If I am reading it right, followers of Christ are to be involved in evangelism by being equipped (inspired and taught by example) to perform works of service. We are to demonstrate ‘good news’ to the people God loves in order to earn their trust. What is a relationship without a foundation of trust? If people trust you, they are willing to share stories, and our story is intimately connected to God’s story. I know people who ‘got saved’ and didn’t even know the formula. The Holy Spirit knows how to do the same thing in a million different ways.

From what I know of you (April) through your heartfelt writings and your exemplary lifestyle - you are indeed an evangelist.

I do not believe evangelism is effective if we are violating boundaries.

Thanks for saying that. I think that’s what I was trying to get at too.

Some people are like Helen’s example and will seek out information. Others will wait until the question is asked of them.

Interesting point - I suppose that even though I know I’d ask, I can’t know that everyone else would.

First…thanks so much for joining this conversation. I really appreciate your comments and your heart on these issues.

You said:

I guess what I’m reacting to is the hestiancy to invite conversation (assuming respect and permission are in place), to just let the actions “speak for themselves” and hope there is some conversation.

I think we’re all very interested in inviting conversation (with respect and permission, as you noted). In fact, we’re so into conversations that we tell people to count conversations instead of conversions (that usually requires some explaining, but I think you get the idea)! Connection with others doesn’t happen without conversation happening, at least eventually (we teach people how to connect with others covertly, through noticing and praying for them behind their backs).

What we’ve discovered is that the usual evangelism techniques we have held as sacred have actually done just the opposite (ie, discouraged conversations) because our intent was not to dialogue, but rather to present our case and if our listener was sharp enough, debate with them. This is not a conversation, really. It’s an argument or debate, at best, and a pitch at worst.

The problem with a debate is that it requires that someone wins and someone loses, and the loser rarely ever goes home saying, “Gee, I think they were right. I guess I had better change my mind about that.” No, they usually go home thinking, “I had better bone up more on my position. I’ll get him next time for sure.”

We have a lot of little pithy sayings around DE land (most of which came from Henderson, and some of those he probably got from someone else). One of them is, “Dialogue, not debate.” A conversation is a dialogue. Both people win. Both learn. And both feel safe to actually consider new ideas and paradigms. This is what we long for with our friends who are far from Jesus. This is the kind of conversation they are having without us. We think it’s time we joined in. God has been and currently is quite busy amongst them…without us. We’re missing the party.

Just kidding. I have no idea why some comments go to moderation. What’s weird is sometimes MY comments go there…

It is evangelizing with your ears, more than your mouth, believing that God is already up to something in each person’s life and if we just listen well enough to them we can find out some of what He’s been up to and perhaps participate in that.

Randy:
I agree with you 100%. As a fellow trainer, I’m all for getting the scared folk into the game, or rather to see evangelism as a spiritual practice as common as Bible reading and praying.

Believing that God works both sides of the equation, it’s fun to parpticpate in the work that God is doing.

When talking with those that God has prepared, evangelism conversations are natural, casual, and non-offensive and can be done by the rest of us.

I guess what I’m reacting to is the hestiancy to invite conversation (assuming respect and permission are in place), to just let the actions “speak for themselves” and hope there is some conversation.

Some people are like Helen’s example and will seek out information. Other’s will wait until the question is asked of them.

If we initiate a conversation, and are turned down, it’s appropriate to respect that boundary. If we find a positive response and the conversation continues we keep moving forward as long as permission is there. I do not believe evangelism is effective if we are violating boundaries.

Phillip engaged the eunuch with a question appropriate for the context, and found questions in response. A conversation followed. But at some point in the conversation, Phillip started with the passage that the eunuch was reading and explained the good news.

By the way, Scott Ginsberg (of hellomynameisscott) mentions you very highly in some emails that he and I have been trading

Helen: good to “see” you again

Chris
EvangelismCoach.org

Whatever I do is only secondary to what God has already done. God’s the real evangelist and my job is to be the best example of what God’s love is that I can possibly be.

I don’t want my story to become like selling time shares.

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.

It is partly about letting go of the outcome, which is horribly difficult

This was one of my first - and most difficult - ‘aha’s’ when writing for ebay atheist. I have to let go of the ‘end game strategy.’ Do what you do with all your might, but leave the outcome in God’s hands! NO MOTIVES!! I have hopes and desires that people will follow Christ as a result of my ministry, but that’s no longer a success factor for me. Did I do what I thought God wanted me to do? I think so, so OK. The methods I use are my concern. The results are God’s concern.

some of us will find ourselves with a lot of new friends who we care about regardless of whether they end up getting ’saved’ or not.

