For me, the interesting point isn't about the precise details of how particular Christians or Christian groups interpret the concept of sharing one's faith, it's that the Roman Catholic Church has apparently accepted that Jews have a unique place in Christian theology and, particularly in relation to mission and evangelism, are to be treated differently from all other non-Christian people groups.
Has the Protestant mission to the Jews come to an end?
There isn't a unified Protestant approach, of course.
You'll find everything and anything between full-on Zionism to initiatives that specifically target Jewish people for evangelism to views similar to those expressed by the Vatican - and all stations in between.
My late mother-in-law used to subscribe to the CMJ newsletter - Church Mission To The Jews - an Anglican agency with a particular focus on Israel and the Jews.
I don’t know whether its focus has moved towards dialogue and mutual understanding rather than overt evangelism.
My old mother-in-law was obsessed with Israel and the Jews in a kind of end-times Hal Lindsey type way that I'd associate more with some Brethren folk and Pentecostals than evangelical Anglicans.
She wasn't alone in that. I met an old lady of similar vintage last year who was equally obsessive about these things. Her family would change the subject whenever it came up, just as we did whenever my mother-in-law mentioned it.
It's impossible to speak of a standard or unified Protestant view as the approach will vary both across and within Protestant churches and denominations.
I recently heard of a fringe Pentecostal group that is very anti-Israel, perhaps as a reaction to the Zionism that tends to be apparent to a greater or lesser extent in those circles. The UK 'restorationists' of the 1970s-2000s were certainly critical of Israel and didn't subscribe to the sort of views my mother-in-law espoused.
They were a-millenial/post-millenial in their eschatology and so all the pre-millenial stuff which put a great emphasis on Israel didn't fit their particular schema.
Everyone thinks Cromwell was very enlightened permitting Jewish people to settle in England for the first time in centuries, which to some extent he was, but he thought they'd get converted and this would hasten the return of Christ.
True! I’m not sure there’s always a unified B62 approach. My personal touchstone is not to jump the gun. I regard that as common courtesy not to get in other people’s faces.
For me, the interesting point isn't about the precise details of how particular Christians or Christian groups interpret the concept of sharing one's faith, it's that the Roman Catholic Church has apparently accepted that Jews have a unique place in Christian theology and, particularly in relation to mission and evangelism, are to be treated differently from all other non-Christian people groups.
Has the Protestant mission to the Jews come to an end?
No, though my experience is that different Protestants handle it differently. I'm generally uncomfortable treating an entire ethnic or religious group like a "mission target."
That said, based on my experience with Jewish folks, the common history between Christianity and Judaism requires a certain tact in any conversation, "missionary" or otherwise. Of course, any time you want to talk to someone about their deeply-held religious beliefs, a certain tact is generally required. Every single person is a custom job, a revelation unto themselves.
"Target" is a lousy way of trying to describe the people with whom you want to share life-giving love anyway. It drives me nuts when I hear people using such terms in discussion of evangelism.
"Target" is a lousy way of trying to describe the people with whom you want to share life-giving love anyway. It drives me nuts when I hear people using such terms in discussion of evangelism.
On this thread, in relation to evangelism, the word "target" first appeared in the previously quoted words of the Chief Rabbi, of “the efforts of those Christians, however many they may number, who, as part of their faithful mission, dedicate themselves to the purposeful and specific targeting of Jews for conversion to Christianity”.
Not only is there no unified Protestant response to the question of mission to the Jews, there isn't even a unified Anglican response. I've been looking more closely at the CMJ, which Gamma Gamaliel mentioned above.
The CMJ is currently called The Church’s Ministry among Jewish People - it dropped the word "mission" some time ago. In 2020, CMJ published a study guide to God's Unfailing Word and produced a six-part youtube series that uses it (although the study guide itself doesn't appear to be available online). Their conclusion is that on “the most critical of all [issues]: is Jewish evangelism legitimate”, the report doesn't give a clear answer, while the CMJ remains unequivocal that it is. However, I see that they have been gradually removing the word "evangelism" from their description of what they do. A few years ago, their three-fold ministry was “Evangelism, Education, and Encouragement” but today it is “Engagement, Education and Encouragement & Support”.
They were a-millenial/post-millenial in their eschatology and so all the pre-millenial stuff which put a great emphasis on Israel didn't fit their particular schema.
…
Everyone thinks Cromwell was very enlightened permitting Jewish people to settle in England for the first time in centuries, which to some extent he was, but he thought they'd get converted and this would hasten the return of Christ.
Christian Zionism preceded Zionism amongst both secular and rabbinic Jews, and much of the initiative for this came from within the United Kingdom. Expectations of a national return of the Jews to their homeland, often called Restorationism, were widely held amongst the Puritans, also heralding greater tolerance and the gradual readmission of Jews to England.
Puritan teaching being typically postmillenial. As wikipedia points out, the shift to premillenial support came later. I was also intrigued to read that:
Jewish Christians like Joseph Frey, who founded the London Society for the Jews, Joseph Wolff, and two theologians Ridley Herschell and Philip Hirschfeld formed an important link between the earlier Restorationism of German Lutheran pietists and British evangelicals, and played a large part in galvanizing widespread evangelical support in the UK. Herschell founded the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Among the Jews (now known as the Christian Witness to Israel) and the Evangelical Alliance in 1845.
"Target" is a lousy way of trying to describe the people with whom you want to share life-giving love anyway. It drives me nuts when I hear people using such terms in discussion of evangelism.
Agreed! That's the attitude I've gotten from some wannabe evangelists, and it really turns me off.
I do understand why some churches treat "evangelism" like a dirty word, though I think there's something cowardly about reframing it as "engagement," almost passive aggressive. I suspect it amounts to the same thing.
Protestant attitudes to evangelism often remind me of attitudes to capitalism, and that protestant churches are in competition with each other, but that competition is often seen as being distasteful.
It could be argued that anything Protestant post-1830 or so was driven by a kind of capitalist competitive vibe. Look at all the non-conformist chapels throughout the South Wales Valleys and across the former mill-towns of West Yorkshire and you'll see the remains of religious competition.
