The contrast btween "demonstrate, explain, entreat" versus "compel" cuts straight to the core tension here. Stark's research on early Christianity's growth is fascinating because it shows transformation without a single policy mandate or enforcement mechanism. The early church built credibility through lived witness during plague outbreaks, not through securing favorable legislation. I've seen modern organizations try to rush culture change from the top, and it almost always creates surface compliance without real internal buy-in. The missionary mindset accepts that genuine shifts in collective values take generations and require patient community presence, which is tough when the crusader approach promises faster visible "wins."
Good riff ... there's a groundswell of theological movement ... from Americanized Reformed theology to Spirit filled Anabaptist. The church in USA desperately needs this move.
Something just clicked for me…growing up in the Christian church, where missionaries “went out into the world” (overseas) local evangelism became rather coercive - more like a crusader than a missionary. The fire and brimstone ones are a stark example. But others used emotional manipulation maybe without even realizing it.
It’s mixed motives for sure in many cases but the end result is the nature of the American church that embraces nationalism as a way to “save” America. (Of course some leaders are merely using Christianity to gain/stay in power).
If you actually listen to what Charlie said and saw how he lived his life, he was more of a true believer than most pastors I know. I grew up as an MK and a PK. I have been to hundreds of churches. Both of those conferences have their pros and both have their cons. God is not boxed in on our ideas of how to witness to people whether at Amfest or this other conference you speak of.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Over the last few years I have attended many TPUSA events, including the first Pastor Summit in 2022.
In my experience, the consistent rhetoric coming from this organization is in line with their stated mission to take back America and change culture through top-down power of institutions.
In fact, a local group of gov't leaders and pundits connected to TPUSA hosted a crusader themed Christmas party. In my perspective, they embrace the crusader posture.
I agree that God is not boxed in on our ideas, as you say. While I cannot know the many different ways God is at work, I am striving to discern how Jesus, in the scriptures, calls us to bear witness to his Kingdom.
I don't personally find any portion of the New Testament that calls the church to take the posture of a crusader. Instead, I see consistent calls to embody the character of Jesus and to live like him with all we encounter.
The contrast btween "demonstrate, explain, entreat" versus "compel" cuts straight to the core tension here. Stark's research on early Christianity's growth is fascinating because it shows transformation without a single policy mandate or enforcement mechanism. The early church built credibility through lived witness during plague outbreaks, not through securing favorable legislation. I've seen modern organizations try to rush culture change from the top, and it almost always creates surface compliance without real internal buy-in. The missionary mindset accepts that genuine shifts in collective values take generations and require patient community presence, which is tough when the crusader approach promises faster visible "wins."
Good riff ... there's a groundswell of theological movement ... from Americanized Reformed theology to Spirit filled Anabaptist. The church in USA desperately needs this move.
One type of Christianity proclaims the same message that brings salvation to the most oppressed anywhere, including the USA, North Korea, and Iran.
The other type proclaims a message that has never worked before.
Something just clicked for me…growing up in the Christian church, where missionaries “went out into the world” (overseas) local evangelism became rather coercive - more like a crusader than a missionary. The fire and brimstone ones are a stark example. But others used emotional manipulation maybe without even realizing it.
It’s mixed motives for sure in many cases but the end result is the nature of the American church that embraces nationalism as a way to “save” America. (Of course some leaders are merely using Christianity to gain/stay in power).
If you actually listen to what Charlie said and saw how he lived his life, he was more of a true believer than most pastors I know. I grew up as an MK and a PK. I have been to hundreds of churches. Both of those conferences have their pros and both have their cons. God is not boxed in on our ideas of how to witness to people whether at Amfest or this other conference you speak of.
Hey Josh,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Over the last few years I have attended many TPUSA events, including the first Pastor Summit in 2022.
In my experience, the consistent rhetoric coming from this organization is in line with their stated mission to take back America and change culture through top-down power of institutions.
In fact, a local group of gov't leaders and pundits connected to TPUSA hosted a crusader themed Christmas party. In my perspective, they embrace the crusader posture.
I agree that God is not boxed in on our ideas, as you say. While I cannot know the many different ways God is at work, I am striving to discern how Jesus, in the scriptures, calls us to bear witness to his Kingdom.
I don't personally find any portion of the New Testament that calls the church to take the posture of a crusader. Instead, I see consistent calls to embody the character of Jesus and to live like him with all we encounter.
What do you think?
I think that I understand your perspective more. I also think that there are pros and cons to both.