I don't know too many folks who prefer to pass out tracts as their means of sharing the gospel. I do know of a few, but I wonder if it's a generational thing. My friends and I are reticent to use this form of evangelism, yet I know of some folks older than I who carry them around just in case. We have all sorts of reasons for not liking to pass out tracts, but most, I would imagine, center around our cowardice.
Late last night, my good friend Bruce and I went out and passed out water and tracts to folks cruising the bar scene in Allston. It was fairly simple, we had a folding table set up with some water and tracts. As people walked by, we offered them free water, if they stopped and took a tract, great. If not, we just said "have a nice night" or "God bless" or something like that, pretty harmless. I don't think either of us were expecting to shake the whole area or anything. No bars closed down, no healings, no mass conversions- just meeting a simple need (hydrating folks who drink too much alcohol) and offering a tract.
Now, I don't think that passing out tracts is necessarily the best form of evangelism. I think that we're better off sharing the gospel through consistent friendships and lifestyles. Generally speaking, if someone observes you and talks with you over a longer period of time, they are more likely to be impacted by what you say than if they are handed a tract by a random stranger on the street corner.
But I think we ought to reconsider our reticence. One, I don't think the damage done is nearly as bad as we would like to think. We make excuses about "scaring people off" and "leaving a bad taste in their mouth", but let's be honest: very few, if anyone, walks away from receiving a tract or pamphlet thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus." Most are willing to walk away and throw away the tract and leave it at that, and will probably never give it another thought.
Two, it's true that the percentage of people who receive a tract and actually follow Christ is probably pretty small. Obviously we can't know that for sure, but I'd be willing to grant that point. But who cares? For little-to-no risk, if anyone is impacted isn't it worth it? I realize the "if one person comes to the Lord..." saying is as cliche as they come, but there is some merit to it. Besides, take a look at all the people you interact with any a fairly regular basis: family, friends, coworkers, corner market employees, neighbors, mailmen, coffee shop workers, etc. What percentage of these folks are coming to Christ by our "friendship evangelism" method? If it's fairly high in your life, God bless you and please share your secret. But most of us probably aren't doing too well, so we can't use the "how effective is it?" excuse regarding tracts. (Oh please Lord, help me.) While you're at it, take a second and read Mr Genor's Testimony. You can probably find the audio, I just found this transcript.
Three, there's something to be said for forcing us to do something that makes us uncomfortable. Last night I absolutely did not want to go out. Bruce and I had talked about it, and when I was more pumped up with zeal earlier in the day I was all for it. By the time 11:30pm had rolled around, I was ready to go to bed. I called Bruce and asked him what he wanted to do, to which he replied "let's go out." I think my answer was something like "that was not the answer I was rooting for" and Bruce replied "same here." Neither Bruce nor I are extroverted people, we don't strike up conversations with complete strangers on a regular basis. I'll give Bruce credit, he really pushed us out there and took the lead. Both of us wouldn't choose this form of evangelism, but it forced us to be more reliant on the Spirit than we normally would. If nothing else, we took a chance we normally wouldn't take. But, you never know, maybe one drunk frat boy will wake up this morning and read that little pamphlet two strangers handing out water gave him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Thank you for this post, Danny. It's a subject that I haven't seen addressed too often, and I think you treat it well.
I'm not sure, however, that "cowardice" is the primary reason most people in our generation are averse to passing out tracts. That might account for some, but I think you addressed the primary reasons quite well in the rest of your post:
1) It's not necessarily the best form of evangelism ... the percentage of people who receive a tract and follow Christ is probably pretty small.
2) It often runs counter to the personalities of evangelistic Christians, as you admitted was true with you and Bruce.
Why do we do it then? Is it only to put us in an uncomfortable situation, as you suggest, because "it's good for us?" Seems like this reasoning could justify a number of outlandish (not saying tract-passing is outlandish) activities in the name of "forcing ourselves to do something that makes us uncomfortable."
I am turned off by tracts for a number of reasons, but I won't list them all here. OK, I'll mention a few:
1) steeped in modernity, it treats the gospel as primarily propositional statements of belief rather than an embodied, incarnational way of life.
2) maybe I need to see what your tracts actually say, but I've never read a tract that I agreed with theologically. most of them hardly qualify as "good news," usually reminding someone how crappy they are and showing pretty pictures of Hell. again, your tracts could be completely different.
