RE: What is evangelism?
March 24, 2007
Question 3: What is evangelism?
Let me say that I’m a bit nervous about writing out my thoughts on this issue in particular. Not necessarily because I’m worried about some of you branding me as a heretic or anything. Rather, it’s because I know that the professor for my Evangelism class this semester, Steve Hayner (former President of InterVarsity), has my blog in his bookmarks, and I’m sure he’ll see this post. In fact, Steve, if you’re reading this, I’d love for you to join the conversation in the comments below if you’re interested.
Steve has actually given us numerous definitions of evangelism during class. One is below:
Evangelism, in Reformed tradition, is the church’s work of proclaiming the gospel in word and deed, inviting persons to participate in the grace of God and to join in the mutual care and public ministry of the community of God’s covenant people…unfortunately, evangelism has, so to speak, fallen among thieves in the church where it has been ‘beaten and robbed’ by an unfortunate constricting of its meaning to either a fundamentalist theology, a revivalist style of preaching, or a congregational campaign for new members.” (David C. Hester, “Evangelism & Education” in How Shall We Witness: Faithful Evangelism in a Reformed Tradition)
Many people mentioned that evangelism is as much about how we act as it is actually talking to people and “telling the story.” I think that’s important to mention; you know, the old St. Francis quote that Josh mentioned. I’ve known some folks that have real specific, concrete theologies of evangelism, and know “the story” by heart - but they aren’t the type of people that you really want to hang around. The two should probably match up better than that.
Dan wanted to make things complicated, but Nathan disagreed: “I agree with those above that evangelism is as much about living the life Jesus called us to as it is explicitly telling people about Jesus and the life He makes possible. Why we always have to inflate this stuff into vast theological conundrums is beyond me.”
I think the main reason that this is seeming perhaps a bit more confusing or complicated is that we just discussed “the gospel/good news” a few weeks ago, and to say that evangelism is simply “sharing the good news” isn’t as easy now that we see there are so many different versions of what the “good news” actually is. But to help us move on, I want to share a definition of evangelism that was recently adopted by the PC(USA)’s General Assembly Council:
“We are called to invite all people to faith, repentance, and the abundant life of God in Jesus Christ, to encourage congregations in joyfully sharing the Gospel, and through the power of the Holy Spirit to grow in membership and discipleship.”
The article talks about how it is a turn back toward more “traditional evangelism.” What I find interesting is the connection between calling people to faith, and growing in membership. I suppose if the growth in membership happens, that’s fine - but I wouldn’t want to make such a connection between them. Evangelism, in my opinion, is not about growing churches or memberships. Maybe the question isn’t as hard as I’m making it out to be. Perhaps, it is what I have thought it was for many years: sharing the good news.
I think the problem I have with evangelism is perhaps not that we are called to do it, but rather some people’s motivations for evangelism. What is the goal in evangelism? To bear witness? To share a story? To grow church memberships? To make converts? Those are also important questions that we need to think about. I think, for many, the emphasis is too often on making converts, “sealing the deal”, getting them to sign on the dotted line, that we miss out on other opportunities we may have in evangelism. Perhaps, we need to be open to conversion with evangelism, but perhaps it is our OWN conversion. I think there are some similarities between the types of dialogue that can occur during evangelism and interfaith or inter-religious dialogue. Two theologians who I think have some important thoughts along the lines of conversion are Catholic missiologist Vincent Donovan and Catholic theologian Raimon Panikkar:
“…the religious person enters this arena without prejudices and preconceived solutions, knowing full well that she may in fact have to lose a particular belief or particular religion altogether. She trusts in truth. She enters unarmed and ready to be converted herself. She may lose her life – she may also be born again.” Raimon Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 62-3.
“When we enter this dialogue with all the cultures of the world…we must be open to conversion – conversion to a fuller truth…If we are not open to conversion, then we have no right to enter into true religious dialogue.” Vincent Donovan, The Church in the Midst of Creation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 116.
I think that conversion is a possibility within evangelism - perhaps one might convert to Christianity. Perhaps the one doing the evangelism might have a type of “conversion” experience themselves as they are involved in a Spirit-dialogue, something I would call any conversation between two people that are discussing God, spirituality or other manifestations of the Spirit in the world.
So, what is evangelism? Evangelism is bearing witness to what God has done, is doing and will do in the world and in one’s life, engaging others in Spirit-dialogue and inviting people to faith.
Tags: Catholic, Conversion, Evangelism, Interfaith Dialogue, The-Gospel
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
March 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I like the language of “inviting” people to faith a lot. I’ve been reading “listening to the beliefs of the emerging church” and their is a section in Karen Ward’s portion that talks about evangelism as invitation. The invitation is not our own but is extended by God through us. I’m thinking about starting to refer to evangelism as “invitationalism.”
March 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I totally agree that seeking to convert people into church members rather than followers of Christ is a bad thing. Unfortunately the two do get easily confused. I mean, for your average church member, them inviting someone to their particular church is something they see as an opportunity to further reach that person. The recipient of such an invitation might read it differently, however.
I think I’m a little unclear though, on your intentions with those last two quotes. Is the evangelist’s “conversion” in question a broadening of perspective, or a recognition that somehow he has been preaching the wrong gospel?
