The Stones are Crying Out

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

LHC, you often post irrelevant scriptural references, but this one takes the cake.

---

Myth: 1. a usual traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural

phenomenon.

(ostensible: plausible rather than being demonstrably true.)

2. An unfounded or false notion.

3. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

Webster's Ninth Collegiate dictionary

[:"red"] "...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." [/]

2 Timothy 1:12 KJV

[:"red"] "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." [/]

John 13:35 NASB

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Narnia Evangelism

---

It is pointless to discuss something you made up.

Quote:

---

this type of "Evangelism" has never been shown to retain memberships in the Church.

---

Retention numbers for any kind of evangelism are dismal.

Quote:

---

Do they use Narnia in the areas of the world where the Church is most growing? No. They use the Bible.

---

This is breathtakingly irrelevant. The areas where the Church is growning aren't English speaking. And, as Rwanda graphically demonstrated, sometimes the numbers aren't meaningful.

And what's happening in the third world is irrelevant to Evangelism in the advanced parts of the world. Really, this is elementary.

As far as what I call "reaching" them, it's simple. For those with no SDA background or connections, when they ask "How do I become a member of the SDA church," I consider that "reaching them." And when disaffected and burned-out Christians and SDA's enthusiastically attend and show signs of serious spiritual endeavors, I consider that "reaching them."

But that's only the end of the process. There's more to reaching them than that. There's something called the "Engel scale" which describes the spiritual decision-making process. Whenever a person moves forward on that scale, that's considered successful evangelism. The original scale is in a book now out of print. However, you can find it reprinted in an SDA book, if you're interested.

Our church plant, now more than 5 yrs old, has a median age of 26 (what's the median age of your church?). Although few in number, we've grown 40% in the last few years. And last year, we made more than 22,000 contacts for Christ.

And that doesn't count the people I personally reach through my articles. SIGNS has a circulation of 200,000. LIFE.info over 90,000. As far as SIGNS Australia, Priorities (Inter-American), Phillipine Health and Family, FOCUS (Britain's SIGNS), and the Finnish magazine whose name I cannot pronounce nor reproduce with this keyboard, I don't know.

But I'm reaching a few. A Presbyterian Pastor in Cincinnatti ordered SIGNS for his whole congregation because of one of my articles. He contacted me, and I helped arrange for the mass subscriptions.

Next thing, you'll claim I'm boasting. Not at all. These are simple facts you kept demanding.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

by Ed - "Next thing, you'll claim I'm boasting."

---

Actually Ed, no. You are wrong. I do not class that as boasting at all. I appreciate you filling me in on that. I am just thinking here that you are way too hard on those who do not see certain aspects of evangelism the way you do. The sentence I quoted from you above shows too much presumption. You did give some good testimony in your above post - I would just add that very little of that evangelism was/is connected to Narnia in any way. I had asked you for some info specific to use of Narnia, which I still have not seen you post on. But, I am not interested in arguing about it either, so if you choose not to answer my questions, as they would pertain to use of Narnia in evangelism; that's OK.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

But that's only the end of the process. There's more to reaching them than that. There's something called the "Engel scale" which describes the spiritual decision-making process. Whenever a person moves forward on that scale, that's considered successful evangelism. The original scale is in a book now out of print. However, you can find it reprinted in an SDA book, if you're interested.

---

Ed, this interests me. Do you have the Engel scale handy and could you take a moment to sketch it out here please? I'd be very interested in seeing an overview of it. Thanks.

Nico

Edit: I found this version here: http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/engel.php but if you have a different version by all means, post it!

[]http://guide.gospelcom.net/pics/engel5.gif[/]

[Nicodema]

This article is informative as well:

>> http://www.hazelden.org.uk/pt02/art_pt068_modified_engel_full.htm <<

[there buster]

Well, first of all Narnia is only one example of a host of things that are speaking to contemporary audiences. That movie has only been out for a few months.

Still, at that screening on Dec 9th was a young SDA, abused by and disillusioned with the SDA church.