3) tracts are a monologue. faith formation is dialogical, involving a person discovering what God is saying in their lives and beginning to obey Him. as you correctly mentioned here, this happens pretty effectively when someone already connected to "the source" begins to shed light on what God is doing in another person's life through a series of "spiritual conversations." tracts make absolute claims about a person without any knowledge of their story and how it might already be intersecting with God's story.
I hope you don't mind my friendly dialogue here. It really is in a friendly spirit, and there is ABSOLUTELY room for believers to disagree on this topic. So don't take any of this personally. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
Steve, thanks for posting, I appreciate your comments. Don't worry, I'm a big boy, I can handle a little friendly dialogue.
First, I probably put more emphasis on "cowardice" than you do, but perhaps I'm speaking with myself in mind. I can live with that.
Second, I don't really disagree with your reasons for being "turned off" by tracts (and I may even use the same terminology). But I'd say that those are reasons why tracts aren't the best form of evangelism, not necessarily why we should never use them.
I agree there is far more to the gospel than propositional statements, though I believe it includes them.
I don't know if most tracts include pictures of hell and all that, but the ones we used did not. And we are crappy, though I don't necessarily think that has to be the main focus. I don't think most tracts we use are theologically incorrect, but perhaps a bit too simplistic. Then again, simplicity can be helpful sometimes.
Again, I agree that tracts are not "dialogical" (nice word), but that only gives us reasons to think that tracts are not the best form of evangelism, which I've stated from the beginning. Tracts are only the beginning of faith formation, not the be-all-end-all. And I think they do an okay job as far as introduction goes.
I'll take a moment to reiterate something. I don't think tracts are the best evangelistic tool, but they are a tool that does, at times, work. If you can show a consistently faithful witness to someone, that will do more than any tract.
Maybe tracts are needed more because of our failure to be faithful witnesses, I don't know. Maybe that's another discussion for another day, but it's something to think about.
I'd also point back to my second point. There is little risk involved in passing out tracts, despite the (mythological) thoughts of some that it turns others off.
Anyway, I was just informed that I have to go set the table for dinner, so I'll leave now. Oh, and I agree that "it forces us to take a risk" isn't the best reason either, it's just a side benefit. I'd love to hear some follow up thoughts, until then, I must appropriately arrange the silverware.
I'm not a big fan of tracts either, but if you listen to the audio that Danny suggested, it proves that it does in fact work. Maybe in a very small percentage, but it takes very little effort.
The effort it would take to sit down and share the gospel with 35 people bar hopping would take a lot more time than an hour and a half. Preaching on the side of the street would most likely fall on deaf ears. Finding people to stop and sit down with me to talk about the gospel in that time frame might get me one or two people.
Looking at it from a numbers standpoint (although I do not encourage that we do that) I don't really believe we would have had more success doing other methods of evangelism to bar hoppers from 12:30 to 2. Again I don't believe its about numbers. It's about exhausting all our resources to bring people to Christ.
If the small amount of effort it takes to pass out tracts can save even one person (although I don't pass out many). Then it was worth it.
Thanks for your responses, guys. Points well-taken.
Maybe the conversation needs to shift to "what is the gospel that we are sharing," and even "can the gospel 'be shared'?"
First off, God uses some pretty diverse means to draw people to himself. I admit that freely. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my neighbor had started down the path of discipleship as a result of watching Joel Osteen on TV.
But I'm convinced that most people become followers of Jesus (disciples) by seeing the lifestyle modeled for them. Consider Paul's method (1 Cor 2:1-5):
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
If "sharing his faith" was primarily about presenting convincing arguments, then wouldn't he have simply relied on eloquent and persuasive words? Instead, his gospel was necessarily lived-out by "the Spirit's power," a component of the gospel that must not be skipped over. I fear that tracts rely primarily on persuasive arguments and not on the Spirit's power embodied day by day in the lives of believers.
What is the result we're hoping for when we engage in any evangelistic activity? It is for people to wake up, in a sense, to the work of God in their lives and begin to live different, Cross-formed lives. To become disciples. Followers. Start hanging out with Jesus. Listening to him. Obeying him.
