Conference yukon::christian_v7

This is being relayed in the UK.  If you live within commutable distance of 
Reading, the card I have may be of interest.  It says :


		      You are invited to 

			 BILLY GRAHAM 

			GLOBAL MISSION

		       By satellite to
		Loddon Valley Leisure Centre
		    Rushey Way, Lower Earley

		March 16th, 17th, 18th 1995

		     Doors open 7:15 p.m.

		      The Time is Now....

01734 792169					01734 791038

There's talk of an audience of one Billion.
That would be phenominal.  One in six people on the earth
tuning in!

    Something like 170 countries and 80 different languages too.

    Extract from our Digital Australia Christians At Work Ad-Hoc Newsletter
    (See it in full in Chit-chat if it's still there)
               
                          Billy Graham Crusade On Now

               There is an  international  Billy  Graham  Crusade
               happening  right now and for the next two or three
               days.  Various churches in Sydney are  taking  the
               delayed   satellite  broadcast  in  the  evenings.
               Please pray for Billy and  those  in  the  support
               networks in the local churches.

    James

    
    Dear Friends in Christ,
    
         I stand corrected on my numbers put forth here and concur with
    those of you who said possability 1 BILLION hearing, 165 various
    countries, and 80 various languages. LET US PRAY! RIGHT NOW!
    
         > Pray for the technical aspect of this vast undertaking!
    
         > Pray for the spiritual, those hearing the words!
    
         > Pray for Billy Graham's  health, energy and spirit of delivery
           of his message!
    
                          all best in Christ's love....Jack
     
    
    

    Thank you friends for this information. I am working on a project in
    Rome at the moment and as I do not speek Italiano I couldn't follow the
    news. I'll be praying that Christs' precious blood will protect Him
    from the Evil one. Thank's again
    
    Brother in Christ
    
    Peter

   "Rejoice with me; for I have found my lost sheep!!!!"

   "I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over 
    one sinner who repents ."

							Luke 15:6,10


....just excited about hearing of someone going forward at the Billy Graham
    relay here last night.... 


								Andrew

    Re: Note 693.7 by ICTHUS::YUILLE
    
>....just excited about hearing of someone going forward at the Billy Graham
>   relay here last night.... 
    ^^^^^
    
    Chuckle.  ;-)  We had about 800 or so, and about ten or twenty went
    forward.  Not that it was terribly clear _why_ they should go forward! 
    This was the third broadcast... which we saw delayed on Saturday night.
    
    James

    re Note 693.8 by AUSSIE::CAMERON
    
    > Not that it was terribly clear _why_ they should go forward!
    
    James could you explain what you mean by this.
    
    

    Re: Note 693.9 by GIDDAY::SCHWARZ
    
>   > Not that it was terribly clear _why_ they should go forward!
>   James could you explain what you mean by this.
    
    Sure!  My wife and I talked about this afterwards, it was not made
    clear at any time by BG himself or the local voice-over _why_ people
    should go forward, or what would happen to them.  I'm guessing it was a
    hole in the presentation sequence or something.
    
    James

    James,
    
    You have made this a little clearer. Im still confused why people DID
    go forward.
    
    kym
    

    Re: Note 693.11 by GIDDAY::SCHWARZ
    
>   You have made this a little clearer. Im still confused why people DID
>   go forward.
    
    I suspect that they thought that BG was asking them to become a
    Christian, and so they were coming forward to show that decision and to
    collect the "literature".
    
    James

    James,
    
    If they were coming forward as a outward sign of them giving their
    lives to Christ then the _why_ is because of the Holy Spirit's
    prompting.
    
    Does it really matter why they came forward at that particular time?
    The fact that they felt moved by God to do so is reason enough to
    rejoice.
    
    kym

    an aside:
    
    Do people _go out the front_ because someone has asked them to ie the
    preacher, or because of God's promping? What difference does it make?
    How does this affect to way we approach 'alter calls'?
    
    Kym
    
    ps: we dont have alter calls in my church.

re: -.1

>    Do people _go out the front_ because someone has asked them to ie the
>    preacher, or because of God's promping? What difference does it make?
>    How does this affect to way we approach 'alter calls'?
    
	Could make an interesting topic...

					   hazza :*]

re -.1

wot, conversions? altered states?

Chele

    Re: Note 693.13 by GIDDAY::SCHWARZ
    
>   If they were coming forward as a outward sign of them giving their
>   lives to Christ then the _why_ is because of the Holy Spirit's
>   prompting.
    
    If you wish to be silly about it, then yes, anything that happens in
    this entire universe is because God prompted it.  That was not what I
    was originally speaking about.  I was thinking in terms of what the
    people going forward (or _not_ going forward) were rationalising;
    i.e. what were _their_ reasons _why_ they went forward, not some all
    encompassing _why_ such as the Spirit's prompting.
    
>   Does it really matter why they came forward at that particular time?
>   The fact that they felt moved by God to do so is reason enough to
>   rejoice.
    
    I have no idea how many of them felt moved by God to come forward.  I
    have no idea whether it really matters why they came forward.  You
    sought the clarification on my comment that there was no reason
    _stated_ _clearly_ for them to come forward.
    
    James

Hi James, re .8, I guess I should have clarified ... the specifics of my 
excitment was at who the particular individual was.  I don't have stats on 
the whole deal.

btw, from when I've been involved in these, usually around half of those 
going forward are counsellors, tagging a specific inquirer.

�    Sure!  My wife and I talked about this afterwards, it was not made
�    clear at any time by BG himself or the local voice-over _why_ people
�    should go forward, or what would happen to them.  I'm guessing it was a
�    hole in the presentation sequence or something.

So your relay did not include any invitation to go forward, yet people did.  
Presumably when they saw people on screen going forward?

�    Do people _go out the front_ because someone has asked them to ie the
�    preacher, or because of God's prompting? 

