Interview 3 | White and Barcellos from MCTS on Vimeo.
Showing posts with label Relational evangelism vs intentional evangelism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Relational evangelism vs intentional evangelism. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
James White On Evangelism
James White in this video answers some very important questions on evangelism in the context of the local church. Far too often people can put so much stress on others to evangelise that it becomes unhealthy and unbalanced. Dr. White helps us see a proper biblical approach to evangelism. Well worth watching!!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Relational Evangelism or Intentional Evangelism? I
Many in the relational-incarnational school suggest a one-to-one relationship between Christ's ability to incarnate the life-changing power and moral character of the gospel and our ability, as His children, to do so. Jesus' very presence is said to have been evangelistic. He did not just bring the word of truth; He was the word of truth. He did not just preach the gospel; He was the gospel and, of course, still is the gospel. Therefore, my presence (life, character and service) could also be termed "evangelistic" since I bear witness of Jesus as I live out a lifestyle that reflects His presence. By implication then, living the Christian life in character, fellowship and service is as valid a form of evangelism as is sharing the gospel. In line with such reasoning, one author wrote, "Perhaps we don't have a big enough definition of evangelism. When I say 'evangelism' I mean not only verbal proclamation but visual proclamation as well: the whole disclosure of God in the world."
Joe Aldrich, an articulate spokesman for this position, has written, "In the truest sense, evangelism is displaying the universals of God's character – His love, His righteousness, His justice and His faithfulness through the particulars of my everyday life. Therefore, evangelism is not a 'special' activity to be undertaken at a prescribed time. It is the constant and spontaneous overflow of our individual and corporate experience of Christ." He concludes that "even more specifically, evangelism is what Christ does through the activity of His children as they are involved in (1) proclamation, (2) fellowship, and (3) service."Thus, true evangelism is seen as not only the communication of the gospel, but also the "fellowship" and "service" of the saints. As we can see, the one-to-one comparison of a person's life to the life of Christ would lead logically to a one-to-one comparison of that life (fellowship and service) to the gospel of Jesus Christ (proclamation). Both are presumed to be efficient conveyors of good news and, therefore, evangelistic in nature. As Aldrich states, "Evangelism, then, is stereophonic. God speaks to His creatures through two channels: the written word and you, His 'living epistle,' His 'good seed.’ ”But what are we to make of such a comparison? I believe that this reasoning errs in two major areas. First, it is grounded in a misunderstanding of the technical, biblical definitions of witness and evangelism which leads to an artificial distinction between those terms. It is reasoned that " as long as a man simply tells another about Jesus, he is a witness. But the moment he tries to get that person to do something with Christ, he leaves the realm of witnessing and enters the province of soul winning, i.e., one who seeks to 'manipulate a prospect into doing anything with Christ.’ ”Thus, "witnessing and soul winning are two different specialities," and the teaching that "evangelism equals soul winning" can lead only to unhealthy evangelistic models to the hurt of the evangelistic enterprise.
I believe that such reasoning misses the point of the New Testament teaching on the nature and activity of the witness and of evangelism. It is technically incorrect to broaden, and therefore dilute, the New Testament meaning of witness by including a nonverbal, nonpersuasive ministry of "being light to the world" and/or a verbal testimony to Christ with no emphasis on the decisive nature of the gospel.
To be a witness, in Luke's terminology, means "to bear witness in the sense of proclaiming Christ" (Acts 4:33; 23:11). Luke 24:48 and Acts 1:8 indicate that the apostles were witnesses, having been "commissioned by the Lord with the proclamation of the message of the kingdom.”In Acts, the verb (to witness) is used in solemnly declaring and attesting the apostolic preaching in order to win a favorable verdict from the hearers (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 20:24).
Thus, Luke uses this word in the sense of giving "the full proclamation of the message of Christ," the "testimony to Jesus as the Christ (Acts 18:5), the proclamation of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), [and] the urgently wooing address of the gospel of Christ.”21
It is not surprising that in this context of bearing witness (Acts 28:23), Paul also saw fit to "convince" or "persuade" nonbelievers to come to Christ. "The term witness suggests something of the atmosphere of a trial, a lawsuit between Christ and the world, in which the apostles are witnesses."
