Posted by Helen on: 06.09.2007 /
In a comment on Strangers giving kids candy, Steve Sjogren, the originator of Servant Evangelism (which is what the candy giveaway was intended to be an example of), wrote:
I wept over the public criticism aired toward other Jesus people who were trying to show love. When I see a “bullhorn guy” yelling at people I give him money and ask him to pray for me to have his boldness. Anyone doing anything – God bless them. Yes, grow in wisdom, but this criticism thing re evangelism / outreach has to stop – and now.
Steve, thanks for taking time to comment here. I appreciate it.
I find your response bewildering.
I thought the point of servant evangelism was, Christians serve the community.
You have turned this on its head by insisting that everyone else serves the Christians by not saying a word against them, no matter how valid the concerns may be (in this case, the candy giveaway to unaccompanied kids desensitizes kids to the real dangers unknown adults may present and causes needless worry to parents).
Let’s call this what it is: ‘being served’ evangelism, not ‘servant evangelism’.
Or let’s promote what servanthood really is, pointing out that true servants humbly accept feedback from those they are seeking to serve, in order that they may serve better.
You have made this all about the servants, which is opposite to how Jesus talks about servants. Here’s one of the things he said about servants:
Luke 17:7-10 “Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Would he not rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ “
Servant evangelists who upset their community are not doing their duty. They have missed the whole point of servant evangelism.
And if they don’t think the response of the community is relevant, or if they share your view that all feedback except negative feedback should be suppressed, then – in my opinion – they have missed the whole point of servanthood.
Comment by: seekingsomething
1I share your thoughts Helen – I’ve just posted on your earlier thread and so won’t repeat myself here, but just wanted to give a nod of agreement on an issue that I think is hugely important. Thanks for raising the issues on here.
Comment by: Laura M.
2This is well said Helen.
I want to point out that I thought it was a bit unfair of Steve S. to imply anyone on this blog was criticizing evangelism (not to mention ‘bewildering’ as you put it). The issue was this one very specific type of evangelism.
In order to serve a community one should find out what the community wants or needs. It simply sounds like many in the communtiy are saying, “Please don’t do this, this isn’t what we want or need.”
This isn’t about criticizing evangelism, it’s about protecting children. Even if the church involved doesn’t believe safety is a legitimate issue here, many parents do.
What is being accomplished by serving parents an unneccessary ( and unwanted) helping of concern or anxiety?
Comment by: Steve Sjogren
3Let me clarify.
I am totally open to feedback. To say differently is to either not know me or to have not read my stuff. I am the pushback king if you will. I am not a response snob in the least. In fact, I have made it clear that in order to progress in what we are doing we need to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of what we are doing – based on our own feedback, that we receive from the community and our own intuition. If usually refer to what we are doing “an ongoing experiment that’s happening around the world” after nearly 25 years. If we aren’t in a liquid state, then we are beginning to die.
Taking this tact is how we have come up with most of our new projects over the years.
What you wrote about Helen is easy to respond to – yes – needless to say, it is not a great idea to give out candy to children without their parent’s present. Adults giving items to children in the American culture is taboo (btw, not the same worldwide however – I know this from traveling and coaching).
Part of my discombobulation as expressed above are the many disturbing / critical responses of readers. When only 3% of those who love Jesus will put into words their love for them in their lifetime… we need to encourage one another to find ways to go forward… to love, cheer one another along, regardless.
To quote another DL Moody-ism, not to you Helen, but to some responders who obviously are armchair critics of this Vineyard – “I like what I’m doing better than what you aren’t doing.”
Comment by: Helen
4Steve thanks for clarifying you’re open to feedback and you understand the specific concerns about giving candy to unaccompanied children.
You perhaps weren’t aware that our commenters comprise a mix of Christians and people who aren’t Christians, since your comments seem to be aimed at Christians.
On a personal note I’m intrigued that you would quote DL Moody twice since I used to be a member of Moody Church – I went there for 12 years. I have some books about him. I admire his directness in speech and the way he passionately lived out what he believed in.
Thank you for encouraging kindness towards Christians. I absolutely agree they should not be treated with less kindness than anyone else.
