Re-imagining Evangelism: your suggestions?
2 Dec 2009
In the New Year, I’ll be leading our church community in a series on ‘Evangelism’. In the 12 years of our church plant I’ve never undertaken such a series.
We’ve certainly explored what evangelism isn’t, or at least the kinds of evangelism that seem so alienating and ineffective, from many of our previous church experiences.
And it’s heart we’ve been convinced that a community of people passionately pursuing Jesus is the best form of evangelism.
But we’ve come to a point, where it seems time to explore evangelism more explicitly. At a time when it’s far easier to share with others loss of faith, doubts and de-conversion, where and how do we have confidence to see our friends, relatives and communities hand over control of their lives to Jesus with others?
So as I collect my thoughts and start outlining that series, I wondered what resources you might recommend to me and our community?
Tagged: Evangelism, Resources
41 comments
Trackback
Comment by Rick C ruse
4.22 pm on 2 Dec 2009
Two helpful books, the first perhaps more than the second: “The Insiders,” by Jim Peterson and “Evangelism Without Additives,” by Jim Henderson (which I heard about, I think, via you).
The first one helps people think through the relationships in which they are already insiders and how to maximize those. I appreciate his discussion on “conversing your faith,” something we aren’t always good at. That is, simply bringing our own stories into normal conversations in normal ways, without expressing in any way that we are trying to make our story someone else’s.
The description of evangelism in the second is most helpful: what if evangelism simply meant being yourself [with intentionality].
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
7.08 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Tnx Rick.
Let me ask, what does it mean to ‘be myself’? What self, and how is the self formed and determined, and does it differ from a non-christian self?
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Elizabeth Chapin
6.45 pm on 2 Dec 2009
Jason, one of the best books I read for Todd Hunter’s Evangelism class at George Fox was Evangelism after Christendom by Bryan Stone. He writes from a U.S. perspective, but nonetheless, it is very good. It’s academic, so you would enjoy it, but not sure if your community would enjoy reading it. I blogged about the book a couple years ago here: http://chickchaotic.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/evangelism-is/.
MaryKate Morse also has a nice visual on transformation, I’ll have to look for it in my notes, that is very process oriented rather than event or “cross this line” oriented.
I’m curious about your question, “how do we have confidence to see our friends, relatives and communities hand over control of their lives to Jesus with others?” Is handing over control what evangelism is about? That reminds me a little bit of the Campus Crusade Tracts where Jesus is on the throne or not of someone’s heart/life. While I affirm Jesus is Lord, I’m not convinced “handing over control” is what Jesus requires. Like a good friend of ours likes to say, God invites us into a cooperative friendship with Jesus, living lives of creative goodness, in the power of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of others. Maybe if we invite people into such and inter-dependent, amazingly beautiful cooperative relationship with the creator of the universe they will be more likely to show interest than if we ask them to give up control of their lives and turn over control to someone they barely even know.
My final recommendation for your community to go through together would be Todd Hunter’s book, Christianity Beyond Belief (http://www.toddhunter.org/). It is very accessible and instead of offering only critique on how not to do evangelism, he offers great ideas on how to be cooperative friends of Jesus for the sake of others.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
7.14 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Tnx for the references/resources.
Let me push back on control. I’m all for the need to be careful with language and not alienate people, and that the word control is anathema to western individuals.
However, if I can push back a little, I think christian conversion and identity is more than co-orpative friendship. A cruciform identity, the slavery of identity Paul talks about, the worship as subjects of a King and his Kingdom, seem to talk of the establishment of our identity on something other than ourselves, and more than collaboration.
I’m not saying we don’t get a collaborative relationship with Jesus, but maybe to often collaboration is a cover for doing things my way
Philippians alone would suggest a model for the location of ourselves and the kenotic emptying that is required in order to find who we are in Jesus, that goes far beyond collaboration as equals, and the submission of self to one far greater than we are.
