To Evangelize The Barbarians of Today? hmm

"you will be my witnesses...to the ends of the earth" 

Acts 1:8 
"I have experienced this in others and in myself, for I walked not in the way of righteousness. … But the Almighty God, who sits in the court of heaven, granted what I did not deserve."

I once saw this TV commercial by one credit card company lets go nameless, a couple is making a purchase in a shopping center. When the clerk tells how much it will cost, the woman says she will pay the bill with her credit card. Suddenly hordes of barbarians begin surging into the store. They run down the store aisles yelling, with weapons drawn, toward the couple making the credit card purchase. The point of the ad is that making yourself liable to the finance charges on credit cards is like bringing on the barbarians. One quick scene in the ad gives us a spiritual metaphor. As the barbarians charge past one store clerk at the perfume counter, she sprays perfume on them.

Trying to civilize a horde of bloodthirsty barbarians, to get rid of their foul aroma, with a few squirts of perfume, is what we are doing when we hope to transform sinners by squirting them with religion. Religion cannot change the barbarian at the heart of every person. Only a relationship with Christ brings the soul conversion that changes a sinner into a saint.

In a time of war, everything seems to hinge on The Now. But more than ever, it is really a time when we must be in touch with our history—especially, our sacred history. So let me entertain you with some my thoughts of the past as well as Today.

The ancient Greeks had called all people outside of Greek culture "barbarians." By around A.D. 400 a number of people outside the Greco-Roman sphere of influence were causing panic in those bastions of Mediterranean civilization. Through a series of barbarian invasions. it looked as though a number of "uncivilized.""uncultured" peoples were going to conquer the heartlands of civilization. Although significant pagan invasions had occurred as early as A.D. 250 in parts of the Roman Empire, it was a century or so later that their fuller power was to be felt. In 410 Rome was sacked by the Visigoths under Alaric. Ironically, Alaric the "barbarian" was actually a Christian of sorts, although with significant theological distortions because of the influence of the Arians. Alaric sparred Rome more than any sheer pagan would have done. In 455 a Vandal raid sacked Rome. Meanwhile, much of Europe was being overrun by tribes from the north and west. Later came other groups. Europe was in a state of siege for more than a millennium!

The holy Spirit, always calling us to spread the Word of God, would not let his Church rest on its new position of governmental favor without a challenge. A stimulus in obeying that call of Christ was the fact that all kinds of people at the "ends" of the known world were pressing toward the center...toward Rome itself. (The Church at least when listening to the prompting of the Holy Spirit) was vividly reminded that other people needed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes Christianity was blamed for the Fall of Rome. Some pagans said the problem was the rejection of ancestral Roman gods and goddesses. Bishop Augustine of Hippo probably the most influential theologian of the first millennium of the Christian Church, countered the pagans' Fall of Rome accusation in his book The City of God.

The Christian challenge was two fold. On the one hand was a basic reaction when under attack...to seek survival...with as much intact (basic necessities, property, culture, etc) as possible. More important to the Church at its best was the challenge to reach out and risk by spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to new people. To great degree, Christians whose lands were targets of conquest managed in the end to "conquer" the conquerors with the power of the Gospel. One factor that aided this immensely was the Churches increase in organization and cultural and political influence. God used that to impress the barbarians. The way to peoples' hearts was often through the heart of their king, and it took Christians of some societal standing to confront and conquer kingly hearts.

In the eleventh century, a new Islamic people of Turkish background took the Holy Land, and Christian pilgrims found it increasingly difficult to get to Jerusalem without being robbed or jailed. Around 1095, Pope Urbann II proclaimed a crusade to retake the Holy Land by force, promising benefits in the life to come for those who fought the Turks. Volunteers poured in, for various reasons. In addition to the eternal benefits and spiritual zeal, motives included the thirst for adventure and military glory, a good excuse to leave home and see the world, and personal material gain from pillage, etc. There were several Crusades between 1095 and 1291. Most of them were military losses... and nearly always spiritual failures. Although Christians did capture Jerusalem in 1099, they lost it in 1187. Crusaders regained control of some parts of the Holy Land c. 1200, but not Jerusalem. Some of the Crusades became totally twisted, with Christians even fighting Christians at times! Others were pathetic, like the Children's Crusades.

Results of the Crusades, long-term, were not totally bad, however. At least there had been some kind of meeting of East and West, and people became more acquainted with other nationalities. Christians became more aware of non-Christians at a time when they were otherwise in danger of becoming far too parochial. Christian churches of East and West (there had been a massive split in 1054) got to know each other better. However, the chief learnings were negative...how not to defend the faith.

