Should the church be more concerned for the unbelievers outside the church or for the believers inside the church? Or should there be a proper balance?
They are more concerned with those inside the church. Trust me.
What I mean by this question is should the focus be on evangelism to unbelievers or strengthening and encouraging believers so they are more equipped to go out and evangelize. Or should it be a balance?
Sorry, but to me evangelizing is just another form of spam. There are a few billion people out there that wish the evangelizers would just leave them alone...
You do realize that is one in the same. Both of your options appear to focus on evangelizing to the unbeliever.
It is not one in the same because some churches focus so much on evangelism that they fail to minister to the people in the church.
But you suggested they spend more time building believers up so they'd be better at evangelizing. So, the primary focus of concern is still bothering others outside of your religion. Is it not?
Yes I know and I realized that is not what I mean to pose as my answer, sorry for that Emile.
It should be more concerned about the atrocities happening around the globe and taking actions for those who are unable to help themselves.
Other than that, they should seriously know what their role is within society and which people truly need their help, instead of assuming those who don't believe as they do need help.
Hello! I just came across this question so I thought I would answer. the bible says that church leaders are to build up the people of God and prepare them for works of service. Believers are commissioned to go and make disciples of all nations. Matthew 28:19 and Ephesians 4: 11- 13 says: 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
So the church is a place for believers to be built up, and when they are built up, they go out and spread the good news to other areas and start new churches where believers are built up, etc. that is God's design, but we don't always do it so well.
This is not an answer to the question that has been posed. It comes from your idea of the church. And if this idea is backed up by proof in your life and what you have observed then shame on whatever church you have seen that from. But, again this does not answer my question.
The question that has been posed is what area should the church be concerned about?
Feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. Follow in Christ's footsteps and let the actions of the church be the extent of its evangelizing.
We would notice.
"follow in Christ's footsteps". Did Christ not evangelize? And I see your point about what churches should be doing. But that is a stereotypical view of churches. I know many churches who pour their heart into helping those outside the church and have seen that help firsthand.
I doubt my point is any more stereotypical than yours concerning the need to train believers to evangelize to people who, most likely, don't need or appreciate the effort.
That is fine then, this question does not pertain to you.
I would beg to differ. If you are pushing evangelism it pertains to everyone that would be affected by that effort. It is in my best interest to voice strong reservations against the idea of the church going out of their way to 'train' more people in evangelism.
There should be a proper balance of all. People leave the church when there is upheaval or no leadership at all God places some in the path of the believer to test their faith both in and out of church. Those that run for the door when they get their shins kicked or feathers ruffled aren't that strong in their faith. While there should be concerned about those around the globe that cannot defend themselves, we should be able to help those right in our own back yard. In other words, we need to start on the mess in the U.S. before helping overseas. We can't save the world.
The Secret Service sex scandal, those in the government that eat $16 muffins and spend $100 on lunch and dinners Those that defraud the entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be forced to pay the money back, not get fined 10 percent of the total. I bet we'd have a balanced gov't checkbook.
Preaching to the converted does nothing. It is comparable to beating your own drum where none can hear you but yourself.
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
(Ephesians 4:11-16 ESV)
The church needs to be building one another up in edification and love. But, the church should also be ministering to non believers as well. That is the point of my question and my answer to my question.
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)
There should be a balance.
Well, I went away. But this thread title keeps popping up. You aren't evangelizing here, are you?
No definitely not ha. I just asked the question initially because I was curious whether or not there should be a balance.
I am warming up to you (I know, big deal. ).
Haha, too funny, no I am not like most people out there who believe like me . I have many friends who do not share my same beliefs or opinions, and we get along just fine. I am not forceful at all in any way, you can believe what you want to believe and that is ok by me.
Do you consider the possibility that a micro-managing God may not actually exist? Sure, some kind of higher power; but an entity that really cares about each of us?
I actually agree with you. God is not a micro-managing God, He is a caring loving God who allows us to make our decisions.
Need what? Sorry I do not understand the origin of your statement in regards to my post.
A caring G/god? What need does this provide you with exactly? Why do you need a caring G/god? Why do you need a G/god?
I need a caring God because of my human nature. I often mess up in my daily life, so I am glad and extremely grateful for a God who loves and provides me with grace and mercy. Grace, giving me what I do not deserve, and mercy, withholding from me that which I do deserve.
Human nature? That's funny.
Grace and mercy? That's funny too. It's a shame you cannot see that you do for yourself in all aspects. Thus, the need you seem to think exists in your human nature is nothing more than you deceiving yourself. If you're happy with that, then WOW!
Giving you something you don't deserve? Hmm...pretty ridiculous statement. Mercy in what manner? Like it lets you continue to live? I mean, come on, are you serious?
Giving me what I do not deserve, eternal life in Heaven someday, and mercy with holding eternal separation from Him. But I understand that you disagree, and that is ok. I do not force my opinion on anyone.
Nor can you rationally justify it. That's a shame too.
You think that my opinion is not justified ratioally because you believe the origin of my viewpoints is inaccurate. I believe in the Bible which clearly proves what I said before regarding mercy and grace. You immediately denied my view, so I gather that you do no believe in the historicity and truthfulness of the Bible. Is that correct?
I think the bit about eternal life and all the other majik is where you fall down "rationally".
The Bible "proves" nothing.
And that is what you base your reasoning on, the premise that the Bible proves nothing. If that is your premise, then of course the logic will seem irrational to you. But, to me, I base my reasoning and logic on the premise that the Bible is accurate in its historicity and teachings, so to me it is rational. The disagreement comes only naturally, because we base our reasonings on differnt premises.
