He Said, She Said: Evangelism
Word Girl and I occasionally debate spiritual matters. She is far more learned than I in such things, and despite this typically refrains from crushing me with scriptural references.
We have had recurring debates on a few matters. In this inaugural edition of "He Said, She Said", we'll be having a public debate over one of these: evangelism.
I'll get things rolling, since we're on her home turf. Word Girl will hopefully use the comments for her response, at which point I will respond, and so on.
I Am Not An Evangelist
I am not an evangelist. While my own faith is sound, I do not seek to convert anyone nor proselytize to anyone on the subject. Further, I hold that such efforts are almost invariably doomed to failure.
First, in the modern era there are precious few people who have not at least heard of Jesus Christ and what he means to Christians. This is in stark contrast to the state of affairs in the world when he was crucified. Then, a handful of people in a backwater part of a mighty Mediterranean empire were aware of what had transpired, and few of these had enough experience with Jesus to know the arc of his life and ministry.
Evangelism was absolutely essential to the survival of Christ's teachings in the first and second centuries A.D. The good news of Christ's death and resurrection needed to be propagated widely, and in an era of slow communications, this chiefly involved first word-of-mouth and then the publishing of written gospels.
If you were a member of an Inuit tribe at this time, there was no reason short of God Himself speaking to you for you to know of Christ's sacrifice. Thanks to continuing evangelism over the next few centuries, as well as the vast improvement of communications technology, I dare you to find me an Inuit now of sound mind who is ignorant of Christ's story.
I am therefore not an evangelist because evangelism is not necessary to communicate Christ's message.
Second, I would argue that faith is fundamentally a function of individual choice, all the way back to the Garden of Eden. God grants us free will, and that free will requires of us a willing choice to heed our Creator. If we are aware of God and of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our salvation, yet we choose not to believe this, it strikes me as a tragedy. It is also an individual tragedy, between the nonbeliever and God. No amount of evangelism will change the fact that one must willingly open their heart and soul to God. Faith is a retail, not wholesale affair.
Third, if one is not prepared to accept God and to acknowledge the path to Him represented by Jesus, evangelism will not change this fact. If one's faith is so tenuous as to require the weak buttressing provided by Man, it is no faith at all, I would hazard. Put more baldly, if you believe in God because peer pressure so compels you, it would likely be better if you did not profess to faith in God at all.
Fourth, evangelists themselves often evangelize to "win souls for God." At the hazard of establishing a strawman only to knock it down, let me say that while questionable motives may be commonly manifest among evangelicals (are you serving God or scoring points?), I believe this to be a minority of this community. For all I know, every evangelical is heeding the siren call of our Lord. Some, at least, seem to take more pride in counting than in counseling, and this gives me some pause. Moreover, I believe this type of "in-your-face" evangelism actually drives people from God. Nothing is quite so repulsive as someone who seems possessed of certainty when you are struggling with uncertainty.
Finally, I believe that the purpose of our free will is to allow us to struggle honestly with God, as one would wrestle with an angel. Evangelism strikes me as a bit of a copout. Roll with the consensus, do as you're told, join us. My own bent is more to attempt to wrestle directly with God, without intermediaries. Having someone push their own doctrines upon me strikes me as the easy way out, rather like painting by the numbers rather than confronting that blank canvas, dipping your brush into the glob on the pallet, and beginning to fill what had been empty whiteness with bold colors.
I reserve the right to be wrong, and the right to change my position if Word Girl can convince me otherwise.
Over to you, WG.
We have had recurring debates on a few matters. In this inaugural edition of "He Said, She Said", we'll be having a public debate over one of these: evangelism.
I'll get things rolling, since we're on her home turf. Word Girl will hopefully use the comments for her response, at which point I will respond, and so on.
I Am Not An Evangelist
I am not an evangelist. While my own faith is sound, I do not seek to convert anyone nor proselytize to anyone on the subject. Further, I hold that such efforts are almost invariably doomed to failure.
First, in the modern era there are precious few people who have not at least heard of Jesus Christ and what he means to Christians. This is in stark contrast to the state of affairs in the world when he was crucified. Then, a handful of people in a backwater part of a mighty Mediterranean empire were aware of what had transpired, and few of these had enough experience with Jesus to know the arc of his life and ministry.
Evangelism was absolutely essential to the survival of Christ's teachings in the first and second centuries A.D. The good news of Christ's death and resurrection needed to be propagated widely, and in an era of slow communications, this chiefly involved first word-of-mouth and then the publishing of written gospels.
