This is the scariest verse in the bible for believers

The Liturgist · Sunday at 6:42 AM

1Tonne said:
And yes, there will be times when we share, and the person may not like the message; they could even get angry. This does not mean that you have spoken at the wrong time. It could simply mean that the person did not like the message or receive it.

On the contrary, if we anger them for cause, by engaging in annoying or provocative behavior,

1Tonne said:
At the same time, we are called to share the Gospel in season and out of season

Which we do, by living the Gospel, and by seeking to draw people into the Church. A model that aims to push the Gospel message onto people outside the church who have not expressed an interest in religious dialogue will, in our present culture, result in further estrangement.

I would also note that at present the Orthodox Church is growing faster than any evangelical or restorationist denomination, with some of our parishes experiencing 18% annual growth due to a combination of unprecedented levels of conversion with a high birthrate. Other traditional liturgical churches are also growing. People are attracted to the mystery and beauty of our worship - thus the best place for them to experience the Gospel message is within the Church and our goal therefore must be to attract them in there, and make people feel confident that if they visit an Orthodox church they will not be accosted by people trying to force our religion on them, which would happen with some denominations. Likewise the other growing denominations take a similar low pressure approach.

While we are collectively, as the Church, required to evangelize, and laity have a role to play in that, there is no specific Scriptural requirement for individual laity to try to proselytize specific individuals.

It is particularly annoying to people who are Christians when someone from certain denominations asks us “are you saved?” which in the case of the Orthodox is a question we hear despite wearing a baptismal cross; indeed, even clergy such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware get asked that, despite the fact that he throughout his career in the UK wore a cassock with exorason, a veiled klobuk and a pectoral cross - the implication in asking an obvious Christian such a question being that they are a hypocrite, which does violate the Golden Rule.

1Tonne said:
Evangelism is about faithfully sharing God’s message whenever and wherever the opportunity arises, while trusting the Holy Spirit to work in people’s hearts.

If we trust the Holy Spirit, we should focus on activities that will create curiosity and make people want to visit our churches, and then during the course of their visit, allow them to be captivated by the beauty therein, which in a liturgical church is derived from the warmth of the people, who should be welcoming and unintrusitve, and the iconography and architecture, and if they arrive during a liturgy, from the quality of the music and from hearing the Gospel sung, and from the homily (or sermon).

The experience must above all be authentic, “seeker sensitive” churches which feature coffee shops and other worldly conveniences are not working and represent something very strange and foreign to the Church, a bit reminiscent of the commercial traffic in the Temple our Lord drove out.

1Tonne said:
the Word of God is never powerless.

That’s true, because He died on the cross for our salvation, remaking us in His image (the Word of God is Jesus Christ according to John 1:1-18; all New Testament references to the Word of God refer either to Christ or to Christ and the Scriptures which are an icon of Him; specifically when we encounter the word Logos in the Greek text as my friend @Xeno.of.athens has argued, that is an indicator the text is referring to our Lord, the incarnate Logos, rather than to the scriptural text exclusively, which tends to be referred to as Graphe.

1Tonne said:
Friendship is good, but it does not have the power to change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh that God can work with.

The demonstration of absolute love for our neighbor is the most powerful form of evangelization. Talk is cheap; anyone can recite Scriptures, but if we are willing to love our neighbor unconditionally, we are actually living the Gospel, rather than merely preaching it (which it turns out, we can say from the experience of the last few decades, the laity are not terribly effective at doing, particularly under conditions where society has become hostile to engaging in religious dialogue). All success I’ve had at spreading the Gospel during the period when I was not actively serving as clergy has begun with unconditional love attracting people into the fold.

1Tonne said:
Fear of rejection or awkwardness should never stop us from sharing. Revelation 21:8 lists the cowardly among those condemned, showing that hesitation to proclaim the truth can have eternal consequences. God calls us to speak boldly, trusting Him with the results, just as the early believers did in Acts 4:31.

It’s not cowardly to avoid spreading the Gospel in a manner likely to annoy the faithful. Revelation 21:8 furthermore is about those who, when threatened for their faith, deny Christ, rather than seizing the opportunity to potentially claim the crown of a martyr or a confessor. And indeed martyrdom is the most powerful way of spreading the Gospel; it is not a coincidence that the Orthodox Church, the fastest growing of denominations, is also the one blessed with the most martyrs in the past 200 years. We have to prepare ourselves to be willing to confess our faith in Christ if a Muslim fanatic is threatening to kill us, for the reward for us if he does so is worth it, infinitely. It must also be stressed that unlike Islam, Christianity does not classify those who are engaged in violent acts as martyrs and never has; indeed even a soldier fighting in a defensive capacity for a Christian country who is killed on the battlefield, while having died honorably, is not a martyr.

Carl Emerson · Sunday at 2:15 PM

1Tonne said:
Is not....what?

Is not what 2 Tim 4:2 is saying.

Carl Emerson · Sunday at 2:17 PM

1Tonne said:
I have added a pole that has the question "What holds you back most from sharing the Gospel?
I just voted:
Fear; because I think everyone will struggle with this. I do go out and share, but I am always worried about what will happen and who will react badly.
Family/work; because I have a big house that needs a lot of painting every year. This takes up much of my time which frustrates me.

Like Jesus I am held back by only being able to do what I see the Father doing...

1Tonne · Sunday at 2:55 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
My issue is not listed, it's not common. I do share when I can though.

If you tell me, maybe I can add it.

Gregory Thompson · Sunday at 3:34 PM

1Tonne said:
If you tell me, maybe I can add it.

The condition is spiritual in nature, not sure if there's an actual term for it.

Talking about it tends to derail threads, so I'll pass.