'The Trealaw Methodists have built a church,
The front looks like an abbey.
But thinking they can fool the Lord,
They've left the back part shabby.'
Alas, none of us are immune.
An Orthodox priest I know says that the only reason we go banging on about how we're the 'oldest' Christian church is to use it as a marketing ploy.
And our claims are disputed of course. The Copts claim they're the oldest and were founded by St Mark.
Trouble is, we're all caught up I'm the capitalist system whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean we have to go in for 'targeting' and 'segmentation' and all the marketing malarkey though.
I've often thought that the Alpha course is a religious version of the 'sales-funnel' with prospects screened out at various stages in the process. That said, it has cottoned onto the key insight that most of us are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
Hmmm ...
All churches evangelise in one way or another. The 'e' word has sadly become associated with particular formulaic approaches and needs to be reclaimed.
Protestant attitudes to evangelism often remind me of attitudes to capitalism, and that protestant churches are in competition with each other, but that competition is often seen as being distasteful.
It strikes me that an awful lot of work is being required of “Protestant” here, with Protestantism being treated as a monolith.
It could be argued that anything Protestant post-1830 or so was driven by a kind of capitalist competitive vibe. Look at all the non-conformist chapels throughout the South Wales Valleys and across the former mill-towns of West Yorkshire and you'll see the remains of religious competition.
And it also seems to me that a very definite UK-centric lens is sometimes being used, or at least being assumed, as the norm or the default.
Of course, we all speak from what we know and are familiar with, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But problems arise when we assume or speak as though the norm we’re familiar with is the norm everywhere.
It could be argued that anything Protestant post-1830 or so was driven by a kind of capitalist competitive vibe. Look at all the non-conformist chapels throughout the South Wales Valleys and across the former mill-towns of West Yorkshire and you'll see the remains of religious competition.
And it also seems to me that a very definite UK-centric lens is sometimes being used, or at least being assumed, as the norm or the default.
Although I'm reasonably sure that one could create a similar narrative using the Burned Over District as illustration (I vaguely recall something by Christopher Lasch along those lines).
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
Agreed, Protestant Churches vary wildly from one to the other, and most of the shame around the word "evangelism" is a mainline liberal quirk. And in my experience, it's less about capitalism (though there's some of the embarrassment of having to engage in what is essentially crass marketing) and more about imperialism.
Evangelism is built on the presumption that we truly have God on our side, and for people who are historically literate, there's a truly horrifying history around that kind of thinking. So a lot of the more liberal side of the church are a little squeamish about carrying around that kind of outward confidence, even if we are faithful. And for historical reasons, carrying that kind of attitude around Jewish communities is especially off-putting.
I think evangelism is healthier in its ancient sense as a proclamation, which is the only honest sales pitch there is. You tell people the truth about who you are and what you're about and let them make their own honest decision. Try to lay off the manipulative BS (cheerfully acknowledging that atheists may regard the entire enterprise as a desiccated pile of manipulative BS.)
[Oh yes, and a professor at seminary noticed that some churches have a separate department for "mission" versus "evangelism." Evangelism is for "over here" people where the church is assumed to have cultural hegemony, while mission is for "over there" places where the church does not. He claimed that this was a vaguely-ethnocentric false dichotomy.]
I do find that odd, to have separate departments. I suppose they justify it by saying that students instinctively understand their own culture well enough that they need not study it? Not necessarily safe...
For what it's worth, I don't believe in disguising evangelism, or in using sales tactics, or love bombing, or anything that normal people would consider shady or a pressure tactic. The Gospel shouldn't and doesn't need that. I rather suspect the people who do resort to those tactics, do so because they don't want to pay the price of doing it the other way--that is, to put yourself out to love these people (really love them, yes) in action as you are invited and capable; to back off when people want you to back off; to answer honestly what is driving you, and what you have to share; to shut up when someone asks you to; to cheerfully accept that most of the people you care for sacrificially are going to disappear into the woodwork and you'll never see them again, and that's perfectly fine; and to make clear to the whole community that you ARE fine with it, and also fine with those same people coming back for a second helping if they need it, because this is not about getting a return on your investment, it's simply about loving.
Protestant attitudes to evangelism often remind me of attitudes to capitalism, and that protestant churches are in competition with each other, but that competition is often seen as being distasteful.
It strikes me that an awful lot of work is being required of “Protestant” here, with Protestantism being treated as a monolith.
Yes. And as far as the people on the receiving end of evangelism (or mission) are concerned, why shouldn't that be the case? Protestants, and Protestant churches, operate in a marketplace largely of our own making (even if it wasn't always intentional). I would like to see at least a little bit of ownership of that.
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
In the UK, Royal Mail is required to provide a universal service. I believe the same is true of the US Postal Service. Other providers exist, and compete in different places as they see fit. For many churches, in more-isolated areas, it's just about staying in business.
Agreed, Protestant Churches vary wildly from one to the other, and most of the shame around the word "evangelism" is a mainline liberal quirk. And in my experience, it's less about capitalism (though there's some of the embarrassment of having to engage in what is essentially crass marketing) and more about imperialism.
I don't see those two things as being unconnected. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica points out:
After years of rapid growth under free trade policy regimes, an international financial crisis hit much of the industrialized world in 1873. In response to the economic and social fallout of the crisis, states began taking a more proactive approach in managing their economic affairs.
which led to the “New Imperialism” of 1870‑1914 (the scramble for Africa and Asia), involving a shift (back) to state-guided capitalism.
I think evangelism is healthier in its ancient sense as a proclamation, which is the only honest sales pitch there is. You tell people the truth about who you are and what you're about and let them make their own honest decision. Try to lay off the manipulative BS (cheerfully acknowledging that atheists may regard the entire enterprise as a desiccated pile of manipulative BS.)
I have a long-held sympathy for the idea of evangelism as proclamation. With a more-recent proviso that it needs to be deemed off-limits for many parts of the world and people groups. There are already a number of countries where proclamation evangelism is banned or illegal (any distinction from proselytising not being relevant).
