Let me begin by doing something that Scripture commands and rejoicing with those who rejoice and mourning with those who mourn. On the rejoicing side, a huge congrats to Jon (a regular contributor) and his wife on the birth of their twin boys. You can see some ridiculously cute pics here (I'm talking about the kids, not Jon of course), as well as names and critical info. Deepest blessings to you and Ang, Jon, and my thoughts and prayers are with you. On the mourning side, a close friend and her husband recently lost their unborn twins. There's nothing good to be said about this, it's horrible up and down. Jin and I love you and we're praying for you everyday.
On to the question. This one's been slow to move, which makes me think people are busy. It can't possibly be a crappy, disinteresting questions because I thought it up and, as we all know, everything I do is pure gold ;). But seriously folks, if the question seems lame to you that's cool, just let me know or feel free to push us off in another direction if you like. Here's my attempt at an answer.
First of all, I really can't disagree with anything that Jon or Scott said in the comments on the last post. Jon hits on one of the most important points in any discussion about evangelism, which is the fact that no human person anywhere at anytime has ever converted another person to faith in Christ. Conversion is an act of God and nothing less. It is on this single, most important, truth that I think we must build a theology of evangelism. People are not numbers on a scoreboard or notches in a belt. We are not successful because of how many we've "saved." We don't save anybody, Christ does.
What then is our duty as Christians? It's to be Christian. We are called to live as people who have encountered God and are changed because of it. This means, again as Jon said, being witnesses to Christ. A witness sees or experiences an event and then tells about it. Even more, in the spiritual sense of witness, a witness has been changed at the deepest level and doesn't just tell about what caused that change, but lives about it. This can take almost any form. When people ask me how we should do evangelism I ask them how they told people they were engaged to be married. How do you tell people about this great book you just read? How do you tell people that you just had twins? You tell them by telling them. You tell them in any which-way you can. You email and phone, you blog and write, you stop and chat, you preach and proclaim, you do all sorts of things. Good news is good news, and you tell it by telling it. How's that for a permeating syllogism?
Is it legitimate to make exclusive claims about Christ and faith? You bet it is! Everyone makes exclusive claims. I don't know any religion or philosophy that makes no exclusive claims at all. What would be the point of that philosophy or religion? I have no trouble claiming that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. But when I say that, I try to say it with honest humility. I think that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. It is indeed possible that I'm wrong. This is the path that I've chosen and there are reasons for that choice. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think that I am wrong, so I'm perfectly happy to argue in favour of my choice to follow Christ.
When it comes to in-bounds and out-of-bounds approaches to evangelism, all I say is that manipulation is un-Christian. I don't want to manipulate someone into thinking that he/she is a Christian. In fact, often when I tell someone about the Gospel I spend most of my time talking them out of it. Being a Christian is a big deal. It should not be taken on lightly. Anything that looks or smells at all of manipulation is out of bounds. Apart from that, who cares? Communicate in the form and the forum that you think is helpful and effective and let God do his thing.
One last thing. When we talk about a person being "saved," do we just mean saved from hell, or is there something more at play there? Should we maybe be talking about being "saved for" at least as much as "saved from"?
On to the question. This one's been slow to move, which makes me think people are busy. It can't possibly be a crappy, disinteresting questions because I thought it up and, as we all know, everything I do is pure gold ;). But seriously folks, if the question seems lame to you that's cool, just let me know or feel free to push us off in another direction if you like. Here's my attempt at an answer.
First of all, I really can't disagree with anything that Jon or Scott said in the comments on the last post. Jon hits on one of the most important points in any discussion about evangelism, which is the fact that no human person anywhere at anytime has ever converted another person to faith in Christ. Conversion is an act of God and nothing less. It is on this single, most important, truth that I think we must build a theology of evangelism. People are not numbers on a scoreboard or notches in a belt. We are not successful because of how many we've "saved." We don't save anybody, Christ does.
What then is our duty as Christians? It's to be Christian. We are called to live as people who have encountered God and are changed because of it. This means, again as Jon said, being witnesses to Christ. A witness sees or experiences an event and then tells about it. Even more, in the spiritual sense of witness, a witness has been changed at the deepest level and doesn't just tell about what caused that change, but lives about it. This can take almost any form. When people ask me how we should do evangelism I ask them how they told people they were engaged to be married. How do you tell people about this great book you just read? How do you tell people that you just had twins? You tell them by telling them. You tell them in any which-way you can. You email and phone, you blog and write, you stop and chat, you preach and proclaim, you do all sorts of things. Good news is good news, and you tell it by telling it. How's that for a permeating syllogism?
