all <><

[Polycarp1]

Outstanding point. Jesus never told us to prooftext or come up with logical persuasions, nor to convict others of their sins. He did, however, state how we are to witness -- but it's rather subtle, and most people pass right over it.

The scene is the Last Supper, with Jesus preparing His disciples for His imminent crucifixion, and explaining what is really happening. And then He goes on to tell them what to do when He's gone:

John 13:31-35

If they see that in us, they will begin to wonder why we behave that way -- and, perhaps, to want to be a part of what makes us act that way. Amazing!

[Toney]

My answer to the question posed in the OP is, yes! Very wrong. The simple reason is that it smacks of Christian triumphalism. Somehow we have to get around that. God has an eternal, irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people. That means "shared Universalism." Most Christians do not seem to be able to deal with that.

I just read that for every 40 liberal Christians, there are 60 evangelicals who are drifting more and more to the right. They expect that with the parousia, Israel will just fade away. I don't think so.

[Buttermilk]

Great post Polycarp1, and soooooo right :)

[elanor]

Excellent point, tattedsaint! You know, now that I think about it, Jesus used scripture mostly when He spoke to the religious leaders of the day. With the crowds, He spoke in parables and used examples they would understand from their everyday life. What a revolutionary concept! Talk to people from their own life experience!

Thanks for this thread! You've given me a lot to think about. :)

[Talmidah]

They expect that with the parousia, Israel will just fade away. I don't think so.
Toney, if I may ask a question...what is 'parousia'?

[Maccie]

I think the idea of quoting scripture after scripture to someone in order to "convince" them that they should become Christians is a very evangelical way of doing things! And I am totally against that sort of thing. Always have been, even as an evangelical Christian myself! I know that when I was not a Christian, to have someone quote the Bible to me was completely off-putting - I would just think "well, I'm just not starting from there!. So what, if it says it in the Bible?"

No, the only way to spread Christianity is to show it. To show it in the way we treat others, to show what love really means, to show forgiveness, even when we are hurting deeply. And not to take on the worldly attitudes around us.

Sounds so pious, doesn't it? But its a lot harder, and I think more effective, than just learning Bible verses and spouting them forth.

Anyway, I was never any good at learning verses! I prefer to use my own paraphrases!!

Maccie

[Im_A]

My answer to the question posed in the OP is, yes! Very wrong. The simple reason is that it smacks of Christian triumphalism. Somehow we have to get around that. God has an eternal, irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people. That means "shared Universalism." Most Christians do not seem to be able to deal with that.

I just read that for every 40 liberal Christians, there are 60 evangelicals who are drifting more and more to the right. They expect that with the parousia, Israel will just fade away. I don't think so.
i have a quick question about your post there. not that i disagree with it, so please don't think that :)

can you explain a little more what you mean by "shared Universalism" with the Jewish people. if your meaning that we as Gentiles need to be more open minded to accepting of the Jewish people, then i am right there with you on that. Hence our faith in Christ came out of the Jews, and hence Christ being a Jew Himself. but in with the post that you posted with the idea of Christian triumphalism, is that your point that Christians today are not, for the lack of better words, mutually assilimated with the Jews? are you meaning how, to what it most seems that Christians seem to think that they are the chosen people of God maybe instead of the Jews themselves, whether or not they are messianic jews or not? again, i am agreeing with you, i am just trying to understand that post there a little more.

plus, that's an interesting statistic there. God Bless <><

[Toney]

Toney, if I may ask a question...what is 'parousia'?

Tirzah (Talmidah), thanks for your post. It means Second Coming of Christ. Many of the Christian Right believe a feature of that Cosmic event entails all Jews finally accepting Jesus as messiah. Many of those same people think Jesus then will set up shop in One Zion Square and rule for a thousand years; the Church trumps by playing the Rook card, in other words.

can you explain a little more what you mean by "shared Universalism" with the Jewish people?My fault! I believe the concept originated with Jewish theologian/philosopher/physician Maimonides. Sometimes called Rambam (an acronym of his full name), he insisted that God does not require a universal church in which He is worshipped and that universalism does not demand a monolithic "totalitarian" religious mindset.

