Effective Evangelism?

The Public Square
41

Hi Alistair, I wouldn’t take Galatians 3:1 to be a summary of the holistic gospel Paul preached. Rather, Paul is reminding them of the specific point he preached to them about Jesus’ death, in order to emphasize that they should already understand his argument in Gal. 2:19–21. The whole import of this part of Galatians is that Jesus died under the law, and since we have union with him, we ourselves have therefore died to the law—in which case it is profoundly incoherent for the Galatians to be thinking they need to be circumcised according to the law in order to have union with Jesus!

I certainly agree that Jesus’ death is part of the gospel. How could he be raised if he did not first die? What I’m contesting is the standard evangelistic model where the central message is that Jesus died for people’s sins. If that’s the message we should be preaching, why do we have no examples of the apostles preaching it? More to the point, how did we get to preaching the gospel so fundamentally differently to the apostles? Why aren’t we taking the NT as our guide for evangelism?

2 Likes
42

Ross, I think they’re mutually exclusive if you remember that I specifically said front-load. I certainly agree with you that God is extremely concerned with our personal moral restoration. But he sets that within the context of submission to, and union with, his chosen king. Getting things the other way around is what leads to our fumbling of the lordship salvation controversy. This is such a fundamentally basic error: responding should be as simple as saying, “If Jesus isn’t your king, then you aren’t a member of his kingdom.” Duh. Yet because we’ve conflated the gospel with atonement, and forgotten the kingdom in it, you get a lot of Reformed folks groping to explain why it’s really important to have Jesus as your lord, rather than just as your savior. As if the two could even be separated.

To your point about Christus Victor, I’d be baffled if anyone here disagreed with that. Obviously Jesus defeated the powers of darkness by his death and resurrection. That’s straightforwardly stated in places like Colossians 2:15. But that’s not mutually exclusive with penal substitution. For instance, one of the key ways in which Satan held power, in terms of the elect, was his legal right to accuse us. And Jesus disarmed that power by taking the guilt of his people on himself. I don’t want anyone to think I’m denying penal substitution. If penal substitution is false, then the gospel itself falls apart. I wouldn’t say you have to affirm PS to be a Christian, necessarily, but it’s hard for me to see how you can thoughtfully deny it without unraveling the entire federal structure on which our union with Jesus hinges.

2 Likes
43

Hi Bnonn, I think you are reducing Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:1 to only one part. Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:13 that Christ became a curse to redeem those under the law.

But the bigger issue I see is this: The gospel has a number of facets, some of which speak to one person or culture more than others. I largely agree that the current evangelical expression of the gospel is not found in the Bible, but it has been used by God to bring many, many people to himself through Jesus.

Our current problem is that it is not very effective anymore.

My question is: Why can we not express different orthodox theological formulations of the gospel evangelistically, even if they are not found specifically preached in the Bible? The whole truth must be taught, yes, but you don’t put a three course meal on a hook to catch a fish. You find out what will attract the fish.

1 Like
44

Alistair, maybe I’m old fashioned, but I think if we’re expressing the gospel in a way that isn’t in the Bible, we’re doing it wrong.

In other words, I don’t think “You’re a sinner but Jesus has died so you don’t have to go to hell” is an orthodox expression of the gospel. The atonement is a mechanism that underwrites the gospel, but it is not the gospel itself.

The fact that God condescends to use this unorthodox expression—or even false teachers; cf. Phil. 1:15–18—to gather his elect, is no reason to think that unorthodox expression—or false teachers—are fine. Nor is it a reason to think he won’t bless orthodox expression (as laid out for us in his word) and faithful teachers more.

The gospel isn’t bait. It’s a net. It doesn’t attract people. It seizes, binds, and draws them. Treating evangelism like fly-fishing, instead of like the kind of fishing Peter did, is the very definition of seeker-sensitive relevance ministry.

2 Likes
45

Ha, I wondered whether someone would put the net analogy forward. :slight_smile:

I am all for studying how the gospel was evangelistically preached in the Bible. It’s incredibly important work. We want more!

At the same time, limiting what we say to people to a formulation found in the Bible limits effectiveness. Maybe not in your experience. Have you found a lot of evangelistic success using only what you are saying you see in the New Testament?

The New Testament itself provides varying evangelistic formulations when sharing the gospel. To the Jews, Paul speaks of the promised Messiah from the Scripture (e.g. Acts 2:14-39 which begins with the outpouring of the Spirit; Acts 13:16-41). To the Gentiles, he starts with natural revelation (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-31). To the eunuch, Philip began at the passage in Isaiah talking about the death of Jesus (Acts 8:32-35). Acts 23:6 says Paul specifically talked about the resurrection from the dead because of who his audience was. And in private with Felix he talks about righteousness, self-control and the judgement to come (Acts 24:24-25).

There are other examples.

And without getting into more detail than necessary, Acts 13:38-41 is one of a number of places where Jews are explicitly told Jesus forgives sins (inferring he is talking about their sins), and to accept his offer lest they perish. Interestingly, this example takes place in Galatia. Paul mentions in v39 that justification is not available under the Law of Moses. If you look again at Galatians 3:13, Paul links that in his teaching to Jesus’ death on a tree. So even the “You’re a sinner, but Jesus died for you so you don’t have to go to hell” approach has New Testament support.