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
It does, but to take the original argument:
"It could be argued that anything Protestant post-1830 or so was driven by a kind of capitalist competitive vibe"
.. the general feeling among scholars of such things is that the absence of an established church - had if anything - intensified that dynamic. In market terms, de-regulating religion led to increased competition.
Protestant attitudes to evangelism often remind me of attitudes to capitalism, and that protestant churches are in competition with each other, but that competition is often seen as being distasteful.
It strikes me that an awful lot of work is being required of “Protestant” here, with Protestantism being treated as a monolith.
Yes. And as far as the people on the receiving end of evangelism (or mission) are concerned, why shouldn't that be the case?
Well, if that’s the yardstick being used, why limit it to Protestants? As far as people on the receiving end of evangelism or missionary are concerned, why shouldn’t all Christians be treated as a monolith?
Protestant denominations in the US have displayed a pretty wide variety of attitudes toward mission, including churches that don’t believe in doing it. (Historically, differences of opinion about doing any kind of mission work was a significant issue among American Baptists, which led to some Baptist groups being labeled “Missionary Baptists.”) Why shouldn’t those churches that historically didn’t do missionary work be lumped in with those that did just because they carry the label “Protestant”?
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
In the UK, Royal Mail is required to provide a universal service. I believe the same is true of the US Postal Service. Other providers exist, and compete in different places as they see fit. For many churches, in more-isolated areas, it's just about staying in business.
I’m afraid your point, particularly what this has to do with treating Protestants as a monolith, is lost on me.
And what does any of this have to do with the thread topic—Luther’s theology of the cross?
I think the evangelism tangent derived from a discussion about attitudes towards Judaism, which came up as we were discussing Luther's views/writings on that - as well as Christian attitudes more generally.
It probably warrants a new thread.
I think there is some relevance here though insofar as @Lamb Chopped has articulated what we might call a 'theology of the cross' approach to evangelism - ie. loving people rather than simply making a sales-pitch at them.
My comments about a capitalist style 'market-place' in religion is more a comment about capitalism than about religion in general or Protestantism in particular, although I would argue that various forms of Protestantism have been very much affected by this - both here in the UK and in the USA where much 'modern' style evangelism originated.
Heck, it's no accident that the leaders of what became the Primitive Methodist denomination here in the UK invited the quirky American evangelist Lorenzo Dow over to help them in the early 1800s.
The whole dispensationalist thing of the mid to late 1800s was very much a market-driven phenomenon. Moody & Sankey the same.
I did state that none of us are immune. The Copts here in the UK are very much engaged in social media for apologetics, proclamation and perhaps even proselytisation at the moment.
They are good at it.
Some popular and some fairly dubious Orthodox preachers and 'influencers' the same. Ok, we are having to unravel some of their influences among our enquier4s and catechumens but they wouldn't have darkened our doors in the first place if these guys weren't out there posting stuff.
I may start a new thread about evangelism and evangelisation and what that looks like in largely post-Christendom Western societies.
Meanwhile, please don't get the impression that I've got a monolithic view of Protestantism nir that I am singling Protestant traditions out for scrutiny or censure.
Some of the stuff I'm hearing about inter-jurisdictional rivalries and ethocentric issues within my own Big O Tradition makes me sick to my stomach. We all need the sort of approach @Lamb Chopped has outlined.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in disguising evangelism, or in using sales tactics, or love bombing, or anything that normal people would consider shady or a pressure tactic. The Gospel shouldn't and doesn't need that. I rather suspect the people who do resort to those tactics, do so because they don't want to pay the price of doing it the other way--that is, to put yourself out to love these people (really love them, yes) in action as you are invited and capable; to back off when people want you to back off; to answer honestly what is driving you, and what you have to share; to shut up when someone asks you to; to cheerfully accept that most of the people you care for sacrificially are going to disappear into the woodwork and you'll never see them again, and that's perfectly fine; and to make clear to the whole community that you ARE fine with it, and also fine with those same people coming back for a second helping if they need it, because this is not about getting a return on your investment, it's simply about loving.
Thanks, Lamb Chopped
What I've been thinking is that as long as wherever you are and to whoever you're talking, you're able to answer the question "do you want me to become a christian?" honestly, you should be fine. There are lots of places in this world where that isn't straightforward.
@pease : I fervently agree that capitalism and imperialism are connected. I just also note that they aren't the same thing, and the nuances are worth noting. Though it might be a parallel structure in the way that evangelistic practices are done in churches, and the way that different churches relate to the practice.
As a Christian I'm generally in favor of the practice. I don't think it's the same thing as proselytizing. That old saw about "when necessary, use words" is part of my praxis, but I do think it's very important to respect people's boundaries. I often feel offended when I see tract-passers or public proselytizers because they seem to me to be unprofessional and, frankly, insulting to their audience. Wannabe Pauls. I think kindness is more useful than arrogance.
I think there is some relevance here though insofar as @Lamb Chopped has articulated what we might call a 'theology of the cross' approach to evangelism - ie. loving people rather than simply making a sales-pitch at them.
My comments about a capitalist style 'market-place' in religion is more a comment about capitalism than about religion in general or Protestantism in particular, although I would argue that various forms of Protestantism have been very much affected by this - both here in the UK and in the USA where much 'modern' style evangelism originated.
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
In the UK, Royal Mail is required to provide a universal service. I believe the same is true of the US Postal Service. Other providers exist, and compete in different places as they see fit. For many churches, in more-isolated areas, it's just about staying in business.
I’m afraid your point, particularly what this has to do with treating Protestants as a monolith, is lost on me.
Apologies - there are at least a couple of overlapping points hiding in there. One is that the dynamic doesn't seem very different to me. Another is that the US might not have a state church or state religion, but it does have "protestant privilege". For example, from wikipedia on Christian Privilege:
In the United States, White mainstream Protestant denominations have greater degrees of privilege than minority Christian denominations. Such minority denominations include African American churches, Christian Hispanics and Latinos, Amish people, Mennonite, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Christian scientists, Mormons, and in some instances, Catholics.
