Posted by Helen on: 09.08.2008 /
In an earlier post today I mentioned writing articles years ago for the purpose of evangelism and said
I’m not sure if the people who weren’t Christians ever read my articles but it doesn’t matter does it? Because it’s not about results but about being obedient to God. At least that’s what I was taught.
No offense responded
Interesting!
Is evangelism about us, or them?
This is such a great question I’m making it a post of its own.
Christians, what do you think? Is evangelism about you or them?
People who aren’t Christians: when you’re ‘evangelized’ do you feel it’s about you or the Christian hoping to evangelize you?
Comment by: Duh-sciple
1 09/8/08 9:16 AM | Comment Link |Us= It’s about us embodying the love of Christ for others regardless of whether or not they become “one of us”
Them: It’s about them experiencing the reality of Christ’s suffering, sacrificial, unconditional love in a flesh-and-blood human person.
Peace,
Duh
Comment by: Jim J
2 09/8/08 9:42 AM | Comment Link |It’s about both, I think. You can’t be a good writer if you’re not aware of what other writers are doing. What works, what doesn’t, etc. We like to say we’re led by experience but we are also led by evidence. Nothing wrong there.
Now some evangelists get into the rut of not addressing the unchurched. Their way of speaking will also sound too foreign in language to the unchurched. I always wonder about evangelical preachers who sound as if they just walked out of a King James Bible. Who could they be evangelizing? Do they care?
Comment by: benjamin ady
3 09/8/08 1:59 PM | Comment Link |Aha–there’s “evangelism” and “evangelism”, isn’t there?
I liked being skillfully fished for, to use Jesus’ metaphor of fishers of men. And by that I mean I really like it when someone skillfully listens well and draws out my story. I like the sort of evangelism that’s interested in drawing me into relationship for relationships sake.
And in that sense, I want to become a better fisher myself.
In fact, I have this rather sneaky desire to go fishing for that other type of evangelist–the whole four spiritual laws … old style, modern, Evangelism Explosion type of evangelist. As in this story.
Comment by: Bob
4 09/8/08 4:51 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin I liked your story. Thanks for taking the time to talk to that guy. I guess it can seem to be about the approach and mindset of the person doing the evangelizing. Benjamin’s story reminded me we make a lot of assumptions about peoples’ motivation and rarely guess right about who people are. It’s just easier than doing the work of getting to know them.
I don’t think it supposed to be about me or the I’m person talking to. It’s supposed to be about God and his story, how it relates to my own, and how it might relate to theirs. It’s supposed to be an invitation to meet with God on ground where they’re comfortable. If you are evangelizing something else (say environmental issues) it’s about that issue or thing and how it affects us both. So you’re a part of it, and they’re apart of it, but it’s really an invitation to engage in the thing that you are evangelizing as a passion. The cause is bigger than both of us.
Comment by: Randy
5 09/8/08 5:09 PM | Comment Link |I don’t know if I understand the question. Seems like it implies a false dilemma, but I might be misreading it.
What I do know is that Christians who take the “it doesn’t matter if anyone listens or understands because it’s about ME being obedient to Jesus” route seem to (at least in my own personal experience) be blaming Jesus/The Gospel/God/”you name it” for their own failure to communicate to the audience they are supposed to care about.
In other words, the evangelist who yells at people and then says the Gospel is an offense to those who are perishing seems to have made it their mission to ensure that the Gospel is indeed offensive to everyone. Then they blame the Gospel for their own callousness and arrogance and lack of love or grace toward others.
I don’t know anything about the articles in question, but if they were published in a Christian periodical, mailed to Christians, then it sounds more like preaching to the choir than evangelism. Not that the choir couldn’t use it, mind you, but they may not have been the intended audience.
This discussion reminded me of the old argument about whether or not there were any “unreached” people in America. The one side said that due to churches on every corner, TV, radio, internet, etc., that every person in America has had the Gospel preached to them already. Therefore we are wasting dollars and other resources trying to reach out to anyone within our borders. I would argue that if you only understand Spanish and the Gospel is preached to you in Greek, that doesn’t count. The Gospel must be proclaimed in language and ways that the listener understands, or it’s just noise.
And if it’s not done with love, then it’s irritating noise…banging gongs and clanging symbols (I Cor. 13…)
Comment by: Helen
6 09/8/08 7:32 PM | Comment Link |Jim J wrote:
Good questions, Jim J. It intrigues me that missionaries going overseas spend time learning the language where they’re going but missionaries/evangelists in English speaking countries don’t tend to put similar amounts of effort into learning the language of the people they want to connect with. Christians and people who aren’t Christians often don’t speak the same language.