1Tonne · Sunday at 4:14 PM

The Liturgist said:
On the contrary, if we anger them for cause, by engaging in annoying or provocative behavior,

If someone angers people because they are being deliberately rude or provocative, that is indeed wrong. But let’s be honest, the Gospel itself provokes anger. Jesus enraged people to the point of wanting to stone Him (John 8:59) and kill Him (Luke 4:28–29), and Paul was constantly accused of causing riots simply by preaching Christ (Acts 17:6). The cross is called an offense for a reason (Gal. 5:11). If we think a faithful presentation of the Gospel will never upset anyone, then we are preaching a different gospel; one that avoids confronting sin. The issue is not whether someone gets angry, but why. If it is because of the truth, then we stand in good company with Christ and His apostles.

The Liturgist said:
Which we do, by living the Gospel, and by seeking to draw people into the Church. A model that aims to push the Gospel message onto people outside the church who have not expressed an interest in religious dialogue will, in our present culture, result in further estrangement.

I would also note that at present the Orthodox Church is growing faster than any evangelical or restorationist denomination, with some of our parishes experiencing 18% annual growth due to a combination of unprecedented levels of conversion with a high birthrate. Other traditional liturgical churches are also growing. People are attracted to the mystery and beauty of our worship - thus the best place for them to experience the Gospel message is within the Church and our goal therefore must be to attract them in there, and make people feel confident that if they visit an Orthodox church they will not be accosted by people trying to force our religion on them, which would happen with some denominations. Likewise the other growing denominations take a similar low pressure approach.

While we are collectively, as the Church, required to evangelize, and laity have a role to play in that, there is no specific Scriptural requirement for individual laity to try to proselytize specific individuals.

It is particularly annoying to people who are Christians when someone from certain denominations asks us “are you saved?” which in the case of the Orthodox is a question we hear despite wearing a baptismal cross; indeed, even clergy such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware get asked that, despite the fact that he throughout his career in the UK wore a cassock with exorason, a veiled klobuk and a pectoral cross - the implication in asking an obvious Christian such a question being that they are a hypocrite, which does violate the Golden Rule.

Scripture never presents evangelism as only an ‘inside the church’ matter. Jesus sent His disciples out into the world, not merely to invite people to watch their services. Romans 10:14 asks: ‘How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?’ That’s not limited to clergy, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18–20 is addressed to all disciples.
The idea that only laity inside the church or clergy are responsible for speaking directly about Christ does not match the New Testament pattern, where ordinary believers went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:4). Yes, we must not be rude or presumptuous, but silence is not faithfulness. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:20 that we are all ‘ambassadors for Christ,’ meaning each of us represents Him wherever we go.

As for offence, Jesus Himself offended many by simply speaking truth (John 6:61–66). Asking someone if they know Christ personally is not a violation of the Golden Rule if done with love; it’s an act of care. To not ask, to not share, is to risk leaving people in darkness. Friendship, beauty, and worship are good, but the power of salvation is in the Gospel message itself (Romans 1:16).

I’d also add, wearing a cross or attending church, while good things, do not in themselves mean someone is saved. Jesus warned that many will say ‘Lord, Lord’ but not truly know Him (Matthew 7:21–23). Salvation is not in symbols or attendance but in repentance and faith in Christ. That’s why asking ‘Are you saved?’ is not an insult, it’s an invitation to reflect on where we stand with God. - I share the Gospel with believers and non-believers alike.

The Liturgist said:
If we trust the Holy Spirit, we should focus on activities that will create curiosity and make people want to visit our churches, and then during the course of their visit, allow them to be captivated by the beauty therein, which in a liturgical church is derived from the warmth of the people, who should be welcoming and unintrusitve, and the iconography and architecture, and if they arrive during a liturgy, from the quality of the music and from hearing the Gospel sung, and from the homily (or sermon).

The experience must above all be authentic, “seeker sensitive” churches which feature coffee shops and other worldly conveniences are not working and represent something very strange and foreign to the Church, a bit reminiscent of the commercial traffic in the Temple our Lord drove out.

I agree that the Church should be welcoming and authentic, but Scripture shows that it is the Gospel itself, not ambience, that changes hearts (Romans 1:16). Beauty may attract, but only the Word of God brings life. If we replace proclamation with atmosphere, we risk leaving people impressed but still lost.
In Acts, they met in simple homes made of clay. They did not rely on architecture, icons, music, or ambience to bring people to Christ. If people come and stay only for the warmth of the community, the beauty of the building, or the quality of the liturgy, then those people may be impressed outwardly but have not truly had the inward heart change that only the Gospel produces. A church that relies on these to save people is in big trouble.
Paul himself avoided relying on style, eloquence, or atmosphere, because only Christ crucified saves. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified... that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

The Liturgist said:
The demonstration of absolute love for our neighbor is the most powerful form of evangelization. Talk is cheap; anyone can recite Scriptures, but if we are willing to love our neighbor unconditionally, we are actually living the Gospel, rather than merely preaching it (which it turns out, we can say from the experience of the last few decades, the laity are not terribly effective at doing, particularly under conditions where society has become hostile to engaging in religious dialogue). All success I’ve had at spreading the Gospel during the period when I was not actively serving as clergy has begun with unconditional love attracting people into the fold.

