When a local church uses an authoritative teaching method, what impact does it have on reaching people in relation to their personality temperaments?

What difference does it make when local churches use authoritative teaching methods for sharing their faith?  What are the expected results if you place a pastor in a church environment where he or she must teach in an authoritative style?  How does a congregation respond to an authoritative environment?  Likewise, do all people respond the same or are there variations dependent upon a person’s personality temperament or combination thereof?

What exactly is an authoritative method for teaching people?  The authoritative method is basically described as having the sanction or weight of authority, such as the ability to determine an individual decision based off the variables of an issue or subject.  Another way of looking at it would be an even balance of “love” and “discipline.”  In other words, allowing an individual to follow his or her conscience, based off the guidance from a higher authority (e.g., the Holy Spirit, the Word of God), in determining his or her response to the “subjective” matters of an issue…since he or she is ultimately accountable to the higher authority (e.g., God) for his or her decision(s).

So when it comes to a church setting, based on the authoritative method of teaching, sometimes we hear people say that allowing people to make their own decisions on subjective issues is too much work.  Some pastors will say, if we don’t have people follow the “closest interpretation” of Scripture, then we are teaching them to be disobedient.  Similarly, some of these same pastors will say that they are being disobedient themselves if they personally allow a person to choose something different than the “closest interpretation.”  In doing so, they will quote the author of Hebrews, presumably the Apostle Paul – “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.  They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17a NIV)  On the contrary, the Apostle Paul stated – “…each one us will give an account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12 NIV)         

Below you will find four different examples explaining how a pastor or a church member, in regard to his or her personality temperament (e.g., choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic), would potentially respond to being placed in a church that emphasizes an authoritative teaching method.  This breakdown helps explain why certain individuals may be drawn into or prefer to avoid an authoritative teaching environment. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choleric temperament – rational based thinking:  Bad tempered or extremely irritable.
Pros:  Great leaders; high standards.             
Cons:  Controlling; condescending to others.

What happens when you place a person – with a choleric temperament – into a pastoral position of a local church that emphasizes authoritativeness?  As for this scenario, you couldn’t ask for a better match since people with this type of temperament love the opportunity to lead others.  The authoritative environment helps people with a choleric temperament alleviate one of their biggest weaknesses – controlling others.  Likewise, this same person must learn to rely more on God, which brings out one of the best traits of his or her best personality temperament… effectively leading people. 

What should you expect when you have church members (or potential church members) placed underneath a pastor with a choleric temperament in an authoritative-style church.  For starters, once people adjust to authoritative environment, the members would likely appreciate being respected for their differences of opinion on subjective issues.  On the other extreme, you may have a lot of people leave the church because of the perception – “God is not in a box.”  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melancholic temperament – emotional-based thinking:  Sensitive; gloomy state of mind
Pros:  Great musicians and artists; perfectionists                     
Cons:  Manipulative; like everything in a box

What should you expect when you place a person – with a melancholic temperament – into a pastoral position of church with an authoritative environment?  This ends up being another win-win situation.  The authoritative setting helps people with a melancholic temperament avoid one their biggest negative traits – the tendency to manipulate other people into their way of thinking.  On the positive side, when it comes to trying to change people or looking for the perfect answer, this same person will learn to put more trust in God.

What happens when church members (or potential church members) are placed underneath a pastor with a melancholic temperament in an authoritative-style church?  Fortunately, many people will grow stronger in their faith and dependence on God as the pastor gets out of the “God in a box” mentality and learns to put more trust in God.  Nevertheless, some people may still want to leave the church because of the perception – “God is not in a box.”  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanguine temperament – impulsive participatory responses:  Cheerful; optimistic
Pros:  Great salespeople; charismatic personality                    
Cons:  Too pushy; lack of self-discipline

What should you expect when you place a person – with a sanguine temperament – into the same pastoral position involving an authoritative environment?  As for a sanguine, the outcome is another win-win situation.  The authoritative setting helps people with the sanguine temperament avoid one of their biggest drawbacks – being too pushy by sometimes pushing a one-sided agenda (a subjective interpretation) vice a fundamental truth (an objective interpretation).  As for a positive note, since this same person likely possesses a natural charisma as well as a knack for selling things, the authoritative approach will just offer more ways to share the message of Christianity. 

