Missiology: Conversion (Martin Hill)
Discussion Point #2
Martin draws attention to the Engel Scale and the Saddleback concentric circle model
(Click on picture for a clearer view!)
What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each model? In what situations are they helpful or unhelpful?
posted by ETLnetwork at 1:45 AM
10 Comments:
Engel Scale: Very structured and not totally individual or realistic. It assumes Christian culture/environment. How do people move on when they have head knowledge and are positive about the Gospel but not prepared to respond or act from the heart?
Saddleback: ‘Unchurched’ labelling can offend some folk, someone I recently made an Adherent found this label upsetting and offensive when used by the previous officer. It does denote a hierarchical approach but also endeavours to emphasise the importance of community links.
Penny PT
Martin Hill makes reference in his lecture to the many different approaches to offer reaching the un-churched people; it did leave me wondering if he was alluding to fads of the day and whether we should perhaps be a little more discerning as to what we might use.
As far as the Engle Scale and the Saddleback Concentric Circle are concerned there probably are both strengths and weaknesses in both. Again Martin Hill makes reference about conversion not being about structure but about looking to The Lord and getting people moving towards Him.
The Engle Scale although does offer a process towards God I feel it is somewhat clinical in its approach. I am unsure that a relationship does constitute a clinical structure and conversion is about meeting with the living Christ which can be neither structured nor clinical. Could such a list (used privately) be helpful to the officer to determine where a person might be in the process of conversion, perhaps yes? But it could only be by his/her interpretation; I could not imagine asking someone to plot themselves on this chart! This also seems to assume that all people have some kind of Christian spiritual awareness, and today that is most definitely untrue.
On the other hand the Saddleback approach seems to be a more general understanding of the immediate community. In this it is recognising where the people are in the process of faith and conversion. It is not too far removed from the old ‘PAL’ graphs used. The point that Penny makes about labelling is perfectly valid, but who would see such a picture, would this not be for the ‘core’ of the church.
Saddleback Model
Strengths;
It is a working model, which has been successfully reproduced. It allows people to move at their own spiritual pace. Thinking back to Chick Yuille’s comment in Unit 1 about churches today being solid at the core and fuzzy at the edges perhaps this model exemplifies just that.
Weaknesses;
I think it is for a middle class type community. Although it involves the community it seems to focus on attracting and drawing people to church.
Engel Scale
Strengths;
I think it serves as a guide to let us try and see where people are at in terms of their thinking and understanding particularly where people may have insufficient understanding of Christian concepts. I think this model sees evangelism in terms of a process not an event, is this perhaps more relevant for today’s culture?
Weakness;
Possibly this model could be seen in terms of a neat ordered process, which is not the case in real life.
I think the Engel scale could be a useful tool to give insight when considering a person’s spiritual journey in terms of where they might be. However, I think it could be unhelpful if the expectation is that people will neatly advance along the scale. I think the Saddleback Model would only be helpful in specific church situations.
Martin Hill made the important point that with models one size does not fit all, different situations have different needs. I also believe that all models no matter how good/effective have their limitations. Yvonne
Carol makes an interesting point that such models are designed for those at the 'core' which is very true. It got me thinking what people on the fringes of church might think if they got to see such models?
Conversion Discussion 2
The Engel scale is helpful as it recognises the fact that people are all different and are at different places in their spiritual life. However, I do not like ready made ways of stereotyping the nation . People are more complicated than that. People may vary at different times in their life. My own Father is a good example . My Father has always believed in God , but is not a professing Christian.Since the death of my Mum Dad has been asking more questions and has attended Church on a couple of occasions . When my mum was very ill he prayed in the Hospital Chapel . We go up and down this scale as we progress through life. This scale does not take account of the fact that many people would be completely off the scale as many have not had any background in religion at all .
The second Model from the purpose driven Church is not at all for my liking . The only positive thing I can say it is a structured way for making disciples.
However, having reading Rick Warrens book I feel that one size does not fit all . I believe that God has not given us the right to market Grace by aiming for one type of person who we will manipulate into active belief. Warren allows no one to be on the fringes of Church. Everyone has to be on a structured journey towards local leadership . I like Gordon's analogy about non-designer people . Where do the people who do not readily fit into Church fit into this model . Jesus was surrounded by people many of whom were non-designer . God loves us all . By Grace we can work on those on the fringes of Church . However, some people will never reach the centre of the circle . However, that is not our responsibility it is ultimately Gods business .We cannot make designer grace.
Chris Hall
I guess with any model there is a danger of be too formulaic - I kind of like the sense of journey involved with eth engel tho
Unfortunately this website no longer allows us into the 'Saddleback' model picture, but I comment on the Engel scale:
As has already been pointed out - the Engel scale is very structured and I agree that we cannot stereo type a whole nation that this model will fit all. People are individuals who will follow their own unique pattern. I suppose that this model can be useful in the sense that as Yvonne points out, it can serve as a guide to help us consider where people may be in terms of their Christian thinking and we can see where they might be going with that thinking.
But all in all I agree with Carol who makes the comment that a relationship with Jesus cannot be structured or clinical. A conversion happens because of what is in the heart.
I think the Engel Scale helps us realise that in the process of spiritual growth (or conversion) there are several 'stages' or distinctive moments. The weakness is that (like others mentioned before) the process does not work that structured. And the Engel scale places conversion as a 'one moment' in the whole process: it's a clear division between 'before' and 'after'. If I am right, Christian Schwarz therefore states that the process before conversion requires evangelising and after spiritual growth. I do not completely agree with that, because I think it is not completely separable.
The Saddleback model is helpful if a persons wishes to 'position' people in church in relation to their faith or involvement in church. This is only helpful if your purpose is to see how you can help people MOVING towards God. It's right that probably only leadership will have a look at this model. The danger of this model is that people become objects. Another danger is that the focus becomes 'making people a minister' rather than 'a disciple of Jesus'.
Link to Saddleback circle
Might be helpful! ;)
When we started to work for the Army ten years ago as evangelism consultants we used Engel's model and the theories of Willow Creek and Schwarz in our workshops and training. I have to say that it makes me feel a bit ashamed.
Gordon asks us the question what people would think when they would know that they were measured using models like these. I really believe that my friends would never want to look at me again.
Models are helpful when you are in the business of strategising and planning and not when you are in the business of building relationships. These models make divisions. They split up God's people between those who know that they are God's people and those that don't. The problem is that these models are made by one of these groups.
When I started dating Mariska I didn't have a strategy to lure her into marriage. I was just astounded by the fact that she wanted to be close to me and overwhelmed by the fact that she wanted to marry me. I did work towards that, by showing my love, sending cards and by proposing in a special way, but I never thought about it in a strategic way. That wouldn't be authentic and because I really love her I would never have thought about it!
When we really love the people around us like God loves them, we don't make models, we make relationships.
God is a strategist. He has a plan for our lives. I don't know what that plan is, but I do know that it involves building relationships.
I apologize for the strong comments. Models are not wrong, but we use it in a wrong way. Even the word 'mission' could be misleading when we use it in a strategic way.
Post a Comment
<< Home