The Longest Ladder

Image courtesy of Nattavut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Harry, Gary, and Larry were walking through the woods one night on the way to their favorite fishing spot.  Suddenly they stumbled upon an old, abandoned mine shaft, and all three of the friends fell through the rotten wood and crashed to the bottom.  Having managed to survive the fall with just some bumps and bruises, they were soon peering up at the small window of light above them.  It was a 50-foot shaft, but it might as well have been 1,000 feet. 

“Oh, great!” groaned Gary.  “How are we going to get out of this mess?”

“I don’t know” replied Harry.  “I’m just glad our gear fell down here with us.” And with that, he grabbed a slightly dented can of beer from their now-broken ice chest.  “No reason to let a little thing like this keep us from having a good time.”

“C’mon, Harry!  Are you nuts?”  This time it was Larry speaking.  “We’ve fallen into an abandoned mine shaft, and all you can think about is your beer?” 

Harry sneered, “Well, what are you suggesting, Mr. Know-It-All?”

“I’ll tell you what I’m suggesting” said Larry, “I’m suggesting that we’ve got a big problem, and we better get busy if we want to save ourselves.”

“What do you have in mind?” asked Gary.

Introducing A New Book

I have finished my book on the subject of Christian growth, and it is heading to the printer. In this blog post I want to share the story of why I wrote the book and also tell a little bit about the content of the book. For those of you who use twitter, you can get daily quotes from the book and information about the book by following @morethanasavior. More Than Just A Savior will be available this Fall.

(The following is an excerpt from the Preface of More Than Just A Savior)

The idea for this book began two and a half years ago as I was preparing to teach a Bible study to a small group of men in our church in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. My topic for the four-week study was to be “Men and Relationships,” and I was going to teach the first week on “A Man’s Relationship With God.” 

Having been preaching and teaching for years, I had taught many times on that topic, even to some of those very men. But I began to pray and ask God for a new way to present the same old truth – that we need to walk with God. As I studied, read, and prayed, I kept going back and forth between several angles. Did I want to focus on our sonship? Did I want to base this lesson on the Good Shepherd? 

The Fun Train

I was very excited today to get our new book, The Fun Train, back from the printer. This book is a parable about life and eternity, and it's purpose is to make people stop and think about where they are going. I came up with the idea for this story several years ago while soulwinning along a railroad track. I asked one of the men in our church to draw some pictures to go with it, and his 30 black and white drawings made the story come alive. Normally our tracts have lots of words and few pictures. This parable has lots of pictures and few words. Our church people are really excited about giving it to their friends and relatives, because they think the story and the accompanying pictures will catch their attention. Many Cambodians do not have a very high level of education, so we feel it is important to utilize the method that they will most readily understand. 

I would like to especially thank three people who worked many hours to make this book possible.

1. Kang is a good man in our church who also happens to be an artist. I led him to Christ about 8 years ago, and he has certainly used his artistic talents for the Lord. 

2. Karona is a woman my wife and I led to Christ about 7 years ago. She did the initial translation of this story and then we worked together to get the translation fine tuned. She is a constant blessing in our church with her desire to serve the Lord.

3. Adam Wood is a fellow missionary here in Cambodia. He has the computer skills that I lack, and I appreciate his willingness to jump on board and do all the typesetting and layout for this project. 

Here is a synopsis of the story:

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts – Part 7

This is part seven of a series.  The previous articles may be read here:  Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

Our world is rapidly changing.  With each product upgrade or advance in technology, some other product or technology breaths its last breathe.  As bigger and better hits the market, people naturally reject the old and outdated.  It is only natural then to consider the question:  What level of print quality is suitable and necessary for the Gospel message?  Can we run tracts on a copy machine or print them in one color on cheap paper?  Or does everything have to be high quality, full color, and glossy?  I have heard arguments for both views. 