Again, what happens when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a sanguine temperament in an authoritative-style church?  As with almost any teaching environment involving the sanguine temperament, a lot of people will still be drawn into the church by the charismatic personality of the pastor as well as his or her passion to share the gospel in newfound ways.  As for people wanting to leave the church, the same recurring scenario occurs – “God is not in a box.”  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phlegmatic temperament – reluctant participatory response:  Not easily excited to action; sluggish
Pros:  Great behind-the-scenes workers; easy-going               
Cons:  Non-confrontational; reluctant

Finally, what happens when you place a person – with a phlegmatic temperament – into the same pastoral position involving an authoritative environment?  In this case, the authoritative environment works great for a person with a phlegmatic temperament, since he or she may not have to take a polarized position on a subjective issue.  On the positive side, this same person tends to be easy-going and should enjoy an environment that helps him or her avoid controversial situations by doing what he or she probably does best…being non-confrontational.

What is the expected result when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a phlegmatic temperament in an authoritative-style church?  As for a positive, most members will probably like the relaxed atmosphere and enjoy not being confronted.  Again, the same recurring theme applies as with the other three temperaments, a lot of people may leave the church because of the perception – “God is not in a box.”  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, how does the authoritative teaching method impact the way we share our faith with others?  The authoritative teaching method helps resolve many issues within churches as well as our individual testimonies.  No longer does a church need to avoid having pastors and/or members with certain personality temperaments due to some of their potentially negative traits.  Overall, the authoritarian and permissive teaching methods are far from conducive for bringing out the positive traits of people with the choleric personality temperament as well as the other temperaments.  If we want to share our faith with all people, we need to make a difference in people’s lives, without trying to change the things that make them unique in regard to their temperaments.  Ultimately, we need to depend on God to make the changes.  In other words, we need to help each person follow his or her conscience, based off guidance from the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, in determining his or her response to subjective matters of faith…since he or she is ultimately accountable to God.  (Romans 14:12)

When a local church uses a permissive teaching method, what impact does it have on reaching people in relation to their personality temperaments?

What difference does it make when local churches use permissive teaching methods for sharing their faith?  Does it really matter what teaching method a church uses?   What are the expected results if you place a pastor in a church environment where he or she must teach in a permissive style?  How does a congregation respond to a permissive environment?  Likewise, do all people respond the same or are there variations dependent upon a person’s personality temperament or combination thereof?

What exactly is a permissive method for teaching people?  The permissive method is basically described as characteristically or tolerant of something, such as social behavior.  Another way of looking at it would be “all love” and “no discipline.”  In other words, unconditionally accept of a person’s behavior or lifestyle at the expense of having little or no accountability standards.

So when it comes to a church setting, based on the permissive method of teaching, we hear many examples of people referring to churches and/or people “watering down” the message of Christianity.  Maybe you have heard the reference, “Quench not the Spirit” (I Thessalonians 5:19 KJV) as a justification for not using discipline.  Some of us are probably familiar with work situations where a supervisor wants to be friends with everyone, rather than confront one of his or her employees over a behavior that is breaking down the morale of the team.  Likewise, many parents fall into the same trap of wanting to be friends with their children…while forgetting to teach them how to take responsibility for their own actions.  A permissive approach is appropriate for some situations, such as a person coming from an abusive situation, but not necessarily all situations.  Especially, since there are many instances where a person may respond differently to a situation based off his or her personality temperament(s).