His first words to me, last November, were, "I have a problem with pastors." (Since I am the lay pastor of the church plant, that's why he told me). During "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe," this 20-something former US Marine was weeping at the beauty of the gospel as he saw it presented. And he said, "If only it had been presented that way to me as I grew up in the church."

I'm not hard on those who "Don't see it as I do." But the vast majority of Baby boomers and older members simply refuse to see, refuse even to look.

The next generation- the "Gen-Xer's" are quickly moving beyond the age where they can most readily be reached. And their parents generation--and frankly, all too often-- their very parents are more concerned about their own Laodicean comfort than their children's salvation (not only is that not a guess, I could relate a dozen heartbreaking examples).

The generation following that -- the so-called "millenials"-- are reaching adulthood, and they are leaving too.

And when it's pointed out that the traditional means don't reach them, we get these Laodicean defenses of ineffective means. We are "increased of evangelistic methods, and have need of nothing" more.

So we keep pouring resources into massive "ministries" that reach 3-4% of the audience, and simply ignore the rest. No, it would be better if we ignored them--we actively condemn them.

If, as you flatly declared, you really believe that Narnia is not Christian, then you miss the point of both. The continual deep insights in Christianity that emerge from a serious reading of the Chronicles of Narnia are amazing. I'm sorry you don't see them.

Rather than writing them off, you might wonder why so many serious Christians find them deeply worthwhile. And remember that once before, some heard only parables, while others heard mysteries of the kingdom.

I could tell you hundreds of stories of how contemporary people can be reached. But you (and I'm using the generic "you" here) have to be willing to re-examine your own faith, and have it challenged in the deepest ways.

That's the second best part about working with contemporary people-- how it forces your own faith to deepen. The best part is realizing that you're building healthy relationships that you can keep-- forever.

[there buster]

That's it, Nico. The only differences are superficial. The original was published in Engel's "Contemporary Christian Communications," ca. 1983.

Engel's point is that, whenever a person is moved one unit further along the line, Evangelism has taken place.

He was trying to broaden people's horizons. For example, calgary_guy wants "results." In evangelical terms, that's "decisions for Christ;" for SDA's, it's "baptisms." Engel thought that far too narrow a definition, overlooking the many steps in the process.

If you find Engel's scale convincing, and I can tell you that it is highly regarded by NADEI and the Seminary, there are a lot of implications that follow.

Personally, I've long been disgusted by clamoring for credit over "stars in my crown" and who has the most baptisms. It has led to high-pressure sales and other manipulative techniques that yield baptisms but bring in people who don't stay.

So I resist demands for results (no, I know you didn't make such a demand).

It's long past time we started blessing people because we have the opportunity, and because that's our calling as Christians-- and stopped worrying about baptisms.

They will come, as we have experienced. But they're of a different nature.

Because of our status, we cannot baptize people. So the typical wait time between their decision to become an SDA, and the time when the conference gets someone here to perform the baptism, is about 3 months.

The typical evangelist would go hyper. "Let's get them into the water right now!" -- to "cement" their decision.

But we don't worry about the wait. Because the decision was arrived at through a different process, it's not as likely to be changed. And our members persist, for the same reason.

We spend a great deal of effort on moving people from -7 to -5. That doesn't give short term "results," but it needs to be done.

[Nicodema]

I really liked the modified one cited in the link above too, as it goes out to -12! And includes some nuances on the scale that are relevant to me right now -- and encouraging -- as I pray for someone I deeply care about (whom I would put at -8 on that "modified" Engel's scale) and watch things happening. It is VERY encouraging to think of this as evangelism going on even though right now he's not making a direct, explicit "decision for Christ".

Quote:

---

Personally, I've long been disgusted by clamoring for credit over "stars in my crown" and who has the most baptisms. It has led to high-pressure sales and other manipulative techniques that yield baptisms but bring in people who don't stay.

... It's long past time we started blessing people because we have the opportunity, and because that's our calling as Christians-- and stopped worrying about baptisms.

---

Amen to that!

[Guest]

Quotes by Ed

Quote:

---

It's long past time we started blessing people because we have the opportunity, and because that's our calling as Christians-- and stopped worrying about baptisms.