And that was ‘aha’ #2!

Bottom line: If what you’re doing as evangelism is working well, keep doing it. If it’s not, do something else.

Is it wrong in the Doable evangelism model to invite the other person to further conversation, to invite them to discuss your faith, and even to invite them to follow Jesus if they want to?

Is Doable evangelism simply a one sided conversation and hope that the other person figures out what they are supposed to do in response to what has been shared?

I don’t understand why it’s not ok to wait for someone to ask. If they don’t take the initiative to ask after you shared your story with them, doesn’t that mean they’re not interested (at present)? Inviting someone to something they’ve shown no interest in is not a positive relational move. It implies “I haven’t noticed your choice not to pursue this - I am not sensitive enough to pick up on that”.

Either that or it implies you’re an irrepressible salesperson - which also doesn’t build relationships.

If I want something I’m going to bring it up. I’m going to ask “Where did you get that? Where did you see that? Where did you buy that? How much was it?” I’m not going to keep quiet and really really hope you decide to tell me about it anyway.

That’s what I think is wrong with unsolicited invitations. It bothers me that Christians who probably don’t love to be called during dinner and ‘invited’ to participate in special offers encourage each other to ‘invite’ other people to follow Jesus.

The passage Randy mentioned (gentleness and respect) says be ready to give an answer. That implies a question was asked. What’s wrong with waiting for the question?

DE is a new paradigm for evangelism. It is partly about letting go of the outcome, which is horribly difficult for guys like you and me. It doesn’t require that you not speak, not invite, not challenge people to think. It does require that you do these things with the gentleness and respect that Peter called for in 1 Peter 3:15.

It is evangelizing with your ears, more than your mouth, believing that God is already up to something in each person’s life and if we just listen well enough to them we can find out some of what He’s been up to and perhaps participate in that. This is far more respectful of others and of God than the methods which impose a particular agenda or presentation or call for decision on people without regard for what God has already been doing (which is what I understood my job was as an evangelist…minus the disrespect part, which I have only recently begun to understand).

These simple spiritual practices we call “ordinary attempts” are really just a way to get the non-evangelist into the game. Most ordinary, ungifted Christians don’t know how to engage with people who are all around them every day. It does no good to tell them to “just walk across the room” because even though that seems like the easiest thing in the world to guys like you and me (and Bill Hybels), it literally scares the crap out of the ordinary Christian (who makes up about 90 percent of church attenders). It does no good to bully them into inviting their “friends” to church or some event because they really don’t have any (or many) friends who don’t believe what they believe (they don’t know how to be a friend to someone like that without feeling like their “friend” is a project, so they don’t even try).

We’re just giving them stuff to do that they can actually DO, enjoy, and are good at already…which they will keep doing because it is fun and gets them into the game with other people. We think this “counts” as evangelism, but it doesn’t matter if anyone agrees with that assertion as long as they do these simple, doable spiritual practices. If they do them they will be transformed themselves and find themselves inexplicably interested in the people Jesus misses most, the people who they see every week in their ordinary course of life.

This spiritual practice of evangelism (funny how it got hijacked into a program, isn’t it?) leads ordinarily to conversation, which leads to a mutual caring and trust and friendship, which often leads to the sharing of stories with each other. Where that leads is totally up to God, but some of us will find ourselves with a lot of new friends who we care about regardless of whether they end up getting ’saved’ or not. All of us will be able to nudge our friends a little closer to Jesus Christ. And some of us will be able to help our friends begin to follow Jesus with us.

Bottom line: If what you’re doing as evangelism is working well, keep doing it. If it’s not, do something else. Most people are not doing any evangelism at all, because the version we have taught them requires way more than they can do, and requires them to be what they are NOT…authentically (how ironic). We want everyone to get in the game, not just the gifted few. We think that was the idea from the beginning, but we have made it nearly impossible for the majority of ordinary folks to participate. We’re promoting Doable Evangelism to that huge mass of non-participating Christians who want to play but feel disqualified and fearful. If we can get half of them off the bench and into the game, even in these small, doable ways, we think we’ve got a much better chance at getting the Good News to the world.

Wow…that was a lot. Sorry. I’m pretty excited about this stuff.

I guess where I disagree is the stopping point. After I’ve been invited to tell my story, I invite the other person to tell theirs.

Is it wrong in the Doable evangelism model to invite the other person to futher converstaion, to invite them to discuss your faith, and even to invite them to follow Jesus if they want to?

Is Doable evangelism simply a one sided conversation and hope that the other person figures out what they are supposed to do in response to what has been shared?

Perhaps I’m missing something in understanding the model and I’d like some help.

Chris