To me it all depends on what they did after they left the bus. Which we don't know, we only have assumptions.

I know David Foster is a great pastor and a great man. But most of the few things I've read that he's written seem to be his complaining about people who don't do church the way he does. I hope I'm not offending - it's like his "rode my harley around on Easter" post where he visited five different churches and basically said they were just feeding people lies. Unlike his church, of course.

"And then and only then do you have the right to share the story of where you've found hope."

I don't know if I agree with this. It's a dogmatic statement about evangelism that I don't believe is backed up by Scripture. Paul didn't first "meet people's needs" before he preached to them. In fact, Jesus didn't always do that either. In fact, sometimes he asked people to meet His needs first.

I know I'm being unfair. But this really rubbed me wrong. Foster is standing there, judging a group of people who very well might have been called by God to deliver new testaments to hurting people. And all he could feel was embarassed. . .

De, your comments brought to mind Philippians 1:18 "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." If Paul didn't worry about exactly how, and for what reasons, people preached the Gospel, why should we?

I'm torn. And not just because Foster is the pastor of my church.

On the one hand, I totally see what he's saying, since it reflects my feelings about the way a lot of suburban churches do short term mission trips, etc. It's reminiscent also of how I feel every time I see a camera crew covering a Habitat for Humanity construction site or some high profile person's work at a soup kitchen. I wonder why it must be "covered." Why can't it be done in secret? And it seems to me to deny the needy their dignity to treat them as either a) a project, or b) a news story to be covered. Why can't charity be done humbly and quietly?
And in that sense, it would irk me too to see a busload of folks dressed for high tea showing up not to work but to proselytize. (I'm giving Foster the benefit of the doubt that that's what they were doing; I wasn't there, so his perception is all I have to go on.)

But on the other hand, I respond to reactions like his much the same way you did, Bill (although without that "nasty" second paragraph).
;-)

There's something to be said for motives. If the Witnessers were there because they figured there'd be a lot of lost people in one place too weak to resist the Romans Road, I'd say they were being arrogant. But if the Witnessers were there to minister as needed and figured there'd be a lot of homeless believers there who might want a New Testament (since Bibles got lost in the flood too), I'd say they were being salt and light.
There's also something to be said for humility. On both sides. Nobody has earned the right to be someone's only help. And Foster's words comparing his group to the Polo Team sounds just as arrogant as the implied comparison between the Polo Team and the Katrina refugees. Maybe, just maybe, in that situation, the clean and scrubbed Bible-thumpers getting off the bus were the ones who needed ministering to. The minute you think you're better than ______, it nullifies what you think about ______ being worse than who you should really be focused on.

Thanks, man.

Perhaps another helpful bit of info is to mention that Foster is not anti-evangelism. His whole ministry is based on discipleship. He has defined his job before as standing at the gates of hell holding a sign that says "Turn Back."
So it's not as if he's against evangelism. I think that, right or wrong, he's reacting strongly to the way these folks showed up and didn't seem prepared to work.
But that's giving him -- not them -- the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't blame anyone for seeing it the other way around.

My mom worked at shelter and one of the top requests from evacuess was for Bibles. I, too, probably would have cringed at the sight of probably, mostly white, Christian stereotypes coming off the bus to hand out Bibles. But that would have been wrong.

It is true, that, in general, "people don't care what you know, until they know that you care." But that doesn't mean that the right to speak a word of hope, love and compassion has to be earned. Sure they may look silly, all preppie and clean, in the middle of a work zone with poor people--but then again, the fact that they even came showed that they cared. Who is to judge their motives but God? And who, but God, knows the results of their efforts?

Question:
If they had set to work and got their clothes dirty and weren't just trying to "win souls," don't you think he would have mentioned it?

It is curious that he doesn't say what they did. He neither confirms nor counters his impression. Is that an implicit confirmation of his assumption?

Jared,

Regarding your comment in #12, this basically brings me to the crux of the issue.

There is an assumption in his post that unless you meet a need first you have no right to share the gospel. He appealed to the methods of Jesus to justify that statement.

While I agree that meeting needs is both very biblical and also a good method of evangelism, I disagree with his statement that you are only allowed to speak once you've met needs. I don't believe that's biblical at all. Paul is my example - I can't think, offhand, of any type of relief work Paul ever did, other than for the church. And appealing to Jesus' methods doesn't work either, as he did not always "meet a need" first before being granted the right to speak. I think it's a poor interpretation of Scripture to teach that you always have to meet a need before sharing the gospel.

