Here's a section from Stetzer's first talk at the Founder's Conference.  Apparently there is some misunderstanding and controversy regarding what he meant when he referred to some folks as "functional hyper-Calvinists."  I suppose functional hyper-Calvinists are better than dysfunctional hyper-Calvinists (whom we should really refer to Dee for counseling), but as I read this quote I wondeed whay you functional or dysfunctional types thought?

Fundamental to the nature of the gospel is the proclamation of the gospel.

We need to be in the world to tell the world about Jesus. We hear much from our Reformed brothers about holiness... but I warn you: holiness is separation from sin and not separation from sinners.

We need to be known for being passionate evangelists.

Let me encourage you as friends here:

Don't make heroes of pastors who are great preachers and theologians, but whose churches are not evangelistic. They are talking about the gospel without living it out.

What we celebrate we become. And if we celebrate those with strong theology but week witness, that is exactly what we will become.

Churches with strong theology but little mission are like a bodybuilder with huge theological arms, but tiny, spindly missional legs. Don't make that exciting. Don't celebrate that.

I know that claims of "hyper-Calvinism" are a straw man. I know no hyper-Calvinist in my denomination. If I did, their church should discipline them and the denomination should dis-fellowship them. But, I know that Bill Ascol cautions his church here to not be "functional hyper-Calvinists."

Watching out for functional hyper-Calvinism is a good caution for all of us.

I know many who are "functionally hypercalvinist," Reformed and not-Reformed.

But, here is the important thing: Hyper-Calvinist or functional hypercalvinist, the result is the same: God is not honored and given the glory he is due.

One more reason why it is good to live near your church: Evangelism.  For example, I'm much more likely to convince an unbeliever to come to church with me when it is close.  Contrast, "Hey, would you like to come to church with me...it's only 40 minutes away?"  with "Hey, my church is two blocks down the street.  Would you like to come?"

Mike Gilbart Smith has a helpful review and introduction to the  "Introducting God" evangelism material, produced by an Australian group called Christians in the Media.

Jim Hamilton recommends the new Dever book on evangelism.

I love the local church. In many ways, the Lord used her as the main instrument of my conversion 9 ½ years ago, when I was 22 years old. Many people had personally witnessed to me beforehand, and no doubt each of these personal witnessing experiences was important in my conversion. But I think the Lord used the local church, and its corporate witness of love, purity, and unity, to convert me. I had known many individual Christians my whole life, and had extensive conversations with them about the faith. But God converted me only after I experienced those conversations and relationships within the corporate context of a local, biblically healthy church. And this leads to my main question:

“What is the role of the local church (i.e., corporate witness) in our personal evangelism (i.e., individual, personal witness)?” As I read books on evangelism, survey the landscape, and observe the “success stories” of people coming to faith, it all seems to center on “Personal Evangelism.” Is the focus on Personal Evangelism faithful to the Bible’s teaching on this topic? I fear that the importance and role of the local church is so much assumed in our evangelism today that it’s largely forgotten, or at best, not relevant to a non-Christian until he “makes a decision for Jesus.”

In light of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:16, Peter’s words in 1 Peter 2:12, the message of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians – indeed the whole New Testament – perhaps Christians, pastors, and local churches should consider personal evangelism within the context of our corporate evangelism, so that we testify and witness to the whole gospel. I’d love to hear any thoughts you all have on the relationship between personal and corporate witness, as well as some practical ways that the local church can develop a biblical understanding of corporate evangelism.

A reader of the Pastors' and Theologians' Forum in the new issue of 9News eJournal just wrote in, asking about one of our author's use of the name "Allah" in place of "God" in sharing the gospel with Muslims. Here is what another one of our very well-informed and linguistically-capable friends in central Asia has to say about this matter:

As for the use of Allah for God – I have no problem with it where it is the natural word for God in a given language.  I don’t tend to use it in English, but there are languages in the Islamic world where it is the only word available, and in such languages, it is altogether appropriate.  Arabic, Indonesian and Tatar are such languages.  Allah is actually from the same Semitic root as Elohim, and is pronounced almost identically to the Aramaic word Jesus would have used for His Father.  It is also the word that Jewish and Christian Arabs used for God long before Islam came on the scene, and they still use it to this day.  In Turkish and Persian I tend to use a more neutral word for God, since such a word is available in each of those languages, but when I am using Arabic phrases that have passed into Turkish and Persian, I use Allah as well.

We thought this might help our readers.