If the first, then it will come to nothing.  If the second, they're on the 
way, whether this is their time to be 'altered' or not ;-)

� What difference does it make? 

The parable of the sower and the seed covers all sorts of soil....  They
all get the seed.  Some give it a try without root [in their own strength], 
and haven't any spiritual resource to stand.

� How does this affect to way we approach 'altar calls'?
Don't go forward unless you're sure it's from the LORD, and not fron yourself...

Kym, my church doesn't make altar calls either.  We'd have a job to, as 
there is no altar at my church either ;-)  But a fair few people at my 
church have responded to invitations following gospel meetings elsewhere.
They can be overdone, we can be starved of them.  I don't see it as 
terribly critical, as in any gospel preaching church there should be some 
sort of invitation (which in our case is just to speak to the pastor or 
similar if anyone has any fuerther questions).

The fact that some can be put off by what they see as excessive
emotionalism or crowd manipulation is generally just indicative of the
infinite variety that God has created in mankind.  Each to his taste.  And
while some may fuss that what is not to *their* taste is liable to put
people off Christianity, God knows the heart, and will not let that be an
excuse to keep any of His own out of heaven.  Neither will He deprive those 
for whom that might be the best channel to open the heart...

							Andrew

    FWIW,
    
    I just wanted to confirm from my point of view that there was
    no clear meaning give to the alter call.  Billy Graham just
    said something like, "Now, I want you all to come up here.
    Get up from your seats and come down to the front....."  He
    did not explain why.  I was thinking, "I hope those people
    figure out what he means.  I don't know how they are going to
    fit everyone in that stadium down on the field."  Appanently,
    they figured it out because some people did stay in their seats.
    
    I think this may just have been a slip.  He has been doing this
    for so many years and is getting old.  
    
    All in all, I think the Global Mission was terrific.  I only
    watched 2 nights of it on tv but it seemed to be very successful.
    Praise God!
    
    Pam

.18 Andrew

>Kym, my church doesn't make altar calls either.  We'd have a job to, as 
>there is no altar at my church either ;-)  But a fair few people at my 
>church have responded to invitations following gospel meetings elsewhere.
>They can be overdone, we can be starved of them.  I don't see it as 
>terribly critical, as in any gospel preaching church there should be some 
>sort of invitation (which in our case is just to speak to the pastor or 
>similar if anyone has any fuerther questions).
>
>The fact that some can be put off by what they see as excessive
>emotionalism or crowd manipulation is generally just indicative of the
>infinite variety that God has created in mankind.  Each to his taste.  And
>while some may fuss that what is not to *their* taste is liable to put
>people off Christianity, God knows the heart, and will not let that be an
>excuse to keep any of His own out of heaven.  Neither will He deprive those 
>for whom that might be the best channel to open the heart...

Glad to see this wisdom Andrew.  I have been thinking about some things
over the weekend and the "Altar call" was one of them.  You see, I have
a friend in the BCC who parroted someone's understanding that the altar
call was not a Biblical concept.  And it is this notion that grants some
people license to feel a spiritual superiority over those whose practice
includes the Altar call response.  I'm going to write more about it
elsewhere, but when one examines the reasons for "Altar calls" instead
of the means by which some people have used altar calls, one can see
a distinctive Biblical application, especially in the Old Testament where
sin offerings were made.  "But we are not bound by the law and sacrifice
was abolished."  Not quite.  Animal sacrifices were, but moving from
action to attitiude, the attitude of bringing your sins and yourself
and laying them at the feet of Jesus for cleansing remains an important
part of the regeneration of the individual.  NOT in the physical coming
forward and NOT in any outward expression, but as Andrew says, in the
heart.  And the altar call is merely one expression of a heart response.

Mark

    Thank you Pam, I was hoping that somebody else had seen and heard the
    same sort of thing!  ;-)

    I didn't see the crusade, but having worked at one I find it odd that
    Dr. Graham did not explain why people should come forward.  Generally
    his altar call sound pretty much the same from service to service. 
    "In just a moment I'm going to ask you to come forward (couselors cue
    to get in position).  By coming forward you are saying I want to make
    Jesus Lord of my life... (or some other form of affirmative consent to
    the message)."
    
    On another earlier note...Yes, about one third to half of the people on
    the field are counselors or supervisors.  By the way counselors are
    primarily there to record the conversion not to facilitate it.  Any
    additional counseling that may need to be done is referred to the
    clergy/supervisors in the crusade.
    
    Having been involved in the follow-up in the Atlanta area, I am
    disappointed with the long term results of the crusade.  Some 90% of
    the people we followed up on, when asked why God should allow them into
    heaven, had no idea what their salvation was based on.  Answers ranged
    from, "I went forward at the crusade" to "I try to do the best I can."
    
    Kent
    

    I really liked BG's simple explanation though... we have a soul, it is
    eternal, and even if you estimate a ten percent probability of hell
    existing, it would be a good idea to hedge your bets and chose heaven.
    
    James

It must be around thirty years since I went to a Billy Graham crusade, so I 
have no strong memories of the detail of his altar call.  I've been to
other ones more recently, which were rather clearer.  Including some 14
years back, locally, when my second lad went forward.  I was some way back
in the (sizeable) group as a supervisor / counsellor at the time, and the
evangelist happened to seize on Fergus, and made an impassioned plea for
the poor lad's father to come forward and be saved as well!  He went on for
some minutes on this theme, but was unable to convince me to renounce my
salvation so that I might be saved again ... ;-}  It was a rather clumsily
inappropriate few minutes, and while it might have touched someone';s heart
to come forward, it might also have persuaded anyone who had come forward
from more complacent motives to return to the seat where they belonged. 