I fully agree that we must show love in deed, and our lives should reflect Christ’s love. But Scripture is clear that love in action alone is not enough. The most powerful form of evangelism is speaking the Gospel, because “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).
The apostles did not “live the Gospel” into existence; they preached it. Paul said he “did not shrink from declaring… anything that was profitable” but went about “testifying… repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20–21). He even said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16).
Good works shine as evidence of our faith (Matthew 5:16), but they cannot replace proclamation. If we only love in deed, people may see kindness but never hear the saving message. The highest form of love is to risk rejection for the sake of their soul by speaking the truth about Christ crucified and risen.
Scripture never commands us to 'live the Gospel' as a replacement for proclaiming it. While our actions and love can demonstrate the reality of Christ in our lives, the Bible repeatedly calls us to speak the message of salvation. Deeds and words go hand in hand, but it is the spoken (or written) Gospel that brings salvation.

The Liturgist said:
It’s not cowardly to avoid spreading the Gospel in a manner likely to annoy the faithful. Revelation 21:8 furthermore is about those who, when threatened for their faith, deny Christ, rather than seizing the opportunity to potentially claim the crown of a martyr or a confessor. And indeed martyrdom is the most powerful way of spreading the Gospel; it is not a coincidence that the Orthodox Church, the fastest growing of denominations, is also the one blessed with the most martyrs in the past 200 years. We have to prepare ourselves to be willing to confess our faith in Christ if a Muslim fanatic is threatening to kill us, for the reward for us if he does so is worth it, infinitely. It must also be stressed that unlike Islam, Christianity does not classify those who are engaged in violent acts as martyrs and never has; indeed even a soldier fighting in a defensive capacity for a Christian country who is killed on the battlefield, while having died honorably, is not a martyr.

I agree that Revelation 21:8 primarily addresses denying Christ under threat, but it also condemns the cowardly, those who fail to obey Him out of fear. Scripture calls us to take up our cross daily (Luke 9:23), which includes giving up our lives for Jesus’ sake and for the Gospel (Mark 8:34-35). This daily surrender is a form of living martyrdom; faithful obedience in both deed and proclamation. Martyrdom may be rare in the ultimate sense, but daily obedience and boldly speaking the Gospel are expected of all believers. Fear is not an excuse to remain silent.

Carl Emerson said:
Is not what 2 Tim 4:2 is saying.

Still a little lost as to what you mean. You may need to explain.

Carl Emerson said:
Like Jesus I am held back by only being able to do what I see the Father doing...

Absolutely, following Jesus’ example is vital; we are called to do what we see the Father doing (John 5:19). At the same time, Scripture makes it clear that the Father works through our obedience, including proclaiming the Gospel. Even when we see obstacles or fear rejection, stepping out in faith and speaking the message God has entrusted to us is part of cooperating with Him. Trusting the Father doesn’t mean inaction; it means acting in line with His Word and Spirit, even when it’s uncomfortable.

1Tonne · Sunday at 4:15 PM

That was a long post. LOL

SuperCow · Sunday at 4:46 PM

That's an interesting choice of options in the poll. I think at different points of my life I've been in one way or another guilty of all of them. One that I think that is missing is that you might not be sure exactly what you believe or who has the correct beliefs.

Regarding the "cowardly" question, I think that it refers to people who go along with evil, even though they know it is wrong. They are willing to kill innocent people, because they are scared for their own life. Serving in an unjust war. Being part of a violent gang. Being bullied into doing something illegal or immoral.

On the other hand, there are many things that one could call cowardly (in the strict definition of the word) that definitely wouldn't be included. Running away from a fight, lying to protect someone (including yourself), having a panic attack or PTSD from extreme stress you were never taught to handle. Refusing to do some activity that seems risky like sky-diving, bunny jumping or just scared of the new roller-coaster at the fair, etc.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 4:57 PM

1Tonne said:
Scripture never presents evangelism as only an ‘inside the church’ matter

And neither do I. That said, the kind of outdoor preaching engaged in then is at present difficult to undertake except at organized events. St. Paul benefitted in Athens from the Aereopagus, a hill where people could present what they wanted, and there likewise exists a place in Hyde Park where people can stand on a soapbox and articulate whatever they wish (Muslims have been preaching there of late, among others, and evangelicals have tried counter-preaching, but the net effect is that the majority of people going to Hyde Park to recreate simply avoid that area like the plague).

1Tonne said:
They did not rely on architecture, icons, music, or ambience to bring people to Christ.

Actually, the oldest surviving church dates from 57 AD and is in Kerala, India, near the spot where St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred in that year. and we still have the Cenacle as well - admittedly it has been redecorated (it is now a monastery under the control of the Syriac Orthodox Church, dedicated to St. Mark the Evangelist, whose house contained the famed Upper Room). Until 2016 an ancient house church was among the archaeological discoveries at Dura Europos in Syria along with a synagogue; the house church had a sanctuary that was particularly splendid, and which featured iconography. Likewise the houses of that era were not commonly made of clay (you seem to be conflating the sophisticated Mediterranean civilization with the more primitive civilizations elsewhere, which some of the Apostles did reach, such as St. Andrew) rather constructed using bricks and stones on the lower level, with wood on the upper levels, while in Rome concrete was available and was used, and indeed the Roman concrete used in the Pantheon, now a Christian church, is among the finest concrete ever used, superior to most concrete used at present in quality. And regarding music, here again you are inaccurate, for the Jewish custom was always to sing the Psalms and prayers, and early Christian worship was taken from Jewish worship, and 100% of ancient liturgical rites sing or chant scripture rather than reading them in an ordinary voice. So basically your entire post is a string of unverified assumptions.

