Evangelism - no longer necessary?
I wonder if Christians today have it all wrong with the whole evangelism thing. They believe we are supposed to spread the gospel to everyone. But in 2006, what we preach as "the gospel" is not gospel anymore, especially in the U.S. I'll explain.
Gospel means "good news". The "Gospel" that Christians try to spread to non-believers might be good, but it's not news. The context of the Great Commission was very different. Back then, the world had never heard of this news, so the job of the apostles was to go tell people what happened. That's very different from trying to get non-believers, who have already heard the "news" many times (especially in places like Oklahoma!), to believe what they already rejected.
I'm not saying evangelism to non-believers (as opposed to never-heards) is necessarily bad (though it can be), but I don't think the Bible says we should do it, either by command or by example. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be open about our faith and willing to talk about it if non-believers ask.
posted by Matt @ 10:08 AM
29 Comments:
I will always tell people about my faith if they ask... IF THEY ASK... I will not go to someone and try to tell them all about what I believe if they don't really care to know... I will never try to convince someone that what I believe is the truth.. I encourage everyone to find truth themselves... I hate it when people think that because they are members of a certain religion, they have a guaranteed spot in heaven while I will be burning in hell... I don't even believe in hell... and I certainly don't think I have the right to judge anyone... there's a girl on my campus that stands out by the student center and YELLS at people passing by .. she says that we should FEAR the lord... I have never believed we should FEAR the lord... what sense would that make?? but do I stand out there and yell that we shouldn't.. no... she yells at anyone that looks at her and tries to "save" them... I'm sorry.. but if you are yelling at me and trying to force me to do something.. I am not going to consider it being "saved" I will consider it being harrassed... but.. that's just me.... preach on people... preach on! :)
oh.. good point Matt... :)
Maybe the UK is just different, but I sat in a student cafe yesterday overhearing some people at the other end of the room talking about how Christianity is about people being good.
Seems they've not heard. And many others are the same, here at least.
Being a Brit I didn't have the guts to go and speak to them and correct their mishearing of "the news" so they could either reject or believe what the gospel actually is.
Dave (bluefish) - you are quite right!! It is very different in the UK. Most people there haven't heard the "news" a thousand times already (like they have in most of the U.S.).
To add to that, I was very surprised at how much better evangelism seemed to "work" in the UK compared to Oklahoma. But now it makes sense.
I would assume that many people think of the yelling preacher Jamie mentioned when they hear the word "evangelism", or at the very least someone who is pushy and trying to "convert" them. How we approach others depends on our motives...do we want them to join a particular religious organization so we'll feel good about ourselves, or are our hearts broken because they're lost and we love them and want to point them to the only One who can help? That can help to dictate our method.
lizard - I totally agree. I think we all should pay more attention to our motives when talking to people with different beliefs. Mine often are not so good.
actually the woman yelling is a student... and her yelling really becomes ineffective.. because people tend to tune out yelling.. .at least.. I do..
I have never been fond of Evangelist for my own personal reasons. It does depend on how an Evanggelist is preaching. I am not sure about the rest of the world but in my expierence the one here have it all wronge. Like you said Matt it is good to spread the gospel to those who dont know, but it is not good to judge, or condem others like I have seen many of them do. Evangelists , here at least,tend to be fanatical fundamentalists. I have also dont like people who are hypocrits, which doesnt mean they all are, but a lot of the fanatical ones are in it for the money, which is also bad.
Two quotes, from Jesus:
"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
It's interesting that both times Jesus talks about making himself known (i.e., disciples / witnesses), he connects it to "power". Any thoughts on that connection?
One other line of questions: these statements (Matt. 28, Acts 1) are commands. But who is the object of these commands? Do you think they apply to all believers? A select few? What about "obey all that I have commanded you"? Does "make disciples of all nations" fit into this category? How does one "make disciples" anyway?
Two quotes, from Jesus:
"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
It's interesting that both times Jesus talks about making himself known (i.e., disciples / witnesses), he connects it to "power". Any thoughts on that connection?
One other line of questions: these statements (Matt. 28, Acts 1) are commands. But who is the object of these commands? Do you think they apply to all believers? A select few? What about "obey all that I have commanded you"? Does "make disciples of all nations" fit into this category? How does one "make disciples" anyway?