Danny, you seemed a little negative on your personal "success" in sharing your faith by incarnating the life of Christ day by day through relationships. I would say this in response: Keep on, brother! Stick with it! It's a slow process for a person to begin to live into the fullness of the Christ-life. Think about how long it's taken you and me to truly begin living abundantly in Christ! And we (I assume you did as well) came from Christian backgrounds!
Jesus hung out with 12 men (and crowds from time to time) for 3 years, and they still didn't know him fully at the end. Imagine if he came to earth, said everything he needed to say in a day's (or an hour's) time, and then went back to Heaven ... His message would have been incomplete.
In the same way, I maintain that a proposition on a gospel tract is also incomplete. It is missing the primary means through which God is "putting the world to rights" -- you.
(Danny, I know you're a fellow N.T. Wright fan. I think if Tom released a tract, I'd get a bunch and pass them out. I really love his take on Discipleship. So far, though, he hasn't done it ... =)
Peace.
A great post with even greater follow-up dialogue. I find myself in agreement on many points all around, though I don't think I'd be too quick to gloss over the "turning people off" fear as pure mythology:
...very few, if anyone, walks away from receiving a tract or pamphlet thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus."
Having been an avid member of your target demographic, (and a cynical one to boot), I might refine this statement. While the percentage of people who walk away thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus," may be low, I do believe that many walk away with more fodder for an anti-Christian disposition. It doesn't make Christianity all that attractive, and may play a hand in reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Back in the day, when I encountered folks handing out tracts, or any type of street evangelism, the taste left in my post-modern mouth was a bad one. It immediately (and erroneously, I'll add) lumped these people into the category of the "God hates ____" groups, or any other secular caricatures of Christian behavior. Talking about Jesus is uncomfortable, and why can't I just do what's right for me without anyone bothering me with their beliefs?
So runs the tape of my former self. Praise be, Christ has since gotten a hold of me. I can look back and realize how fatally fraught with error my thoughts were, but at the time, that was reality. Is getting a tract that big of a deal? Absolutely not, but in some ways it just adds another straw of prejudice to the already burdened back of the secular camel.
More thoughtful non-Christians might also take offense at tracts because the situation presupposes that one might change his or her belief system on the basis of a 8-page 4"x4" pamplet. I doubt many pass out tracts with this thought in mind, but I believe that it is often the perception of the recipient (and anybody in sales will tell you that perception is reality).
Of course, I have no hard data to back this up, save my own experience and perception of that culture.
All of that just to say I disagree that the "bad taste" fear is a mythological one. However, I don't disagree with the idea of passing out tracts, nor do I think Bruce and Danny were horribly remiss. Rather, I commend them for their boldness; and think it was an awesome idea. It's undeniable, as Danny points out, that sometimes, it works: Lives are impacted for Christ; people are changed.
Let's not forget that tracts are not the only evangelistic tools that have a potential for bad aftertastes, offense, or anti-Christian rubric. The Gospel is offesive, plain and simple, and Christ is controversial no matter the package (there's some Scriptures popping into my mind that I don't have time to look up...). Could not a well-spoken sermon evoke the same reaction from a would-be Christian? Or a healthy discussion? Certainly.
There are plenty of testimonies to support tracts as effective tools. It's already been pointed out, but if one soul is won over, or even starts the journey to being won over, it's time well spent.
The problem I see with passing out tracks and going out to teach the gospel is that it needs to start with a question from someone. It is never ok to pass out, spout, preach to people you do not know and try and force your beliefs on them.
I believe the best form of evangelism is through day to day life (living righteously). Holy Spirit will cause eyes to be opened to it and then questions will be asked (the door will be open).
I do not discount that there are times (it's happened to me) that Holy Spirit points someone out and tells me that they need to hear a certain Word. Then it comes down to obeying and siezing the opportunity.
I'm not sure how you guys did this Danny. I'm also not trying to be judgmental. If you had tracks on a table with water then I think it is a pretty shrewd way of trying to open some doors!!
As Jesus said "Be shrewd as a serpent and innocent as a dove". Take care all.
Thanks for the comments, guys, it's been interesting. Let me make a few comments.
First, I find it ironic that I'm in the position of Defender of Tracts, even though my use of them is practically nil.
Second, I've said this in my post and in my comment, but I'll say it again: I don't think tracts are the best means of evangelism. I still think, and will always think, that living a godly life for all to see is a far better form of evangelism. People are more likely to come to Christ from a friendship with a faithful Christian.