---

I actually do have much agreement with most of what you are trying to say Ed; but I will leave the Narnia part alone for now, as it seems to be rather unimportant in the big picture of things that I think you are trying to bring out. I am glad to hear you say that it is more important to not worry so much about getting them in the doors or in the tank as it is to just bless them because we have the chance. To me, this is the gospel with hands and feet; which, as I think you are saying; we tend to miss the boat on a lot. But I disagree that we can limit this bad habit to Babyboomers, or any other, single age bracket or social group. I think that a wide variety of people are like that...For eg. I go to a really large church and it does not seem to have more of one age bracket than another. But it has the same things going on, as you described...

Quote:

---

But that's only the end of the process. There's more to reaching them than that. There's something called the "Engel scale" which describes the spiritual decision-making process. Whenever a person moves forward on that scale, that's considered successful evangelism. The original scale is in a book now out of print. However, you can find it reprinted in an SDA book, if you're interested.

---

I don't know if I'll get tomatoes (internet tomatoes) thrown at me for saying this or not, but I find this very interesting. I have not studied the Engel Scale material too much; but because of my nursing background, I have looked closely at a number of other scales of moral development. There is certainly some merit to looking at these. The best I can see in terms of a scale of development for morals is by Lawrence Kohlberg. he has detailed six stages of moral development that are amazingly accurate. At the bottom of the scale, (#1), moral values are placed, not pertaining to people or to social standards; but to strictly phisical acts and/or needs. Starting at around stage 3; we see moral values being placed in maintaining the conventional social order, and the expectations of others, (non-denominational movement??). But at the top of Kohlberg's scale is # 6 where moral values are rooted in self-chosen principles and standards that have a universal, and logical validity; and therefore can be easily shared with others. (Good Jews??)

But, I think that all these scales fall short of the Biblically outlined formation of moral values; especially as taken from texts such as Rom.12:1-2. According to this text, God wants us to get information; and to go along with conformation (Kohlbergs Stage 6 ??); but God doesn't want any of this other "moral development" if it does not lead to the "transformation" spoken of in Romans here.

And this is why I see so much of our "evangelism" and "programs" as only temorary, feel-good stuff for us all to write papers about. The reason we are not as "successful" in our evangelism is because we all keep ignoring this "transformation" stuff, as long as we get the information all lined up, and we do all the "correct" conforming;" who cares about that "transformation hub-bub?"

Notice, the text does not say "informing" of your mind; nor does it say "conforming" of your mind; it says "transforming." If we have not had something happen in the transformation; then we will not have much testimony to "share." It will all be dry theory, without Christ.

Anyways; I have just about used up my dime for tonight. Here is a picture of me, incase my name is "MUD."

[Michelle]

Nico--thanks for posting that. I need to read through it (I've bookmarked it, since I don't have time right now) and see how it relates to my teaching.

However, the aspect of moving one mark is very similar to what my husband teaches in his speech class, for persuasive speeches. He says that in a gradation from 1 to 10, if you can persuade your audience to move from a 1 to a 2, you have been successful, even if you are arguing a 10.

There were some people visiting us a month or so ago who are self-supporting workers in another part of Asia. I was talking about a conversation with some of my students about pork (one of the students initiated the conversation). After the conversation, in which I actually did very little talking, one of the students said, I already don't eat beef, and now I can't eat pork--all that's left is chicken! I said, well, you know, you can live on chicken! When I was relating this experience, the visitors were rather appalled that I had left it there, rather than moving to the next level of cutting out all meats. That's when my DH told them about moving one step at a time.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but subconsciously that's the way I tend to operate. (ever since the program we went to China under was cut because of "lack of baptisms," I have refused to consider this enumerating way of reducing souls to numbers! )

M

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The best I can see in terms of a scale of development for morals is by Lawrence Kohlberg. he has detailed six stages of moral development that are amazingly accurate

---

Since my Master's is in Religious Education, I'm quite familiar with Kohlberg, among others.

Kohlberg's stages, in my opinion are fatally flawed because they're based on Piaget's six stages of cognitive development. There's nothing wrong with Piaget, but basing moral development stages on cognitive development is a fatal flaw. It assumes we progress morally as we progress up the congnitive pyramid, but ignores the affective pyramid. It assumes that knowing right is doing right, which is demonstrably false.