Brad - Thanks for the comments. I think the object of those commands was the apostles - that command is basically what made them apostles. I don't think they necessarily apply to all believers. But probably not just a select few either. As I wrote in the blog, that was a very different context. The great commission was successful. There are now disciples in all the nations. That doesn't mean there isn't still more to be done, but it's a different situation now and not the same sense of urgency. I think making disciples refers to people who actually want to believe. I don't think it means relentlessly hounding non-believers to become disciples of someone they already know about and reject.
Matt said.."I think making disciples refers to people who actually want to believe. I don't think it means relentlessly hounding non-believers to become disciples of someone they already know about and reject."
That's exactly what I'm thinking... I don't see anywhere in the Bible that it says, "Go, and stand on a streetcorner, and yell at everyone that they must believe in me or perish. Follow the non-believers and try to scare them into believing in me." I mean.... yes.. share it with those who do not know or know, but still want information... do not hound people that already know, and especially those who already believe, but may not share your EXACT religion.
wow, this dialogue is stirring me more than i realize. i want to say many things (like it's a cop-out to think the great commission is already accomplished [conveniently relieves you of any duty], to assume all nations already know of our Lord [what is a nation anyway? geopolitical? anthropological?], or to consider the gospel only "good news" [it is the power of God to change us in this life, not insurance against the next life]) ... but instead i think of jesus's response to the pharisees when asked of their responsibilities:
"One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him. 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
instead of debating the merits of evangelism, i think it is more prudent to examine our love of god and love of our neighbor. you'll have to decide for yourself, but as for me, those two tasks are an all-consuming calling. thus disciple-making [bringing people closer to god, regardless of whether they have made a point to accept him yet] is alive and well today. aren't you glad the person who shared god's love with you hadn't concluded the great commission was satisfied?
A plethora of thoughts come to mind:
You say your view doesn't mean we shouldn't be open about our faith; but does it mean that we should? If the Bible doesn't instruct us to evangelize, I fail to see a reason for the weaker claim that we should still be open about our faith.
Nothing in the new testament takes place at a time without apostles, so it seems that by your hermeneutics the Bible has NO examples for us, and the commands are for the people of the time. If neither commands nor examples are for us, toward what purpose do you think we have the Bible today?
You say that non-believers have heard the "news" many times, but my experience in talking to non-believing friends has been rather more like thebluefish's cafe than your supposition.
England heard the gospel long before Oklahoma, but it seems that the people there have forgotten, despite the broad presence of the Church of England and other denominations. Why do you think that hasn't happened here?
You say the sense of urgency is reduced after the apostles. What was so urgent at the time of the apostles? Not getting the gospel to China, South Africa, and the Americas, as the apostles to whom you say the command was addressed never even conceived of some of these places. Was there a new command of urgency when technology allowed these people to be reached, or was reaching them never that urgent?
A famous member of the "Frozen Chosen" crowd once said: "Young man, when God chooses to convert the heathen he'll do it without help from me or you!" Your contention about non-believers (instead of never-heards) seems to be little else than a reduction in degree of this statement.
I find that you like to throw wrenches in conventional wisdom of the Christians around you. While this is of value if the Christians are losing sight of Christ crucified, I must often wonder if your motivation for such speculations is more on the order of intellectual badminton. Rethinking what you believe for the sake of rethinking alone is neither virtue nor wisdom.
I say all this as a friend, and one fully agreeing that what often passes for "evangelism" around here is not something to encourage. But I'm one who believes that the gospel is still news to you, whether you realize it or not. It certainly is to me.
Brad - thanks for the follow-up comment. I actually agree with almost everything you said. I'm all for loving our neighbors, telling people about God's love, loving God with all our hearts, bringing people closer to God, and making disciples of those who are interested. The only thing I'm saying we're not supposed to do is force the 'gospel' on people who've already heard it over and over -- I'm not aware of any Biblical command or precedent for such a thing.
Norman - Thanks for the comment. The Bible does instruct people to evangelize, and it does instruct us to be open about our faith. I just don't think it instructs us to keep pushing it on those who have already heard many times and rejected.
The Bible has plenty of purpose to day despite not having examples (that I'm aware of) of hounding non-believers over and over.
Are there really that many people in Oklahoma who haven't heard about Jesus and that he died for people's sins?