It seems to me that a better way of viewing the people (Christian brothers and sisters) getting off the bus is that they were there to meet a need too - the need people might have for Bibles and for the gospel.

Regarding iMonk's article - I didn't read it all but I'm sure it has some good points. Foreign missions by churches need to be done in a way that actually helps people, not just gives the missionaries "an experience". I completely agree. I think this takes time and practice. The church I attend has done a great job the past few years in organizing short term mission trips that do make a positive impact for the Kingdom, and also has been good at plugging people (my parents in law) into long term missions (in their case, the Ukraine). I think it takes a lot of time and effort to build a missions program that works. But it's worth it.

I agree that it's better to share the Gospel with right motives and demonstrating it with our lives. But Paul seemed to think it was better to share the Gospel with wrong motives than not at all. He also told us in Romans 14 that we were to refrain from judging our weaker brothers. There is a saying to the effect "Don't let the Best become the enemy of the Good"--meaning we shouldn't let our desires to have things done the best way keep us from doing or appreciating things done in the 'less than best' way. Unless these young people were perverting the Gospel or doing something to disgrace the name of Christ, their efforts should be encouraged. According to the story these were mostly young people---if they are earnest and sincere, they'll learn soon enough how to get their hands dirty. If they're not sincere, then we should do as Paul did and simply rejoice that one way or the other the Gospel is being spread. Even if people were selling Bibles, with nothing more than a profit motive, they would be spreading the Word.

Debra,

I also was with you up until the "selling Bibles" part.

But the rest of your comment I completely agree with.

I would agree, Damon.

And, again, I wasn't there, so I don't know the motives or methods or hammer-usage of these people.

But if we're all part of the Body, then hadn't Foster and some of the others already come alongside them with cofee? In that case, these folks, in cooperation with other members of the body, might have been appropriate in bringing in the gospel at that time.

I just noticed Jared's reply, too, to my comment about selling Bibles. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I hope my explanation clears things up. I didn't mean Christians selling Bibles to poor evacuees. I was thinking more along the lines of say, Walmart selling Bibles to anyone.

While I don't think we should worry about(or judge) the motives or effectiveness of fellow Christians attempting to spread the Gospel, people claiming to bear the name of Christ and acting (or speaking) contrary to the very Gospel they claim to believe is a whole 'nuther thing....Christians selling Bibles to evacuees would be a disgrace.

I forwarded this link to Dr. Foster this morning, asking if he wouldn't mind clarifying and/or "finishing" his post or responding to some of the questions/criticisms in this thread. With his permission, I am posting his response (sent via email) below. I'm reprinting it in its entirety and have bolded the line that answers the main question we all had: "What did that group do after they got off the bus?"
I don't know if the rest helps, confirms, or contradicts anything said or thought in this thread, but I do appreciate him taking the time to respond and I appreciate our readership's consideration of his further thoughts.

First of all, I like the fact that people on your blog call me to task and disagree with my perspectives. That's what we should do for every person who dares to try to speak for God or about God and give us direction in spiritual things. No one should accept anything I say just because I've said it. So I say, "Yea God" for the people on your blog who are thoughtful, who care a great deal that the revolutionary idea of Jesus and His love for the individual be communicated without some religious professional's spin being the only way to look at a thing.

Secondly, I'd simply like to say that having given my life to this process of communicating something as amazing as the gospel of Jesus Christ to a hungry and oftentimes confused world, I've found that religious approaches to winning people to Jesus can easily be dismissed and oftentimes the message is dismissed with it. I'm simply saying that when you are in a hurricane-devastated area, where people have no homes, no shelter, no clothes, no food, no money, no anything, then probably the first response, if you're interested in those people finding a real relationship with God through Jesus Christ, is not dressing in a way that is totally opposite of how they are dressed and not simply getting off a bus and going up to them in a dazed, confused state and going through a pre-rehearsed gospel presentation, getting on that bus and leaving. That's exactly what this group of young people did.

Now, can God work through that? Absolutely. He has in many ways. I'm simply saying it's not a normative way that God is going to change the world and revolutionize the human heart. It was Jesus who said that, "they will know you my disciples if you love one another." It's how we show and express that love. Is it loving when a person has lost everything, even their hope, to just simply walk them through a three-step plan, when what they need is a real live person with help, with love, and action entering into their world, and albeit for a few short hours, personifying the love and humility of Jesus by joining them in their pain? If enough of us do that where we are and we follow it up with a legitimate, believable account of how Jesus has changed our lives, a great deal of good can be done.