Is it legitimate to make exclusive claims about Christ and faith? You bet it is! Everyone makes exclusive claims. I don't know any religion or philosophy that makes no exclusive claims at all. What would be the point of that philosophy or religion? I have no trouble claiming that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. But when I say that, I try to say it with honest humility. I think that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. It is indeed possible that I'm wrong. This is the path that I've chosen and there are reasons for that choice. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think that I am wrong, so I'm perfectly happy to argue in favour of my choice to follow Christ.
When it comes to in-bounds and out-of-bounds approaches to evangelism, all I say is that manipulation is un-Christian. I don't want to manipulate someone into thinking that he/she is a Christian. In fact, often when I tell someone about the Gospel I spend most of my time talking them out of it. Being a Christian is a big deal. It should not be taken on lightly. Anything that looks or smells at all of manipulation is out of bounds. Apart from that, who cares? Communicate in the form and the forum that you think is helpful and effective and let God do his thing.
One last thing. When we talk about a person being "saved," do we just mean saved from hell, or is there something more at play there? Should we maybe be talking about being "saved for" at least as much as "saved from"?
16 comments:
Gee Colin...I honestly don't have much to say about what you've written. After each paragraph, I caught myself saying "uh huh." Your description of this all reminds me of one of the reasons I am still an "evangelical": the evangel about Jesus is still really good news that needs to be told in word and deed. This news is so good that our feeble attempts to talk about it, to live it, and to point others to it, for the most part, come out looking rather clumsy. I'm okay with that.
haha, ya I'm starting to wonder if I should just move on to another question as there seems to be a general consensus so far (though of course not everyone has weighed in yet). Come on, somebody say something controversial that we can fight about already! ;)
Hi all,
I'm new...just checking out the blog. I just thought I'd share a Bonhoeffer quote to see what you think. Keep in mind that it needs to be read in context with his other writings, but it's provocative and suggestive for conversation...
"Hasn’t the individualistic question about personal salvation almost completely left us all? Aren’t we really under the impression that there are more important things than that question (perhaps not more important than the matter itself, but more important than the question!)?”… “Does the question about saving one’s soul appear in the Old Testament at all? Aren’t righteousness and the Kingdom of God on earth the focus of everything, and isn’t it true that Rom. 3.24ff. is not an individualistic doctrine of salvation, but the culmination of the view that God alone is righteous? It is not with the beyond that we are concerned, but with this world as created and preserved, subjected to laws, reconciled, and restored. What is above this world is, in the gospel, intended to exist for this world; I mean that, not in the anthropocentric sense of liberal, mystic pietistic, ethical theology, but in the biblical sense of the creation and of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
(Letters and Papers from Prison)
Hey Patrick, glad to have you. I agree with you quite thoroughly. This is, to a great degree, what I mean when I speak of being "saved for" instead of "saved from." Like many conservative evangelicals I was brought up with the idea that the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians was about heaven and hell, and that the reason we want to be Christians is so that we don't burn when we die.
If we are to speak of Christianity as a call to a particular way of living, how does this affect the way that we consider the evangelistic task? Is spiritual transformation still the goal? Is it possible to draw a sharp line between spiritual transformation and a call to live in a particular way on earth?
Colin,
What do you mean when you speak of Christianty as a "call to a particular way of living" and of "spiritual transformation" as the goal?
I suppose by "a particular way of living" I mean something like an ethical system. When I talk about "spiritual transformation" I mean something more along the lines of personal spirituality. I guess thinking about it now the two things are closely related. This is what happens when you get a biblical geek into a theological conversation...he starts throwing around terms willy-nilly without knowing what he means ;).
I see an almost Gnostic heresy in popular evangelical thinking. There is an unspoken (and sometimes not so unspoken) view that the main goal of Christianity is to save souls from hell. While this is certainly an admirable objective, I think it divides the spiritual and the physical needs of the individual. While here on the planet, the body and soul of an individual cannot be divided without catastrophic consequences. Not many would actually admit to this, but I suspect that there might be more than a few people who invite someone to their church potluck “outreach” more out of concern for their spiritual well-being than their physical well-being. (Potlucks…now there is a controversial topic…but I digress). Honestly, I am sick of being whacked with the evangelical stick in church on Sunday. I went to a more liturgical church this Sunday. I loved the substance of what happened there. And I loved that it did not eventually end with some guilt inducing variation of “invite a friend.” I left there not feeling like I had something more to add to my to-do list, but encouraged to know that God is still interested in me and us as a community. It wasn't just about chasing some demographic group. There were not many people at this lovely little church and I thought about how great it would be if the marketing abilities of the evangelicals were paired with the substance of the liturgy and again I was reminded that essentially this is all about balance. We as the church need to somehow figure out how to have the marketing power of McDonalds but with the cuisine of an Iron Chef.
