Busting The Myth Of “Pre-evangelism”
By Randy Siever
“Being nice to people doesn’t get them saved. You need to present them with the bad news about their sin, tell them about Jesus and the cross, and bring them to a point of decision.That’s what Jesus called us to do, and anything short of that is just a cop out.”
I knew my fellow evangelist meant well, and I understood perfectly what she was saying in her critique of my Doable Evangelism presentation. I would have argued the same points myself just a few years ago.
“Pre-evangelism” is an insider term, used mostly by evangelists like me in recent decades to describe any effort to find an “opening” for the verbal presentation of the Gospel. This would include the building of relationships with people you don’t know, praying for the lost, various random, but strategic, acts of kindness, etc. These don’t qualify as evangelism. They just set you up for it.
Real evangelism requires the pitch, much like my evangelist friend described above. Some sow, some water, some reap. It’s all good…but everyone knows that it’s the reapers who are doing the real evangelism. Those who sow and water are just helping them get the job done.
This modern evangelism paradigm is supported by a few lines from the verbal Apostle Paul: “…how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?” (Rom. 10:14b). And, “Faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ.” (Rom. 10:17). We have concluded from this that evangelism is primarily about telling, and without speaking the Gospel there is no conversion…right?
Maybe not. Follow me down a stretch of the “Romans Road” that I didn’t pay much attention to in the past.
Romans 10, verse 18: “But I ask, have the people of Israel actually heard the message? Yes they have: ‘The message has gone throughout the earth, and the words to all the world.’”
This Gospel we are so convinced we need to propositionally package and persuasively proclaim to every nation (which is how most of us have been taught to read and interpret Matt. 28:18-20) HAS ALREADY BEEN PROCLAIMED… EVERYWHERE. It is also worth noting that creation itself has been “proclaiming” to all mankind from the very beginning (see Rom. 1:16-20). This implies a compelling non-verbal proclamation.
Verbal proclamation is clearly one way the Good News gets spread about. It’s just not the ONLY way. It may not even be the most important way. Proclamation can be non-verbal, expressed in a variety of ways, like beauty, goodness, kindness and service to others. This is great news for the majority of Jesus followers who feel verbally handicapped when it comes to presentations. We all get to participate in proclamation… even those who cannot speak well (or at all).
Evangelism is the whole process by which people who are missing get found. It includes everything and anything that nudges someone in the direction of Jesus. It does include verbal proclamation, but also such small and invisible things as noticing someone, praying for people behind their backs, and listening to them. These things, which are simple and doable ways of paying attention to others, are like a cold cup of water in our culture (Matt. 10:42). They are not just some “pre-evangelism” tactic used to get to the real business of evangelism. They ARE evangelism. And ANYONE can do this.
Maybe that’s why it’s the FEET of the one who brings Good News that are so beautiful…rather than the mouth. (Rom. 10:15)
One more thing. Jesus asked us to “make disciples” rather than to simply “make converts” (Matt. 28:18-20). He wants us to honor and participate in the longer and richer process of disciple-making, rather than just a single moment of it. Conversion is not the ultimate purpose of evangelism, as we have been led to believe. Making disciples is.
Our modern conversion-centric paradigm of evangelism assumed that the “moment in time decision for Christ,” was the primary form of conversion by which people came to faith. Statistics have shown otherwise. A recent survey by Vision New England (2007) indicates that only about 14% of those who came to faith did so in this way. The rest of those interviewed (86%) said it took months and even years to “cross the line of faith.” Earlier surveys done in Scotland and England had nearly identical findings.
This hyper-conversionistic, presentational paradigm of evangelism has shaped our entire evangelistic methodology over the past 150 years or so, and has birthed the categorical (and somewhat patronizing) myth of pre-evangelism. It does not, however, align with the reality of how people typically come to faith, nor the larger Biblical view of proclamation. It’s time to grasp a new paradigm that is more respectful of the scriptures and reflective of reality, don’t you think?
The pre-evangelism myth is BUSTED. Let’s go make disciples!
June 1st, 2008 · 114 Comments
Categories: DE Thoughts · Further Off The Map
Elizabeth Chapin said
am June 1 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Well said, Randy! It’s certainly time for a new paradigm and I am glad you are calling us to the great work of Doable Evangelism. Pre-evangelism is but one myth worth busting, there are so many more we have bought into in America. Thanks for helping us reshape our stories, and to “have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales.” Thanks for helping to train us to be godly. 1 Tim. 4:7
Jim Kane said
am June 1 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Well said… I am 50 and a pastor and I have felt this way for years… no decades! People are people and they need to be treated with respect and dignity and love and since I know that pastors today are viewed with understandable wariness and even hostility, how I treat people the first, fourth, and fiftieth time is so important… I also think that a segment of humanity that we need to better love and respect are older men. I say this because I believe that many of them are deeply wounded and lonely and hide behind a stone wall mask but behind that stone mask are deeply afraid and in need of some caring attention.
Jennifer Teetzen said
am June 1 2008 @ 8:37 pm
I agree. This weekend our church “left the building” with two other denomiations and completed 14 community service projects. My job was to visit each site to photgraph and shoot video and to interview participants and those we were helping. One of the questions I asked several of the “church” people was this, “Do you consider community service like this to be a form of evangelism?” I was hoping for the answers to be YES!!!! But they weren’t. Not one person I asked really seemed to be able to identify how serving is evangelism. We believe it is not just the verbal teaching of the gospel, but more the act of serving and “being Jesus” to those who have not yet found their freedom in Christ that speaks the loudest. I could go on and on… but I’ll save it for my own blog.
Go out, leave your own comfortable box, serve and get dirty loving the unclean. That is the voice of Christ that speaks the loudest.
Florence said
am June 2 2008 @ 12:10 am
Opportunities to say something that people won’t just turn off don’t come up every day, especially in places like where we work. People won’t be able to hear it unless it strikes a chord in them. But every day one can be kind and caring.
I Peter 3 talks about men being won over to the Lord by the behavior of their wives. (For people who only read the King James, “conversation” was a word that meant “behavior” in and around 1611.) It’s not just in the ancient marriage paradigm that behavior counts………
I believe it’s also in First Peter that we are exhorted to be ready to explain the hope that is in it when we are asked. (Not, I gather, when we are not asked, i.e., when saying something would be like beating people over the head and shoulders.) Even Paul picked his places–the School of Tyrannus in Corinth, wasn’t it (where argument was normal and expected)?; synagogues on Saturday, where visitors were invited to speak; the riverside in Philippi where people were accustomed to gather for some kind of worship celebration……
Florence said
am June 2 2008 @ 12:28 am
The hope that is in us! Sorry—–
Charlie Nelson said
am June 2 2008 @ 1:02 am
randy, thanks for your comments. i find myself wrestling with this things in my mind, and i sometimes go back and forth and feel like i want to believe something new, which feels more “whole” than what i’ve believed before, but change is so hard, and when you grew up believing something it’s tough to admit/realize that you may have been a little off. not that we are ever going to be completely right, but this approach to evangelism seems more “whole”, more loving, more Christ-like (i think of the numerous examples where Jesus breaks our traditional mould of evangelism), and more DOable! and at the same time i still absolutely share the verbal message of Christ with people at times.
thanks for what you are doing.
charlie
Cynthia said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:39 am
Hi, I basically think what Randy is saying that anything done to express the love of Christ is evengelical in its purpose. Here in India, the Christian Church – in all its diversity – engages in Good works such as schools, clinics, orphanages, organising people to get government schemes, vocational training, oldage homes, etc. While these services are almost always appreciated, of late the rise of Hindutva fundamentalist extremism has caused convents and schools to be threatened, even vandalised, because the dominants appear to see a threat in this approach. We must be doing something right to get this reaction? or is it the other way round?
Dr. J. Scott said
am June 2 2008 @ 9:31 am
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment of this lovefest, but…the reality is most people have not really heard the authentic Gospel and the vast majority of Christians never or rarely share their faith (Bill Bright estimated less than 3%). Some may argue the percentages, but most Christians are deafeningly silent on the subject. When we do get around to sharing, we generally present a gospel that offers a salvation so lopsidedly focused on grace that people are right to feel insulted because they never hear why they need “saving” in the first place. They do not know that God views sin so seriously that Jesus had to suffer and die in our place or no salvation would be possible. They do not consider their sin that big a deal and certainly not worthy of eternal condemnation. As much as we moderns think we have a better way, Spurgeon was right and effective when he said to give the Law to the proud and grace to the humble. Until you know you are sick you will not seek the Physician. In our desire to make the gospel palatable to modern ears we have removed the very motivation and understanding necessary for it. It still remains a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God! Where is the clarion call for REPENTANCE as well as faith?
Kirk said
am June 2 2008 @ 10:05 am
Randy, I feel like you’re on track for an approach that is relevant to this era. A little book that our church staff has taken to heart is “Sowing, Reaping, and Keeping” by Laurence Singlehurst out of the UK. He breaks down evangelism into Sowing I, Sowing II, and Reaping strategies. The desired outcome of a Sowing I strategy is the missing person feeling that God is good and Christians are okay. Sowing II strategies involve presenting or demonstrating the Gospel message and Reaping involves giving people an opportunity to follow Christ.
We’ve been living this for over a year as individuals and corporately as a staff. It is yielding great results for the kingdom… and it’s all evangelism. In many respects it’s very similar to Ordinary Attempts and Doable Evangelism. The net result is getting more people in the game of being Christ in the world
Bill said
am June 2 2008 @ 10:52 am
“Convert” is a biblical term referring to true Christians. You are attempting to redefine biblical terms. Are you saying a convert is not born again? Aren’t there false disciples? A true convert is a true disciple of Jesus. Jesus has begun a good work in a true convert, and He will carry it through to completion.
We’re commanded to do good deeds. Good deeds are extremely important, but they aren’t evangelism. Every religion commands its followers to do good deeds–they just do it for a different reason. Romans 1:16 says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” I think all Christians need to examine themselves to see if they are ashamed of the gospel, and whether the believe it’s the power of God for salvation. I think anyone who is ashamed of the gospel would gravitate toward Doable Evangelism. It allows people to feel like they’re doing something, without actually risking anything for Jesus.
We are all commanded to preach the gospel. (Search the new testament for “preach the gospel”.) Ask God for boldness, enough love for Him to be obedient to what He commands, and do what He says. No one ever said it’s supposed to be easy.
Bill
April Terry said
am June 2 2008 @ 11:17 am
Bill wrote:
I think Christians are ashamed of the gospel because they aren’t living it. I think if Christians lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ the way it was intended to be lived, we wouldn’t have a problem with people being ashamed of it. The reason people are ashamed of it is because they have learned the wrong Gospel. We have mistakenly thought that it was a list of rules and regulations rather than a way of living.
Doable Evangelism affects the person giving as much if not more as it does the person receiving because it teaches the virtue of servanthood. If we come to understand that the Gospel is a way of life, rather than something we get others to do, we will realize that the way we live is going to make a difference. Our words are valued more when they are reflected by the way we live.
St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel at all times — If necessary, use words.”
Daniel Dow said
am June 2 2008 @ 11:22 am
Hi Randy,
I really enjoyed reading your article about pre/evangelism and seeing it in the larger context of ALL the ways that God’s introduces himself to the world.
In our modern, scientific world, we like a lean, JIT process for everything — our evangelism included. God however is more about the long-term process of discipleship which is as you say, “a deeper and richer” process that requires time, relationship, kindness and being perhaps ore than anything else the hands and feet of God versus the voice.
Thanks!