Below you will find four different examples explaining how a pastor or a church member, in regard to his or her personality temperament (e.g., choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic), would potentially respond to being placed in a church that emphasizes a permissive teaching method.  This breakdown helps explain why certain individuals may be drawn into or prefer to avoid a permissive teaching environment. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choleric temperament – rational based thinking:  Bad tempered or extremely irritable.
Pros:  Great leaders; high standards.     
Cons:  Controlling; condescending to others.

What happens when you place a person – with a choleric temperament – into a pastoral position of a local church that emphasizes permissiveness?  For starters, you are still setting yourself up for a potential heartbreak, since the pastor will be frustrated by the confusion and/or he or she will likely end up leaving the leadership position.  Basically, a person with a choleric temperament tends to have conscientious objections about being placed into a potentially chaotic system without any structure of what is right or wrong – thus, undermining his or her ability to effectively lead people. 

What should you expect when you have church members (or potential church members) placed underneath a pastor with a choleric temperament in a permissive-style church.  You may end up with a church full of like-minded members who appreciate the loving environment.  On the other extreme, you will probably have a lot of people leave due to the perception that the pastor has a lack of vision for the church.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melancholic temperament – emotional-based thinking:  Sensitive; gloomy state of mind
Pros:  Great musicians and artists; perfectionists     
Cons:  Manipulative; like everything in a box

What should you expect when you place a person – with a melancholic temperament – into a pastoral position of church with a permissive environment?  In this case, much like the authoritarian structure scenario, you are either setting yourself up for a good match or a church that has a lot of frustrated people leaving.  On the positive side, this person will provide a lot of sensitivity to the congregation.  On the drawback, this same person has a high potential for putting all of the church’s doctrine into a box, according to his or her doctrinal preferences…thus manipulating others.

What happens when church members (or potential church members) are placed underneath a pastor with a melancholic temperament in a permissive-style church?  Many people will love having a pastor who can show his or her emotional side.  Unfortunately, a lot of people will eventually leave the church when the pastor loses his or her temper and/or tries manipulating people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanguine temperament – impulsive participatory responses:  Cheerful; optimistic
Pros:  Great salespeople; charismatic personality    
Cons:  Too pushy; lack of self-discipline

What should you expect when you place a person – with a sanguine temperament – into the same pastoral position involving a permissive environment?  As for a sanguine, the outcome is similar to that of the authoritarian scenario, either you have people who are drawn into the church by the pastor’s charisma or pushed away by the very same characteristic.  On the encouraging note, this person tends to be charismatic and remains focused on spreading the message of the church.  On the opposing side, these same traits can also become annoying, since the person may not be able to determine if people are drawn into the church by his or her charisma rather than spiritual matters…due to his or her lack of self-discipline.

Again, what happens when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a sanguine temperament in a permissive-style church?  Fortunately, a lot of people may be drawn to the church by the charismatic personality of the pastor.  Then again, if the pastor depends too much on his or her charisma rather than God, people leave when they want deeper instruction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phlegmatic temperament – reluctant participatory response:  Not easily excited to action; sluggish
Pros:  Great behind-the-scenes workers; easy-going     
Cons:  Non-confrontational; reluctant

Finally, what happens when you place a person – with a phlegmatic temperament – into the same pastoral position involving a permissive environment?  In this case, you potentially have a relaxed church environment, since the pastor will not confront issues.  On the positive side, you still have similar results to the authoritarian scenario, in that the person will easily agree to help pastor the church but will probably avoid teaching people to come out of their comfort zones – because of his or her preferences for being non-confrontational.