…
The religious majority in the U.S. has historically been adherents of mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often assume that their values and standard apply equally to others.
…
Thus, Christian hegemony helps to maintain the marginality of other religions and beliefs. According to Beaman, "the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reflected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the 'normal'"
And what does any of this have to do with the thread topic—Luther’s theology of the cross?
Maybe it's another topic, but I think the question of the hiddenness of God is broader (and rather older) than Luther's theology. When Christians look at the Cross, they see God. What is the truth of which Christians are witnesses, to which Christians testify?
Yes @chrisstiles but I find the neo-Calvinism of that Westminster Seminary site equally as distasteful. I used to be something of a fan of the Puritans until I started reading them ...
More seriously, no I'm not dismissing the Reformed tradition per se but I find all that 'condemned criminals' rhetoric equally as irritating as Osteen's self-help gospel of having a wonderful stress-free life ...
Not that I am dismissing traditional concepts of Heaven and Hell necessarily nor saying that we aren't all helpless sinners in need of a Saviour. We are.
Similar, but with differences. If nothing else, having an established church in some places and no established church other places makes the dynamic different.
In the UK, Royal Mail is required to provide a universal service. I believe the same is true of the US Postal Service. Other providers exist, and compete in different places as they see fit. For many churches, in more-isolated areas, it's just about staying in business.
I’m afraid your point, particularly what this has to do with treating Protestants as a monolith, is lost on me.
Apologies - there are at least a couple of overlapping points hiding in there. One is that the dynamic doesn't seem very different to me. Another is that the US might not have a state church or state religion, but it does have "protestant privilege". For example, from wikipedia on Christian Privilege:
In the United States, White mainstream Protestant denominations have greater degrees of privilege than minority Christian denominations. Such minority denominations include African American churches, Christian Hispanics and Latinos, Amish people, Mennonite, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Christian scientists, Mormons, and in some instances, Catholics.
…
The religious majority in the U.S. has historically been adherents of mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often assume that their values and standard apply equally to others.
…
Thus, Christian hegemony helps to maintain the marginality of other religions and beliefs. According to Beaman, "the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reflected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the 'normal'"
And what does any of this have to do with the thread topic—Luther’s theology of the cross?
Maybe it's another topic, but I think the question of the hiddenness of God is broader (and rather older) than Luther's theology. When Christians look at the Cross, they see God. What is the truth of which Christians are witnesses, to which Christians testify?
We are witnesses to the fact that the holy and frankly terrifying God, who demands righteousness from us, and doesn't get it, and our own hearts secretly or not-so-secretly agree with him that we ought to be that way, and aren't;
that THIS God, out of pure love and mercy, has given himself into death on our behalf, as the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ; who also rose from the dead, thus confirming that everything he told us is true, and promising to raise us also from the dead at his second coming; having done all of this out of nothing but lovingkindness to us;
so that we might be reconciled to him, adopted as his children, brought near to him in peace, and in the end, completely remade in his own image as the fully human, joyful, righteous and loving human beings we were always meant to be;
And that he offers this reconciliation to everybody who will take it; and has ordained that those who DO take it should share it with those around them, so that as many people as possible may benefit from it.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in disguising evangelism, or in using sales tactics, or love bombing, or anything that normal people would consider shady or a pressure tactic. The Gospel shouldn't and doesn't need that. I rather suspect the people who do resort to those tactics, do so because they don't want to pay the price of doing it the other way--that is, to put yourself out to love these people (really love them, yes) in action as you are invited and capable; to back off when people want you to back off; to answer honestly what is driving you, and what you have to share; to shut up when someone asks you to; to cheerfully accept that most of the people you care for sacrificially are going to disappear into the woodwork and you'll never see them again, and that's perfectly fine; and to make clear to the whole community that you ARE fine with it, and also fine with those same people coming back for a second helping if they need it, because this is not about getting a return on your investment, it's simply about loving.
Thanks, Lamb Chopped
What I've been thinking is that as long as wherever you are and to whoever you're talking, you're able to answer the question "do you want me to become a christian?" honestly, you should be fine. There are lots of places in this world where that isn't straightforward.
Certainly we ought to be able to answer that question honestly. In my case, it would be always Yes! But if you tell me to go away, I will. We never ever see Christ getting pushy about this.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. If you're referring to places where it's dangerous to share the Gospel, I would hold that it's still necessary to tell the truth if someone asks you; and that's how people get martyred.
I'm afraid that I disagree with you. I would not say that we are witnesses to a set of facts. It isn't knowing these facts that makes us witnesses, it is having witnessed God's outworking. We are witnesses to what God has done in our lives.
We may, or may not, be called to testify - either way, we are, and continue to be, witnesses to what God has done (or has not done) in our lives. The truth of our witness is not in what we say, it is in how we live.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. If you're referring to places where it's dangerous to share the Gospel, I would hold that it's still necessary to tell the truth if someone asks you; and that's how people get martyred.
Yes. I had in mind that there are places in the world where answering that question honestly can get you deported, imprisoned or beheaded. I think the question is the point at which travelling to these places, intentionally going where these things can happen, becomes desiring martyrdom.
Well, then you probably won't get on with Luther either (wscal tends to lean in a wider reformed direction).
I've said on these boards before, I'd be more than happy to quaff a pint or two with Luther.
I'm sure he'd be convivial company.
I'm sure there'd be a lot of overlap on certain views/emphases.
There would almost certainly come a point though when I'd have to do what Patriarch Jeremias II did when Melanchton kept writing.
'Ahem ... learned Germans, I think this conversation has gone far enough now. Don't call us, we'll call you ...' 😉
Or words to that effect.
Or more accurately. 'Look, you've gone a bit too far. I don’t really want to discuss these matters any more but if you want to drop us a line every now and then out of fraternal goof will then by all means do so ...' 😉
From an Orthodox point of view Luther's fine up to a point and the 'theology of the cross' is exemplary and admirable but we'd see him as going to the opposite extreme to Pelagius and going overly Augustinian on things.