Third, let's not forget that I didn't set out to write a treatise on the use of tracts. I didn't try to cover all the appropriate topics (the content of the tracts, etc).
Let me address some specific thoughts from folks, going in reverse order.
Kenny (who is my older brother, for those who don't know), you said "It is never ok to pass out, spout, preach to people you do not know and try and force your beliefs on them." First, where does it say I can't preach to people I don't know? Shoot, Paul does it without any hesitation (think: Athens). Second, I've never been a big fan of the "don't force you're religion on other people" argument. I'm not sure how passing out tracts is forcing anything. I'm not sure how standing on a park bench and yelling "you're all going to hell" would be forcing my beliefs on anybody (a reprehensible form of evangelism, by the way). I'm not holding a gun to anybody's head.
For the record, Bruce and I never talked about Jesus unless asked, and we never actually handed a tract to a single person, they took them on their own.
Brian, I guess I hear what you're saying about turning folks off, but I would counter with this thought: most who think that way will find all sorts of reasons to be turned off to Christians. If they saw me walking around with my Bible they would probably lump me in with "those Christians who think God hates ___." I'm not going to stop carrying my Bible because of that.
But you do bring up a good point about the perception of the audience, which is in some ways more important than our intentions. I would like to take a poll of those who saw and talked to us to see what they would say. I would imagine we'd fare better than the guy with the sandwich board at Fenway Park who hands out the tracts with folks burning in hell. (By the way, I have no doubt that this man is a brother in the Lord, worthy of our love).
Steve, the man who started it all, it's hard to respond to your last comment because I found myself saying "I agree" throughout. For instance, you said "But I'm convinced that most people become followers of Jesus (disciples) by seeing the lifestyle modeled for them", which is what I've maintained all along. I just don't think we should stop using tracts because they do reach some folks, even if not many. Just like we shouldn't stop using television to preach the gospel because there are some (like your neighbor) who are introduced to the Savior in that manner. I'd just like to replace most of the television preachers with other preachers, but that's another discussion for another day (I've posted some thoughts on Osteen before).
By the way, the tract we used, while certainly not perfect, is actually pretty good, for a tract. It never mentions hell or anything like that. It does a good job introducing people to the foundational belief that Jesus died and rose again that we might be free. It also ends (thankfully) with an encouragement to get involved in a local church, which is something many tracts leave out. I was very happy to see that.
Funny, my good friend Agent B posted on tracts this morning. You might be surprised with his conclusion ... thoughtful guy.
---------
Danny - I know that you are committed to living out the gospel first and foremost, and I know that tracts are not the only arrow you have in the quiver. My comments are simply meant to add a different p.o.v. on the subject.
Here's a couple questions to keep the conversation going:
What role does contextualization play in this conversation? In other words, should people experience the gospel in a "language" they can understand? How might this affect our decision to pass tracts or not pass tracts?
Just a little background. A tract helped Ken to make a decision to follow Christ.
Well I don't know who anonymous is but you shouldn't speak for others when you don't know the truth. I guess my parents had nothing to do with my up bringing. That's right I now distinctly remember the day my dad sat me down and handed me the tract and I was miraculously saved. Then one month later he handed me the tract on the "birds and the bees". If you never recieved this one Danny I'll try to find it and mail it to you before your BIG DAY!!!
Anyways, who says that Paul was right. There are alot of things I do not agree with Paul about. The major one was his attitude stunk most of the time. He did have great revelation and to be as close to Jesus as he was must have been awesome. Though you can be closer then Paul was now (thank you Holy Spirit).
So if I think it is ok to smoke cigarettes then it is ok for me to go around to everyone and try to give them one. Or if I think porn is ok it is ok to pass out dirty pics to everyone.
To me this is the same as passing out tracts and again why I say it is not ok to go around trying to hand out your opinion/ belief to just anyone and everyone. Again it was Jesus who said "do not cast your pearls before swine".
A couple quick comments regarding the last two comments.
First, Kenny, Paul's attitude stunk? Really? Isn't this the same guy who was rejected, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately martyred for his faith? Isn't this the same guy who rejoiced even while suffering? Isn't this the same guy who said that even if someone preaches the gospel with the wrong motives, at least the gospel is bring preached? If his attitude stunk "most of the time", then I hope my attitude stinks just as bad.