Thus, the role of the biblical witness to Christ and the gospel is (1) to acquaint himself thoroughly with the facts of the case, i.e., the historical gospel information; (2) to deliver the facts faithfully, regardless of the circumstances or unpopularity of the facts, i.e., to be ready to suffer unjustly; and (3) to describe the meaning and significance of the facts to others with a passionate persuasiveness. The concept of a biblical witness is placed firmly in the context of persuasive proclamation of the gospel and is to be identified biblically with soul winning – asking someone to do something with Christ. The apostolic witness was intended to elicit a response. They preached, as Bunyun put it, what they "smartingly did feel." Our witness can do no less.
In looking at the second error of this false comparison, it is plain from our previous discussion on the definition of both "gospel" and "evangelism," that neither of these terms allows for the nonverbal/nonpersuasive "service" and "fellowship" of the saints to be included under the technical definition of evangelism. While the methodology of first-century evangelism was indeed flexible, the definition of what constituted true evangelism was narrow and precise. Evangelism is soul winning. It is the proclamation of the gospel with a view to persuading lost men and women to come to Christ. Anything less is not evangelism.
Mark McCloskey
Joe Aldrich, an articulate spokesman for this position, has written, "In the truest sense, evangelism is displaying the universals of God's character – His love, His righteousness, His justice and His faithfulness through the particulars of my everyday life. Therefore, evangelism is not a 'special' activity to be undertaken at a prescribed time. It is the constant and spontaneous overflow of our individual and corporate experience of Christ." He concludes that "even more specifically, evangelism is what Christ does through the activity of His children as they are involved in (1) proclamation, (2) fellowship, and (3) service."Thus, true evangelism is seen as not only the communication of the gospel, but also the "fellowship" and "service" of the saints. As we can see, the one-to-one comparison of a person's life to the life of Christ would lead logically to a one-to-one comparison of that life (fellowship and service) to the gospel of Jesus Christ (proclamation). Both are presumed to be efficient conveyors of good news and, therefore, evangelistic in nature. As Aldrich states, "Evangelism, then, is stereophonic. God speaks to His creatures through two channels: the written word and you, His 'living epistle,' His 'good seed.’ ”But what are we to make of such a comparison? I believe that this reasoning errs in two major areas. First, it is grounded in a misunderstanding of the technical, biblical definitions of witness and evangelism which leads to an artificial distinction between those terms. It is reasoned that " as long as a man simply tells another about Jesus, he is a witness. But the moment he tries to get that person to do something with Christ, he leaves the realm of witnessing and enters the province of soul winning, i.e., one who seeks to 'manipulate a prospect into doing anything with Christ.’ ”Thus, "witnessing and soul winning are two different specialities," and the teaching that "evangelism equals soul winning" can lead only to unhealthy evangelistic models to the hurt of the evangelistic enterprise.
I believe that such reasoning misses the point of the New Testament teaching on the nature and activity of the witness and of evangelism. It is technically incorrect to broaden, and therefore dilute, the New Testament meaning of witness by including a nonverbal, nonpersuasive ministry of "being light to the world" and/or a verbal testimony to Christ with no emphasis on the decisive nature of the gospel.
To be a witness, in Luke's terminology, means "to bear witness in the sense of proclaiming Christ" (Acts 4:33; 23:11). Luke 24:48 and Acts 1:8 indicate that the apostles were witnesses, having been "commissioned by the Lord with the proclamation of the message of the kingdom.”In Acts, the verb (to witness) is used in solemnly declaring and attesting the apostolic preaching in order to win a favorable verdict from the hearers (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 20:24).
Thus, Luke uses this word in the sense of giving "the full proclamation of the message of Christ," the "testimony to Jesus as the Christ (Acts 18:5), the proclamation of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), [and] the urgently wooing address of the gospel of Christ.”21
It is not surprising that in this context of bearing witness (Acts 28:23), Paul also saw fit to "convince" or "persuade" nonbelievers to come to Christ. "The term witness suggests something of the atmosphere of a trial, a lawsuit between Christ and the world, in which the apostles are witnesses."
