A few folks commented on my last post both inside and outside the blog, and I feel a clarification is in order. I recognize that not everyone wants to have spiritual conversations with folks they don’t know. My point in the post was that Christians should not make a hard and fast rule the other way: assuming that you *always* have to build a relationship first, so you miss opportunities to enrich another’s life because you are stuck with a prior agenda (namely, “always build relationship first before talking about Christ.”).
Building relationships are great. Necessary. But not always. In the post, I was trying to get people to realize its not an either/or. Some are open to conversations without prior relationship, some not. Now, for Christians, what’s the worst that could happen? They reject you. That’s it. If I broach the subject with someone I don’t really know and they don’t want to talk (read body language, their initial response, etc), I move on. No reason to bug ‘em.
Keep in mind the ultimate motivation: the gospel isn’t a mere choice along a smorgasboard of others that we choose according to our liking or felt need. The message of Christ is true, in the fullest, objective sense of the word. Everyone, regardless of economic status, belief, race, etc, will find themselves under the gavel of God’s justice one day because everyone has rebelled. As C.S Lewis once put it, we are all “rebels in arms” against God. God, in His mercy, has given us the opportunity for clemency, but since He’s the one we’ve offended, forgiveness is on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Christ. This is true regardless of what anyone feels or desires, and if we love others, we’ll tell them this and give them the opportunity to turn.
If I had diabetes and a doctor, who knew it, had the opportunity to inform me and failed to do so, I would consider him negligent and unprofessional. The same principle is at play here.
Well said!