Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Reading, decisionism and the Gospel

Thread: Purgatory: Reading, decisionism and the Gospel Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001322

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Have we had a thread on the so-called Reading Outpouring yet?

I've only just come across this and have to say from the blogs and accounts I've read, I'm less than impressed.

What seems to be happening is that people are going out onto the streets with a highly prescriptive script that takes people through a few steps that culminates in 'a prayer of commitment to Christ.'

Some 1200 or so conversions have been claimed.

I am highly sceptical. I could take a script out onto the street taking people through steps to acknowledge the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and if I were persistent enough I'm sure I could collect a few 'response cards.'

I don't doubt that people can and do come to faith through the 'sinner's prayer' and so on, but this seems to be systematising it to the nth degree.

Of course, many Calvinistic evangelicals would have an issue with this approach too.

It'll be yet another of these fleeting 'outpourings'. It could also inoculate some of the respondents to further engagement with the faith because they've prayed the magic prayer and think that's sufficient.

Not impressed.

What do others think?

[ 05. December 2016, 00:48: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Link?

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I saw some stuff linked from Twitter, IIRC. Unsurprisingly a lot of concern and essentially saying "I call bullshit" even from often uncritical sources. I believe the 1200 claim includes re-commitments and from events not just street work.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Will re-post what I said on the manipulation thread:

Being fairly familiar with the area and a number of the churches named in the article I'm rather similarly dubious about the whole thing.

Reading in some ways is a very odd town - it has a particularly varied set of churches, and in addition a large population of students - many international - due to the university.

It's very easy to see - given this context - how one could get large numbers of 'conversions' by talking to cafeteria Christians/passers by and getting some indication of greater 'commitment'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'll dig out some links when I have more time.

To me, 're-commitments' is a term that is just as meaningless as the term 'commitment'.

You can get people to parrot any old thing. I know loads of instances of people being 'led' through a 'Prayer of 'Commitment' who hadn't the foggiest idea what they were supposed to be doing. You could get anyone to read something off a card and then claim this was some kind of life-changing experience.

It's twaddle.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

As chris stiles mentions, we discussed this quite a bit, with links, from about here onwards. I was thinking it deserved its own thread, though.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

An utter travesty.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Back in 1970s America, there was the "I Found It!" campaign. (It = "new life in Jesus Christ".) Lots of publicity. There was probably some one-on-one work, but I don't remember it.

There were some interesting responses, like the Jewish "We Never Lost It!", etc. Probably some examples online.

I think I and other fundies had a mixed reaction to it.

I'm not fond of the kind of wholesale witnessing described in the OP. I did some, back in the day (though in a different style and venue, and mostly with kids), and feel bad about some of it.

*But* I don't necessarily agree with what was said upthread that it's all for nothing. I know that sometimes I've bumped into the right thing at the right time, or some idea I picked up long ago finally clicked.

So it's slightly possible that something good, however small, sometimes comes from this kind of witnessing--whether or not it specifically results in becoming a Christian (or whatever other belief system does it).

I think this kind of Christian witnessing makes more sense to people who believe you MUST make a specific decision for Christ, or go to hell. (No longer my belief--and never completely was.)

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Sure, it is healthy to distrust slick formulas for facilitating personal evanglelism (decades ago it was The Four Spiritual Laws:"God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life...."), and reports of alleged mass conversions thereby.

OTOH, given Christianity's universal claims, and inherent imperative to proselytise (as Brunner famously wrote, "the church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning"), and given the abject laziness and cowardice of 99% of Christians in doing anything about it (I have tried street evangelism, and it sucks), ISTM that it ill-behoves us to prioritise the dissection and condemnation of the methods of those who at least have the guts to try it.

And let's face it, there is no silver bullet when it comes to cross-cultural mission.

Any first attempts to communicate Christianity to pagans, in 2!st century Britain or any other time and place, are going to come across as simplistic and inadequate.

It's good clean healthy fun, of course, to diss bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young evangelicals "witnessing" in Reading, but church history is full of failures of communication and comprehension by all traditions as a result of the clash of incompatible cultures.

In mid-16th century India the RC Portugese baptised 10,000 illiterate Tamil fisherman, then left them for years without any Christian teaching until Francis Xavier tried to sort them out.

For all their good intentions, and long-term contributions to literacy, it is difficult to imagine that even Cyril and Methodius established instantaneous theological rapport with ninth century illiterate Slavs, either.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's good clean healthy fun, of course, to diss bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young evangelicals "witnessing" in Reading

I have long sought to live in line with Paul's approach, "the Gospel is preached, and in this I rejoice"... coupled with his acknowledgements in the very same passage and elsewhere that some do so in inappropriate ways and/or from wrong motives.

As far as I'm concerned this is inappropriate: the decisionism is highly questionable and the credentials of the instigating evangelist Tommie Zito are not well-established (there is basically no biographical information about him whatsoever on his site). Mistakes in centuries past are no justification for repeating them.

I think there's absolutely no reason why a critical look should not be taken at what people are doing in the name of the Gospel. A degree of mutual accountability within the church at large is a healthy thing. I know from experience that evangelical institutions can be absolutely spineless when it comes to addressing this sort of thing, and the evangelical media often little better.

So for as long as this Ship sails, this is precisely the kind of thing we should be discussing.

[ 22. August 2016, 05:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by me, here:Uh-oh. What is it about the summer months (and or places named Redding? ).

Guess what. The church runs (or has run) a School of Supernatural Ministry and previously hosted a healing and prophetic conference by Chris Gore from our old friends at Bethel, Redding, California.

Also posted by me, here:

quote:
Just look back at places like Cwmbran and Dudley. They have basically morphed into hosting pentecostal/charismatic conferences.

I am very suspicious of this new "succession of conferences plus courses" model. It's much easier for hit-and-run speakers to turn a fast buck (with all the merchandising spinoffs) and create media hype, draining resources from a local church and surrounding ones, than to actually establish a long-term, meaningful presence in the community.

Courses also cost money and take people away from their local churches to exclusivist settings with no local oversight or accountability.

When a locality runs out of steam, the brand just moves on to some other venue and starts all over again.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Guess what. The church runs (or has run) a School of Supernatural Ministry and previously hosted a healing and prophetic conference by Chris Gore from our old friends at Bethel, Redding, California.

ISTR someone I know mentioned that Bill Johnson had also spoken at the same church (within the last year or so - he also visited back in 2009).

quote:

I am very suspicious of this new "succession of conferences plus courses" model. It's much easier for hit-and-run speakers to turn a fast buck (with all the merchandising spinoffs) and create media hype

I hadn't really thought about this before - that's a good observation. In 'fairness' to Bethel their model seems to move from succession of conference->associated church, along the lines of the Willow Creek model (though maybe a much tighter integration because of the way in which they establish schools of prophecy, which then serve as the hub of activity).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The Bethelized church nearest to me consists largely of a succession of special events and courses that draw on charismatic junkies from a much broader swath of churches. In my observation these courses are essentially a charismatic variation on personal development.

Some of the younger participants end up going to Redding and joining their Supernatural School of Ministry - for one or more years. I know several such people.

"Conference to associated church" is right. Can anyone point to a church Bethel has actually planted? In my observation, it siphons off people and resources from newly "associated" churches.

In this scenario, a local church is little more than a target market ready to be sucked into a branded pipeline, structured on an entirely worldly marketing basis, with no local accountability. Oh, with the promise of "anointing" [Disappointed]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Have we had a thread on the so-called Reading Outpouring yet?

I've only just come across this and have to say from the blogs and accounts I've read, I'm less than impressed.

What seems to be happening is that people are going out onto the streets with a highly prescriptive script that takes people through a few steps that culminates in 'a prayer of commitment to Christ.'

Some 1200 or so conversions have been claimed.

Last week on another thread I placed this link from our denominational website and expressed - shall we say? - a certain amount of caution. Others may have more up-to-date information. I'm afraid I've became very sceptical in my old age.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

The test of evangelism is in the number of people who follow through on a confession of faith (wherever given) and join a Christian community. So I'd be interested to know by the end of the year how many people are going to churches who previously weren't. Anecdotally (from people I've spoken to who have visited Reading) a number of churches have reported a significant increase in people coming to church to enquire about the Christian faith.

The advantage of working to a script is that it makes it easy for people to get involved - some 400 Christians from a variety of mainline Christian churches have been sharing their faith on the streets of Reading.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I could take a script out onto the street taking people through steps to acknowledge the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and if I were persistent enough I'm sure I could collect a few 'response cards.'