If you were a member of an Inuit tribe at this time, there was no reason short of God Himself speaking to you for you to know of Christ's sacrifice. Thanks to continuing evangelism over the next few centuries, as well as the vast improvement of communications technology, I dare you to find me an Inuit now of sound mind who is ignorant of Christ's story.
I am therefore not an evangelist because evangelism is not necessary to communicate Christ's message.
Second, I would argue that faith is fundamentally a function of individual choice, all the way back to the Garden of Eden. God grants us free will, and that free will requires of us a willing choice to heed our Creator. If we are aware of God and of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our salvation, yet we choose not to believe this, it strikes me as a tragedy. It is also an individual tragedy, between the nonbeliever and God. No amount of evangelism will change the fact that one must willingly open their heart and soul to God. Faith is a retail, not wholesale affair.
Third, if one is not prepared to accept God and to acknowledge the path to Him represented by Jesus, evangelism will not change this fact. If one's faith is so tenuous as to require the weak buttressing provided by Man, it is no faith at all, I would hazard. Put more baldly, if you believe in God because peer pressure so compels you, it would likely be better if you did not profess to faith in God at all.
Fourth, evangelists themselves often evangelize to "win souls for God." At the hazard of establishing a strawman only to knock it down, let me say that while questionable motives may be commonly manifest among evangelicals (are you serving God or scoring points?), I believe this to be a minority of this community. For all I know, every evangelical is heeding the siren call of our Lord. Some, at least, seem to take more pride in counting than in counseling, and this gives me some pause. Moreover, I believe this type of "in-your-face" evangelism actually drives people from God. Nothing is quite so repulsive as someone who seems possessed of certainty when you are struggling with uncertainty.
Finally, I believe that the purpose of our free will is to allow us to struggle honestly with God, as one would wrestle with an angel. Evangelism strikes me as a bit of a copout. Roll with the consensus, do as you're told, join us. My own bent is more to attempt to wrestle directly with God, without intermediaries. Having someone push their own doctrines upon me strikes me as the easy way out, rather like painting by the numbers rather than confronting that blank canvas, dipping your brush into the glob on the pallet, and beginning to fill what had been empty whiteness with bold colors.
I reserve the right to be wrong, and the right to change my position if Word Girl can convince me otherwise.
Over to you, WG.
17 Comments:
Okay, I'll tell you what. I'm not going to quote ANY Scripture at all, because that would be a bit like me picking a fight with you over the history of the Napoloenic wars. Plus, I hate, Hate, HATE it when people use Scripture to argue. Besides, I think this can be reconciled in a practical way without it.
On that point, let me say that I agree and disagree with your previous comments. Yes, Jesus called His apostles to evangelize. Yes, all but one of them was put to death for it. Yes, Paul and his apostles carried on the tradition. Yes, it was vital for the survival of the early Church. Yes, just about everyone in the world knows the story of Christ. Yes, I abhor people who "add jewels" to their bloody crowns and wag their fingers at any and everyone else. Yes, I cringed every time we had an altar call at my previous church for precisely the "peer pressure" tactic you referenced.
BUT! What I think is crucial is a re-examination of what evangelism -- at its heart -- is.
Yeah, yeah I know what the definition says. Whatever. I would contend that every Christian -- if they're breathing -- evangelizes by doing the PRIMARY thing we were called to do -- Love.
I grew up in a dead church much like the one you descibed in your post about Lent. I never knew any Scripture growing up except for the stories my grandmother told us (and that wasn't too many). She corrected us and instructed us on respectful practicalities -- made sure we never said, 'Oh my God' (that was blasphemy), made sure we didn't make fun of people with handicaps, that we were helpful, things like that.
What I DID know was that my grandmother believed in God and accepted the call of Christ. She never told me that. She never shared the conversion story of how she was "saved" (a term that still makes my insides flinch). She never formally evangelized to anyone, as far as I know. But through her Love for me, my sister, her friends, the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, her black friends (in the deeply divided South), strangers, babies -- whomever -- she "evangelized" to everyone! Her Love showed people Who Christ is because, since she was imbued with His Spirit, she carried His cross with her everywhere she went.
And that is precisely how, as an adult, I came to give my whole life to Christ. Because someone gained my trust by their Love. Not love -- Love.
Example -- everyone knows Who you speak for when you rescue lepers that have been cast out by their Hindu family. There's no need to quote Scripture or tell them they're going to hey-ell. They notice the difference. And they can choose to be inspired or offended. As we all have done or will do eventually.
Which, now that I think of it, accomplishes three things at once. Not only do I comfort the afflicted when I Love, I offer them a glimpse of Who Christ truly is and begin to break down a negative stereotype of Christianity. That's what evangelism should be.