Ken said
am June 2 2008 @ 11:24 am
I believe we have become a ‘hypothetical culture’. We gather information, we construct the information in a way that makes sense to us, and then we make our judgments and write and talk about them. I think Jesus called His people to be an ‘experiential culture’. We are to be dealing with real people, in real life situations, with real stories. They don’t all fit into cookie-cutter hypothetical matrixes. It’s time for God’s church to get out of the classrooms and get our spiritual hands dirty in the messiness of the lives of those around us. That’s what Doable Evangelism is about. It is in the experiences of listening to people’s stories, following the Spirit into their messiness, that we begin to see and understand the scriptures and witness the power of God. It’s never about our theories and hypothesis. It’s about real lives that have a real need for hope and dignity, and it’s about following the Shepherd and participating with Him to restore hope and dignity. Do that, and people will begin to trust and open up, and ask you for the reason for the hope that is in you.
I have been of both sides of the fence. I did the Evangelism Explosion training and went cold-calling, mall surveying, and the whole nine yards. It was uncomfortable (for me and my targets), and comparably unproductive for all of the effort involved. I am now involved in the DE evangelism paradigm and I am having the time of my life watching God work and then inviting me in to participate. EE may have been a right tool for its time, but I am convinced that DE is an awesome tool for this time.
Bill said
am June 2 2008 @ 12:46 pm
April Terry,
The gospel is the message of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If someone has a different gospel than that, they will be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). The gospel is not a way of living, but a message that millions of Christians have died proclaiming.
If someone claims to be a Christian, but doesn’t live a holy life, they remain a child of the devil (1 John 3:10). Good deeds are very important, as I said before, but they are not evangelism.
Quotes from Catholics are much less impressive to me than Bible verses. We can trust men or we can trust the Bible. Check out this article on St. Francis.
Thanks,
Bill
Dave Woolsey said
am June 2 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Good discussion. Thanks Kirk for sharing what you are actually doing. I’m wondering if Dr. J. Scott and Bill would mind telling us specifically how they have actually journeyed to the “saving” point (Dr. J term) with others in the last year outside the church setting. Not theory, as those of us who seem to spend most of our time outside the church world need some specific action steps that work.
Randy said
am June 2 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Don’t want to butt in too much here (I’m loving the conversation), but wanted to say thanks to you all for commenting. I’m enjoying the “love fest”, as Dr. J described it, but also appreciate the concerned commentary of those who disagree. (Dr. J…do you happen to have a source for the 3% estimate from Bill Bright? Great statistic…I’d love to have that for my presentation).
Please understand that I am not advocating the cessation of preaching the Gospel (verbal proclamation), but am rather trying to help us understand that proclamation comes in non-verbal ways as well (the Biblical examples I gave in this short article are only samples…there are lots of other passages that suggest this as you probably know). The fallacy I’m addressing is about the singular and relatively recent (historically) view that says the Gospel is a set of propositions that can only be communicated verbally, in a sales-pitch fashion. This narrow view is clearly not true nor Biblical (ie, congruent with the whole of scripture rather than with a few proof texts).
I’d also add that if whatever you are doing is working (ie, people are actually coming to faith in Christ because of your effort…and others are actually inspired to join you in your evangelistic efforts), then please…KEEP DOING THAT. God can and does use any and every kind of method and effort, no matter how obnoxious I think it is (He doesn’t seem to mind as much as I do!). But if what you are doing is not working (meaning nobody seems to come to faith in Jesus and you continue to struggle, as I did, to get others in the game with you), then perhaps you should consider doing something different.
And please don’t blame the Gospel for being offensive (which it certainly is to some) before you check to be sure it wasn’t YOU first.
There…that should be enough to keep the dialogue going.
April Terry said
am June 2 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Bill,
The word “gospel” literally means “good news.” In using that term, I am saying that there is more to the good news and that Jesus brought more than His death and resurrection. He brought servanthood, love, healing, faith, and acceptance as well–just to name a few. Have we made our beautiful Jesus into a mere idol of all of the wonderful things that He stands for? He washed the feet of His disciples, brought us the beatitudes, hung out with tax collectors and other sinners, and even spoke to Samaritans. It seems to me that if we are going to follow in Jesus’ footsteps, we need to be doing the same in action and not just in words.
Brian La Croix said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Hi Randy!
You said:
“And please don’t blame the Gospel for being offensive (which it certainly is to some) before you check to be sure it wasn’t YOU first.”
Amen to that. Unfortunately, for many years I was very pushy in my proclamation. My main spiritual gift is evangelism, and I love nothing more than to be the one who explains the gospel one more time to someone and they step across that line of faith (as Bill Hybels would say) in Christ.
I’ve tempered my approach a bit, but I’m always ready to explain the gospel as clearly as I can. Sometimes that means using a diagram (I like the Bridge Illustration most), sometimes it means just talking about stuff, with a lead-in to Christ.
I agree that proclamation is necessary AT SOME POINT. But I also feel that if more Christians actually lived out the gospel, that proclamation would go a whole lot farther!
Brian
Bill said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Dave,
I’m not sure what you mean by saving point.
Randy,
I reject that we determine whether we are doing something correctly by looking at the results. We do what we’re commanded to do in the Bible, and we do it like Jesus did it, and we leave the results up to God.
April,
I’ve said twice already that good deeds are important. No one can claim to be a Christian without good deeds. However one of the good deeds we have been commanded to do is preach the gospel. You may be doing everything else right, but if you’re being disobedient in that area, are you really living a Christian life?
You mentioned that Jesus hung out with tax collectors and sinners. What do you think he talked about with them? We know what He talked about with the Samaritian woman (John 4). He pointed out that she was an adulteress (verse 17), and gave her the gospel.
Thanks,
Bill
Randy said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Bill,
Uh…let me try to say this another way (I’ll get counseling for the rejection). I don’t really like baseball, but most people understand the idea of it well enough to get the analogies.
If the point of baseball is to hit the ball (ie, if nobody hit the ball the game would sort of suck), and you never seem to hit the ball, it would seem like a good idea to try a different approach to hitting.
Also…If you’re committed to hitting like Barry Bonds and you think you’re doing it exactly like him (minus the steriods) but you’re still striking out all the time…maybe you’re not really swinging it like he does. It does no good to insist that you’re doing it right if in fact the main objective is not being attained.
And in our case (evangelism) I think the objective is pretty clear. Everyone who follows Jesus should be doing it (they’re not), and some people (but not everyone) should be coming to faith in Christ as a result of the effort. In addition, Jesus (the Holy Spirit) is enabling and encouraging and equipping his people to do this work, so we have a serious upper-hand in the project. When you factor in the truth that it is God’s desire that nobody perishes, then we have every reason to expect that people will come to follow Jesus if we’re participating with him in this great mission.
If on the other hand nothing is happening, it just makes sense to consider whether or not we’ve correctly understood what we’re being asked to do, and whether we’re actually doing what we’ve been asked to do. The weak link here is US, not God…right?
benjamin ady said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Yeah! Just look at the numerous stories about Jesus following this model with everyone with whom he interacts in the 4 gospels!
Yeah! Now you stop that! Or you might fall into the hands of an angry (whimsically unkind–see Job) God!
Can someone help me out with this phrase that’s been kicked around a bit here: “ashamed of the gospel”?
It sounds like an oxymoron. If it’s good news, then … what’s to be ashamed/embarrased/shameful/guilty/remorseful about? If it’s engendering these emotions, then it doesn’t seem much like good news. I’ve got plenty of such emotions already, and anything that engenders more of them just doesn’t qualify as good news. I mean if it’s engendering those emotions in you, and yet you are trying to claim it’s good news, then I’m not buying.
T
I’m a little confused here. Is “the gospel” the *story* (message) *about* that? Or is the gospel the *reality* *of* that? Because if it’s merely the *story* about that, then how can you be sure, for instance, that “the gospel” isn’t the story about the story about that? Does that make sense? I mean to say–does “the gospel” have some sort of objective existence, about from “the message” about it? If it doesn’t, then it seems really easy to get lost in multiple regressions of stories about stories–like in Arabian Nights. But if it *does*, then we can at least hope to move toward getting a better hold on the objective reality in the story we tell ourselves and others.
Please pardon my bouncing back and forth from (hopefully somewhat gentle) sarcasm to sincere questions =)
Yeah! Cause the Bible was written by … (women? Cylons? Some group of people *other* than men? Well, at least most *certainly* not *Catholics*!)
Randy said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Thanks, Brian! Well said, friend. I like the bridge illustration, too. I think there are a lot of tools that are useful in explaining the story of God to others. Use whatever means you have, whatever means you can, to help people see Jesus like he is. If the means do not help that happen, try something else. God is gracious enough to use whatever we offer him.
benjamin ady said
am June 2 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Randy–by the way–you seriosquiolio rock, dude.
Randy said
am June 2 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Uh…thanks, Benjamin (I think!). Seriousquiolio? (did I spell that right?)
And thank you for commenting/questioning in the way only YOU can do. You raise some really interesting (and sarcastically funny, imo) points. Thanks for pitching in. Seriousgquiloiosoio…
benjamin ady said
am June 2 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Nope. There’s no “u”.
Seer ee ose kee OLE ee oh.
or, if you like seriosqiosquiosquiosquiolio
Seer ee ose kee ose kee ose kee ose kee OLE ee oh.
=p
It just means “totally totally totally totally”
as in “Like a rock, only seriosquiosquiosquiosquiolio dumber“
Dave Woolsey said
am June 2 2008 @ 4:52 pm
And the good discussion goes on! Bill, you wondered what I meant when using the Dr. J term “saving”. I was being too careful perhaps, but just meant seeing a person find the Lord, becoming saved, being born again or whatever term best describes a new life in Christ. The desired result when engaging in doable evangelism.
Helen said
am June 2 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Bill wrote:
You mean, you say “follow me” or “sell all your stuff and give the proceeds to the poor” or “I’m having dinner at your house today”?
Jim said
am June 2 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Where exactly did Jesus “point” out her adulteresness.
All I see him doing is asking her to go get her husband and then “gently” reminding her that she was living with someone to whom she wasnt married.
If he had “pointed” this out as you assert I doubt she would have gone to her village and said “please come and meet someone who told me everything I ever did”
Of course if you suspend common sense – one could argue that she was under conviction a.k.s feelign guilty and wanted everyone else to get right with God
Since I dont see that in this story I dont see Jesus “pointing” out her adultery rather he was inviting her to walk away from her adultery and into reality
Bill said
am June 2 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Randy,
We are definitely the weak link, not God. Nevertheless, we are to be obedient to the example we’ve been given in Scripture. The LORD told Ezekiel to make a model of Jerusalem and stare at it (Ezekiel 4). Then lay on his left side and then his right side for over a year. To me, that seems foolish, but Ezekiel was obedient.
If I were to say that I don’t have the gift of prayer, or I don’t have the time or discipline to pray or whatever, how far will that excuse fly? Doesn’t there come a point where we have to die to ourselves and be obedient no matter what the cost?
Dave,
If someone isn’t humble, I explain that they’re dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1), children of the devil (1 John 3:10), and enemies with God (Col. 1:21). This can be done very reasonably and inoffensively, because God has given us the tools.
If they are humbled, I explain the gospel, and I tell them to repent and trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15). At this point I might invite them to come to my church, or offer to buy them lunch, or offer them a Bible or whatever.
Helen,
I tell them to repent and trust Jesus. My commands for people to provide my dinner don’t carry as much weight as the Creator of the universe.
Don’t you think that when Jesus said sell everything and give it to the poor, He was telling the rich young ruler to repent of his idolatry of money and follow Jesus? Jesus was able to put His finger on people’s specific issue, whereas I cannot, but I can tell people to die to themselves and follow Jesus.