Comment by: seekingsomething
5“to some responders who obviously are armchair critics of this Vineyard – “I like what I’m doing better than what you aren’t doing.”"
This is an interesting assumption. How do you know, Steve, what the responders on this page do or do not do to express love and kindness to others?
Comment by: Helen
6Thanks Laura.
Comment by: Laura M.
7Steve,
In your comment above you say you want to clarify, but by the time I finished reading it I was confused.
The confusion was caused by your very next statement, where you say you are totally open to feedback, which directly contradicts your previous comment here, in which you say criticism of evangelism must stop.
There are at least three types of feedback: positive, negative, and nuetral.
To be totally open to feedback you must be open to all of these types of feedback, not just positive feedback.
Now I do not know which it is you feel, that critcism of evangelism must stop, or that you are totally open to feedback.
Positive feedback makes one feel good and is a good confidence booster, negative feedback (criticism) helps one to learn from their mistakes which is important for innovation, progress and growth.
It’s good to be totally open to feedback. Your previous statement said just the opposite.
Also, most responders on a thread are responding to the article/post entered by the blog editor/moderator. If you were commenting on something outside of the post or thread it would probably be wise to make it clear you are getting off-topic and not refering to the article or entries on the thread you are posting under.
Comment by: Andrew Smith
8Well, I guess Jesus wasn’t much a servant evangelism type. He upset those temple types at one stage, as well as really getting up the noses of these pharises all the time.
How disrespectful of ‘the way things are’ can a bloke possibly get? No political correctness awards for him!
Comment by: Helen
9Andrew, thanks for your comment.
Maybe you are unaware that Jesus was serving people outside his own group (Gentiles) when he turned over the tables people inside his group (Jews) had set up in the temple, because the tables had been set up in the court of the Gentiles. He was making it available for their use again, as originally intended.
Sounds like a form of servant evangelism to me – he’s giving a gift to people who don’t share his faith. What would you call that?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10Steve
I can understand why you would see things differently around this issue since you are the originator of SE.
I can’t understand why you would make this statement
Giving you the benfit of the doubt I find it hard to imagine that you intended for it to come across sounding like a threat/pronouncement but it certainly could be construed that way.
You are very passionate about evangelism so I assume that you were simply trying to say “give these guys a break” not “Hey you guys” “stop saying what you really think”
Comment by: Helen
11Jim I think you’re right about what Steve meant. Here’s something he wrote in comment #3, which gives more context:
I am definitely in favor of people encouraging each other . Hopefully we can find a way to do that and also respectfully share concerns, if we have them.
Comment by: trissa
12Like I said in the previous conversation, giving children candy outside of their school is not about love or even servant evangelism, it’s about agenda. How about the church instead chose a school that serves those in poverty. Voluneer to fix playground toys and take care of the grounds. When school starts donate clothes, school supplies and backpacks. Treat the teachers and staff to dinner a couple times a year. This is servant evanglism. It’s about actually serving and sharing Christ’s love through caring for those who need it. Instead of sharing an agenda actually serve those in need.
Comment by: Rachel
13Steve, I think you might be surprised to learn about the types of service projects that some of us are involved in. But the only way for us to defend against being called “armchair critics” is to announce what we are doing, which to me feels boastful and uncomfortable.
I completely agree, Laura. I think it is wonderful that people want to express their faith through service. But it is important to communicate with those you want to serve. I think that the church in this incident missed an opportunity to demonstrate humility by listening to the parents’ concerns and being willing to adapt.
Comment by: Helen
14Rachel wrote:
To be fair, the pastor responded to my concerned e-mail by saying they would take my concerns into consideration next year when they re-evaluate the program. School is out for summer now so there is no after-school opportunity to give out candy.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
15This is one of the problems I have with the whole “servant evangelism” thing in the first place. So often it can seem like tokenism – not actually meeting people’s real needs (of often even their wants). If you want to serve people, then why not do something that actually improves their lives in a significant way – not just handing them a piece of candy or a bottle of water? I just don’t get it.
Comment by: Laura M.
16I wouldn’t feel that anyone giving my child candy without asking me first would be serving their needs, my needs, or my family’s needs at all. I prefer my children to only get/eat candy on special occasions such as birthdays, holidays and so on.