If going out with a script gave you the chance to start some conversations about Christ with people who don't currently follow Him, is that better or worse than having no conversations at all?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
If going out with a script gave you the chance to start some conversations about Christ with people who don't currently follow Him, is that better or worse than having no conversations at all?

It could well be worse, when you consider how many people you have potentially turned right off by making them think that becoming a Christian is so mechanistic.

The script in question is decidedly and unashamedly decisionist, and if you look at his website, so is Zito. His site is full of pictures of cities with an alleged tally of souls beneath each one after each of his crusades (his word, scroll down the page for the tallies).

From the other thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
The crib sheet is not really my cup of tea, but I'm assuming that it acted as a spur to conversation. Individuals would've had to open up about themselves and talk about faith.
That's precisely what it's not designed to do. (For the avoidance of doubt, here it is again (part 1, part 2)
quote:
If they do not say "I have Jesus in my heart/I am born again" go with the script
It's designed to elicit a decision and nothing else.

As Martin says, this is a travesty of what coming to faith means, and a way of generating impressive numbers easily. There are plenty of equally effective ways of starting conversations about Christ that are much more respectful both of the hearer and of the message; they just don't make for such attractive and misleading headlines.

[ 22. August 2016, 10:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Can anyone point to a church Bethel has actually planted? In my observation, it siphons off people and resources from newly "associated" churches.

Just for info on that, Bethel don't plant churches - they make resources available for churches to use.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

For my take on what that actually means, see here.

[ 22. August 2016, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
If going out with a script gave you the chance to start some conversations about Christ with people who don't currently follow Him, is that better or worse than having no conversations at all?
It could well be worse, when you consider how many people you have potentially turned right off by making them think that becoming a Christian is so mechanistic.

.

Any evidence that anyone has been "turned off?" Or is the evidence to the contrary?

I know of at least one of the local church leaders involved who has said that filling in a decision card doesn't make you a Christian. The people on the ground are more sensible than that.

The headline that interest me is that 100s of Christians are having 100s of conversations about Christ on the streets of Reading. Time will tell what comes of this and what we can learn from it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Conference to associated church" is right. Can anyone point to a church Bethel has actually planted? In my observation, it siphons off people and resources from newly "associated" churches.

In this scenario, a local church is little more than a target market ready to be sucked into a branded pipeline, structured on an entirely worldly marketing basis, with no local accountability. Oh, with the promise of "anointing"

So I suppose the question that would then arise would be to what extent this differs from a traditional denomination.

To which I suppose the answer would be that a centralised denomination at least takes some modicum of responsibility for the outcome of the work of each church, whereas the way Bethel operates is more like a franchise. You pay the pledge, get put on a list of Bethelized churches, and get a set of courses/schools/events that you can plug into, with the possibility of one or two annual junkets to the mothership.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Conference to associated church" is right. Can anyone point to a church Bethel has actually planted? In my observation, it siphons off people and resources from newly "associated" churches.

In this scenario, a local church is little more than a target market ready to be sucked into a branded pipeline, structured on an entirely worldly marketing basis, with no local accountability. Oh, with the promise of "anointing"
So I suppose the question that would then arise would be to what extent this differs from a traditional denomination.

To which I suppose the answer would be that a centralised denomination at least takes some modicum of responsibility for the outcome of the work of each church, whereas the way Bethel operates is more like a franchise. You pay the pledge, get put on a list of Bethelized churches, and get a set of courses/schools/events that you can plug into, with the possibility of one or two annual junkets to the mothership.

Bit of a tangent, but whilst we're on it. There's no exclusive "Bethel network." So take the example of the latest UK conference at which Bill Johnson was the main speaker. Attendees came from a wide variety of churches. Some of these people also meet together because they share a common interest in Bethel teaching. They are also actively invovled in their own denominations or streams.

If you think Bethel is just about hype and marketing you need to give the people who buy into this stuff a bit more credit. Some of their stuff is quite culture specific and doesn't translate to the UK, but a wide variety of churches continue to find aspects of Bethel ministry highly beneficial. There are few "Bethel junkie" churches (I am very familiar with one) but most of the people I know (and that's a lot of people) who draw on resources from Bethel also enrich their ministry and spirituality from other places.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

Bit of a tangent, but whilst we're on it. There's no exclusive "Bethel network."

Yes, I understand that - the comments were not indicative of an exclusivist approach - though some of the examples I'm thinking of have led to churches growing their connections with other Bethel-influenced churches at the expense of their other contacts.

quote:

If you think Bethel is just about hype and marketing you need to give the people who buy into this stuff a bit more credit. Some of their stuff is quite culture specific and doesn't translate to the UK, but a wide variety of churches continue to find aspects of Bethel ministry highly beneficial.

I don't think it's all hype and marketing, but would largely agree with Eutychus that much of it is just 'personal development' teaching dressed up in spiritual language. You and I will have to disagree on how much value this provides.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - let's back up a bit ...

Firstly, Kaplan is right to remind us that the evangelical tradition isn't the only one to have yielded facile or shallow 'conversions'.

It's questionable how much some of the RC converts in the Far East and in Latin America actually understood about the faith - at least in the first instance.

As far as Cyrill and Methodius go, I don't think anyone is claiming instant and over-night success in their case. The Orthodox I know see their work as providing a base for gradual, longer term Christianisation of the Slavic peoples.

Both the RCs and the Orthodox think in centuries.

That said, both those traditions can go in for short-term equivalents of 'decisionism' too. I remember reading about a visit Archbishop Makarios made to Kenya during which he baptised thousands of Kenyans. He acknowledged himself that many of these knew absolutely diddly-squat about the Christian faith but simply wanted to be baptised by a 'celebrity' figure known for his anti-colonial political activism.

Some Kenyans, Ugandans and other Africans have gravitated towards the Orthodox Church because it wasn't associated with the colonial authorities in their part of the world - unlike Anglicanism and other Western churches.

All that said, I don't think that any of that offers an excuse or a 'get out of jail free' card for what we're seeing in Reading. However, if 'mainstream' churches do get on board and have 'conversations' as Ramarius puts it then yes, some good could come out of it.

The Gospel is a glorious thing and cannot be reduced to a series of sound-bites on some kind of crass questionnaire or scripted card.

Of course, such a thing could help to focus effort and the trajectory of the conversation, but that's as far as it goes.

I well remember going out with Campus Crusade in my university days armed with the 'Four Spiritual Laws'. I used to hate doing it but I did it.

On one occasion, a more mature student asked me to put away the script and explain to her directly why I was a Christian and why I was doing what I was doing that day.

So I put away the awful tracts and scripts and tried to explain to her as well as I could how I'd come to faith and what it meant to me.

She listened, thanked me and said as we parted that she'd gained a lot from what I'd said and how much better the conversation had flowed once I'd put the script in my pocket.

Would I have gone out there without the script in the first place? Probably not. What the script did do was give me a reason and purpose to go up to complete strangers and try to 'witness' to them.

Having meaningful conversations about Christ is one thing, engaging in a tick-box exercise about so-called 'decisions' is something else again.

I don't see anyone here dismissing efforts at evangelism - many of those advising caution and questioning the approach here are themselves evangelicals.

No, the issue isn't evangelism, it's 'decisionism'.

There's also a distinction to be made between evangelism and evangelisation - the later is a longer term process that involves the steady enculturation of the Gospel in any given society - which, of course, brings its own risks in terms of nominalism, cultural or folk religion and so on - so yes, there are both/ands and pros and cons on all sides.

However, the bottom-line for me in all of this is that I firmly believe that there is a toxicity at the heart of the whole Bethel (and related) forms of high-octane charismania.

I'm sorry, but I really believe there is. At its worst it leads to a kind of carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity where all the nutrients have been squeezed out by the hype, the over-egged (and over-hyped) expectations and flakey theology that these people promulgate.

I know I annoy people with my attempts at balance and equivocation - both/and not either/or and so on but I'm afraid I am not in the least bit balanced or tolerant when it comes to Bethel or anything veering towards that kind of approach.

I have zero-tolerance for it. Zero-tolerance.

I don't care what its apologists say, it is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I would no more invite a Bethelite to a conference or an event than I would a Mormon or a JW.

Ok, that's hyperbolic but it ain't far from where I find myself on this one.

Bethel is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I would have nothing whatsoever to do with it in any way, shape or form.

I am unequivocal about that.