Thus, the role of the biblical witness to Christ and the gospel is (1) to acquaint himself thoroughly with the facts of the case, i.e., the historical gospel information; (2) to deliver the facts faithfully, regardless of the circumstances or unpopularity of the facts, i.e., to be ready to suffer unjustly; and (3) to describe the meaning and significance of the facts to others with a passionate persuasiveness. The concept of a biblical witness is placed firmly in the context of persuasive proclamation of the gospel and is to be identified biblically with soul winning – asking someone to do something with Christ. The apostolic witness was intended to elicit a response. They preached, as Bunyun put it, what they "smartingly did feel." Our witness can do no less.
In looking at the second error of this false comparison, it is plain from our previous discussion on the definition of both "gospel" and "evangelism," that neither of these terms allows for the nonverbal/nonpersuasive "service" and "fellowship" of the saints to be included under the technical definition of evangelism. While the methodology of first-century evangelism was indeed flexible, the definition of what constituted true evangelism was narrow and precise. Evangelism is soul winning. It is the proclamation of the gospel with a view to persuading lost men and women to come to Christ. Anything less is not evangelism.
Mark McCloskey
Relational Evangelism or Intentional Evangelism? II
Divine Channels?
The one-to-one comparison assumes that both one's life and the gospel are divine channels through which the living Christ is communicated with saving benefit to the nonbeliever. While I would never want to minimize the crucial role of the quality of life of the one bearing witness to the gospel, we must ask, "Is the one-to-one comparison valid?" I believe the answer is no.
Jesus was the perfect, sinless Word of God incarnate. In Him all the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form (Colossians 1:19). He was the gospel itself. In like manner, the gospel is the light of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). But we fall far short of this. True, we are in the process of being renewed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18), and we will manifest, to a degree, the character and service given us by Christ.
But we must keep in mind that we are limited in our reflection of the glory of God in the face of Christ, due to our continued fallenness. Our lives, character and service do not bear witness to the glory and saving presence of Christ on a level equal to that of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel. Our lives do not do justice to the nature and intent of true evangelism. Here are some reasons.
Our lives, in the process of sanctification, cannot bear the burden of purity, truth and glory inherent in the gospel. As Alan Walker commented, "A serious fallacy has spread through the church today. It is the so called presence concept. While valuable as a protest against too great a trust in merely verbalizing the gospel, the presence concept is a danger as a half truth. The presence idea is the reappearance of one of the worst features of the liberal era of theology. It claims that it is only necessary to be kind and good, to be concerned. The presence idea is filled with pharisaism, a pharisaism which claims that quality of life can be so transparent that Christ shines through. It is a denial of the evangelical faith which believes that a man must, through repentance and faith, be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
The idea that "I don't speak, I let my life do the talking" or "I shouldn't speak until my life has done some talking" forces us to ask, "Whose life is good enough for such an assignment?"
Samuel Shoemaker once said, "I cannot by being good, tell men of Jesus' atoning death and resurrection, nor of my faith in His divinity. The emphasis is too much on me, and too little on Him. Our lives must be made as consistent as we can make them with our faith; but our faith, if we are Christians, is vastly greater than our lives. That is why the 'word' of witness is so important.”This subtle shift toward the life of the messenger and away from the content of the gospel is noted by another author: "Relational evangelism, in spite of its good intentions, does not put its emphasis on the hearing of the word of truth as the necessary kindling which the Holy Spirit ignites in regeneration (Romans 10:17). Relational evangelism's approach can neglect the theological content of the gospel by shifting the focus to the personality and experience of the evangelist.”
The "stereophonic" approach (God speaking to the lost equally through two channels – you and the gospel) is confusing for the non-Christian. Instead of being exposed to the clear witness of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel, he is exposed to its dim reflection in a fallen human life. True, this life should be different from that of the unregenerate. But understanding the source of this distinction becomes a burden of spiritual discernment that the non-Christian cannot bear.