Randomly giving my children candy (esp. from a stranger standing on the street) would be the polar opposite of serving my family’s needs.
Comment by: Doreen
17eek, I didn’t think anything could annoy me more than this from the first explanation:
Then I read:
Anyone doing anything? In God’s name? To evangelize? Sorry, I can’t rubber stamp any and everything that’s been done for either goal.
And I have to agree with others who have written that it’s fairly impossible for Steve to know what each reader/writer of this board is or is not doing. Unless of course, we are suppose to “go on about our bad selves now” like we’re on myspace or something….
:)
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: Jim Henderson
18Mike Clawson wrote
SE is rooted in the theology of conversion. It is simply a gentler kinder way of going about it.
That’s why the card is a critical piece (in hopes that people will come and hear the gospel after having experienced it)
That is also why from an SE perspective it is worth giving away almost anything to gain a few seconds of peoples attention on God/Jesus/Church.
It is not a service project – it is an evangelism project. For people in that world it is a very innovative and friendly approach.
For many missional people it seems contrived.
Comment by: JG
19I share the concern over giving out Candy and have previously expressed misgivings about this form of servant evangelism.
I think it is important to see the difference between concerns over an activity and whether it is beneficial or not on the one hand and judgments on the person or people carrying out the activity on the other. The latter is wholly wrong but it is equally wrong to perceive and interpret any concerns over the activity as a personal attack on the person carrying out the activity.
Comment by: JG
20Steve’s use of this quote appears to imply that doing something is always better than doing nothing. This is dangerous and such an approach could be used to justify all manner of things. For example George Bush could use it to justify his policy in Iraq. “Don’t knock us, at least we are doing something!” And it could use it to criticise his armchair critics who are not themselves doing anything to help improve the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq.
I do agree with the original quote as it allows a comparison between the two positions. The doing is only “better” than the non doing if this is indeed so.
I believe it is questionable whether encouraging children to take candy from strangers in this day and age (when diet and sugar levels of sweets are high concern issues) is better than doing nothing. In my view it does more harm than good.
Merely showing kindness is not on its own what it is all about. Child abusers seeking to groom children will use kindness in order to draw their victims in. Cults use kindness to draw in new members.
I struggle when I see someone (not Steve I hasten to add) handing out Mars bars and talking about God’s love for everyone one moment and spewing out anger the next – anger towards anyone (neighbours, officials, organisations, anyone) who gets in his way and Christians who fail to fully support what he is doing. I can evidence this but not online for all to see.
In my belief, God’s kindness is not random or down to chance. It is not best expressed by a one off act from someone who you never see again. It is better expressed by long term commitment to people. This doesn’t attract the same sort of publicity but in the long run achieves far more.
I do acknowledge there is a place for evangelism involving one off acts. A significant part of me committing myself to the church was through such an evangelism event. But that was because the person who knocked on my door made a long term commitment to investing time with me.
Comment by: Rachel
21That’s good to hear!
He-he!
Brilliant point, JG! Not only COULD George Bush use that argument, he HAS used that argument!
Comment by: Rose
22I have been reading this. It’s very interesting. I think you are right Jim, SE is rooted in a conversion theology. So the natural question is, what is the desired outcome of “doable evangelsim” rooted in?
Comment by: Rachel
23Thanks for the explanation, Jim! But to be totally honest, I don’t think I understand the distinction. When our church group prepares and serves a hot meal to 50 homeless or struggling teens, what we are doing is service AND it is evangelism. The word evangel means “good news” and the gospel of Jesus is “good news for the poor.” By serving these kids, we proclaim the good news and to me, that is evangelism.
Comment by: benjamin ady
24this term is being thrown around here “conversion theology”. I like it, and have a sense of what it means. What would you rather than “conversion theology”? “_________ theology”?
Hey look, “conversion” means the same thing as “repentance”, according to OED “conversion: Turning in position, direction, destination.”.
I wish those conversion theology people would learn how amazingly fulfilling it is to … *listen* to other people’s stories, as a way of creating mutual space in which they shall also be able to share their stories.
