The Art of Manfishing
Sometimes I just need a good kick in the pants. There's a group here in the Twin Cities that goes downtown twice a week to strike up conversations with others in a friendly effort to share the Gospel. Lately I've been too busy to be a "fisher of men". Tonight I was reading an old Puritan book on evangelism called The Art of Manfishing by Thomas Boston, and I got the kick I needed.Boston writes in "Olde English" phrases, which makes him a little hard to understand sometimes. So I will try to summarize his thoughts using modern language. (He doesn't pull any punches!)
If this doesn't motivate you to tell others about Jesus, I don't know what will:
First, consider the precious worth of a human soul:
1. Each person is made in God's image with heart, mind, and will capable of loving God and glorifying Him.
2. Every soul is eternal. It will either enjoy God through all the ages of eternity, or remain in endless torment forever.
3. No amount of worldly wealth can equal the worth of a soul. "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world but forfeit his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
4. It cost Christ his precious blood so the soul could be redeemed. He chose to bear the Father's wrath to win souls for all eternity, and nothing less could redeem them.
5. Both Christ and the Devil find each soul worthy of courting and alluring.
Second, consider the hazard that souls are in:
Sadly, most souls are walking blindfolded down the road to destruction; strive to remove their blindfolds. Lost souls are like twigs waiting to be burned; snatch them from the fire! If you have no concern for the eternal damnation of the lost, then you are cruel indeed and shall suffer in hell yourself.
Third, remember what a sad and dark place you were in before Christ saved you and showered his mercy on you.
You were headed for hell, blind as a mole, when Christ opened your eyes and let you see the danger you were in. And now do you dare to be unconcerned for others who are just as lost as you once were? Such an uncaring person would be a vile monster indeed.
Finally, may your heart be overwhelmed with concern for the lost.
He who has no concern for the lost has a dead heart, a lifeless soul, and no love for Christ. But he that loves Christ will desire to expand His kingdom.
Do you believe that the wicked shall be thrown into hell? Meditate on their fate in everlasting fire, that it may thaw your frozen heart and overwhelm you with compassion so as to plead with sinners to be saved.
Satan works so hard for men's souls that he puts many Christians to shame. "The devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8), while many Christians creep along like snails. The devil's followers "travel over land and see to win a single convert" (Matthew 23:15). Will you do any less for your Savior?
If you have no concern for lost souls, you are not a true Christian. "The hired man runs away because he cares nothing for the sheep." (John 10:13).
Strive to follow Christ and put the good of other souls constantly before your eyes. Then He will make you a fisher of men indeed.
posted by Cedricstudio at 2:45 AM
14 Comments:
"If you have no concern for the eternal damnation of the lost, then you are cruel indeed and shall suffer in hell yourself." -Cedric
That seems like pretty brazen statement. I was just curious, by what means do you rationalize such a belief? Which passages in the Bible would bring you to such a conclusion? Is it common for Christians to feel that those who have no interest in evangelism are destined for eternity in hell?
Just curious.
Luke
Luke, here's an analogy. Suppose a blind man is walking towards a cliff. Another man sees him but does nothing to stop him because he could care less. Or suppose a child is drowning. Another man sees the child drowning but decides to walk by and do nothing. A true, biblical Christian understands that many people are walking blind towards the cliff of hell. Shouldn't we lovingly do what we can to get them to turn around? If not, then we are not saved. The Bible says if we have no love for others, we are not children of God. "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8)
Hi Luke,
If you saw a blind man walking toward a cliff or a child drowning, and you shrugged your shoulders and did nothing, what kind of person would you be? It's the same idea--only we're not talking about cliffs and drowning, but people's eternal souls and the reality of hell. "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love....For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:8,20)
Another passage:
"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again....We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin [Jesus] to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:14-21)
So just how old is J.I. Packer. When he's writing the introduction for books by Puritans, one has got to wonder?!!!
Take care, Cedric.
Thanks for the explaination Cedric.
I've always thought it was only logical for Christians to practice evangelism, because they believe that anyone who doesn't meet a certain standard will roast in enternal hell fire (a fate far worse than walking off a cliff). However, I wasn't aware of the belief that not practicing evangelism was a crime worthy of hell. Yet, (1 John 4:8,20) is a pretty good arguement for why any Christian who believes the teachings of the bible to be true should indeed practice evangelism if they want to claim that they "love God".
It's interesting that evangelism seems to be so rare, though. Have you ever come across any polls on how many Christians actually practice it? I see 100 times as many Scientologists proselytizing on the streets than I see Christians. But then, maybe that's because I live in Tinsel Town.
Luke
Joshua,
Packer as a historian and theologian specialized in Puritans, he is still with us (Regent if I'm not mistaken). I heard him preach at Knox Presbyterian in Toronto (my then girlfriend now wife went there while in University). He preached probably one of the most practical down to earth messages I've ever heard on Philemon. While I don't always see eye2eye with his theology, he is the expert in that world. If he endorses it then it is well researched.
Hope that helps.
Frank
Hey Luke,
Evangelism happens in a lot of ways. Which I believe is important because no one way reaches all the people. While I am not sure I buy Cedric's analogies about hell and warning, I tend to think the whole thing is a lot more complicated than all that, I do appreciate his heart for evangelism. As for polls, how do you capture it? I hear what you are saying, but what the scientologists do is not particularily effective. I haven't seen any polls that try to capture who is doing what and how - but then again those who would count are often too busy evangelizing the folks around them.