———————————–
I think my point is that we are commanded to preach the gospel. I don’t know how anyone can understand the gospel, or their need for it unless we actually open our mouths and explain it. (If someone can explain an alternative, I’m all ears.) Until we actually believe that the gospel is the message that saves, and until we love God and people more than ourselves, we’ll be comfortable telling the Almighty Creator that we’re not man enough to actually do what He says, and that our good deeds will have to suffice.
Thanks for the conversation.
Bill
Jim said
am June 2 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Sure but why not apply this same rule to Nicodemus when Jesus said – You must be born again- I mean he never repeated that phrase (which we endlessly repeat) anywhere else in the scripture – he did however say “follow me” over 33 times – we just havent been taught to “stare” at those passges – perhaps because it might actually cost us something- wheras being born again gets me something – heaven
How is someone supposed to know exactly which words of Jesus to take personally and which ones to ignore and apply to others
Elizabeth Chapin said
am June 2 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Wow, amazing discussion here. One of my biggest issues with certain evangelism efforts that I have been exposed to is the idea that everyone can/should/will be converted in the same manner. I hear in some of these posts the idea that there is a set of things that exactly need to be said in order for some verbal expression to be considered “the gospel” and unless we use that set of words/ideas we are not proclaiming the gospel. Other posts have pointed out the variety of ways Jesus revealed Himself to people in the gospels and called them to a life of discipleship. In my reading of the NT, Jesus commands us to go make disciples – not go tell people they have sinned, need to repent, and be born again. Just as Jesus treated each person/group/culture he encountered in a unique fashion, I prefer to uniquely expose others to the Kingdom of God and the person of Christ as revealed through me and the community of faith around me by the power of the indwelling Spirit. BTW, Benjamin, I love your unique sense of sarcasm – totally!
Jim said
am June 2 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Succint – Authentic and Doable advice
Helen said
am June 2 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Bill wrote: Don’t you think that when Jesus said sell everything and give it to the poor, He was telling the rich young ruler to repent of his idolatry of money and follow Jesus?
Bill I think it’s disrespectful to Jesus to presume he didn’t mean what he said – which is what you’re saying here. I also wonder where you get the authority to decide Jesus didn’t mean what he said.
I expect other men told you to interpret the passage that way – which means you’re trusting men, not the Bible, in spite of what you said earlier. Because the Bible doesn’t say “Jesus really meant this”; so it’s entirely speculative to go that route.
And as Jim said, once you start down that path, why would you think Jesus ever meant what he said? How can you tell when Jesus meant what he said and when he didn’t?
Jim said
am June 3 2008 @ 12:34 am
This is the stick – the threat
The other one preachers have used ad nausem is
“if you deny Christ before man he will deny you before his Father”
Having heard those words and preached them myself
And Having watched the Christian Church spend billions of dollars trying to threaten people to do evangelism
All I have is one question
Why hasn’t it worked
Why didn’t it scare the hell out of all of us lazy – not bold – lukewarm Christians and motivate us to go out and scare the hell out of our friends so they would do the same thing we are doing.
I mean the jury is seriously in on this one and the score looks something like this
About 90& of all Christians don’t participate in the spiritual practice formerly known as evangelism and about 75 % of non Christians are basically ignored – meaning none of us are close enough to actually ask them a simple quesiton like “How are you?”
I will leave it up to Off The Maps resident evangelism guru Randy to spell more of this out but if your approach of scaring people to evangelize worked we would know by now.
O and one more thing – If Jesus wants us to live a life of urgency and anxiousness – why did he spend the first 30 years of his own life here on planet earth doing essentially nothing?
Mike O said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:11 am
Let be me the next to join the love-fest! Randy, I loved your article!!
I read this post and the beginnings of the dialogue about 7 hrs ago before I went to work. So I’ve had 7 hrs to think about this without saying anything.
Here’s my take on it. There are a lot of people for whom the direct approach will work. I’ve never studied this, but IMO, people who were probably raised with some sort of spiritual compass and who are in a position to acknowledge that they need Christ – maybe they need a confrontational “boost” to help them turn around and repent.
But there’s a whole lot of people out there who think we’re ridiculous. And they think that our concept of Jesus is ridiculous. They are absolutely *not interested* in what we profess, and they absolutely do not believe what we know to be true. What do we do with them? While I’ll never say the direct verbal approach is wrong – it’s right for some – if that’s the only approach that you’ll use, what do you do with the people who won’t listen?
It almost feels like the attitude is, “This is our message. Take it or leave it.” And if people don’t take it, since we’re not looking at results but rather “obedience,” we can comfortably say, “not my problem. They’re the ones who rejected Christ, so to Hell with them.”
The more I thought about this tonight, the more I began to think that that’s right – they’re *not* the problem of the direct-approach evangelist. Those who aren’t interested in Christ are *my* problem and the problem of every other DE-type evangelist. Go ahead and leave those ones to us. That’s the mission field I’m (we’re?) called to. But at least recognize the value of what we’re doing.
I’ve developed good relationships with atheists. If you use a direct approach with atheists, they’ll reject you *before* they ever get a chance to reject Christ. When people are set in their ways and not looking for alternatives – like atheists … and you?? – they absolutely will not respond to the hard-sell. You aren’t either. In fact (I’ll direct this to Bill, but only so I can put a name on the group he represents), atheists are just as fundamentalist in their views as you are. Look at how you’re reacting to DE. We’re “preaching a message” that you don’t agree with. If we are ever to “win you over,” will it be that we “spoke the truth” (assuming it is the truth, just as you do when you present the gospel), or will it be because you got to know us and trust us enough to consider what we’re saying?
The way you’re reacting in your gut right now is how non-Christians react to the direct approach when they aren’t looking for an alternative (just like you aren’t).
The direct approach has it’s place – it’s for those who are ready to hear it. And for the rest of the world who still needs Jesus but doesn’t know/want it, there’s Doable Evangelism.
I don’t want to see anyone go to hell. I just can’t bring myself to say, “They rejected Christ, so screw ‘em.” Maybe I’ll never personally lead someone to Christ. That’s fine with me – you can do that. I’m happy to be your setup man.
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:24 am
Wow…I feel like a bad host. I sort of threw a party and then ditched you! Sorry…been occupied away from my computer.
Bill, I don’t know you, and you don’t (apparently) know me. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you keep banging the same drum over and over expecting different results as if by banging it louder and more aggressively people will hear and respond. It isn’t working. It hasn’t worked for over 50 years. Threats and intimidation and guilt are not motivating our workforce to engage in any meaningful ways with the people who need to hear some good news. This is intolerable to me, and it should be to you, too.
You said,
I think I made it pretty clear in the original post that God himself proclaimed without words (ie Rom. 1:18-20) in such a compelling and clear way that ALL men will be held accountable for knowing GOD. No excuses. Paul quotes the Psalms saying the message has already gone out to the whole world…the very WORDS (but not necessarily SPOKEN).
I think that would fall into the category you are all ears to hear about. It doesn’t seem like you really heard that part, Bill. And it doesn’t sound like my earlier attempt at explaining got to those open ears, either.
I hope you can hear it now, and that you will at least entertain the IDEA that the Gospel can be proclaimed in other ways (besides verbally). The fact is that God doesn’t really even need us to get this done. He’s just letting us play. We should retain a degree of humility about the whole project and look for ways to cooperate with what He is doing…and try not to mess it up too much.
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:51 am
Bill–Wow. I am so not inviting you to anything at my place =) When you say I’m enemies with God–don’t you really mean enemies with *your* God?
You never addressed my query about how you tell the difference between *the message* (the gospel) and *the objective reality* (the gospel). I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
Jim–What–you’re asking me? After all this time, when you should be eating meat, … milk … blah blah etc.? I mean you’re the (ex) pastor. =)
Jennifer said
am June 3 2008 @ 2:17 am
Hmmm… first, the whole Col 1:21 verse… I interpret that verse differently I guess. I would say that when we live apart from God (unsaved) God is our enemy. I believe God is a loving God and loves us unconditionally, even when we don’t love Him.
Find where God is at work and join Him there. If you are joining God rather than expecting Him to join you, what is being done is already going to be blessed.
Drive by bible-ing doesn’t work. But a relationship does. Far too many Christians are too concerned with their own reputations and comfort to venture outside their little boxes and find the places God is at work. It’s dirty, it’s messy, it’s costly (in many ways), it’s time consuming and it’s heart breaking. But I sure love it! Pastoring in an impoverished community where hope is nearly extinct is the most rewarding work I’ve ever done. I choose to walk in the “gray”.
Can we change the conversation a tad? I would really love to hear some stories about how you’re doing doable evangelism, either on your own or as a part of a church, and how you measure your effectiveness. I gave an example of something we just did earlier in the discussion.
Pam Hogeweide said
am June 3 2008 @ 3:25 am
Great insight, Randy, and GREAT writing. Dude, seriously, you can write!
Jennifer asked,
Can we change the conversation a tad? I would really love to hear some stories about how you’re doing doable evangelism, either on your own or as a part of a church, and how you measure your effectiveness.
Yes! Great idea. I’ll see if I can get the dialog going another direction. Ok, check this out:
In my city there are some very harsh street preachers who are very good at “preaching the gospel.” Lots of words, LOUD words about hell and repentance, and God’s wrath…the homeless of our city are very familiar with the street preachers. They’ve been scolded and preached at many times since they are an ever present audience in the center of our city.
So when people like Ken Loyd decide to LIVE the good news out to our city’s marginalized, he has to preach with his “feet and hands,” not his mouth. The homeless community here has been listening to sermons for years to either get something to eat or because it’s forced on them on the streets.
Yet Ken preaches without words. He and his ragtag team of “street preachers” get their gospel preach on by handing out clean socks and warm food, but mostly by handing out generous amounts of time and respect. To listen to someone who is powerless and invisible, to pay attention to them and their world, is to imitate Christ.
Last Sunday I hung out with HOME PDX under the Hawthorne Bridge here in Portland, Oregon. Ken’s small team was there by noon like they are every week. Guys were already milling around waiting for the food line to open up. My job? To hand out socks. And schmooze. I am the master at schmoozing.
For me, schmoozing is to connect to another person, whether briefly or deeply. I joked and spoke briefly to many people as I handed out “white gold.” But then there came the deeper conversations, the guys who sat off by themselves. There was Crow, a man older than me who has decided to go back to California to see his grown children. We talked at length about many things in his life. At one point he leaned in and asked, “You’re a Christian, aren’t ya?” I roared with laughter and said, “Busted! How did you know? Am I giving off a Christian vibe?” He just smiled and on we talked. AFterwards, we shook hands, repeated one another’s names to each other. A connection had been made. I told Crow I’d be praying for his safe travels and seeing his kids. “Yeah, well I’ll be praying, too,” he said.
I did not quote any verses to him. All I gave him was a pair of socks, a bottle of water, and about a half hour of focused conversation. I had no purpose to convert him or lead him into any prayer or whatever. My only goal was to let him lead the conversation and to Listen and Respond. I did not look for ways to manipulate the conversation or to sneak in a gospel presentation. This would have been disingenuous of me.
Time is my love language, and I think it’s a lot of people’s love language. Giving Crow a bit of time was what he needed. Not everyone under the bridge that day wanted conversation. Lots of guys grunted and turned away once they had their socks and food. But some of them, like Crow, need to talk to “normals,” as we are perceived, those of us who live indoors.
This is my favorite way of living outloud the faith that I carry within: ordinary interaction without a hidden agenda.
(ok, I clearly need to blog soon. I keep showing up on other people’s blogs and just verbosing away. But it is so much more fun to jump into other people’s discussions!!! And this one is a GOOD ONE!)
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 4:09 am
Jennifer,
In the spirit of your request =)
We have this absolutely beautiful and delightful family of Burmese refugees staying with us right now. They’ve been here 11 days, having arrived in the U.S. 11 days ago, and they are leaving us to move into their very own apartment tomorrow or the next day. They are mom and dad and 4, 7, and 8 year kids.