As far as street evangelism goes, well, wait and see - but my suspicion is that some of the techniques in Reading are counter-productive. 'I've prayed that prayer thing on the card, I don't need to do anything else.'

Yes, Ramarius, I don't doubt that many of those on the ground are smarter than we might give them credit for - but there are times when the commonsense gives way to the hype and the flannel. I've seen it happen.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Yes, Ramarius, I don't doubt that many of those on the ground are smarter than we might give them credit for - but there are times when the commonsense gives way to the hype and the flannel. I've seen it happen.

And you think these people haven't? Found your other comments on mass conversion interesting. Conversely, I was hearing about someone this last weekend who grudgingly "prayed the prayer" (to shut someone up who was witnessing to them) had a powerful encounter with Christ, became a committed Christian and is now a minister in a denominational church.

So as I say, rather than superimposing personal past experience onto someone else's current experience, maybe we should take the advice of the feller you derived your monica from and see how this pans out.

@Chris - thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I'm not saying they haven't seen it before, Ramarius. They may well have seen it before a lot more than I have.

But please don't patronise me otherwise I will be forced to take you to Hell.

Let me state in the most unequivocal terms possible. Bethel is wrong. I don't think you've clocked how bad it is.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not against evangelicals nor evangelicalism per se.

But there's something very toxic that is entering the bloodstream of even the most sensible forms of charismatic evangelicalism.

We can live with poison in our system for a while but eventually it will get the better of us.

Better to remove it while there's still time.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

The advantage of working to a script is that it makes it easy for people to get involved - some 400 Christians from a variety of mainline Christian churches have been sharing their faith on the streets of Reading.

Or making complete and utter pains in the arse of themselves, depending on your perspective.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Yes, Ramarius, I don't doubt that many of those on the ground are smarter than we might give them credit for - but there are times when the commonsense gives way to the hype and the flannel. I've seen it happen.
And you think these people haven't? Found your other comments on mass conversion interesting. Conversely, I was hearing about someone this last weekend who grudgingly "prayed the prayer" (to shut someone up who was witnessing to them) had a powerful encounter with Christ, became a committed Christian and is now a minister in a denominational church.

Doing evil once actually resulted in good, so we should continue doing evil? What's a good ratio? If we drive 1000 people away from Christ and 1 person gets saved, is that a good ratio?

(ps it's "moniker")

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Back in 1970s America, there was the "I Found It!" campaign. (It = "new life in Jesus Christ".) Lots of publicity. There was probably some one-on-one work, but I don't remember it.

I remember this. Lots of bumper stickers. Followed with an "I lost it" bumper sticker parody.

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The test of evangelism is in the number of people who follow through on a confession of faith (wherever given) and join a Christian community.

Why they must join a church?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ramarius, if you had read my posts properly (and I apologise for the length), you will have seen that I firmly believe that people can and do have genuine conversions through praying 'the sinner's prayer' and so on.

I have never said otherwise.

Something that Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist wrote in one of his books struck a chord with me and has remained with me since I first read it.

He observed that for all its strengths, one of the weaknesses of evangelicalism was that it was inclined to be overly pragmatic - if something was seen to 'work' it would be taken on board and systematised regardless of whatever weaknesses there might be in the approach.

So, a whole raft of things - altar-calls, decision-cards and so on have become part and parcel of evangelical outreach activity regardless of how some of the consequences of these approaches can be harmful.

It can become Machiavellian at the extremes.

Of course, sitting back on our backsides and doing nothing isn't the way forward either.

Nor is a slavish observance of tradition or Tradition without attempting to engage properly with the surrounding culture.

I'm not singling evangelicalism out for criticism. I could give equal and opposite examples of bad practice elsewhere.

But to advocate particular practices simply because they seem to 'work' with some people isn't a good strategy in my view.

It leads to short-cuts and a lack of critical thinking and reflection to a certain extent.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that everyone involved in the Reading thing is some kind of dork.

Far from it.

But at the extreme end of it they'll find it turning round and biting them on the backside before too long if it hasn't begun to do so already.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any evidence that anyone has been "turned off?" Or is the evidence to the contrary?

Go on any non-christian discussion site and read threads where Christianity comes up, and you find frequent gifs like this one.

quote:
I know of at least one of the local church leaders involved who has said that filling in a decision card doesn't make you a Christian. The people on the ground are more sensible than that.

Then you should be first in the queue of people complaining when the Christian media use headlines like "Unprecedented" openness to the gospel reported in Reading as 1,200 make commitments to Christ.

Tommie Zito's site in the "crusades" section refers to 53000 "souls" in Wisconsin, 19000 in Miami, and so on. Do you really think he's implying "conversations" there, or conversions?

"Having conversations" is clearly not a position adopted in the material used, nor by the evangelist at the origins of all this. People are being encouraged to nurture double standards and cognitive dissonance; count me out.

quote:
The headline that interest me is that 100s of Christians are having 100s of conversations about Christ on the streets of Reading. Time will tell what comes of this and what we can learn from it.

I disagree. If we think bad methodology, bad reporting and bad teaching are present, then we have every interest in saying so.

I have had first-hand contact with Christians whose argument in defence of their favourite evangelist, whose testimony was incontrovertibly proven to be false, up to and including fabricating entire evangelistic events and the associated conversions, was to continue to trot out "but just look at the good his ministry is doing".

This kind of thinking is overwhelmingly damaging to the integrity of the Gospel message. The fact that God used Balaam's ass once is absolutely zero justification for giving a free pass to rotten evangelistic methods.

[ 22. August 2016, 16:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
most of the people I know (and that's a lot of people) who draw on resources from Bethel also enrich their ministry and spirituality from other places.

Yes, and while I'm in a root-and-bough frame of mind, I'd chuck 90% of those "other places" in the bin too.

Not so much because of specific theological deficiencies (although I think these thrive in such contexts), but because of their business model (and it is a business model no matter what you say).

This involves drawing on a captive population (churchgoers) established together at no cost to the organisation - a population which it then bombards with advertising and marketing, and builds loyalty with through the usual range of products and bonding events, sucking resources from local churches.

They allow far too much scope for self-promotion and profit-making without any local accountabilty whatsoever. Unlike a local church, they are results-driven by nature (to justify their existence) with an attendant creep to systematisation (such as decisionism) and the temptation to inflate, exaggerate, and brush over failures - all in the name of the Gospel.

They over-complexify and over-monetise Christianity, tie up resources and man-hours, and pass off utterly worldly practices as holy.

And before you think this is borne merely out of my experience, I've been thinking more or less along these lines ever since reading the 1975 book Cinderella with Amnesia by Michael Griffiths some time in the early 80s (IIRC).

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I have had first-hand contact with Christians whose argument in defence of their favourite evangelist, whose testimony was incontrovertibly proven to be false, up to and including fabricating entire evangelistic events and the associated conversions, was to continue to trot out "but just look at the good his ministry is doing".

And worse than that there is a willingness in some circles to consciously suspend disbelief whilst enjoying the high of the latest thing before moving on to the next with little thought of the damage left behind. There will without doubt be people in the churches in Reading questioning what is happening who will be subject of all kinds of pressures to conform or keep quiet. Been there, been on the receiving end of bullying and mind games over that kind of thing and it isn't pretty, but strangely when people's faith is destroyed it doesn't seem to have any weight in the balance against the claimed conversions.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any evidence that anyone has been "turned off?" Or is the evidence to the contrary?
Go on any non-christian discussion site and read threads where Christianity comes up, and you find frequent gifs like this one.

Evidence of people being turned off in Reading? (since that's the subject of the thread). You'll always get some people turned off by Christianity - that we have martyrs.

The substance of what is or isn't happening in Reading will emerge in time. I'm not prejudging that by the way some people are reporting it, or the way others are commending on the reporting.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, all of that Eutychus.

Back in the day, I was involved in a 'tent crusade' that purportedly saw almost 1,000 'conversions' - and this was touted in a boastful way as being more than those recorded at a similar crusade the previous year which featured an internationally known evangelist and input from a wide range of evangelical churches across the city.

The implication was that we, as a church, were really at the cutting-edge of what 'God was doing' because, single-handedly, we'd seen more conversions than the others ...

How many people did we see in church after the 'crusade' and how many remained after all the excitement had died down?

Less than half a dozen.

Sure, I know people who were genuinely converted through both these events - but in all cases they were people with a nominally Christian background who'd found or become more fervent in their faith as they became more involved with the various churches which took part.

One could argue that the tent crusades themselves simply acted as a catalyst - the real difference with these people was a gradual one as they became 'socialised' into the various churches involved.