Comment by: benjamin ady
25this term is being thrown around here “conversion theology”. I like it, and have a sense of what it means. What would you rather than “conversion theology”? “_________ theology”?
Hey look, “conversion” means the same thing as “repentance”, according to OED “conversion: Turning in position, direction, destination.”.
I wish those conversion theology people would learn how amazingly fulfilling it is to … *listen* to other people’s stories, as a way of creating mutual space in which they shall also be able to share their stories.
Comment by: Helen
26At the risk of speaking for Jim and getting it wrong…
Rachel, my sense is that Jim agrees with your view of service projects as evangelism. I think the point he was making is that other Christians separate the two more – because a) they require evangelism to include words about becoming a Christian b) they don’t require those words to be accompanied by a service project.
Rose, it’s neat to see you here! There’s an article I found on here once which discusses four approaches to evangelism, including servant evangelism and doable evangelism.
Four approaches to evangelism
My sense is that doable evangelism is intended to introduce people to Jesus – like other forms of evangelism – but it gives people more permission than any other approach to leave the timing of the connection with Jesus up to God. DE says “be intentional about connecting with other people” but leaves Christians/followers of Jesus completely free to make their own choices about what to say about Jesus and when, to the other person.
Comment by: Helen
27Benjamin wrote:
Exactly – then evangelism would begin with giving a gift (listening) instead of taking something (you have to listen to me).
It amazes me that Christians seem unaware how one-way it is to expect other people to listen to them, if they aren’t willing to listen just as much.
Comment by: Rose
28Helen, thanks I think the article you posted is helpful.
Just to play devil’s advocate – if the conversion theology people really believe that it is dependent on them to practice their faith by doing more talking than listening I am okay with that…the “bullhorn guy” Steve referred to is from a Rob Bell sermon on video …when we showed that video in our church I was surprised that most young people while not wanting to practice their faith that way had respect that the bullhorn guy was actually practicing his faith in the way he understood it. I was actaully surprised by the graciousnees of the young people (20′s somethings) that did not judge or condemn bullhorn guy’s approach.
I know OTM welcomes dialogue and difference…can we respect the difference in theology and practice when it comes to evangelism?
Comment by: Helen
29Rose wrote:
Thanks for the question, Rose. As you read my response bear in mind it’s the response of almost an atheist, not a Christian.
I’m confused. Why aren’t Christians evaluating methods of evangelism by asking the target audience “How is this working for you? Are you more interested or less interested in Jesus having walked by the bullhorn guy?”
Isn’t that all that really matters?
And to me that drives the answer to your question. If every person I know who isn’t a Christian hates the bullhorn guy, then I am going to wonder why he persists, even if he has a crowd of Christians admiring his courage. I admire his courage too but I would question his wisdom if his target audience is reacting very negatively. It would mean he is harming rather than helping his cause.
And rather than other Christians respecting the difference, wouldn’t it be in Jesus’ best interests, if it turned out to be true that his target audience hates what he is doing – to attempt to share that with him? Should Christians stand by and watch (or even cheer) someone if it turns out they are pushing their target audience away from Jesus?
I guess I’m disagreeing with Steve by saying this. But to me, true servanthood requires finding out whether what the servant is doing is working for those the servant thinks he/she are serving.
I like Off The Map because Off The Map goes to the target audience and says “Hey, what do you think?” and ignores Christians who say “But…but…the lost have no spiritual discernment! How can their opinion be valid?” Off The Map finds the people who have no vested interest (albeit well-intentioned – maybe the motives are loyalty, tact, whatever) in saying the Emperor has clothes on unless they see them with their own eyes.
Speaking for myself, I’ve yet to encounter the message which draws me more when delivered through a bullhorn by a stranger than personally to me by a person who has earned my trust and respect.
I agree with you in being happy that the 20 somethings didn’t judge or condemn the bullhorn guy – but not for the same reason as you. I’m happy they didn’t because I don’t see that they had any grounds for doing so if they hadn’t gone and asked his target audience “is this working for you?”
If they had asked then I would love to see them advocate for the target audience by bringing the target audience’s feedback to the ears of Christians who for some reason didn’t think of going and getting it for themselves.