You are not old-fashioned for wanting to repeat the gospel formulation you have found in the Bible, but you are seriously mistaken for limiting yourself to it. Christian conversion is not a one-size-fits-all thing. There have been approaches that generally work among cultures and people-groups, but even in the Bible, apostles and evangelists sized up a situation and began from an appropriate place when speaking to people about the gospel.

It would be wise for us to do that as well. We’re fools if we don’t.

3 Likes
46

FWIW, Peter was familiar with hook-and-line fishing and probably very good at it, cf. Matthew 17:27. But I suppose it’s fair to say the gospel is the hook, not the bait.

47

There’s more than one way to measure effectiveness. A missionary friend of mine was doing his dissertation on two different types of evangelism. He told me the primary difference he had noted was that in one method people never returned to their former animism. In the other, it was a fairly common occurrence, and even those that didn’t apostatize, were often tempted to do things like visit the witch doctor for help with things.

I’ll have to do more thinking to remember the details of the two types of evangelism, but in the meantime you can all make guesses.

1 Like
48

Here’s a thought for you - the preaching of the gospel is also effective if it renders a hearer damned for refusing to believe it. See our Lord’s own words on this point in John 3:18.

If indeed the gate is narrow that leads to eternal life and difficult is the way thereto and there are few who find it (again, our Lord’s description in Matthew 7:13-15), then evangelism must also (ultimately) be judged by how many people are rendered condemned by its preaching.

Remember that the next time you present the gospel to people who listen to you and walk away unconverted. At the least, your evangelism has forced a decision to remain in the broad way, heading to the large gate.

2 Likes
49

Whenever people talk about methods that “don’t work anymore” I think about the prophet Jeremiah—how could he avoid the charge of using methods that didn’t work anymore? Years and years and the people didn’t turn back to God; they only got more and more hardened against Him. Yet God had told him from the beginning that the people wouldn’t listen to him, and the fact that they didn’t listen didn’t reflect on the faithfulness or effectiveness of his ministry at all.

And wasn’t it the case with virtually all the faithful prophets that they were hated and rejected, from Abel to Zechariah?

How do you stick the messenger because of lack of repentance on the part of the hearers and not also condemn the prophets?

6 Likes
50

I avoiding making the following comment because it felt like a Jesus-juke, but we do need to keep in mind that it’s the Holy Spirit who makes the preaching of the gospel efficacious. I know that no one on this forum would deny this, but it is important to keep it front-and-center.

So the next questions are, from what I can see:

  1. What gospel are we preaching? / Is the gospel we preach inappropriately abridged or truncated?
  2. What methods do we use to get this message to our hearers? Sometimes the method undercuts the message (The Gospel Blimp comes to mind) and, though God can use such things, we shouldn’t expect the Spirit to bear fruit through such means.
  3. Of all the methods that don’t undercut the message, which ones do we use? The Apostles preached and reasoned with unbelievers in the synagogues, the marketplaces, and in the Areopagus, to name a few. Most of the places we live don’t have public places like these where people naturally congregate and there’s a huge social barrier to interrupting people in the store or at the park (at least where I live). So what exactly do we do and where do we do it?
51

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we ought to just buy the biggest megaphone we can find and the largest crowds we can and shout to them while they’re drunk and trying to watch the football game and walk away patting ourselves on the back saying we were “effective” with our preaching, because now there are 55,000 more people who heard and rejected the gospel.

2 Likes
52

That was pretty low-hanging fruit, son. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

2 Likes
53

Acts 19:8-10 says:

And he [Paul] entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

The gospel is certainly proclaimed, but it was not merely proclaimed by the Apostles. There was also an element of persuasion and reasoning with the hearers, and that over a considerable period of time (two years in this case).

I agree the gospel goes out both in salvation and in judgement, but we also need to take up this practice of persuasion and reasoning if we’re going to take up the apostolic example.

So, what does that look like in our context? I’m having trouble locating the hall of Tyrannus…

2 Likes
54

I think such “preaching” would be as likely to damn the preacher as the hearers. :flushed:

1 Like
55

What I usually think of in connection with so-called “ineffective evangelism” - judged to be so because the listener didn’t believe - is a timid lassie in a philosophy class in my undergraduate days. The head of the department - a curmudeonly fellow who could quote from memory the Book of Job - was fond of identifying Christians in his classes and then embarrassing them by peppering them with questions about things in the Bible, things which he was fairly confident they could not answer. Then he’d crow about Christians in the Bible belt knowing nothing about the Bible.

In this particular episode, the young girl gave a tremulous but accurate affirmation of the gospel. Afterwards, I got to thinking about this professor’s not-too-distant interview by our Lord (the prof was well into his 70s), and how Judge Jesus might easily deploy whatever Heaven uses for video-records, to demonstrate to one and all that the prof had heard an accurate statement of the gospel and had rejected it.