Lola
amen to almost everything that has been said. "saved for": yes! A reconciled life. That Bonhoeffer bit is great, Colin's post is great, and Lola's point is great.
I guess the only things I'll quibble with is that I could do without the marketing, altogether, period, and I'm not sure salvation is about a "particular way of living". That is still fairly individualistic and pietistic sounding. I think the "end" of salvation is the City of God.
I
"Marketing" was not a good word choice. I don’t think that Christianity is a product to be sold with clever sales pitches. I believe that evangelism is a bi-product of faith, not the main objective. Having said that, though, I have had times when I completely rejected evangelism. The problem is that “Go” is part of what Jesus said. My point is that, as a group, evangelicals have a lot of practice in getting the message out.
I do think that salvation is about a “particular way of living” both individually and collectively. However, it is less about doing specific things (though Moses was pretty clear about avoiding murder and adultery, and Jesus was pretty clear about caring for widows, orphans and sick people) and more about character (patience, kindness and self-control come to mind).
Lola
thanks for the clarification lola.
what i object to is the extent to which marketing has become almost a stand in for actual sharing of the faith. the marketing practices are almost canonized and sold as methodology for saving souls. but i'm a GenXer and so I am inherently suspicious of anything that reeks even remotely of marketing or propaganda and so this stuff itches me like poison ivy.
So i wonder if we want to take the question in this direction:
At what point is marketing simply manipulation? When does it inappropriately take the place of what really ought to be going on? When does the rhetoric of the sermon, the approach of the person doing the "witnessing", or the "sending" of the church become manipulative? And how can this be avoided? And what exactly is wrong with it (if anything)?
Incidentally, I was at a preaching conference a year ago and stood up to ask the homiletics expert what he thought of the use of rhetoric, at what point it became manipulative, and what he would say to someone like me who was inherently suspicuous of it? I don't konw if he didn't get the question of if I seemed stand-offish (a very real possibility) but he didn't really have an answer for me. It was almost like he hadn't thought about it. I ended by asking if he'd ever "hold back" on his rhetoric for those who needed help to hear through it to the substance beneath, and he basically said there was never going to hold back at all in sharing the gospel.
Either he didn't get my question or he thinks anything goes as long as the gospel gets preached, and people get moved by it.
In one sense I wouldn't disagree, since Paul was happy enough if the gospel got preached, even by whack-jobs, but in another very deep sense I have a big problem with this preacher's implied way of thinking.
Does the gospel need my help? Does it need me to "work the crowd" and get an emotional response? If this is legitimate end at all, what are the legitimate means?
I think I'm on topic here when I say that evangelizing just for the sake of 'winning souls' is missing the mark. And beyond that...it has hurt people and alienated them from the church. I'm with you Jon, I'm suspicious of the rhetoric and really, is just getting out the word enough? I do think that it's important for the spreading of Christ's message to be done in the context of relationship.
BUT, It's a tough line to walk when we beginning making relationships with the sole objective of evangelism.
I have a real life example. When I was in high school, I was a real youth group girl. My way of evangelism was inviting people to youth. It was a place to belong and I loved it there. But, I guess not everyone appreciated my invites. I sent out a Facebook request to someone a few weeks ago that I thought was a friend from high school and this was her response:
"I turned down your friend request. I was your friend in grade 9 years ago but I think I was more your pet charity for being a social outcast. However, currently I am not accepting charity, nor do I need my immortal soul saved or to find strength in Christ, but thanks anyway."
That response was like a punch in the stomach to me because I honestly don't remember it that way...I really thought I was just being a friend. But, it was not taken that way.
Evangelism is a tricky thing for me...I'm still not settled with my role in it.
I haven't commented or posted in a long time as I've been working on the next post for my blog about the 'molten sea' (which will be posted soon). But at the risk of being redundant, I think that I pretty much agree with everything that has been said here so far.