And Love is not always "patient and kind". Sometimes Love is tough. But while I am serving and Loving someone for my Shepherd, if they ask me about my Faith, I'll gladly share it. They can choose however they want. I'll be overjoyed if they choose to follow and I'll take no credit. Because they're not following me (thank God!) they're following my Master. Simply. No more no less. I don't see a thing in the world wrong with that.
This post has been removed by the author.
Masterfully done, WG, but I think that for any debate to be successful, one must have a common definition of terms.
I use "evangelism" in the modern sense---professing one's faith in an attempt to convert the heathen or the fallen away.
I am not arguing that one should not love their neighbor as they love themselves.
I am not arguing that one should talk about one's faith if requested to do so.
I am arguing that I do not agree with a basic pillar of many modern churches---going out and seeking converts not only to Christianity, but to one's own Christian denomination.
If you would care to engage on this ground, and bring your considerable knowledge of Christianity to bear upon why I should evangelize, that would be an interesting and spirited discussion.
Hey, I just ran across this discussion and thought I'd stick my nose in. :)
Teflon, going by your definition of 'evangelism', I think you're right. Professing one's faith in an attempt to convert someone (and for the purpose of converting them) is not Biblical. When you are trying to 'convert' someone, you are generally focusing on what I can do vs. what God wants. If we are in tune with God, we *will* profess our faith when asked, discuss it, or even bring it up in conversation because God has commanded us to be witnesses. 'Evangelism', by your definition of the word, is not what we as Christians are called to do. We, humans, cannot convert people. God converts people.
(Side note: I am not going to discuss free will and election here. That really needs a couple books and a good long sunday school class or two. I know, I'm in one.)
What we are called to do is to be a witness for Christ. (Biblical Evangelism, if you will.) The term witness is generally as in a courtroom setting - telling it like it is. We aren't responsible for telling the jury what we think it all means, just that this is what happened. This is who God is. In a broader sense, our witnesses also includes actions, but ultimately everything we do. Living because this is of what God did for you and me.
(Footnote: The Greek word used for Witness (in much of the New Testament, I think, but at least in a lot of Romans) has to do specifically with a court of law type setting. This according to my Pastor, who knows Greek, and my Dad, who is also a Pastor and is apt to know such things.)
Ok. One of the reasons I think acting out your faith and being prepared to give an explanation for it is that while a large majority of people have heard of Jesus, and many know some about him. However, I don't think people generally really know the Christ's story. The Gospel. How many people could actually tell you what Christ really came for, and that because of him you can have a personal relationship with God? If you were raised in a church setting maybe you could. You would probably at least know the stories. But, if you weren't raised in the church how would you know? (From piecing together bits from here, there, and the New York Times.) How will they know unless we tell them? (Darn - can't remember where that verse is...Romans? Corinthians?)
As such, I would argue that Evangelism (Biblically aligned - not your definition) is just as necessary today as it was in a slower society. The communication of our society does not, by default, speed up everything. People must put information out there in order for it to be found. People will also not go looking for the Gospel by themselves, generally speaking. Unfortunately, we are all born sinners, running the opposite direction from God. Using your example of free will, how can someone struggle honestly with God unless they have a good understanding of who God is? Again, how will they know unless we tell them? No, doctrine should never be pushed in someone's face. However, it isn't a white canvas, either. It is paint-by-number - but with God's numbers, not ours. (Maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. A blank canvas could imply a lack of definitive standards and the ability to set one's own standards, which really is not true at all.)
You also seem to be focused on America/the Western World here - what about in, say Kenya or Brazil? I know a couple of people from my church who would probably flat out tell you that you are wrong that 'evangelism is not necessary to communicate Christ's message'. They have been on missions trips and seen these people first hand - they will tell you there is a tremendous need for Christ's message. Heck, I'll tell you - there is a tremendous need here. In my little universe up here in Maine. I know of exactly four other Christians on my college campus, three of whom go to my church. I'm sure there are more Christians around, but that's not the point - Most of the guys in my classes don't know the Gospel. Sure, they know about Jesus (though primarily exhibited in expletive form), but do they know the Gospel? No.. Have I had opportunities to present the Gospel? Not really, but most of the guys in my lab do know I'm a Christian.