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Elizabeth Chapin
8.04 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Jason, I appreciate your push back, but even kings in earthly kingdoms hope to have cooperative subjects. I’m not so concerned with the submission and subjection, as the misconception that God is holding some sort of cosmic remote control and when we give him control we then expect God to “do it all” and some Christians continue in sin because “God hasn’t delivered me yet.” I think there is much to be gained in our increasingly post-Christendom contexts to focus more on cooperation – while not neglecting that it is a cooperative relationship between the Lord of All and his lovingly cooperative subjects who have willingly chosen to join his kingdom.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
10.12 am on 4 Dec 2009
There is the danger that we play semantics. Words are important and I think using the word control, does cause problems, but I still think that the invitation to have the Spirit birth an identity in us of Abba Father and Jesus as Lord, and to locate our identity in the Body of Christ, as the Public of the Holy Spirit is the heart of the gospel invitation.
Whilst I resonate with collaborative friendship, it does sound like something a life coach and therapist invite you into
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Stuart Gibb
6.24 pm on 7 Dec 2009
re. Control v partnership in our relationship with the Lord
I think John’s gospel is very helpful in this matter. Jesus only does what He sees the Father doing and is invested with authority to accomplish it (John 5:19-23). After His resurrection He applied the same parameters that were on His life onto the disciples:
‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ John 20:17b (NKJV)
They were now no less than sons i.e. having intimacy, involvement, inheritance and responsibility and they were to have no more autonomy than Jesus; always submitted to His Father’s will. A son growing up in his father’s business best describes that facet of the partnership for me, but as you say there is our relationship to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit to be considered as well. I suspect there are similar aspects of both intimacy (and therefore interaction and partnership) and Lordship in these too. I think He wants (and requires) our response but He always takes the initiative – and so to relate it to evangelism – He invites us to look up and see what He is doing and enter into it with Him (John 4:35-38).
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Steve Burnhope
11.06 am on 3 Dec 2009
Thanks (as always) for inviting contribution.
My own thoughts, somewhat at random, are:
1. I feel evangelism as a ‘thing’ is an unhelpful category. It’s like something we ‘do to’ people. If someone thought they were being ‘evangelised’, it would probably feel very negative.
2. I think the most effective form of ‘evangelism’ (we’ll use the word, since we’re among friends) is friendship, and people sharing their own personal experience of Christ/Christianity/the Spirit with their friends.
3. To me, the key to everything is relationship: what we are offering (i.e. what the Gospel is), what we are sharing about in our own experience (i.e. what we’ve found personally), and how we go about it (i.e. the context in which we are engaging with people)
4. People become Christians, I think, mostly because of other people’s stories/experiences, which they are drawn to want to enter into for themeselves, and often with only a rudimentary understanding of the ‘facts’ of the faith. So, we focus on stories/experience/relationship with God, rather than on technical understanding (downloading of facts)
5. This is not to say that the facts of the faith (e.g. a cruciform gospel) are unimportant, but we need to help people learn the story of “salvation achieved for us by Christ” imn such a way that it ‘fits’ with their own “story of salvation experienced by me”. This means revisiting how we tell the atonement story, and how it (and we) all fit into the ‘Big Story’ of God, of humanity and the biblical narrative. Many Christians seem never to have thought about this. As one said to me, “I just start with Jesus …”
6. I have seen churches approach their cell group evangelism as a military campaign, keeping logs naming all their personal ‘targets’, and filing regular updated reports with the church leadership as to how things are going. This is crass in the extreme, and just think of the red top (tabloid) media headlines if ever it were to be found out.
7. This is related to what I call “Purpose Driven Friendship”, when Christians seek to ‘make friends’ with people in order to convert them. If progress isn’t quick enough, or if the people show insufficient signs of interest (within a timescale we’ve decided), we drop them and move on to another target ‘friendship’. This is not making friends, in any real or honest sense, but a deception, a hidden agenda (I am not judging individual motives, I am describing the line of thinking). We need to encourage people to form real friendships, to demonstrate real love, and take real interest in people. And to be patient. Love lasts forever. We must be willing to be friends with people forever. And not just to ‘love them with the love of Christ’ but, ‘really love them’. (See http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?m=200908).
8. All this means, much to most pastors’ disappointment, I’m sure (unless they are in denial), that their Sunday sermon is not the pinnacle of the Spirit’s work in bringing about conversion. The answer isn’t “if only we could get more people into church on Sunday to hear the pastor give the gospel”. I don’t think the problem to be overcome in reaching the unchurched is a lack of information, although that’s certainly there, but a lack of understanding of what they can genuinely experience.