We are totally going to miss them. We’ve laughed, and and eaten, and drinken (we intro’d them to a brilliant Aussie beer called Coopers Dark Ale), and laughed more, and taught each other phrases in our respective languages (well, they speak more languages than us–but only a *tiny* bit of the one common one we have, which is English), and gone on walks–shown them our beaver pond down the road, and … the list goes on. I’m so yotta stoked to have gotten to have them hang out with us for the last couple weeks. It’s going to be way too quiet around here when they’re gone.
Does hanging out with them count as DE? Or maybe I’m not even qualified to do DE, since I’m not a Christian? Hmmmmm.
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 8:10 am
Benjamin, your family taking in that family probably doesn’t count as DE because DE consists of practising ordinary attempts and taking in another family goes beyond ordinary to extraordinary. So I’m afraid you may be right about that not qualifying.
As for whether your beliefs disqualify you, no they don’t, because the purpose of DE is to encourage more Jesus-following. If you act in a Jesus-like way towards someone else which encourages them to do that in turn to others, then that’s DE as much as if someone who recites creeds with conviction did the same thing.
[Some] Christians have created a category called ‘humans who behave well but have wrong beliefs (and therefore are going to hell’.
I don’t think the Jesus of Matthew Mark and Luke’s gospels had such a category. When he talks of hell it’s always the destination of people whose behavior sucks. Why? (The answers I’ve been given by Christians amount to: because he didn’t mean what he said – reminding me of Bill’s comments about Jesus and the rich young ruler)
Anyway Benjamin maybe some of what I said is wrong but I’m glad you took in that family and helped make the world a better place.
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 8:37 am
Pam thanks for sharing how you helped people last Sunday.
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 10:38 am
Jennifer,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Sorry about the delay in getting to your request. Things got a little, uh, enthusiastic here for a bit!
You can find LOTS of these kind of stories on the menu bar above titled, “OA Stories”. This is where I post stories sent to me from around the world by people who are practicing Ordinary Attempts, both individually and as a church.
What most evangelists want to know, however, is how OA’s ever get someone into heaven (or “saved”). This is the “bottom line” measure for success for them. This standard is, once you really think about it, pretty arrogant (and I say that respectfully, because it’s the one I used for over 30 years). How does anyone really know when someone is “saved”? I mean, you can be relatively sure about your own relationship with God (some would say you can’t, but I think you can), and certainly God knows this about any person, but for any fallible human being to determine with certainty any other human being’s eternal fate is simply arrogant, and possibly blasphemous.
To say someone is “saved” because they check a box on a card or raise their hand or come forward for prayer in an emotional plea at the end of a service…well, that may or may not be truly what happened there. We all know many stories about people who did that (some of them MANY TIMES) who never really followed Jesus in any discernible way (again, even this evaluation is a tad audacious).
Measuring the effectiveness of evangelism has always been a sticky wicket, to borrow a British phrase. I have been a professional Christian and evangelist for over 30 years, and I have been measured nearly exclusively by the conversion rate…even though everyone admits that GOD is the one who saves people. There just wasn’t any other way to measure success in that model. (And I was very “successful”, btw…). Ordinary Christians, about 90% of the family, don’t have this conversion moment with anyone else, so they feel largely guilty, ashamed and disobedient to God somehow. We evangelists who have been ‘successful’ in this regard only made them feel worse by implying that they didn’t have enough faith, skill, boldness, or whatever. (Bill suggested above that perhaps they aren’t “man enough”…which as Jim pointed out is a version of this tactic to motivate the family to participation).
Ordinary Attempts don’t require a conversion to be successful. We count conversations instead, because that is the way people consider a change of paradigm, a change of life. Serving people puts us in the place where a conversation can happen, and we believe EVERY conversation is spiritual, regardless of the content (there’s another article, I suppose).
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 11:32 am
And yes, Benjamin…any attempt counts. I don’t know you as well as some, but I have been at your home and felt the warmth of hospitality there. I dare say I felt Jesus there. And I suspect your wonderful guests did, too. Way to go.
And Pam…thanks for the kind kudos. As you know, it means a lot to have your writing complimented by a real writer. I am not a real writer. I have no discipline for it. This piece is largely the result of Helen Mildenhall whipping me to give it form and shape and brevity. She is a good tutor and editor, and I have her to thank for this piece.
Dr. J. Scott said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Sorry for the delay in responding, Randy. The less than three percent figure from Bill Bright came from the Four Spiritual Laws training. I checked the website and it now reads the 5 – 10% of Christians who share their faith are dissatisfied or ineffective in their efforts. The point I was attempting to make is not that we should not live out the Christian life before people by demonstrating the compassion, care and love of Christ, but rather that our actions also require an accurate verbal witness as well. I can give a hot meal to a hungry man, but if I do not share the gospel with him as well, he will still die in his sin and face the righteous wrath of God in the judgment (Christ’s word, not mine).
I would like to encourage your readers to (1) go to livingwaters.com and listen to Ray Comfort’s message, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret;” (2) view and study “The Way of The Master” material; (3) read and study William Fay’s, “Share Jesus Without Fear;” (4) join the Pocket Testimony League [They will also train you in evangelism and give you copies of John's Gospel to give away; (5) acquire and give away quality gospel tracts [those that explain what sin is, call for repentance from sin and a committed faith in Jesus Christ] cf. Livingwaters.com, etc.; (6) go to Rick Warren’s site and purchase copies of “The Invitation” CD to give away; (7) go to The Jesus Fim site and purchase DVD copies of “Jesus, Fact or Fiction” and give those away; (8) go to pro-gospel.org and acquire excellent resources for helping your Roman Catholic friends come to Christ; (9)go to RZIM.org and use the excellent resources there; (10) verbally share the gospel.
Remember, God can use anything BUT your silence!
As to how do I go about this? I use all of the above resources and more. I learned to ask questions and listen – (it’s called a dialogue, not just a monologue). Yes, I do pass out tracts to people on the streets; when I am in a store and always at a check-out line: at a restaurant or fast food lane or a bank; I engage people in conversation (you can learn how to transition a conversation into a spiritual one without being in your face or obnoxious; I do open air preaching (yes, it can be done without disrespect); I try always to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in me and I keep ever before me the spiritual condition and eternal destination of everyone I see; I do minister to people in need and practice servant evangelism as well. I go on and support others on mission trips both at home and abroad. I have helped plant churches, build churches, schools and medical facilities. Over all that, I bathe my day and my world in prayer.
These are just a few suggestions, but I urge all Christians to become more verbal!
Jennifer said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Randy, thank you for your comment regarding measuring effectiveness. Not every “conversion” fits into a box, that’s for sure! I asked the question because, as brand new church planters, we are required to report things such as this. So we count our baptisms and how many people “checked the box” as you put it. But I sure wish we could tell them about the rest of the ones that don’t fit in those boxes. I know the things we are doing, the ways we are living out the love of Christ, are changing people from the inside. They are asking how to change behaviors, they want accountability, they are excited to invite friends, relatives, and even strangers to church with them because we’re “different”. (They are definately not ashamed.) I want to count those people! Christ is surely doing a good work in them and will finish it in HIS time, not mine. Let me tell you, it is sooooo exciting to be a church known not for a denomination, but for a desire to accept the “unacceptable” and help the hopeless.
At the very beginning of the comments I wrote about our “serve” day. I’d like to share a story that happened from that event. We chose a home that was in disrepair and needed a lot of love. All last week there were several of us who showed up and worked on that couples home putting in 10 hour days or more. On the sixth day, we finished. (cool, huh?) Anyway… the owner, Charlie, is not a Christian and wanted to be sure that we were not expecting him to convert or to attend our church just because we did this for him. We assured him that we had no other agenda than to help him get his house fixed. One day he stood at the bottom of the ladder and looked up at his house and said to us “Get ready, you’re going to be famous!” We told him we weren’t doing this to be famous. He said “No, you all are DO-ERS. You DO. Most other churches I’ve ever known are just talkers. They talk about doing, but never actually DO.” (BTW, in our small W Idaho/E Oregon community, this is already happening after only being “open” for 4 months). By being different, by having no hidden agendas, by simply loving someone, we spoke the message of Christ to him louder than any sermon could.
But wait, that’s not all…
During this week long project, there was a 16 year old young lady, a high school drop out trying to stay “clean”, who decided to serve to earn her required community service hours. She came expecting the work to be work, nothing more. By the end, her comment was that she now understands what service is and why and that she LOVED it. She was ready to start scraping and painting the house next door. Again, it wasn’t words that preached to her. It was actions.
Tami said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:25 pm
OK, so where is being present and living with our eyes open start? Isn’t it the Holy Spirit who draws people to himself in the first place? I guess in my mind this is freedom. It’s not about doing things right, it’s not about me/us… just using what God has put in our pockets, and then living, doing our regular ordinary stuff. Sometimes I notice someone and just pray behind their backs, sometimes, when I have struck up a conversation and they mention a struggle or something, then I ask if I can pray for them right then and there…out loud. Don’t we just want to live in a connected way with Jesus and do whatever we’re prompted to do? This is the only real fruit I see in my own life.
Jennifer said
am June 3 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Let me add that although we did not specifically and verbally preach the gospel to Charlie, we had several discussions amongst ourselves that were overheard by Charlie, his wife and their neighbors. We knew they were listening, so our discussions included our own personal testimonies (we’re so new, we still don’t all know each other yet.) and some discussion on theology and scripture.
I do not disagree that the gospel must be shared verbally. And I share my faith and the good news with many people. I simply believe that it is best heard when the listener initiates the questions. Kind of like a telemarketer calling me versus me calling a company on my own. I may want siding for my house, but I need to choose who I talk to and when I do it. imho.
Elizabeth Chapin said
am June 3 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Hmmm, Dr. J Scott said,
I was trained by Campus Crusade YEARS ago and have even developed a “tract” (though we prefer to call it a women’s devotional) for our women’s ministry and while these efforts have certainly helped some people to choose to follow Jesus, the people that I know personally who were once not following Jesus but are now following Jesus with me all made that decision differently – and one of them even made the decision without much in the way of verbal messaging from me.
I’m glad all those resources Dr. J Scott listed are working for some people, but I hope we can learn to love and respect one another and the unique callings God has placed on each of our lives in how we choose to invite others to follow Him. Certainly it is sad that many followers of Jesus neglect to invite others to follow with them, but my hope is that through exposure to Ordinary Attempts and Doable Evangelism that more followers of Jesus will find it natural and simply an outflow of their follower-ship to bring others along.
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Randy wrote:
Thanks Randy!
Pam, it’s all Randy’s ideas and writing, but as he mentions I did make suggestions about how to arrange it and what to include.
Tami wrote:
Right – I think that’s what we’re saying too, isn’t it? DE emphasizes the importance of listening to cues from the other person. Those should line up with inner promptings from the Holy Spirit since the fruit of the Spirit includes self-control, kindness and gentleness.
Ken said
am June 3 2008 @ 4:45 pm
I believe the very term ‘evangelism’ carries so much baggage that wherever it becomes a topic, it seems to generate controversy – whether it’s believer/non-believer or even believer/believer. I am serving as Director of Evangelism and Outreach in our fellowship, and just that title served to build a wall that I had to attempt to knock down (deconstruct) before I could ever get people to begin to venture into the reality of what it means to ‘share your faith’. We hosted a DE seminar here just over a year ago. The material presented served as a good sledge hammer to begin to significantly weaken that wall. During the conference Jim Henderson interviewed a couple of un-churched young ladies – one a confirmed atheist, and the other a gay who was asked to leave her church when it was discovered that she was gay. The one hundred or so ‘church folk’ in attendance had their eyes opened to the reality of and the hurtfulness of their own cultural religious prejudices. Instead of seeing a ‘God-hater’ and a ‘gay freak’, they were exposed to two pleasant young ladies who were real people with real stories – and part of their story was how the ‘church folk’ had driven them away from Christ rather than nudge them toward Christ. I am convinced that if any one came to them with a scripted evangelism spiel they wouldn’t get two seconds of their time. These are not ‘isolated’ stories. Our communities are full of such stories. People have been sliced and diced by one faction of the church, and then another faction who knows nothing about their story tries to tell them that “God loves you, and you need Jesus in your miserable and broken life to make everything better.” Why should they listen? More often than not the church was involved in the wounding.