It was urgent because they were being persecuted and there was a whole world out there who had never heard. Now Christians are not in much danger of being extinct any time soon, and most people in the world have heard of Jesus.
I don't see how your 'frozen chozen' quote is related to this discussion. I totally disagree with it because I believe God always uses means, and we are the means. But as I said, there's a big difference between those who've never heard and those who've heard a hundred times and wish christians would leave them alone.
I agree that the Bible is full of 'news' that most people don't know. And I'm all for telling non-believers about that stuff. I think we should do more of that. But I think most people, at least around here, have already heard the part about Jesus.
haha, i like discussions where we argue but end up believing similar things.
Two disagreements: 1. The great commission is not limited by its context; Norman made a good point about the bible's continued relevancy today. 2. You reveal your cultural naivete and ethnocentrism when you claim "most people in the world have heard of Jesus". That is simply untrue. Visit: http://home.snu.edu/~HCULBERT/1040.htm. I've copied a few stats from that site:
-In 1989 there were only four known Christians living in Mongolia.
-At least some part of Scripture has been translated into 2,212 of the world's 6,500 languages (what about the other 3300 languages?)
-80 percent of the world's people have access to at least some portion of the Bible in a language they can understand (what about the other 1 billion people?)
Regardless of the stats, the heart of God is clear. If even one person (much less billions of people) had not yet heard, blanket global evangelism would be worth all the effort. Remember Jesus's parable of the lost sheep, how the shepherd left the 99 to search for the 1? Or the widow, who tore up her house searching for her lost coin? God longs for people to come into relationship with him.
Finally, you make a good point about resource allocation. That tension - perhaps an unintended point of your post - is healthy. It seems frivolous to build grand "cathedrals" in Oklahoma (read: sparkling buildings, gymnasiums, extravagent sound systems, etc.) when the believers in Barbados have to scrounge for a copy of the bible (in English!), or when thousands of people are dying in sub-equatorial Africa in a crisis that has barely piqued the American church's interest.
Brad - Thanks again for the comments. Ironically, your statistics help prove my 'culturally naive' and 'ethnocentric' claim. If 80% of the world's population have access to the Bible in the own language, I would consider that "most of the world". In fact, a slight majority of the world's population (around 55-60%) actually adheres to a religion that is at least partly based on Jesus. If you combine that with all those who have heard about Jesus but don't believe, it's definitely most people in the world.
I never disagreed with the other things you mentioned. My post wasn't about evangelizing unreached people. That of course is part of the great commission and still applies today. Blanket global evangelism to reach the unreached is fine. I'm all for it.
Again, I agree with Norman (and you) about the Bible being relevant today. But I still haven't seen anything in it that would lead me to believe we're supposed to continuously preach about Jesus to people who are tired of hearing about him.
Good point about resource allocation -- I think we'd be a lot more successful in reaching the unreached if we didn't spend so much time annoying the ones who've been reached but don't want to believe.
Matt - "Are there really that many people in Oklahoma who haven't heard about Jesus and that he died for people's sins?"
It depends on what you mean by 'heard.' If you mean that series of phonemes or audio waves have stimulated their auditory receptors, then there probably aren't many. But hearing the words and knowing what they mean are drastically different. This is why we have philosophers of language. What many in Oklahoma have heard is that if you think Jesus is cool, go to church, and are a generally nice person, this will overrule any black marks on your record. I would claim that many non-believers reject this idea and yet could still be considered 'never-heards.' But how would you know without talking to them about it? I submit that the actual number of 'never-heards' is an unknowable statistic.
Granting that there aren't that many, however, your question brings up another: How many never-heards must there be to make evangelism justified? Is our goal to make sure 87% (or two standard deviations, or some other arbitrary value) of the population has either believed or openly rejected Christ? Unless you can justify a cut off value AND determine a reliable population number, I submit that 'how many' is an irrelevant question.
Matt - "But I think most people, at least around here, have already heard the part about Jesus."
Here we have a fundamentally different view of what the Bible is. From my view, there isn't a "part about Jesus." The entire Bible is about Jesus, and if you miss how most of it is about him then you have heard the phonemes/seen the orthography without actually hearing the meaning behind it. The gospel is not just a handy nugget amid the really fun part, exegesis of an ancient text. But then that's just my view of it, I suppose.