9. As to our style, I think we need to be willing to listen to people’s own thoughts, views, ideas, on God and religion, the human situation, etc., and not just think of evanglism as ‘telling’. One can ‘tell’ indirectly, in conversation, but gently and non-dogmatically. Truth statements are not somehow more true for being said dogmatically, rather being suggested humbly, or as opinions or personal experiences. If we can take a genuine interest in what people think, then they will more likely take a genuine interest in what we think. If we have discovered meaningful answers to our own questions about life and faith, questions that are similar to our friends’ questions, and if those answers ‘make sense’ (sadly, many Christian answers to unchurched people’s questions are parroted, albeit in good faith, and so don’t make any sense outside the Christian ghetto), then perhaps people will find them applicable in their own situation.
10. I am personally of the view (although I accept I am influenced culturally in this) that hospitality has a more central role than we have given it credit for. I think it was a significant feature of Jesus’ approach (see ‘Being like Jesus’ at http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?m=200911). It’s also a way of showing real generosity, inclusiveness and openness. Have a dinner party with a few Christians and a few – at least as many – non-Christians. If you feel you can, have a theme. For example, we had a series of informal dinners at our house called ‘Soul in a Bowl’, with a published-in-advance theme question each time, such as “Did Jesus intend to found the church, and if so, what did he have in mind?”, or “Is Christianity still relevant in an age of science?”, and – after the starter – gently introduced it for suggested conversation. Guests were invited to give the question some thought beforehand and come with ideas. Critical, of course, is to take the unchurched contributions seriously and with respect. It’s conversation, and opinions, not instruction and correction. And it’s certainly not about “trying to find an opportunity to get the gospel in”. Warn the Christians (nicely) in advance: no ‘truth claims’, please.
I’ll shut up there.
Not seeking to be prescriptive, and certainly haven’t got all the answers.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.29 am on 7 Dec 2009
All great Steve, thank you.
I think lots of us have been trying this approach for 10 years or more, but seeing very few people become Christians.
So let me ask, why do think that is, despite all the above going on in significant ways with lots of people?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
3.53 pm on 18 Dec 2009
I really don’t know, Jase. It might sound critical to speculate, but perhaps it’s due to (1) swinging the pendulum a little too far towards “just being friends” and “just loving people” (emphasis on “just”) and (2) insufficient emphasis on sharing our personal experience of Christ and his life-changing impact on us (our stories are probably a more powerful message than we realise).
It’s difficult to sum up quite nuanced emphases in a few words, in helping Christians to get the balance right here (easier in conversation), but we do need to ultimately lead our friends to a point of decision (so long as we are going at their own speed, not artificially forcing the pace).
I think folks need to keep in mind that, at some point, there is a line to be crossed, from ‘one kingdom’ to another. Every journey has to start somewhere; every relationship with an introductory conversation; every reconciliation with a desire to be reconciled, and willingness to do what’s necessary on an individual’s part to bring that about (i.e. what we might call ‘repentance’). I say this as one who prefers centered-set, to bounded-set, categories, however. I just think it’s also helpful to people to realise that the process of being a new person, a new creation, requires a caterpillar to butterfly moment. A time to point to, when I turned around and set out on a different journey.
I don’t think this needs to be formulaic, or legalistic, or couched in outmoded thought forms or ancient language, but the underlying truth of it is still there, in scripture, I think.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
10.02 am on 19 Dec 2009
Hi Steve, I think it has swung too far. We have on the one hand a way of doing evangelism locked in propositions, and certainty, that needs to take a missional turn to the post-modern post-foundational world.
Lots have tried to make that turn, but have become stranded in de-conversion, and loss of faith. Or at least the ability to have any confidence in a relationship with Christ and his church, and the confidence to bring that to others, and invite them into it. It’s still easier to invite people into discussions of what is wrong with church, what is difficult about the Christian faith, but to invite others into living it with others, seems to be lacking.
I don’t think it needs be formulaic, but involves an experience of faith with others, that we can invite people into. When you work that out let me know
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.56 am on 21 Dec 2009
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. 100%.
The challenge (expressing it, firstly, in ‘church’ terms) seems to be to construct something entirely different from all that has been shown to be empty, yet, which does not sacrifice continuity with the eternal and essential themes of scripture, gospel and deep relational experience of Christ.
