Evangelism: Greatest Social Change Agent(???)
June 23, 2004
After getting back from the FTE Conference, I emailed someone about the experience, and basically copied what I wrote in my post, talking about the need for social change, my own personal need to get more into politics and for us as Christians to become “public theologians” and take our theology out of the church walls, out into the public realm to make a difference. This person replied to some of the rest of my email, but as to all these thoughts, their only response was this one line: Evangelism: the greatest social change agent
Okay, so I know I’ve heard that before. Not the first time I’ve heard that - but…totally, totally sounds and seems like a cop-out. Is it really the greatest social change agent? Really? I mean, I’m all for sharing God’s Story with others, but I believe that we are called to action - called to make a difference. Does that go beyond evangelism? Yes, I think so. Sure, we could convert a whole lot of poverty-stricken people, but they’re still living in poverty. They’re still dying from hunger. Sure, we could convert a bunch of people from different ethnic groups who hate each other - but does that mean that just because they’re Christian, they’ll all-of-a-sudden be like, “Oh…wait. You are Christian now. I love you.” No…
Is evangelism the greatest social change agent? No.
But what is then?
Tags: Evangelism, Social-Action, Social-Change
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
June 23rd, 2004 at 10:00 am
Posing the question in this manner seems to imply that evangelism–activity pertaining to the evangel, the gospel–is a separate category from activity pursuing social change. But my interpretation of Jesus’ activities in the gospels holds that Jesus’ acts of healing, that is, concrete deliverances for people from that which is oppressing them, is part and parcel of his communication of verbal truths about the reign of god. The two activities are inseperable aspects of the larger task of witnessing to the inbreaking reign of god. But if social action is one way in which we can pursue concrete deliverance for people from that which is oppressing them, then the distinction between evangelism and socio-political action collapses.
Public theologians…. hmm. Who is the public that is being theologized to/for? Isn’t this a wistful longing for Constantinianism??
June 23rd, 2004 at 11:46 am
I think if you understand evangelism as getting the “unchurched” to believe a particular set of facts, then no, it isn’t a tool for social change. But if we really listen to Jesus, we should be doing the things you ask about - feeding the hungry and fighting injustice in the world.
So I think the one of the greatest (potential) change agents is Christian discipleship. Our call to discipleship leads us to understand our own redemption, but also to work for the redemption of the world. We’re called to work for social, political, and economic justice in the name of love. Love for God and love for our neighbor.
When I read the gospels I can’t imagine that Jesus would be satisfied with a vision of evangelism that has as its goal getting “unbelievers” to say the sinner’s prayer. I think Jesus demands action and that the best way to spread the good news is through engaging the world.
Can you tell I’m a Methodist? I really enjoy your blog!
June 23rd, 2004 at 11:59 am
i think that evangelism moves beyond soap-box preaching and crusades and becomes a social change through . . . social change. I think that statement is backwards; if we as christians/followers/believers start working towards social change, evangelism (possible conversion) could follow
June 23rd, 2004 at 12:11 pm
I couldn’t agree more. What you wrote here is what I have been thinking about lately. Thanks for the thoughts.
We’re called to make disciples. Not just converts.
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:05 pm
social change…social change…ummm.
didn’t the people of Jesus’ time want social change in the form of a actual physical king? that was why they welcomed him with palm branches right? because he was going to come and redeem his people, by taking from the rich (romans) and giving to the poor. and we were greatly disappointed by the fact that Jesus didn’t instigate social change, he initiated spiritual change.
i know this sounds like a spiritual cop-out, and is taking the discussion back one step. but try as i may, i’m having a hard time biblically justifying social change…a little help?
June 23rd, 2004 at 3:41 pm
What Steve said.
I think the separation of propositional evangelism from other inbreakings of the reign of God (we’re getting mighty Dallas Willardy here :) creates a situation where people actively ignore social problems and physical needs because their priorities lie elsewhere. I don’t think this is right, but I can see how people could think it is.
BUT…it goes both ways. How many times have you heard “Social Change: What we need instead of evangelism” from the other side?
June 23rd, 2004 at 3:49 pm
Living a life that emulates Christ in every way has to be the greatest social change agent. Jesus’ life was an example that proved that the social order of that day was broken, and that the only way to fix it was to turn what it means to be human on its head. Love your enemies. Do good to those who hurt you. Turn the other cheek. Treat your neighbors at least as well as you treat yourself.
This is why I love Jesus so much!