If we divide the human race into subsets of Jews, Christians, and everyone else, 'religious' Jews are subject to the 613 commandments of Torah, and Christians have "freedom from most of these laws." The rest of mankind is deemed righteous by observing Noachide Law, the Seven Commandments required by the sons of Noah. These seven (refrain from idolatry, incest and adultery, bloodshed, blasphemy, injustic and lawlessness, robbery, and inhumane conduct) provide mankind with a moral compass.

The Church for 1,800 years has taught that she is the New Israel (as if God changes his mind) and that conversion to Christianity is the only (universal) means of salvation. Both are false teachings.

The book to read is The Christian Problem by Stuart Rosenberg, a staunch advocate of Jewish-Christian dialogue.

[sakamuyo]

I'm not sure it's fair to make a blanket statement that one particular method is wrong. For some, this type of Gospel communication is absolutely the right language and method. The issue is not that the method is wrong, but that it's not the only method

[Im_A]

Tirzah (Talmidah), thanks for your post. It means Second Coming of Christ. Many of the Christian Right believe a feature of that Cosmic event entails all Jews finally accepting Jesus as messiah. Many of those same people think Jesus then will set up shop in One Zion Square and rule for a thousand years; the Church trumps by playing the Rook card, in other words.

My fault! I believe the concept originated with Jewish theologian/philosopher/physician Maimonides. Sometimes called Rambam (an acronym of his full name), he insisted that God does not require a universal church in which He is worshipped and that universalism does not demand a monolithic "totalitarian" religious mindset.

If we divide the human race into subsets of Jews, Christians, and everyone else, 'religious' Jews are subject to the 613 commandments of Torah, and Christians have "freedom from most of these laws." The rest of mankind is deemed righteous by observing Noachide Law, the Seven Commandments required by the sons of Noah. These seven (refrain from idolatry, incest and adultery, bloodshed, blasphemy, injustic and lawlessness, robbery, and inhumane conduct) provide mankind with a moral compass.

The Church for 1,800 years has taught that she is the New Israel (as if God changes his mind) and that conversion to Christianity is the only (universal) means of salvation. Both are false teachings.

The book to read is The Christian Problem by Stuart Rosenberg, a staunch advocate of Jewish-Christian dialogue.
well i can't see how that would be so hard to accept. i mean hence the Jews being God's people, means that there is some substance to Judaism. again, i do not know a whole lot about Judaism. so in meanin with the church teaching this for 1,800 years, basically teaching that those Jews that do not accet Christ as the Messiah are going to hell basically? you'll have to forgive me Toney. my knowledge of Judaism is rather small. i mean i know stuff that as Christians we're taught. so are basically almost saying, that this stuff for 1,800 years that the Church established as "Christian Triumphalism" isn't what Christ taught? and is this book by Stuart Rosenberg, basically proposing that Christianity and Judaism, is basically equal, and both leads us to God and Salvation. sorry if i'm a lot of questions here, this is just really interesting to me. another question i wanted to ask is this basically saying that Christ is the way, but with the Jews that don't accept God, God's promise still sticks with them no matter what they chose on to accept Christ as Messiah or not.

again i apologize for so many questions, but this is really interesting to me, and in some ways it does stick with the topic that this certain thread was started. God Bless <><

Joe

[bee7le]

I think the idea of quoting scripture after scripture to someone in order to "convince" them that they should become Christians is a very evangelical way of doing things! And I am totally against that sort of thing.No offense, but what an incredibly lazy and incorrect approach to discipleship and ministry.
Paul commended those that used Scripture to interpret Scripture. What other truth are you planning on using when explaining truth? Do you think your sinful nature is of the quality by which people will find truth? Sounds a bit arrogant to me.