Second, I have trouble arguing with the methods of Paul. After all, he started most of the early churches and happened to write 13 letters that God has chosen to put in our Bible.
Third, if you want to compare tracts to smoking and pornography, go right ahead.
Steve, don't worry, I know your heart in this. Most of my caveats are not geared towards you, I'm attempting to avoid the danger of someone coming to the conversation late and assuming things that aren't true. I appreciate your point of view, so keep it coming.
I'd really like to take on the contextualization question, but I really don't have time right now (I hope someone else will, though). I will say this, though. I thought earlier about how there is a sense in which tracts are antiquated. They were born in a time when people passed out pamphlets and tracts for all sorts of reasons (political, religious, etc). That being said, I don't think there is no place for them today.
So, I hope someone will take on the contextualization question. Thanks for the discussion.
Great discussion.
I think what made your tract-passing experience a "success" was that you were giving away water.
I suggest you just give away water. No tracts. And do it consistently. Like every week, etc. I don't know. See what happens.
Agent B, I had actually thought about that. I think we would still have a great time, dare I say, even fruitful.
I knew I would get a rise out of picking on Paul. His methods were right for 2000 years ago. There is still alot all of us can learn from him, BUT, I put alot more stock into what God is speaking to me now then relying on a manuscript written about people of 1600 or so years ago and before.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not trying to knock the bible but I think it is a book of questions instead of just answers. God answers my questions all the time through the bible but it is not necessarily in the way of a particular person or thing. He'll lead me to a verse and bring new revelation to it.
I know you went to bible school as well as others who read this blog but I think that that can blind you to spiritual revelation (knowledge vs. wisdom).
By the way, Middlebury is opening a school of Hebrew next summer along with Brandeis (sp?). It will be in Middlebury next year and I believe it is going some where else after next summer (probably Brandeis). I know it will be like our other language schools.. so after a few days you take a pledge and for the next 6-8 weeks you would only be allowed to speak Hebrew. Crazy.. but I am going to look into it... I'm just not sure how to delegate to my employees when I can't speak or write in English. Anyone, have a Hebrew to English dictionary for everyday life?? I guess I can rely on the sign language that we all know from working with a deaf guy.
I am glad for this conversation. I should have also replied to your sports columns but that was wisdom vs. knowledge... zing.. just kidding.
First of all, I never went to "Bible school", to set the record straight. Second of all, I've learned from some godly men and women who have planted churches, helped build orphanages & hospitals, shared the gospel to remote villages all around the world and who have sacrificed worldly success in order to be fed by the Word of God. So, please, show a little respect for the "blind."
Why use the "knowledge vs wisdom" dichotomy? After all, that's from the Bible, which may or may not have been correct in this teaching.
Now, saying Paul's methods wouldn't work today is one thing. That may or may not be true, but that is, at least, something to discuss. However, saying that Paul was wrong (as you stated earlier) is an entirely different matter.
Then again, why read the Bible at all? If it poses more questions than answers, and if you have managed to surpass it's wisdom through your own revelation, why waste your time? But this is an entirely different discussion.
I think Agent B has the best comment yet: "just give away water. see what happens."
Don't do it for this reason, but inevitably, someone is going to wonder why you guys are doing such an outlandish thing and ask you about it.
Then you've got a conversation.
Steve, I do think it was a great comment. Actually, it's fairly similar to the method Bruce and I used.
We had a table set up with water and tracts sitting on it. We'd offer people free water. If they asked why we were doing it (not all did ask), we (and by "we" I mean "Bruce" more often than not) would say something like "this is a practical way to show you the love of Jesus." Or something like that. No altar calls. No mention of heaven or hell. Just trying to do something nice for folks. And if they took a tract, that was cool, but most did not. We passed out 120 waters, 35 tracts.
I've been a Christian virtually my whole life. I was raised in a christian home, I was baptized when I was 9. I never smoke, drank, slept around, cursed, lied, etc. I always tried to live by the word the best I knew how, obviously thats looked different at different stages of my life. The people around me have always known about my faith. I was always looked at as the good christian kid. I don't say this because I feel I deserve a cookie, I've had plenty of terrible sin in my life. The point is my entire life I've tried to live as an example of Christ. How many people have looked at how I've lived my life and gone. He seems pretty chill and happy all the time, I want what he's got" all on its own? Zero! You have to challange people, even if they don't ask a question first.