How is he to tell the difference between the solid and attractive lifestyle of the Mormon family across the street and that of the evangelical family next door? Both husbands go to church on Sunday with the entire family, treat their kids and wives nicer than does anyone else on the block, are faithful to their wives and are very friendly. They are both against abortion, don't drink or smoke, and are continually mentioning Jesus Christ and their activities at church. How is a spiritually blind, unregenerate man to distinguish between the truth of the gospel and the lie of a cult? Between that which brings eternal life and that which leads to death and destruction? If the lost are to "tune in" on the character and lifestyle of the messenger before they hear the gospel, and if this channel is considered to be on a par with the gospel message channel, then I must argue that the lost will not have access to the clear information they need on which to base any sort of eternal decision. At best, they will pick up "static" when the life of the messenger falls short (which is inevitable for all of us) and contradicts his perfect message. How can we expect the non-believer to know that we are a reflection of the good news until they know what the good news is?
Even the most perfect life ever lived was radically misunderstood by many in His audience. Jesus manifested the very life of God, yet was rejected and put to death by His own countrymen. The pagan neighbors of Peter's audience unjustly slandered the Christians as "evil doers." This should convince us of the limits of letting our lives speak for the gospel or of placing the testimony of our lives on a par with the gospel. The gospel is too important to be left to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of human character and behavior. It must be allowed to speak for itself in all its power and authority.
Mark McCloskey
The one-to-one comparison assumes that both one's life and the gospel are divine channels through which the living Christ is communicated with saving benefit to the nonbeliever. While I would never want to minimize the crucial role of the quality of life of the one bearing witness to the gospel, we must ask, "Is the one-to-one comparison valid?" I believe the answer is no.
Jesus was the perfect, sinless Word of God incarnate. In Him all the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form (Colossians 1:19). He was the gospel itself. In like manner, the gospel is the light of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). But we fall far short of this. True, we are in the process of being renewed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18), and we will manifest, to a degree, the character and service given us by Christ.
But we must keep in mind that we are limited in our reflection of the glory of God in the face of Christ, due to our continued fallenness. Our lives, character and service do not bear witness to the glory and saving presence of Christ on a level equal to that of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel. Our lives do not do justice to the nature and intent of true evangelism. Here are some reasons.
Our lives, in the process of sanctification, cannot bear the burden of purity, truth and glory inherent in the gospel. As Alan Walker commented, "A serious fallacy has spread through the church today. It is the so called presence concept. While valuable as a protest against too great a trust in merely verbalizing the gospel, the presence concept is a danger as a half truth. The presence idea is the reappearance of one of the worst features of the liberal era of theology. It claims that it is only necessary to be kind and good, to be concerned. The presence idea is filled with pharisaism, a pharisaism which claims that quality of life can be so transparent that Christ shines through. It is a denial of the evangelical faith which believes that a man must, through repentance and faith, be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
The idea that "I don't speak, I let my life do the talking" or "I shouldn't speak until my life has done some talking" forces us to ask, "Whose life is good enough for such an assignment?"
Samuel Shoemaker once said, "I cannot by being good, tell men of Jesus' atoning death and resurrection, nor of my faith in His divinity. The emphasis is too much on me, and too little on Him. Our lives must be made as consistent as we can make them with our faith; but our faith, if we are Christians, is vastly greater than our lives. That is why the 'word' of witness is so important.”This subtle shift toward the life of the messenger and away from the content of the gospel is noted by another author: "Relational evangelism, in spite of its good intentions, does not put its emphasis on the hearing of the word of truth as the necessary kindling which the Holy Spirit ignites in regeneration (Romans 10:17). Relational evangelism's approach can neglect the theological content of the gospel by shifting the focus to the personality and experience of the evangelist.”
The "stereophonic" approach (God speaking to the lost equally through two channels – you and the gospel) is confusing for the non-Christian. Instead of being exposed to the clear witness of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel, he is exposed to its dim reflection in a fallen human life. True, this life should be different from that of the unregenerate. But understanding the source of this distinction becomes a burden of spiritual discernment that the non-Christian cannot bear.