Perhaps we need (in theological terms) to explore a new fundamentalism, by which I mean, revisit what are the real fundamentals of the Christian story, told in ways that are completely faithful to the biblical materials, yet which re-explains the faith in ways that make sense to people, grab their hearts, wills and emotions and cause them overwhelmingly to ‘fall in love’ with our God. I sincerely believe it’s ‘out there’.
I feel theology needs to play a major role in providing the tools for pastors and evangelists. At the moment, our pastors and evangelists are cooking up receipes from larders that are half bare and realise it isn’t satisfying. You can survive on pasta and tomato sauce, but it isn’t going to win a lot of new friends.
I also feel that the challenge mainly falls to people who have seen the old and the bad (perhaps been a part of it, and seen the limitations and flaws), from within the Church (not – or not just – from within the Academy) but are theologically well-informed, Spirit-filled and passionately envisioned to provide the missing ingredients.
Eaisier to talk about than write short posts about.
Maybe what we need is a Conference, at which we can present papers, in which we leave lots of space for lots of conversation?
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Jason Clark
9.21 am on 21 Dec 2009
Hi mate, or maybe how can evangelicalism be renewed, is is implicit in what you’re saying?
I know I long for a via media with others between ‘holding the line’ of business as usual with old ways of being church, and the post-church de-conversion, consumer ecclesiology taking place.
Is there room for something in between? I’d be up for finding others to explore that space.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
11.05 am on 21 Dec 2009
Yes, it is absolutely to do with renewing evangelicalism.
One might say that it’s about theologically defining and then implementing at the popular level a ‘post-conservative’ evangelicalism (per Grenz, Pinnock, Olson et al), turning from the deconstruction implicit in such a term to a reconstruction or re-imagining, providing material that can be applied at the popular level by pastors and evangelists.
There is no need for this to involve a ’sell out’ to consumerist or other secular influences.
The alternative, though, is the perpetuation of language, thought-forms and activities that have ever-increasing irrelevance to society.
I certainly hold passionately to the cornerstones of evangelicalism (using, for want of an alternative, Bebbinton’s four criteria). However, radical re-thinking is necessary. Merely playing around with ‘Evangelicalism Lite’ will not do it.
Comment by Jason Clark
3.42 pm on 21 Dec 2009
I’m finding with Bebbington’s thesis a space to capture my experience as an evangelical, and ask what kind of church produces that today, for the renewal of church. The lack of attention to ecclesiology, was the strength of evangelical church, and it’s downfall, handing over the logic of social relationships to the market.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
12.42 pm on 22 Dec 2009
Interesting question, that: how the ‘church’ relates to the market’s social relationships, which are ever evolving. Does it do so as a static entity, or one that changes too? If so, how fast? Is it simply a case of always being a decade behind …?
I’m beginning to think that the challenge is how to continuously re-imagine what we are as ‘church’, and what we do as ‘church’, in the light of the changing social environment. We rightly hold that there is something unchanging about ‘church’ (continuity with scripture and tradition, although frankly it’s almost all the latter if we’re honest), but do we hold that ‘value’ too tightly? Isn’t the challenge to the church to be forever radically redeeming the society in which it finds itself, by engaging more (rather than less) fully with wherever the market’s social relationships are ‘at’?
In other words, a radically alternative way of being and doing society (I prefer that word to ‘church’ because of the baggage and pre-suppositions it carries) under the government of Christ, but, one that is expressed in cultural forms and features that are as close as possible to contemporary society (i.e. a fully, and continuously, redeemed and righteous version)?
In that way of thinking, the cultural aspects of how we conceive and do ‘church’ would always be as close to unchurched society as possible (a recognition that most of what we do is actually culturally determined, just maybe a decade or two – or perhaps a century or two – behind where things are at for everyone else).
The critical statement in what I’m asking here is that what we are and do is a ‘radically redeemed and righteous version’. The alternative is indeed a ’sell-out’ and a culturally-conditioned faith.
Often, though, it seems Christians confuse holding fast to what are supposedly ‘eternal (or biblical) values’ and being ‘not like the world’, with the perpetuation of entirely cultural aspects and practices.
Comment by Jason Clark
1.37 pm on 22 Dec 2009
Within that you can understand the draw to living as a cult, to withdraw from society, and the opposite polarity to let the ontology of society set the nature of human identity formation.
Finding a via media between the two, has always been difficult. Evangelicals tried to not be in the world and ended up with a way of being in the world.
