Questioning

There are two kinds of questioning people: those who question because they are seeking to learn and understand, and those who question because they wish to tear at the fabric of something they are partially convicted of – maybe even oddly attracted to – but wish to avoid the responsibility of making a decision about it.

The latter sort of questioner can be found lurking about in unsurprising numbers in a community of “nearly Adventists” and “nearly ex-Adventists”:  www.spectrummagazine.org.   Hiding under the shabby cloak of pseudo-intellectualism (I’ve seen more convincing and lucid conversation amongst freshmen political science majors at a community college), they sit in the shadows attempting to poke holes in the efforts of those who are successfully and passionately busy with the mission of their church.

It has always been easy to sit on the sidelines and critique the activities of those who are actually doing.  It is one way to draw attention away from the fact that you are not doing anything of much import yourself – except for registering your opinion in a somewhat obscure blog, manufacturing intellectual-sounding excuses for your own complacency.

Take, for example, the assertion that evangelistic meetings in Los Angeles will certainly fail because a three-minute video of the speaker for that event only received seven hits on Youtube.  Conveniently set aside the fact that Youtube is not the distribution vehicle for that series, and that it has tens of thousands of followers in the channels it was designed for.  Ignore the fact that said speaker (a man I have witnessed at work) consistently draws thousands – tens of thousands – to his events (and held them consistently for nights on end), and you might be able to convince your readers that nobody from the public will attend.  Paint the untruthful picture that evangelistic plans are event-based and ignore one-on-one relationships in the community, and you can persuade people to do nothing about it.  Ignore the years of training and preparation in churches, and you can say it’s about highlighting an individual.  Ignore the fact that these people consistently pay the lion’s share of the bill and give far too much away to be considered fiscally conservative, and you can convince people that to support such efforts is to promote narrow-mindedness and egoism.

I find an interesting question rising to the surface.  I hear much about how public meetings – Mark Finley, Shawn Boonstra, et al – will never work, and yet they continue to work, plain and simple.  At the same time, I have yet to hear the success stories pouring forth from those who suggest we do something else.

I guess it’s easier to sit on the sidelines and throw stones.  It certainly requires a lot less sacrifice.