June 23rd, 2004 at 4:44 pm
For me, the important question is what do we mean by the word “evangelism.” Because I believe that if we evangelize the way JESUS evangelized, then yes, evangelism is the greatest agent for social change. In his “coming out speech” in Luke 4, Jesus says that the Lord has annointed him to bring good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom to the oppressed. This is quite a different vision of “evangelism” than we have grown accustomed to. Now as far as “conversion” goes, it seems to me that if we preached God’s reign of peace and justice, if we committed ourselves to loving and serving the least of these, then the entire missionary-conversion process would be reversed. That is, the life of the Christian would bring the world to Christ.
June 23rd, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Becca, thanks for your comments. Definitely. I too believe that evangelism is important, and yes, I think that we just may in fact need to rework and rethink just exactly WHAT we mean by evangelism. I think the reason the person’s quote didn’t sit right with me, because I know that person’s theology/theory of evangelism is not something I agree with much, and most definitely involves tracts, 4 Spiritual Laws and places the focus on getting conversions…
Evangelism = Christians’ mission = Luke 4 = Jesus’ mission. I like that.
June 23rd, 2004 at 10:13 pm
If you are engaging in social action/social justice as a Christian, in the name of Jesus, then you are evangelizing by example. When people find out that the reason you do what you do is because you are motivated by a passionate love for your Saviour, then they are going to want to know more about your Saviour, and you will have not only preached the message, but first, shown them God’s love in action. The two should never be separated.
June 24th, 2004 at 12:09 am
How does that quote go? “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”
I don’t see a dichotomy between evangelizing and social action. Good social action should be born out of a desire to follow Jesus and inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you’re doing that, you’re bringing the Good News.
Peace,
Karen
June 24th, 2004 at 1:07 am
Adam:
The first part of your blog is just as strange, in my view, as the second. How is that we can become “public theologians’ and take our theology out of the church walls, out into the public realm to make a difference” without the very same attitude as the one who said: “Evangelism: the greatest social change agent.” You seem to be approving this statement, without really seeing that you are. Your blog still seems to suggest a one-way deal:
Church theology going out–to change the world.
Church going out to make disciples….
In my own view, this is pure hubris…as if the church’s theology was somehow not touched by the world in which we live–by the worldS in which we live–and is so high and mighty it only has something to say–not receive, listen to, submit to, surrender to‚Ķ.
I am very much opposed to any demonization of the world and any thought that seems to suggest Christian theology is above it all—and not within it and the cause of so much social evil.
All so-called Christians should know the answer to your question–in fact, all human beings should know the answer to your question.
June 24th, 2004 at 1:13 am
And, I wanted to say, I will never believe Christians should be trusted to do what Jesus did–b/c I don’t think any one of them knows what the hell Jesus did. Christianity has not arrived….
June 24th, 2004 at 3:09 am
Tony, to clarify Robert Franklin’s phrase “public theologian” read this short excerpt from a speech (that was very similar to some of what he shared with us at the FTE conference): Calling All Public Theologians
I do see them as very different. If we understand evangelism as Becca suggested (bring good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom to the oppressed) - then taking THAT theology out of the realm of the church walls. Here is a short excerpt from Franklin’s words:
They are women and men who take their faith out of the comfort of the sanctuary into the public square, of the nation and the globe. In times of stress and uncertainty, they ‘go public’—not to impose their faith upon other people, but to give voice and to embody, a radical idea: that love is the greatest force available to humanity for solving its ills. Not the weak and superficial sentimentality that passes for love in our time, but love as a force of the soul. Love as a movement of the Spirit. A radical agapic ethic that forgives enemies. Love that insists upon reconciliation. Love that marches nonviolently down public streets even while dogs are biting and fire hoses are piercing. Public theologians show before they tell the world the meanings of faith, hope, love, justice and reconciliation.
And I think that is very different than going out with the sole goal to “convert everyone.”
June 24th, 2004 at 8:49 am
I think I am agreeing with many of the comments that have already been posted: it depends on how you define evangelism. I agree with you Adam that I would interpret the use of the word as you did, which is to say as a cop-out. But, I also agree with a lot of the comments: if you broaden your understanding of evangelism (perhaps by defining it as helping others recognize the Holiness that is already around them) than evangelism could be a factor of great social change. When we go out into the world to work on social justice or social change or extend acts of compassion and mercy are we not bringing holiness into the world, or at least helping people to see it? Isn’t God in the acts of mercy and compassion that we extend to others? And couldn’t that be a form of evangelism?
June 24th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
The first OED definition of evangelism seems serviceable to me: “The preaching or promulgation of the Gospel.” The first quotation provided by the online OED is from Bacon (1626): “Thus was this Land saved from infidelitie … through the Apostolicall and Miraculous Evangelisme of S. Bartholomew.” How’s that for social change! As for what Jesus was talking about in Luke 4.18 (for the poor, the captives, and the blind), consider his rejection of the earthly categories and diabolical demands (for bread, power, knowledge) during his preceding temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4.1-13). Sub specie aeternitatis.