Ok, now I'm going to pick a bone about scripture references with Word Girl - nothing against you personally, just the idea you put forward. Hear me out and don't take it too harshly. As far as I'm concerned, arguing about Christian principles without scripture reference is somewhat like discussing the merits of Bach vs. Vivaldi without actually listening to it in light of what the other guy is saying. When putting forward ideas about how we are supposed to live our life, I think it to be very constructive to back up what you say from an authoritative source. The Bible is God's Word, after all. I point you to 2 Timothy 3:10-17. The danger that I see with not citing scripture is that what you end up with in a discussion is a concensus of opinions, which may or may not have a good foundation. (Keep reading in chapter 4.) I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, only that credibility is very important, especially when trying to help other Christians. Specific references may not be as important for a not Christian; they don't hold the Bible in the same regard. Christians, however, should be always be striving for a better understanding of scripture - and that's hard to get when you don't study it and learn from it. The basis for your idea is almost as important as the idea.
Ok, that's plenty long enough for now. You may notice a recurring theme through this whole thing - I think a lot rests on your definition of evangelism. I hope this is all coherent. If not, I'll be checking back in, so let me know. :^)
Great response, Stickman, and a lot to chew on.
There are certainly still some remote parts of the world where Christ's message has simply not penetrated fully, perhaps. That's a very valid point, and one which goes directly to whether evangelism is needed or not.
My only fallback, mild though it may be, is one of practicality. If you and I were bushmen, would the gospel message come best from Westerners or from other bushmen? I don't know the answer, but I wonder, and I know missionaries must wonder sometimes too.
The faultline between my definition of evangelism and the Biblical definition of the same might be an interesting area to explore. Are evangelicals who more or less conform to my definition straying from the Biblical one?
Can one know God without being introduced via human intermediaries? I believe one can, indeed, I believe we all do, before we're introduced to any Scripture. This is another pillar of why I think evangelism is a tough business.
Great response, and thank you in advance for any clarifications you'd care to provide per the above.
Alright, here's Webster's definition:
e·van·gel·ism
Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work.
Militant zeal for a cause.
Jesus sent His disciples to preach to the Jews before his crucifixion so they could see the prophecies of Isaiah (among others) come true and recognize Him as the promised Messiah. Consider the following prophecy and Jesus' response:
Isaiah 61:1-3 --
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion - to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.
Exemplified in Luke 4:16-21:
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Here, Jesus sends out the Apostles to the Jews, but also gives them a foreshadowing of the benefit of their work to the Gentiles:
Matthew 10
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness...
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, preach this message: "The kingdom of heaven is near." 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give... 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town... 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles...
24"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master... 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs...
32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."...
We also see Jesus interacting with Samaritans (i.e. the woman at the well), using them in parables (i.e. the good Samaritan), His healing of the Roman official's servant, and the following:
Matthew 15:22-28 --
22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon possession."
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
But where did this edict to preach to the Jews and the Gentiles comes from? Another prophecy of Isaiah:
Isaiah 49:5-6 --
5 And now the LORD says-
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-
6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
After His crucifixion and resurrection:
Matthew 28:16-20 --
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Paul carries on as he has been instructed:
Romans 10:11-15 --
11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
He goes on. Apparently, Moses even recorded God's plan to include Gentiles:
Romans 10:17-20
17 ... faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. ... 19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." 20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
And again:
Romans 15:20 --
... [A]s it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."
Where was it written?
Isaiah 52:10-20 --
10 The LORD will lay bare his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth will see
the salvation of our God.
...
The Suffering and Glory of the Servant
13 See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him --
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness-
15 so will he sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
How do we "understand"? It's innate:
Psalm 19:1-4 --
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
We all know (or should know) that there is something or someone bigger than us running the show. Since we Gentiles have been grafted in (borrowing Paul's terminology) to the olive tree, we are included in the ancient tradition of preaching which goes all the way back to Moses.
And while God has no problem making Himself known, human beings have a problem figuring Him out. Why else would there be so many religions?
Our job -- our commission as Christians-- is to tell people Who God really is and, more specifically, Who His Son is. They might know the story, but they may not internalize what that means for them unless someone comes and tells them.
A Native American friend of mine once told me about his spirituality and the sacrificial rituals of his tribe. They believe that small things, like sunflower seeds or pipe tobacco, should be placed on the ground whenever a flower is picked or a stone is picked up. It's a visible sign that they appreciate what has been given to them. They believe it's also a way to maintain natural balance. They have code after code of edicts to follow to ensure they are living in balance and harmony with nature and what they call the Grandfather Spirit. He knew full well who Jesus was, but rejected Him. Now whether this rejection was based on a simple misunderstanding of the Gospel is unclear, I was unfortunately not learned in the Gospel at the time that I knew him.