The last point is that several of your bloggers have noted that I often condemn the activities of religion, and that is very purposeful. For religion is not just an amoral, harmless endeavor. When people embrace a set of rules that lead them into bondage, that's a big thing. Christianity is a relationship with a person Whose goal is to love us, forgive us, and Whose fruit is to set us free; free from the past, free from bondage, free from fear, free from religion and free to live the joy-filled freed-up life only He can give. That's our goal and aspiration. We have no desire to make people like us, to get them to believe everything we believe. That's why I applaud what you're doing on your blog, and I applaud the disagreements people have over what I say, because it means they are thinking and engaging, and seeking and searching. And while all truth is God's truth, all of us need to be wiser and smarter, and when we talk to each other, thoughtfully and graciously, we all get smarter.

Religious faith should always welcome critique from within. It becomes both arrogant and a closed system if it does not. I think it is proper to question both the motives of those described and the motives of the one describing this situation. I disagree with the implication that even if they are preaching the word of God with "improper motives," as Paul put it, that they are beyond critique. I don't think that is what Paul was saying at all.

We may be glad that the word is being preached, even with improper motives, but he would certianly say that it is far better when it is preached with proper motives. Paul actually chastises those who peddle the true gospel for personal gain (improper motives) on a number of occasions.

With that said, what I took from the original article is that there were young people who perhaps had sincere motives - although I would question whether or not they fully understood their true motives - whose method was likely to have the opposite effect from what they intended. Paul may not have always met needs first, but he was not a gospel crop duster like what we see here. When he went into a new place he stayed there for, often, years, but usually at least months.

And I can't picture Jesus walking off that bus, so well dressed, giving a three-point presentation and then leaving.

A final question: where were these people intent on sharing the gospel to the poor of New Orleans before Katrina? It just seems very contrived and opportunistic to me. When home-builders from out of state sweep in to take advantage of the opportunity we look at them with suspicion (at least we did here in Oklahoma after the massive F5 tornado that wreaked destruction here in 1999). We viewed them as opportunistic - and a little sleazy. I've already called this group in New Orleans opportunistic. I won't call them sleazy.

Sorry to be the voice of dissent.

"A final question: where were these people intent on sharing the gospel to the poor of New Orleans before Katrina? It just seems very contrived and opportunistic to me."

Well, I personally didn't actually put any skin in the game by physically going to New Orleans, so I'm not sure I can pick on people who did.

What those kids did wasn't wrong. We have no real information as to what their motives were. And appeals to the methods of Jesus and Paul continue to seem a bit strained for me. I'd call Jesus experience with the woman at the well pretty opportunistic, and pretty much a "swoop in and leave" approach. Plus he asked her to give him something.

And being opportunistic isn't sinful. It's what it says - seeing an opportunity and taking it. Maybe it was ill-advised. Only God knows.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

We don't really know anything about what those kids were doing. We just know the judgement heaped upon them by people who, from all indications, didn't take the time to talk to them and find out who they were, where their hearts were, etc.

I think if we disparage them, we need to disparage those who go door to door witnessing, do street evangelism, etc.

Maybe these methods don't work well anymore. But I'm not the one to make that call.

Foster said that they had no right to tell people the gospel until they had "walked a mile in their shoes".

I'm just quoting from his original post.

All right.

Thanks Paul

I realize I have been fairly harsh in this thread. It's taken awhile to realize why. For me it's not so much the points being raised (I completely agree, for instance, with your take on effective short term missions. Completely).

I was initially put-off by the dogmatic statement that needs must always be met and miles in shoes must always be walked prior to evangelism. I don't believe that is true.

I never said Jesus taught his disciples to "swoop in" or hang out at wells - one aspect of my blogging that has convinced me that I'll never be a writer is that no one ever seems to quite grasp what I'm trying to say. :-)

But I also don't believe Jesus was "in his culture" at the time. He was a male Jewish rabbi and about as removed from the culture of a female samaritan adultress as, well, as those young crisply-dressed white people were to the poor refugees of Katrina. But that was never really my point. I think we may be arguing past eachother here (this happens to me all the time too). I am willing to say that I agree with 75% of what's been said but wish Pastor Foster had been kinder in his post to these young people, and wish that if he had a problem with what they were doing that he would have quietly spoken to them about it rather than just holding them up as a bad example in his blog.

I need to get off this hobby-horse before I start losing friends.

"I agree that there is room for both "walking a mile with them" and not, though I lean toward the value of the "walking a mile with them" over the not. It seems so much more"what's that overused pomo word I'm looking for?".authentic."

I agree. Well said.