I'm not one for counting heads or quantifying 'results' in spiritual terms ... but of all those who 'raised their hands' or 'came down the front', how many were really engaging in any meaningful way with the Gospel?

One could say the same, of course, in historic or traditional churches where many people don't darken the doors of church from one Easter or Christmas to the next.

I'm not singling out any one particular tradition for criticism.

But, it seems to me, by their very nature some of these revivalist methods lend themselves to manipulation, hype and over-exaggerated claims.

On the 'manipulation thread' we've had instances of how this stuff works - we have a sliding scale from 'conversions' to 'recommitments' (whatever that means) to 'conversations' ...

What on earth are we talking about here?

Is someone going to an Easter vigil in a high-ish Anglican parish and renewing their baptismal vows making a 'recommitment'?

Is someone raising their hand or 'going forward' in an evangelistic rally to 'rededicate' themselves to Christ doing so for genuine reasons or out of peer-pressure?

Who knows?

How can we tell?

'By their fruits ye shall know them ...'

Being a pietistic pain in the arse isn't necessarily 'good fruit' any more than being a censorious Puritan or an obsessive, anally-retentive 'Spike' who can tell you everything - and more - than you need to know about the eastward-position or the contents of the thurible ...

There are better, and more biblical, measures available.

You can have as many 'good conversations' with people in Reading as you can shake a stick at, but if it involves a dumbed-down presentation of the Gospel and a skewed form of evaluation then yes, count me out too.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'm not saying they haven't seen it before, Ramarius. They may well have seen it before a lot more than I have.

But please don't patronise me otherwise I will be forced to take you to Hell.

Which, incidentally, is itself a patronising remark.

To move the discussion into more productive territory, what examples of street evangelism have you seen/heard/been part of that constitute some kind of good practice?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[/qb][/QUOTE]
The substance of what is or isn't happening in Reading will emerge in time. I'm not prejudging that by the way some people are reporting it, or the way others are commending on the reporting. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'd suggest that's a cop-out.

I think we can judge what's happening in Reading because it's happened elsewhere and we have plenty of precedents, both in our own collective experiences and from church history.

Based on that, I think we can say that some of the 'conversations' that are happening will, in some cases, encourage a genuine interest in the Christian faith.

And to that extent, we can rejoice.

But to claim that it's an 'unprecedented' event or involves previously unknown levels of interest is clearly over-optimistic.

We don't have to be cynical old farts to recognise that.

We've seen all of this before. It's not the first time over-exaggerated claims of mass conversions - or even mass conversations - have been made.

Nor will it be the last.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Evidence of people being turned off in Reading? (since that's the subject of the thread).

quote:
People were open to talking. People were open to being prayed for. People were happy to pray a prayer of commitment to Christ. Not everybody. But when we all got back together 74 had done! One of our guys Adam Clewer prayed for 17 people to make response to Christ.

That's from a generally favourable blogpost (note the figures!).

quote:
The substance of what is or isn't happening in Reading will emerge in time. I'm not prejudging that by the way some people are reporting it, or the way others are commending on the reporting.

There are links in this thread, not to reporting, but to actual materials used and the actual website of the originating evangelist.

And I think the reporting cited is misleading and overblown, and that deliberately or not, the fudging of "commitments" and "recommitments" is fundamentally dishonest. If it were a politician acting thus, we'd be all over them.

That's before we've even started on any discussion of the soundness or otherwise of decisionist evangelism, or whether one fortunate soul actually gets saved despite the crap methods and whether this justifies their use unchallenged.

As I have already posted, no doubt despite it all the "Gospel is preached and in this I rejoice".

But I think simply hunkering down and saying "well, we'll see how this turns out" is an abdication on the part of the body of Christ from holding each other mutually accountable for how we present the Gospel.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Doing evil once actually resulted in good, so we should continue doing evil? What's a good ratio? If we drive 1000 people away from Christ and 1 person gets saved, is that a good ratio?

(ps it's "moniker")

Reminds me of something Paul said.

Thanks for the spell check - send Monica my regards when you see her. [Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ramarius, I am warning you ... you patronised me first. Hence my riposte.

I will not hesitate to call you to Hell if you patronise me again.

As for examples of street evangelism I've seen that exemplify good practice ...

I've given an example already. The time when I packed away the script and spoke to the maturer student about my faith with her permission and without trying to force the issue.

I've also seen 'beach missions' and conservative evangelical street missions with flip-boards and so on which - whilst not being exactly to my taste - were engaging and didn't stray into manipulative territory.

However, the vast majority of street witnessing I've seen or have engaged in have been pretty embarrassing or counter-productive in various ways.

I've done loads of door-knocking in my time. Once or twice I had a pretty good and 'natural' conversation about the Christian faith when engaged in that kind of activity.

Thinking about it, one particularly memorable example came when I was door-knocking in some student flats and met a girl who had grown up in the Elim Pentecostal church and rejected it, and her flat-mate whose parents were Orthodox.

'That's interesting,' I said, 'I've never met an Orthodox Christian before. Can you tell me about it?'

She said nothing but looked at me suspiciously. I have no idea whether she thought I was engaging in a ploy to get her to talk about her faith in order to contradict it or whether she wasn't really engaged in it ...

But I remember making a mental note to engage with an Orthodox Christian the next time I encountered one ...

[Biased]

Perhaps it was me who was being evangelised ... subliminally ...

[Razz]

More seriously, I do think there are ways of engaging with people in authentic ways through street evangelism of some kind - but for the life of me I can't think of many methods that resonate with me.

If pressed, I'd say that some forms of conservative evangelical 'street-work' strikes a chord - provided it's not too ranty.

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

To move the discussion into more productive territory, what examples of street evangelism have you seen/heard/been part of that constitute some kind of good practice?

Hope this was a general good question and you don't mind me chipping in.

I recall being stopped in the street by two Mormon missionaries who asked for a recommendation for somewhere to eat. They asked about my faith and seemed willing to listen. They made themselves vulnerable, didn't start from the assumption that I was probably not a person of faith nor did they give the impression that my beliefs being different to theirs was a problem to be corrected. In fact they seemed pleased that I had something to say about what I believed. I was curious about their faith and their mission trip. We parted on good terms knowing a little more about each other. I was glad to have met them. I came away from the encounter with a good impression of them and their church, I felt we had some common grounds as human beings and that is helpful when it comes to loving our neighbour so I guess they helped me live my faith a little better too. Pretty good practice in my book.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Evidence of people being turned off in Reading? (since that's the subject of the thread).

quote:
People were open to talking. People were open to being prayed for. People were happy to pray a prayer of commitment to Christ. Not everybody. But when we all got back together 74 had done! One of our guys Adam Clewer prayed for 17 people to make response to Christ.
That's from a generally favourable blogpost (note the figures!).

That someone isn't happy to be prayed with doesn't mean they have been "put off" Christianity. They may simply be indifferent.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

As I have already posted, no doubt despite it all the "Gospel is preached and in this I rejoice".

But I think simply hunkering down and saying "well, we'll see how this turns out" is an abdication on the part of the body of Christ from holding each other mutually accountable for how we present the Gospel.

Well I don't think too many people in Reading are that interested in what get discussed here. Looks to me like they are thinking very seriously about what they are doing.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Doing evil once actually resulted in good, so we should continue doing evil? What's a good ratio? If we drive 1000 people away from Christ and 1 person gets saved, is that a good ratio?

(ps it's "moniker")
Reminds me of something Paul said.

Exactly my point.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I don't think too many people in Reading are that interested in what get discussed here. Looks to me like they are thinking very seriously about what they are doing.

It is evident from the literature and from the various claims that cognitive dissonance is at full throttle, for instance the constant fudging between "commitments" and "recommitments" in the claims. If people are going to think seriously about what they are doing, this cognitive dissonance will impede them from doing so. That deserves to be pointed out.

And if they've been listening to Bill Johnson, they will actively have been discouraged from taking notice of reality intruding into the rhetoric by declarations such as "you can't build a doctrine out of a disappointment".

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
what examples of street evangelism have you seen/heard/been part of that constitute some kind of good practice?

First, my credentials. I have done hundreds and hundreds of evangelistic talks using a sketchboard in dozens of outdoor locations across France, translated a manual to train other preachers and led multiple sessions to train people in doing it. I must have engaged in thousands of conversations about Christ on the street. I began my career as an interpreter doing consecutive translation of street preaching in Paris in the mid-80s.

