‘Point of contact’ preaching: Should we feel the need?
In a consumer-driven society, the preacher of the gospel can feel the pressure to aim always at the felt needs he/she guesses may exist in the potential hearer. Like all good angels of light, this too has its own attraction—and perhaps even some value. But as is usual with such blindingly beautiful apparitions, it too needs to be resisted, or at least received with great caution.
Once again (a deliberate attempt to tie in to previous posts), the pressure arises from the desperate search for a ‘point of contact’ (on the apparent assumption that this is not obvious, automatic, or already there since the gospel makes its own landing ground). It is often spoken of in terms of having to make the presentation of the gospel ‘relevant’ to the hearer.
The knots this can twist the preacher into!
In the evangelical tradition, a regular part of gospel presentation is establishing that the hearer is a sinner. If they don't feel their sin, how can they feel the need for the Saviour, and if they don't feel disgust at their sin and their need for the Saviour, how will they feel the need to turn towards the one and away from the other? But surely anyone who has gone down this rosy path has stubbed their foot upon a rather large stone when their hearer reveals that they don't think they are a sinner at all. This is not their self-feeling; in fact, they feel (especially in comparison to all those hypocritical religious people) that, really, they are quite a good and decent person.
The conversation then stalls as we try to get them around this roadblock to their salvation. How can we make them feel like a sinner? How can we make them recognize their vile, filthy, dirty, disgusting, loathsome position before the living God? In short, how can we make them grovel away as a “most miserable sinner” (to quote the old Anglican Prayer Book).
If it has to be a felt need, then the conversation has suddenly become one that, well … “Would you look at the time! Sorry, I have another appointment. Excuse me; I have to go. Lovely chatting …”.
Okay. To back off from the point a little in anticipation of a whole host of imaginary interlocutors armed with Bible verses (such as “if you say you have no sin …”—1 John 1:8—and the like), there is certainly plenty of comfort in the gospel for those who feel their sin deeply. And Jesus came to save sinners so that, if you don't perceive yourself as a sinner, then you are at risk of missing out on the medicine of the Great Physician. All true.
But to get to the point, this recognition may be hard-won by the preacher and hard-given by the hearer. It may not be a felt need at all. It may be like CS Lewis's “reluctant convert” (himself) who came to Christ kicking and screaming in the other direction. The gospel aims at need, but not necessarily felt need.
In addition, on the other hand, there are a whole host of other reasons why people should turn to Christ that don't really focus upon human need at all. What about the one I heard from one of my second-year students, who preached what is still one of the finest evangelistic sermons I have ever heard—putting the lie to the rumour that you don't actually learn anything at theological college until fourth year! His text was John 3:35: “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand”. Now, here is a truly theological basis for anyone and everyone turning to Christ! How many people would have felt that ‘point of contact’?
I hear two different things going on in Peter’s entry. One is the predicament of the preacher who is trying to establish the point of contact. The other concerns personal evangelism. If I read rightly, Peter starts with the first and ends in the second. This surely makes a difference in the way “contact” is made. Preaching contact will probably tend to be more “objective.”, whereas personal evangelism allows for give and take, a more dialogical engagement which allows the point of contact to move with the conversation.
In the case of someone who doesn’t feel himself a sinner, who instead sees his life as morally superior, the conversation is just beginning! Can you imagine what might happen if the evangelist, instead of backing off, said something like, “This is intruiging…you’re one of the first persons I’ve met who clearly is too good for Jesus.”
Reactions?
The problem with relying on the theological idea “The father has given all things into his [Jesus] hands”, while theologically true, many people wouldn’t recognize God’s authority to give them into Jesus’ hands. Indeed, problem is that many [post]modern people would actually feel morally obliged - to rebel against such a God. [Who gave God the right to hand me over to anyone]. I don’t know what the answer is to that problem. It seems that for many people, the culture has effectively innoculated them against any positive response to the Gospel in so far as many people do not see themselves as being guilty of any great sin – certainly not one deserving of hell.
My own [personal] observations from life is that the Gospel can resonate [relatively easily] with people who feel rejected by the world [Jesus says “come unto me…”] and the Gospel resonates with people who feel bad about their sin – but if you’ve not been rejected by society, and you don’t feel that you’ve committed a very great sin, it is hard for many secular people to understand in any heart-felt way that they need him. Another problem [it seems] with some people, to call them a sinner feels like the Church is effectively rejecting them. It is hard [apparently] for people to comprehend that calling someone a sinner does not imply rejection of them – especially over things they don’t [personally] hold to be sinful.
Thanks Brad, it is true that the two ‘modes’ have their differences, and personal conversation you already have contact with a real person by virtue of the conversation. On the other hand, preaching is usually to such real persons as well, even if a little less ‘intense’. There is also a marked difference in a two-way conversation and preaching, in which the two-way conversation occurs inside the heart of the hearer. Because it is the same gospel, and the same human beings it is launched towards, there will be the same issue however. The exciting thing to watch for is: where will the gospel establish its hold on this person/these people? As for your suggested retort: cheeky as it is, and confrontational, the theology is absolutely right, and presumably with your sensitivity to your conversation partner it will be delivered at a moment and in a manner (with disarming smile) that will allow it a proper challenge in the course of the chat. Nice one!
Yes, Dave, these are some of the issues that we are confronting. One of the troubles is that preachers (in both public and private mode) can get locked into just one (or, at a stretch, three) way of explaining the gospel. The NT has many more than this. My own evangelical tradition (as in post) seems to be locked into having to establish sin, and in a particular form. My suggestion is we try to find some more of the NT’s variety. Why not come in upon the lostness of the world (which everyone agrees to), and then add the notion of ‘sin’ as the bible’s explanation for the way the world is? I am also interested in how the ‘shame’ at sin appears to be something that comes after conversion (Rom 6:21) and wonder at the response of the Jerusalem crowd, convicted of their sin after the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection and Lordship (Acts 2). Because the gospel has its own power, the proclamation of Jesus’ ownership of all, even if it strikes no already existing felt need, may indeed strike home.
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.