How is he to tell the difference between the solid and attractive lifestyle of the Mormon family across the street and that of the evangelical family next door? Both husbands go to church on Sunday with the entire family, treat their kids and wives nicer than does anyone else on the block, are faithful to their wives and are very friendly. They are both against abortion, don't drink or smoke, and are continually mentioning Jesus Christ and their activities at church. How is a spiritually blind, unregenerate man to distinguish between the truth of the gospel and the lie of a cult? Between that which brings eternal life and that which leads to death and destruction? If the lost are to "tune in" on the character and lifestyle of the messenger before they hear the gospel, and if this channel is considered to be on a par with the gospel message channel, then I must argue that the lost will not have access to the clear information they need on which to base any sort of eternal decision. At best, they will pick up "static" when the life of the messenger falls short (which is inevitable for all of us) and contradicts his perfect message. How can we expect the non-believer to know that we are a reflection of the good news until they know what the good news is?
Even the most perfect life ever lived was radically misunderstood by many in His audience. Jesus manifested the very life of God, yet was rejected and put to death by His own countrymen. The pagan neighbors of Peter's audience unjustly slandered the Christians as "evil doers." This should convince us of the limits of letting our lives speak for the gospel or of placing the testimony of our lives on a par with the gospel. The gospel is too important to be left to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of human character and behavior. It must be allowed to speak for itself in all its power and authority.
Mark McCloskey
Relational Evangelism or Intentional Evangelism? Part III
The Difference It Makes
The relational school in general has a built-in aversion to methodology, technique, tools and systematic strategy. The practical result of this, I believe, is illustrated in a story told about D. L. Moody. One evening after a crusade meeting, Moody was confronted by an irate man who challenged his methods in bringing the gospel to non-Christians. Moody calmly asked him, "Tell me, what methods do you use in doing evangelism?" "I don't do evangelism," responded the man. To which Moody replied, "Well, I think I like the way I do it better than the way you don't. "
Moody's experience is still common today. Usually those critical of methods offer none as a better alternative. Carl Henry observed, "Every method of not evangelizing is wrong – and many methods of evangelizing are right." As Benjamin Oisraeli once said, "It's easier to be critical than correct. "
The avoidance of methods can lead easily to the inactivity of paralysis. It is no accident that where you find an emphasis on how to do evangelism, there you will also find people doing evangelism. The reason is that it has been made easier through the availability of a simple strategy and method. The questions, "How do I start, and how do I communicate the gospel clearly?" have been answered. The usual doubts and fears about sharing the gospel have been substantially resolved, enabling the once inactive believer to take his first concrete steps in evangelism.
It is also no accident that, generally, where you do not find a method, there you will not find the widespread practice of evangelism. Only those who are by nature creative and outgoing will find the resolve to overcome their fear and inertia and engage in evangelism. The rest will be paralyzed by the simple question, How do I go about doing this?" Evangelism may be much discussed and positively reinforced but, in the final analysis, little is done. While we need to be flexible in our methods and avoid building a monument to anyone approach, we also need to realize that a method is often the difference between doing evangelism and just talking about it.
The Relationship Short-Circuit
While it is not the intent of those who lead the way in relational evangelism, emphasis on the evangelist's quality of life and his relationships with non-Christians can be misapplied easily to the practice of evangelism.
First, the emphasis on sharing the gospel in the context of a warm, ongoing relationship is easily misinterpreted by the one overcome by the cultural undertow of convenience and comfort to mean that no initiative need be taken to verbalize the good news. To fulfill our calling as ambassadors, we only need to engage in a friendly relationship with a non-believer and point generally to Jesus. But the claim that everything we do is evangelism, or that developing relationships is evangelism, is often a cover-up for a witness that is so vague that nothing we do is evangelism. Such thinking can degenerate easily into a philosophy of evangelism that elevates the cultivation of relationships above the theological concerns of the urgent and crucial nature of the gospel.
