A nuancing of terms in response to Greg's post:
Matthew 28:19-20
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.”
Mark 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Notice that though all three passages describe the same event, only one passage uses the word "preach." A "witness" is a person who gives testimony. "Making disciples" is clearly larger task than just preaching. And in Mark we are told to preach to "all creation" - a directive St. Francis took literally, giving sermons to both people and animals. Furthermore, let's be realistic in acknowledging that "preaching," especially in Christian circles, is most closely associated with the one way communication that occurs in church on a Sunday morning after the singing and before the bread cubes... Outside of the church, "preaching" effectively refers to verbal abuse... So, given all of the loud, soapbox cliches, is it helpful to exhort people to "preach" the gospel? (I welcome someone addressing the underlying Greek, I was too lazy)
I would suggest that the term "witness" is much more helpful as it explicitly indicates the personal and experiential nature of our call. This is not a call to recite the 4 spiritual laws but to share your testimony, your very life and experienceas well as the larger Christian story- in which your specific story is rooted. A witness is only expected to share truth and is not responsible for persuasion. Furthermore, the church has for a number of years emphasized evangelism and failed at discipleship... this is actually the same process! The process of learning and also living in God's story, which of course includes not only the Bible but all of church history. Too often, both our story and our lives are far too small.
I think that sometimes, our concern or emphasis on "preaching" may inhibit taking opportunities for mutual sharing such as at Danielle's Inter Faith Dialogue. Too often we insist on "evangelizing" from a position of power. However, I create atheists, as recounted here, so you probably shouldn't listen to me...
What is evangelism? Is it limited to verbal presentation?
Hey Duncan,
ReplyDeleteYou're right in saying that the word "preaching" carries connotations that aren't always helpful. While I admit that I could have been more clear in nuancing my terms, I did do my best throughout the original post to use other synonyms of preaching (i.e. verbally communicate, proclaim) to communicate my point.
Furthermore, you right in saying that evangelism and discipleship is the same process - both have to do with speaking, teaching and verbally communicating truth. I think pointing out the fact that no such distinction exists in the Bible is important - and I should be more active in helping this cause along through all means possible.
You are also right in saying that it is not the job of a Christian to persuade people to believe, that is God's work. God has ordained the means through which people will believe (i.e. verbal communication) therefore we proclaim truth, and we let God work through the Holy Spirit to prepare hearts, convict of sin, and draw people into His kingdom through the means repentance and belief in the Gospel.
The central purpose of my post was to help bring to light the fact that as Christians we should be eager and unashamed in verbally communicating the Gospel because it is the power of God for salvation of everyone who believes (rephrasing of Rom 1:15-16).
To answer your question at the bottom, I think evangelism is limited to verbal communication towards the aim of conversion ( though it ought to always be done in love and with grace). I think relationship is the best way in which to have helpful conversations, and I also think that all helpful conversations involve active listening and gracious speaking. So it is with evangelism - it is the best to do it in relationship and with taking great care to listen, though I don't want to say that you can only evangelize in this way and that you cannot stand on a soap-box ever.
My intent in writing the initial blog is to counteract the idea that we can be considered disciples of Christ if we aren't actively making disciples; of course discipleship is not entirely summed up in conversing about the gospel, but it is unquestionably necessary in the discipleship process (Romans 10:14-15).
I want to make clear that I do not think having gospel conversations is the only important thing about being a Christ follower - though I do believe it is of first importance. That said, just because I think it is of first importance doesn't mean I think everything else is unimportant or useless.
To answer your final question "is [evangelism] limited to verbal presentation? I believe so. If "evangel" means good news, then 'evangelism' or 'to evangelize' is best understood as "to Gospel" someone, and you can't live the Gospel - Jesus already did. (Let me reiterate that evangelism isn't the only part of a Christian life!)
Furthermore, I believe evangelism is only talking about the Gospel (i.e. the sufficiency and exclusivity of Christ's completed work). When we talk about our personal experiences and how Christ has changed us we adorn the Gospel, but aren't proclaiming/communicating it. When we demonstrate with our lives that the Holy Spirit does produce fruit in us (like legitimately caring for all people, and all that Gal. 5:22ff says) - we adorn the Gospel, but aren't proclaiming/communicating it.
The Gospel has massive life shatteringly broad and deep and important implications; but the Gospel itself is the true story of what Christ has done in history - and it is that story that we Christians ought to joyously and boldly verbally communicate (in love, grace, and patience!) as often as the Spirit leads us to do so.
Greg,
ReplyDeleteGreat response! I hope you also got a chance to glance at Silas' post on this topic.
I think I disagree with both your definition of the "Gospel" and also evangelism which of course winds up being related. You have placed fairly stringent limitations on both words that I do not perceive as required or helpful. Although I think I understand why some might find them helpful.