In my book, good evangelism is, amongst other things:

- something people are free to walk away from without feeling pressured. Many people do when the name of Jesus is mentioned. Then again, others actually arrive at that point and stay

- something done in a way such that, inasmuch as is within our power, the only offence caused is the "offence of the cross". Or as Adrian Plass put it, ensure we are being a fool for Christ and not a twit for Christ

- something that does not use any deceptive or dishonest methods

- something that is reported on/testified about with absolute honesty

- something that is not in any way focused on the hearers reaching a decision. This completely changes the dynamic both for those entrusted with doing it (it takes the pressure off) and of the interactions that take place.

quote:
Reminds me of something Paul said.

As mousethief has pointed out, I could hardly think of a better argument as to why bad evangelism should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

[ 22. August 2016, 17:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Or as Adrian Plass put it, ensure we are being a fool for Christ and not a twit for Christ

Or to put it in the vernacular, we're being a fool for Christ and not a tool for Christ.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, indeed, and the proof positive that some - I said 'some' - of these people in Reading aren't thinking at all seriously about what they're doing is found in the examples in their literature and accounts that Eutychus has cited and highlighted.

If they were thinking seriously they wouldn't inflate, they wouldn't fudge nor would they attempt to cut corners.

I'm sorry, Ramarius but I'm afraid that your commendable interest in evangelism and in the power of the Gospel seems to be matched by a degree of credulity in this instance and some wishful thinking.

Now, that may lay me open to the charge of patronising you .. and I'd understand that.

But it's not my intention.

With the best will in the world, I don't trust some of the sources behind this - and I certainly don't trust Bethel nor Bill Johnson.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

But then, Mousethief, to paraphrase a well-known NT passage ...

'The hand cannot say to the tool, I have no need of thee ...'

(or should that be the other way round ... [Biased]

)

Or, 'The ear cannot say to the arsehole (asshole to you) I have no need of thee ...'

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. Shame the Ship doesn't allow you to link to your book. I'll see if I can track it down.

Interested in your comment about not seeking a decision. The call to "repent" is at the heart of the Gospel - which is surely a call to a decision. That's not to diminish the value of just presenting the Gospel and leaving people space to reflect on it or give them other avenues to explore. Paul gave no call to repentance in Athens for example.

I'm sure you've thought about this - just not covered it in your post.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, Mousethief, to paraphrase a well-known NT passage ...

'The hand cannot say to the tool, I have no need of thee ...'

(or should that be the other way round ... )

Or, 'The ear cannot say to the arsehole (asshole to you) I have no need of thee ...'

A body that had not got one would become very puffed up very quickly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then, Mousethief, to paraphrase a well-known NT passage ...

'The hand cannot say to the tool, I have no need of thee ...'

(or should that be the other way round ... )

Or, 'The ear cannot say to the arsehole (asshole to you) I have no need of thee ...'

I hope you don't mean this seriously. Just because I can't dismiss someone as a Christian doesn't mean I can't criticize what they're doing. Just because the hand can't disown the foot doesn't mean the foot should go on kicking street people or stepping on sleeping dogs.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Eutychus. Shame the Ship doesn't allow you to link to your book. I'll see if I can track it down.

When I said "in my book" I didn't mean literally in one I had written. I did contribute a few sketchboard messages to this one.

quote:
Interested in your comment about not seeking a decision. The call to "repent" is at the heart of the Gospel - which is surely a call to a decision.

Not in the same way as

quote:
if you would like to receive this free gift, Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, just say this with me

is. Even urging people to repentance is not the same as decisionism.

quote:
Decisionism in Christianity is the belief that a person is saved by coming forward, raising the hand, saying a prayer, believing a doctrine, making a lordship commitment, or some other external, human act, which is taken as the equivalent to, and proof of, the miracle of inward conversion.

The essential difference is in the point at which you feel your job as an evangelist is done.

Alternatively, for a model of "street evangelism", consider Jesus with the woman at the well in John 4, a passage I have taught on many times. Note in particular the absence of Jesus pushing for a decision or even praying a prayer.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Eutychus nails it again.

And, @Mousethief - no, of course I didn't mean it seriously. I was being a tool. Or an arsehole.

Facetious. Or perhaps 'faeces-tious' ...

Sorry, my schoolboy scatological humour sometimes gets the better of me.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. Thanks for the book link.

You didn't really address the question I asked about NT evangelism.

The question was about a call to making a decision. Whilst it's not a part of every example of evangelism in the NT it's clearly prominent. John's preaching, Jesus's call to repentance, Paul's summary of his ministry that God commands all people everywhere to repent - they are all calls to making a decision.

Just referring to the woman of Samaria is highly selective. On t'other side of the equation we have calling the disciples (come follow me!) the rich young ruler, the woman caught in aduktery, Zachhaeus.....

Looks to me like there's scope for more than one approach including a clear call to make a decision.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
You didn't really address the question I asked about NT evangelism.

That's because that's not what your question was about:

quote:
what examples of street evangelism have you seen/heard/been part of that constitute some kind of good practice?

In good faith, I answered about my direct, contemporary experience, of street evangelism, which is a contemporary term, in the context of a thread which is all about people going onto the street in Reading in 2016 doing what they call evangelism.

quote:
The question was about a call to making a decision. Whilst it's not a part of every example of evangelism in the NT it's clearly prominent. John's preaching, Jesus's call to repentance, Paul's summary of his ministry that God commands all people everywhere to repent - they are all calls to making a decision.

As far as "making a decision" goes, this is not the language of the NT. I repeat, preaching that includes calling on people to repentance, or to follow Jesus, is not the same as decisionism as I have defined it just a few posts ago.

Decisionism is the charge being laid against what's going on in Reading, first and foremost on the basis of the script being used (part 1, part 2), which couldn't be clearer. Again:

quote:
If they do not say "I have Jesus in my heart/I am born again" go with the script..."if you would like to receive this free gift, Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, just say this with me"

I'm not misreporting or making this up. I'm quoting directly from the thing.

Mark Landreth-Smith of NewFrontiers (or at least that's where I knew him) reports

quote:
The contentious bit is the very prescriptive evangelistic script used on the streets

Billy Kennedy of New Community Church Southampton reports

quote:
The team doing the training have a very prescriptive model. They have a ‘script’ which leads people through a series of questions to a prayer of commitment to Christ. It feels corny and formulaic

Note this is from people who are supportive of what's going on!

The only outcome envisaged in the script for conversations with declared non-Christians - the only one - is a prayer of conversion. And that is the problem.

It will drive well-meaning Christians to push for people to "pray the prayer" through a false sense of guilt and fear.

It will incite people eager for affirmation and encouragement, not to mention fulfilment of oft-repeated "prophecies" and "visions", to err not on the side of caution but on the side of reporting success.

In this decisionist narrative, there is no place for failure to complete the script, unless it is attributed to some shortcoming (a "lack of faith", perhaps?) in the would-be street evangelist. People challenging the script are likely to be seen as "sapping the atmosphere of faith" and ostracised.

quote:
On t'other side of the equation we have calling the disciples (come follow me!) the rich young ruler, the woman caught in aduktery, Zachhaeus.....

Well, I'm not Jesus. But you make my point nicely.

quote:
Looks to me like there's scope for more than one approach including a clear call to make a decision.

A thousand times yes. There is more than one approach to evangelism. There are as many approaches as there are people.

Is this what the leadership in Reading is asserting?

No.

They are claiming, if not a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, at least a privileged outlet, because they have something transferable.

Here's what Yinka Oyekean has to say about it on his Facebook page:

quote:
It is transferable to any city or town that wants this. I believe that this can happen in any city in this country or in Europe and because of that Tommie Zito’s ministry and Barnabas Fellowship of Churches are going to partner to facilitate this.

One of the hugely paradoxical things about all this for me, as someone who seeks to enjoy to the full the freedom of the Spirit, is that charismatic churches, churches that lay great store by the work of the Spirit, the wind that "bloweth where it listeth", that first emerged as champions of freedom and spontaneity, have become so enslaved to "transferable" methods and the "ministries" that spawn them.

Who hath bewitched them?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
the rich young ruler

Jesus: I've just got to tell you ב things real quick, that God loves you and has an awesome plan for your life. Before I go, I've got to ask you a real quick question. If you were to die tonight, do you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that you would go straight to Heaven?

Rich young man: Er no, that's the question I just asked you.

Jesus: Great! Before my buddies Matt, Mark, Luke, John-the-E and Paul to write down what the Bible will say, I'm gonna say a quick prayer for you ...