The spirit of convenience can creep in here. If evangelism is hard, creates tension and is subject to rejection, such a "rocking of the boat" is to be avoided, lest it jeopardize the relationship. What is sacrificed is a clear presentation of the gospel and the call to repentance. The end result is inactivity and/or verbal reticence in the name of sensitivity and relationship building.
Second, this reasoning severely limits the scope of evangelism to encompass only those non-Christians to whom the evangelist can relate in an atmosphere of ease and harmony and in a convenient manner. The majority of non-Christians will be excluded from one's realm of witness.
In summary, a lack of a comprehensive mindset leads to an unfamiliarity with, if not rejection of, theological concerns and practical methodology that encourage the doing of evangelism. Evangelism is nothing if it is not done. The gospel is powerless to change lives if left untold
Mark McCloskey
The relational school in general has a built-in aversion to methodology, technique, tools and systematic strategy. The practical result of this, I believe, is illustrated in a story told about D. L. Moody. One evening after a crusade meeting, Moody was confronted by an irate man who challenged his methods in bringing the gospel to non-Christians. Moody calmly asked him, "Tell me, what methods do you use in doing evangelism?" "I don't do evangelism," responded the man. To which Moody replied, "Well, I think I like the way I do it better than the way you don't. "
Moody's experience is still common today. Usually those critical of methods offer none as a better alternative. Carl Henry observed, "Every method of not evangelizing is wrong – and many methods of evangelizing are right." As Benjamin Oisraeli once said, "It's easier to be critical than correct. "
The avoidance of methods can lead easily to the inactivity of paralysis. It is no accident that where you find an emphasis on how to do evangelism, there you will also find people doing evangelism. The reason is that it has been made easier through the availability of a simple strategy and method. The questions, "How do I start, and how do I communicate the gospel clearly?" have been answered. The usual doubts and fears about sharing the gospel have been substantially resolved, enabling the once inactive believer to take his first concrete steps in evangelism.
It is also no accident that, generally, where you do not find a method, there you will not find the widespread practice of evangelism. Only those who are by nature creative and outgoing will find the resolve to overcome their fear and inertia and engage in evangelism. The rest will be paralyzed by the simple question, How do I go about doing this?" Evangelism may be much discussed and positively reinforced but, in the final analysis, little is done. While we need to be flexible in our methods and avoid building a monument to anyone approach, we also need to realize that a method is often the difference between doing evangelism and just talking about it.
The Relationship Short-Circuit
While it is not the intent of those who lead the way in relational evangelism, emphasis on the evangelist's quality of life and his relationships with non-Christians can be misapplied easily to the practice of evangelism.
First, the emphasis on sharing the gospel in the context of a warm, ongoing relationship is easily misinterpreted by the one overcome by the cultural undertow of convenience and comfort to mean that no initiative need be taken to verbalize the good news. To fulfill our calling as ambassadors, we only need to engage in a friendly relationship with a non-believer and point generally to Jesus. But the claim that everything we do is evangelism, or that developing relationships is evangelism, is often a cover-up for a witness that is so vague that nothing we do is evangelism. Such thinking can degenerate easily into a philosophy of evangelism that elevates the cultivation of relationships above the theological concerns of the urgent and crucial nature of the gospel.
The spirit of convenience can creep in here. If evangelism is hard, creates tension and is subject to rejection, such a "rocking of the boat" is to be avoided, lest it jeopardize the relationship. What is sacrificed is a clear presentation of the gospel and the call to repentance. The end result is inactivity and/or verbal reticence in the name of sensitivity and relationship building.
Second, this reasoning severely limits the scope of evangelism to encompass only those non-Christians to whom the evangelist can relate in an atmosphere of ease and harmony and in a convenient manner. The majority of non-Christians will be excluded from one's realm of witness.
In summary, a lack of a comprehensive mindset leads to an unfamiliarity with, if not rejection of, theological concerns and practical methodology that encourage the doing of evangelism. Evangelism is nothing if it is not done. The gospel is powerless to change lives if left untold
Mark McCloskey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)