But what really matters is what is working, and what is working is the Orthodox approach. If your church was obtaining an 18% growth rate, per annum, we might want to adopt the methodology you propose. The problem is that you seem to regard ineffective methods of evangelism as a religious duty, which they are not - on the contrary, I would argue we have an obligation to not tarnish the image people have of the Christian faith by spending time annoying them, when we could be spending time loving our neighbors as ourselves, which is an activity that consistently wins people over to Christ and causes conversion, as the Salvation Army and the Anglo Catholics in London, who both made a commitment to care for the poor of the city, discovered (of course in their case it wasn’t so much conversion, but the rechurching of people who were baptized but who had become unchurched or secularized, and to a large extent in the Western World that remains our goal - to take those people who would be Christians had it not been for the devastation inflicted on Christianity by the conflict between liberal theology on the one hand and various non–traditional forms of more conservative theology on the other, such as premillenial dispensationalism and pentecostal worship, which were unknown (in their present form) prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, and the use by both groups of Christian Rock music and Praise and Worship music during worship services, something which has not occurred in the Orthodox churches because thankfully our church specifies the hymns for each service, which the Roman Catholic Church used to do at one time, but had already stopped by the time Pope Pius X wrote Tra le Solecetudini, a plea for his church to return to its traditional musical forms which unfortunately went unheeded by subsequent generations; they canonized him a saint and they allowed the use of electric guitars in the Mass, which are not consistent actions.

1Tonne said:
This daily surrender is a form of living martyrdom; faithful obedience in both deed and proclamation. Martyrdom may be rare in the ultimate sense, but daily obedience and boldly speaking the Gospel are expected of all believers. Fear is not an excuse to remain silent.

This is all true. Indeed, boldly speaking the Gospel is why I am posting in this thread, because I feel that a nominal presentation of the Gospel by laity not actively engaged in the continuous love of God through love of their neighbor as themselves is counterproductive. I am calling for more Christians to share the Gospel by serving others in their community - boldly displaying their Christianity while doing so and boldly declaring the Gospel imperative as the reason why they are helping others. A good example to follow would be the Roman Catholic charities connected with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or many others (indeed the Catholics have such good charitable operations as to be the envy of all Christendom).

The liberal mainline churches made the catastrophic mistake of allowing their charitable operations to become disconnected from their ecclesiastical identity, so that the association between the charity and the sponsoring church was only loosely defined; lately the trend has been for hospitals established by the Roman Catholic Church to de-emphasize their Roman Catholic identity, such as Catholic Healthcare West calling itself Dignity Healthcare, which is quite depressing. Indeed the hospital as we know it was invented by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, St. Basil of Caesarea, in the fourth century, who along with St. Nicholas of Myra is one of two figures who in the popular imagination has contributed to the identity of “Santa Claus” but the real bishops are much more interesting than the fictional character they collectively inspired.

However you seem to be projecting your fear of rejection onto me; I have no fear of speaking the Gospel to anyone, but God will hold me accountable if I alienate someone from the Church (especially given my current clerical status).

Two common forms of living martyrdom that go widely ignored are Holy Matrimony, where each spouse will sacrifice their own desires for the benefit of the other and their children, and the monastic life, which is a particularly bold way to proclaim the Gospel - indeed the contributions Orthodox monks have made to the growth of our church, which started to heat up during the previous decade, and which has become exponential since Covid.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 5:04 PM

1Tonne said:
I’d also add, wearing a cross or attending church, while good things, do not in themselves mean someone is saved

That’s true, since one might be attending a heterodox church that makes use of the cross and someone might be a hypocrite. However challenging people who appear to be Christian as to the status of their faith by demanding to know “Are you saved?” is deeply offensive and is not compatible with the Golden Rule. It is also not a question that an individual believer who is faithful can necessarily answer. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware nonetheless did charitably indulge the strange woman who was accosting him on a train about his soteriological status with this lovely answer “Using the present tense, but using the continuous form of the present tense, I trust that I am being saved.”

Gregory Thompson · Sunday at 5:39 PM

On further reflection, it's not a scary verse since the long ending in the gospel of Mark is not taken seriously. So it might just be the wrong way to read it.

.. that is if you find it scary.

It's not like I won't be saved if I don't speak in tongues or don't go "bottom's up" to snake venom and survive. (What? are you a coward, just drink the cool-aid)

Gregory Thompson · Sunday at 5:52 PM

The fruit of the spirit is the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

This is relevant, because prior to this verse, a similar saying as in the OP is said, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So I don't get how acting like a street preacher who is displaying the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the answer.

Perhaps this would help address some of the cop out answers in the poll. Which are really saying, I don't really want to discuss this.

Gregory Thompson · Sunday at 5:55 PM

So from that list of sins in Galatians 5, the "rivalries, divisions, factions" is probably scarier. It might be scary for people who like their denominations and divisions within the church. Apparently, those who practice these things will not enter the Kingdom of God. So that's an issue too, if you decide the read the bible based on the OP's line of logic.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:03 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
On further reflection, it's not a scary verse since the long ending in the gospel of Mark is not taken seriously

It’s missing from some manuscripts but the ancient churches all regard it as canonical. Likewise the “go forth and sin no more” pericope in the Gospel according to St. John is missing from some manuscripts and some believe it to be an interpolation from a lost text, but since the ancient churches regard it as canonical and since the message is compatible with the rest of the Gospel I would not want to disregard it.

The Longer Ending of Mark mainly causes problems when people read it eisegetically or in opposition to other Scriptures, chiefly the snake-handling Pentecostals of the Appalachians (who misinterpret it as being an encouragement for the faithful to engage in what we might call inadvisable bouts of unwarranted herpetological enthusiasm, as opposed to a promise that the Apostles while spreading the Gospel need not fear a snake or scorpion), or in the case of the Oneness Pentecostals and others who read it and regard it as overriding the Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matthew 28:19 which is of course nonsensical, not the least because baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost includes baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, for he is God the Son, and the early church always used the formula recorded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:06 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
So from that list of sins in Galatians 5, the "rivalries, divisions, factions" is probably scarier. It might be scary for people who like their denominations and divisions within the church. Apparently, those who practice these things will not enter the Kingdom of God. So that's an issue too, if you decide the read the bible based on the OP's line of logic.