And how to be an evangelical church without being an ‘evangelical church’ with all the loaded connotations that entails, is a challenge.
A starting point might be to renew our own tradition, evangelicalism has a rich one, then the traditions of the church, and to make a turn back towards some kind of ecclesiology.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
2.31 pm on 22 Dec 2009
Sounds good. This would, I suggest, necessitate evangelicals being willing (and, able) to recognise the very significant degree to which church praxis – as well as many other elements of our understanding of Christian faith and praxis – is cultural.
One of the (many) ‘loaded connotations’ of ‘evangelical church’ is an image of some kind of fortress or bastion of tradition, standing for church as it’s traditionally practiced, and against anything (materially) different. “Brothers we are treading, where we’ve always trod”.
Fear of culture (a ‘head-in-the-sand’ approach, a denial of its role and influence) simply results in the church imbibing it without realising it. Just more slowly than society as a whole.
Reply here
Comment by Jason Clark
2.53 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Tnx everyone for the suggestions.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dan
3.32 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Hey Jason, did you mean to title this “Re-imaging” vs re-imagining? Cause re-imaging sounds like a PR move for damage control. Any new sheep fleece to put on the old wolf? lol…
The suggestions preceding are very good ones. God speed to you.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
3.39 pm on 3 Dec 2009
Doh! tnx for spotting the obvious typo
Reply to this comment
Comment by Stuart Gibb
12.10 pm on 4 Dec 2009
I do not know if this is helpful but I think I have found a pattern relating to evangelism and asking questions in the Gospel of John. I have been studying and meditating on this book for four years or so now and have found it amazing.
As light and seeing are big themes in John, I have been looking at the words for ’see’ and ‘know’. Some of the usage seems to be determined by NT Greek grammar, but others, such as ‘Theaomai’ (to view attentively etc.) and its intensive ‘Theoreo’ seem to be used purposely to show us something important. In the case of ‘Theaomai’, where it is Jesus doing the looking, then it is accompanied by Jesus asking a question – John 1:38, 4:35, 6:5 (also related questions in verses 61,62 and 67), and finally 8:10. Are these cases of Jesus seeing what the Father is doing and so doing it with Him? What does He see? Is it related to the testimony of John the Baptist when he says he saw (Theaomai) the Spirit descending like a dove on Jesus (John 1:32) i.e. seeing the activity of the Holy Spirit? How do we apply this to our interactions with people? What is Jesus trying to draw out of the people He is talking to? These are among the questions I am pursuing now.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.33 am on 7 Dec 2009
An understanding the Spirit for christian identity and formation remains vital to us every seeing people come to faith.
I suspect many are post-charismatic, not just because of the excesses of the charismatic (of which there are many), but that the post-modern self views all others as alien wills to be resisted.
The notion of the Spirit coming upon us and changing our identity is anathema to the agency of self in our age.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Stuart Gibb
7.01 pm on 7 Dec 2009
I think the revelation that we have already had our identity corrupted (changed) is vital. What Christ offers us is the opportunity to discover who we were really supposed to be and can be in His new creation that starts on the inside of us now. The understanding that everything of this corrupted creation is passing away and only that which is regenerated in Him will endure is key. We need to know that only what which is born of this new creation can overcome the corruption in us and in the world. Only then can we understand that true Christianity is never an add-on to our life but a replacement of the corrupted image with the original and eternal.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Randy Siever
7.09 am on 7 Dec 2009
Hi Jason. Very glad you are taking so much time to teach on this very important subject. Evangelism is, as Henderson likes to say, the elephant in the churches living room. We all know we’re supposed to do it, but almost nobody is. Way to tackle the elephant.
So Doable Evangelism (my current mission) is about getting more of our team in the game. We’re teaching simple, doable spiritual practices that engage Christians with people all around them (who they previously never really paid any attention to). As an experienced evangelist, I have to admit that this is a step that I never really taught, mostly because I do it quite naturally. I’d also admit to a host of manipulative and controlling strategies to acquire the desired “end” (praying someone across the “line of faith”). May God have mercy on me.