That question may just be coming from my bias based on the fact that I’ve never seen an “inter-faith dialogue” do anything except make me angry at people who trim down the truth to make everybody happy.
March 24th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I will be the radical one. I am for doing away with evangelism altogether. Why do it? Do I or you have the “truth?” Are we so arrogant to think our religion is the correct one? Turn it around. I don’t like anyone trying to evangelize me, no matter their religion. I don’t think my religion is any more true than anyone else’s and I have no desire to participate in their “so-called” salvation. As far as the softer “invitation to faith”–who is to say they don’t have faith already? There is something invasive about the whole thing.
I think it goes down to core beliefs. I don’t believe anyone is going to hell–don’t think there is one. I don’t think Christianity is more true than any other faith. Much of it (if taken on the face of it) is false. I don’t think I am any better or more spiritual or closer to God than anyone else. Nor am I convinced that others are more spiritual or closer to God than me.
So for me, evangelism either in its hard or soft forms is demeaning to others.
However, I am all for communities and inviting people to participate in them. I am all for using Christian symbols at these gatherings.
So I go the other way from most of the wisdom regarding evangelism. No to personal invasion and yes to community-building.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Megachurches have taken over the entity formerly known as MARKETING. You really can’t compete with their Disney-like kids programs, rock and roll worship shows, multistaff environment, parking lot ministries, help to the poor and AMAZING speakers, lots of money, lots of influence.
That’s the new evangelism is called MARKETING. Let’s face it. We live in a MARKETING world. If you market yourself well, you WILL evangelize. I should know, I work for one of the premier marketing companies in the world…www.digitas.com. We do marketing for American Express, Viagara, and tons of others.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I share some of John Shuck’s sentiments. Sharing what one feels one has experienced of God and what one senses that God is about in the world feels qualitatively different to me than claiming one knows for sure what God has done, is doing, and will do in the future. The biblical text itself contains so many voices, so many angles, and was written in so many contexts, all removed from ours significantly if by nothing else than time, that using it to form a firm confidence in exactly what God is up to feels, well…honestly impossible. It seems a good dose of “I’m not exactly sure how all of this works” could do all of us well — in evangelism and probably every other aspect of life.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:36 am
I just heard a co-worker tell me yesterday about praying the sinner’s prayer after reading a tract he found on the playground as a 3rd grader. A very private experience. He told no one about his ‘conversion’. Only when he was able to drive himself to church did he begin to get involved in a church. Tension-filled home-life with an alcoholic father. He was looking for a better way of life and spoke of the JOY that came over him after praying the prayer in that tract. He said he now makes sure he gives out tracts (ie with Halloween candy)…because you never know who may read them, need them to find a better way. So, tho tracts may get a bad rap, there may yet be a time and place for them.
March 25th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I don’t really believe that evangelism has anything to do claiming to know what God is doing in the future. I think the point is much more simply, “I have set free, let me show you what I’ve been shown in hopes that you can have this freedom too.” And that sentiment should not smack of arrogance, it should communicate the desire to have people join in something that you know has affected you in a positive way. All of the other things, the larger, more difficult things, can be sorted out later, but at its heart, evangelism should be the simple sharing of the “good news” of Christ.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I enjoy this disucssion on evangelism.
MJ’s point is correct in one aspect in that evangelism has been equated to church growth thru marketing. I’ve been to several “evangelism” conferences that focus on nothing but marketing your church. The idea being that marketing will create a magnetism to your church, where people will come and hopefully both SEE (actions) and HEAR (word) the gospel preached. Marketing is but a step towards evangelism, but not evangelism in and of itself.
I also think that you are right in that its an invitation to know God thru Christ. Tellign stories of God’s love in your life with the goal of inviting others to know that same love.
With regards to the PCUSA quote, i’m not sure they are defining evangelism, but rather defining their role as a denominational council in how to carry out evangelism from Louisville. The PUCSA has a great definition of evangelism already.
Pastor Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
March 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Adam - Jesus in there anywhere? Evangelism without Jesus is like a hot dog without the weiner - white, pasty, dry and no matter how much you dress it up, it ain’t a hot dog.
Evangelism is sharing the “euengelion” (good news) of Jesus, ’cause he was the one that told us to do it. But if we’ve never been confronted with the good news, we’re going to be hard pressed to present it to others…
March 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Greetings from South Africa
Just came upon the blog while searching stuff on the institutional church.
I’m gonna make the fatal mistake of quoting David Bosch without having the book with me, but I found some answers from him. It’s roundabout p480 of Transforming Mission.
If I understand him correctly, then he says that we can do nothing else but share Jesus. Simultaneously we are not the ones to decide where God are allowed to work.
It’s about being really humble. I found something in Jesus, and I simply want to share this with you. If I found salvation (understoof holistically), I share. It’s not about apologetics, seeing who has the best argument.
Maybe my religion is not the correct one, but this is all I have. If I come to the table, I don’t come relativistically, saying everything is the same, how would I know that? I come simply knowing what I have. I come, aware of the fact that I might be the one who change during this conversation. If the possibility doesn’t exist that I might be the one that change, then the possibility cannot exist that my friend with whom I am talking will change.
OK, this is a bit random, but there you have it, my thoughts.