The Church--Pt. I

I feel compelled to join the bandwagon of bloggers currently writing on the church, its role, its purpose, its past, and its future. I don't expect to add much new to the wealth of great writings that exist currently and historically, but at the same time, writing helps formulate and clarify my own thoughts on this complex, yet glorious institution--The Church.

Yesterday, as I was making my 2nd of 4 trips from our place to town and back (see earlier blog), I stopped at a traffic light of a busy intersection and heard someone yelling. I looked over to see a handsome fellow in a white shirt, tie, pressed jeans, boots, and Cowboy hat, holding a Bible, and pacing back and forth. He had a pleasant but intense look on his face, appeared to be in good health, and quite confident in himself.

He was using his full voice and zealously insisting that "Mohammed is dead. Joseph Smith is dead. Jesus Christ is alive." He would occasionally quote scripture and remind those sitting at the traffic light that the Bible was the word of God. At first I was put off and assumed the man was looking for a handout. But on closer examination, I decided he was honestly attempting to get the message across to those who could hear. As he yelled, I found myself looking at the other drivers, some older, most younger, wondering if they also were somewhat uncomfortable with this experience; and as I glanced around, I had the distinct impression they were not sure how to respond to this yelling stranger on the street corner. Most people seemed almost too frightened to even glance his way and his message, although nothing new, was a little too direct for the average person.

In my typical manner, I began to analyze this unusual situation and came to several conclusions. One, it is this man's right and privilege to express himself as he sees fit. He was hurting nobody, taking up little space, not electronically amplifying his words, nor using any kind of special physical tactics of any kind in his delivery system. He was not indecent, profane, frightening, ugly, or infringing on my rights in any way other than being loud. I was not forced to look at him nor to even listen to him, and if I chose, I could easily have made my radio louder than his voice. He was simply a man committed to sharing his view of the truth and hoping to make some kind of difference in the beliefs of others.

Two, he was not worshiping God, he was not interested in surrounding himself with others of like views, and he was not seeking solace, comfort, answers to a problem, or deep Biblical exegetical study. He was doing what he felt was his responsibility to share the truth and to evangelize the Gospel. Three, I do not know whether he was effective, but I do know that I spent the rest of the day thinking about what he said. I was totally comfortable with a literal interpretation of his words, but maybe less comfortable with the implications although I certainly do subscribe to the basic tenants of his message. Mohamed, the person, is no longer alive. Joseph Smith, the person, is no longer alive. But Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven according to scripture. Of course, these statements are certainly not without their potentially explosive possibilities; but taken literally, and with strong Christian faith, they are simply expressions of truth and belief.

Maybe the exclusionary overtones of this lack of tolerance of other views bothered me a touch or maybe the almost extreme insistence of these views left me a shade unsettled. Or maybe the fact that one either agrees completely with his implications or disagrees completely, left me wishing for less polarity and dichotomy in his content. This may be a character trait since I am drawn more toward dialectic examination of complex issues, rather emotionally-based platitudes of generalized conclusions.

Of course there is also the possibility that nobody was affected by his revelations and in fact his mode of delivery was exclusionary and did not help his cause in any sense. If this is true, then his time and energy were wasted, and all efforts were in vain in which case a less aggressive approach to expressing oneself and making a difference becomes paramount to the end. Yet I cannot determine how effective was his delivery system. This I do know, the message is readily available but is only heard by those receptive to hear it (notice I am avoiding the discussion of Arminianism versus Calvinism which would be counterproductive to my purpose for writing).

But whether one believes the message or not, here is my conclusion of our friend's evangelism technique. I contend his method, while unorthodox and independent, is perhaps more effective in reaching people who do not know the basic teachings of the Gospel, than are the churches with their worship services on Sundays. For his message finds the people where they are, shakes them up a bit, and leaves them thinking. A church service could accomplish the same result but only if those same people were in attendance. This could mean, then, that a church's purpose is not necessarily for the non-believer, but in fact, is there to serve the needs of the believer.