Mon 30 Jul 2007
As you know, last week was our annual Vacation Bible School (here, here and here) at Grace Community Church, Glen Rose where I pastor. As you also know, we did not implement a formal “altar call” method of evangelism. This, however, does not mean that we neglected teh Gospel, it just means that while we are zealous for boys and girls to come to know God, we don’t believe that convincing children to walk down an aisle is the best means to that end.
Two of the resources that we used come from the Way of the Master ministries: the $1,000,000 bill and the Ten Commandment coins. These resources use the easy-to-remember method of evangelism utilizing the Ten Commandments as an immediate method of demonstrating our need for a savior. Depending on the age-level of the audience, you ask as few as two or three questions: Have you ever told a lie, have you ever thought anything else was more important than God, have you ever hated someone? At only three questions, guilt before a holy, just judge has been demonstrated.
This method, of course, must be combined with an effective presentation of the person and work of Christ, but it is an effective, quick and for some reason, non-offensive method of demonstrating our guilt and need of a savior.
- Visit the Way of the Master website
on 30 Jul 2007 at 10:10 am 1.mike said …
I agree Brent. I always try to carry one of those coins in my pocket. They are excellent ways to enter into a conversation with someone so that the gospel might be presented. The part that I dont like about the coin is that it can make the gospel presentation mechanical and sounding canned.
When I use the coin, I quickly move away from it and present the gospel using my own words. I only use the coin as a launching pad. I do this because it is hard for me to express my passion when reading a coin or tract.
I think that the effectiveness of these coins is debateable. I would not, at least in the culture here in Texas, present the gospel in the manner that it is presented on “The Way of the Master” radio program. That is unless I would want a black eye :).
People here in Texas would become quickly turned off by the “in your face” presentation that one or two of the radio personalities on the program display. Actually I would go so far as to say that I often hear very little love when the Truth is proclaimed on this program. It is important that those who we present the gospel to, know that we love them. More importantly though, it is imperative that they see the love of Christ dwelling within us. If we are pounding them with Truth and have not love . . .
on 30 Jul 2007 at 5:24 pm 2.Jonathan said …
I commend you for not implementing a formal altar call. I do believe modern evangelicalism has convinced many people of a “conversion” experience that is not true in the least due to mass altar calls with ‘pray this prayer’ types of evangelism.
I have recently come across the Way of the Master material and I love it. Letting the law reveal to us our sinful condition and then showing God’s mercy and grace through the cross and the Christ who died upon it is beautiful. It is the Gospel.
Thank you for your well thought out posts. I appreciate your blog.
on 31 Jul 2007 at 1:20 pm 3.Ched said …
I noticed that you are reading Gospel Centered Hermeneutics. Related to altar calls, what do you think of Goldsworthy’s discussion of decisionism as “Evangelical Bultmannism” (pp. 173-74). What he says there dovetails nicely with your emphasis here.
on 31 Jul 2007 at 5:47 pm 4.Brent said …
Ched, I’ve not had a chance to get that far into Goldsworthy’s book yet. I’m trying to finish Carson’s Love in Hard Places first. Is Goldsworthy’s book as good as all of the things I hear about it?
on 01 Aug 2007 at 8:43 am 5.Ched said …
Is Goldsworthy’s book as good as all of the things I hear about it?
I’ve liked what I’ve read so far. I made it through the first two major sections before the summer semester work load descended upon me. The entire first section had an introductory feel, and the second section on history of interpretation relies completely on secondary sources. I kept wanting Goldsworthy’s own analysis and opinion. When he does that (like in chp 12), it lives up to they hype. Part 3 is where he is supposed to put all the things that he has introduced and deconstructed back together. I hope to finish the book in between semesters in a few weeks. So for me, the final section is still unread and the jury is still out.