DE is evangelism 101. Every believer should be involved in sharing their faith on some level – even if it’s just being nice for the sake of being nice. I like what Reggie McNeal said at a conference I recently attended; “It is arrogance to believe that we initiate the work of God into their (non-believers) lives. God was already at work when we entered, and He continues to work when we exit. Sometimes God just wants us to pick them up at ‘here’ and move them to ‘there’.” I believe that with all my heart. Everyone involved in the movement of that person’s journey toward Christ is involved in evangelism. They are all evangelists in their own right. I applaud them, even if they didn’t share the four spiritual laws.
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Ya’ll are making me weepy…
What beautiful stories and examples of the new paradigm for evangelism! Thank you so much for sharing them. This kind of beauty is so compelling and convincing to those who do not yet know Jesus. It breaks down walls and heals the wounds that many times our own family has inflicted. People like my friend Cindy come to faith in Jesus simply because they finally see how they can follow him without being so hurtful and disrespectful to others who don’t.
This is just so very cool. Please…keep telling your stories here (and in your own communities). God is doing something wonderful. Behold…
Brian said
am June 3 2008 @ 5:17 pm
What an amazing conversation, I commend and respect you all. It’s nice to see so many people concerned about bringing the life in Jesus to others. I am particularly interested in the whole “conversion” topic and would just throw out a cool resource I came across at Fuller Seminary a few years ago that I found very helpful. It’s called, “Conversion in the NT” by Richard V. Peace. He suggests that conversion is perhaps both “event” and “process.” He basically affirms both Paul’s “in space and time conversion,” and the experience of the twelve disciples, (specifically as seen through the lens of Mark’s gospel) as a “conversion of process.” It’s a great read and very sound.
I think what Peace and perhaps what many of us long for is that people somehow come to a sense of faith in Jesus, a recognition that He was really, really who he said he was and that He is really, really able to “save” us. Not “save us” in a religious “cheezy” way but in a way that make us “whole” persons. I think we all can ascribe to the reality that we are all broken people in need of something beyond ourselves and beyond this world to bring us a sense of “wholeness”, the sense that things are right, even if we don’t have it all together, a knowledge that God loves us through our pain, and sin, and in our turning to him (repentance) we are embraced and somehow miraculously changed. The transformed life is way cooler than a “checked box” on a “connection card.” And Randy is right that takes some discipleship, which is wait…what Jesus did with the twelve? Hmmm….
I think evangelism is an under-appreciated and mis-used word for tapping into the life-sharing love and power that Jesus modeled: feeding people, healing people, calling out “religious” leaders, casting out demons, sharing stories, and all that He did. The disciples had to learn by process and many of us learn this way as well. Ultimately people will go for it or not. Not everyone accepted Jesus then, not all will now but at the very least we need to do something. IF you really think about it, Jesus evangelized in so many ways it almost seems humanly impossible to do them all. How could we narrow it down to a tract or a three minute presentation?
I’m humbled by the responsibility to share Jesus with people. I am so thankful for Off the Map and the spirit of Christ that it brings.
You are all seriousquiolio coo!
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Richard Peace is a Fuller Theological Seminary studmuffin. I got to hear him at a workshop he did in Menlo Park at the Conversational Evangelism Conference. Thanks for the reference…I’m going to go get it and read it.
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Randy
I had to look up studmuffin. thanks =)
I used to let people pray for me when they asked me if they could, like that, even though it made me uncomfortable–I felt it was somehow rude to say no. Now I’m a bit more assertive, and I just tell them “No, thanks!”
I still don’t get the whole “must be (at least partially) verbal” thing. Doesn’t it rest on the underlying assumption that “the gospel” is (at least partially) propositional?
But … “good news” that’s propositional just *isn’t*, in my book, the best sort of good news. It doesn’t … reach me in the way that good-news-which-is -narrative reaches me.
I guess what I mean is … If by “‘The Gospel’ must be (at least partially) verbal”, you mean at some point you have to verbally share some propositions, then … you’re never going to … *reach* me with good news. Been there done that bought the t-shirt, and it doesn’t work for me. If, on the other hand, by “‘The Gospel’ must be (at least partially) verbal” you mean at some point you have to verbally tell me a *story*–then by all means, bring it on.
As long as the story is tipped toward *personal* narrative rather than *metanarrative*. Cause metanarrative is really just an attempt to do the proposition thing while seeming not to.
I mean to say don’t bore me to tears with propositional narrative. I want … personal details. Which color shoes were you wearing that day, and why? And how did that orange stain on your pants happen to get there, and how is that related to the fact that your friend Jill was baptized 6 times? etc.
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Brian–thanks for the commendation and respect. Backatya =)
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Benjamin I think it’s interesting that when John the Baptist’s disciples went to ask if Jesus was really ‘the One’ on John’s behalf, Jesus didn’t reply with propositions but said “Go tell John [stories of] what you saw and heard happening here”. The answer was stories about what was happening to people.
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Benjamin,
I just had dinner with my friend, Richard Twiss, last night. He is native American and he told me he prefers to call evangelists “storytellers” and the Gospel is “The Story”. I like that very much. It seems to communicate what we’re trying to say here pretty well.
Of course every story contains propositions. Good stories have a point or in some cases even a “moral” (as contrasted with lousy stories which seem to be pointless and boring). Stories are also best enjoyed when told by gifted story tellers (surely you’ve endured a good story told by a poor storyteller?). The problem with evangelism is that EVERYONE who is following Jesus is supposed to be telling the story, so this particular story simply cannot be something that only skilled storytellers can tell. It must have some other dimension to it that transcends our own particular skill level or personality. And bottom-line, it becomes our OWN story that we share with others, as we are invited to explain the hope that lies within.
Personal stories of how Jesus has impacted our lives are very powerful, but they are more so when they are connected to and reflective of the meta-narrative of the Biblical story, I think (if the Biblical story is indeed a meta-narrative). We cannot refute a personal experience, but it becomes more convincing and persuasive when it is reflective of a greater reality.
I hope I got close to what you were so eloquently commenting on. I probably should have just let your own words simmer.
Nice observation re: John the Baptist, H.
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Thanks R.
I remember Richard Twiss from OTM Live last year – I expect Benjamin does too since he’s rather memorable
. Neat that you got to have dinner with him. I didn’t know he lived near you.
Jim said
am June 3 2008 @ 7:55 pm
I would be fascinated to hear exactly how you get them to DO this. What are your tricks? I imagine that with all the resources and passion you bring you must be very very successful at getting Christians to be verbal.
Tell us a few stories
Helen said
am June 3 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Dr. J Scott wrote:
How do you know you’re not being obnoxious? This is a serious question because many people who find a person’s behavior obnoxious wouldn’t come right out and tell them “You’re being obnoxious”. Instead they politely tolerate that person and hope they leave as soon as possible.
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Helen,
Richard happened to be in my town yesterday (Reno/Sparks) for a huge Native American conference. He was kind enough to let me know and to offer to spend some time with me. I, of course, took him to the finest brewery in town for some pub food and micro brews…and a three hour conversation. What a gift that was to me! Such an amazing guy, and a wonderful story teller.
Bill said
am June 3 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Randy,
I disagree that you’ve refuted the clear meaning of Romans 10:14 in your post. First of all, you’ve offered no alternative meaning for that verse, so unless you want everyone to tear that verse out of their Bible, it has to have some meaning. When you’ve satisfactorily explained that verse away, there are a dozen others you’ll have to begin work on.
Second, Romans 10:13 and Psalm 19:4 refer to declaring the glory of the Lord. This means that all men are without excuse, and this is why Psalm 14:1 calls atheists fools for denying the obvious. The heavens declare the glory of God, and all men are without excuse on Judgment Day (Romans 1:20). This doesn’t mean that everyone instinctually understands the gospel. It means that God’s holiness is clear, and we will all be accountable to God for our sins, regardless of whether we’ve heard the gospel.
Also, Jesus said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14). Clearly the end hasn’t come. Furthermore, many of the people I talk to don’t know the gospel at all (and this is America where everyone is supposed to have heard it 100 times).
So I really would say I have to disagree strongly with your post, and while I will continue to think about it, your thoughts on the matter are less than persuasive. I would urge you to study Romans 10 more carefully.
What brings us to salvation?
- Godly sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:10).
- God’s kindness (Romans 2:4).
- The law (Galatians 3:24).
- The gospel (Romans 1:16).
- The message of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18)
- The LORD (2 Samuel 22:3).
- The Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15).
- The grace of God (Titus 2:11).
Are the good deeds of Christians anywhere on the list? I have no doubt that these Scriptures will be twisted by others here who have twisted the Scriptures I’ve already given. I would like to remind everyone that we are accountable to God for how we treat His word.
Benjamin Ady,
You said:
Your statement worries me very much. We were all enemies of God before we were born again (assuming we have been born again). If you don’t understand how we are born sinners, the gospel won’t make sense. The fact that we were enemies with God, makes God’s grace all the more amazing.
We should all examine ourselves to make sure we’re in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). If you and I don’t have the same God, one of us is going to hell for eternity. This isn’t a laughing matter.
Jim,
Just as a quick note, you mentioned that the only time that Jesus mentions the term born again is in John 3. That may be the only time Jesus actually speaks the words, but the idea of new life is throughout the New Testament. Take a look at, John 1:12-13, 1 Peter 1:3-4, 23, and several times in 1 John 2-5. The only reason I know is because I’ve been discussing it with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Thanks to everyone for the conversation. I would urge everyone to continue in their good deeds but take the next step for Jesus Christ by overcoming your fear and preaching the gospel. I share your fear, but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
Thanks,
Bill
Randy said
am June 3 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Dr. J,
Sorry for the oversight in responding to you, too…I somehow missed your entry in all the activity! Thanks for the resource on the statistic…I’ll go check that out.
Sounds like you are practicing just about every kind of evangelism there is, including what we’re calling Doable Evangelism. I’m guessing you also have the spiritual gift of evangelism, like me. If so, I’ll assume that you have had a degree of “success” in helping people come to faith in Christ. Am I discerning correctly here?
The problem is, most people are not like us. About 90% actually shiver in terror when Bill Hybels suggests they just walk across the room. They want to with all their hearts. They respect and admire the fact that guys like you and I (and Bill and Rick Warren) do this with great ease and passion. They will even pay us to keep doing it. They just can’t participate in the ways we have told them they must. And I don’t think those ways are necessarily the ways of Jesus, either, as if there is only one way to evangelize. You will likely disagree with me on this point.
So I will hope you have been successful at what you do, and if that has been the case I would encourage you to keep doing it. But please consider the reality that most ordinary Christians simply cannot do what you and Ray Comfort (and others on your list) are suggesting. They have seen those sites and materials. They have read the books and gone to all the seminars and have really, really tried to do this stuff. They have not been captivated by these tactics. They will not be guilted or shamed into compliance, but they still want to participate if we will let them. I’m just suggesting that we let them play at the level they can and then celebrate that so they’ll be encouraged to keep playing. Where that goes is up to God, but if I can get them off the bench and into the game even a little, well…that’s more than we evangelists have managed to do for the past 75 years or so.