What is the expected result when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a phlegmatic temperament in a permissive-style church?  As for a positive, most members will like the loving atmosphere and probably not even pay attention to the permissive structure of the church.  Unfortunately, when problems arise among the members, people will likely leave the church when the pastor will not confront the issues.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, how does the permissive teaching method impact the way we share our faith with others?  Just like the similarities of the authoritarian teaching method scenario, should the church avoid having pastors and/or members with certain personality temperaments due to some of their potentially negative traits?  In the Old Testament, Ezekiel prophesized about the watchman who was responsible for protecting his fellow countrymen from the sword against the land – “But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword come and takes the life of one of them…I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.” (Ezekiel 33:6 NIV)  So how does all of this apply to a permissive teaching environment, which focuses on unconditionally accepting a person’s behavior or lifestyle at the expense of having little or no accountability standards?

When a local church uses an authoritarian teaching method, what impact does it have on reaching people in relation to their personality temperaments?

What difference does it make when local churches use authoritarian teaching methods for sharing their faith?  Does it really matter if they use authoritarian teaching methods vice permissive or authoritative methods?  What are the expected results if you place a pastor in a church environment where he or she must teach in an authoritarian style?  How does a congregation respond to an authoritarian environment?  Likewise, do all people respond the same or are there variations dependent upon a person’s personality temperament or combination thereof?

What exactly is an authoritarian method for teaching people?  The authoritarian method is basically described as complete obedience or subjection to authorities, as opposed to individual freedom.  Another way of looking at it would be “all discipline” and “no love.”  Just look around at a lot of the policies in our school systems and municipalities, you will find the equivalent of the authoritarian method - “zero-tolerance.”      

So when it comes to a church setting, based on the authoritarian method of teaching, we hear many examples of abuse with such scenarios.  In fact ABC’s 20/20 Show just aired a 41-minute episode (Air Date 08APR2011: Victim's Forced Confession; http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55121488/2020-48-victims-forced-confession) about alleged abuse in various independent fundamentalist Baptist churches, which practiced or still practice authoritarianism.  So where do a lot of these problems stem since there are so many commendable pastors within these churches as well as other churches?  On the other hand, many of us have personally struggled with or have heard of a person struggling with a family member, such as a child or sibling, who will not conform.  Often times, these struggles with family members are legitimately based, but then there are some instances where a person just responds differently to a situation due to his or her personality temperament(s).

Below you will find four different examples explaining how a pastor or a church member, in regard to his or her personality temperament (e.g., choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic), would potentially respond to being placed in a church that emphasizes an authoritarian teaching method.  This breakdown helps highlight why certain individuals may gravitate toward the authoritarian environment.  On the other extreme, this may help explain why some people prefer not participate in or completely avoid such authoritarian environments…not necessarily for reasons of nonconformance, but for the purpose of removing him or herself from an environment that may bring out the negative traits of his or her personality temperament(s).    

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choleric temperament – rational based thinking:  Bad tempered or extremely irritable.
Pros:  Great leaders; high standards.              
Cons:  Controlling; condescending to others.

What happens when you place a person – with a choleric temperament – into a pastoral position of a local church that emphasizes authoritarianism?  For starters, you are either setting yourself up for a potential heartbreak or a potential autocracy.  In simple terms, you may get your heart broken because the individual ends up leaving the leadership position, due to his or her conscientious objections of being placed in a situation where he or she must control people vice lead people.  Or you could be faced with a person running the church like an autocracy mainly because he or she will be doing what his or her personality temperament does best in an authoritarian style atmosphere…control people.

What should you expect when you have church members (or potential church members) placed underneath a pastor with a choleric temperament in an authoritarian-style church.  You may end up with a church full of like-minded members who see nothing wrong with controlling others.  Otherwise, you may end up with a lot of people leaving the church due to abuse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melancholic temperament – emotional-based thinking:  Sensitive; gloomy state of mind
Pros:  Great musicians and artists; perfectionists                     
Cons:  Manipulative; like everything in a box

What should you expect when you place a person – with a melancholic temperament – into a pastoral position of church with an authoritarian environment?  In this case you are either setting yourself up for a good match or a church that has a lot of frustrated people leaving.  On the positive side, this person will provide a lot of sensitivity to the congregation.  On the drawback, this same person has a high potential for putting all of the church’s doctrine into a box, according to his or her doctrinal preferences…thus manipulating people.