But imagine the impact on my friend if during the course of a friendly conversation I had told him that the Mosaic law (as well as the Cherokee law, the Hindu law, the Buddhist law, the Muslim law...) was no longer necessary because someone had come and paid all our debt for us (or balanced things) -- permanently. All we had to do was believe and rest in the peace of His love for us. Would that have changed his mind? I don't know. But I could have explored why he felt the way he did about Christ and maybe (or maybe not) have put to rest some of the misconceptions he had about Him.
Does that mean that I'm by nature an evangelist? Yes and no. I've already established how I "evangelize". Does that mean traditional evangelism is useless? Certainly not! People need to know. If "no one can come to the Father except through" Christ, we should be serious about living out the Gospel, first and foremost, as well as telling other people Who our leader is and why. To those who have heard AND those who haven't.
After all, the prophets of the Old Testament weren't preaching to those in the remote corners of the Congo, but to the lost sheep of Israel, who had gone astray. They knew Who God was, they passed His Temple every day. What they needed was a voice to instruct and inform them of their error.
Does that satisfy the question posed?
Well, on the practicality of evangelism, you do have somewhat of a point. To someone in a culture foreign to ours (or vice-versa), I'd say the message is often more effective coming from one who knows that culture inside out. Which is probably someone who was born and raised there. But, on the other hand, those people have to learn from someone else. Enter missionaries. (Citing Romans 10:14-15, above in Word Girl's post) Sometimes just the act of someone going to live amidst a people group could be a witness in itself. Westerners voluntarily living in a jungle would probably be asked 'why?' quite a lot, which then brings up opportunities to tell people. In our day and age, I also think westerners may not be looked on in the same 'foreign' sort of way. (A possible exception would be some Islamic states. Even China, for all it's anti-Christian dictatorship, doesn't really have an aversion to westerners. They're good for business.)
I had another thought about the witnessing/evangelism bit that just ocurred to me - we all have a different personal styles of witnessing. I, for instance, don't tend to be a real people person. I tend to be more behind the scenes doer type. But on the other hand, there are people who will strike up conversation with the next person in the checkout line at the supermarket. Everyone's different. We are all called as witnesses for Christ, but everyone has their own personal style, passion, and gifts. Put all those together, and you get a unique combination which is 1) the way God made you, and 2) how God will use you.
What do you mean by knowing God before we're introduced to Scripture? I didn't quite follow that statement. One can certainly come to Christ without human counsel. Regardless of that, however, we are still called to go out and 'preach the Gospel'. Now we just have to define 'Preach'. :^)
I'll have to think about that a little - I that also ties in with the definition of evangelism, though. By the way, Word Girl, what year is your copy of Webester's? My 1967 edition (as well as our Random House dictionary and dictionary.com) all define 'Evangelize' as
1.) To preach the gospel to
2.) To convert to Christianity.
I don't think we should go by #2 there, as per my previous comments. Def. #1 or Word Girl's Webster is probably better. The word 'Zealous' has a negative connotation to me for some reason, but according to [dictionary.com|my Webster's|Random House Unabridged], zeal is pretty dead on.
- Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.
The third entry at dictionary.com is also interesting in light of this discussion. The zeal of Christians is often misdirected, which I think is much of what you were taking issue with. (Correct me if I'm completely off base here.) So, if one defines evangelism as 'professing one's faith in an attempt to convert the heathen or the fallen away', then yes, I do think that this is misguided and not strictly Biblical. The 'professing one's faith' part is fine, but the attempting to convert part is what isn't, because we can't. If you believe in free will, that's ultimately a decision between them and God, and if you hold reformed view of election, then God still takes care of it.
Stickman:
Evangelism can also be simplified even more. Example: "I have the most awesome (boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/dog/whatever) in the whole world. They make me feel so loved, etc. I'm so excited about this in my life, I just can't contain it. Let me tell you about it!" People can tell me to shut up if they want, right?
And while I wouldn't presume to speak for Teflon (I might get smacked down for it) I think I understand what he means when he says that we (Westerners) can "know God before we know Scripture" because we live in a society that is so saturated with Christianity. Think about this: how many people who sit on a pew each Sunday know the Bible? How many people love God but don't read the Scriptures? They just get fed when they come to church. Do a poll. I dare ya'. ;) I know PASTORS who don't know the Word (sadly enough).
As for my definition, I just punched in "evangelism" at dictionary.com.
Sounds like from some of your topical discussions that you are of the Presbyterian bent. If so, I would LOVE to discuss predestination. If not, would still find it interesting.
That said, "preach" can mean many different things I think. What first comes to mind tends to be the classical "preach" that one sees on Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton, unfortunately. I was "preached" at for over five years almost three times a week at my former church. "Preach" therefore carries some negative connotations for me, obviously.