Specifically that’s a warning against engaging in schismatic activity. And it is frightening, and stresses the need for ecumenical reconciliation. Conversely Galatians 1:8-9 requires us to avoid preaching a false Gospel - we cannot compromise correct doctrine and worship for the sake of unity since that would place us in violation of Galatians 1:8-9. I myself have orchestrated a reunification of two churches that were in schism, and seek a further reunification, and beyond that am pressing for Anglican-Orthodox and Orthodox-Assyrian unity while also trying to promote Orthodox doctrine among other churches and fend off attacks against the emergent reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:08 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
The fruit of the spirit is the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

This is relevant, because prior to this verse, a similar saying as in the OP is said, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So I don't get how acting like a street preacher who is displaying the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the answer.

Perhaps this would help address some of the cop out answers in the poll. Which are really saying, I don't really want to discuss this.

This is a very good post which addresses my concerns.

1Tonne · Sunday at 8:40 PM

SuperCow said:
That's an interesting choice of options in the poll. I think at different points of my life I've been in one way or another guilty of all of them. One that I think that is missing is that you might not be sure exactly what you believe or who has the correct beliefs.

Some people may not know what they actually believe. But in this case, the issue is more likely to be that the person is not a Christian. Believers should know that we deserve punishment, but Jesus took that punishment on the cross. I think what is more common for believers is that they do not know how to articulate the Gospel. In this case, it means the person has not been equipped to say it. This would come under "Feeling unprepared"

SuperCow said:
Regarding the "cowardly" question, I think that it refers to people who go along with evil, even though they know it is wrong. They are willing to kill innocent people, because they are scared for their own life. Serving in an unjust war. Being part of a violent gang. Being bullied into doing something illegal or immoral.

On the other hand, there are many things that one could call cowardly (in the strict definition of the word) that definitely wouldn't be included. Running away from a fight, lying to protect someone (including yourself), having a panic attack or PTSD from extreme stress you were never taught to handle. Refusing to do some activity that seems risky like sky-diving, bunny jumping or just scared of the new roller-coaster at the fair, etc.

I agree that Revelation 21:8 isn’t talking about everyday fears like sky-diving or roller coasters, panic attacks, or self-preservation in non-moral matters. The “cowardly” in Scripture is a moral cowardice, choosing to go along with evil, denying Christ, or failing to obey Him because of fear. That includes failing to share the Gospel when God gives us the opportunity. Even if it isn’t life-threatening, refusing to proclaim the truth out of fear falls under the warning. So there’s a difference between natural fear and spiritual cowardice.

The Liturgist said:
And neither do I. That said, the kind of outdoor preaching engaged in then is at present difficult to undertake except at organized events. St. Paul benefitted in Athens from the Aereopagus, a hill where people could present what they wanted, and there likewise exists a place in Hyde Park where people can stand on a soapbox and articulate whatever they wish (Muslims have been preaching there of late, among others, and evangelicals have tried counter-preaching, but the net effect is that the majority of people going to Hyde Park to recreate simply avoid that area like the plague).

I am not just talking about open air preaching. We can simply share the Gospel with people we know. So, simple 1 to 1 evangelism

The Liturgist said:
Actually, the oldest surviving church dates from 57 AD and is in Kerala, India, near the spot where St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred in that year. and we still have the Cenacle as well - admittedly it has been redecorated (it is now a monastery under the control of the Syriac Orthodox Church, dedicated to St. Mark the Evangelist, whose house contained the famed Upper Room). Until 2016 an ancient house church was among the archaeological discoveries at Dura Europos in Syria along with a synagogue; the house church had a sanctuary that was particularly splendid, and which featured iconography. Likewise the houses of that era were not commonly made of clay (you seem to be conflating the sophisticated Mediterranean civilization with the more primitive civilizations elsewhere, which some of the Apostles did reach, such as St. Andrew) rather constructed using bricks and stones on the lower level, with wood on the upper levels, while in Rome concrete was available and was used, and indeed the Roman concrete used in the Pantheon, now a Christian church, is among the finest concrete ever used, superior to most concrete used at present in quality. And regarding music, here again you are inaccurate, for the Jewish custom was always to sing the Psalms and prayers, and early Christian worship was taken from Jewish worship, and 100% of ancient liturgical rites sing or chant scripture rather than reading them in an ordinary voice. So basically your entire post is a string of unverified assumptions.

But what really matters is what is working, and what is working is the Orthodox approach. If your church was obtaining an 18% growth rate, per annum, we might want to adopt the methodology you propose. The problem is that you seem to regard ineffective methods of evangelism as a religious duty, which they are not - on the contrary, I would argue we have an obligation to not tarnish the image people have of the Christian faith by spending time annoying them, when we could be spending time loving our neighbors as ourselves, which is an activity that consistently wins people over to Christ and causes conversion, as the Salvation Army and the Anglo Catholics in London, who both made a commitment to care for the poor of the city, discovered (of course in their case it wasn’t so much conversion, but the rechurching of people who were baptized but who had become unchurched or secularized, and to a large extent in the Western World that remains our goal - to take those people who would be Christians had it not been for the devastation inflicted on Christianity by the conflict between liberal theology on the one hand and various non–traditional forms of more conservative theology on the other, such as premillenial dispensationalism and pentecostal worship, which were unknown (in their present form) prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, and the use by both groups of Christian Rock music and Praise and Worship music during worship services, something which has not occurred in the Orthodox churches because thankfully our church specifies the hymns for each service, which the Roman Catholic Church used to do at one time, but had already stopped by the time Pope Pius X wrote Tra le Solecetudini, a plea for his church to return to its traditional musical forms which unfortunately went unheeded by subsequent generations; they canonized him a saint and they allowed the use of electric guitars in the Mass, which are not consistent actions.