What happens when church members (or potential church members) are placed underneath a pastor with a melancholic temperament in an authoritarian-style church?  Many people will love having a pastor who can show his or her emotional side.  Unfortunately, a lot of people will eventually leave the church when their questions go unanswered.     

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanguine temperament – impulsive participatory responses:  Cheerful; optimistic
Pros:  Great salespeople; charismatic personality              
Cons:  Too pushy; lack of self-discipline

What should you expect when you place a person – with a sanguine temperament – into the same pastoral position involving an authoritarian environment?  As for a sanguine, you either have people who are drawn into the church by the person’s charisma or pushed away by the very same characteristic.  On the encouraging note, this person tends to be charismatic and remains focused on spreading the message of the church.  On the opposing side, these same traits can also become annoying, since the person may not be able to determine if people are drawn into the church by his or her charisma rather than spiritual matters…due to his or her lack of self-discipline.

Again, what happens when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a sanguine temperament in an authoritarian-style church?  Fortunately, a lot of people may be drawn to the church by the charismatic personality of the pastor.  Then again, if the pastor depends too much on his or her charisma rather than God, people leave when the pastor becomes too pushy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phlegmatic temperament – reluctant participatory response:  Not easily excited to action; sluggish
Pros:  Great behind-the-scenes workers; easy-going               
Cons:  Non-confrontational; reluctant

Finally, what happens when you place a person – with a phlegmatic temperament – into the same pastoral position involving an authoritarian environment?  In this case, you potentially have a relaxed church environment, but it may take a while to get things done.  On the positive side, the person will easily agree to help pastor the church.  However, when it comes to this same person actually teaching people to come out of their comfort zones, he or she may avoid doing so because of his or her preferences for being non-confrontational.

What is the expected result when you place church members (or potential church members) underneath a pastor with a phlegmatic temperament in an authoritarian-style church?  As for a positive, most members will like the gentle atmosphere and probably not even pay attention to the authoritarian structure of the church.  Unfortunately, when the pastor tries to avoid confrontation by not expressing any ideas for the direction of the church, some people will leave due to the pastor’s lack of vision. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, we need to contemplate on whether or not an authoritarian teaching method is the Biblical way, or just a way, of sharing our message of faith with others.  Should the church avoid having pastors and/or members with certain personality temperaments, due to some of their potentially negative traits?  The author of Hebrews, presumably the Apostle Paul, stated the following – “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.  They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17a NIV)  On the contrary, the Apostle Paul stated – “…each one us will give an account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:12 NIV)   So as individual believers, are we directly accountable to the leaders in the church, God or both?  If we are accountable to both, what happens when a person has strong religious convictions against a certain practice in a church?  Does that person follow the collective doctrine of the local church or follow his or her religious convictions, at the risk of being labeled as someone who will not conform? 

What are the primary teaching methods used for sharing our faith?

As we interact with others during our daily routines, what are the different methods we can use for sharing our faith with others?  What are the pros and cons?  What role does a person’s personality temperament(s) play in how he or she responds each of the primary teaching methods? 

Most of us already know there are certain ways we respond to any given situation.  For example, imagine four friends, all of whom have completely different personality temperaments, going to the upcoming new/used car show at the local sports arena.  The first is a choleric, the second a melancholic, the third a sanguine and the fourth a phlegmatic.  Upon arrival at the arena doors, all of the friends agree to part ways and check out vehicles on their own.  The first person (the choleric), who analyzed all of the prospective vehicles ahead of time, goes straight to his chosen dealership with a list of required technical specifications.  The second person (the melancholic), who also researched ahead of time, goes straight to his respective dealership with a specific color and/or design in mind.  As for the third person (the sanguine), he just walks in and checks out the first vehicle that catches his attention.  As for the fourth person (the phlegmatic), he barely makes it into the car show as he gets distracted talking to people and reading all of the pamphlets in the arena entrance.