Piaget also has three stages of moral development. Ernest Ligon has an interesting approach, in his institute and book, "The Psychology of Christian Personality." The best single approach for my money is Peck & Havighurst's longitudinal study detailed in "The Psychology of Character Development."

Peck & Havighurst have committed only one unpardonable sin: that of falling out of fashion. But their five stages are highly descriptive and useful.

1. Amoral. Immediate gratification.

2. Expedient. Behaving well to get something, as in, "Honesty is good for business."

3. Conforming. The first glimmer of conscience. Asks "What does everyone do?"

4. Irrational-Conscientious. Legalistic. Asks, "What is the rule?"

5. Rational-Altruistic. Asks, "What is the right thing to do?" where "right" means caring, honorable, etc.

Our evangelism is mainly aimed at producing #3. We tend to consider those at #4 as "good Christians," and those at #5 as "trouble-makers."

But Engel is not taking on the entire range of moral development. He's strictly speaking to the "Spiritual Decision-Making Process."

The best model of Christian experience that I'm aware of is the relationship model. We use the relationship model in conjunction with "Spheres of Grace," our friendship model, and relate it to Engel.

Engel, is, however, the most widely recognized. One testimony to its usefulness is how many adaptations of it there are. I have seen several.

As far as your "large-church experience," recognize that it is atypical in NA. A quick perusal of any conference stats will show that the vast majority of churches in NA have fewer than 100 members. A preponderance of those are under 50.

Given the membership inflation so common, that probably means no more than 25 attendees. And almost no one between the ages of 20-40. Young children and teens come because they have no choice. As soon as they can leave, they do.

In larger churches, youth are "involved," generally meaning that adults give them inconsequential things to do, or provide entertainment.

When serious measures are suggested to remedy this problem, it is the Baby Boomers and older members who refuse to modify one jot or one tittle, as though they had the perfect service/program.

We have a young couple from Alberta attending our church plant. If we did not exist, they would have nowhere to go. The other three churches in the area ase cold, static, tradition-bound, and intellectually stifling.

With nearly 40,000 college students in a 25 mile radius, we are the only group making ANY effort to reach that group. We are the only SDA presence in one community with 7,000 intact families with children under 18.

Just recently, the oldest, largest church held an evangelistic "effort." For the expenditure of thousands of dollars, there were a total of 11 baptisms, most of those children of members. That left three who actually came in because of the meetings.

They spent more for those meetings than we have spent on everything for our entire existence. They have 30 time our membership on the books, and about 9 times our attendance. But we have more couples in the 20-30 age group than they do. And they make up 50% of our congregation, 2/3 of our baptized members.

[Guest]

Thanks for the additional take re Kohlberg Ed, which sounded just like my nursing instructor - right on. But aren't all the various models of moral development somewhat cognitively based? This was some of my concern in my last post. "They fall short of the Biblical model;" I believe is how I put it.

The other model you mentioned above; in it's step 5 doesn't seem too different from Kohlbergs step 6. I do think that all these models of moral development can provide us with good insights as to our nature.

As far as "moving people from one step to the next;" I believe that this is one area where we are grossly flawed. We keep drumming up "techniques" to do this, yet, it is only the Holy Spirit who can do it. Often, we don't allow Him room to work. We tend to look at someone and go: "O My! Poor Joe is only at step 3." I know when I sense someone trying to "influence" me to the right step, or stage; a wall of rebellion and repulsion goes up right away. We have too many Bible Chiefs and not enough of the "Indians" to really do evangelism the right way as God intended.

Ed, you mentioned that "If we didn't exist; they would have nowhere to go." And you have said something to this effect several times in this thread. Mind if I ask what it is that's different about your Church? And what are your thoughts on what makes a Church the way your's is?

[Parade Orange]

When I was growing up in my liberal headonistic parents who had porno around in the livingroom and bedrooms and bathrooms I wanted to know who God was.

As a young child of 6 or so my questions(of who is GOD and such) to my parents were evaded or loopy.