That wouldn't stop us having a pint with him but with one eye on our watches. 'Ummm ... must keep an eye on the time, Martin. We've got a bus to catch and a Matins service early tomorrow. Catch you some other time, eh?'
I'm afraid that I disagree with you. I would not say that we are witnesses to a set of facts. It isn't knowing these facts that makes us witnesses, it is having witnessed God's outworking. We are witnesses to what God has done in our lives.
We may, or may not, be called to testify - either way, we are, and continue to be, witnesses to what God has done (or has not done) in our lives. The truth of our witness is not in what we say, it is in how we live.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. If you're referring to places where it's dangerous to share the Gospel, I would hold that it's still necessary to tell the truth if someone asks you; and that's how people get martyred.
Yes. I had in mind that there are places in the world where answering that question honestly can get you deported, imprisoned or beheaded. I think the question is the point at which travelling to these places, intentionally going where these things can happen, becomes desiring martyrdom.
But I'd say being "witnesses to God's working in our lives" is in fact witnessing to facts, just a different set of them. As for "desiring martyrdom," there are certainly some half-baked folks who seem to do that, but that's not the majority of folks I know who have concerns about proclaiming the Gospel in dangerous places. They use common sense, and creativity, and they don't lie. And that's about as much as I ought to say on the internet about that.
I'm afraid that I disagree with you. I would not say that we are witnesses to a set of facts. It isn't knowing these facts that makes us witnesses, it is having witnessed God's outworking. We are witnesses to what God has done in our lives.
We may, or may not, be called to testify - either way, we are, and continue to be, witnesses to what God has done (or has not done) in our lives. The truth of our witness is not in what we say, it is in how we live.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. If you're referring to places where it's dangerous to share the Gospel, I would hold that it's still necessary to tell the truth if someone asks you; and that's how people get martyred.
Yes. I had in mind that there are places in the world where answering that question honestly can get you deported, imprisoned or beheaded. I think the question is the point at which travelling to these places, intentionally going where these things can happen, becomes desiring martyrdom.
But I'd say being "witnesses to God's working in our lives" is in fact witnessing to facts, just a different set of them. As for "desiring martyrdom," there are certainly some ⁷half-baked folks who seem to do that, but that's not the majority of folks I know who have concerns about proclaiming the Gospel in dangerous places. They use common sense, and creativity, and they don't lie. And that's about as much as I ought to say on the internet about that.
Indeed and I'm sure most of those who take such risks do so with their eyes open and due care and precaution and not some kindvof vainglorious martyr complex.
There were early canons I think against those who deliberately courted martyrdom.
Then there was 'white martydom' of course rather than the 'red martydom' of blood.
To some extent or other we are all called to be 'martyrs' - witnesses. Heck, in Orthodoxy marriage is seen as a form of martyrdom, which leads to many jokes of course - insofar as each partner lays down their life for the other as it were.
… But I'd say being "witnesses to God's working in our lives" is in fact witnessing to facts, just a different set of them.
I think there's something to that, but would say that the distinction is more fundamental.
I would describe the facts, as you outlined them, as a theological explanation. Just here on these forums, we see a wide variety of differing, competing and even mutually-exclusive theological explanations of the truth. The accuracy of these facts doesn't in practice seem to make much difference to the lives that people live. And some Christians carry around very little in the way of theological explanation for their faith at all (which seems to me to be predicated on a certain level and type of education).
Meanwhile, the facts of our lives are of a different nature - for example, all the pain (including the real physical and mental pain) that we deal with on a daily basis, and our unspoken attitudes and lived responses to it.
Also (in relation to BroJames point), I am aware of a disconnect between what I say and how I live. These days, I don't see this being about integrity, but about how our understanding of ourselves, our human self-awareness, is determined and manipulated by the societal norms (and maybe even social constructs) that are embedded in the spoken and written languages that we use.
Overall, in relation to being witnesses of God, I find that what we say about our lives is often rather less convincing in relation to the truth about God than than how we live our lives.
It's not all about theological niceties and educational levels of course. Otherwise we wouldn't have a movement spread by fishermen and ordinary bods, nor would there be any scope for children or people with learning difficulties etc etc.
There's always going to be a gap between our best intentions and our capacity to carry them out - 'but he gives more grace.'
As Samuel Beckett said about writing, whenever we write we fail. But next time we fail better.
… But I'd say being "witnesses to God's working in our lives" is in fact witnessing to facts, just a different set of them.
I think there's something to that, but would say that the distinction is more fundamental.
I would describe the facts, as you outlined them, as a theological explanation. Just here on these forums, we see a wide variety of differing, competing and even mutually-exclusive theological explanations of the truth. The accuracy of these facts doesn't in practice seem to make much difference to the lives that people live. And some Christians carry around very little in the way of theological explanation for their faith at all (which seems to me to be predicated on a certain level and type of education).
Meanwhile, the facts of our lives are of a different nature - for example, all the pain (including the real physical and mental pain) that we deal with on a daily basis, and our unspoken attitudes and lived responses to it.
Also (in relation to BroJames point), I am aware of a disconnect between what I say and how I live. These days, I don't see this being about integrity, but about how our understanding of ourselves, our human self-awareness, is determined and manipulated by the societal norms (and maybe even social constructs) that are embedded in the spoken and written languages that we use.
Overall, in relation to being witnesses of God, I find that what we say about our lives is often rather less convincing in relation to the truth about God than than how we live our lives.
'Twas ever so...
We've got several problems here, and no good way to fix them.
The first, I suppose, is that there's no good way of sussing out the genuine Christian believers from the hypocrites (begging your pardon for the language!). Anybody can claim that name, and nobody else can stop them--and that's just as well, we don't need the name police coming around and trying to fix it, it'd just make everything worse. But it does mean that we get some people who are absolute nutcases--or just plain horrifying, like certain Individuals in Trump's administration--who soil the name of Christ by their behavior. And there's no way to stop that.