"Now the Bareans were of a more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

If we divide the human race into subsets of Jews, Christians, and everyone else, 'religious' Jews are subject to the 613 commandments of Torah, and Christians have "freedom from most of these laws." The rest of mankind is deemed righteous by observing Noachide Law, the Seven Commandments required by the sons of Noah. These seven (refrain from idolatry, incest and adultery, bloodshed, blasphemy, injustic and lawlessness, robbery, and inhumane conduct) provide mankind with a moral compass...

The book to read is The Christian Problem by Stuart Rosenberg, a staunch advocate of Jewish-Christian dialogue.Familiar with the book and the teaching, and it is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture. I have listened to even Jesus-skeptic philosophers discredit the writings of Rosenerg. His agenda was developed, and then doctrine was twisted to fit. Judaism was completely developed to usher in the teachings of Christ. Good luck supporting this author.

[oworm]

I think the idea of quoting scripture after scripture to someone in order to "convince" them that they should become Christians is a very evangelical way of doing things! And I am totally against that sort of thing. Always have been, even as an evangelical Christian myself
How does that square with Pauls words:
RO 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

1cor 1 :17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.


2TI 4:1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

[Im_A]

i think there is a conflict in what we have meant with not using scriptures first when engaging in conversation with someone who isn't a Christian.

As Christ used parables, that is what i know in my posts, the word paraphrase referenced to. we cannot use our own human wisdom to explain the Gospel is pretty evident, because our humanity cannot fully explain the beauty of God. but then i ask the question of why did Christ use parables? i mean at first sight, there seems to be some confliction between Christ and Paul.

plus i wonder from the last two posts if there was a misunderstanding with this thread. with me starting this thread, my post was not to scoff at using scripture at all. but wouldn't most people agree that disciple almost means the same thing as an apprentise? aren't we all apprentises of the Most High? so my point with this, is, when we descided to engage someone, than we better be prepared for a spiritual journey with that person. which includes uses of paraphrases, in the righ time, scripture notes. but we cannot force a horse to water. we cannot feed a starving person a 4 course meal and desert, because they will throw it up. we need to nurish them slowly. it's the fact of our humanity.

so really, this thread started to where we engage a problem within the church. is it truly and really productive to bam someone over the head with something that they have heard already? that is the beginning stage of their faith, and for some reason that tactic if you will, did not work. but by engaging them on a spiritual journey, which means more than telling them John 3:16.

now of course it is illogical to engage this journey with everyone, that is impossible. and plus, we as Christians will not reach everyone on this planet. but the confliction for me is why spiritual seekers at a high now, but they are against God. yes, this may very will be the signs of the end times, and i am not out to debate if this is or not. at first sight, to me it just seems another Reformation is taking place, but there will be no extreme break away, at least i pray not.

another point. if someone lives in the United States, they know this as well as i do. in this country, you know Christianity somehow, someway. whether your family, what hear on TV, radio, movies, you hear about it. Christianity seems to be mainstream if you will. we have all the books out there about End Times, and you name it. but for some reason, this freedom of religious speech for Christianity has failed, because now we are at a point, to where the world has seen the bad parts of the church. as Christ says, "They will know us by our Love for one another." the world sees that in most cases, there is turmoil with one another. they got judged unrightously, so they go off in search of something else.

so in ending, i think there is a confusion right now on this thread. even when i posted the first thread, i was not fully meanign the full annilhation if you will of using scripture to reach the lost. that is crazy. but, i hope and pray that Christians become spiritual sages as i mentioned in my first post. the people we chose to reach, whoever they may be, that we prepare ourselves for a journey with them of leading them to Christ and making disciples. Christ used parables to people who didn't know anything about He was talking about, and He used scripture notes at the same time. Paul seemed to use scripture notes, as well as parables in some ways. Paul was ministering to people who knew nothing of Christ. how is that measurable to the world today, when people know about Christ and what Christ did for humanity, but yet still reject them? are we as Christians supposed to lay by the wasteside as losers and just watch people burn, until we die and get our heavenly riches? of course not. we are to embrace these people through love. know their situations, and think and search for ways to reach them. reach them through parables at first, may be a way to get them interested, and may open their hardened hearts, to be more successible to accepting scriptures. remember, our paraphrases, are not strong enough to save, only scripture is strong enough to saved, but our paraphrases, and parables of God and His precious Son, are strong enough to get people's curiosity going. and maybe starting at that point is a lot better than trying to start way ahead of the game. God Bless you all! <><

Joe

[Toney]

... so in meanin with the church teaching this for 1,800 years, basically teaching that those Jews that do not accet Christ as the Messiah are going to hell basically?