I am surprised that Billy Graham doesn't make the basis of the 'call'
clear, and would regard that as personally disappointing.  However, from
the point of view of those attending, his reputation is such that I guess
most would be aware of what the move forward signified, and would have come
either prepared for that, or ready to be prepared for it.  No excuse for
him (or is it the relay technicians?), but some excuse for at least some
going forward.  

Kent, you were disappointed with the 90% 'failure' rate in those going 
forward.  This is higher than the sort of figure I've understood these
campaigns usually achieve, from surveys in the UK.  However, that does not
totally invalidate even what is achieved in the hearts of the 90%.  Agreed,
they have not made the leap of understanding and spirit we simplistically
hope for, but I believe that even this gesture of acceptance to the LORD
Jesus gives Him an opening He can call back to their remembrance, maybe
much later in life.  For us (and Billy Graham), our responsibility is to
make the message crystal clear, by our life first, and also by passing on
the Word of life.  The result is in the hands of the Holy Spirit. 

.23� I really liked BG's simple explanation though... we have a soul, it is
.23� eternal, and even if you estimate a ten percent probability of hell
.23� existing, it would be a good idea to hedge your bets and chose heaven.

James, I have to differ with you on that one.  I used to think it a great
line of reasoning.  However, the 'salvation' it motivates is a merely
intellectual decision, like taking out an insurance you can then forget 
about while you get on with life, rather than a reality based on an 
awareness of sin and guilt before a holy loving God.  

Sadly, the insurance method can also be an immunisation against revisiting 
the real issues and exposing the soul to God.  It leaves people thinking 
they have experienced salvation, without finding peace with God.  They then 
tend to dismiss 'Christianity' as something they have tried without finding 
peace, and can be sidetracked onto, say, eastern religions, where the 
physical etc disciplines imposed give a substitute impression of achieving 
'enough' righteousness under one's own strength.

I guess I've argued 'for' and 'against' the effect of this type of call 
above.  However, I would not be without it, and trust the Judge of all the 
earth to do right, for 'the LORD knows those who are His', and will not let 
one of them be lost at the final day.  Whatever mean we use ;-}

								Andrew

>  Agreed,
>they have not made the leap of understanding and spirit we simplistically
>hope for, but I believe that even this gesture of acceptance to the LORD
>Jesus gives Him an opening He can call back to their remembrance, maybe
>much later in life.  For us (and Billy Graham), our responsibility is to
>make the message crystal clear, by our life first, and also by passing on
>the Word of life.  The result is in the hands of the Holy Spirit. 

Spot on.

In addition to the "come forward" Billy is also on TV and asks those 
watching the televised program to make a commitment to Jesus Christ 
right in the privacy of their homes.  In other words, the "altar
call" is much less a form than it is a manner of response, and what
I mean by that is that it is not some magical prescription like some
people might like to make it.  (My BCC friend almost derided altar
calls because, of course, you didn't see them in the pages of the 
first century church.)  

When action follows attitude, the attitude is strengthened.  You can
learn a lot about driving by reading about rules of etiquette on the
road and stuff like that, but actually getting behind the wheel makes
you a better driver.  Practice must follow principle.  And works
must *follow* faith.  "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance."

Mark

>  However, the 'salvation' it motivates is a merely
>intellectual decision, like taking out an insurance you can then forget 
>about while you get on with life, rather than a reality based on an 
>awareness of sin and guilt before a holy loving God.  
>
>Sadly, the insurance method can also be an immunisation against revisiting 
>the real issues and exposing the soul to God. 

Andrew, 

  I acknowledge your cautions about immunization, but I can attest that
salvation is (or can be) a merely intellectual decision.  "No man can serve
two masters..."  When I was convinced of this statement by the Holy Spirit,
I was faced with my choice in the matter.  I chose to serve God on an
intellectual basis; not with any great outpouring of emotion of sorrow 
over the sins I had committed.

  You see, I was always a fairly good kid.  There was little to change in
my behavior in life (although there indeed was some!).  But what needed to
be changed was what was at the center of my life.

  The passion and emotion and love, and the visiting of the "real issues"
came in his time and I dealt with each by the help of the Holy Spirit.
I am still a fairly logical kind of guy when I approach something new
that the Spirit has for me to deal with.  (And emotion is not isolated
from me, by the way.)  Some people do in fact come to believe in God
and believe on God for salvation based on an intellectual decision.
If they are sincere about their decision, there is no doubt whatsoever
that they will not be immune to the "real issues" and their soul will
indeed be exposed to God.  And the person may do so on an intellectual 
basis.  What God does with that opening of the soul is His business, and
He does a great business!

Mark

    Andrew,
    
    The response of the 90% raises the question of, "What are we trusting 
    for our salvation?"  If salvation requires a faith response then that
    faith must have an object associated with it.  The only reasonable
    object, of course, is the atoning work of Jesus Christ's death and
    resurrection.  Anything else still puts "I" as the object of faith and
    strictly becomes a salvation of works which is no salvation at all.  My
    regret is that the counselors do not have enough training/latitude/time 
    to be able to clarify the commitment that the inquirer (Billy Graham's
    term) is making.  I've talked to many people who had difficulty
    articulating their faith and then there are those who simply haven't a
    clue.  Am I saying that those people are less saved or not saved at
    all?  I don't think so in every case, God knows the heart.  But when the 
    fiery darts come I believe the one who knows the object of his faith will 
    have a much larger shield.  I believe that when the flood waters come 
    that the one who knows the object of his faith will have a deeper 
    foundation laid and will be less likely to be washed away. I don't
    think it's responsible evangelism to throw the seed out and say, "Here,
    you plant it!"
    
    BTW, the 90% number is singly referring to my church's follow-up of
    ~100 inquirers.  I don't have figures on the US but 100 is a pretty
    good sample size.
    