As far as people on board the Ship go, we have no good way of telling whether someone (like me!) might be a liar and a hypocrite either. I think only two Shipmates have ever met me in real life, and one is with the Lord. Theoretically I could be pulling a "Curious Buddhist" on you all, and talking like a Lutheran while living like a shit. And how would you know?
As for those Christians anywhere, in real life or on the Ship, who lead exemplary lives but get tongue-tied when asked to "give a reason for the hope that is in them"--well, I think that was most of us, at a certain stage of our lives, and a lot of us stop there. And that's okay, not everybody is called to be overly-fluent.
But all these facts mean that we're never going to be able to prove anything by trying to correlate theological statements with life outcomes. And I don't intend to try.
Unless Shipmates are inveterate liars, I think it's possible to tell those who are at least trying their best as it were - flawed though we all are.
That doesn't make those who are struggling to live out the Christian life any 'better' or morally superior in any way to those who aren't or who follow their own convictions in whatever way they can in whatever direction they choose.
It's not for any of us to judge.
But we all do ... Lord have mercy!
To our own Master any ofvus stand or fall.
We can't speculate but I remember an RC priest observing that for all we know the 'rich young ruler' could have been present on the Day of Pentecost or else was obedient later on in life. We don’t know.
Comments
Has the Protestant mission to the Jews come to an end?
You'll find everything and anything between full-on Zionism to initiatives that specifically target Jewish people for evangelism to views similar to those expressed by the Vatican - and all stations in between.
My late mother-in-law used to subscribe to the CMJ newsletter - Church Mission To The Jews - an Anglican agency with a particular focus on Israel and the Jews.
I don’t know whether its focus has moved towards dialogue and mutual understanding rather than overt evangelism.
My old mother-in-law was obsessed with Israel and the Jews in a kind of end-times Hal Lindsey type way that I'd associate more with some Brethren folk and Pentecostals than evangelical Anglicans.
She wasn't alone in that. I met an old lady of similar vintage last year who was equally obsessive about these things. Her family would change the subject whenever it came up, just as we did whenever my mother-in-law mentioned it.
It's impossible to speak of a standard or unified Protestant view as the approach will vary both across and within Protestant churches and denominations.
I recently heard of a fringe Pentecostal group that is very anti-Israel, perhaps as a reaction to the Zionism that tends to be apparent to a greater or lesser extent in those circles. The UK 'restorationists' of the 1970s-2000s were certainly critical of Israel and didn't subscribe to the sort of views my mother-in-law espoused.
They were a-millenial/post-millenial in their eschatology and so all the pre-millenial stuff which put a great emphasis on Israel didn't fit their particular schema.
Everyone thinks Cromwell was very enlightened permitting Jewish people to settle in England for the first time in centuries, which to some extent he was, but he thought they'd get converted and this would hasten the return of Christ.
True! I’m not sure there’s always a unified B62 approach. My personal touchstone is not to jump the gun. I regard that as common courtesy not to get in other people’s faces.
No, though my experience is that different Protestants handle it differently. I'm generally uncomfortable treating an entire ethnic or religious group like a "mission target."
That said, based on my experience with Jewish folks, the common history between Christianity and Judaism requires a certain tact in any conversation, "missionary" or otherwise. Of course, any time you want to talk to someone about their deeply-held religious beliefs, a certain tact is generally required. Every single person is a custom job, a revelation unto themselves.
Agreed.
Not only is there no unified Protestant response to the question of mission to the Jews, there isn't even a unified Anglican response. I've been looking more closely at the CMJ, which Gamma Gamaliel mentioned above.
The CMJ is currently called The Church’s Ministry among Jewish People - it dropped the word "mission" some time ago. In 2020, CMJ published a study guide to God's Unfailing Word and produced a six-part youtube series that uses it (although the study guide itself doesn't appear to be available online). Their conclusion is that on “the most critical of all [issues]: is Jewish evangelism legitimate”, the report doesn't give a clear answer, while the CMJ remains unequivocal that it is. However, I see that they have been gradually removing the word "evangelism" from their description of what they do. A few years ago, their three-fold ministry was “Evangelism, Education, and Encouragement” but today it is “Engagement, Education and Encouragement & Support”.
Agreed! That's the attitude I've gotten from some wannabe evangelists, and it really turns me off.
'The Trealaw Methodists have built a church,
The front looks like an abbey.
But thinking they can fool the Lord,
They've left the back part shabby.'
Alas, none of us are immune.
An Orthodox priest I know says that the only reason we go banging on about how we're the 'oldest' Christian church is to use it as a marketing ploy.
And our claims are disputed of course. The Copts claim they're the oldest and were founded by St Mark.
Trouble is, we're all caught up I'm the capitalist system whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean we have to go in for 'targeting' and 'segmentation' and all the marketing malarkey though.
I've often thought that the Alpha course is a religious version of the 'sales-funnel' with prospects screened out at various stages in the process. That said, it has cottoned onto the key insight that most of us are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
Hmmm ...
All churches evangelise in one way or another. The 'e' word has sadly become associated with particular formulaic approaches and needs to be reclaimed.
And it also seems to me that a very definite UK-centric lens is sometimes being used, or at least being assumed, as the norm or the default.
Of course, we all speak from what we know and are familiar with, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But problems arise when we assume or speak as though the norm we’re familiar with is the norm everywhere.
Although I'm reasonably sure that one could create a similar narrative using the Burned Over District as illustration (I vaguely recall something by Christopher Lasch along those lines).
Evangelism is built on the presumption that we truly have God on our side, and for people who are historically literate, there's a truly horrifying history around that kind of thinking. So a lot of the more liberal side of the church are a little squeamish about carrying around that kind of outward confidence, even if we are faithful. And for historical reasons, carrying that kind of attitude around Jewish communities is especially off-putting.
I think evangelism is healthier in its ancient sense as a proclamation, which is the only honest sales pitch there is. You tell people the truth about who you are and what you're about and let them make their own honest decision. Try to lay off the manipulative BS (cheerfully acknowledging that atheists may regard the entire enterprise as a desiccated pile of manipulative BS.)