But now that I am in a more peaceful and reflective situation with my God, I would like to think Luke 19:39-40 had it nailed --
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”
40 “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”
Because (going back to Psalm 19) all creation "preaches" (if you will) about the glory of God.
And don't forget that the great Apostle Paul so known for his fiery epistles was maybe not a great and bellowing speaker. He alludes to it:
2 Corinthians 10:1 --
1 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you–I, Paul, who am timid when face to face with you, but bold when away!
And while that may be tongue in cheek, he still always warned each church he planted not to listen to sophisticated speakers.
Much like Jesus' admonitions to pray simply (what we call the Lord's prayer) the New Testament seems to point to a "preaching" that can be as finite as a "yes" or "no".
Thanks for the rambling space.
Your comments are welcome.
Lots to chew on above, so I'll keep it short this time.
1. If Man doesn't possess free will, what would the point of evangelism be?
2. Given how few people who consider themselves to be evangelicals actually spread the gospel to places where it has not been heard, is this aspect of evangelism truly valid? In other words, if I were a baker who produced bread 80 percent of the time and pastry the rest, would you consider me to be a baker or a pastry chef?
The last point isn't an attempt to be cute. I think a lot of people who call themselves evangelicals emphasize the missionary work done by a small minority of evangelicals as a primary, not secondary, focus of their efforts.
1) Exactly. That's why I go round and round with Predestination-ers
2) I think most Evangelicals agree that the spreading (classical definition) of the Gospel is vital, whether they participate (classical definition) in its propagation or not. That's why they're Evangelicals and not something else. Lots of Catholics don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope, right?
Hey Wordgirl, quite true about simplifying evangelism. Fine example. :)
As far as knowing God before we know scripture, yeah, I think I see where you're coming from now. (Assuming, Teflon, that Wordgirl's right about your viewpoint...) I still think that to truly know God and who He is, you have to know the scriptures - even if that's just from Sunday Morning Sermons. (Also, in my experience, the strongest Christians I have known all knew the Bible. Not necessarily inside out, but studied it regularly and saw it as an important part of their walk.) Can one truly love God and have no desire to know more about Him?
I'm not quite sure I agree about our society, either. In some respects, yes, it is saturated with 'Christianity'. But on the other hand, it is also very sinful. (Even in the church - some of the recent stuff in the Catholic and Episcopalian churches comes to mind.) Sometimes I wonder if this is a 'Christian' culture, then what does a non-Christian one look like?
Ok, end rant.
There is a reason I didn't try to define 'preach' in my last post. :^) I think it often does have negative connotations - perhaps because it is often percieved as being confrontational. (One of the definitions dictionary.com found was '# To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner'.) I think this may be part of why my Pastor really prefers a term more along the lines of 'Pastor/Teacher'. I'll have to check to make sure. My sense is that the way 'preach' is often used in the Bible is more in a teaching sort of way. Also refer back to our whole bit about evangelism. I think they're pretty similar, if not slightly different facets of the same thing. Oh, and I just noticed those references you have there. Agreed.
On Predestination/Free will - Teflon, Your question is precisely why I wasn't going to discuss it. :^) I do not profess to be an expert on the topic. I think I am coming at it from a more Presbyterian bent at the moment, though I've been raised (and still attend) a Baptist church. From the limited amount I know about the two views, I think I do lean a little more toward the reformed view (predestination), though I'm still somewhere in the middle. I need to to some more study on it. I do know of a book by R.C. Sproul (which I can't remember the title of) that argues from that perspective (need to read it - Mr. Williams has been using it in Sunday School), and I think the Bible does back that up, from what I've seen. There are also references to free-will type behaviour, though. (John 3:16, for instance.) So don't me for an authority. :^)
I'll leave it at that for now, time for Physics class. (Woohoo! :)
Stickman:
I take issue. :)
We DO live in a Christian saturated culture. The fact that we are a sinful nation, not living up to the expectations of that label, is irrelevant. Israel was in large part a sinful nation. They did not cease to be Israelites because of their heresy.
And the race card won't fly because Israel was/is a Semitic culture, as are a couple hundred other cultures in the ancient and modern Middle East. What separated them was their Theocracy.
A culture that contains references to God in its founding documents, its pledge, its currency, its congressional activites (ie. prayer breakfasts and the like), its President's oath of office -- a country that uses the Bible to swear truth upon in a court of law -- is not Muslim, 'kay? :)
Yes, we have abortion. Yes, we have civil unions. Yes, we have legalized prostitution and gambling in some places. These activities are WRONG. But we are still a Christian nation simply because it's the faith the majority of Americans identify with. Some walk it and some don't.