[Their name], if you would like to receive Me as your Lord and Saviour, just say this with me:

Jesus // take all my belongings // sell them for me // and give the money to the poor // and then I will follow you

Rich young man: Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm going to that Zito bloke, his gospel's much better.

[ 22. August 2016, 21:50: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

At the risk of being reductionist ...

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. I think we're at crossed purposes here. Let me clarify.

You wrote

As far as "making a decision" goes, this is not the language of the NT. I repeat, preaching that includes calling on people to repentance, or to follow Jesus, is not the same as decisionism as I have defined it just a few posts ago.

Sure I get that.

I was interested in your response to my question about "good practice" in street evangelism. I wasn't clear how you saw a "call to repentance" being expressed in this context. What's the decision we are asking people to make when we call them to repentance and how, in an evangelistic street context, would you frame that challenge?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This may have been said upthread.

It strikes me that Peter, preaching to Jews on the day of Pentecost and exhorting people to come to a decision about Jesus the Christ, was doing a very different thing to most evangelists today.

Why? Simply because Peter was building on a common Jewish knowledge base about God and the Messiah, and taking people on from there. In other words, he had comprenhensible language and a firm shared foundation. Most evangelists today, however, are using words such as "God", "Jesus", even "faith" and "love" in ways which IMO need a great deal of unpacking before they can be understood in a "Christian" way by most folk. One therefore must ask how valid a quick response in that situation CAN be?

I think it's instructive that when Paul preaches to pagans (e.g. in Athens) he takes a very different approach - although even here there is something of a shared belief in God/gods, which would not be true in Britain today. I'm not saying, "Don't evangelise". I am saying, "It's not easy" and "Don't press for a decision too soon".

[ 23. August 2016, 08:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I was interested in your response to my question about "good practice" in street evangelism.

What's with this insistence on street evangelism? It's certainly good for Christians to be getting out and about sharing the Good News, but I don't think there's anything particularly anointed about street evangelism.

quote:
I wasn't clear how you saw a "call to repentance" being expressed in this context. What's the decision we are asking people to make when we call them to repentance and how, in an evangelistic street context, would you frame that challenge?

Re-read your words carefully. You are trying to make a "call to reptentance" equivalent to "asking people to make a decision". I think this is mistaken.

The Greek word traditionally translated by "repentance" is "metanoia"; the suggested translation on this page (which describes "repentance" as "an utter mistranslation"), is a

quote:
"change of Mind, a change in the trend and action of the whole inner nature, intellectual, affectional and moral."

This kind of radical shift in perspective isn't something you consciously decide to do, or have forced upon you; it's something you experience and then act upon (or not).

I think that in terms of salvation, only the Spirit can effect such a change. In the context of evangelism, a "call to repentance" might be summarised as presenting people with a challenge to their customary way of thinking and opening up the possibility of things being different - but that can't make them change their perspective; saying the words on the card won't do it.

(In fact at the present time, the idea that a large part of the Good News is the opportunity to see ourselves wholly differently to how we otherwise would is quite strongly reflected in my preaching and evangelism).

I think that any decision follows this change of mind; in fact I guess the problem with decisionism is that it puts the cart before the horse in this respect.

[ 23. August 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Those last two posts - by Baptist Trainfan & Eutychus - have whacked the nail firmly on the head.

I've kept silence while reading this thread, largely because I felt that the strengths and weaknesses of street evangelism are far better discussed by those within the tradition of evangelicalism who either advocate it or have tried it and want to advise on what not to do.

But whatever your background, the call is to a change of heart, an amendment of life, a leaning away from an old way of doing things towards a new life. That was and is the call to metanoia. It has nothing to do with penitence (the root of repentance), though of course that may follow with understanding.

And while we are at it, the pie in the sky stuff is a travesty of what the gospels reveal, and indeed what the rich young man was asking about. Which was how he might inherit eternal life, not "go to heaven when you die", which would surely have sounded like a mixed metaphor to him.

People take considerable effort to avoid engagement by and phone calls from double glazing salesmen and timeshare sellers. Using the same intellectual doorstepping tactics is guaranteed to switch off many, many people. It absolutely ruined both my daughters' view of Christianity. One of them has got over it I'm pleased to say, but the memory lingers.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

The chat around decisionism reminds me of Dallas Wiilard's stuff on bar code Christianity. I'm OK will calling people to make a decision to follow Christ, as long as that's the decision. It's "job's just started" not "job done."

If all we were getting out of Reading was a stack of cards I'd be as leery about all this as anyone else. Sounds like there's more going on mind. There's obviously plenty of people with no Christian commitment happy to stop and chat. I can think of plenty of places that doesn't happen. Christians in their hundreds emboldened to share their faith - better than the alternative. I've heard that more people in Reading are starting to visit churches - like to see where that goes.

There's plenty of scrutiny of what folks are up to in Reading by people closer to the action that we are. I'm looking for what the church leaders say in a few months when asked "If you were doing this again from scratch what would you do different?"

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
If all we were getting out of Reading was a stack of cards I'd be as leery about all this as anyone else. Sounds like there's more going on mind.

I'm not sure if this is true or not. Can anyone find any recent news? My new hunch is that Reading has become more in the spotlight since the pastor in question spoke at New Wine...

quote:
There's obviously plenty of people with no Christian commitment happy to stop and chat. I can think of plenty of places that doesn't happen.

That's not because of a shortage of people willing to chat. It's more because Christians don't actually believe people are interested in their faith, and have often been turned off attempting to share it by being convinced that the only way of sharing it is to go out there with a decisionist agenda.

quote:
Christians in their hundreds emboldened to share their faith - better than the alternative.

Not if the results aren't all they are being hyped up to be. The danger is that they will do it for as long as the weather's nice and they are in the spotlight, and then sink into fatigue and disillusionment until the Next Move of God™ comes around.

What has been the meaningful legacy of Cwmbran or the Lakeland Revival? Far, far out of proportion to the promises I would venture, and not in a good way.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can anyone find any recent news?

A bit of poking around on Facebook indicates that the weekly evangelism meetings have ceased for two weeks and will resume on a monthly basis this weekend. The movement has now got its own brand, "The Turning", and a tour of this product is being arranged to other cities.

Yinka Oyekan spoke about Reading at the Leaders Advance conference in Harrogate at the beginning of the month. This event is a Bethel product, and the headline speaker at that event was Bill Johnson.

There are the usual promises of something hitherto unseen and special, not to be missed, and fantastic numbers ("100 million souls for Europe")

There are ten minutes of video of Oyekan at the Bethel conference here ("he's going to pray an impartation over us - if you want that. You want that?")

There is much that could be said about it, I'll simply say that in his conclusion, he says God has revealed to him that "Theresa means harvester*". I think the implication one is supposed to draw is something to do with the new UK Prime Minister.

I'm afraid this is looking more like Lakeland the closer I look. Cross-breeding the extreme decisionism with the "realised eschatology/presence of God" theology of Bethel is truly scary.

==

*It does, in Greek, apparently.

[ 23. August 2016, 10:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm afraid this is looking more like Lakeland the closer I look.

Not this Lakeland, clearly - although even this beloved company claims that it can change your life, albeit slightly!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Truman White, it's only 'job started' if people actually understand what it is they are supposed to be starting on.

My brother has a friend who was pressed to make some kind of 'decision' at a Pentecostal service.

The Penties were delighted and went around rejoicing that this person had been 'saved'.

When my brother engaged the person in conversation about it he quickly found that they had no idea what was supposed to have happened/been achieved as a result of 'praying the prayer.'

I'm sorry, Eutychus and Baptist Trainfan have continued to hit the nail on the head over and over again on this one.

Special pleading or 'at least Christians are out on the streets sharing their faith' stuff does not in any way alleviate the concerns that many of us have with this approach - particularly when it seems to be linked with Bethel-ish stuff.

This may sound harsh or extreme but I don't think we can distance ourselves enough from the likes of Bethel and Bill Johnson.

I really wish that the New Wine types and people involved with what was New Frontiers and so on would wake up to how toxic that stuff actually is.

I can't say it strongly enough. It is toxic.

Avoid it. Shun it. Expose it for what it is. It is wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I plead with my evangelical charismatic brothers and sisters in the bowels of Christ to reconsider.

It's not just individuals who need that radical metanoia. Movements do too. And the charismatic evangelical movement needs a metanoia too if it isn't going to crash and burn over some of these dodgy emphases.

Honestly. I plead with you. I abjure you.