I am also of the persuasion that 'pushy fundamentalism' doensn't really resonate well with me. I find it uncomfortable to try and 'market' Christianity to try and save the souls of the world. I also am somewhat of a social gospel fellow as well. I feel the need to push the pendulum back into the present (of course not to the neglect of eternity) in order to have a better balance (as Lola is very oft to remind me). I kind of discussed this issue a little bit on my blog in "Hell: a Postule", which is a very entertaining post with a nice twist for an ending while yet retaining a light, but serious feeling. Well that last sentence was just all bogus, but anyways, as you can tell, I really have nothing new to contribute to this conversation except to say hi and I'm still alive, and I'm glad that Lola posted a comment again :)
Hey Trev, way to put a plug in for your blog there. :o) heehee
I just have to say that I agree with Lola's comment about "being beaten with the evangelism stick." That is one of the things that also has been bugging me in my local evangelical church. Truthfully, its one of the reasons we've decided not to attend there anymore. Every Sunday we'd hear about how this group or that group of people are lost, and how they need people to go and share the gospel with them. It really bugs me a lot when I've heard that Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses, or even Muslims (here is a controversial point for you Colin) need to be witnessed to. All of those above people groups use the same Bible that we do (although some of them have a few extras that we don't). They all believe in Jesus (some with a twist)... but why are we wasting our time squabbling with them when there are others out there who need our help in a much more pressing way? There are people in the world who are in all sorts of terrible situations - suffering, starving, children being forced to work for pennies a day, people living on the streets, being held prisoners as prostitutes...its an endless list of nastiness. Why don't we work to help those people!?!?!?
That's my beef with evangelical evangelism.
Hi ya,
Colleen brings up an interesting point when she mentions Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims: what role does cognitive knowledge about Jesus play in our Christian witness. I'd be interested pursuing Colleen's lead on this a bit.
While all of the groups that Colleen mentions above do, in fact, hold some convictions about Jesus, they are also quite different (a "twist," as she says). Official Catholic teaching on Jesus include the biblical and creedal statements about his full divinity and humanity, his work of atonement, resurrection, and return. Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as something like an angel, but certainly not the second person of the Trinity in the flesh. They do not adhere to the Ecumenical Creeds and use the New World Translation of the Bible which goes to great lengths to undercut any hint that Jesus might be divine. Also, for them, Christ's resurrection was "spiritual" rather than corporeal. The Qu'ran acknowledges Jesus as a prophet but he is certainly not considered to be in any sense divine. They view the doctrine of the trinity as a historical corruption of biblical teaching and do not consider Christ to have actually died on the cross (and thus, not to have been resurrected).
My question is, should these differences in belief hold significance for Christian witness? I guess this is part of a larger question about the significance of Christian doctrine for Christian faith.
Thoughts?
I can't imagine knowing a Jehovah's Witness or a Muslim and never once feeling the pressing desire to have a discussion about our incredibly and significantly different beliefs about Jesus. Even with Catholics I would discuss such things, but I'm not sure I'd classify such a thing as evangelicalism so much as a good theological converstaion between members of the same family.
Why would I go out of my way to care for someone's physical needs in the name of Christ and be ambivalent about whether they heard my beliefs concerning who I think Christ is? Jesus Christ the incarnate Son of God? How could that possibly be irrelevant? How could I be a Christian and not see this as a crucial point of discussion? WHile I'm not a fan of "soul-winning" alone, or just making friends with the ulterior motives of making a convert, but I don't really see the point of being a witness to the miracle of God With Us (in the most real and meaningful sense of the word) and not, well, witnessing to it!
I would agree with Jon on this one. I think we have reacted to our own history in which we have seen people ignore any social/physical needs while preaching Jesus to those who do not know him and to whom they do not know. To avoid that, it's too easy to move so far on the other side of the spectrum that we just want to do the practical care stuff but never mention why we do what we do, or anything of what we believe.
I think we should always be caring about those in need around us, and care for the whole person, which means that we need to love people because, well, they are people, and God loves them. As we become more like the God we follow, we should notice that we begin to care for what God cares for. That means we will not be seeing them as just another notch in the belt. And as we get to know them, as in any friendship that is healthy, you will have more opportunity to share what you believe and let them make up their own mind...This isn't exactly rocket science, nor will it always be the same. Let's not go all gnostic or something akin to that and only care for either the "spiritual" or the "physical" but recognize that all of it is important and there isn't any hard and fast line separating the two areas.
Just a thought
Post a Comment