Entries Tagged 'Evangelism' ↓

A few years ago, I heard a clip of a prominent evangelical leader justifying the new evangelical decision to pull back from separatism. The gist of the statement was something like this:

The fundamentalists lost any chance at influence of the world by their over-emphasis on separatism.

Well…

Just how well is that influence thing working?

Is North American culture today MORE or LESS influenced by Christianity today than 60 years ago?

Is it the mission of disciples to be salt and light in such a way that they have influence in the culture of the world?

If yes, how would we go about that?

It appears that whatever the new-evangelical strategy was, it didn’t work. I’ll concede that if fundamentalists thought they would influence the world somehow, they failed also. So, let’s just posit for a moment the notion that those who follow Christ are called to be salt and light in the world, and therefore to somehow have a position of influence in the world. One would presume that influence should be towards an increase in Christianity, for starters, but failing that, one would at least hope for some influence on the culture.

So, again, exactly how should we do that?

An interview with Lee Strobel at CT (no endorsement for either!) raises the question of methodology in apologetics. If you have read anything on postmodernism, Strobel won’t be saying anything new to you, but I wonder what you think of what he is saying.

If we personalize the gospel with our testimony, or make it a story in some other way (not compromising the message), is that more effective than a more direct proclamational approach? It seems to me that we have evidence of both styles in the book of Acts.

I don’t think this is an either/or question, rather, perhaps, a “best first approach” question. It seems that in order to win folks to Christ it will often take many contacts (sometimes from many different people), but my question is, can we make a hard and fast rule that ‘testimony-first’ is the best approach?