Benjamin wrote:
What about people who say, yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing: they’re trying to draw you into a relationship with Jesus. Is that what you’re talking about?
Randy wrote:
Randy, it’s very frustrating when people use it as an excuse.
But I think the idea was to be realistic about what’s under our control. We can’t control other peoples responses to what we do. We can only control what we do. Which in this context means we can’t guarantee conversions. It’s to help the sort of people who tend to feel over-responsible and then guilty to establish better boundaries.
It wasn’t intended to excuse Christians who behave offensively.
Evidently you didn’t click on the link that gave the backstory behind this post. :) In it I said that only half the group whose newsletter I was writing for were Christians. I wouldn’t have written evangelistic articles for something only distributed to Christians - of course I would have written Christian articles for them. (Like I did for the church nursery newsletter sometimes, back then)
Exactly.
Thanks for your comment, Randy. It’s good to have a full time Evangelist weigh in :)
Comment by: Jason Horton
7 09/9/08 5:23 AM | Comment Link |It is in the difference between evangelism and proselytising. Proselytising is about “them”, the person selling the idea of God and the church. Evangelism, done well, is about the relationship built between people and the sharing of what makes the Christian’s life richer.
That’s how I think it should be anyway. If someone proselytised at me I switch off and leave but if someone shares with me I am inclined to share back.
Comment by: benjamin ady
8 09/9/08 5:41 AM | Comment Link |My first reaction to this was “blech!!”.
I don’t really care about “relationship with Jesus” (I’m not into relationships with people I can’t ever see or talk to on the phone, not with people who disappeared and never came back).
I’m totally interested in relationships with real people. Why do they want to draw me into relationship with someone else? I’m interested in relationship with them. Isn’t that enough? I’m totally willing to accomodate their relationship with Jesus as part of their relationship with me (well, to a certain extent …)
I’m totally convinced every person I pass on the street every day has a mind boggling, fasinating, riveting, profoundly moving story. And I’m totally into getting at that story. And to the extent that Jesus comes into that story, I’m totally interested to hear about Jesus. But only within that context.
Comment by: Helen
9 09/9/08 6:03 AM | Comment Link |Bob thanks for your comment
Isn’t the point of evangelism (of any kind) to persuade the other person they’re a part of it too? If they already agree about that I think you’re pretty much done aren’t you?
Jason I like concept behind the distinction you made although it’s the first time the two words defined and distinguished that way.
Comment by: no offense
10 09/9/08 7:04 AM | Comment Link |So, what exactly is the ‘evangel?’
Comment by: Bob
11 09/9/08 1:07 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Yes, you’re trying to expose them to something you believe is important and that it could be important to them too. We’re both a part of it. But the issue is still the driving force or main thing. If I evangelize saving baby seals it’s mostly about saving the seals, and we’re a part of the process.
You know, from what I said that makes sense but I don’t really like the thought from a faith perspective now that I think about it. If as Christians, we are supposed to love people, then evangelizing them is alot more than flipping the switch and moving on. Perhaps it’s precursor to living out your common cause or belief together.
In both cases I still think it’s more about the commonality than either individual though.
Comment by: no offense
12 09/9/08 4:15 PM | Comment Link |I have to think that the definition of the word ‘euangelion’ should be the starting place for a discussion on what evangelism is supposed to be about.
Especially when we see just how loaded the use of that word would have been in the historical context.
Gospel (euangelion) was not a term coined by the NT authors, but rather a term rich in usage both in their Jewish roots, and in Roman culture.
Shouldn’t we find out what it meant in those contexts?
Comment by: gecko
13 09/10/08 6:36 AM | Comment Link |Good Question! I like to think that it is about us and them. To me evangelism is not suffocate somebody with Bible-verses or half-knowledge learned by heart. It’s more like showing those who seek a direction where to look and trying to answer their questions honestly. And as I honestly don’t know all the answers, I have to go looking myself, too. So we all win. This needs trust and confidence in one another (and in God). I think sometimes christians hide behind phrases, but so does almost everybody. At least I have done so until lately.
Comment by: Helen
14 09/10/08 6:52 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
That makes sense to me, Bob. In the Great Commission (Matthew 28) Jesus actually told his disciples to go ‘disciple’ others, not to ‘evangelize’ them. Which doesn’t sound like something that you move on from!
no offense wrote:
no offense, what did it mean in those contexts?
gecko wrote:
I like how you said it’s showing those who seek a direction. I think a lot of the negative feelings about being evangelized result from Christians attempting to show people a direction who aren’t looking for one. Which comes across as well as people calling up at dinner time selling stuff you didn’t want anyway.