I know some missionaries who hold to the view that basically anything is fine for a third-world country, and it is a waste of money to print nice tracts.  I do see their point, but we should always remember that even people in a poor country like to look at pretty things.  In fact, the majority of houses I have observed in Cambodia have pages from magazines and catalogs glued or stapled to the entire inside of their house!  It’s a poor man’s way of decorating the house, because they dislike dreary and drab as much as anybody.  On the other hand, it would put most printing projects outside of the parameters of the average missionary’s budget to try to print every piece of literature at a quality level which would impress Americans.  Obviously this is a very subjective topic, but here are three questions to consider.

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts – Part 6

This is part six of a series. The previous articles may be read here: Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. 

The next important question in this series on the philosophy of Gospel tracts is: Can a foreigner write an effective tract in a language that is not his own? 

Years ago I had a conversation with an older, veteran missionary that was a bit disconcerting to me at the time. I had been in Cambodia for about 18 months and I was telling him about a couple of tracts I had recently written. He chuckled in a very condescending way and said, “Steve, when I was young like you and just starting out, I was the same way…lots of ideas, lots of zeal. But I’ve got to tell you, years later when I looked back at some of the stuff I wrote when I was new on the field, it was HORRIBLE!” His contention was that I was wasting my time trying to write Khmer material because he felt it was impossible for a foreigner to write something that a national would be able to read and understand. 

Is that true? Is a foreigner’s attempt at writing truly an effort in futility? Or are these concerns overstated? I do understand his point. There is no doubt that as a general rule, Khmers understand Khmers better than they understand foreigners. For example, yesterday I asked a young lady what she was going to bring to our church potluck, and she said, “I think I’m going to make spay katee”. I didn’t know what she meant. I thought maybe “spay” was some kind of vegetable. “Katee” could have been a way of preparing it, or some kind of noodles, or even another kind of vegetable. But whatever it was, I knew I had never heard of it before. She seemed a little bit frustrated that I didn’t know what she meant, because she said that spay katee was a western food. When she began to explain it to me, I finally realized she was talking about spaghetti. The funny thing was – everyone in the church knew what “spay katee” was. Nobody knew what “spaghetti” was!

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts - Part 5

This is part five of a series.  The previous articles may be read here:  Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

As I have stated previously, my ideas and views in these articles are with regards to Gospel tracts on the foreign mission field, not tracts in the United States.  Also, I want to make a clear distinction between Gospel tracts and church invitations.  I think that church invitations and Gospel tracts designed for use in the United States would typically require a very different approach in design, layout, style, and content than the ideas I am putting forth here.

Now that we have considered the validity of tracts, the content of tracts, and the importance of cultural relevance, let us move on to the next question:  Is a straightforward approach better, or is it better to ease into the message?

My opinion is that there is a time and a place for both styles of tracts.  I like to use straightforward tracts for people who already have some interest in Jesus Christ.  There are times when a person is literally asking for information about Christianity or asking good questions about Jesus and it seems a waste of time to give them a tract that beats around the bush.  For this purpose, a few years ago I wrote a tract called "Five Questions About Jesus".  This would be a perfect example of a straightforward tract.  It just tells you right on the front cover what it is about, and interestingly enough, this tract is one of the tracts that people like to use the most.  

On the other hand, many (perhaps even most) of the people with whom we come in contact are not yet interested in Christ.  They need a tract which will engage them by way of some question, statement, or topic which grabs their attention and compels them to read further.  I call those kind of tracts “back door" tracts.  The purpose of this type of tract is the same as any other tract – to get inside of a person’s heart and mind with the truth of God’s Word.  But since they often don’t throw open the front door of their mind with enthusiastic interest, we have to go through the “back door” instead.

By the way, God is the originator of the “back door” tract.  You probably already knew this, but the book of Esther doesn’t mention the word “God” even one time in 10 chapters.  Yet God’s sovereignty, wisdom, providence, grace, and power are seen all throughout.  This shows us that it is possible to get a point across with a subtle approach.

How do you know which kind of tract to use?  Here are four very simple thoughts to keep in mind.