You’ve brought up some historical examples, and I don’t dispute that early Christians gathered in houses that sometimes became more formalised spaces, or that singing was part of worship from the beginning. My main point, though, is that the growth of the early church was not dependent on architecture, icons, ambience, or even music; it was the proclamation of the Gospel and the power of the Spirit that drew people to Christ (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:31; Acts 8:4). Growth by itself is not proof of faithfulness, since many groups, including some megachurches, grow rapidly without faithfully preaching Christ. Instead of measuring by numbers, it would be better to follow what Jesus commanded, since He knows the true power of God and how people are to be brought into His kingdom. Then, if the church grows fast, great. If the church grows slowly, great. At least you know that the people coming to the church are coming for the right reasons. They have been to the foot of the cross.

The Liturgist said:
This is all true. Indeed, boldly speaking the Gospel is why I am posting in this thread, because I feel that a nominal presentation of the Gospel by laity not actively engaged in the continuous love of God through love of their neighbor as themselves is counterproductive. I am calling for more Christians to share the Gospel by serving others in their community - boldly displaying their Christianity while doing so and boldly declaring the Gospel imperative as the reason why they are helping others. A good example to follow would be the Roman Catholic charities connected with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or many others (indeed the Catholics have such good charitable operations as to be the envy of all Christendom).

Fully agree. We should do good deeds as well as proclaim.

The Liturgist said:
However you seem to be projecting your fear of rejection onto me; I have no fear of speaking the Gospel to anyone, but God will hold me accountable if I alienate someone from the Church (especially given my current clerical status).

I am not projecting my fear onto you. I already do not let the fear I feel control me. All I am doing is making people think, "Am I speaking the Gospel or am I too afraid to?"

The Liturgist said:
Two common forms of living martyrdom that go widely ignored are Holy Matrimony, where each spouse will sacrifice their own desires for the benefit of the other and their children, and the monastic life, which is a particularly bold way to proclaim the Gospel

Proclamation means to speak something out. We cannot say the Gospel without speaking. Actions are not the Gospel.

The Liturgist said:
That’s true, since one might be attending a heterodox church that makes use of the cross and someone might be a hypocrite. However challenging people who appear to be Christian as to the status of their faith by demanding to know “Are you saved?” is deeply offensive and is not compatible with the Golden Rule. It is also not a question that an individual believer who is faithful can necessarily answer. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware nonetheless did charitably indulge the strange woman who was accosting him on a train about his soteriological status with this lovely answer “Using the present tense, but using the continuous form of the present tense, I trust that I am being saved.”

I would disagree that asking someone if they are saved is “deeply offensive” or against the Golden Rule. If I were in danger, I would want someone to warn me, even if it risked making me uncomfortable. The Golden Rule applies here, since I would want someone to look out for my eternal well-being, I should also do the same for others. To stay silent out of fear of offending seems less like love and more like neglect. It is not obeying the Golden Rule.
Of course, how we ask matters; if done harshly, it can come across wrong. “Are you saved?” may not always be the best wording, but the principle behind it, caring for someone’s soul, is necessary. Scripture calls us to this: Paul urges believers to “examine yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5), and Hebrews 3:13 tells us to exhort one another daily, lest we be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. That means accountability among believers isn’t optional; it’s an expression of genuine care.
Another thing you can do, if they say that they are believers, is ask them to rate their Christian walk out of 10. 10 being really good (they read their bible and pray daily), while 1 is really bad. Most will say that they are about 5 or 6. If they say 5 or 6, then say to them: -
"Imagine that you and I are going skydiving together, and you were to ask me how tight my parachute is. You ask me to rate how tight it is out of 10. 10 being really tight and 1 being very loose. If I were to say my parachute is only a 5 or 6 out of 10, you would say to me, "Don't Jump! Tighten your straps". And so, I am now saying to you to tighten up your straps. Start putting God first, as you do not know when you will have to jump into eternity."

I appreciate Metropolitan Ware’s thoughtful response, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are called to be clear about where we stand with Christ, and to help others be clear as well. Evangelism and accountability are not violations of the Golden Rule; they are its fulfilment, because they put eternal realities above momentary comfort.

1Tonne · Sunday at 9:13 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
On further reflection, it's not a scary verse since the long ending in the gospel of Mark is not taken seriously. So it might just be the wrong way to read it.

.. that is if you find it scary.

It's not like I won't be saved if I don't speak in tongues or don't go "bottom's up" to snake venom and survive. (What? are you a coward, just drink the cool-aid)

You’re right that the longer ending of Mark is disputed, and we shouldn’t build doctrine on a text of uncertain authenticity. But the call to proclaim the Gospel is not dependent on Mark 16:15, it’s repeated throughout the most reliable parts of the New Testament.
-Matthew 28:19–20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”
-Luke 24:47: “…repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations…”
-John 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
-Acts 1:8: “You will be my witnesses… to the end of the earth.”

So even without Mark 16, the Great Commission is clear and binding. Revelation 21:8’s warning about the cowardly isn’t removed by textual questions about Mark. Christ has commanded us to be His witnesses, and shrinking back from that out of fear is exactly what cowardice looks like.

Gregory Thompson said:
The fruit of the spirit is the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

This is relevant, because prior to this verse, a similar saying as in the OP is said, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

So I don't get how acting like a street preacher who is displaying the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the answer.