    Kent
    

� My BCC friend almost derided altar calls because, of course, you didn't see
� them in the pages of the first century church.
Different times, different customs.  And 'even' Paul suited his methods to 
the culture (1 Corinthians9:19-23, which seems to have come up a few times
recently ;-).  Meanwhile, can you imagine him making an altar call in Acts
14:18 ... ;-)  or 13:43?  Because of the type of understanding of that
culture, they had rather the opposite problem... 

Meanwhile, the result looked for in both instances is 13:48 - "all who were 
appointed for eternal life believed."


Funny, Mark - I had much the same sort of conversion experience as you.  
Brought up in all the [baptist] teaching of the Word, etc, yet there was 
something which meant it had to be real, not faked.  When I gave my heart
to the LORD, I got utterly 0 response. reaction change, to my awareness. To
say I was disappointed would be an understatement.  So much so that the
next night I tried again... (I'm sure I've mentioned this here before...) 
He just kinda put in my heart "I heard the first time."
It was some years before I got a real depth of assurance.

I'm not saying that conversion mustn't involve the mind, nor that the 
convert mustn't think he's made a decision - these would be impossible 
criteria.  I think that [almost] always the decision seems to rest in the 
mind of the convert (part of the chosen / free will dichotomy), and that 
free will choice includes and implies enthroning the LORD in the daily life, 
walk and understanding from then on.

What I was guarding against is the one stage back intellectual decision, 
where the heart is not involved, and there is no real awareness or 
conviction of guilt.  The person making that sort of decision is staying in 
control.  But on the face of it neither they nor we can necessarily see the 
difference for maybe many years, if ever, in time.

Pretty much as Kent is saying - the more the counsellor can draw out the
counsellee, to be able to understand and express where his faith is placed,
the better armour they have to advance in the kingdom.  Not that
articulation is a prerequisite of salvation, but that this is our usual
means of communicating the gospel, what it all means to us, and where we 
stand as individuals.

But however skilled the counsellor, there's always occasional people who's
position is very very difficult for ordinary people to be sure of.  They
say the wrong words & phrases, and don't have a grasp on the gospel, yet 
there's uncertainty whether this really reflects their heart, maybe because 
of some certain tenacity for the LORD, or something like that.  The LORD 
knows the heart, and on the day of judgement, He won't be fooled by either 
suitable words or inadequate words.  but these weren't the sort of people 
I was referring as endangered in .24.

I've met arrticulate, educated people, who had tried Christianity, and after 
a while, moved on to other things, as they saw greater truths in various 
philosophies.  But they had clearly never known the LORD Jesus Christ. For
a time they had paid lipservice to what they thought was a way of life in
human strength.  And thought there was no more.  Thes were the people I 
was sad for.

� I don't think it's responsible evangelism to throw the seed out and say,
� "Here, you plant it!" 
Agreed.  But that's where one may be limited by one's personal vision.  We 
may know that the seed needs certain types of watering, and we should 
exercise that gift according to our revelation.  I wouldn't stamp on a 
power spray just because I couldn't personally place every drop...

I like that versse in Revelation 14:6

  "Then I saw another angel flying in mid-air, and he had the eternal 
   gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth - to every nation 
   tribe language and people..."

Ultimately either method of delivering the message is in the LORD's hands,
and He gives the increase. 

								Andrew 

� I don't think it's responsible evangelism to throw the seed out and say,
� "Here, you plant it!" 

But Kent, the seed is scattered and not planted, isn't it?
The parable of the soils indicates that the word is scattered and
some falls on different type of ground.  The gospel tells of four types
of soils and hopefully it doesn't imply 25 percent each!

>Ultimately either method of delivering the message is in the LORD's hands,
>and He gives the increase. 

Amen, Andrew.  (Philip planted a seed in the Ethiopian Eunuch and Peter
preached to a crowd of people from different parts of the world.)

>He just kinda put in my heart "I heard the first time."

This made me chuckle Andrew.  I know just what you mean.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Good question.  Is it the responsibility of the sower to scatter or
    plant the seed?  The second question that you did not ask is, "What is
    the seed?"  The parable that we commonly call the parable of the sower
    seems to indicate an indiscriminate scattering of the 'seed'.  Some
    falls on good soil, others on rocky, some in thorns and others are
    stolen away and never take root.  If the seed is the gospel then the 
    question is not where it is planted but how it is planted.  Clearly 
    the parable says not to take any regard for where but does that also 
    mean that we take no regard for how?  I have tracked the results of 
    mine and my evangelism team's efforts.  Thirty five percent of the 
    time when the gospel is presented to an individual they accept Christ 
    as savior (this may seem like a low number but the US national average
    among organizations such as Campus Crusade, Billy Graham Evang. Assoc,
    and Evangelism Explosion is 10%).  That means that 65% of the time we're 
    sowing but the seed is stolen.  I have not measured the remaining 35% 
    to determine what portion get choked out or scorched.  The 65% heard
    the same gospel as the 35% which includes a clear definition of the
    only basis of ones trust for salvation, the sinfulness of man, and the 
    love and righteousness of God, and the atonement of Christ.  In all 
    three accounts the sower sowed the seed which implies a careful placement.  
    I'm not advocating discrimination in where we sow, I'm advocating due 
    care in how we sow.  Where I see pitfalls is in presenting a need for 
    salvation, an invitation to acknowledge that need and then saying, 
    "We don't have time to explain this to you right now but read this and 
    go to church."  The cultists also recognize this and at every Billy 
    Graham Crusade there are, waiting outside, hundreds of them waiting for 
    the chance to steal the seed.  They wait until the crowd thins and then 
    hit the cars that remain (higher likelihood of those who have gone 
    forward) with official looking literature, "FOR MORE INFORMATION
    CALL...."  In defense of Billy Graham there are workers after the
    crusade who stay until dawn tallying the professions and assigning them
    to a church for follow-up.  It is the church's responsibility to
    follow up but they may not see the card for a week after the crusade. 
    The key, in my opinion, to effective evangelism is (1) presenting a
    clear gospel and (2) following up IMMEDIATELY with discipleship and
    assimilation.  If the gospel is not presented clearly, such that the
    basis of one's salvation is not clearly understood, then the need for
    immediate follow up expands dramatically.  Conversely, if the gospel is
    presented clearly and there is no follow up then you can be sure that
    you will have some who get choked out or scorched.
    