June 24th, 2004 at 10:18 pm
So the other day, I was channel-surfing, and came across a “Christian” TV network.
A “news-correspondent” and his camera man had two seats in an airplane, with a third seat next to them, occupied by an “alternative”-looking young woman (with pink hair!!!).
They seemed to be mostly talking AT her, and I came in at a point in which they were talking about the Ten Commandments, and how if she’d broken one, it’s all downhill from there. Sick.
Cleave, thanks for the books today. Started reading “More Ready Than We Realize”, which poses a stark contrast to the way in which these persons were going about evangelism.
Different strokes for different folks, but come on, get a clue.
Oh, the woman in the seat next to them had this combination of deer in the headlights and “I’d rather die than talk with you” look upon her face. I don’t blame her.
Needless to say, I changed the channel and enjoyed an episode of Jeopardy.
That’s all.
June 25th, 2004 at 1:26 am
Josh, thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure I get your point. I mean, I would personally *love* to be talked AT and told that I’m going to hell for breaking 1 of the Ten Commandments. Are you saying there are “other” ways of evangelism?
June 25th, 2004 at 11:47 am
Adam: I am late to the game on this one, so a lot of my thoughts have been shared in other forms, but the key here is your defintion of two words: “evangelism” and “gospel”. What does the word evangelism mean? It means “bringing good news”, right? And what is the good news? Well that is the gospel.
Pagitt made the comment at the EC (although I believe it goes back to Wolters and others) that when Jesus came on the scene in Mark 1, he told them that they should believe the gospel. In other words, they should believe the power of God to create a kingdom, to speak to every aspect of the earth. That is the *real* power of John 3:16, that more than just “being saved”, there is a God, revealed in the person of Christ, who can transform the globe.
If, by saying “evangelism is not the greatest change agent” you mean the neutered, “accept Jesus” junk that has been pawned off as evangelism, then you’re right. If, on the other hand, you are making the statement that God can only get you part of the way…what you really need is me and the things that I can do for you…well, then you are into some really scary shit.
June 25th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
I don’t think we need to be separating evangelism and social action, which appears to be what is happening in the way this question is framed. It all comes down to your definition, your starting point, read description not prescription. We are called to be prepared to give an account of our faith and what about the great commission? The scriptures also speak a lot about taking care of the poor in the fullest sense of that word. Let’s get back to embodying the gospel, something Chris Erdman has been talking so well about on his blog.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
There is a clear distinction between our mandate and our responsibility in social context. Our mandate as known is to go into the world and make disciples of nations. We are also called to obey the law, in Christ. Paul the Apostle wrote to the Romans instructing them on obedience to the governments and authorities as established by God’s ordinance (Rom 13). There is a lot to be learned from Paul’s extrapolation and that is social change through evangelism will occur through the preaching of the gospel. Our job is not to fight tax policy, foreign debt policies or the like. We submit to the authorities unless they hinder our proclamation of the gospel and our fellowship. Social change will come about by the gospel message!
March 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Thanks for the thread…great ideas and comments here. I am preparing a paper for a theological conference next year (well, Nov 08 anyway) on the topic of evangelism and social action
“Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): Eschatology, Social Action, and the Task of Evangelism
Although based on an exegesis of Mark 4’s Sower who sows parable, I will build a breif primer for a biblical theology on evangelism and social action.
Someone on another blog opined on carrying a bible in one hand and a loaf of bread in another is evangelism. I am wondering if carrying the loaf and giving it to those who need it is alone biblical evangelism… anyway…thanks for the posting and comment thread…
March 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Chip
Sounds like the topic for the paper will prompt some discussion no doubt.
Proselytism in itself is great for delivering a message in order to convert to the faith if those that hear can literally understand and apply. However, I believe that the church in its contemporary state has lost the ability to apply statements of the faith to social action. We who have an ecumenical intention and view, work effortlessly at evangelism and apologetics but I think the key to seeing the faith being at work in society is to relay the hermeneutics of Christian theology into contemporary language. Simply, we need to be able to once again communicate in a secular environment without losing them with the signs and symbols of the faith and liturgy. The Church for too long has been disassociated from public life and simply been shoved to the side. The question is, how is it that we can be heard within a pluralistic society and how does Christian theology fit into that style society?
If we can sensitively bring the Gospel message and related biblical truths to our social setting without a political platform or agenda then I believe our words will be listened to.