This Hope (08)

I recently read an article called 'What Evangelism Isn't' and then went on to list 3 examples of things considered evangelism which he then said it wasn't. The first was personal testimony, the second helping the poor, and the third apologetics. I then read some responses to the article...

Commenter 1

We need to have a way of spreading good news to
the wealthy and the well and the educated who have too many answers and too much
to eat and have no need of a doctor. They also give to the poor but they are
wealthy enough to do it. However, their souls need saving by Jesus too. The way
to reach their heart is to shock them by our becoming poor and yet still feeding
the poor ourselves from what little we have, even while we are poor. We must
become simple and poor yet generous and kind. We must give up wealthy lifestyles
and give up our education and give up our health and yet still minister in joy
and thanksgiving to the educated and the wealthy who have not been redeemed.
They must surely be ashamed when we who were once wealthy have stepped down and
become outcasts for the kingdom. Too many pastors want to be called reverend and
want to be revered for their learning and hold high positions and be consulted
by politicians and attend town functions and parties and be highly regarded.

Commenter 2

Excellent article! I am surprised at how many
of the commenter's want to hold onto a weaker version of evangelism where merely
feeding the hungry, or merely helping the poor is held up as equivalent to
preaching the gospel. Yes, those things are important, but there is no
difference between the service work of the atheist and the Christian if the
gospel is not preached.

Commenter 3

The ridiculousness of this article just
highlights what a false category 'evangelism' is. Jesus didn't worry about what
evangelism is and isn't and neither should we. He preached the Kingdom, he
healed the sick, he fed the hungry, he invited the outcast in. Let's go do the
same.

You may guess that the one I agree with the most is the third commenter. The funny thing about the three examples set by the author of the article is that they don't carry at all the same thrust. Jesus practiced primarily the encouragement of feeding of the poor, followed by personal testimony (in some form), and I saw very little apologetics (the defense of the faith). How on earth did apologetics even get in there?

When Jesus walked the earth He was beginning to realise what He had to do. He was becoming more and more self aware and, by the time He first stood up (or sat down, because that was the tradition of teachers in those days) in front of a great crowd in the temple He had pretty much worked out His mission. Even though It upset everyone He began something that we could call evangelism. Or just plain mission (pretty much the same thing). His life was a demonstration of something greater, and it was His life that made everything after it possible - the growing of disciples, the church, the Spirit falling on so many, people being set free and healed, etc. His demonstration was a representation of the gospel, or the kingdom, or a mixture of both. By welcoming in the outcast, or going out to the outcast so they can be brought in Jesus was demonstrating the love that would be ultimately shown in it's fullness on the cross.

By living the life He led, healing the sick, helping the needy, pointing out the religious, and shaming the people against God, He demonstrated the Gospel giving Himself opportunities to then explain Himself. Saying things along the lines of, "The kingdom of God is like.." What happens when actions are piled onto actions, and the actions aren't self motivated ways of building self image but, in fact, gospel, Jesus-motivated acts of pure love because they were first loved by God the actions force the person at the thrust of it to be challenged by their own worldview. When someone acting a certain way doesn't make sense the natural thing to do is challenge it.

Jesus living His life the way He did challenged people in more than just showing them they might be wrong. It was practically a living attack on their lifestyle. It challenged the self-righteous the most in His day, because they were right and their living made everyone else feel rotten. Nowadays the lifestyle of Jesus would be similar but it would cut through the heart of all those people who think themselves as right and the ultimate authority. He would challenge racism, sexism, prejudices against the ugly (or the pretty), hatred against people who are rich or poor, in need or comfortable, healthy or sick, whatever the thing that divided communities He would challenge. Imagine that kind of character. You would ask questions straight off, or at least challenge their authority.

This is the lifestyle that all disciples of Jesus are called to. A lifestyle that attacks (a better word may be 'intrudes') the worldview of everyone not yet adopted into His family.

That's a long way round of saying I think apologetics is a poor excuse for evangelism. It's no use to unbelievers, non-Christians, whatever you want to call it. The Wisdom of God (the thing that makes the whole life, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus make sense) is foolishness to anyone who isn't born again. Arguing about facts whether truly factual or not won't create converts. People will be persuaded but that's only another step.

True evangelism is the lifestyle that forces questions to be asked and speaking words in line with the lifestyle that explains and reinforces the kingdom of God. And it's interesting that in the book of Jonah, Jonah's gospel presentation goes: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" That's it. No lengthy explanations of the doctrine of the trinity or the incarnation of God in Jesus, or the doctrines of grace and love from God. I suppose it's that classic argument that St. Francis of Assisi used - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words." I don't think he's completely right, but he's got a better idea than 'preach the gospel, if necessary demonstrate it.'