[Oh yes, and a professor at seminary noticed that some churches have a separate department for "mission" versus "evangelism." Evangelism is for "over here" people where the church is assumed to have cultural hegemony, while mission is for "over there" places where the church does not. He claimed that this was a vaguely-ethnocentric false dichotomy.]
For what it's worth, I don't believe in disguising evangelism, or in using sales tactics, or love bombing, or anything that normal people would consider shady or a pressure tactic. The Gospel shouldn't and doesn't need that. I rather suspect the people who do resort to those tactics, do so because they don't want to pay the price of doing it the other way--that is, to put yourself out to love these people (really love them, yes) in action as you are invited and capable; to back off when people want you to back off; to answer honestly what is driving you, and what you have to share; to shut up when someone asks you to; to cheerfully accept that most of the people you care for sacrificially are going to disappear into the woodwork and you'll never see them again, and that's perfectly fine; and to make clear to the whole community that you ARE fine with it, and also fine with those same people coming back for a second helping if they need it, because this is not about getting a return on your investment, it's simply about loving.
In the UK, Royal Mail is required to provide a universal service. I believe the same is true of the US Postal Service. Other providers exist, and compete in different places as they see fit. For many churches, in more-isolated areas, it's just about staying in business.
I don't see those two things as being unconnected. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica points out: which led to the “New Imperialism” of 1870‑1914 (the scramble for Africa and Asia), involving a shift (back) to state-guided capitalism.
I have a long-held sympathy for the idea of evangelism as proclamation. With a more-recent proviso that it needs to be deemed off-limits for many parts of the world and people groups. There are already a number of countries where proclamation evangelism is banned or illegal (any distinction from proselytising not being relevant).
It does, but to take the original argument:
"It could be argued that anything Protestant post-1830 or so was driven by a kind of capitalist competitive vibe"
.. the general feeling among scholars of such things is that the absence of an established church - had if anything - intensified that dynamic. In market terms, de-regulating religion led to increased competition.
Protestant denominations in the US have displayed a pretty wide variety of attitudes toward mission, including churches that don’t believe in doing it. (Historically, differences of opinion about doing any kind of mission work was a significant issue among American Baptists, which led to some Baptist groups being labeled “Missionary Baptists.”) Why shouldn’t those churches that historically didn’t do missionary work be lumped in with those that did just because they carry the label “Protestant”?
I’m afraid your point, particularly what this has to do with treating Protestants as a monolith, is lost on me.
And what does any of this have to do with the thread topic—Luther’s theology of the cross?
It probably warrants a new thread.
I think there is some relevance here though insofar as @Lamb Chopped has articulated what we might call a 'theology of the cross' approach to evangelism - ie. loving people rather than simply making a sales-pitch at them.
My comments about a capitalist style 'market-place' in religion is more a comment about capitalism than about religion in general or Protestantism in particular, although I would argue that various forms of Protestantism have been very much affected by this - both here in the UK and in the USA where much 'modern' style evangelism originated.
Heck, it's no accident that the leaders of what became the Primitive Methodist denomination here in the UK invited the quirky American evangelist Lorenzo Dow over to help them in the early 1800s.
The whole dispensationalist thing of the mid to late 1800s was very much a market-driven phenomenon. Moody & Sankey the same.
I did state that none of us are immune. The Copts here in the UK are very much engaged in social media for apologetics, proclamation and perhaps even proselytisation at the moment.
They are good at it.
Some popular and some fairly dubious Orthodox preachers and 'influencers' the same. Ok, we are having to unravel some of their influences among our enquier4s and catechumens but they wouldn't have darkened our doors in the first place if these guys weren't out there posting stuff.
I may start a new thread about evangelism and evangelisation and what that looks like in largely post-Christendom Western societies.
Meanwhile, please don't get the impression that I've got a monolithic view of Protestantism nir that I am singling Protestant traditions out for scrutiny or censure.
Some of the stuff I'm hearing about inter-jurisdictional rivalries and ethocentric issues within my own Big O Tradition makes me sick to my stomach. We all need the sort of approach @Lamb Chopped has outlined.
What I've been thinking is that as long as wherever you are and to whoever you're talking, you're able to answer the question "do you want me to become a christian?" honestly, you should be fine. There are lots of places in this world where that isn't straightforward.
As a Christian I'm generally in favor of the practice. I don't think it's the same thing as proselytizing. That old saw about "when necessary, use words" is part of my praxis, but I do think it's very important to respect people's boundaries. I often feel offended when I see tract-passers or public proselytizers because they seem to me to be unprofessional and, frankly, insulting to their audience. Wannabe Pauls. I think kindness is more useful than arrogance.
There's certainly a way in which much of modern evangelicalism can be seen as a variant on 'the glory story', aka https://www.wscal.edu/resources/article/joel-osteen-and-the-glory-story/
More seriously, no I'm not dismissing the Reformed tradition per se but I find all that 'condemned criminals' rhetoric equally as irritating as Osteen's self-help gospel of having a wonderful stress-free life ...
Not that I am dismissing traditional concepts of Heaven and Hell necessarily nor saying that we aren't all helpless sinners in need of a Saviour. We are.
Time for the new thread I think ...
We are witnesses to the fact that the holy and frankly terrifying God, who demands righteousness from us, and doesn't get it, and our own hearts secretly or not-so-secretly agree with him that we ought to be that way, and aren't;
that THIS God, out of pure love and mercy, has given himself into death on our behalf, as the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ; who also rose from the dead, thus confirming that everything he told us is true, and promising to raise us also from the dead at his second coming; having done all of this out of nothing but lovingkindness to us;
so that we might be reconciled to him, adopted as his children, brought near to him in peace, and in the end, completely remade in his own image as the fully human, joyful, righteous and loving human beings we were always meant to be;
And that he offers this reconciliation to everybody who will take it; and has ordained that those who DO take it should share it with those around them, so that as many people as possible may benefit from it.
Certainly we ought to be able to answer that question honestly. In my case, it would be always Yes! But if you tell me to go away, I will. We never ever see Christ getting pushy about this.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. If you're referring to places where it's dangerous to share the Gospel, I would hold that it's still necessary to tell the truth if someone asks you; and that's how people get martyred.