Not at all, Joe, although certainly there are some well intentioned Christians who may actually believe that! My reference was to teachings often called Replacement Theology or Supersessionism, which are all too familiar to most Christians. These teachings hold that the church is the New Israel and that Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people in His salvific plan. This belief conveniently ignores the fact that the Jewish people are already in a saving covenant with God.

It is useful to dintinguish between what Jesus actually taught and what the church teaches. The ethics and morality of Judaism shaped Jesus. We become fully Christian, IMO, by at least trying to appreciate this.

[CaDan]

No offense, but what an incredibly lazy and incorrect approach to discipleship and ministry.
Paul commended those that used Scripture to interpret Scripture. What other truth are you planning on using when explaining truth? Do you think your sinful nature is of the quality by which people will find truth? Sounds a bit arrogant to me.

This assumes inerrancy, a view I reject. Paul was a smart guy doing the best he could, but his extent writings are not the Word of God.

"Now the Bareans were of a more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

The capital "S" in "Scriptures" does not appear in the Greek. It is simply the word graphe, which can be any writing. Plus, the Thessalonians were mean to Paul and drove him out of the city. Context is key. The author of Acts is simply praising the Bareans as being more receptive than the Thessalonians.

Familiar with the book and the teaching, and it is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture. I have listened to even Jesus-skeptic philosophers discredit the writings of Rosenerg. His agenda was developed, and then doctrine was twisted to fit. Judaism was completely developed to usher in the teachings of Christ. Good luck supporting this author.

Haven't read it. No comment.

[CaDan]

How does that square with Pauls words:
RO 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

1cor 1 :17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.


2TI 4:1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

How do you square your argument with the fact that the NT did not exist at the time these letters were written?

How do you square your argument with the fact that the early Christians wrote lots of non-canonical things? See, e.g., the letters of Clement, the letters of Ignatius, and the letters of Polycarp. By your argument, they should have just been copying the received wisdom of the NT over and over again. Obviously, they didn't do that.

current music: Yoko Kanno - Spokey Dokey

[Toney]

Familiar with the book and the teaching, and it is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture. I have listened to even Jesus-skeptic philosophers discredit the writings of Rosenberg. His agenda was developed, and then doctrine was twisted to fit.


Haven't read it. No comment.

I'll comment. There is neither misinterpretation nor misunderstanding of scripture in Rosenberg's book. The book is not about scripture. The poster cannot cite any Jesus-skeptic philosophers' (whatever that is) discrediting of Rosenberg's writings. There is none; nor is there twisted doctrine to fit an agenda. The only agenda he espouses is dialogue.

Judaism was completely developed to usher in the teachings of Christ. Really? Rosenberg's book explains such uniquely Christian anti-Semitism and its concomitant ignorance.

[Im_A]

Not at all, Joe, although certainly there are some well intentioned Christians who may actually believe that! My reference was to teachings often called Replacement Theology or Supersessionism, which are all too familiar to most Christians. These teachings hold that the church is the New Israel and that Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people in His salvific plan. This belief conveniently ignores the fact that the Jewish people are already in a saving covenant with God.