So again, if your methods seem to be working for you, go for it with all your heart. They don’t work for most of the Christians in churches today, however, and no amount of passionate pleading seems to make any long-term difference in that sad statistic. This should at least make you take pause to consider whether a new paradigm for evangelism is worth a look. I mean, what if we could get even half of the non-participating Christians to engage with people who are all around them in respectful, kind and DOABLE (for them) ways? What do you think God could do with that?
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 11:13 pm
I used to think that, and my personal experience was that it really sucked–I mean it was emotionally very difficult–to believe that. So I can kind of understand about it worrying you very much.
The probability that we both “have” the same God is zero, if types of God is continuous. If it’s discrete, that’s another matter. But I digress into statistic-speak.
I mean how *boring* would it be if we had the same God? One of us would be superfluous.
I’m stoked that there are as many Christian Gods as their are Christians. It makes the universe so much more interesting. What’s your personal name for God?
I mean to say … for instance, Allender’s personal name for God is “The God of the fifth cast”. And Paul’s personal name for God, was, perhaps, “The God of the Damascus Road.” Do you have one?
Oh–Megans says about the “if we don’t have the same God then one of us is going to hell” thing: “Well, not if my God is a bit nicer than yours.”
I’ve quoted you at the top of my blog. You’re famous.
Helen–I am so with you on the obnoxious thing.
benjamin ady said
am June 3 2008 @ 11:30 pm
should read “there”, not “their”.
Helen said
am June 4 2008 @ 9:00 am
Bill wrote:
Bill, how can you tell that you’re being inoffensive? As I commented to Dr J Scott, many people who find a person’s behavior offensive wouldn’t come right out and tell them. Instead they politely tolerate that person and hope they leave as soon as possible.
I actually find it hard to believe that most people aren’t offended by being told they are children of the devil and enemies with God.
ken said
am June 4 2008 @ 10:22 am
Bill and Dr. J
First let me say I am grateful for your apparent enthusiasm for the gospel and your willingness to contribute in this conversation. Having never really sat down and had a table discussion with you, I cannot fully know the personality from which you write – no facial expressions, no body language, no voice inflections, etc. I can only know you kind of ‘one-dimensionally’ through what you write. I could possibly know you ‘two-dimensionally’ if you were to share some personal stories rather than just postulate your views on scriptures. I think that might be what the DE folks are getting at here.
Jesus was a story teller. He both told stories and acted out stories that delivered deep spiritual truths. He was an Eastern Rabbi – they taught (and still do, by the way) through illustration and the student was to develop the concept. Western spiritual teachers are almost the opposite. They begin with the concept and then attempt to use illustrations to strengthen the teaching. Jesus rarely taught concepts. When He wanted His students to learn an important lesson, He would use an illustration. On the night He was betrayed, hours before He went to the cross, He wanted to teach His disciples perhaps one of the most important lessons they could learn – just one more time. The illustration He used was performed in the upper room when the Messiah, the Son of God, Heir to the Throne, girded himself with a towel, knelt, and washed their feet. “Do you understand what I have just done for you?” he asked. They understood far better than we do. “Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” (John 13:17). My point? A man’s ‘dying words’ are often the most important words He has to offer – a legacy of sorts. Jesus didn’t share the concept of the gospel here. He illustrated the gospel. Paul fortifies this illustration in Philippians 2 where he writes: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant.” The gospel is most effective when served with the proper attitude – the attitude of a servant. I think we can also deduce that it is most effective when illustrated by our lives. Let the illustration become an entry point, and then trust the Holy Spirit to begin to develop the concept. That’s what is going on in the DE stories above and the OAs in the connected link on this page. I can tell you from experience, it is very effective.
Jim said
am June 4 2008 @ 11:59 am
Bill
This kind of Christian speak is what makes me certain Jesus could never be a Christian.
Your warning reminds me of how the Clintons treat politics- they make it up as they go – which is what you seem to be doing with all of your proof texting.
You make it sound like a we but you really mean you guys
Masterful
God help us
DareM said
am June 4 2008 @ 5:14 pm
68 comments and that one finally brought me out of the lurking status! I love it! And now I have a new blog to read.
Dr J–I appreciate your passion to encourage all people to speak “the gospel”. In light of your list of suggestion, might I make some suggestions for you and other readers to make known and experience the Kingdom of God. Take some time away from handing out tracks and (1) go serve in a secular food bank, (2) volunteer at an AIDS hospice, (3) take some sandwiches downtown andgo eat on the curb with those who are hungry (4) concentrate on hearing and listening when people talk to you, (5) look for the image of God in all people, (6) bless others with no strings attached (7) love without an agenda, (8) volunteer at an orphanage, (9) mentor students at an underprivileged school, and (10) take some refugees into your home out of love. After doing that honestly and prayerfully, I will guarantee that not only will you will have won the right to speak lovingly into peoples lives, but you will have been changed. You won’t have to hand out a tract describing the 4 spiritual laws because people will have seen them in action. Your new friends might even ask you why you do what you do. Which, unless I am mistaken is exactly how Jesus responded to others (except the hypocritical religious establishment).
Bill– Since you indicated you only respond to the Bible rather then those unruly Catholics might I remind you of what Paul (who’s a Jew by the way) says in his letter to the church in Corinth
Your personal agenda and thinly veiled attempts to discredit and antagonize others only proves the point. The “gospel” of Jesus is veiled today, not by “pre-evangelism” or the lack of “speaking the gospel”, but because it is drowned out by the seemly obnoxious and self-righteous attitudes of “Christians” who seem to have forgotten that the true gospel is based on the love and grace of God.
And I’m spent.
Randy said
am June 4 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Darrin,
I was wondering if your were out there lurking…glad you came in finally. Lurking is illegal in some states, you know.
Great insights, refreshing in their simplicity and Jesus-likeness. Thank you for calling us to something higher…love.
benjamin ady said
am June 4 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Darrin
Thank you =). I’ll pass your kind words on to Megan =) She kind of cracked me up when she said that.
Helen said
am June 4 2008 @ 5:59 pm
I really liked Megan’s comment too, Benjamin
Jim said
am June 5 2008 @ 12:33 am
Now remain these three- faith, hope and love
but the greatest of these is truth
benjamin ady said
am June 5 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Randy:
Not at all. =). I mean … ah … how do I say this? I mean to say, when you insist on casting the universe as inherently propositional, I feel … tweaked. What if *the story* is the point, rather than some proposition(s) or moral(s) contained *within* the story? And beyond that, even the set of propositions one … gleans from a story differs across readers/listeners, because readers/listeners are approaching the story from within their *own* story.
I mean to say … *my* story is not inherently propositional.
*And* it’s not pointless, or boring.
It’s not. Glad we got that sorted out =)
Why does it have to be about “convincing and persuading”? Why can’t it be about “suffocation/inspiration/fear/wonder/
darkness/beauty/vacuuum/joy”? I would not have said “reflective of a greater reality” (which may or may not exist), but rather “reflective of the listener’s own story”.
Down with meta-narrative! (sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Ken said
am June 5 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Benjamin,
Okay … we may be off the topic here a bit, but I am curious; what is missing from the Biblical story that prevents it from being considered a meta-narrative (assuming prophesy can be included in the narrative)?
benjamin ady said
am June 5 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Ken
Here’s to being “off topic”. The narrative has taken a twist … =)
“What is missing from the Biblical story that prevents it from being considered a meta-narrative?”
That’s a … reasonable question. If I were a theologian or a Bible scholar, I’d be somewhat more qualified to answer than I actually am.
My answer is … Nothing prevents the Biblical story from being considered a meta narrative. In fact, lots of people consider it exactly that.
It doesn’t work as meta-narrative for me =). For reasons I’ve delineated above. Meta-narrative … seems to imply meta-propositions, which are all … at best half-truths.
I mean to say … if you have meta-narrative, then you need meta-characters. But if you have meta-characters, then … they are … ultimately unsatisfying in too many ways (for me). Regular characters are just so much *more* satisfying. And since meta-narrative (and propositional/modern framing of life, the universe, and everything) … *seems* to steal a lot of time away from infinitely more interesting local narrative, I’d just prefer to work toward tipping the general proportion of meta-narrative to local narrative in the direction of more local, less meta.
Why do I have this sinking feeling that I’m failing to communicate clearly? Oh well. Doing my best here =)
Randy said
am June 5 2008 @ 9:57 pm
You guys are deep.
So, Benjamin…if a story HAS propositions, does that mean it is, as you describe it, INHERENTLY propositional? Doesn’t “your” story contain a few propositions, even though it is not inherently propositional?
I don’t understand what you mean by a story void of propositions, I guess. I also think it’s a fairly sweeping generalization to say that I cast the entire universe as inherently propositional because I understand stories to contain them. But then maybe I don’t understand what you mean by propositions. I am pretty sure I don’t know what a meta-narrative is (which is why I was hedging on the Bible being one…it seems like a fuzzy notion to me).
Yeah, that’s better. What I meant to say was “reflective of the greater story”, which could be the listener’s story…or the story of God. Our own stories seem to long for connection to a story outside ourselves, it seems to me anyway. I believe that is because our own stories are somehow all mingled up with God’s story, which makes our own stories part of a greater reality.
I’m not trying to persuade you here…just thinking outloud. I don’t even know if that makes sense.
ken said
am June 5 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Jeez – this is getting wa-a-a-y over my head. I think you guys have degrees and doctorates in things that us common folk don’t touch on too much. So, I went to Wikipedia to define and translate some of what you have shared (so now you know how lame am at getting this stuff:
“A metanarrative is a story about a story, encompassing and explaining other ‘little stories’ within totalizing schemes.”
Thus, a Biblical believer indeed would consider the Bible a meta-narrative by this definition.
“Postmodernists attempt to replace metanarratives by focusing on specific local contexts as well as the diversity of human experience. They argue for the existence of a “multiplicity of theoretical standpoints” rather than grand, all-encompassing theories.
Thus, Benjamin, I can now see why you disagree. So, I guess if we are to move on from here, we will just have to agree to disagree unless you want to consider buying into Randy’s latest offering “Our own stories seem to long for connection to a story outside ourselves, it seems to me anyway. I believe that is because our own stories are somehow all mingled up with God’s story, which makes our own stories part of a greater reality.” Which I think is brilliant =)
(okay, I function from his world view)
… and, of course, he is not trying to persuade you.
DareM said
am June 5 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Yeah call me an idiot, but can we get a definition of meta-narrative. I find myself agreeing with both sides depending on which way I define it at that moment.
Benjamin says:
I totally agree. Never thought of it this way before however. Quick question though, does that fact that something is a “local” story inhearently mean that it cannot be part of a bigger story?
Randy says:
I think this seems to be what I was thinking with my question above. I fully for the local contextualization of stories/life, but I wonder if just seeing it this way has the potential for me to miss out on the bigger picture being painted. I don’t have answers and I’m not looking to create a debate, but this really is a fascinating discussion and I’m kind of pondering out loud. Looking forward to some responses….
And Ben, I really do appeciate your attempt above (doing your best) and for taking the time to try and communicate with pea-brained people like me.
benjamin ady said
am June 5 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Like a puddle. =p
Fair enough. Sorry to overgeneralize on you.
I think what I meant to say was that propositions only work as such when they are couched in the right context. Hence Nathan’s “Thou art the man” is astoundingly more powerful than a simple contextless “You committed adultery”. The former is, perhaps, propositionally correct. The latter, cast in story rather than proposition, … *works*, for David, and for us, in ways that the former couldn’t.