    I hope that I've been able to clearly express what I was originally
    trying to say.  Sometimes my passion gets ahead of my intellect.
    
    Kent
    

---
    Good question.  Is it the responsibility of the sower to scatter or
    plant the seed?  The second question that you did not ask is, "What is
    the seed?"  The parable that we commonly call the parable of the sower
    seems to indicate an indiscriminate scattering of the 'seed'.  Some
    falls on good soil, others on rocky, some in thorns and others are
    stolen away and never take root.  If the seed is the gospel then the 
    question is not where it is planted but how it is planted.  Clearly 
    the parable says not to take any regard for where but does that also 
    mean that we take no regard for how?
---

Before I continue with your note, I want to comment here.

How is not our business.  God says that His Word will accomplish His
purpose.  Scattering is indiscriminate, just as God is indiscriminate 
in offering salvation to all (who will accept).  He is no respector of 
persons.

Now, on the personal level, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
This means treating everyone alike with the Love of the Lord.  Yet, 
we know by experience that this love is often received differently
by different people (soils) and sometimes even rejected.  Yet, again, 
we broadcast the seed.  It is God who causes the seed to take root.

Our purposeful planting of a seed in a pot (for example) is no guarantor
of growth or life, right?  We might struggle with making the environment
as pleasant as possible for the seed to germinate and grow, and there
is value to that.  But understanding that we live in a world of many
soils and are called to scatter the seed, we should spread the word
and allow the Word to accomplish what He will.

Now, back to the rest of your note...

Mark

>In all three accounts the sower sowed the seed which implies 
>a careful placement

I'll have to go back and look but I don't see this.  Why would anyone
carefully place seed among thorns or on hard pathways?

>    I'm not advocating discrimination in where we sow, I'm advocating due 
>    care in how we sow.

Perhaps were getting lost in the language, then, because I am unsure
of your meaning and disctinctions.

>    The key, in my opinion, to effective evangelism is (1) presenting a
>    clear gospel and (2) following up IMMEDIATELY with discipleship and
>    assimilation. 

BG attempts the first and logistically is targeting as much of an audience
as possible.  As you know he enlists the area church's help inthe campaign.
He encourages #2 by telling people to go to church.  (Get plugged in.)
When dealing with vast numbers, sometimes you have to rely upon people
taking an intitative to get plugged in.

Mark

    Re: Note 693.24 by ICTHUS::YUILLE
    
>.23� I really liked BG's simple explanation though... we have a soul, it is
>.23� eternal, and even if you estimate a ten percent probability of hell
>.23� existing, it would be a good idea to hedge your bets and chose heaven.

>James, I have to differ with you on that one.  I used to think it a great
>line of reasoning.  However, the 'salvation' it motivates is a merely
>intellectual decision, like taking out an insurance you can then forget 
>about while you get on with life, rather than a reality based on an 
>awareness of sin and guilt before a holy loving God.  
    
    Agreed.  It is lame compared to the alternative arguments that one
    could present.  But given that he was talking to a very broad
    cross-section of the planet, it was probably the most simple to
    translate.
    
    James

Not all seeds need to be carefully buried in the soil.  Different types of 
seed are sown in different ways.  We broadcast grass seed on our lawns rather 
than planting each individual seed, only we use one of those things you roll 
along that lets the seeds out a little at time.  Same way with those wildflower
meadows in a can things you can purchase now - you simply scatter the seed
in the general area you want to plant.  Some of the seed may fall on your 
driveway, paving stones or edges where the lawn meets the woods that is 
blanketed with leaves and pineneedles.  Only the seed that has fallen on the 
good ground is going to grow into a yard.  

Things like peas and squash we tend to plant more carefully, placing
it down into the soil and covering it over.  But what Yeshua's parable was
using as an illustration was probably the planting of grain in which case the
seed was just scattered or broadcast over the field.  At the edges of the
field there would be seed falling amongst the weeds or stony ground or pathways
that lay outside the cultivated field.  Remember that when this parable was
told there were not the tractors and plows of today that would cultivate large
swaths with little effort.

I think you (generic) may be trying to read too much into the parable.  It just
means that there will be places where your witness will produce the fruit of
changed lives sumitted to God, and there will people who will not pay any 
attention to God, and there will people who catch on to the teaching as a 
passing fad but won't stay with it.  I don't think the parable was meant to 
teach us how to witness, only that some will respond, some will seem to respond,
and some won't respond at all.

Leslie

    Mark,
    
>How is not our business.  God says that His Word will accomplish His

How is what not our business?  I lost something here.

>Now, on the personal level, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
>This means treating everyone alike with the Love of the Lord.  Yet, 
>we know by experience that this love is often received differently
>by different people (soils) and sometimes even rejected.  Yet, again, 
>we broadcast the seed.  It is God who causes the seed to take root.

Is "treating everyone alike with the love of the Lord" the seed that Jesus 
speaks of?  Perhaps, but only in the sense that it means sharing Christ and 
the finished work of calvary.  If by "treating everyone alike with the love
of the Lord" you mean kindness, gentleness, charitableness, philanthropic, 
then we disagree on what the seed is because we can love on people like that 
until Christ returns and never tell them about what he did and they may never 
know or ask.  Matthew records what the seed is very clearly when he says,
"When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom..."  The word of the kingdom is
the seed.

>Our purposeful planting of a seed in a pot (for example) is no guarantor
>of growth or life, right?  We might struggle with making the environment
>as pleasant as possible for the seed to germinate and grow, and there
>is value to that.  But understanding that we live in a world of many
>soils and are called to scatter the seed, we should spread the word
>and allow the Word to accomplish what He will.