And as a child my thirst was satisfied in many aspects by the movie "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton(soilent green is PEOPLE! Your eating PEOPLE!!! waaa!)Heston.

I later found out that Yul(Look at me IM a dumb president of my country! etcertra etceterta)) Brenner wasnt the Pharoh when king's Soldiers and chariots were drowned in the Red Sea. Every Year I would wait to see that Grand Movie again.

My Parents were entertained by the movie ,and I suspect adored Ann(why am I in this movie looking so plain as Yul Brenner's wife? and Moses wife looking so Hot!) Baxter, so I get to see it every year. This is before VHS. In the backwoods 60's/70's.

I didnt have access to church or to a Bible(well...my dad had the satanic bible on the bookshelf) but once a year I caught a glimpse of A God outside of my world back then. Little did I know it was God drawing me to HIM at an early age.

Praise GOD!

[Nicodema]

G4J, we have that in common. The 10 C movie was an early "drawing me to God" influence in my life as well. That and one called "The Story of Jacob and Joseph" which they showed on TV every year around Easter time.

[Guest]

Hi G4J

I must really be strange - We just bought that movie (The 10 Commandments) a little while ago; and I still, even now, love to sit down and watch it with my kids.

I enjoyed your testimony re early "drawing" influences. I am presuming that you also intended to imply that Narnia, or some other similar effort would also serve as that kind of drawing influence? Or atleast maybe Ed was intending to say some such thing??

I can agree that that may be the case, in some cases. It's like many things which I do not find personally uplifting; and which I would never use myself; I know that for others, they can make a small beginning with that very thing. The whole Bible is filled with that message - where God sings that song to us, in different ways, to different people: "Begin Again With Me."

(Hey Ed; if I am finally getting close to figuring what you have been trying to say; please let me know... )

[Parade Orange]

Praise God.

I wish I saw that.

The forgiveness of Joseph towards his brothers and the purity of his youth inspire me. Reading Genesis in The Clear Word is joy by the tea cups. I get alot from the story of Joseph. Love Jacob too BTW.

I understand that captivation and wonder of who is this GOD?

as a small boy.

Praise God!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

aren't all the various models of moral development somewhat cognitively based

---

No. All have a cognitive component. Peck & Havighurst's was considerably more affective. The affective pyramid can be quite informative. The relational model we use is the single best one I know of, which is why we employ it.

Quote:

---

what it is that's different about your Church? And what are your thoughts on what makes a Church the way your's is?

---

What level of detail are you seeking?

Doctrinally, we're orthodox SDA. Probably far more orthodox than the typical congregation. My theology is vetted on a regular basis by multiple editors and Seminary professors.

Liturgically, we're quite different.

Our core values and mission statement set us apart.

As per the Engel scale, we view Evangelism as a continuous process which does not end with commitment to Christ.

We continually review our core values and mission.

For example. I often ask the question:

Do we really believe that salvation means "A saving relationship with Christ?"

IF that's true, then the business of the church, the business of every believer, is building relationships. Continually building our personal relationship with Christ; building our relationships with each other as the body of Christ; and building relationships with those who are not yet committed to Christ.

In some ways, we're straight arrow SDA. In other ways, the differences run all the way down.

As I have time, I'll be happy to share virtually anyting you want. Rather than attempt an exhaustive (and, no doubt exhausting for all) approach, I prefer to respond to specifi questions. Some of the material I share, I'll request that you not reproduce. I have several books and projects underway, and I don't want to compromise them.

For example, I have a presentation on the manipulative methods we use in "soul-winning," how they actually set up members for being led away into cults, how they feed and perpetuate congregational sicknesses, and why they cannot produce healthy Christians. It bears directly on:

Quote:

---

when I sense someone trying to "influence" me to the right step, or stage; a wall of rebellion and repulsion goes up right away

---

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

"aren't all the various models of moral development somewhat cognitively based

---

No. All have a cognitive component. Peck & Havighurst's was considerably more affective. The affective pyramid can be quite informative. The relational model we use is the single best one I know of, which is why we employ it.