Comment by: Rose
30Helen,
I understand what you are saying. I can’t believe I am defending the bullhorn guy; however, I think the disciples that were hanging out with Jesus had some of the same issue, John, approaching Jesus and saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” Jesus’ response: Whoever is not against us is for us.”
My point is that I don’t want to fall into condemning others for their approach when they are practicing their faith no more than I want people condeming and judging an almost athesist for not having faith …does that make sense? I think it’s a slppery slope for us to make statements naming the bullhorn guy or folks like him as other Christians – it feels like us and them and the very in and out menatlity OTM has done such a good job at deconstructing.
If OTM goes to the target audience to see what works, great! If some folks come to faith in Jesus through a bullhorn guy or SE project, great! It’s when we begin talking in terms of …those people, that makes me uncomfortable.
Helen you do a good job of keeping the conversation from going there. Thank you
Comment by: Rose
31by the way, sorry for misspelled words, my keyboard is sticking :)
Comment by: Helen
32Hi Rose,
I really like the principle you’re advocating i.e. don’t condemn other Christians just because they don’t do things exactly like you do. I think the passage you referred to is appropriate.
When it comes to evangelism where the target audience is people who aren’t Christians, I will always hope those who evangelize will pay attention to how their efforts are received by their audience rather than relying on the opinion of other Christians about what they are doing.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing; I think we’re making two different points.
Comment by: Rachel
33I appreciate that reminder about not fostering a critical mentality, Rose. But I still feel that in the incident of giving candy to kids, it was completely appropriate for the parents to honestly say, “hey, this makes us uncomfortable.” And I think the best response from the church would be “wow, we’re sorry! we really would like to find ways to serve you that would be appreciated, let’s dialogue about what would be better.”
It sounds like even though the initial newspaper editorial was defensive, the church is now reexamining that particular project for the future. In that case, good for them for being willing to adapt and to continue to seek ways to show love and kindness! That is what we all need to do!
Comment by: Rose
34Rachel,
I totally agree. I was responding to some of the discussion about “conversion tbeology” rather than the original post about candy…
Comment by: Rose
35Thanks for clarifying Helen.
Comment by: Helen
36Thank you Rose for saying you agree about the candy give-away. I meant to ask what you thought about that, but I forgot.
And I don’t mind at all that some of this blog entry discussion has been about evangelism in general. The blog entry it opened with was about more general issues than the candy giveaway, after all.
Comment by: Rachel
37Oh, gotcha! And I definitely agree with you that we need to spend less time arguing about theology and more time working together to serve people.
At the 2005 OTM conference, I was very encouraged to learn about some of the practical, caring things that your congregation is doing, Rose. I thought it was so cool that you just showed up to community meetings to listen and learn and then asked how you could help. Thanks for setting a good example!
Comment by: Paul
38I think it a good thing for christians to use different ways to connect with their communities – i also found that people who practice servant evangelism were for the most part way ahead of ‘missional’ people in that they were often doing projects that served their communities – from my days of SE i seem to remember we had 3 levels of project:
1. doing simple things to bless folks – like a treat no trick where we offered adults candy instead of asking for it :)
2. short term/one off projects – like painting a hostel for women who had been abused
3. long term regular projects, like a school reading programme where we went in each week to be help the kids with their reading.
I have a lot of respect for Steve and his postive desire to do something – especially in a way that avoids a lot of in your face talking and instead trying to put belief into action. Building up relationships and making where we live better places for all regardless of faith.
I seem to recall that Steve advocates getting minimum permission for each project and if i’d have been doing the school candy idea, i’d have checked with the school first. There are probably better ways it could have been done or better locations so hopefully the church involved will learn and their next project will be more effective and helpfukl as a result…
Comment by: Helen
39Thanks Paul.
I don’t think it’s up to the school (it’s not on their premises, just nearby) but perhaps the church could have let the schools know, so the schools could have let parents know this was happening and said “if you have concerns, the Vineyard church would like to hear from you”.
On the other hand, the church could have asked the school “is there something you’d rather us do, which is helpful to you?” and that would have been up to the school.