There is death in the pot.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

People take considerable effort to avoid engagement by and phone calls from double glazing salesmen and timeshare sellers. Using the same intellectual doorstepping tactics is guaranteed to switch off many, many people.

Indeed.

My recollection of the book of Acts is that the disciples preached in synagogues - where you would expect to be preached to - and in (literal) forums, where there does seem to have been an expected tradition of public debate. (Acts 17:21 - 'Now all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new.') I don't think there is any record of the disciples bugging random passers-by.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

There is much that could be said about it, I'll simply say that in his conclusion, he says God has revealed to him that "Theresa means harvester*". I think the implication one is supposed to draw is something to do with the new UK Prime Minister.

Apparently her favourite hymn is 'Therefore we before him bending/ this great sacrament revere'.

I look forward to a mass revival of Evensong and Benediction! [Yipee]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I would hope that when the various church leaders evaluate what's been going on in a few month's time, Truman White, they'd conclude:

'If we were doing this again from scratch we wouldn't rely on facile decisionism and forcing-the-issue techniques but look to engage with people in a more meaningful and authentic way - a way in which we could create a forum where genuine conversations and genuine interaction about the Gospel would take place.'

The problem with revivalism is that it doesn't learn to do things differently - it simply ramps up the same old, same old and presses on regardless of the collateral damage.

Of course, other traditions within Christianity stick to the same things and to the same old, same old as they have always done - but as Eutychus has observed, the concern with revivalism is that it claims to be spontaneous and Spirit-led but so often hedges things around with particular techniques, particular personalities and particular 'centres'.

Of course, there have always been centres of influence - be it Cluny, be it the monastery of Optino in Russia, be it Azusa Street ...

And yes, people will build conferences and ministries around these things and make money out of them. It's always been that way.

But what is doubly dangerous in instances like this one in Reading is the degree of hype and expectation that gets built up around it all.

I often refer to the famous quote from Watchman Nee after a period of 'outpouring' in Shanghai in the 1930s. At the end of it he wrote that not a great deal had been gained but an awful lot had been lost.

What I hope would happen with the ministers and church leaders in Reading after all the froth and fuss has died down is that they would re-evaluate the Gospel they preach and present in the cold light of day and adjust their approach accordingly.

In other words, I'd hope they'd change their theology.

Actually, it might be an idea if they actually acquired some in the first place ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Truman White, it's only 'job started' if people actually understand what it is they are supposed to be starting on.

My brother has a friend who was pressed to make some kind of 'decision' at a Pentecostal service.

The Penties were delighted and went around rejoicing that this person had been 'saved'.

When my brother engaged the person in conversation about it he quickly found that they had no idea what was supposed to have happened/been achieved as a result of 'praying the prayer.'

"The Doctor" (Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel) in his book "Preaching and preachers" tells of someone who came to him in some distress (probably back in the 1950s when Christian understanding among the general population was much greater than it is today). I can't recall the details, but this man had been to an evangelistic rally the week before where the preacher had made a heartfelt appeal to make a decision now so as not to "miss the boat". He hadn't made that response and was now in mortal fear that he had, indeed, missed that particular sailing. Problem was, he had no idea what the evangelist had really been calling for, it simply had been assumed that "everyone knew".

(As an aside, Lloyd-Jones - a good Calvinist - was dead against "altar calls" as he felt that they were too emotionalistic and that God's Spirit would work in someone's heart without them. I don't know how he got round Paul's comment about "by all means persuading some". R.T. Kendall, a later minister at the Chapel, caused a bit of a rumpus when he decided to introduce appeals and even wrote a book defending the practice).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In other words, I'd hope they'd change their theology.

Actually, it might be an idea if they actually acquired some in the first place ...

Tom Smail, meeting with other Scottish church leaders in the heady days of charismatic renewal in the late 1950s and wanting to throw his academic background out of the window, recounted how he was rebuked by a Pentecostal Pastor who told him that the Renewal would desperately need his "good theology".

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. You wrote:

Re-read your words carefully. You are trying to make a "call to repentance" equivalent to "asking people to make a decision". I think this is mistaken. The Greek word traditionally translated by "repentance" is "metanoia"; the suggested translation on this page (which describes "repentance" as "an utter mistranslation"), is a quote: "change of Mind, a change in the trend and action of the whole inner nature, intellectual, affectional and moral." This kind of radical shift in perspective isn't something you consciously decide to do, or have forced upon you; it's something you experience and then act upon (or not).

I don't see how you get away from a call to repentance being a call to make a decision. A quick look at NT tense and context makes that clear. Jesus's first use of repentance - metanoiete - is in the imperative - repent ye! It's a call to do something, a call to action. Jesus was constantly calling people to action - follow me, go and sin no more, give to the poor, come down from your tree, pick up your mat... Acts 17:30 "...God commands all men everywhere to repent."

The issue with preaching the Gospel isn't that people are being asked to make a decision - that's self-evident - but what decision people are being asked to make. And (and this the key issue for me with decision cards and "saying the prayer") what they think they are doing when they make that decision.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, yes ...

If it's 'Come down the front' or 'Raise your hand' or 'Pray this prayer after me' then that's what you are going to get.

If it's 'repent and be baptised' then that ups the ante somewhat.

Ultimately, though, it seems to me that the 'decision' that Christ was calling for was, 'Come, follow me ...' - which has diddly-squat to do with revivalistic rallies or street evangelism but everything to do with a re-orientation of life - however that is expressed - whether in engaging in church services of whatever kind or - as in the case of Mother Maria of Paris going out and feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and, ultimately, dying in a Nazi concentration camp for assisting Jews to escape the Holocaust ...

In the light of that - and sundry other examples across all Christian confessions and traditions - the kind of street evangelism and decisionism we're seeing in Reading seems absurdly trite and reductionist.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I don't see how you get away from a call to repentance being a call to make a decision. A quick look at NT tense and context makes that clear. Jesus's first use of repentance - metanoiete - is in the imperative - repent ye! It's a call to do something

If my translation of metanoia is right, the imperative means, in the words of Bob Dylan, "change your way of thinking". There is a big leap from that to decisionism as defined above and as rolled out in Reading.

quote:
Jesus was constantly calling people to action - follow me, go and sin no more, give to the poor, come down from your tree, pick up your mat...

But we are not Jesus*. In those instances he is not so much inviting people to make a decision as giving orders. Are you seriously saying we should be going round issuing orders to people? I know some healing and deliverance proponents attempt this, and the results are less than spectacular.

quote:
The issue with preaching the Gospel isn't that people are being asked to make a decision - that's self-evident - but what decision people are being asked to make. And (and this the key issue for me with decision cards and "saying the prayer") what they think they are doing when they make that decision.

There is no doubt at all in view of the script being used in The Turning™ that people are being asked to "receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour". This is a "prayer of conversion".

As others have pointed, there is a big question as to whether an average inhabitant of Reading is really in a position to understand what that means.

So why use a formula couched in those terms?

Partly, perhaps, out of an actual decisionist theology that thinks saying the magic words actually produces the desired effect. (Such a belief is, essentially, witchcraft).

Secondly, I would suggest, to allow the leaders to talk in terms of "souls saved", add suitably big numbers (see the evidence from Zito's website referenced above), and make noises about revival.

(This Turning Tour would hardly get off the ground if it was to be branded as "encouraging church members to go out and have conversations with people". It works much better as "ushering in the harvest in the UK" and for that you need some claim of conversions).

They are quick to add "and rededications" half under their breath, but nobody pays attention to that in the hype or the headlines - after all, God has promised revival, the prophets said so and the new PM's name means "Harvester" so it must be true!

The fact is though, that the method used makes no provision for rededications.

This is where cognitive dissonance sets in, and this is what makes all this dishonest and dangerous. Fans are being asked to concede that most of the prayers are rededications AND simultaneously believe, despite the actual evidence, that large numbers of new converts are being made, with lots more on the way.

At this point the whole thing starts to be out of touch with reality, and the weaving of the emperor's new clothes can begin in earnest.

Until next time round.

==

*This may seem self-evident, but as I understand it part of Bethel's doctrine is that the Church is the physical body of Christ, expected to perform exactly the same actions as he did in his earthly ministry; once it has got sufficiently good at this by the empowering of the Spirit, Jesus the "Head" of the body will return to top it off, as it were.

[ 23. August 2016, 12:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Again, Eutychus. Nail. Head. Hit it.

My word, man, if people were queueing up to hear what you have to say you could be a millionaire.