Mark, you need to be consistent with your definitions.  

>>In all three accounts the sower sowed the seed which implies 
>>a careful placement

>I'll have to go back and look but I don't see this.  Why would anyone
>carefully place seed among thorns or on hard pathways?

Matthew 13:3-9,18-23  Mark 4:3-8,14-20  Luke 8:5-15

>>    I'm not advocating discrimination in where we sow, I'm advocating due 
>>    care in how we sow.

>Perhaps were getting lost in the language, then, because I am unsure
>of your meaning and disctinctions.

>BG attempts the first and logistically is targeting as much of an audience
>as possible.  As you know he enlists the area church's help inthe campaign.
>He encourages #2 by telling people to go to church.  (Get plugged in.)

The string was started because some people, having watched the crusade, had no 
clear indication of why one should go forward.  I agree that he attempts the
first and I don't want to sound like I'm Billy Graham bashing, I'm not.  I'm
pointing out the hazards of pulpit evangelism of this magnitude.  As to the
second point, being an interdenominational crusade the counselor is never
allowed to recommend a church 'on the field'.  I agree with this.  We're not
supposed to be in the business of building individual churches but building the
kingdom.  But the hazard is this...  Say you're Joe Pagan and you're sitting in
a crusade.  Dr. Evangelist has given the message and now it's time for the 
altar call.  You come forward and a counselor takes down some information and
hands you a book.  The book has some good information in it - a gospel of John
and a few lessons to build your faith.  You pray a prayer and leave.  On your
windshield is an official looking paper which instructs you to call a phone
number for additional information.  Being the ignorant neophyte that you are,
you don't know that the paper is, in fact, bait laid by the local chapter of
Cults-R-Us.  You may presume that it is literature left by Dr. Evangelist or
perhaps by a local church that meerly want to help you in your quest for truth.
This is reinforced when you recall the newspaper insert the Sunday before the
crusade with Dr. Evangelist's picture on it where 900 churches invited you to 
check them out after the crusade.  Among them was the local Bahai, UU, and 
Metropolitan Church of your city.  It appeared to be endorsed by Dr. Evangelist.
Who knows?  But it's not.  You're spiritual awareness is hightened and you're
curiosity is piqued so you take them up on their kind offer and promptly
get sucked into their merry band of heretics.

I heard a story one time about a man who went through a bank teller training.
In the training they were going to teach him how to recognize a counterfeit
bill.  For five straight days, much to his surprise, he handled nothing but
genuine currency.  On the sixth day was the test.  The idea was to get so
familiar with the true currency that any deviation would become self evident.
We are the inquirers first contact with the truth and we need to make it clear
enough that when they hear a lie they can recognize it.  You're not going to
immunize a new believer against every heresy in one sitting.  I'm not that 
foolish but there are some basic understandings that the new believer should 
have which include what he is putting his trust in for salvation.  A clear 
message is necessary to establish faith.  From the earlier notes that was not 
apparent in the Billy Graham crusade.  Immediate discipleship and assimilation 
is necessary to nurture the young plant.  The time delay in a crusade the size 
of the one in Atlanta is at least one week.  We received cards as late as a 
month after the crusade.  I'm not faulting Dr. Graham.  The plan is there, it 
just takes time to execute and the enemy is not going to cut you any slack in 
that regard.  Responsible evangelism is delivering a clear message and making
sure that that message is not only assented to but understood.  Responsible
evangelism is making disciples not just converts.

>When dealing with vast numbers, sometimes you have to rely upon people
>taking an intitative to get plugged in.

Did Jesus say to go invite people to the banquet or to just throw open the
doors and say, "Well, the foods here.  If they're hungry they'll come in and 
eat."

>>How is not our business.  God says that His Word will accomplish His
>
>How is what not our business?  I lost something here.

Sorry.  I should have typed "'how' is not our business."

>Is "treating everyone alike with the love of the Lord" the seed that Jesus 
>speaks of?  Perhaps, but only in the sense that it means sharing Christ and 
>the finished work of calvary.  If by "treating everyone alike with the love
>of the Lord" you mean kindness, gentleness, charitableness, philanthropic, 
>then we disagree on what the seed is because we can love on people like that 
>until Christ returns and never tell them about what he did and they may never 
>know or ask.  Matthew records what the seed is very clearly when he says,
>"When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom..."  The word of the kingdom is
>the seed.

Again, my lack of clarity.  I believe the seed is the Word of God, and
more specifically, the gospel.  My reference here to the personal level 
it the living out of the word.  One can proclaim the gospel with their 
lips (as we should), but we also need to proclaim the gospel with our
deeds and actions.  This is all I meant.

>Mark, you need to be consistent with your definitions.  

Why?  Because I allow for purposeful planting in addition to scattering?
Scattering is purposeful planting (see Leslie's note), yet it is a different
type of planting than "of the peas and corn."  Planting in a pot is something
that you and I do today.  In talking about plants, we can discuss the
various planting methods.  The planting is consistent; the methods are 
not always the same.

>I'm pointing out the hazards of pulpit evangelism of this magnitude. 

Does the BGC takes steps to minimize the cult hazards?  Do we take steps
to minimize the cult hazards?  In magnitudinous endeavors, there is always
risk and hazard.  The parable of the sower shows that "the fowls of the
air devoured the first seed."  Does this mean the sower should not sow?
No.  But naturally we can see what we can do to minimize the bird loss:
scarecrows of some sort.

>We are the inquirers first contact with the truth and we need to make it clear

Sometimes.  Remember that for many of these people it is not the first
contact with the Holy Spirit and convincing of the Truth, but a surrender
to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

>Responsible evangelism is delivering a clear message and making
>sure that that message is not only assented to but understood.  Responsible
>evangelism is making disciples not just converts.