I dare say that if Christians took seriously our Lord’s words which I quoted above, the effect on most of them would not be to rush to stadiums with megaphones. It would, rather, tend to shut their mouths in fear that speaking the truth might seal the fates of their listeners for eternity.

1 Like
56

Don’t forget the resounding gongs and the clanging cymbals! If we’re going to do this we’re going to do it right.

3 Likes
57

I once had a history prof I loved talking about the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. It was probably in the class Ancient Origins of Religious Conflict in the Middle East. A student that thought himself very smart raised his hand and began to explain how the symptoms etc all pointed to an epileptic seizure or something like that. The professor dryly responded by pointing out that most people don’t do a complete 180 in their fundamental beliefs after a seizure.

Years later I became convicted that I had never spoken to this wonderful professor about Jesus and His gospel. (I may well have written something in a paper, but never anything personal to him.) I wrote him an email reminding him of that class and forwarding a Joe Sobran piece – The Real Historical Jesus. He dismissed Sobran’s piece, saying it “takes dead aim at science and history.” His email was kind, but ended with this:

“There is Christianity, Joe, and there is truth, and they are about as far apart as are Islam and truth. We each have our allegiance. Sorry, this is more than you wanted, but it’s how I see it.”

Eventually I responded, calling him to faith. I told him that his allegiance wasn’t actually to truth, and that mine wasn’t to Christianity but to Jesus. I quoted some Scripture, of course, and I ended with this:

"It is my sincerest desire that you take refuge in Him, Dr. Drews. Give him your allegiance. If I claim to be your friend and never warn you to flee the wrath to come, what kind of friend am I?

I’m sure this is more than you wanted, but it is the truth that you claim to seek.

I never heard back, and I assume he was unpersuaded and that he has passed away by now. Was my message ineffective? No. That’s your point. It’s also the wonder and beauty (especially comforting to a pastor) of the promise that His word will accomplish exactly what He intends. It will not return void. Your reminder is good, and I apologize for my first response. It was flippant.

That said, I think it is necessary for us to acknowledge that there really are ineffective methods of evangelism in this conversation. I’ve seen them. Then again, it has been pointed out that their flawed method of doing evangelism is probably better than my method of not doing it.

I’m glad we’re seeking to think about what effective evangelism looks like today in our various cultures. Hopefully we can do so without becoming pragmatists or modern-day Finneys.

6 Likes
58

Hopefully. I’d be surprised if he could get on this forum with his theological heresies.

59

You mean it isn’t social media? :thinking:

This is one area where I think our modern, Western context does not square neatly with what we see in Paul’s 1st century context. The people Paul preached to were at least overtly theistic in their world views in one way or another.

Paul’s first audience, of course, were Jews, and the early ministry of the gospel to them was a very unique one. Paul was coming at them as a former Pharisee and persecutor of the church. The Jews had just murdered Jesus; the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied as imminent, etc. While there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, the Jews will nevertheless always be a unique audience as it relates to the gospel.

And his second audience – these 1st century Greek and Roman Gentiles – were at least explicitly religious in their of viewing the world. I’m not an expert on the era, but it’s my understand that even the philosophers, for all their worldly wisdom, only toyed with the idea of atheism or agnosticism, but for the most part gave patronage to the Greek pantheon if for no other reason than to at least remain in public favor. Exceptions to this like Protagoras existed, who was an open agnostic, but the people hated him for it and ended up burning his books. By contrast, Epicurus thought little of the gods, but at least acknowledged them.

Paul was at least speaking into a theistic context. People understood and acknowledged the concepts of divine power, of sovereign rule (Caesar’s, at least), and operated out of a general acknowledgement of moral objectivism and some conception of sin or accountability to cosmic authority. By contrast, our modern context is none of these things. We’ve labored very hard for the last few generations to suppress the knowledge of sin, the knowledge of God, and to eradicate every sense of authority besides our own will. If our emotions validate us, that’s all that matters. We’ve come a long way from a 1st century context. That isn’t to say that our gospel changes, obviously, but the way we bring it to bear on the culture certainly has to, simply because there is so many more fundamental facts about reality that need to be established with people before the gospel even makes sense to them.

I often think about Acts 14:1, where Paul was at Iconium and “spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.” I want to know what that looks like for us today.

2 Likes
60

There is a lot of truth in what you say. An enormous percentage of Westerners(including Americans) are utterly disconnected from religion of any kind, and are at most “spiritual.” These are tough to evangelize.

However, as both @Joel and @tbbayly brought up upthread a ways, those children of Christians who are themselves outside the faith are, it seems to me, often ripe for the type of evangelism that we see to the Jews in the Bible.

The key is, I think, to get them early enough. Late teens to early 20s at the latest. Otherwise, as my former pastor used to put it, they end up having just enough Gospel to inoculate them from it.

I imagine it looked very much like the first chapters of Romans, with chaps 1-2 getting strong emphasis, as the backdrop to the news these people needed to hear for salvation. It is,sadly, all to often what children in the church don’t hear.

3 Likes