I've had many discussions about my beliefs with people who wanted to, and some who were nice enoujgh to not tell me to shut up. I didn't hide anything. It's a bunch of horse poop if you're goign to tell me thats how you save lifes. I believed it for a long time and I think I'd have a better success rate with tracts. Jesus didn't just live as an example, he preached. He didn't just meet with some people he ran into that asked him questions, he addressed crowds of folks which I'm sure had people who didn't want to hear what he was saying.
Jesus never said don't talk to people you don't know. He never said make sure they ask you a question first. If he shared the gospel in an un offensive manner, people wouldn't have been so offended that they hung him on a cross. He didn't say go preach in the towns of people who are interested. He said to go preach to all men. If I offend somebody with my message then great, I didn't hold back and I can just wipe the dust off my feet at them and move on (That could be taken out of context but I'm attempting to not get too long winded)... I could really keep going on about this...
I doubt most people will be turned off because of being handed a tract, and if it makes them angry at christians chances are there's more to it than just a tract anyway.
True story. I was talking to a friend of mine today about tracts and she laughed and told me why she believes in them. Her friend was on an elevator, the door opened somebody reached in with a tract and he took it, teh door closed. He put it in his pocket and didn't read it. Sometime later he read it and guess what.. the man was saved from the tract. It took all of one second to stick their hand into an elevator and it saved that persons soul. You look for excuses all you want as to why you don't want to do something that makes you feel uncomfortable. It surely isn't the best way to do it, but it works and I'd rather exhaust all my resources.
Danny could tell you about our buddy Jeff. He makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I've seen it on many occasions. He's also seen a lot of people saved. I would also like to say that you can't hear tones over the net so please don't take anything I said in a harsh way.
I am all for offending people. I do it all the time. I am not interested in saving souls to get people into heaven. It is already going to be crowded enough (just kidding). I'm about bringing the Kingdom to the earth. We are of little (that I know of) use when we are dead and in heaven. Getting people into the Kingdom and doing God's business is more important to me then getting them saved. Those people who live good christian lives and go to church every week are not advancing the Kingdom. It is far more important for someone to hear God's voice and obey it (everyday!!). Then you really become useful on earth.
I'll have to continue this later. I got to start working.
Interestingly, I agree with some of what Kenny says. I agree we need a healthy dose of "Kingdom on earth" in our lives, after all, Jesus talks more about that than He does about getting folks through the pearly gates.
However, I think Kenny has posited a false dichotomy, as if they are entirely unrelated. Shouldn't our goal be to see men and women come to know Jesus (evangelism, getting them "saved", if you will), and to follow Him here on earth faithfully (discipleship, them "working out their salvation"? Why can't we have both?
I would also imagine that we would disagree on how that Kingdom on earth would look. Especially since we have entirely different authorities in our life (the Bible is mainly what I'm referring to here).
Anyway, my main point for coming on this morning is to shut down any discussion unrelated to the actual post, which is about passing out tracts. I know, I know, how mean of me. But, it's my blog, I run the show. If you want to continue talking about unrelated things (and I'm as guilty as anyone for keeping it going), feel free to 1) start your own blog, or 2) e-mail me. I appreciate your understanding, thank you for complying.
Bruce -
Interesting thoughts. I have a challenge, though:
Go through the gospels and count up the number of times that Jesus "just preached," how and to whom he did this. I think you'll be surprised what you find.
The gospel contains both right beliefs (orthodoxy) and right action (orthopraxy). The two cannot be divorced from one another. In fact, this concept might be distilled to the simple phrase, "Hear God, do what He says." When people are doing this (and God can be "heard" in the Bible, but also through his church, nature, personal revelation, etc), they'll be led to live more righteously AND will have no choice but to talk about the thing that is changing their lives. At least in theory.
This discussion, however, is not about WHETHER we are to do this, but HOW. I maintain (and, like I've said, good Christians can and do disagree on this issue) that tracts are indeed an antiquated form that makes the gospel into the dissemination of "right doctrine" rather than a process of a person becoming like Jesus.
Post a Comment