My lasting lessons for the Crusade is, "Don't try to convert people by the sword!." Perhaps the "crusader spirit" could be used in non-military ways. Christians still need to respond to other religions, but not by military might. However, the spirit engendered by the Crusades could perhaps be transferred to non-violent evangelistic ends. Impacts include:

• A tendency to view Church authority with skepticism, particularly when we smell an abuse of power
  • For me, personally, this is why I tend to lean on the words of Scripture, which never changes, as opposed to blindly following religious teachings without asking questions if it goes against scripture.
• A cadre of anti-theists, who object to Christianity, among other reasons, on the basis of the fact that the Inquisition happened. 
• A rise in atheism, anti-theism, antireligion, and other beliefs based on the assumption that since the Inquisition(s) were perpetrated by "Christians" that Christianity supports such atrocities. 
  • It doesn't. At least not if you believe that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies as well as our neighbors
  • I also personally think that just because these officials were self-described Christians, their actions show that they had no idea what it means to be a Christian.
• Christians that are stronger in their views of the importance of God's commandment to love our neighbors (and our enemies) because we have such a stellar (if horrific) example of how not to treat those who disagree with us. 
• Christians and non-Christians alike that are better educated and on guard against such abuses, because as long as human nature is what it it, it could happen again if we're not vigilant. 
  • Unfortunately, this isn't the majority. Just like all other generations, we think we're so much more enlightened than they were in the past. We're not. 

So knowing this past how can we speak evangelistically to people today? Is it different from how we spoke to former generations? Much of our evangelism here in the United States was developed in a context of Christendom, in which just about everybody knew the basic information of Christianity and were favorably disposed to it. Evangelism got people to act on what they already knew and, in a sense, already passively believed. You could call people to commitment relatively quickly. You could also use pretty forceful persuasive techniques. In dealing with today’s people, you're dealing with people who do not know the basics of Christianity or anything about the . If anything, they have a negative idea of what Christianity is. So, it makes no sense to them if you come on too strong and quickly ask for a commitment. We should count conversations as a relations builder rather than conversions, not because I don't believe in conversions, but because I don't think we'll get many conversions if we keep emphasizing them.

 So, what does evangelism to postmodern look like todays as I joke, "barbarians" look like? When most people think of evangelism, the word "arguments" comes up—arguments for the existence of God, arguments for the uniqueness of Christ, arguments for the inspiration of the Bible. For postmodern people, anything presented as an argument is less persuasive because arguments suggest a message of conquest rather than a message of peace. Postmodern are so assaulted by advertisements and political messages that for a message to be important and true, it must come in a form other than argument.

Also, we have become good at boiling the gospel down into little four-step outlines. Modern people love diagrams; it's all about engineering. But todays people feel that truth comes as a mystery, a story, and a work of art; truth is more like poetry than engineering. This force us to ask if we have a clear understanding of what the gospel really is. If, for hundreds of years, we have turned the gospel into a problem-solution mindset or series of arguments, we must ask how that may have distorted our understanding of the gospel. In many ways, the modern evangelical gospel is a message about how to not go to hell. When you step back and ask if that's really the gospel from Jesus' perspective, it's pretty hard to answer yes. When Jesus talks about the gospel, he talks about the kingdom of God. That offers a whole realm of questions that are more important.

We don't talk about having a mission’s department in our church. Instead, we tell people that what we do is missions. When we become a follower of Christ, we're signing up for his mission. That involves doing good, caring for the poor, and giving out cups of cold water in Christ's name, then telling others the story of the gospel and what God has done in our life. We talk about being and making disciples in authentic community for the good of the world. We talk about that because, according to Jesus, one of the things disciples do is help others become disciples.

 We emphasize that to be a good member of our church, we must get to know our neighbors. We say, throw parties. Have people over. Be nice to the children in your neighborhood. Be good people. Be good neighbors. That makes it easier to talk to people about your faith. You know that verse in 1 Peter 3 about always being ready to give an answer? Well, that implies that people are asking questions. To me, part of the issue is how we can help Christians live such good lives that people want to ask questions. If people aren't asking the questions, and we're teaching Christians how to talk rather than walk, we might just be encouraging them to be obnoxious.

Many people I am around sometimes would ask, "Is Christianity good, and can it make me into a better person, or will it make me a jerk?" They ask that because when they think of Christians, they tend to think of people who are narrow-minded, judgmental, arrogant, and angry. And they think, "Wow, I really want God, and I'd rather be a Christian than a Buddhist or a Muslim, but Christians look like jerks. I don't want to become like who’s number 1." I often use athletics to describe that when speaking of denominational differences like, Michigan vs Ohio state

They might also ask, "How can I be a Christian without becoming hateful toward people of other religions?" If we answer that question by giving reasons why other religions are wrong, we just prove that we're not the kind of person they want to become.

 To become this kind of church, we may have to accept people who don't dress right, don't talk right, don't smell right, and don't think right. If we're not willing to let them be long before they believe, they will never believe in our church. Because if a group says we will only accept you if you agree with us, it sounds like any other worldly group. What people are looking for is a group that accepts them regardless of whether they conform. That becomes one of the validations of the gospel. Perhaps the "crusader spirit"could be used today in a relational way. Responding to other religions, but not in such a way that seemed by military might. So, the Spanish Inquisition was a very dark period, and should never have happened, but as long as Christians idly stand by and don't stand up for those that believe differently, showing God's Love to the world by our willingness to die for those that may hate us, or those that are different than we are, we are all guilty of the atrocities committed, and even listening to ministers espouse such hatred, and saying nothing is just as bad as doing the action, as words not only damage our relationships with others, but also what we say, or listen to and say nothing, reflects on whether Christ is truly within us. However, the spirit, engendered by the Crusades could perhaps be transferred to non judgment evangelistic ends but an aim to GOD Honoring voice.

God Bless You and this Ministry!