This is not being rational or logical - sorry.
The Bible does not prove anything. Certainly it is mostly inaccurate historically, although there are a few accurate mentions in it. The bible makes some claims that are unreasonable and - if we are honest with ourselves - are actually nonsensical.
Why can you not just say that you believe and leave such terms as rational and logical out of it. Believing majik is all well and good but why argue that this is "rational"?
If you do not like the term rational, sorry. Casgil started using it in the forum saying my logic was wrong. If you do not like it, I will not use it. But even still I believe the Bible is true, so we can agree to disagree
But the bible is not true. Most of it is nonsense. It is not that I do not "like" the term rational - you are not being rational when you make these claims.
Your beliefs are irrational and illogical. They are just beliefs - some of which are simply insane. And apparently you have not bothered checking the veracity of the bible either.
Believing such ridiculous claims without checking even the basic facts is irrational and illogical.
So, if you do not believe in the Bible what do you trust in, modern science?
What does that have to do with your irrational beliefs?
I certainly trust some science - yes. As do you apparently as you are using those modern scientific advances called "electricity" and "computers."
Do you trust modern science to keep your house warm in winter - or do you use majik?
Regardless of what modern science provides - good or bad - it is usually verifiable.
I am not saying I do not, of course I do, I am just curious as what you place your trust in if it not the Bible. Also, how do you negate the discoveries archaelogists have made on the historicity of the Bible?
I place my trust in me.
What discoveries are these exactly?
How do you negate the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus existed outside the bible?
How do you negate the fact that despite the Romans keeping good records, there is no mention of a census requiring people to return to their place of birth in their recorded history?
How do you negate the fact that original sin and majikally coming back to life makes no sense at all?
What about the book of First Chronicles? HAve you read it? You will find names of those who have went on to found cities or countires that we are familair with today.
What about the extensive geneaolgies mentioned in Genesis and Numebrs? The genealogies, family lines, occupations, life spans, events, etc? If these are not accurate, why would someone spend the time(such minute detailed genealogies) just for a forged document?
What about Second Chronicles? When the king of Assyria attacked Judah? Check historical documents, google it, and thwen compare it to First Chronicles. Again, coincidental?
What about Second Kings, right before the destruction of Judah, when pharoah Necco fought against Israel. Necco, again well documented in history, google him. Then comapre to account in First Kings.
What about the gospels of Luke and Mark? Search names, titles, places, and even homes and search them.
What about the records of trade supplied to the Mediterranean trade port of tyre 7th century b.c. mentioned in Ezekiel 23? Pretty valuable records.
So what if the bible has a few historical references in it?
Odd you chose to ignore the glaring mistakes and outright lies in favor of these "valuable records" written well after the events.
Why did you not address the points I made?
I will, it will have to be at a later time in a hub, sorry I am at work and can not take enough time to answer them right now. Sorry I am not like most people who dismiss questions to ask their own, although that is what this just appeared to be.
They are excellent questions though, you are not the first one to ask them. I respect you because you are actually very knowledgable of the Bible, not like typical people who just deny it to deny it. I respect your intellect and ability to interpret your knowledge in writing. Do not worry, I will be answering them at some point. like I said, they are excellent questions; I am just unfortunately at work.
Thank you for your honesty and knowledge.
Fair enough. Sadly work takes precedence over religious disagreements.
Haha, I just laughed out loud in my hotel at the front desk! Haha.
No, I wish I could talk about it now, I do. But, i think it would also be a pretty long post for a forum, lol
You do realize it is Sunday - right?
"Therefore you are to observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people."Exodus 31:14
Odd considering you base your life on the bible.
Mark I am literally crying right now! LOL
Literally, I am wiping tears from my eyes as I type. Great comeback
Just want to let you know that I am currently researching and analyzing how I want to present my information for the Hub I have promised you.
They should be concern with lambasting others for what and who they are based on their idea of what is morally right (based on their teachings)
Teach the children to sing a song that makes fun of other group of people
More of action not reaction
Considering I consider the very institution of 'church' to be evil, the church should keep its concerns with itself. Battling the corruption that goes with power is a never ending battle and since every church has a power structure they really don't have any time beyond keeping their own noses clean.
Assuming that you're talking about a church of Christianity, I believe that it should be more concerned with the believers INSIDE of the church. I say this primarily because it's the believers that atheists will look to for a reason to believe. When a self proclaimed Christian is not following the walk of Jesus then it will raise questions about (believing) the word of God.
by Oxemity8 years ago
I'm a college level student working a full-time job. I moved out of my parent's house almost a year ago and I am rooming with a close, extended relative of mine who is from out of town.The relationship that we've had...
by Woman Of Courage6 years ago
Think about this: God, out of profound love for us allowed his own wonderful, dear son be sacrificed for our sins. He didn't sin one time. He didn't die for himself. He died for us, to save us. This is why he is called...
by SwordofManticorE4 years ago
This may also include sinners or homosexuals. How many times have we read signs from those who call themselves christians that "God hates sinners"? So is it wrong for them to hate God back?
by SwordofManticorE4 years ago
After all, the church teaches the unbelievers that God loves them so much that He created a hell for them if they do not accept the gift of His grace, nor love and worship Him all because of their free will.
by yolanda yvette7 years ago
How are you at witnessing of Christ to your family, friends, neighbors and co-wokers who don't believe?
by earnestshub6 years ago
What would happen if non-believers left the religious to their own devices.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.