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts - Part 4

This is Part 4 of a series.  The previous parts to this series can be read here.

Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

The next question that I would like to discuss is:  “How important is cultural relevance, and is there a “silver bullet”?

In the last decade, the term “cultural relevance” has become quite a buzzword.  Many churches and ministries have used the term to try to convince people to attend their church, conference, concert, etc.  On the other hand, some have lambasted the term as a sure-fire sign that someone is a liberal compromiser.  I would like to examine the meaning, the misuses, and the merits of the term to see how important cultural relevance is (or isn’t) in the writing of Gospel tracts.

The Meaning Of The Term

So, what exactly IS cultural relevance?  Let’s take one word at a time, then put them together.  Cultural means “relating to a certain culture”.  Relevance means “the sensible or logical connection that one thing has with another.”  So cultural relevance is “the sensible or logical connection that one thing has with a certain culture”.  In other words, to be culturally relevant is to make a logical connection between an idea and a given audience.  In means to show a certain group of people why an idea or product is right for them.  If we are culturally relevant preachers of the Gospel, it simply means that we present our message in such a way that it connects with the people to whom we are ministering. 

Taken at face value, the term “cultural relevance” is a perfectly legitimate and even a wise approach to ministry.  After all, does anyone preach with the goal of making the message as disconnected and uninteresting as possible to his audience?  Why then has the term become so repulsive to some fundamental Baptists?  It might have something to do with the next point.

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts Part 3

This is Part 3 of a series.  To read the introduction to this series click here.  To read Part 1 click here.  To read Part 2 click here.

Does every Gospel tract need to present the Gospel in its entirety?  There are many tracts out there which do not actually present the plan of salvation, but some other Biblical truth.  There are other tracts which present some aspect of the Gospel, but really do not present the entire Gospel in a way that a person could understand and get saved simply from reading the tract.  Is this valid?  Or does every Gospel tract need to present "the whole story"?  In order to properly consider this question, we must first consider the different ways of presenting the Gospel.

There are many different approaches and “plans” that people use to present the Gospel, but there are two approaches which I consider to be extreme.  One is what I call the “5-Minute Approach”.  This is also know as the “1-2-3, Repeat-After-Me Approach”.  This approach consists of running quickly through a few verses in Romans then leading the person in a prayer.  The second is what I call the “65-Lesson Approach”.  This one is particularly popular on the mission field where many believe that a person must be taught numerous Old Testament stories first so that they can understand the significance of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross.  One very popular series used for evangelism has the story of Adam and Eve boiled down to a mere 7 lessons!  In case you are wondering, I don’t go for either one of these approaches.  I find both of them to be extreme, and I believe there is a happy medium.  I plan to share some further thoughts on this issue in a later article, but for now I simply wanted to present these 2 approaches in light of this article on the philosophy of Gospel tracts.  A person’s philosophy of Gospel tracts will undoubtedly grow out of their philosophy on presenting the Gospel.  So let us return to the question at hand:  Does every Gospel tract need to present the Gospel in its entirety? 

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts Part 2

This is the third article in a series.  To read the Introduction, click here.  To read Part 1, click here.  The next question I would like to address is:  How much Bible must be in a tract?

A few years ago, a tract-printing ministry in the United States sent me some Vietnamese tracts to use here in Cambodia, and they also asked if I would send them a good tract in Khmer that they could print.  They were very nice people, and their desire to be a blessing was evident.  I sent them a tract I had just written, but they declined to print it.  Their reason:  not enough verses in it.  They tried to add in a bunch of verses, but their tract template was just to small to contain it all.  I was not upset as they had a right to their own opinion regarding the content of their tracts, so I went ahead and printed the tract myself locally.  They wanted more Bible verses and less explanation.  I wanted less Bible verses and more explanation.  But this was not the first time I had faced this issue.