Yeah–my story … *contains* a few propositions. But they only work as propositions in the context of my story. It *doesn’t* generally work (for me, at least) to attempt to communicate about them devoid of the context–at least not nearly as well as it does *in* the context. I mean, for instance, one could argue that … meat is meat. But it’s not. Not really. ‘Cause meat at Ruth’s Chris steakhouse, with fine wine and the love of your life and candlelight, is not the same as the bloodied corpse of the ‘possum we just drove by. For instance.
So maybe I am overreacting to the proposition driven, proposition based, proposition heavy universe we live in here in the west (although it’s less and less so). Fundamental laws, and principles, and … Stephen Covey, and … Joel Osteen, and … Mark Driscoll, and … 21 this, and 17 that, and 3 laws of thermodynamics, and alpha equals .05, and this is right, and that is wrong, and … and so forth. So I prefer Tony Campolo, and Brian McLaren, and … Barack Obama. People who will tell me a story, and not get bogged down in propositions per se.
I’m thinking of a lady over on Justiceandcompassion.com who keeps insisting “homosexuality is *wrong*, period, cause the Bible says so.” It’s enough to bore one to tears. *Why* does the Bible say so? And *why* is it wrong to you? And what about *this* person’s story, and *this other* person’s story, where their homosexual relationship is a bright shining beacon of all that is good in their life? See–your proposition, devoid of context, attempting to become a meta-proposition, just doesn’t work. It would be far more interesting and moving if she told me how homosexuality has *hurt* her–what does homosexuality mean in the context of *her* story? That’s just one example.
“the greater story” is kewl if it’s *built* out of the little stories. But … to try to step outside the narratives, and make claims about a greater story as if one had some sort of objective viewpoint, is … offputting. And people do that. All the time. I probably even do it. I’ve probably slipped into doing it here.
ditto that.
DareM said
am June 6 2008 @ 12:00 am
Preach it brutha!
joe said
am June 6 2008 @ 5:41 am
OK – first, sorry to come to the discussion late.
A couple of observations. I can’t speak for the USA, but in the UK we are definitely in a post-Christian society. This is easy to establish as most people do not even recognise biblical or church terms, never mind even have a rudimentary understanding of what they mean.
At the same time, people have changed. They’re less likely to stand on a doorstep and argue with a stranger, they’re less likely to go to an event to listen to a famous speaker, they’re busy, they mostly don’t have time to think about abstract ideas, they think religious people are strange.
So it is now impossible to speak widely to people about sin (for example), because few understand the term and of those that do, few really care what Christians think.
Most people think that church is just a quaint building where weirdos go on Sundays, and normal people use only three times in a lifetime (wedding, birth ceremony, funeral).
That isn’t to say that vocal evangelism is unimportant as such, just largely ineffective for most people. Which leaves Christians with a hard choice: either to stop pretending that Christianity is anything more than an intellectual exercise, or to get involved in their communities. The latter is difficult, because it means genuinely loving those around us and seeking sacrificially to serve them rather than just preaching at (or near) them.
ken said
am June 6 2008 @ 9:05 am
Joe,
The UK sibling (USA) is not all that far behind the parent. Christendom has all but been dethroned from her power position here and is experiencing rather intense withdrawl symptoms, all the while she lives in abject denial.
I live in what s considered the ‘Bible belt’ and this statement is descriptive of much of the culture even here. “Hello post-modernism! So, you think you’re here to settle in for awhile?” Oh yeah!
Listen to what this man is saying Chrstendom. This baby is lying on your doorstep, and you’d better learn how to deal with it or your old wine will be spilled and spent, and you will have nothing to offer.
Listen to people like Benjamin, who are very bright and articulate post-modernists. They don’t seem to be real interested in abstract theological positions and correct doctrines. They seem to be much more interestd in relationships, stories and perhaps finding some life-solutions as they process through them.
Randy said
am June 6 2008 @ 10:08 am
Joe,
Thank you SO much for chiming in (and bringing the conversation back to the original discussion)!
As Ken said, we in America must take our cue on this issue of evangelism/post-Christian/post-modern/post-whatever-ism culture shift from our brethren on the other side of the pond. We must listen and learn and study what happened (and didn’t happen) in Europe, and we must learn from and listen to our bright young people (like Benjamin and Darrin and many others above who shared their stories and encouraged us to connect with them by it). We don’t have to agree with everything, but it seems more important than ever to listen and seek to understand.
BTW…David Kinnaman’s book “UnChristian” tells their story (and OUR story, frankly) from a statistical vantage point that most modernists can get. It would be worth the read if you haven’t done so yet, as it reveals the results of a decent survey of 16-29 year olds in America (both Christian and not Christian). Kinnaman is the president of the Barna Group, a 37 year old who is helping us all understand what the heck is going on…without offering any cliche solutions.
Dave Woolsey said
am June 6 2008 @ 11:07 am
Thanks Joe for describing the people I deal with six days a week at my retail business here in Little UK (Oregon). I often see people move toward God through what I “listen” rather than what I say. Who was it that said “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care”?
joe said
am June 6 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Thanks for the welcome
Unfortunately I could waffle about this for England. I’ll try not to for too long.
One of the great tragedies of the Church is pseudo-intellectualism. We’re all very keen to compare and match our ‘right-theology’, to check the level of our commitment – and ultimately to make ourselves feel better.
We then start to believe that in order to change people ‘they’ve got to come here and be like us’ and to change society we have to legislate to prevent people doing things we don’t like. I can’t see that has anything to do with the Jesus of the gospels.
I sometimes wonder if we could ever be convicted of being anything to do with Jesus in a court of law. I doubt it. Even our complicated religious rituals have more to do with Me-worship than anything else.
So on the one hand, we have to ‘believe’ this theology, ‘read’ this book, ‘say’ this thing, etc. On the other hand, we’re not to ‘believe’ this alternative thing, ‘read’ this evil book, ‘say’ this evil thing. And that just translates into living cosy middle-class Christian life, watching cosy middle-class Christian TV, meeting regularly with other cosy middle-class Christians, and eating cosy Christian chocolates whilst we watch the world die from behind the walls we’ve erected to keep ‘the vermin out’.
How can Jesus not look at our lives and weep?
Benjamin – you took the refugees into your house and looked after them. You’re more Christian than most people I know.
benjamin ady said
am June 6 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Ken,
Not at all. But if you add “modern” before “Biblical”–as in “a modern Biblical believer would consider …”, then it sounds right.
BTW–I love the “totalizing schemes”. It’s perfect with it’s “sounds similar” realation to “totalitarian schemes.”
And going to wikipedia just makes you kewler. I rather suspect that there is a strong correlation between use of wikipedia and degree of postmodernism.
Not at all. See Douglas Hofstadter or Arabian Nights.
For me, the opposite danger seems a lot more real. I spent too much of my life missing the local picture cause I was trying to insist it must fit into the bigger picture I was postulating. I *still* do this, too often.
Ken said
am June 6 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Benjamin,
I stand (almost) corrected =)
I do not consider myself a modernist, but I do agree that the basic definition Wikipedia uses for metanarrative fits my understanding of the Bible as a metanarrative. I guess I haven’t graduated to post-modernism though. I pretty much tend to agree with Brian McLaren on the topic – which my basic understanding is that although the age of modernism is a dying epoc, post-modernism is but a transition to a new epoc. Nobody really knows what that’s going to look like yet.
Even so, I cannot jump into the stream of the free-thinkers. I believe they contribute greatly to the much-needed transition, but I don’t sense the much-needed roots in it. It makes you ‘feel something’, but it doesn’t give you anything to hold on to.
The metanarrative does (me at least).
Niles J said
am June 6 2008 @ 6:45 pm
This is my first ever posting of a blog comment. And I must say, after reading all of the other comments, I simply could not resist diving in to the conversation.
It seemed to me that the central debate was over verbal evangelism vs. non-verbal evangelism. Bill seemed to be the staunchest supporter of verbalization, while Helen stood out to me as the “anti-Bill” (though Benjamin Ady was a close second). After considering all the posted comments (especially the pro non-verbal or DE), I have to say both sides seemed to be missing something.
Bill said,
To me, this is a very valid point. Good deeds, by themselves, are not evangelism. If the reason (a better word may be motivation) for the good deed is not known, it’s interpretation is left to chance. Can we truly evangelize through our actions if we never mention the leading of the Holy Spirit or the inspiration of Christ’s examples of love and servanthood as the reasons for our actions?
Ken said,
and also,
Ken is definitely pro DE and used these statements as part of his rationale. First, I would say that there is a difference between “illustration” and demonstration. Jesus illustrated concepts through the parables He told. Even then, He often had to verbally explain their meaning if for no other reason than to make it plain for those who weren’t His students but were listening in. By the way, isn’t it the unsaved we evangelize? And while I agree demonstration definitely makes sharing the gospel more effective, I think it still has to be verbalized somewhere in the demonstration that the gospel is being shared and that Christ is it’s source and finish. Otherwise, we may as well be representing the Boy/Girl Scouts with our good deeds.
I end with this: In book 2 of Campus Crusade for Christ’s The Discipleship Series, lesson 4 opens with an illustration of young man who gets saved and rushes home to tell his roomate of several years. To his surprise, his roomate tells him how they had been hoping the young man would receive Christ explaining, “I have been living a Christian life before you all these years hoping that you would trust Christ as your Savior.” To which the young man replied, “You lived such a perfect life, that I kept trying to do it without Christ, the same as you seemed to be doing. Tonight I invited Him to become my Lord and Savior because I failed to live up to your standard. You should have told me why you live the way you do. Why didn’t you tell me how I could know Christ too?” The illustration (and my comments) is wrapped up with this statement: “We need to withness with our lips or our life can be misinterpreted, and perhaps even keep people from receiving Christ.”
MIke O said
am June 6 2008 @ 6:54 pm
I like what Joe said here
and here
It’s hard to love people you won’t get close to. It’s nearly impossible to embrace people who repulse you. Maybe “repulse” is too strong of a word, but it makes my point. We’ve got to start getting close to people again!
DareM said
am June 6 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Niles says:
This might be a great story, but I’m not sure it has ever happened. While proving a point it’s a ficticious tale which is exacty why the issue of “pre-evagelism” is being debated. Why is it so hard for us to trust in the leading of God’s Spirit? Why do we have to feel like we have to get something across with our words (as if God needs our help)?
Perhaps Christians should focus less on getting others to “cross the line of faith” and more on being a blessing to the world God loves.
On a side note, Niles I’m glad you joined our conversation (and made your inaugural blog comment). Please don’t see my dissatisfaction with the Christian fascination with proclamation as an attack on you. Glad your here.
MIke O said
am June 6 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Also, I want to take back something I posted here a few days ago (I think it got lost in a flurry of comments back on June 3rd).
I ended that post by saying,
I take it back.
That was referring to those who use the direct, verbal confrontational approach to evangelism. I heard something today that made my stomach turn. I’m sure most of us have heard of “gas buy-downs” where a church or whatever will pay a certain amount – 25 cents, 50 cents a gallon, whatever – to bless people. I just heard about a campaign where people are learning to do a 30-second speil so while they’re pumping some poor sucker’s gas (captive audience) they have no choice but to listen.
It makes my stomach hurt to think about it. I said before I was happy to be the setup man, but not if that’s what I’m setting people up for. I would prefer to pay an extra 50 cents to have them not tell me their story.
I don’t feel well.
benjamin ady said
am June 6 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Niles
Hooray–you’re the second lurker the present brilliant conversation has … attracted into commenting =)
But of course! =)
Indeed. I guess the difference here is that … some people are happy for interpretation to be left to chance, while others aren’t. I mean we mean different things by evangelism.