Perhaps this would help address some of the cop out answers in the poll. Which are really saying, I don't really want to discuss this.

The fruit of the Spirit is critical, and that any form of evangelism done in anger, pride, or selfishness would contradict it. No one is advocating acting contrary to the Spirit when sharing the Gospel. True proclamation comes from love, gentleness, and self-control, it is never about being aggressive or rude.
-So, do not be like some street preachers who yell out, "You are all condemned!!" That would be dumb.
Being bold in speaking the Gospel does not mean abandoning the fruit of the Spirit; it means trusting God to work through our words, even when there is rejection or resistance, while maintaining a Christlike character. Paul himself warned against doing things in a way that would cause offence, yet he boldly proclaimed the truth wherever he went (Acts 20:20, 1 Corinthians 2:4).

So, it’s not a matter of “acting like a street preacher” in a negative sense, but of courageously sharing the message of Christ while demonstrating the love, patience, and gentleness that the Spirit produces in us. Boldness and fruitfulness go hand in hand when we rely on the Holy Spirit.

Also, I am not advocating that everyone be a street preacher. But all should want to share the Gospel to those they know.

Here is a great place to learn how to share the Gospel, both by street evangelism and also simply one to one evangelism with friends.

Living Waters

The vision of Living Waters is to inspire and equip Christians to fulfill the Great Commission. You can learn more about our ministry at http://www.LivingWaters.com. You can visit our store by going to LivingWaters.com/store, or by clicking the Living Waters Store link below. Hosted by Ray...

www.youtube.com

Here is a playlist with many 1 to 1 conversations that are some of the very best I have heard. There are also vids with street preaching as well.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 9:37 PM

1Tonne said:
We can simply share the Gospel with people we know. So, simple 1 to 1 evangelism

That was not obvious from earlier, and yes, I do that actively - however, before doing it I first make sure I understand the religious context of the person in question, since I’m not interested in persuading fellow traditional liturgical Christians to join my church unless they are unchurched or are having a problem with their denomination, and I am not interested in getting into arguments with hardliners from certain heterodox sects that dislike us, but then, in the case of those denominations, I try to avoid associating with members of them.

1Tonne said:
You’ve brought up some historical examples, and I don’t dispute that early Christians gathered in houses that sometimes became more formalised spaces, or that singing was part of worship from the beginning. My main point, though, is that the growth of the early church was not dependent on architecture, icons, ambience, or even music; it was the proclamation of the Gospel and the power of the Spirit that drew people to Christ

I would not dispute that.

1Tonne said:
Growth by itself is not proof of faithfulness, since many groups, including some megachurches, grow rapidly without faithfully preaching Christ.

That’s true, and regarding the Orthodox Church I would not cite our recent explosive growth as proof of our correct glorification of God (Orthodox means “right glorification” or “correct worship;” in asserting the Eastern Orthodox correctly glorify God I am also not denying that others do so as well, in addition to the obvious case of the Oriental Orthodox, I also regard several other churches including, but not limited to, the Assyrian Church of the East, the traditional Roman Catholics, the traditional high church Anglicans, the Confessional Lutherans, the conservative liturgical Methodists like the Epworth Chapel on the Green in Boise, Idaho and the few remaining traditional Congregational churches like Park Street Church in Boston and other traditional churches of a liturgical character as having an inclination towards orthodoxologia).

1Tonne said:
Instead of measuring by numbers, it would be better to follow what Jesus commanded, since He knows the true power of God and how people are to be brought into His kingdom.

Indeed - and in this respect the Orthodox follow what He commanded most literally, by baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by partaking of His precious Body and Blood in the Divine Liturgy, by annointing the fasting and the sick with oil, by avoiding adultery, fornication and other immoral material, by seeking to pray without ceasing and in many cases, achieving it (see Hesychasm; the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are the experts when it comes to attaining continuous prayer), by not judging others - we would never speculate as to the soteriological status of anyone other than those people who the Church has established through objective proof are among those in Heaven who will be resurrected into the Life of the World to Come, and by treating our neighbor as ourselves. Other traditional liturgical churches likewise are highly reliable.

Regarding what Jesus Christ knows, you are aware I’d assume that He is literally God? Specifically, the only begotten Son and Word of God, who put on our human nature so as to restore and glorify it, saving us from death - this is the Good News of the Gospel, that God, in the person of the Son, out of His love for us, died on the Cross and was resurrected, showing us what it means to be human, saving us from the consequences of our sin, and also showing us who God is, for in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, and those who have seen Him have seen the Father.

I get worried whenever I see people talk about Jesus Christ and God as two subjects, even if they are nominally Trinitarian, Nicene Christians.

1Tonne said:
Proclamation means to speak something out. We cannot say the Gospel without speaking. Actions are not the Gospel.

On the contrary, we can demonstrate the Gospel, and in this manner even someone who is mute can proclaim the Gospel. Through Holy Matrimony and Monasticism, the Gospel is proclaimed by means of example (and also obviously, Orthodox monastics are among our most active evangelists and teachers of the faith, and married couples have the duty of teaching the faith to their children, and also the opportunity to expose many others to the faith through the social opportunities the married life and having children presents - for example, by inviting friends to their wedding in an Orthodox Church, and to the baptism of their children, and by using shared interest groups, insofar as any remain available that are acceptable to Christians in general (the fall of the Boy Scouts of America into the grotesque, perverted organization it is today was a huge blow and is something I am still upset about, and it has caused some Orthodox churches to form their own scouting groups, but the problem there is insularity; likewise the liberal takeover of public education narrows our options with regards to outreach through contact in the schools).

