Adam, would it be safe to assume that those "fantastic atheists..., etc" who attended had already built significant relationships with whomever invited them? That would make good sense. Or, did they simply come in response to a sign posted somewhere? The former has a significantly missional flavor while the latter would indicate that the "attractional" is not completely dead.

Yesterday, I was in a coffee shop with my MK son who (after 12 years in Christian school and 4 years in a Christian university) is now a self-professed, card-carrying, evangelistic atheist whom I deeply love (and am loved in return). I was wearing an "In and Out" (great West Coast hamburger place). Unbidden, the man behind me used that as the launch point for his question to me: "Did you know that the owners/founders of In and Out are Christians? They have John 3:16 printed on the bottom of their soda cups." Getting no response from us, he said good-bye with a "God bless you." My son's response was "I don't mind getting into conversations with people like that. Once I announce myself as an atheist, they usually end the discussion." I was less charitable, hoping (in the flesh) that the unknown man would ratchet up the conversation so I could make a thoroughly uncharitable response. He didn't. My problem was simply that he had no idea of my son's (or my) story. He had no idea of how deeply wounded by Christians my son has been. Perhaps people still genuinely come to Christ when the person in line behind them at the bank shares the four spiritual laws. If so, praise God. But, how much better to actually know the person, then trust God to do his work through our real friendships.

I remember a story we heard soon after arriving in Kenya. Perhaps it’s apocryphal, but it still bears more than a bit of truth. When Scottish missionaries first went to Africa, they demanded an end to “demonically -inspired” tribal dances. Then, they offered, in their place, to teach them how to do a Highland jig. In other words, our cultural practices (by our definition) are good; yours (by definition) are bad.

A few years ago, while we were living in England, an Indian pastor spoke at the very informal church we were attending. He commented how difficult it was to speak when not wearing his English-Anglicanism-inspired robes. His point was that the church in India was more English than the English who brought the gospel to his country. Bottom line? The unnecessarily high price paid by nations who hear the gospel from outsiders who leave behind not only the gospel, but their own cultural/denominational practices and doctrines as well. It’s called Imperialism, and we bear it’s ugly fruit in many places and in many ways.

One of the saddest motivations for "missionary work" I've ever heard came from a certain denominational "worker" in Kenya. When asked why he was there, his response was that God had called him to plant churches in Kenya because there were no congregations from his very narrow, very particular sub-category denomination. The result? Now there are a string of small churches across Kenya who must follow and adhere to the dictates of a small group somewhere in Florida.

Thanks for your powerful words.
http://wp.me/p10bCO-4m

Having been asked by a church to give my view of the Creation stories in Genesis 1-2, I mentioned the following:

•“By him [Christ] all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

•We weren’t there when God created all things (by, through and for Christ).

•An individual’s view concerning the “how” and “when” of creation will not save them (or damn them). We are saved by grace, through faith…. It’s time to stop making a person’s view on creation a (or the) litmus test for the authenticity of regeneration. The issue we want to place before people, the name we want to place on the lips of every person, is Jesus, the Creator God.

Thus, I appreciate your statements here.

Question: are you suggesting that there is a "non-created," pure hermeneutic? And that only those who use this "non-created," pure hermeneutic recognize the authority of Scripture?