Predestination vs. Free will.
I think this whole conversation has become a monster over the last millenia for no reason. Whole libraries could hold the books that have been written on the subject.
Basically, John Calvin took 2 passages of scripture:
(Romans 8:28-30 --
28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
Ephesians 1:11-12
11 In him we were also chosen [or were made heirs], having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.")
that Paul most likely meant for the encouragement of the early church and took them WAAAAAY out of context.
God knows everything; past, present, future. He knew we would CHOOSE what we did, but WE did the choosing.
Example:
Danny is in love with Sally. Because of this love, he has asked her to marry him. Sally must now choose whether she wants to marry Danny. If she says no, he will still love her, but they can't live together as husband and wife.
It's a choice on both parts. And while it's not easy to dissect (simply because we don't have the mind of God), God still loved/loves/will love us. He chose/elected/predestined ALL of us when He decided to suffer and die for the whole of humanity -- before the foundations of the world were even put in place! (John 1:1-3)
Then we each (individually) chose Him. BAM! The work Jesus did came to fruition when we made that choice. Suddenly, not only are we chosen, we are also called to work for the Kingdom, justified to the Father through the work of the Son, and glorified because we have divine approval through Christ.
The rest is just overwrought tedium in my opinion.
Anyone have any other thoughts on this? Because I would love to hear them!
Thanks! :)
Ok! Finally found my way back here. School work and lame stuff like that. :^)
Wordgirl, I see what you're saying about our culture. However, I still balk at the thought that, as a whole, this culture is as morally corrupt, self centered, and, well, sinful as it is - and yet still 'Christian'. Everyone is sinful, yes (including Christians); but I think it's still a stretch to call America a 'Christian Culture', regardless of what we're based on.
Now, since I've said that, maybe I should define terms.....I'm using 'Christian' in a fairly strict sense, as in someone who basically believes Christ is the only way to heaven, that that is the greatest news on earth, and tries to live like it. (The people who 'Walk It'.) In the more general sense of 'Christianity' (as more of something that you do than something that you live), then yeah, maybe we are a Christian Culture. (Darn, why didn't I think of that before? Save me typing, it would...)
Now, Predestination vs. Free Will:
I agree. It has indeed become a monster for no really good reason, as far as I can tell. But (always one of those) I'm not at all sure that Calvin took those two passages WAAAAAY out of context. There are quite a few others (which, of course I don't remember at the moment...even though I just looked at them Sunday...) that echo a similar sentiment. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time tonight to go look them up, either - homework for tomorrow...)
Interestingly enough poking around, I ran across an interesting site on this sort of thing :
http://apochrypha.tripod.com/index2.htm
And, of course, a usual disclaimer applies: I know rather little about this subject, and don't fully understand it. As such, views may be subject to change. :^)
Welcome back, Stickman.
I've avoided the predestination question as a) it's not directly relevant to the topic of evangelism inasmuch as I can see and b)it's a central tenet of the various Calvinist denominations and I prefer to tread lightly where deeply-held beliefs tread.
To answer your question belatedly regarding knowing God before Scripture, I'm simply stating an obvious truth---we know God in our hearts and souls before we can read anything, and certainly well before we've absorbed the entirety of Scripture (indeed, one might well spend the entirety of their lives and still not fully plumb the Bible's depths).
Can we truly know God without it? I doubt it, but then again, I suppose mortal men can never truly know God---He's too big.
The point of my thought on the subject is that I struggle with the interposition of intermediaries between myself and God. While I respect the wisdom of theologians, I don't take it at face value, since no amount of rational thought and learned scholarship can surpass speaking directly with one's Creator, to my mind.
And, ultimately, that is the problem I have with evangelism. God doesn't turn away from us, we turn away from Him, and I'm not sure that trying to turn our fellows back to Him is so much God's will as our own.
Being seen as a savior is a wonderful sop to one's ego, but I'm not sure it's very helpful to one's spirituality.
Thus my ambivalence on the subject.
That link I just posted would be better as http://apochrypha.tripod.com/ Gives you a navigation panel. :)
I'm working my way through it (lots of stuff....he's pretty thorough) and am finding lots of passages and verses that I was trying to remember a couple minutes ago, and then some.
This is a great discussion, folks. Thanks.
I wanted to comment on three points. The first is the difference that Reformed (Presbyterians are Reformed, but so are many others, including many Baptists, such as the famous Charles H. Spurgeon.) vs. Arminian theology makes on Evangelism. Both practice Evangelism. Both agree that God uses Evangelism as a means of calling people to Christ through the Word. The difference is that the Reformed believer (of which I am one), believes that someone can come to Christ only when the Spirit of God causes them to be born again and enables them to understand the gospel, believe it, and desire Christ, while the Arminian believer believes that any person can at any time come to Christ. This results in a difference of emphasis of Gospel presentation if one is consistent with one or the other of these beliefs.