1Tonne said:
I would disagree that asking someone if they are saved is “deeply offensive” or against the Golden Rule. If I were in danger, I would want someone to warn me, even if it risked making me uncomfortable.

The problem is this - asking someone if they are saved is not the right question to ask in terms of discerning if someone is in a soteriologically hazardous situation. It also is a question which is unanswerable, since St. Paul feared the possibility that he might fall away, and since he was not certain of his own salvation, and since I am infinitely more sinful than St. Paul, I have no recourse except to trust in the mercy of Christ, but I can say that I trust I am being saved; however, salvation is a process that is inextricably linked to Theosis (which John Wesley translated as “entire sanctification” and those who promote OSAS do so without compelling scriptural evidence.

Rather, to assess if a person is in danger, I need to determine if they are unchurched or are the victims of heterodox preachers. If the person is a member of a right-believing, right-worshipping Nicene church that I have confidence in, I can entrust their salvation to their church unless they have a spiritual crisis that that church fails to address - I am my brother’s keeper. As a clergyman, I am uniquely disposed to talk to people about how they are, even if they are not members of my own denomination, particularly through chaplaincy, but also in general. Those who I determine need help I will attempt to help, without fear of chagrin.

What I won’t do is ask questions I don’t wish to be asked, because the questions are epistemologically unanswerable and challenge the legitimacy of my church, which is, I maintain, deeply offensive.

1Tonne said:
Scripture calls us to this: Paul urges believers to “examine yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5), and Hebrews 3:13 tells us to exhort one another daily, lest we be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. That means accountability among believers isn’t optional; it’s an expression of genuine care.

That’s true. I am only arguing against the use of tactless questions that could have the effect of implying someone’s religion is heretical or false (which even if it is, a direct challenge against it is invariably counterproductive; experience has taught us you cannot debate someone into converting, and this is where demonstrations as a means of proclaiming the Gospel become so important). Frontal attacks on the faith of Muslims, for example, in countries like the US where we can approach Muslims and challenge them on their faith without being killed are unlikely to succeed. But one can get in via the side door.

I appreciate Metropolitan Ware’s thoughtful response, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are called to be clear about where we stand with Christ, and to help others be clear as well. Evangelism and accountability are not violations of the Golden Rule; they are its fulfilment, because they put eternal realities above momentary comfort.

I am not saying that they are, but rather that tact is needed. There is also the issue of the OSAS doctrine; I don’t wish to derail the thread in that regard, but questions which presume OSAS and/or attack the legitimacy of my church are deeply offensive, given the martyrdom my church is presently experiencing or has recently experienced in Syria, Iraq, Ngorno-Karabakh, Egypt, Chad, Libya, Eritrea, Pakistan, Nigeria and elsewhere.

PloverWing · Sunday at 10:30 PM

1Tonne said:
I have added a pole that has the question "What holds you back most from sharing the Gospel?

The option I would choose, if it were on the list, would be something like "Fear that evangelism (in the style I was trained in as a young Baptist) will drive the person farther away from God".

The evangelism training I received as a young Baptist was in the Bill Bright / D. James Kennedy / Ray Comfort model. Persuade the other person that they aren't good enough for God to accept them, show Jesus as the solution, and lead them in the Sinner's Prayer. I now have strong reservations about this type of evangelism, for a variety of reasons, some of which I'll talk about below.

(Alas, I haven't seen an alternative model of evangelism that I like, that I think would attract people to God instead of repel them. This is, I think, a weakness of my mainline church -- which I otherwise love very much -- and probably a weakness of many mainline churches.)

@The Liturgist has been saying a number of things that I agree with:

The Liturgist said:
Unfortunately Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults have “queered the pitch” to use an English cricket-related expression, for everyone else, as far as a direct push approach is concerned.

The Liturgist said:
There is a time and a place for speaking the message. You have to get people to a point where they want to hear it, and identify those who are ready to engage in such a discussion.

The Liturgist said:
Indeed, boldly speaking the Gospel is why I am posting in this thread, because I feel that a nominal presentation of the Gospel by laity not actively engaged in the continuous love of God through love of their neighbor as themselves is counterproductive.

I think it's not just Mormons and JWs that have been "queering the pitch". It's also the many, many commercials that we're inundated with day in and day out. I suspect that most Americans are very aware of the common sales pitch: create a perception of need, show that your item meets the need, persuade the person to adopt your item.

I have a young friend who is an atheist. We talk about religion a lot. Many of our conversations are about something or other that she saw a Christian say on YouTube, and I try to do damage control.

My friend's two main objections to Christianity are 1) she doesn't see convincing evidence that God exists, and 2) she doesn't see that being a Christian makes you a better person. Which brings me to this observation from @The Liturgist :

The Liturgist said:
I am calling for more Christians to share the Gospel by serving others in their community - boldly displaying their Christianity while doing so and boldly declaring the Gospel imperative as the reason why they are helping others.

I think we could go a long way on my friend's point #2 if we could do much more of this: serve others in the community in a clear and bold way (going much farther than just being generically nice), boldly displaying our Christian faith while doing so. Currently, that's my best guess at evangelism. It doesn't prove the existence of God, but it could at least show Christianity making people better instead of worse -- an important first step.

This is the scariest verse in the bible for believers

What holds you back most from sharing the Gospel?

Fear of rejection, being criticised or looking like a fool

Prefer to show faith through actions rather than words

Feeling unprepared

Lack of opportunity

Don’t think it’s my calling. Not your gifting.

Too busy with work/family commitments

Think others already know the Gospel

Waiting to be “led by the Spirit”

You already help the church in many ways

I don't want to be labelled a fanatic

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Episcopalian

Similar threads