I think to just reply briefly as I may do a longer treatment of the topic as full post:
I think it is a mistake to define the Gospel as the sufficiency and exclusivity of Christ' works... or even limiting it to Jesus' life. I would argue for a broader message which I think is encapsulated in the words "God is for us and not against us" - This is of course most fully encapsulated in Jesus and in particular the cross and resurrection. However, precisely because this is the climax of human history means the 1st century story is only a piece of the story. And I would disagree that a person cannot live the Gospel precisely because I refuse to compartmentalize the historical story into a pill that can be administered (recognition of negative rhetorical flourish). Jesus is alive! And therefore the Gospel is an ongoing present and lived reality in our lives. Our lives, in submission to Christ, our part of God's story and work of salvation and therefore are part of the Good News that "God is for us not against us." I would argue that it is the very person of Jesus that is the Gospel, that is the power of God and that is alive today and present in and with us. I am in Christ and Christ lives in me... So all that to say that I think to say "in response to" or "transformed by" misses the power and glory of what God has done and is doing.
I may be more willing to limiting the term evangelism but if we do so I would argue we also have to decrease it emphasis...
I appreciate that your intent is to encourage people to be "bold" and unashamed about talking about their faith. My push toward "witness" is precisely because I believe that we are primarily called to testify regarding are present experienced reality (all a witness can do) - rooted in the historical reality and my concern is for people to be living and experiencing their faith and sharing out of that (their present lived reality) rather than a historical theological story (not to say there isn't a place for that). I think that since reality is messy evangelism, which is, I think, traditionally defined as all aspects of sharing one's faith, should also be messy in contrast to the clean, propositional, theological, presentation of Christ's exclusivity and sufficiency (not that there isn't a place for that).
Ok more questions: as we seek to encourage evangelism/discipleship how do we deal with the reality that lots of people's relationship quota is full. Being available to new relationships requires downgrading old ones. As we grapple with the relational priorities of the kingdom and if we conflate evangelism and discipleship... I think I can make a strong case for both my proclamation of gospel and engagement in discipleship despite not being involved in any street evangelism etc... Furthermore, I think recognition of the need for both input and output and learning to live in the micro and macro rhythms of these seasons... I think we do people a disservice when we say: go tell you friends and co workers about Jesus, bring you friend to church, don't be ashamed, don't be afraid just do it... rather than first showing people how they are already living and proclaiming the Gospel and growing them into doing so more and with greater intention an care of both themselves and others. For example should a pastor feel bad/guilty about not constantly "evangelizing" new converts when clearly they are involved deeply in discipleship...(even if the discipleship isn't very deep)?
Hey Duncan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quick response. I did get a chance to read Silas' post, I'm thankful for his insights and views on the topic as well!
I want to briefly respond and then I'll let you have the final word if you'd like - it is after all your blog :)
I think that we aren't as far apart as I may have initially assumed. From what I gather - both of us see the necessity in living a life that takes seriously the teachings of Christ and the apostles. We both see the necessity in verbally communicating what Jesus has done and will ultimately do. We both believe that conversations are best done in the context of relationship and that our words ought to be filled with as much grace and truth as possible - with the Spirit's help. We both have a deep affection for Christ and want people to be reconciled to God.
I can see how my "parenthetical definition" of the Gospel in my comment above (sufficiency and exclusivity) seems narrow. I defined it in that case because I believe scripture speaks of and understands the Gospel to be about the work of Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to the Father. That said, I believe the scripture also speaks of the Gospel as a broader story (I tend to lean towards the Creation - Fall - Redemption - Restoration/Consummation as the most helpful framework for telling the big story of scripture, and I do want to note that I believe the Redemption story is certainly broader than the work of Christ but it is certainly not less than it). I think because scripture uses "gospel" to mean both the 'zoomed-in lens' of Christ's work, and the 'zoomed-out lens' of Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration, that we can be free to use it as either in our conversations (I'm borrowing the zoomed-in/out lens picture from Gilbert/DeYoung's book "What is the Mission of the Church"). Where I think you and I should agree to disagree is whether our experience is inclusive in how we define Gospel or not.
I think that there are many pragmatic questions that flow from this conversation. And that would be an interesting conversation, but that might have to be for another time.
After our posts, I have come to love Christ more and appreciate that if God is for us, then no one can be against us. I hope that is true for anyone else who may have been following this thread. I deeply respect you Duncan, and thank God for you and the gifting and heart He has given you.
All the best to you and Amy, and I'll let you have the last word if you choose... And next time you're in Abbotsford or I'm in Vancouver, a coffee is in order :)
Hey Greg,
ReplyDeleteI just attended a series of lectures by Scott Mcknight related to his new book the King Jesus Gospel, which relate to this conversation in a number of ways. I believe it has clarified some of my thinking on the topic and I have perhaps moved a little closer to some of the things you have said, as well as am clearer on what makes me nervous... I am going to write a full post on it. I definitely hope you check it out. It will be called: what is the Gospel?