I struggle with evangelism because it always seem so disingenuous. The only people I know that have ever come to consider themselves Christians who were not born into it were not the direct results of any evangelism techniques that we muster together. I deeply want people to know the peace and joy that I have that comes from my faith in Christ and life in the church. I’m just not sure that “converting” people is what we are going for. The church doesn’t exist to make converts. The church exists as an alternative community that lives in such a way that makes living make sense and truthful. You don’t just convert someone over to a different way of living life, especially a life of all they’ve known. Changing your life is a slow process, one that takes your entire life.
I’ve thrown out most strategies of evangelism. I find them to be inconsistent with who the church is supposed to be. I do not think it is our job to sell our way of life and try to convince people that it’s a good way to live. I do not think it’s my job to give altar calls, to catch people in their moments of weakness and lack of faith, and have people make cognitive decisions to ask Jesus into their heart. I think it’s my job to live in such a way that makes their live incomprehensible to their own existence. I think it’s my job to live a life so full of truth that they desire to be part of that kind of truth. There is no room for empty conversion techniques, growth strategies or altar calls when you are a community of people radically committed to a way of life. You just invite more and more people into this way of life and people will join you at their own pace, in their own way.
I don’t think the failure of our churches is because we suck at evangelism. I think the church is shrinking because the church isn’t the church. There is no longer anything to be drawn into. If you are stuck coming up with creative schemes, strategic planning, discipleship programs or manipulative maneuvers to bring people into your fold, then I fear that you are no longer being the church. Build communities that care about each other, the poor, God, the weak and are radically generous with who they are and that’s all the evangelism you will need. You will create a lot of enemies being this kind of community (probably with other congregations) but this what it means to be the church.
Nathan,
What do you do with the words of Jesus to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples? Or Paul we beg you to be reconciled with Christ or …. Why can’t we be the church and preach the gospel? Because of sharing their faith people were added daily in Acts.
Nat, trying to read between the lines a bit here, but it sounds like what your actually proposing is in fact another type of evangelism, one that is in line with many strands of often ignored biblical truth. I think that it could be taken to too far of an extreme if not careful though, and we would run into some serious problems with our overall reading of Acts if we didn’t watch out. While I hear what your saying, and agree with it, I think sometimes a call to repentance (not the all to often call to “accept Jesus into your heart”) is necessary, and is also in line with John and Jesus’ ministry in the gospels, and the Apostles in Acts, no?
I would ask, what is Jesus talking about when he says “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand”? John the Baptist started his ministry with the exact same words. It seems to me that the Kingdom and repentance are intrinsically connected, and without the one you don’t have the other. Further, I guess I’m curious to know two things, 1. What gives the impression that 1st century immorality is wildly different than 21st century immorality? Are we not now also prone to greed, selfishness, envy, pride, boastfulness, lust and anger? (to name only a few – I should also include religious hypocrisy such as you describe, and which Jesus condemns as well) and 2. I’ve now forgot my second question lol, so I’ll just leave it with that *thumbs up*
To be honest Nathan, I agree with what your saying, I think hypocrites need to stop “evangelizing” (or gospeling if that is preferable – because what they are promoting is no gospel at all), and I also believe people need to start living out their professions more deeply. I also hold no quames about using contextual language if one feels that terms such as “evangelism” or “convert” or “preach” or any other word, isn’t useful, and if it helps people see what your trying to say. Reality is I think the church is, by and large, lukewarm. And I think that they have resorted to just the thing your talking about and calling it “evangelism”. While I don’t think that what their doing is actually true evangelism, I agree with you that they think it is, and stand by you in opposing it. I believe that your striking at some good truth in what your saying. Having said that, I do think we need to tell people not to be greedy, lazy, envious, lustful, violent, or whatever, and we need to strive to tell people that these things will not bring them the joy that they truly seek, and that Jesus is the answer to all these things. At the same time I will be the first one to say I struggle with all those things…including hypocrisy…*goes and re-reads Romans 7-8 to get some encouragement* :O
May I ask, in sincerity: to what end are we rethinking it?
OK, that’s a good answer. My next thought would be: what does it mean to be “consistent with the scriptures”? If it means, roughly “do what it says in the context in which it says to do it”, wouldn’t something like the Great Commission require us to “evangelize” in some sense?
Nathan,
I could say a bunch of different things here, but I wonder if another question might be best:
Would it be reasonable to say that, as imitators of Jesus, we should follow his method of discipling people? If so, Matthew is of great help there: it shows us exactly how he did it. He went about the towns of Israel proclaiming a fact (“the kingdom of God is present in me”) and demonstrating the truth of that fact with various deeds. What do you think?
Nathan, I hope you don’t mind if I shift the discussion a little again. I feel like your last sentence to me is maybe expressing something central going on here:
“And it has a lot more to do with loving, serving and blessing the ‘other’ than it does converting them and making them like us.”
It seems to me that, from your point of view, “evangelism” (as you use the term) is something intrinsically manipulative, meaning, it is always about trying to get people to do things good for us but not necessarily for them.
But isn’t another motive for evangelism (“making converts”) possible? I mean, if we think it is better (in the deepest sense) for people to believe in Christ than for them not to, isn’t it an act of love to try and get them to believe in him? I thought of the line by Luther describing how he understood sharing the gospel: “Beggars telling other beggars where to find the bread.”