1. Invite a friend to talk with God (just wherever you are or perhaps invite them to Church). Basically, if salvation includes a relationship with God, then why not introduce people to God, instead of just teaching people concepts about God. I have blogged about the idea here.

2. Related to the above, help a person find how God has already been at work in or around them. Ask them a question like, do you think God has ever spoken to you? How do you see God in the world?

3. Pray with people. God will work in their life and they will see it.

4. Ask people about what matters to them. What do they crave in life (love, a sense of value, adventure, etc.)? And then consider how God might be the answer to those existential needs. From the documentary “Crave” (view it here, if you don’t want to watch the whole thing, check it out at the 17:40 mark), I gather this is the idea behind Erin McManus’s book Soul Cravings. Some philosophers are also moving in the direction of considering existential reasons for belief in God rather than only rational arguments.

5. Tell somebody about Jesus. I don’t mean tell them the “spiritual laws.” I just mean, tell them about Jesus. Who is he? What did he do in life? What did he teach? It is interesting that the four “Gospels” (meaning, good news!) talk a lot about Jesus, not just about his death! Scot McKnight has blogged on this idea.

6. Tell how God changed your life. What difference has Jesus made for you? Isn’t that good news? (That is, gospel.) The 4 Gospels in the Bible were once titled, “The Gospel According to Luke” (John, Matthew, etc.). And the stories in these 4 Gospels include many stories about how Jesus made a difference in people’s lives (e.g. John 9:25). If Jesus makes a difference in your life, that is your “Gospel”: call it the “Gospel According to Andrew.”

I don’t know about you, but I think in most situations I’d be more comfortable with one of the above approaches to evangelism than starting with, “you’re a sinner,” or even, “do you know where you would go if you died tonight?” And the above approaches definitely fit better with the “relationship evangelism” that many people talk about, which is less a shot-gut approach to evangelism and more so an approach to evangelism that takes place over time. I don’t think the above approaches are a cop-out. Rather, they are about sharing the Gospel, which is the very essence of evangelism (“evangelism” comes from the Greek euangelizomai, meaning, “I proclaim” and related to the Greek euangelium, meaning, “good news”).

I invite additional proposals for and discussion of alternative ways to evangelize other than through sharing the four spiritual laws.

This depends on what you mean by a generational curse. If a person means (as this page describes it) that a person can be socialized to learn sinful habits from parental influence, then the idea makes good sense (although such an idea doesn’t require the label of “generational curse”). However, it seems when people use the phrase “generational curse,” they generally have in mind the idea that a person is experiencing “spiritual bondage” that involves demonic influence as a result of sin in previous generations (for example, see the ‘in a nutshell’ section on this page).

Where does this idea come from? The main biblical text is:

Exodus 20:5-6~ You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (There are verses others like it that are very close in wording.)

There are many problems with trying to get the “generational curse” theory out of this text. First, while it affirms punishment for numerous generations, it also affirms God’s love for those who obey him. So what happens if the second generation obeys God? Are they still cursed? To follow the logic behind the “generational curse” theory, then the second generation, and thousands more, would be loved by God regardless of their response to him. Rather than teaching a logic of generational cursing, this text seems to be contrasting the expansive love of God (to a thousand!) versus the punishment of God (to just a few). Consider also Exodus 34:6-7.

The even bigger problem with concluding that this text teaches “generational curses” is that the word “curse” doesn’t occur in the text! Rather, it speaks of punishment, and the punishment doesn’t involve demonic influence (that could hypothetically be denounced, as the generational curse proponents teach); the punishment comes from God.

Of course, there are other biblical texts that might point to the idea of generational curses. Consider, for example,

Deuteronomy 11:26-28~ See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse; the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. (Again, there are other texts like this.)

However, unlike the text from Exodus above, there is here no sense of generational continuation from the curse. Furthermore, numerous biblical texts (even in the Old Testament!) make it clear that “The child will not share the guilt of the parent” (Ezekiel 18:20)

Just to be clear, I am not denying that demons have real influences in this world. I am, however, denying that the Bible teaches that generational curses exist.

More importantly, (and here I agree with those who talk about generational curses), I would certainly affirm that God can (and does!) set people free from all kinds of nasty habits or oppressive thinking. One thing we can proclaim with certainty, is that whatever curse there was for not obeying the law in the Old Testament (see above), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:13).

If you are interested in reading further about this idea, this is a good article.

1/ The problem of evil- some might say we could never understand why God allows evil (or some specific evils) because God’s ways are just plain different than ours.