The first time was when I arrived in Cambodia nearly 10 years ago.  There were not yet very many good tracts, and many of the missionaries were using Gospels of John for tract distribution.  As I participated, I began to inwardly question the effectiveness of what we were doing.  I almost felt guilty about questioning it, because I didn’t want to suggest that God’s Word was weak or ineffective.  I believe the Word of God is powerful, and it is never a bad idea to place a whole Bible, a portion of a Bible, or even one verse of the Bible into someone’s hands.  There is no way that we could know what has already been going on in that person's life and how God may use His Word to speak to them.  On the other hand, it seemed to me that for the vast majority of people who knew NOTHING of Christ or the Bible, we could do better than simply handing someone a “colorless, non-attractive, difficult to understand book with no pictures”.  (I don’t view the Bible in this wayJ…this is how THEY viewed it).

After struggling with some mixed-emotions and praying about the correct approach, God directed me to Acts chapter 8.

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts Part 1

The first question that I would like to address is:  Are Gospel tracts a vital tool or a waste of time?  I have heard people, even former missionaries, say that Gospel tracts are just a waste of time in an illiterate country.  They cite two main reasons as proof:  First, it is a waste of time to pass out tracts in a country where so many people are illiterate.  Second, even the people who know how to read just throw the tracts away, because they are not interested in reading about Christianity.

There is no doubt that those objections do bear some legitimacy, as I can attest to myself.  But let’s consider the objections individually.  Regarding the issue of literacy, let me give an illustration in order to disarm their argument.  I have six children, only three of whom know how to read.  That’s 50%.  But today I bought a bunch of used books for my children.  If we followed the logic of some, then I wasted my money since only 50% of my children are literate.  But I didn’t buy the books for the ones who can’t read.  I bought them for the ones who CAN!  Of course, the illiterate people in Cambodia can’t read our tracts, but there are millions of people who CAN read.  The tracts are for them!  You may say that it is not a fair comparison, because my younger children can’t read only because they haven’t yet learned.  But I can assure you that I would have purchased the books, even if I knew that the three younger children would never learn to read.  Why?  Because the books were for the ones who can read.  I don’t understand the logic that says since some people cannot read, don’t give literature to anybody. 

Their second main objection is that even the people who CAN read just throw the tracts on the ground.  Again, there is some legitimacy to that concern.  One of the first tract distribution efforts with which I was involved here in Cambodia was a major flop.  A very high percentage of the tracts were tossed to the ground without even being opened.  We analyzed and adjusted and tried again with much better success the next time.  However, I believe that it is a mistake to think that just because some tracts are thrown away that it is a poor method.  In the parable of the sower, there were 4 kinds of ground.  How many of the 4 were good ground?  That’s right, just one!  So in this Bible parable about sowing the Word of God (which is exactly what one is doing when passing out Gospel tracts), a full 75% of the ground upon which the seed fell was not good ground.  I don’t think that this percentage (25% good ground) is necessarily a magic formula or a threshold of receptivity that must be reached.  It does, however, give us a Biblical principle to guide our efforts.  That principle is that we should not be dismayed, disheartened, discouraged, or even surprised when a large percentage of the tracts we distribute get tossed aside and are never read.  We are looking for the good ground, but are under no illusions that it is all good ground.

The Philosophy of Gospel Tracts Introduction

I suppose any person who has been around evangelical Christianity for any length of time is familiar with the practice of passing out Gospel tracts. Over the past 15 years or so, I have had conversations with many people, including numerous pastors and missionaries, about the philosophy of Gospel tracts. During the course of these conversations, several main issues have come up time and again. These issues are:

1. Are Gospel tracts a vital tool or a waste of time?

2. How much Bible must be in a Gospel tract?

3. Does every Gospel tract need to present the Gospel in its entirety?

4. Is a straightforward approach better, or is it better to “ease into” the message?

5. How important is cultural relevance, and is there a “silver bullet”?

6. What level of quality is suitable and necessary to the Gospel message?

7. Can a foreigner write an effective tract in a language that is not his own?

8. Should we print tracts in America and then ship them, or print them on the field?