It is useful to dintinguish between what Jesus actually taught and what the church teaches. The ethics and morality of Judaism shaped Jesus. We become fully Christian, IMO, by at least trying to appreciate this.
ya know toney, i must be frank, i have never heard of the supersessionism, or the replacement theory, not that i am trying to be frank in a bad way in any way with you. this stuff is rather new to me i guess. i mean, yes i have heard about the "New Israel" context thing, but never knew exactly what that meant. i guess i should be thankful that in my ignorance, i missed such teachings as you described here. i totally agree with your statements there.

again i must admit, that the only quo say teaching that i have ever heard of with the Jews is the simple statement, that the Jews are the Chosen People of God. i always greatly admired the Messianic Jews, and with non-messianic jews, i never had any bad thought towards them or some elitist thinking with them in any way shape and form. elitist, meaning that i am better off than them. that is sin. pride always follws the fall. i dont' understand a lot about Judaism. understand, meaning just simple basic tenants beyond what christians teach about judaism. to be even more frank with you, i am glad i missed this replacement theory. that doesn't sit right with me just from you telling me about it. i sadly enough have never really talked to a "serious" jew. the only jew i have ever known, was a guy in college that certainly was practicing, (that was by his word that he told me) he once told me that his parents were messianic jews, but worshipped at a orthodox church. but i mean for Christians to believe that they are more special than a group of people that has had a covenant with God way before Christ, seems ridiculous to me.

toney, i thank you for these talks. and any information to give about messianic judaism, or orthodox judaism, or even with the book you have mentioned, i am open to checking out, and to any other practicing jews that come on here, please feel free to give me any references on this. thank you again toney. i look forward to more talks on this and other matters on this forum. God Bless you! <><

[Toney]

Thank you, Joe. In a nutshell, this is what we as Christians must come to grips with:

1. Judaism is a living religion. It never died and its spiritual integrity should and must be acknowledged by Christians.

2. The Church's hostility toward Judaism has fed both anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism throughout her history, and composes the saddest chapters of that history.

3. God has not changed His mind, has not deserted His people, has not revoked His covenantal relationship, and has not broken His promises, nor will He ever. Amen. The religious, cultural and historical destiny of the Jewish people is in no way, shape or form inferior to Christianity, its younger and oft boastful sibling.

Overview of Replacement Theology (http://www.shearityisrael.com/theology/replacement.dsp)

Our Sacred Obligation as Christians (http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/partners/CSG/Sacred_Obligation.htm)

[CaDan]

Good rule for Christians: The Jews have their own special deal with God. Those who mess with them are just itchin' for trouble. God has a LONG memory.

current music: Dire Straits - Telegraph Road

[oworm]

How do you square your argument with the fact that the NT did not exist at the time these letters were written?By keeping to the OP,s original question which is written within the context of today
"Is the model we use to convert others wrong? (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9062303#post9062303) " WE being the operative word suggests that it is infact a contemporary context and not pre NT canon

[Reader Nilus]

Meeting a Non-Orthodox Society by Met ANTHONY (Bloom) of Blessed Memory (http://www.jacwell.org/articles/1997-WINTER-MetAnthony.html)
There is an episode in the life of St. Stephen of Perm, one of the early Russian missionaries. He discovered in the region of Perm pagan people with a language different from the language spoken by the Slavs, and therefore out of reach of the Gospel. He learned their language, and went out to the region of Perm, where he began to pray in their midst. The local shamans wanted to destroy him and they sent a group of armed men to kill him. They came back and the shaman said, "Is he dead?" "No", they said, "we could not kill him; when we met him face to face, there was such love and openness in him that we knelt down and begged for his blessing." That is mission.
It seems to me that quoting Scripture means zippo, nor does it do any good to pigion hole people to ask them if they are saved or have accepted Jesus or whatever. The story of St Stephen of Perm that Met ANTHONY writes of is the only way of evangelism there is that is worthy of the name. We by our very life and how we live should show forth the Gospel, and Met ANTHONY writes elsewhere that we should live in a way if the Gospels were lost they could be reconstructed by looking at how we live.
For me it is Matthew 25, at the last judgement we will be asked what we did, not what our creed was.
Jeff the Finn

[CaDan]

Met. Anthony looks very cool. (http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_biog.htm) A bunch of his sermons and talks (http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_serm.htm) are available online.

[Treasure the Questions]

In "Celtic Daily Prayer" http://www.northumbriacommunity.org/Cloisters/booksspirituality.htm#cdp I read: Imagine a long line running from -100 to +100 with zero a point somewhere in the middle:

-100 -------------------- 0 ------------------ +100

At one end, -100, is the most hardened sinner that ever lived, who is coincidentally an out-and-out atheist. At the other, +100, is the most saintly believer you could meet. Everybody else is on the line somewhere. Zero represents the point of initial surrender to Christ.

