MondayMorningInsight - Leadership & Encouragement for Church Leaders

Are You ‘Theologically-Minded’ or ‘Evangelistically Effective’? And Ca

Posted by: Todd
Posted on: Wed, June 18, 2008
Viewed 34
(12) comments so far

“Holiness is not the separation from sinners, but separation from sin”

and

a great question that has confused this issue for many: “How do we engage culture without becoming entangled in it?”

What do you think? Which are you, or, are you one of the rare birds that consider yourself both?

And what would our Kingdom effectiveness look like if there were more ‘theologically minded, evangelistically effective’ church leaders in this country?

Todd

Here's a great interview with Adrian Warnock and Ed Stetzer. Ed brilliantly points out two different camps that we see in evangelical Christendom today: the 'theologically minded' and the 'evangelistically effective'. Many see these streams as mutually exclusive. But according to Ed, 'he wants it all'... and makes a great case for becoming biblically faithful AND culturally relevant.

Here are a couple of really great quotes from Stetzer...

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

jud on Wed, June 18, 2008

My beef is that the Church today is NOT rooting people in the Word. If you are not rooted then how can you be evangelically effective? The seeker church I left was not rooting people in the WORD. Groups would gather with mostly baby Christians to discuss “Velvet Elvis” , “PDL” or Andy Stanley or at the very best crack on the Bible and look at it through the lense of “What does this Scripture mean to you?” kind of study.

It’s a broken mess.
Sam on Wed, June 18, 2008

Well according to previous response on this site, if you discuss theology then you must not be evangelizing. They present it as an either/or proposition.

I dont know what they do with Jonathon Edwards or Spurgeon…....
Leonard Lee on Wed, June 18, 2008

Sometimes churches are labeled as not being theological because they have lost theological. language. We are doing an in depth look at the attributes and character of God, but we probably wont use the word immutability or a few other words that have fallen off the map in our day.

Hey Sam, just a suggestion. Try not picking a fight if you want to have a conversation.
Wendi on Wed, June 18, 2008

Of course we can be theologically minded and evangelically effective, we’re here today because faithful brothers and sisters before us were.

But we won’t be if theologically minded means one must point out our terrible depravity and sinfulness, and call for complete repentance in every single sermon and every conversation we have with people outside the faith, regardless of the text. If that is the standard, even Jesus wasn’t theologically minded.

And please, let’s not go down the seeker sensitive, PDL road again . . .

Wendi
Sam on Wed, June 18, 2008

Leonard, How would you define “theological” language? My problem is that terms that are found in the Bible such as justification, santification, expiation, and propitiation are deemed “theological” language and/or “seminary” words and are not being taught in the church today. It often perpetuates the rampant amount of biblical illiteracy found within many churches today. But, I do agree that using “seminary” language that isnt found in the Bible can be counterproductive especially if use of the terms are not clearly defined. Words such as antinominism, immutability, etc. can just lead to an academic treatise by the pastor that is not understood by most of the congregation.

We shouldnt shy away from theology and doctrine within the church but teach it AND live it. I agree with whoever said, it may have been Wendi, the more we learn about God, the more we should be inspired and motivated to evangelize. Also, better teaching will lead to better disciples who are more equipped to share the Gospel with others. One of the reasons people dont evangelize is because they often feel inadequate in their knowledge of the Bible and fear any questions that may come their way.

And yes, this is a problem that is seen across the board in churches today regardless of what methodology or model they follow.
Leonard Lee on Wed, June 18, 2008

Sam, I think that is a good question. I would say that in the 21st century there are words that are not common place like they may have been in the 14th century. Some of our words the church uses today just don’t get much play time in conversations, in media in print or in modern literature. I think we need to start with the definition first. Start the definition with a word picture or an illustration, then fill it in. I have said many times to people speak with, After describing what it meas to be set apart for a special purpose… the bible calls that sanctification.

It is not that the words are wrong or bad, they just have no meaning to most people I know. The have more than once caused someone to think the bible is outdated. One task of good communication is to translate these words into a vernacular that is compatible with the people you are reaching.
Marc Backes on Wed, June 18, 2008

Late to the party here I know but as a church planter, the way I am trying to come at this is to simply say that they are two sides of a coin and one doesn’t make sense without the other.

I’m also trying to keep it simple by wrapping it in values called “Learning” and “Doing”. Learning without doing produces intelligent elitists who don’t give a rip about the city in which they live.

Doing without learning however produces a lot of effort that in the long run just simply is done in the name of a Jesus we do not know and Jesus is not honored when we do not know him rightly. So we must understand, grasp, and know the Jesus for whom we are serving our neighbors and our cities.