If you think that is confusing, just add a pushy car salesman into the scenario.  The first person (the choleric), who already did his research and had his checkbook in hand to buy a car, will probably walk away from the pushy salesman and buy his car somewhere else – even if it costs more money – just over the principle of the matter.  The second person (the melancholic), who had a certain color/design in mind, will probably consider walking away from the salesman…unless he already bonded with the vehicle.  The third person (the sanguine), who goes for anything that catches his attention, will likely buy a vehicle from the pushy salesman unless he sees another vehicle during the interim.  As for the fourth person (the phlegmatic), who barely made it into the arena, he is probably driving the pushy salesman nuts by talking to him too much and not making any decisions about a car purchase. 

In general, you could say variety in people makes life interesting, but when you add the spice of variety to a church setting and/or sharing one’s faith with another it can make things really complicated.  So what are the main differences between the three teaching methods and their application to your faith (e.g., sharing your faith with others and/or receiving instruction from your spiritual mentor[s])?  All three teaching methods do serve a purpose and may be beneficial to a person at different stages of his or her life; however, one must consider the short-term and long-term implications of each method.

The three teaching methods are described below, which include the pros and cons for each respectively:

Authoritarian – complete obedience or subjection to authorities as opposed to individual freedom

            Pros:    All discipline

            Cons:   No love

Permissive – characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, such as social behavior

            Pros:    All love

            Cons:   No discipline

Authoritative – having the sanction or weight of authority, such as the ability to determine

            Pros:    Love with discipline

            Cons:   Involves a lot more work

Overall, we need to reflect on the various teaching methods we use for sharing our faith with others.  Likewise, what impact do these methods have on our personal testimonies as well as a representation of the church?  The words of the Apostle Paul summarize the importance of our personal testimonies in relation to others, “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care…being examples to the flock.” (I Peter 5:2-3 NIV)

What kind of people are we trying to reach?

As we share our faith with everybody, sometimes we must ask ourselves, what kind of people are we trying to reach?  Are we trying to reach people based on their ethnic heritage, skin pigmentation or religion?  Or are we just trying to reach people?  In other words, if our goal is to reach people regardless of their background, what kind of people are we trying to reach?

For starters, most of us could find it easy to reach people who think and/or look just like us, whether intentional or unintentional.  Basically, we reach out to people within our immediate sphere of influence…our friends and family.  The same goes for many churches as they focus on outreach in our communities.  In fact, focusing on the spiritual welfare of our immediate friends and family is an essential and necessary means of reaching others.  However, we need to remember the words of Jesus Christ as he instructed his twelve disciples to preach the gospel – “As you go….”  (Matthew 10:5-7 NIV)  Simply said, as you go through life and interact with people, share your faith with others…not just with your friends and family members, but people you meet during your daily routines.

As we go through our daily routines and interact with people from various backgrounds, what really determines how people respond to our interactions?  Sure a person’s ethnic, racial and/or religious background can play a sub factor in how he or she responds to each of us, but the primary factor is his or her personality temperament(s).  People generally respond to any given situation based off of one of four personality temperaments or a combination thereof.  The four temperaments fall into two main categories – a person’s emotional response (choleric or melancholic) and a person’s participatory response (sanguine or phlegmatic).  All of the temperaments have their positive and negative traits, but the one thing they have in common is that most people will maintain the same temperament, or combination thereof, throughout their lifetime.  Therefore, instead of trying to change a person’s temperament, which is virtually impossible without destroying a person’s uniqueness, we should be respectful of each person and try to help him or her bring out the positive traits of his or her temperament(s).  