The Reformed believer has an emphasis on getting the Gospel right--the facts straight, if you will--because he or she thinks that if a person who is prepared by the Spirit to hear the truth, that person will be set free by the truth and not error. If faced with someone who does not believe after being presented with a faithful Gospel presentation, they assume either they are not one of the elect or they have not yet been called by God. If faced with someone asking more questions, the assumption is that perhaps this is a sign that God is working in that life, that they are in the process or learning or assimilating the truth, and we have a responsibility to help that person by "giving a reason for the hope that is in us," by answering questions and objections. There is no assumption in Reformed theology that an elect person will instantly come to a full faith, as some erroneously believe. There is an assumption that the elect will be enabled to come to faith, perhaps quickly, perhaps with some wrestling.
When the Arminian believer, on the other hand, faces someone who does not believe, he or she assumes that any person is capable of believing and therefore what is lacking is persuasion or desire on the part of the person hearing it. Therefore he or she might concentrate more on persuading the person to choose or desire Christ. They are trying to convince them to have a change of heart.
Again, I want to make clear that I see this as a difference in emphasis, not a totally different thing. Reformed people try to persuade and urge people to make appropriate choices, and Arminian people present the facts of the Gospel and defend its truths. Both desire for lives to be changed through the truth of the Gospel and faith in the work of Jesus Christ for their salvation. We are far more alike than different.
Another point I wanted to touch on was whether or not a living witness--that is, living out a Christian life before men--is sufficient to bring people to Christ. I believe it is not. I liken this to the fact that although looking at the creation is enough to bring people to the understanding that there is a Creator of some sort, without the Word of God, one would not be led to understand Him correctly or know of the salvation offered through Christ. Likewise, seeing a Christian living a godly life can lead to many possible interpretations. Perhaps one might think this Christian believes that he or she must be good in order to get into heaven. Perhaps the non-Christian believes he or she couldn't, or doesn't want to, meet those standards and become a Christian. Perhaps the non-Christian knows the Christian well enough to know his or her weaknesses, and thinks the believer is a hypocrite. Perhaps the non-believer sees this decent living as a benefit of "being religious," and concludes that religion is good for society. Without the Word, there are many possible interpretations. And to think that someone would look at my life and desire to be like me and therefore desire Christ, is a very man-centered and rather prideful way of looking at it. They need to desire Christ for His merits, not for mine. I only hope my sins are not so great as to turn people away from the Christ whose name I bear.
I do think that how we live our lives can lead to conversation that gives us a natural opportunity to share the Gospel, especially in the workplace and with our neighbors. However, it is the conversation that is the evangelism, not the Christian living.
My last point was whether or not most people have already heard the Gospel in our Christian-influenced culture. I believe that false Gospels are believed by a huge number (perhaps a majority) of people in the Christian cultures of today.
As an example, I represent my church on the board of a community service organization that operates a weekly soup kitchen. The board is made up of representatives from many local churches of various denominations. One would expect that the board members are among the most active members of the churches they represent. They are regular attenders and involved in church work. At the end of our last board meeting, my son and I were walking out of the building and two women from the board were walking ahead of us and talking together. They were going over the list of things they each had to do.
One said, "This getting to heaven thing is hard work."
The other laughed and answered, "Yup. You slide right down into Hell, but getting into Heaven isn't so easy."
The conversation went on like that for a bit longer. My point is this. These women were members of a very large Christian denomination. They were among its most faithful members. Yet, they believed a false Gospel, (One must work to get into heaven.), rather than the true one, that Christ has done the work necessary to make us right with God. These ladies would not be persuaded to change their thinking by seeing someone living a decent life, as they see that all the time and do it themselves. They need to hear the truth found in God's Word, and it is entirely possible that even though they have actively participated in a church's life all their lives, they may still not have heard it.
All that being said, I am very much in agreement with the idea that Evangelism need not be rude. Intruding on people's space, time or privacy, having an arrogant in-your-face attitude, or shaking our fingers saying, Shame, shame on you," are hardly loving Evangelistic methods. Of course bold is not necessarily rude.
Dory
of Wittenberg Gate
Wow! Props to you for actually *reading* all of our blabble! Welcome, Dory! You sound like a veritable fountain of knowledge. We should have brought this to you back in February!
Thanks so much!
WG
Post a Comment
<< Home