I agree with Stetzer, I want it all and we’re trying to get it all at Eternity.
Peter Hamm on Thu, June 19, 2008

I don’t think it’s about the specific words we use at all, since some of the latest good bible translations won’t have the words Sam mentions. And here is where I think often our discussions delve into semantics and not the truth behind the words. I can teach substitutionary atonement without using those words and communicate that truth effectively to people who would shut down when they heard those two words. So I will.

But my biggest issue is definitely when we substitute head-knowledge for discipleship. It isn’t.
sam on Thu, June 19, 2008

Peter, just curious as to what good Bible translations that you say dont have any of these words in them? Are you suggesting that pastors should tell their congregants to get rid of their NIV, ESV, and NASB translations? While you are at it, why dont you get the school systems to get rid of any book reading requirements that are not in the modern vernacular. I exagerrate of course to make a point.

Part of good teaching within the church is define these terms. A good preacher can define terms first and then introduce the word.

You could explain substitutionary atonement and then tell them what it is called. There is no reason to be afraid of doing that. When you dont you promote more anti-intellectualism within the church body. People who we are witnessing to come in all forms. If you are witnessing to a very intellectual person who says, “you dont believe in the subsitutionary atonement crap do you? Isnt that a form of cosmic child abuse?” And for the 1st year college student who was brought up in the “God says it, I believe it, that settles it” church and the student encounters his first liberal religion of philosphy professor who challenges the notion of substitutionary atonement(which by the way is under tremendous attack today) and the student NEVER heard of sub atonement in his 18 years in the church. His faith is shaken to its core because the first time he was challenged he brought the equivalent of a knife to a gun fight.

Words and the truth behind them are both important. Again, it is not an either or proposition because a church can and should communicate both. Pastors often complain about the congregants being immature in their faith and having to be spoon fed and that they should be feeding themselves. Well, equip them to do so. Dont encourage more anti-intellectualism. Disciple them and then exhort them to act on the truths that they have heard in the form of evangelism.
Peter Hamm on Thu, June 19, 2008

Sam,

The word “propitiation”, is not found in the most popular Bible translations in my neck of the woods, NIV and NLT. So I don’t use it with people reading those translations who, around here, don’t read on such an advanced reading level as in many other areas of the country.

[Dont encourage more anti-intellectualism. Disciple them and then exhort them to act on the truths that they have heard in the form of evangelism.] Well, in my neck of the woods, I’m about the only intellectual I know. So I have to reach people with the language they speak, and there is no specific power to these english terms. There is power in the Gospel and in Jesus, and that’s what I concentrate on. I will use the words I need to that people understand to communicate it.

We are about to start down a road of “meaningless discussions”, imho, so I’ll leave it at that. You think that specific terms are important, I think the thought behind them (which is God’s thought, his logos) is important and the actual terms are not. We disagree…
Sam on Thu, June 19, 2008

Peter, PROPITIATION is just one word that I asked you about. You brought up the term atonement which is found in the NIV. Justification is also found in the NIV. As well as sanctify. You will agree, i am sure, that Christians should be reading their Bible on a regular basis, correct? And you encourage people within your context to read the Bible on a consistent basis, correct? SO, when they read the bible they are going to come in contact with words they are not familar with. These words have meanings that need a proper understanding because of the assault on these terms today. Without properly understanding “words” and their meaning, people become easy prey for false teachers and it affects their ability to evangelize.

AND I am sure that you are not the only intellectual, intelligent person in your church. I think it is disingenious to represent that you are.
PT on Mon, June 23, 2008

Kudos and amen, Sam, I fully agree with you!

Theology and evangelism are mutually INclusive concepts. To paraphrase the Great Commission, we are to evangelize in order to bring into fellowship in the Body and to disciple in the known and applied truth of His Word (biblical theology). In turn, as disciples of Christ better understand God’s revelation (theology) the more convicted and equipped they will be to evangelize.

On the issue of language, it is essential to understand that many of these “theological words” include a uniqueness and fullness of meaning that can not be properly or fully conveyed with a simple synonym or re-statement. To do so is inherently to take away from the full impact and meaning of the concept.

Yet, it is also true that an increasing majority of people (even in the church) no longer know or understand these terms. This problem, I believe, is seen and accepted by most if not all of us. The divergence is in what we do about it.

My practice and recommendation is that instead of just throwing our hands up in ‘defeat’ and substituting less sufficient language, why don’t we make it a practice to more fully enlighten people by providing them both the fullest, most representative terms AND a clear (though wordy) definition/explanation of it.

Why can’t we do both/and instead of either/or?