---

hello Ed I am not sure I really meant there to be a difference between "cognitively based," or having "a cognitive component;" because the way I understand any of these morality development models is that none of them are exempt from the cognitive aspects. And to me, this presents a problem when we try to "move people" from some, one step/level, to another, during the course of what we call "evangelism;" or "reaching them." Even the "relational model" is dependent on perception, learning, reasoning and cognition; all of which can vary from one person to another. For eg., in your church, you have a good attendance there, but mostly one certain segment of society. They all perceive your stated core values a certain way; but that cognitive aspect of the relational model by nature excludes many other classes of people. Because of this; how can we logically "move" people from other classes to the next "step" or "level?" I think it all has the potential to be highly manipulative and artifical. The kind of relationship model that Jesus practiced was different; and this is why He said: "Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isa.56:7 Jesus' ideal of a Church is one where all kinds can meet mingle and feel welcome.

I would be very interested to see your church's stated core values, and also some study materials on the ways we tend to manipulate in our "soul-winning," and I am interested in as much detail and depth as you have time to share. If you can mail me some stuff, that would be too long to post here; please let me know. I can PM you & give you contact info.

[there buster]

I'm having a hard time following you.

Quote:

---

Even the "relational model" is dependent on perception, learning, reasoning and cognition; all of which can vary from one person to another.

---

1. You speak of the relational model as though you knew what it was, even though we've provided no definition or description of it. and

2. The rest of the sentence could apply to anything and everything, I'm not certain how it advances the discussion.

Quote:

---

in your church, you have a good attendance there, but mostly one certain segment of society.

---

I'm curious as to what you base that on, since I don't remember discussing attendance. And church members by definition are a "certain segment of society."

Quote:

---

They all perceive your stated core values a certain way; but that cognitive aspect of

the relational model by nature

excludes

many other classes of people.

---

This suffers from the same sort of defects. Without a description/definition of the relational model to work from, your conclusions are arrived at through a process invisible to me.

And one "perception" of a set of propositions does not automatically "exclude" anybody.

You might as well say that believing the seventh day Sabbath "escludes" Sunday-keepers. Except it doesn't. They may choose to worship elsewhere, but they are not excluded.

If you mean that "birds of a feather flock together," then you have stated a platitude. But that would be the case no matter how ethnically, socially, and economically diverse the group. That is, it would be their commonly held values that draw them together.

If "not sharing the same values" = "excluding," then the gospel is as "exclusive" as any other belief.

Quote:

---

Because of this; how can we logically "move" people from other classes to the next "step" or "level?" I think it all has the potential to be highly manipulative and artifical.

---

People have the potential to be highly manipulative. But our traditional soul-winning approach is inherently manipulative.

For example, in the traditional model.

Soulwinner -------------- Disciple

I am in the light........ you are in darkness

I have knowledge ........ you are ignorant

I have an agenda

. for the relationship

. I don't reveeal

I will seek decisions.... you will decide

this could go on at some length. The problem is that the model itself is manipulative, with the soulwinner always "superior" to the one being discipled.

Not all models are inhernetly manipulative. For example, rather than looking at discipleship as steps for the disciple to make, it can be viewed as a shared journey. We may have been down this road before, and therefore recognize the landmarks, but that doesn't require us to "hurry" along the way.

Quote:

---

Jesus' ideal of a Church is one where all kinds can meet mingle and feel welcome.

---

All people who share those values, as I demonstrated above.

One final note.

I asked some of my fellow church-members how they would describe what makes our church different.

Here is a summary of what they said.

(they gave me several related answers, and I summarized them into this one, and then read it back to them, to verify if it was what they meant)

1. "It's a place where you can ask real questions about faith, and get practical spiritual guidance."

And

2. "One word: 'authenticity.'"

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

Quote:

---

when I sense someone trying to "influence" me to the right step, or stage; a wall of rebellion and repulsion goes up right away

---

---

Very similar to the manner Lucifer reacted just before his journey to the kingdom of darkness. Of course that conclusion could be qualified to, "rebellion" to what?. However since there was nothing in the kingdom of heaven to rebel within reason against, the only option would be a journey away from Christ. Here on this fallen planet such is not the case, and not all are honestly attempting to influence us to walk with Jesus.