Frank
"As for polls, how do you capture it?" -Frank
I dunno. I guess asking a section of the Christian population questions like, "How important do you feel the practice of evangelism is?" "How often to take part in (or aid in) the practice of evangelism?" Stuff like that. I haven't been able to find any stats on the subject, but I'll keep looking.
"I hear what you are saying, but what the scientologists do is not particularily effective." -Frank
I've heard estimates that put the membership of scientology around half a million. This doesn't sound like much when compared to Christianity's 2.1 billion. Yet, you have to take into account that Scientology is a very young religion that's confined mostly to one or two very small regions of the world. When I drive by the multiple Scientology skyscrapers in downtown LA and Hollywood, I have a hard time believing that their methods of proselytizing are "not particularily effective".
"While I am not sure I buy Cedric's analogies about hell and warning, I tend to think the whole thing is a lot more complicated than all that"-Frank
Care to elaborate? I'm actually very interested in the thought processes of "the faithful".
Luke
To elaborate. I am just not sure that hell as an evangelistic motivator is completely warranted. I think a better motivator is the presence of Christ in our lives now (immanence) and the confidence in a future of hope (eschatology). When hell is the primary motivator I've seen the focus completely shift to the eschatological - which is the more speculative aspect of our faith. The case for that is the plethora of eschatological positions just in regard to the return of Christ. I don't discard it, but I rather favour the immanent and present over the future. Paul tells us that the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are sons and daughters of God. This is immanent and present. I find that I am more capable of speaking out of my present relationship with God than out of my particular view of life after death. So for me evangelism flows naturally out of a desire to see others come into a relationship with God that is presently fulfilling and worry about the eschatological issues later (unless they come up). That is why I dislike the use of law that some here favour, I don't think it is wrong but I think it isn't necessary. I would rather invite people into the relationship I have with Christ, one that has been immensly fulfilling I might add - even if quite challenging at times. Also this ties into one of those eternal psychological questions that humanity continues to raise generation after generation: what am I hear for? Saving them from hell doesn't touch this - but inviting them into the life God has in His heart for them does.
Sorry for the theological terms, if anything is confusing I'd love to explain it. I'm not a fan of some Puritan influences, such as the emphasis on covenant, on American evangelicalism.
Interesting. So, if I understand you correctly, then you hold a fairly skeptical (or noncommittal) position over the notion that those who don’t practice evangelism will go to hell. Instead, you prefer to evade eschatological matters (like heaven and hell) in favor of focusing on how God instructs us to live our earthly lives. Did I get that right?
I have to ask, however, why do you think this is a better method of evangelism? Is it because of the negative reputation of fire and brimstone preaching? Or do you think people should live how God wishes them to live for reasons other than the hope for eternal life or the fear of eternal torment?
Personally, I find it difficult to see how anyone could separate the immanent nature of God from the eschatological predictions of the bible. What Christianity basically seems to be telling us is “We should accept Jesus as our savior and attempt to live like Him”. Yet this statement begs the questions; “What is Jesus saving us from?” (He’s saving us from hell) and “Why should we attempt to live like Him? (We should live like Him so we can go to heaven). Without the eschatological notions of heaven and hell, Christianity seems to cease to be a religion and becomes something more like a 12-step-program.
Luke
Not quite at all. I don't relegate Jesus to merely a teacher, which is what you seem to think I do. I believe in the presence of Christ in the hear and now. I think the gospel as as much implication on today as it does on tomorrow or yesterday. God is a God of all History, not just of the future.
The "negative reputation" over fire and brimstone preaching - but I am not too fond of that. I have preached some pretty harsh messages though, even last week in church I was preaching on the judgement of Christ (my community is lectional which enforces us to preach the whole Bible, not just our favourite verses and themes). But my reaction is to a gospel that amounts to little more than fire insurance.
Your question of what Jesus is saving us from is key here. I think you are missing much of the picture if you only think that salvation is of the future. A resounding YES! to being saved from eternal damnation, or as Jesus puts it being saved from death! But the Semetic concept of salvation is one that encompasses the whole being at all times. Paul says he is saved from this body of sin - Jesus saves us in the present from our sinful inclinations (provided we turn to Him that is). Jesus saves us from the life of hopelessness and meaninglessness that inevitably results from the seperation of sin. Jesus saves us from our poverty, provides for our needs and leads us into those things that give us life (please don't think I am saying Jesus makes us rich fiscally, there are things much more valuable than earthly wealth). Jesus saves us from our selfishness and orients us towards the world He so loved - that includes justice, social and otherwise. The gospel is a profoundly deep and rich message. To focus on just the eschatological misses the main of it and I am not convinced guarentees salvation.
Luke,
I posted some thoughts on this in a series I did on my own blog: Jesus - Yesterday, Jesus - Today and then Jesus - Tomorrow. http://freedompastor.blogspot.com/2006/03/jesus-tomorrow.html gets you to the last one and it has links to the other two. If you post a comment I'm more apt to see it on the Jesus-Tomorrow message. I also wrote on the topic of evangelism which is how I met Cedric. I do have a warning on my blog http://freedompastor.blogspot.com/2005/08/consider-yourself-warned.html as the topics range wildly.
Frank
Maybe my sense of humor didn't come through. I was only joking about Packer. My bad. ;)
:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home