I'm afraid that I disagree with you. I would not say that we are witnesses to a set of facts. It isn't knowing these facts that makes us witnesses, it is having witnessed God's outworking. We are witnesses to what God has done in our lives.
We may, or may not, be called to testify - either way, we are, and continue to be, witnesses to what God has done (or has not done) in our lives. The truth of our witness is not in what we say, it is in how we live.
Yes. I had in mind that there are places in the world where answering that question honestly can get you deported, imprisoned or beheaded. I think the question is the point at which travelling to these places, intentionally going where these things can happen, becomes desiring martyrdom.
I think that is a false dichotomy. It is about both, and about an integrity between those elements.
I've said on these boards before, I'd be more than happy to quaff a pint or two with Luther.
I'm sure he'd be convivial company.
I'm sure there'd be a lot of overlap on certain views/emphases.
There would almost certainly come a point though when I'd have to do what Patriarch Jeremias II did when Melanchton kept writing.
'Ahem ... learned Germans, I think this conversation has gone far enough now. Don't call us, we'll call you ...'
Or words to that effect.
Or more accurately. 'Look, you've gone a bit too far. I don’t really want to discuss these matters any more but if you want to drop us a line every now and then out of fraternal goof will then by all means do so ...' 😉
From an Orthodox point of view Luther's fine up to a point and the 'theology of the cross' is exemplary and admirable but we'd see him as going to the opposite extreme to Pelagius and going overly Augustinian on things.
That wouldn't stop us having a pint with him but with one eye on our watches. 'Ummm ... must keep an eye on the time, Martin. We've got a bus to catch and a Matins service early tomorrow. Catch you some other time, eh?'
Dang that predictive text.
I meant 'fraternal good-will.'
I was specifically referring to the context of topic of this thread; that's a fairly Heidelbergian piece from Horton.
But I'd say being "witnesses to God's working in our lives" is in fact witnessing to facts, just a different set of them. As for "desiring martyrdom," there are certainly some half-baked folks who seem to do that, but that's not the majority of folks I know who have concerns about proclaiming the Gospel in dangerous places. They use common sense, and creativity, and they don't lie. And that's about as much as I ought to say on the internet about that.
'This inland sea having discovered well
A cellar-gulf where one might sail to hell
From Heidelberg ...'
John Donne Upon Mr Coryat's Crudities.
From Horton, Hell and Heidelberg, good Lord deliver us! 😉
Doesn't stop me quaffing a pint or two with Luther, doffing my cap politely to Calvin or standing Horton a round in Heidelberg.
'Ein stein Herr Horton?'
Indeed and I'm sure most of those who take such risks do so with their eyes open and due care and precaution and not some kindvof vainglorious martyr complex.
There were early canons I think against those who deliberately courted martyrdom.
Then there was 'white martydom' of course rather than the 'red martydom' of blood.
To some extent or other we are all called to be 'martyrs' - witnesses. Heck, in Orthodoxy marriage is seen as a form of martyrdom, which leads to many jokes of course - insofar as each partner lays down their life for the other as it were.
I would describe the facts, as you outlined them, as a theological explanation. Just here on these forums, we see a wide variety of differing, competing and even mutually-exclusive theological explanations of the truth. The accuracy of these facts doesn't in practice seem to make much difference to the lives that people live. And some Christians carry around very little in the way of theological explanation for their faith at all (which seems to me to be predicated on a certain level and type of education).
Meanwhile, the facts of our lives are of a different nature - for example, all the pain (including the real physical and mental pain) that we deal with on a daily basis, and our unspoken attitudes and lived responses to it.
Also (in relation to BroJames point), I am aware of a disconnect between what I say and how I live. These days, I don't see this being about integrity, but about how our understanding of ourselves, our human self-awareness, is determined and manipulated by the societal norms (and maybe even social constructs) that are embedded in the spoken and written languages that we use.
Overall, in relation to being witnesses of God, I find that what we say about our lives is often rather less convincing in relation to the truth about God than than how we live our lives.
It's not all about theological niceties and educational levels of course. Otherwise we wouldn't have a movement spread by fishermen and ordinary bods, nor would there be any scope for children or people with learning difficulties etc etc.
There's always going to be a gap between our best intentions and our capacity to carry them out - 'but he gives more grace.'
As Samuel Beckett said about writing, whenever we write we fail. But next time we fail better.
'Twas ever so...
We've got several problems here, and no good way to fix them.
The first, I suppose, is that there's no good way of sussing out the genuine Christian believers from the hypocrites (begging your pardon for the language!). Anybody can claim that name, and nobody else can stop them--and that's just as well, we don't need the name police coming around and trying to fix it, it'd just make everything worse. But it does mean that we get some people who are absolute nutcases--or just plain horrifying, like certain Individuals in Trump's administration--who soil the name of Christ by their behavior. And there's no way to stop that.
As far as people on board the Ship go, we have no good way of telling whether someone (like me!) might be a liar and a hypocrite either. I think only two Shipmates have ever met me in real life, and one is with the Lord. Theoretically I could be pulling a "Curious Buddhist" on you all, and talking like a Lutheran while living like a shit. And how would you know?
As for those Christians anywhere, in real life or on the Ship, who lead exemplary lives but get tongue-tied when asked to "give a reason for the hope that is in them"--well, I think that was most of us, at a certain stage of our lives, and a lot of us stop there. And that's okay, not everybody is called to be overly-fluent.
But all these facts mean that we're never going to be able to prove anything by trying to correlate theological statements with life outcomes. And I don't intend to try.
That doesn't make those who are struggling to live out the Christian life any 'better' or morally superior in any way to those who aren't or who follow their own convictions in whatever way they can in whatever direction they choose.
It's not for any of us to judge.
But we all do ... Lord have mercy!
To our own Master any ofvus stand or fall.
We can't speculate but I remember an RC priest observing that for all we know the 'rich young ruler' could have been present on the Day of Pentecost or else was obedient later on in life. We don’t know.