Responsible evangelism requires a cooperative effort among the members
of the body of Christ.  Knowing that some will be "devoured by the
fowls", we need to depend also upon the Holy Spirit to guide people
in the right direction as well.  Responsible evangelism doesn't say,
"I'm sorry.  We can only handle 1000 in discipleship classes so the rest
of you can't get saved until we can handle and process you."  The Holy 
Spirit must have some credit here.   You see, I agree with you that we
do have the responsibility to tend to the seed that God causes to grow.
But if God causes more to grow that we can handle, do we tell God that
we won't handle it?  (We can tell Him that we *cannot* handle it, which 
would be true, but God is in the business of the impossible.)

>>When dealing with vast numbers, sometimes you have to rely upon people
>>taking an intitative to get plugged in.
>
>Did Jesus say to go invite people to the banquet or to just throw open the
>doors and say, "Well, the foods here.  If they're hungry they'll come in and 
>eat."

The banquet parable shows that when the invited people did not come, 
they went out to get anyone who would.  There is plenty at the banquet
table for all, even if the servants are short-handed and it means
self-service buffet.  God is merciful on whom God is merciful.

Mark

Matthew 13:  
  3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower
    went forth to sow;
  4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came
    and devoured them up:
  5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith
    they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
  6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no
    root, they withered away.
  7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
  8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an
    hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Mark 4:3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
  4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the
    fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
  5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and
    immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
  6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it
    withered away.
  7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it
    yielded no fruit.
  8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and
    increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an
    hundred.

Luke 8:5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the
    way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
  6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered
    away, because it lacked moisture.
  7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked
    it.
  8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an
    hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath
    ears to hear, let him hear.  9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
    God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and
    hearing they might not understand.
 11 Now the parable is this: ***The seed is the word of God.***
 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and
    taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be
    saved.
 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with
    joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of
    temptation fall away.
 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard,
    go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life,
    and bring no fruit to perfection.
 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart,
    having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

    Mark,
    
    My comment about consistency referred only to the apparent (to me
    anyway) defining of the seed differently in two paragraphs.  You have
    clarified so no more problem.  You're not the only one that is not being 
    clear here.  I have my own share in the confusion.
    
    I keep harping on clarity in sharing the gospel and I can't even make
    myself clear to my brothers and sisters.  Let me try this one more way
    (WITHOUT THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER).  When I talk about responsible
    evangelism one facet of that must be a clear presentation of the
    gospel.  If you are a motorist trying to get to a party (he said with
    vague reference to the banquet parable) and you are depending on me for
    directions then I have a responsibility to give you clear directions, I
    have a responsibility to affirm that you understand them, I do not have
    a responsibility to make sure you follow them.  I can say, "It's about
    a mile and a half that way," (he said gesturing is general
    southeasterly direction) or I could say, "You go south on 6th Street
    for five blocks, take a left onto Huneysuckle Blvd..  Follow
    Honeysuckle Blvd. for seven blocks and then turn right onto Belvedere
    Place.  Four blocks down on the right hand side is 4218 Belvedere and
    that's where you want to be."  Either set of directions might get you
    there but which one has the highest likelihood of success?  Suppose
    also that you begin this journey to the party and as you stop for gas
    another man strikes up a conversation with you and, realizing that you
    are going to the party, he begins to tell you how he is going to get
    there.  The directions he gives are completely wrong but seem to be in
    the same general direction.  If I gave you the first set of
    instructions, "It's about a mile and half that way," then you might be
    tempted to follow this gentleman's further direction.  But if I have
    communicated clearly the directions to the party then you have a basis
    for recognizing the error of this man's direction.  You may or may not
    choose to follow them anyway but you have a realistic basis of
    comparison.  Now, discipleship is telling you, "Hey, get in the car.  
    We'll go there together."  The methodology can and must be varied.  So, 
    if by 'How' you mean the methodology of evangelism should not be a concern 
    then I agree.  The disciples were concerned about some others who were
    preaching but not part of the twelve.  Jesus rebuked the disciples and told 
    them to let them be.  Paul talks about those who preach for their own
    benefit and out of strife but he says as long as the gospel is
    preached....  Different venues will reach different people.  If by 'How' 
    you mean that we can be haphazard in what we say and trust the Holy Spirit 
    to make it right then I disagree.  I trust the Holy Spirit to overcome my 
    human failings and inability to communicate effectively.  I trust the
    Holy Spirit to do the drawing and convicting because that's what the
    Word says he will do.  It's not my job to do His job.  But, as well as
    I am able I want to, and I believe we need to, communicate the gospel.
    
    Please tell me I've made sense this time even if you don't agree.
    
    Kent

In the book, Pilgrim's Progress, Christian was made aware of his burden
and wanted to shed it.  Evangelist didn't tell him each facet of the
journey he would make to the Cross and then onto the Celestial City.
Evangelist pointed Christian to the horizon and said, "Do you see
that light?"  "I *think* so" Christian replied.  "Head for that
light and beware of those who will put you off the path."

>Either set of directions might get you there but which one has the 
>highest likelihood of success? 

There are many methods.  Give me a roadmap (veiled reference to the Bible)
and a destination.  I won't need specific street names at the outset.

>    preached....  Different venues will reach different people.  If by 'How' 
>    you mean that we can be haphazard in what we say and trust the Holy Spirit 
>    to make it right then I disagree.

I don't mean haphazard in what we say, but to be haphazard (yes) in 
spreading as in "freely you have received; freely give."  I don't think
the BGC is being haphazard in its spread of the gospel.  It provides the
invitation to the party, points them in the way and cuations them on
how to receive further instruction because so many people will come
from so many origins.  Imagine telling people to get to the party
when they come from different origins.  