The four temperaments are described below, which also include the pros and cons for each respectively:

Choleric – rational based thinking:  Bad tempered; extremely irritable

            Pros:  Great leaders; high standards

            Cons:  Controlling; condescending to others   

Melancholic – emotional-based thinking:  Sensitive; gloomy state of mind

            Pros:  Great musicians and artists; perfectionists

            Cons:  Manipulative; like everything in a box

Sanguine – impulsive participatory responses:  Cheerful; optimistic

            Pros:  Great salespeople; charismatic personality

            Cons:  Too pushy; lack of self-discipline

Phlegmatic – reluctant participatory response:  Not easily excited to action; sluggish

            Pros:  Great behind-the-scenes workers; easy to get along with others

            Cons:  Non-confrontational; reluctance to express new ideas

In summary, as we go through life, not only should we share our faith with our immediate family members and friends, but we need to take time for others who we interact with during our daily routines.  One of the key things we need to remember is take our focus off people’s ethnic, racial and/or religious backgrounds and instead treat people with mutual respect, regardless of their backgrounds.  Overall, we need to make a difference in people’s lives, without trying to change the things that make them unique in regard to their temperaments.  Ultimately, we need to depend on God to make the changes.

Who are we trying to reach?

As we share our faith, what impact does our approach have on others?  Does it limit us or give us freedom?  Are we proselytizing people to become members of a specific religious affiliation or denomination underneath the guise of Christianity or are we just trying to have people become Christians regardless of our religious affiliation or denomination?  Basically, what is our ulterior motive for reaching people?  Ultimately, who are we trying to reach?

Almost all of us have faced some kind of interaction with other people concerning our faith, whether direct or indirect.  For example, most of us have seen a person passing out Christian tracts on a street corner, leaving them under your vehicle’s windshield wiper, or inserting them in a doorway to your residence.  On the other hand, there are a few of us who have been alienated from Christianity, because of our experiences with churches and/or religious individuals who lacked empathy.  Some of us have been pressured to attend a specific church and follow the preferred religious convictions of our friends, family members and/or churches – with the looming threat of exclusion for non-compliance.  On the other extreme, some of us have been pressured to give up our religious convictions in the workplace and tolerate religious intolerance – with the same looming threat of exclusion for non-compliance.  In other words, just by going through the basic routine of life, we end up sharing our faith with others in some manner or form. 

Due to the harsh realities of life, we can easily try to create a safe environment where we can surround ourselves with people just like each of us and hope someone else fixes the problems.  In the city, we can isolate ourselves from any imminent problems by secluding to the safe-zones of our homes and churches; if the problems get worse, we just get better security systems for our safe-zones and/or hope the city finds some way to fix the problems.  In the outlying areas, we can still easily isolate ourselves in the safety of our homes and churches away from the cities, then if the problems get worse…we just move further away.   However, finding a safe environment is only a temporary fix unless we are making a concerted effort to make a difference in our communities, especially since the world population continues to grow and it is virtually impossible to live in complete isolation of one another.

As a result, we must understand that our ulterior motives for sharing our faith have short-term and long-term implications.  If our only goal for sharing our faith is to proselytize people for the purpose of helping a specific religious affiliation or denomination grow, then we should consider the long-term implications it can have on our communities and nation as a whole.  All one needs to do is travel around our country, in the cities as well as the older smaller towns, and look at the old church buildings.  So many of these old church buildings provide a testimony of how the original affiliations and denominations have grown, struggled or failed.  Fortunately, many of these old church buildings are still in use today with their original churches or house new churches, as the original churches moved to other locations.  Unfortunately, many of these old church buildings have another story...one that was focused more on internal affairs, rather than spiritual affairs.

As for the main question, who are we trying to reach?  The answer is – everybody.  According to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, the church is to “…make disciples of all nations….”  (Matthew 28:18-20 NIV)   Of course, we still need to use tact when sharing our faith with others, which Jesus Christ explained with the words – “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:  be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16 KJV)  Likewise, we need to remember the reason for sharing our faith – sincere love for one another.  (I Corinthians 13:2)

Please check back as we continue this blog throughout the month.