The relevance of the Frozen Chosen quote depends on the actual subject of discussion. If by "Evangelism - No longer necessary?" you mean that once someone has heard "Jesus died for your sins" we no longer need show them the gospel, then I submit that is no different than saying "Young man, when God chooses to convert the [already heard once] heathen he'll do it without help from me or you!" God does convert those who heard long ago, and he still uses means!
If, on the other hand, you are only saying that repeating to someone every day "You have to believe in Jesus," or yelling at people who you don't know "If you don't trust Jesus you'll burn in hell!" then I believe your statement is trivial. First, the heading is misleading because this is a methodology question, not a question of whether evangelism has already completed its purpose [in a specified region]. Second, I suspect that there are far fewer Christians in Oklahoma who actually support the "make an ass of yourself daily" method than there are non-believers on Oklahoma who are in fact still 'never-heards.' Not that either of these numbers is accessible, since mind-reading is still more of an art than a science.
All this is setting aside the fact that I see nowhere in the Bible where a distinction is drawn between non-believers and 'never-heards.'
Norman - thanks for the comments. I don't think someone has to have a very good understanding of theology in order to qualify as "knowing about Jesus". I'd say virtually everyone in Oklahoma knows that Jesus is supposed (by Christians) to be God and that he supposedly was crucified and rose from the dead. If someone rejects those things, I don't see how their misconceptions about soteriology are all that relevant.
If 100% of the population has either believed or rejected, I'd say everyone was reached. If it's only 87%, there's another 13% left to evangelize.
I don't think either of your examples apply here. I'm not talking about preachers standing on the street corner yelling at people, and I'm not saying we should sit back and hope God converts people without us. I'm talking about regular christians constantly trying to convert people who know about Jesus, don't believe in him, and aren't interested. As I said to Brad, I'm not aware of any example in the Bible of people doing this, much less a command to do it.
Matt: "I'm talking about regular christians constantly trying to convert people who know about Jesus, don't believe in him, and aren't interested. As I said to Brad, I'm not aware of any example in the Bible of people doing this."
I just thought of a great counter-example! Stephen, a regular christian (not one of the 12 original disciples of Jesus), spoke before the Jewish Sanhedrin. Those guys obviously knew about Jesus, didnt believe in him, and werent interested. Yet Stephen did not cease, and was even stoned to death as a result of his perserverance.
So, three more quick points of disagreement.
1- sharing with others, even those who have already heard and don't care to know, is biblical.
2- Jesus said make disciples "of" all nations, not "in" all nations. The task remains unfinished 2000 yrs later.
3- "Places like" the OU campus are 10% international. The ones I have met do not know the Lord. What a great chance we have to love them.
Care to amend your 19 Sept. theory on necessity of evangelism?
Brad -- Did the Sanhedrin not (at least purport to) believe in God and the Bible? Did Stephen really try to "share the gospel" with them? I have a hard time seeing his legal defense in court as being the same as personal evangelism.
To your points..
1 - Maybe, but I still haven't seen an example. I think the Stephen example (the fact that he doesn't really talk about the gospel) might even support my original post. But the fact that it's a defense in a blasphemy trial makes it difficult to apply to personal evanglism to non-believers.
2 - I've always agreed with this.
3 - I've always agreed with this.
I can't think of anything in the original post that I would want to amend.
Gotta admit, Matt... I think you're thinking into this too much. I don't think applying a model or a formula to evangelism is such a wise idea. It tends to close us off to opportunities without even realizing it. It creates a thought pattern that turns into a behaviour pattern. It starts innocently enough with believing that people don't need to hear the truth simply because they've already been exposed to "Jesus" in one form or another. But it leads to allowing someone to die without the chance to really meet Jesus. Not just hear about Him, but actually hear Him.
How about Paul limping back into Antioch after the citizenry had nearly murdered him (Acts 14)? I would say that constitutes a rejection.
The trouble with reading Acts, however, is that we have to look at the whole thing, such as in beginning of the chapter where the Apostle shakes the dust of an obstinate city off his feet and goes hence. Gotta admit Matt, he certainly didn't achieve coverage evangelism in that place.
Of course, this raises once again the question of which things St Paul did were prescriptive, and which were merely 'what St Paul happened to have done'... he wore tunics and preached all night when the fancy took him; as far as I am concerned Pastor Biggs can wear whatever he likes but I would prefer to have the option of attending classes Monday morning.