[Biased]

Forget The Turning Tour, let's have a 'Hit The Nail On The Head' Tour or a 'Let's Call a Spade a Spade' Tour or a 'I call Bullshit' Tour ...

Let's roll it out and listen to the cash-tills chime!

Only, it's not what contemporary evangelicalism's itching ears want to hear.

I say Ichabod.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. Happy to focus on Paul if that's easier, consider Acts 26:20.

" First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." Sounds like two decisions there. And back to the previous verse from Acts 17 "God commands all men everywhere to repent." It's the same call to action as Jesus. No surprise there.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Baptist Trainfan, I don't always agree with the good 'Doctor' but I think his diagnosis was spot-on that time.

As far as altar-calls and so on go, I have less difficulty with the old-time Salvation Army 'penitent form' because at least it says what it is on the tin - it is a 'penitent' form. You are supposed to be penitent there.

None of this 'good conversations', 're-commitments' or 'pray this prayer after me' crap.

There's a lot of issues on which I'd part company with the SA, but not on that one. Yes, I know, as has been pointed out, penitence is just one part of the whole thing ... of course - but at least they didn't abandon it in favour of some erstatz decisionism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, Ramarius - it's not two decisions, it's a continuation - the repentance and deeds go together - they are part of a continuum. Faith without works is dead.

Please, spare us the reductionism.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Ramarius - to further this discussion, maybe it would be helpful if you could outline your understanding of what "repentance" actually means, otherwise there's a danger of talking at cross-purposes here.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds."

That they "should do" those things, yes. An invitation to do something, even an insistent invitation, is not the same as training people to use a script in which the only possible outcome if their interlocutor is not already a Christian is to have them immediately pray a prayer with you, then and there, cast as "a decision for Christ".

And this is aside from any issue of the context, as Baptist Trainfan helpfully points out above.

I think one of the mistakes the New Churches often make is to think the contemporary church should be carrying on exactly where Acts left off (indeed, as reflected in one of my Bethelite friends' recent facebook pictures: "Acts 29: the story continues!" handwritten at the end of the book in question in the Bible) - and that it's a blueprint of exactly how things should be done now.

I understand the sentiment, but to simply ignore 2,000 years of intervening history and Church history is sheer hubris.

quote:
And back to the previous verse from Acts 17 "God commands all men everywhere to repent."

Not again

Can you really fail to see that the subject in this sentence is God, not "I"?

We're not supposed to be commanding anything, or ordering anybody about. Can't you see how loathsome, arrogant, entitled ("we're the sons and daughters of the King bringing Heaven down to Earth!") and unteachable such an attitude is?

Now let's stop dodging the OP and get back to Reading, and you off the fence. Let me ask you the same question I asked SvitlanaV2 in the other thread:

I'm increasingly unhappy with the process/prayer outlined in the crib. Is it even defensible? Would you defend it?

[ 23. August 2016, 13:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Ramarius - to further this discussion, maybe it would be helpful if you could outline your understanding of what "repentance" actually means, otherwise there's a danger of talking at cross-purposes here.

Sure. In a nutshell it's a change of mind leading to a change in behaviour. In practical terms and a Christian context that a radical re-orientation of our lives around the in-breaking Kingdom. The Gospel in a nut shell is that Jesus is now Lord, and we need to start living our lives following his lead, joining in his great project to redeem our broken world.

Apart from the imperative to repent, Jesus uses powerful images to describe what this means - dying to self, taking up the cross, "hating" father and mother, persevering to bring forth fruit.

All the decisions we make in now are now made in orientation to that new situation. Hence the ongoing working of repentance - putting to death what belongs to the old nature, seeking first the kingdom, forgiving our enemies, being kind and patient with each other, and sharing the good news of the kingdom.

The New Testament constantly places choices in front of us. Do we follow the broad way or the narrow way? Do we accept Christ or reject him? Do we follow the fallen nature or put it to death? Do we let the sun go down whilst we are still angry or make it a priority to deal with it.

Having come to Christ, in any situation we find ourselves we have to decide what to do and whom to follow.

[ 23. August 2016, 13:52: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In a nutshell [repentance is] a change of mind leading to a change in behaviour.

I can't see the word "decision" featuring anywhere in your post until after that has occurred (emphasis mine):

quote:
All the decisions we make in now are now made in orientation to that new situation.

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius, emphasis mine:
Having come to Christ, in any situation we find ourselves we have to decide what to do and whom to follow.

I can't see that this is any different from what I said here:

quote:
I think that any decision follows this change of mind

From which I concluded

quote:
I guess the problem with decisionism is that it puts the cart before the horse in this respect

Back to my question again. Do you seriously believe that a person on the receiving end of the script being used in Reading "praying the prayer" corresponds to "coming to Christ"? If so, why?

[ 23. August 2016, 14:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Eutychus. You asked:

I'm increasingly unhappy with the process/prayer outlined in the crib. Is it even defensible? Would you defend it?

Well since you asked.... My first reaction was the same as yours. I agree entirely with TW's comments on barcode Christianity, particularly having seen people being led to "say a prayer" when they clearly had no idea who this Jesus was they were supposed to be talking to.

What gave me pause (as I said upthread) is that people I know who have been to Reading tell me that new people are turning up to churches enquriring about Christianity. That's what I want to know about. I can't find out about that on the internet, so will have to investigate that in other ways and at a later date.

Would I use the crib? No. Might I use something like it on the basis of the experience of Reading. Maybe - but I would need to know more about what's been going on first.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds."
That they "should do" those things, yes. An invitation to do something, even an insistent invitation, is not the same as training people to use a script in which the only possible outcome if their interlocutor is not already a Christian is to have them immediately pray a prayer with you, then and there, cast as "a decision for Christ".

And I've never said it was. I've kept putting the question to you about how to put the challenge - the imperative - of the need to respond to Christ, and you continue to sidestep it by referring back to the specific practice at Reading. The Gospel is a call to action - go leave one life and start another, to follow Christ, to demonstrate that new direction by a change of behaviour. All that requires making decisions. I don't see how you can avoid that, and we're just going round in circles.

Which is a shame since there's something worthwhile to explore here.

But I'm out of time. Maybe return to this in the New Year and see what wheat has fallen in Reading and what chaff is heading for the fire.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What gave me pause (as I said upthread) is that people I know who have been to Reading tell me that new people are turning up to churches enquriring about Christianity.

But this happens everywhere all the time on a regular basis, people just don't call it an Outpouring™!!1!1!11!!!!

I stood outside our church venue for literally five minutes last Tuesday; one passerby approached me and started a conversation and another lady and her daughter came over to look at our window display. I wasn't even trying to evangelise; I was waiting for someone else entirely who stood me up. We have had new visitors on Sunday mornings all the way through the dead month of August.

I honestly can't believe you're challenged or excited by Reading because an indeterminate number of enquirers are turning up at churches. I find it much more likely that you are in danger of being lured by the hype.

The hype is all about a special, particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of prophecy and visions with the potential to reach hundreds of thousands across the UK and 100 million across Europe... if only people will flock to the source of the anointing and receive this impartation, which is "transferable", presumably more so if you attend a The Turning™ event, coming soon to your city!

(Again, I am not making any of this up. You can read all of this from the sources).

I've posted this from The Gravedigger File before; it's still true.

You don't need to go to Reading, or Redding. You don't need special impartation. You don't need the charismatical-monetaro complex. The anointing dwells in you. It's the New Convenant promise! You need to go out and talk to people.

[ 23. August 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I've kept putting the question to you about how to put the challenge - the imperative - of the need to respond to Christ

That's not what this thread is about, but for instance, on occasion I invite people to read the gospels and look at the person, work, and words of Jesus, and suggest that if they are serious about finding out whether God is real or not, ask him to show himself to be real to them as they read. I sometimes add to that a warning that this may result in them having to make some decisions.

quote:
The Gospel is a call to action - go leave one life and start another, to follow Christ, to demonstrate that new direction by a change of behaviour. All that requires making decisions.

Precisely. It's the Gospel that is the power of God for salvation unto all men. Not my persuasiveness. I'm fully confident that leaving people alone with the Gospel will enable them, with God's help, to make the right decisions and grow to maturity in Christ, in a way that's right for them and not just according to my preconceptions.

"God made it grow" is my personal miracle formula.

quote:
Maybe return to this in the New Year and see what wheat has fallen in Reading and what chaff is heading for the fire.

Noted.

[ 23. August 2016, 14:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0