Yesterday, I was riding home from school on the metro bus with my friend Brandon, whom I’ve gotten to know in my maths game theory class this quarter. We were sitting on the bus working together on a maths problem which had come up in class. And about halfway home, I realized I had left my bag with my cap and gown for graduation sitting at the bus stop when I boarded the bus all the way back on campus. Somewhat discombobulated, I said “bye” to Brandon, and got off the bus, crossed the street, and proceeded to stand there waiting for the bus back the other direction, with the intention of going back, getting my bag with cap and gown, and then taking yet another bus all the way home again. About 15 minutes later, I was still standing there waiting when Brandon pulled up in his car. “Hey, Benjamin, get in! I’ll give you a ride back up to campus and back!”
That’s the most amazingly surprisingly nice thing that’s happened to me in a while. I guess he was doing DE/ordinary attempts.
But it would have just been *ruined* if he had gone off into some kind of verbal evangelism. I would have politely listened, and cursed myself for a fool.
So that was a good deed, and it was *totally* gospel, in the sense of ‘good news’. and thus, in the sense of proclaiming gospel to me, it totally worked. I mean gospel the local narrative, not gospel some propositional meta-narrative.
I am thinking Joe has kind of nailed it. I rather suspect there are a lot of people in the U.S. with a story which causes them to … shy away at the propositional meta-narrative gospel some would put forward as “the gospel”. But I wouldn’t shy away from Brandon if he’s telling me his *local* narrative, and the metanarrative comes into it naturally. ‘Cause I’m yotta curious about his local narrative. And yours.
But I’d prefer to imagine that Brandon *likes* me, and that’s why he came to give me a ride. That suspicion that he likes me would have gone somewhat out the window if I got the sense he was doing something he thought of as “pre-evangelism”. If he has some goal for his relationship with me beyond being in relationship with me, and he’s not being up front about that, it’s just offputting. BTW, I rather *don’t* think any of this stuff is true about Brandon. He’s just too kewl for such silliness. Like lots of the people who hang around OTM.
Am I making any sense?
benjamin ady said
am June 6 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Niles
The story and interpretation you shared about the good Christian who never verbally shared “the gospel” is a good example, to me, of … why attempting to build the local narratives from the meta-narrative just doesn’t (usually) work. The local surely has to be *at least* as real, and as … significant, as any meta–I mean, you have to build the other direction. I don’t mean “You *have* to”, but rather “It tends not to work for me, unless you do.”
ken said
am June 7 2008 @ 1:30 am
Niles,
Indeed I am pro DE, but I am not uniquely OA in my approach to evangelism. I consider OA as evangelism 101. Living the gospel every day (e.g. Brandon’s action in Benjamin’s story) by practicing OAs brings an essence of the Kingdom into our areas of influence. The King revealed Himself as the ultimate servant who cared very deeply and genuinely for people because they were people (God likes people). Read the gospels and see how many times you detect Jesus engaging people or entering into relationships with people with an ulterior motive of ‘selling’ them something. Yes, He taught and preached – but even then it was by using stories and illustrations. Then the people came to Him and asked for meaning and/or clarification.
I have recently been serving with a small group of people in a very diverse and marginalized neighborhood where some kids we mentor in a local elementary school live. We thought we would ‘prayer walk’ using the OA method (noticing, praying behind their back, asking “How are you?” and then listening). Whenever we had the opportunity to speak with anyone, we asked questions and listened. When we never presented any kind of agenda of our own, they became ‘open’ to us and they began to ask us questions. After a few weeks, one of the men came out and asked if he could speak privately with me. “I’ve been watching you guys these past few weeks, and I think you’re the real deal. I’ve got some serious issues in my life, and I am wondering if I can share something with you.”
“Sure,” I said. He then unfolded a whole bunch of very personal issues that I can only describe as a mess – and he knew it. At the end he said, “I know a lot of this is of my own making, and I’m not asking you to fix anything for me. But I am looking to get myself right with God somehow because this is way to outta my control.” I asked if I could pray for him. Tears welled up in his eyes and he said he would like that very much. I did. I gave him a hug and told him I would be praying for him all week.
This is just one of several stories that are beginning to emerge in our group from these walks. We’re not there to herd these folks into our (or any) church. God is already at work in this neighborhood, He was there before we got there. He just invited us in to participate with Him in cleaning up some messes and help nudge these people He likes closer to Him. Am I going to get an opportunity to verbally share the gospel with this man? I am thinking so but it’s going to be on his terms and in God’s time. I’m not there to sell him anything – just to listen to his story, and to share my own if and when he asks.
That’s DE. That’s why I’m pro DE. It works.
benjamin ady said
am June 7 2008 @ 1:34 am
Ken
you rock man!
ken said
am June 7 2008 @ 1:39 am
Oh, one last ‘defensive point’ …
By my dictionary, I believe every demontration serves as an illustration, but not every illustraton is a demonstration.
The footwashing in John 13 was a demonstration that served as an illustration. Humble service is to be a hallmark of a disciple of Jesus.
benjamin ady said
am June 7 2008 @ 2:43 am
Poking our way towards 100 comments! =)
Hooray for us!
DareM said
am June 7 2008 @ 2:54 am
Woot!! 100
(Sorry, had to be done)
Mike O said
am June 7 2008 @ 9:00 am
Hi, Niles – welcome!
It’s been interesting to watch this conversation unfold, and now it seems that it’s coming to some sort of ‘balance.’ It’s really cool to watch people from different perpectives (DE vs verbal vs both) consider the perspectives of others, and then *hopefully* learn from them.
For me, I lean WAY more to the DE side, but then I listen to Niles, Ken and others, and realize that at some point people are ready to talk. Am I?
One question, however, to something you said:
Every time?
It’s nice to see the pendulum swinging less between the extremes of whether or not to verbalize, and start to center on the (I think) more pivotal point of *when*.
Randy said
am June 7 2008 @ 11:00 am
I’m sorry I missed the 100 mark in the string…thanks for the mini-celebration, D!
Just a couple of things. I have never argued for silent evangelism, as if actions (good works, faithful obedience, etc.) were the only way to communicate the Good News. God chose to speak things into existence from the very beginning (Genesis), and Jesus is the Word of God. Paul wasn’t some whacko preacher who missed the point. As I said in the original article, verbal proclamation is one way that the Good News gets spread around. It’s just not the ONLY way. It may not even be the most important way.
What I’m suggesting (as others here have said much more eloquently) is that we depart from a model of evangelism that is presentational in strategy and style, as if we were selling Jesus like he was a new drug (or any other product). Mike O’s redirect on this issue is very helpful. It would be of great help to Christians if they could get a sense of when to speak and when to shut up and just listen. WE have leaned heavily (perhaps even exclusively) into TELLING the Gospel (without listening except to find a way to redirect so we can present our case) for the past 150 years. Doable Evangelism is about evangelizing with your EARS…by listening MORE than telling (but not refraining from telling as if that was inherently bad).
What I’m discovering is that the more I listen to someone, the more I get a sense of what God has been up to in their life. I feel like a spiritual archeologist, mining for the good stuff that God has been doing (and which oftentimes they do not see themselves…which is also true of us, btw). Cooperating with God and his timeline and agenda is way more fun and less arrogant and makes us into learners and guides rather than salesmen who won’t let you leave the lot until the deal is closed. There does come a time when our friends want to know our story, and even God’s story…and we should be prepared to share with them the reason for the hope that lies within us (when they ask), with GENTLENESS and RESPECT (I wish more Christians would underline that last line in 1 Peter 3:15!).
Jim Henderson said
am June 7 2008 @ 8:01 pm
I dont think there is a perfect way to capture or control when we talk and when we serve without talking.
It seems to me to more of an art than a science. More beauty and poetry than a seminar.
How to do explain to someone the beauty of sitting with God and having a conversation with another person without saying a word – and then they ask you to tell them what you feel or believe in your heart about life and reality
That’s evangelism (IMHO)
Niles J said
am June 7 2008 @ 9:44 pm
First of all, thank you to all those who welcomed me to this conversation. After reading the responses to my initial post, I fear that I wasn’t exactly clear on my feelings about the topic of DE.
Let me just say that I do believe DE to be a viable method of evangelism. I totally agree that any acts of kindess we perform should be out of love for our fellow man and not merely a “set up” for a gospel presentation. My understanding of DE, from my reading of the article and subsequent comments, is that the deeds are done with the beneficiaries not even aware their benefactors are Christian. This was a sticking point for me. How are the unsaved eventually to open the door for us to share more information about Christ if they don’t even know it is He who we represent? Why would they bother to ask us about Him if it isn’t known at some point we are Christian?
Randy’s most recent comment clarified things for me and got me un-stuck when he said,
In today’s skeptical society, I suppose no good deed goes unquestioned. And, certainly, we must be ready to share when the opportunity arises. Ultimately, no matter whether we find ourselves to be the sowers or the waterers, it is still God that gives the increase.
Helen said
am June 7 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Niles, if someone has a good deed done for them, they appreciate the deed but they also are moved by the thought, wow, someone likes me or cares about me enough to do that for me.
If the doer pushes the point about the Holy Spirit leading it will sound like “I didn’t do it just because I like you or because I care – I did it because I was told to”. That will disappoint the person they did the good deed for and may even make him/her feel manipulated.
The only way those words can be positive (imo) is if there’s enough relationship by that time for the person to believe they are liked/cared for and so they’ll heard it as a both/and, not an either/or.
It’s pretty hard to hide being a Christian from anyone you spend time with. It’s going to come up somehow – what’s on your bookshelf, how you spend Sundays, what else you do outside work. If they like you they’ll be curious about your life.
But also, DE presupposes God wants to be found. Which means he can be trusted to be part of the process, creating opportunities when the time is right.
Mike O said
am June 8 2008 @ 3:46 am
This has been really good. It’s helped/helping me clarify a lot of things in my mind.
Randy said
am June 8 2008 @ 11:32 am
Helen,
You know, for someone who is almost an athiest, you sure are good at explaining this Doable Evangelism idea! Wow…
I’m using that idea from now on. Very simple and powerful.
This is perhaps the most simple and profound observation on this entire string. Beautiful. Thank you, Helen.
benjamin ady said
am June 8 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Helen,
very culturally sensitive of you, by the way, to use the masculine pronoun for God. Way to go =)
Helen said
am June 8 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Thanks Randy!
Benjamin I was going with the Biblical tradition
Jim Henderson said
am June 8 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Niles you said
Yes that is correct. Not to be too cute- we got this idea from Jesus.
Check out the number of times he failed to properly self identify “this miracle was brought to you through yoru friends in heaven” – with the woman at the well , Zaccheus and even the Centurion.
Along those same lines check out all of Matt 25 and then help me understand why a God who was an anxious as getting the credit ( you imply he desires) would spend 30 years doing nothing and then only 3 trying to communicate his message( and not doing such a great job of that – all 12 quit the cause)
Jim Henderson said
am June 8 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Nothing moves me more than 2 ex christians taking care of their christian colleagues sensitivities
Christine W practices that same kind of spirituality as well
Doable Evangelism » The CEC Phoenix Style said
am September 14 2008 @ 5:56 pm
[...] did one called “Busting the Myth of Pre-evangelism”, requested by Jim Henderson after my little article here elicited so many comments. It was very fun and interactive, and was a great lead in to my [...]
Conversational Evangelism—Another Part of Todd’s Life Three Is Enough said
am September 15 2008 @ 5:33 pm
[...] the myth of pre-evangelism. You can read more about this interesting topic on Randy’s blog (http://doableevangelism.com/2008/06/01/busting-the-myth-of-pre-evangelism/). Randy also reported on his experience at CEC Phoenix. Gary Poole inspired many people to start [...]
Missional Evangelism « Emerging Chaos said
am November 14 2008 @ 4:20 pm
[...] for this event – catching up with Dan Kimball, currently listening to Randy Siever talk about the Myth of Pre-Evangelism and looking forward to hearing Todd Hunter talk about 3 is Enough and The Cultural Context for [...]