Often we think that evangelism is about moving someone we meet from -40 to +10 in twenty minutes! Even when someone makes a commitment abruptly they many have already been at -2 and only needed a nudge over to +5. A nudge at the wrong time could have shot them back to -18.

...What we must not do is judge someone else's position. All that matters is that through being with us each person is drawn along the line, closer to Christ, and not knocked further back.
This seemed a very helpful thought to me. Perhaps others here will think so, too.
Karin

[CaDan]

Another neat quote from Met. Anthony:

If I may put it this way, no one could have discovered God, the idea of God, the experience of God, if God had not revealed himself to the degree to which people were capable of perceiving him within the limitations of that time. The Holy Spirit was, is and shall be at work in the whole world from the start to the finish of it. There is no knowledge of God in pagan religions, or elsewhere, in which God has not participated. God was not invented, he was experienced. Of course our understanding and knowledge of God is - in our conviction, at least - truer, more complete, more perfect. But we cannot say that there is no knowledge there. There are intuitions and images which, I believe, are so close to our own as to suggest that we should look into this, and not dismiss it. I am thinking at the moment of the death of Hercules. You probably remember the story. Hercules had wounded to death the centaur. Now the centaur was half man and half beast, so that in our terms he was an image of fallen man. The only true man is the Lord Jesus Christ, and we ourselves are all centaurs to a greater or lesser degree. The centaur, then, to avenge himself and kill Hercules, dipped his tunic into his own blood, which had been poisoned by Hercules' arrow, and sent it to him as a gift. 'It is yours, put it on', he said. Hercules did so, and this tunic, soaked in the blood of one who was half beast, half human being, clung to Hercules' body and burnt him in such a way that he tore it off his body together with his own life. Is this not an image of Christ? Putting on man and dying of it? I think one could go into many more of the myths of pagan religion and find in them an intuition, a momentary vision that is valid and can open for us an understanding of the soul of the people who have seen the truth, however dimly. We do not need to dismiss them as just impious legends.

From a talk at the 1985 Effingham Conference.

[Im_A]

By keeping to the OP,s original question which is written within the context of today
"Is the model we use to convert others wrong? (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9062303#post9062303) " WE being the operative word suggests that it is infact a contemporary context and not pre NT canon
please do not think that i am trying to start up an argument or debate here with you, but the last few posts i have seen is actually quoting maccie's comment. i hope my one post clarrified exactly what i meant with the original posting, to where any confusion. please think, that there is more to the original posting, than just the first, initial question.

please, don't think i am trying to start up an agrument with you or anything. i'm just putting this in there, becuase of the posts i have seen from a few to Maccie's comment. i believe maccie was just responding to my first response, and i felt that my first post was clear in what i was trying to get across, but it looked like it wasn't, and that is why i posted the 2nd post, and i just believe maccie was responding to the fact that she agreed with the post, and thus, having no need go really into detail after detail, unless she feels fit, which is surely welcome and hoped for.

so again, please do not think i am just picking you out for some kind of stupid argument. :) i just saw what you last posted and just put this on here, that is all. :) May God Bless you! >?>

[oworm]

:) May God Bless you! >?>
And you also :)

[Polycarp1]

In "Celtic Daily Prayer" http://www.northumbriacommunity.org/Cloisters/booksspirituality.htm#cdp I read:
This seemed a very helpful thought to me. Perhaps others here will think so, too.
Karin
I thought so, Karin!

"There's so much good in the worst of us
And so much bad in the best of us
That it ill behooves the most of us
To sit and judge the rest of us." :)

[Buttermilk]

In "Celtic Daily Prayer" http://www.northumbriacommunity.org/Cloisters/booksspirituality.htm#cdp I read:
This seemed a very helpful thought to me. Perhaps others here will think so, too.
Karin
I like your scale thingy :)