[:"red"] "Love...is ever ready to believe the best of every person...its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances..." [/] 1 Cor 13:7 AMP

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

I'm having a hard time following you.

Quote:

---

Even the "relational model" is dependent on perception, learning, reasoning and cognition; all of which can vary from one person to another.

---

1. You speak of the relational model as though you knew what it was, even though we've provided no definition or description of it. and

2. The rest of the sentence could apply to anything and everything, I'm not certain how it advances the discussion.

---

Hello Ed

I am sorry that you are having trouble following me. LOL...But it could also be the other way around.

Let me try to be a little more plain.

If I were to summarize in my own words what I hear you saying here; I would say this: "Relational Evangelism" is where it's at, and it is the key to church growth, and in "leading" people to Christ; which our church is doing."

I am simply saying that there is no difference in this model of "moral development;" than in any of the more cogitively based models; except for the proportion of relationship vs cognitive agendas in a given model of moral development.

The relational model of moral development, to me, and some others I have asked, seems to have the same potential for manipulation as any other. Relationship evangelism can and does, in some cases, leave out the word of God, and focus on the trendy, self-centered religion we see in so many churches. If a person does not fit into the particular model of moral development being espoused at a given church; they are left out in the cold, in most cases.

For eg., as soon as I said I didn't think Narnia was Christian, look at what you said to me, and tell me if I am wrong, that I would likely have a really hard time going to your church.

No matter what kind of "program" or "method" we use to "move people to stage five;" we are still not going to have "success" in reaching the alleged 96% we are not reaching, just because we are stuck on the program.

It would be better if we just got back to something really simple, and Biblical, such as being a witness for God, in the ways implied by texts such as Isa.43:10-12

Quote:

---

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

---

When we can tell others what Jesus is to us; what he has done to/in us; we do not need a program, or fancy psychological approaches. People will be attracted to Jesus, if He is in us; and our "approach" will appeal to almost any class of society.

Most church members only have friends just like them, because they have not had the experience with Jesus that would give them something truly Christian to "share" with others not like them. Even Satan has a "relationship" with God. Therefore, we need to go further than just relationship.

[Parade Orange]

Hi Calgary Guy!

I just saw your post.

Anytime there is a movie about God I want to watch it to this day.

I hope the movie will spell out Gods Love for us in some way or another. I llok for that.

Sometimes you see it in a nonreligious movie.

Hollywood wants our monie but sometimes they spell it out accidently without meaning too. God can use the foolish things of this world.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

1. "It's a place where you can ask real questions about faith, and get practical spiritual guidance."

And

2. "One word: 'authenticity.'"

---

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude ... where's your church ... I wanna join.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

No matter what kind of "program" or "method" we use to "move people to stage five;" we are still not going to have "success" in reaching the alleged 96% we are not reaching, just because we are stuck on the program.

---

Actually, you are stuck on the "program" paradigm. There are other ways of looking at things.

You may also be mistaking the "Friendship evangelism" a program promoted by AdventSource for what we do.

Quote:

---

I would likely have a really hard time going to your church.

---

Yes, probably. For reasonsI'll address that later.

Quote:

---

If I were to summarize in my own words what I hear you saying here; I would say this: "Relational Evangelism" is where it's at, and it is the key to church growth, and in "leading" people to Christ; which our church is doing."

---

Now we're getting somewhere. By mirroring back, in your own words, it becomes clear where the misunderstanding lies.

Rather than trying more exposition, let me ask you a question, the same question we ask over and over again.

What does salvation mean?

These days we commonly hear that it is "a saving relationship to Christ." Is that correct?

If not, what is it?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude ... where's your church ... I wanna join.

---

Right now, we're in Marion, Iowa.

We get that a lot, actually.

Instead of a sermon, we have a dialogue, in three segments. This allows people to digest concepts, formulate and ask questions, and pursue them till they get answers.

This March, our video guy has promised a series of "Simpson's " video openings. The last time he did it, it was marvelous. Provocative, humorous, relevant, insightful. And yes, a blessing.