So we’re suggesting that we learn a whole new paradigm for evangelism that counts the small stuff, and which takes the focus off conversion and puts it back onto the Great Commission of making disciples (a much longer, richer and messier process that is impossible to score). Making a disciple is not a ten week course of follow-up, as you know. It begins well before anything we call “crossing the line” and continues for the rest of our natural life. Conversion is the method for making disciples, but we have limited our scope of conversion to a moment in time decision. Turns out only about 14 percent of Christians have this kind of experience. The majority take months or even years to come to faith. (I have the references for this if it matters to you).
So we’re hoping that we can convince Christians to give up being evangelists (in the horrible sterotype version of this, anyway) and become patient, collaborative disciple makers, cooperating with God who is already quite busy drawing people to himself long before we arrive.
This is the kind of evangelism that will work in the years to come. It is what the 20-somethings are doing already (actually, it’s what everyone does quite naturally but they don’t think it “counts”). It used to be the case that people came to faith by us talking and them listening. These days, more are coming to faith by us listening to them talking. Its not that we don’t ever talk, but rather that we listen first and then share our story (and his story).
DoableEvangelism.com is the place we hang out. Thanks again for taking this on. I look forward to hearing how you go after the elephant.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.28 am on 7 Dec 2009
Thanks Randy, having evangelism that people can do, and naturally engage in is something I’ve long been convinced of. I’d be interested in any research you have that shows data for what you are doing.
Jase
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
10.00 am on 7 Dec 2009
There seems to be several strands:
the invitation to follow Jesus and all the conotations that follow means (and did most people know exactly what they were letting themselves in for)
the process of transformation or ongoing following, discipleship/spiritual disciplines
regaining the ability to talk about following Jesus in meaningful and helpful ways, which could include things like pointing and inviting to a church community/friendships but also the ordering of our lives – what is important? what is different? What is the same?
incarnational event of going into other places/spaces, whether that is church planting, missions, or just outside our comfort zone for a cup of tea.
locating ourselves in the work of the holy spirit, in doing the inviting, transforming etc – part of following?
Reply to this comment
Comment by David
10.23 am on 7 Dec 2009
Perhaps a good first question is “What exactly is the ‘euangelion’ we are to bring to others?”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
10.30 am on 7 Dec 2009
It certainly is, and how would you answer that question, David?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Joe Irvine
4.00 pm on 7 Dec 2009
Jason
My first attempt at this so excuse the babbling. I’m wondering whether we should move away from the Evangelism label and move towards a Witnessing label. To me, sharing what you’ve seen, heard and experienced seems a much more natural way to Incarnate the Gospel. Not doubt there are some who are called to be Evangelists. However, the vast majority are called to be witnesses. The form that this witness could take may be wide and varied. However, this sharing our story can be done in the context of a community with a common goal or objective. Indeed, the goal or objective could in itself be part of our witness. This also takes away the impression that we’re “targetting” people. So the challenge is not how do we evangelise but how do we “create” these communities?
Joe
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.59 am on 19 Dec 2009
Good to hear from you Joe
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
11.19 am on 8 Dec 2009
Ever since you told the church you’d be speaking on evangelism I’ve been thinkinking about this topic. You see to me evanglism shouldn’t necessarily be a deliberate act. In fact, it shouldn’t be. Deciding to try and find a way to fit Jesus into a conversation, or relating every topic of conversaton to Jesus, going to people on the street telling them they need Jesus or loving each other deliberately seem too contrived.
Jesus converted people through how He spoke and how He lived. It was a natural, organic process. I think the heart of evangelism can be that if we are trying to live out our lives in the way of Jesus, if we are making Him central to everything in our lives, if He is part of our everyday lives, our choices, how we speak and treat people, how we act – even in the smallest thigs – then as that happens it is natural that the spirit will work through that, and it will permiate into people’s lives around us, and they will noticehow we live, how we make choices and what impact it has on our lives. Then evanglism happens naturally, organically. Almost by accident.
I have no books or resources on evangelism per say, but that’s what I think the heart of evangelism is all about, how we live day to day, and being prepared if we are placed in a situation where we can share our faith more deeply with someone.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
11.24 am on 8 Dec 2009
Hi James, I wish it was so. But if that’s the case how many people are becoming christians around you through this way of being a Christian?
People aren’t naturally becoming christians by us being organic, as much as I wish they were. And I’m not advocating a move back to street preaching.
Jesus told the disciples to go and make disciples, which implies some intentionality beyond just being christian to others, on reaching others, but how we do that today is the big question.