2/ Discerning God’s will- some might say that when a person senses God is leading them, the guidance probably won’t make sense. Further, it probably won’t even seem wise (which further allows that person to neglect the wise counsel of others).

The problem with using the above quote these ways is … it is just plain wrong! This verse is found in Isaiah 55:8, but the context of the verse makes it very clear that the author (or God speaking through the author) has a specific meaning in mind. Verse 7 makes it clear that the manner in which God’s ways differ from human ways is that if “the wicked forsake their ways and . . . turn to the Lord” then God “will have mercy on them” and even “freely pardon” them. In other words, God’s ways differ from human ways because he will forgive freely!

This verse is NOT suggesting that God acts unreasonably or in a way that humans could never understand. While it is true that we might not fully understand why God allows for some evils, it doesn’t mean that God has no good reason for it (it just means that we don’t understand it…yet). God acts in wise and reasonable ways. Of course, we don’t always know what those reasons are, but that is significantly different than saying that “his ways are not my ways.”

Speaking in tongues is not the only sign that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit

Another indicator of Spirit baptism was that, “The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people” (Acts 5:12). The apostles also received guidance from the Spirit (Acts 16:10). Another sign that a person had been baptized in the Spirit was that they would overflow with praise to God (Acts 10:46). Dreams, visions, and prophecy were also indicators that one had been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17). The long discourse on the unity of the church, which occurs in Acts 2:42-47 directly after the story of Pentecost, indicates that church unity was also a sign that people were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Considering the biblical emphasis on the relationship between the Spirit and love (consider Rom 5:5 and 1 Cor 13), William J. Seymour, leader of the Azusa Street Revival, viewed love as the key sign of Spirit baptism. He wrote that if your life did not “measure with the fruits of the Spirit…you have not the baptism with the Holy Spirit.”[1] In light of all of the above, it would be fair to say that there are many signs of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

For those who might be wondering, my credentials are secure . The section in the PAOC Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths on Baptism in the Holy Spirit (5.6.3) mentions numerous signs of Spirit baptism (although not specifically using the term ‘sign’). And these signs are listed even before any mention of speaking in tongues. Specifically, the statement affirms that through baptism in the Holy Spirit a person “comes to know Christ in a more intimate way and receives power to witness and grow spiritually.” Pentecostals frequently teach that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence that a person has experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that there are no other indicators that should be found after this initial evidence. Hence, D. W. Kerr, a leader in writing the Assemblies of God (USA) Statement of Fundamental Truths, wrote that, “We can consistently say that ‘tongues are not the only sign of the baptism,’ and yet be just as consistent in saying that ‘tongues are the sign of the baptism.’”[2] Similarly, James E. Purdie (founding principal of the first PAOC Bible College), wrote that evidences of the infilling of the Holy Spirit include “a much greater passion for souls; a greater reverence for the Word of God, and a greater love toward all true Christian people, as well as the deepening of the prayer life . . . [and a person's] earnestness to help others.”[3]

See also the Assemblies of God (USA) position paper, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life”

Key words: sign, signs, evidence, evidences, Spirit baptism, baptized, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues

Q- How did she know that God was involved here? I don’t attribute everything that happens to God’s action or will. Accidents can happen. People can go against God’s will by grieving God. And sometimes God just seems to have no preference. That being said, how did she know? Had she sinned (she didn’t say the Lord’s hand was against her daughters-in-law, but only against her, v. 13)? Did God tell her? Is it possible she was wrong (not that the Bible was wrong in reporting that she truly did think this, but that maybe the Bible correctly reports that she thought this even though it wasn’t a false thought)?

Of course I have much less difficulty accepting Naomi’s words when she says something positive about God’s action: “…the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today” (4:14).

I guess the big question behind my question is, how much does God direct our lives?

I read that “the LORD enabled her [Ruth] to conceive” (4:13), and I wonder if this necessarily means that God is always involved in conception (or just in this instance). I mean, isn’t it just sometimes that we live in a fallen world and, hence, some women or men have fertility issues? Is God involved there too? Or, isn’t it sometimes just that a woman waits too long to have children (fertility rates start continuously dropping for women in their 20’s)? Is God involved if a woman can’t get pregnant in her 30’s?

Perhaps I have removed God too much from how I think about what happens in my life. It seems clear from these Scriptures that God was very involved in Naomi and Ruth’s lives. Doesn’t that mean he is very involved in my life (even apart from responding to my prayers)? At first sight, these Scriptures even make me think that God is involved in directing most everything in my life (they point in that direction, but don’t establish that conclusion). Of course, thinking further, they don’t have to be interpreted that way. Furthermore, there are other Scriptures that sometimes suggest otherwise.