>    I trust the Holy Spirit to overcome my 
>    human failings and inability to communicate effectively.  I trust the
>    Holy Spirit to do the drawing and convicting because that's what the
>    Word says he will do.  It's not my job to do His job.  But, as well as
>    I am able I want to, and I believe we need to, communicate the gospel.

Billy Graham is doing as well as he is able, also and will reach people
you and I never will.  Will there be "casualties?"  Yes.  It is part of
the magnitude, but the gains seem to be effective enough to warrant
continued effort for this method (crusades) in conjunction and complementing
other methods.

>    Please tell me I've made sense this time even if you don't agree.

I think so.  Did I?  :-)

Mark

� >    Please tell me I've made sense this time even if you don't agree.

� I think so.  Did I?  :-)

Where's Glen when you want him?
						;-)
								&

    Mark,
    
    I think we have some agreement and I don't know that it would be
    productive to further break this down.  Points I see of agreement are:
    
    1)	The seed is to sown (scattered) to all the world regardless of the
    soil.  If I can further beat this analogy to death we are more like
    blind sowers in that we generally do not know the quality of the soil 
    until after the seed is sown.  Unless you know the details of a persons
    life (or the Lord gives specific discernment) you don't know where the
    thorns are.
    
    2)	We are not responsible for the response.
    
    Points of disagreement:
    
    1)	The witness is/is not responsible for the clarity and content of
    the message.
    
    2)	I'd prefer to use Scripture than Pilgim's Progress.  When Philip
    asked the Ethiopian if he understood what he was reading he responded
    how could he unless someone explains it (apparently couldn't read the
    map).  
    
    As for Billy Graham, I appreciate what he does.  I think it has great
    value.  I support it financially.  I would be a counselor/supervisor
    again if the opportunity arose.  The question was posed that at a
    specific crusade the invitation was not clear.  My initial response was
    that this was not like him.  Generally, the invitation is very clear. 
    In talking to some others last night who saw the telecast, they
    understood that the invitation was to be delivered by the host
    nation/church.  This makes sense to me.  However, I think that there 
    could be improvement in the system if the counselor training was more
    comprehensive.  Right now, the training is five weeks which covers a
    very basic overview of the crusade process and soteriological
    fundamentals.  There is no interaction between instructor and
    instructee except the lecture.  There is no measurement of whether or
    not the prospective counselor understands or can communicate what they
    do know.  This is not condemnation, just observation.
    
    Kent
    

    Andrew,
    
    You stay out of this.  :-)
    
    Kent
    

>    Points of disagreement:

We'll hammer this out with patience.

>    1)	The witness is/is not responsible for the clarity and content of
>    the message.
 
We do not disagree on this.  Allow me to point out though that Jesus 
preached to the crowd.  Afterward, we see several instances of disciples
and others coming to Jesus for "clarification" or "deeper understanding."
Perhaps the second phrase is a bit more accurate.  Certainly, we would
not accuse Jesus of being unclear.  However, because of the nature
of the audience, each person received what they could and some wanted/could
receive more (and so we see Nicodemus asking what it means to be born again).

>    2)	I'd prefer to use Scripture than Pilgim's Progress.  When Philip
>    asked the Ethiopian if he understood what he was reading he responded
>    how could he unless someone explains it (apparently couldn't read the
>    map).  
 
I thought it as appropriate as the party anaolgy, Kent.  The Ethiopian is
an individual and individuals respond differently to situations.  Those
who cannot read the map need help.  Those who can read the map (accurately)
need the map.

>   I think that there could be improvement in the system 

More agreement from this quarter!  My dad used to say that the biggest 
room in our house was the room for improvement.  There is ALWAYS room
to improve our methods and I think we SHOULD seek ways to improve, and
learn from errors, such as being unclear (as we have been learning!).

>This is not condemnation, just observation.
 
I know this.  And I am not criticizing you for making the observation,
but merely offering hypotheses around the reasons for the observation
such as time, crowd, and other factors.

:-)

Mark

    Great!  I'm glad that we agree on more than I perceived.
    
    On the one last note of disagreement, I beleive that Jesus spoke to the
    crowd in mysteries deliberately.  It was not given to them to
    understand then but to the disciples.  After the resurrection the time
    for speaking in mysteries (deliberate unclarities not unfathomable
    concepts) was over.  I don't know of any accounts of the disciples
    speaking cryptically (except maybe to us who do not understand the
    culture and context of the statements).  On the contrary, every epistle
    is God clarifying the gospel.  When Paul was on his missionary journeys
    he did not go in, preach a couple of nights and then leave (unless of
    course they were stoning him on the way).  His purpose was to establish
    the church and he stayed with it until he could leave behind a
    functioning, vibrant fellowship of believers.  How much he fed them at
    a time, I don't know, but we don't always have months or years to
    spend.  We may only have minutes or hours and then we are out of that
    person's life.  Yes, I am aware that each witness may build upon the
    work of another.  My operating philosophy is this, and I'm going to
    conclude with this:
    
    When I share the gospel I make two assumptions; (1) it's the first time
    they've ever heard the good news, and (2) it's their last opportunity
    to ever hear it again.
    
    Granted, evangelism is the call God has placed on my heart and I often
    feel like, "Woe is me, if I do not preach this gospel."  I admit that I
    am operating from my own paradigm which includes a great sense of the
    urgency of the hour to reach the lost.  God bless you as you share the
    gospel.  I pray that God will bring abundant harvest through both of
    us.
    
    Kent
    

>    On the one last note of disagreement, I beleive that Jesus spoke to the
>    crowd in mysteries deliberately. 

Sometimes.  We do know he always used parables but they were not
always mysterious.  The Pharisees understood some of his points
pointedly.  And the Beatitudes are not mysterious.

However, the beauty of the Word, (and the word mystery applies),
is that it speaks to many levels of spirituality; a testament to
its being alive.

We're not so much in disagreement as you think, or do you disagree?

Mark