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
12.12 pm on 8 Dec 2009
Jase,
You do make a good point and I guess the way I described is more of an idealistic way than a practical one. Although those around me aren’t necessarily becoming Christians, I think the way I act and things I do and don’t do does make them think -especially the people I spend the most time around. I know my baptism had a deep impact on my sister and father for example.
I don’t believe in street preaching either, I think its counter-productive and not how Jesus wants us to treat people and makes them feel bad about themselves. I think projects like the foodbank, present wrapping and Wendy House that VCS is involved in are all practical evangelism in their own way. But evangelism in our own environments individually is much more difficult to do practically, because there is always the ‘religous nutter’ factor to take into account.
One of the big questions is are we just looking to make converts and bump up the numbers, or are we seeking to change lives, and create space for God to speak into people’s lives? I would prefer the latter.
I agree also with the intetionality motive, but I don’t think that means we love someone with our own agenda. I think we can create situations where God can speak to people, which again is easier in community, but we don’t always do life in community with Christians, and its the indivdual context that’s very tough.
It will be interesting to hear you reflections in the New Year, and I’m looking forward to it.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Christine Sine
10.13 pm on 9 Dec 2009
Jason,
What a great discussion. Very thought provoking. The best book I have read on evangelism lately is Elaine Heath’s The Mystic Way of Evangelism. She explores the life of different mystics throughout the ages and looks at how they expanded the thinking of ordinary people often by out of the box and unorthodox methods. Very thought provoking,
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.58 am on 19 Dec 2009
Sounds intriguing, I’ll look that up too, thanks Christine.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dan
11.07 pm on 11 Dec 2009
A few quick thoughts as I sit here on a rainy day in Santa Cruz….
1) The book of Acts is one I find myself increasingly reading in regards to evangelism. What actions, which ways, how passionate were the disciples in extending the gospel and how did they talk about it over the rather long time period the book of Acts records. You don’t hear too much about Acts lately in regards to evangelism and missional. If we believe in eternal life and that following Jesus makes a difference in a human beings life in this lifetime as well as in what is next – then how can we not be passionate about doing anything possible to see others experience Jesus this way? I love reading Acts through that lens and their passion and action.
2) Two books which I have found helpful, not necessarily to say we need to repeat what the early church did as we are in a different culture and time period – but I love the way both authors stress the varied approaches and also time factor and relational factor.
- Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve by Richard V. Peace
- Evangelism in the Early Church by Michael Green
3) In regards to anything “missional” or “evangelism” with books or seminars, my screening is heightened to be looking for actual examples of people who have put faith in Jesus as a result of what is being written or said. Or asking the authors when is the last time in their lives they have known someone who has put faith in Jesus? I love Randy’s teachings who commented here earlier, as when I have been with him he is telling stories of people who have put saving faith in Jesus which is so refreshing. I like hearing actual stories and not only theory.
and I just happened to be using this Spurgeon quote 2 weeks ago in a church I was guest speaking at:
“If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” – Charles Spurgeon
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.57 am on 19 Dec 2009
Thanks Dan.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jenny Page
11.38 pm on 15 Dec 2009
Really simple one from me. We are going to run a CAP (Christians Against Poverty) Money course at our small fellowship, in January. It’s a three-week course that’s really easy to run, and it’s all about helping people manage their money – how timely is that? And it’s personal. Thing is, on our pilot course (well attended by our small congregation, all keen to know how to manage their money better, including me), the tone was just right – not churchy, not preachy, but helpful and friendly and gathered round a task.
We’re hoping people will come to our course and find help. We’re hoping that they’ll get to know us – the followers of Jesus into whose building (cool, well-designed sign out front) they’ve come, and will want more. More of the presence of Jesus we carry and that fills our hall, because we’ve asked him to.
The course is great, by the way. It’s turned around hundreds of lives and marriages.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
9.57 am on 19 Dec 2009
I’ll look that up Jenny, thank you.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Michael
7.30 pm on 27 Dec 2009
I am all about evangelism, but not the kind where you hover around people waiting to pop the question. The two most powerful things I’ve experienced as I have experimented with outside the box evangelism are.
1) Allow yourself to bo evangelized. The people you are talking to have a message that you need to hear too.
2) The most attractive I’ve ever done was to be caught doing some good.
Reply to this comment