But speaking of classes I am tired, so I will proffer a summary: we seem to be agreed at least that being uncivil or obnoxious is not a preferred method of evangelism. As to numbers, and whether we are yet at the point of being able to check whole regions off our list - yup, got Oklahoma covered - I am mildly skeptical; at the end of the day, the only way to find out if someone is a Christian of a 'never heard' or a confirmed aetheist or a Jedi Knight is to talk to him and ask. I submit we ought to do that.
Marcia - I don't think applying a model or formula to evangelism is a good idea either. Not sure how that relates to this post.
Joel - I never suggested that we shouldn't talk to people who reject the gospel, or that we shouldn't talk to them about what we believe. I just don't see any point (or biblical command or example) to evangelize such people who don't want to hear it. Otherwise I agree with you.
In Acts 14, I don't think Paul was going to back to evangelize the same people who tried to kill him, so I don't see how that example applies here. It says he won converts there when he returned. Thus, it's much more likely that he went back to preach to people who hadn't heard yet. (not likely that he made converts of people who tried to kill him on the previous day)
"In Acts 14, I don't think Paul was going to back to evangelize the same people who tried to kill him"
You might not think Paul went to do that, but the text doesn't say. I submit that if you require textual examples of evangelizing confirmed non-believers, then you must likewise provide a textual reason why this does not count as one.
"it's much more likely that he went back to preach to people who hadn't heard yet."
This is only true if your original thesis is correct, and Paul didn't think confirmed unbelievers need to hear him. You're begging the question, never a good argumentation method.
"(not likely that he made converts of people who tried to kill him on the previous day)"
Why not? There are examples of this throughout church history, Paul included among them (and let us not forget Pentacost, where it is just as likely that many where converted who only a few months previous had shouted for Barabas instead of Jesus). Again, this isn't defending your thesis, it's assuming it.
As far as marcian!!!'s comment goes, it is relevant because what you are offering here closely resembles a formula or algorithm: "identify individual as either non-believer or never heard. If non-believer, stop. If not, go on. If never heard, evangelize. If never heard becomes non-believer, stop." This is what your position sounds like to some of us. In your place, I would probably be wondering if I had not represented my position very well.
So then Matt when you say 'we shouldn't evangelise people who don't want to hear it,' do you simply mean that when people tell us 'Hey, I don't want to hear this' that we honour their request and change the subject? Or that once they tell us they're not interested, we never bring it up again? The first I would call courtesy, the second cowardice.
Norman - I don't think I need a textual example -- it's just common sense. Antioch was a big city. If he returned the next day, is it more likely that he preached to the ones who hadn't heard yet or the ones who tried to kill him? I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but c'mon. Haha.
All I said was not to target those who've already heard and don't want to hear it again. I'd have a hard time calling that a "formula for evangelism", but you're welcome to call it whatever you like. I suppose you could call most aspects of daily living a "formula" in that sense.
Joel - I didn't mean either of those. The first is just common courtesy. The second is almost the opposite of what I said in the 3rd paragaph.
I think what I said in the original post was pretty clear. But people seem to be reading a lot of other things into it, so maybe I didn't explain it as well as I thought.
What I don't understand here is why Christians should be expected to let up. When one really experiences the love of Christ, he wants to share it with EVERYONE!! It is reality. Like math. In order to better understand the world, we use a language that speaks truth about the way the world works. Now, there are several ways to teach math, and some students just don't like math because of the way they were taught. A teacher might have been condescending to them, or made them feel stupid in class, so they are not going to be interested in math. But another might have had personal tutoring or had a teacher that took an interest in seeing that EVERYONE understood the concepts. This teacher made math relevant. His students love math. I think that this concept can be applied to evangelism as well. To ignore the truth is wrong (I love John Piper's example in Don't Waste Your Life) and to ignore others' need for the truth is wrong, too. But we must speak the truth in love. We must convey a concept in a language that people will understand. Instead of worrying about the concept (which should flow from a life changed by Jesus), we should be concerned about the way we communicate it.
So let's follow Jesus' example. He LOVED people. Let's get to the bottom of this "L Word". It will make breaking through the barriers of the "uninterested" and "already heard and rejected" crowd much much easier.
Only one life
'Twill soon be pass'd
Only what's done
For Christ will last
Post a Comment