What do you think?

Here Ravi Zacharias suggests that even asking about the problem of evil presupposes the existence of God.

Regardless of the possible explanations for evil, they are not always that helpful when we are actually going through suffering, because we generally don’t know which explanation actually applies in our own circumstance. Shortly after the tsunami (Dec 2006- Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia) Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wrote, “If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier, or safer or more confident in God?”

As far as a pastoral response to evil, I appreciate the words of Tim Keller (poor quality video!).

2 Corinthians 1:3-4~ Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, (4) who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.

Abstract: This article responds to Daniel Castelo’s recent recommendation of the doctrine of divine impassibility to Pentecostals. In contrast to Castelo’s proposal, this article argues that Pentecostals are justified in dropping the term ‘impassibility’, and, moreover, that Pentecostals have a pneumatological reason for affirming divine passibility implicit within their spirituality of speaking in tongues.

Keywords: Divine Impassibility, Passibility, Speaking in Tongues, Holy Spirit, Doctrine of God

This quote made me think about how some Evangelicals sometimes limit their means of evangelism to inviting people to church. I have typically thought of this as a cop out (I still think it can be). I mean, don’t individuals have a responsibility to share the gospel with people? However, now I’m thinking that it makes sense to invite someone to church as a means of evangelism in as much as we are (hopefully) inviting them to a worshiping experience in which they can encounter Christ. And, after all, Christianity isn’t just about believing the right things. It is about having a relationship with Christ. I suspect that most Christians did not come to faith primarily because they heard a great argument in favor of the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Rather, they probably came to faith to a greater extent because they had an experience of God, whether at a church service or somewhere else. If that is the case, perhaps our evangelism would be more effective if we focused on leading people to relate with God, rather than only on telling people information so that they can believe the right thing.

You can also view the whole magazine.

*Note- the red text contains hyperlinks to videos or other pages.

Now for the second issue and the practical question….

2/ Universalism- I can understand why some people have concluded that he is a universalist (especially based on the pre-publication video that was released). He asks many questions that seem to lead in the direction of universalism. However, questions are not answers. It seems to me (and many others) that he is not a universalist (he has denied this in person). On p. 115 of the book he asks, “Will everybody be saved?” He then responds “we can’t” answer this question. Then he goes on to suggest that people can (and it seems people will) ultimately choose to reject God (p. 116-119, also here).

Now for the practical issue: Bell does believe that many people who haven’t necessarily heard the gospel will be saved (p. 154-155). Would such a belief lead one to neglect evangelism or missions? Simple answer: not necessarily, but maybe. Billy Graham was one of the greatest evangelists of the last century and Billy Graham thinks it is possible (not always, but possible) to to have not heard the gospel and still be saved (as far as the afterlife is concerned). This is also true of John Stott, who, with Billy Graham, was a founding member of the Lausanne Movement, which continues today to encourage the evangelization of the world. So it is possible to believe some things that Rob Bell believes and still be very evangelically and missions minded. On the other side of the coin, it is just as possible to believe more conservatively than Rob Bell (by thinking that you must have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and responded positively to it in order to be saved) and not care about missions or evangelism at all. Regardless, Jesus told us to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). Plus, there are many other reasons for sharing the gospel (see here). That’s why Billy Graham, John Stott, and even Rob Bell keep preaching (or have preached) that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is the only way to salvation (p. 154).

So, do I have problems with Bell’s theology? Yes. But I also have a problem with yours (ha ha).

People will read this book whether or not I comment on it (it is currently #15 in sales on amazon.com), so I thought it best to offer some cautions here to guide people as they read it. If you read the book, I hope you will do so with a critical eye (that is, analytically, not judgmentally), as have many other people I have talked to.

P.S. I have not read any of Bell’s other books, so I can’t comment on them. However, this book is not “liberal Christianity” given that he affirms miracles, affirms the deity of Jesus, affirms the resurrection, affirms exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ (all of these things liberals have historically denied) and he also seems to find the Scripture authoritative (though he interprets it differently than I do). Nevertheless, Bell’s book does have theological problems and I hope that you will judge any book that contains theology by the Scripture.

[Update: Mars Hill Church, which Rob Bell pastors, has issued a "frequently asked questions" document which seeks to clarify the positions Bell takes in his book: http://marshill.org/pdf/LoveWinsFAQs.pdf]