Comment by: no offense
15 09/10/08 6:45 PM | Comment Link |Jewish usage - deliberate echoes of the prophets’ vision of YHWH becoming King, restoring peace, freedom, and return from exile to Israel; and hope, wisdom, blessing, and justice for the peoples of the earth.
Isaiah 52, among other uses.
Roman usage - sometimes the NT uses almost verbatim quotations of pronouncements of Caesar’s accomplishments; subverted of course to proclaim Jesus as ‘Lord’ instead of ‘Caesar is Lord.’
‘Gospel’ in this context was a proclamation of the ascension or birth of the Emperor; ‘Hail Prince of Peace, Lord of the World.’
Comment by: gecko
16 09/10/08 11:02 PM | Comment Link |And isn’t this King to help people solve their immense problems concerning health, money, love and hatred, meaning of life, peace and war, …? Sometimes I think the way some chruch-goers advertise their Jesus and their church (=evangelization in the most common sense) they would have found that all. But then, if you look more closely, … That’s why I wrote on my letter to Helen (Why gecko almost left church) that I think the churches don’t represent Jesus very well.
Comment by: Bob
17 09/14/08 11:21 PM | Comment Link |gekco wrote:
I think you’re right — sometimes churches are so busy being churches they forget they’re supposed to be emulating Christ by and in the very body of the Church. Unfortunately we don’t always act very Christ like as individuals or as a body. But it’s not fair of me to generalize, sometimes we get it right too. Habit and routine can dull our focus to the point of ineffectiveness. Same thing with busyness and ministry involvement. Doesn’t mean the intentions are bad but just a little off course.
Comment by: gecko
18 09/16/08 1:50 AM | Comment Link |Of course you’re right, the intentions are almost never bad. But as long as it’s so easy to be a good church-member by only imitating, telling the same flowery words as the “official version”, fitting perfectly into the chuch-policy many just don’t dare to ask questions. As if there was one church that has all the answers! In some churches they even advise people who are upset by somenbody’s questions to avoid that somebody!
To me going to church should be mostly on relationship to Jesus. I met pastors who were afraid of their “sheep” hearing from the Lord directly, but should’t this be the aim? Growing children means helping them to become independent, isn’t it? And these are two of the questions I haven’t found an answer to, yet.
1. Is it possible to outgrow a church?
2. I see so many people in our church who are sad, ailing, hurt for a long time now. Why? Aren’t they more important than the projects they serve in?
Comment by: Bob
19 09/16/08 1:58 PM | Comment Link |Hi Gecko — It sounds like your church may have been particularly controlling or conservative but I think there’s a certain amount of that kind of thinking in lots of churches. In terms of your questions:
I think so. Sometimes things just aren’t a fit for where we are in our faith. But that doesn’t mean we should be treated poorly by any body of Christ. The scariest people of faith to me are the ones that tout their spiritual maturity. If they’ve got it, they’d know better than to think so much of themselves. Humility is a huge part of maturity and that means accepting we don’t know everything but we are striving towards God. We need to be responsible in our attempts as not to cause people to stumble. But we can admit confusion or doubt or concern and there’s nothing wrong with that. If people aren’t responding to your concerns in a loving and understanding way, you are perfectly within your rights to let them know that you feel there responses are not appropriate.
That depends on the person. I don’t believe God makes us suffer or inflicts us, but it’s part of the human condition and sometimes those experiences build character, or bring repentance, or encourage others. Other times we bring those things on ourselves through poor choices or unwillingess to change. For the struggles in my own life I have often been the primary obstacle. Whether it be pride, selfishness, or whatever it usually involves me letting go of some things I’m holding tightly.
Part two of your question hits a little closer to home for me as someone who volunteers for a lot of ministry. While it’s important to keep the church running, if we fail to take care of the people or allow them to fail at taking care of themselves it’s pretty sad. I’ve run on that treadmill a few times and I’ve figured out being a busy Christian has nothing to do with the quality of your relationship with God. So we need to be really mindful of people’s condition and their needs as members of the body of faith. Just seeing them as assets is a huge mistake.
Comment by: gecko
20 09/17/08 1:09 AM | Comment Link |Hi Bob-yes, you helped me, thank you. I don’t know wether my church is especially controlling or not, bur I sensed this kind of atmosphere in a lot of churches I visited. And even in our church there are people that aren’t controlling at all. It depends on who are your leaders. I think to have noticed that the ones who control you and want to press you into a pattern you don’t fit in, are unsure and look for their own “career” in church.
But I’m convinced that it’s my right to have my own relationship with God, I’m allowed to grow and to work for my own visions, too (not only for the pastor’s or the church’s), I even have a right to my own mistakes and the things I learn from them. And so has everybody else. I came to think that the church should be a frame for this.
This brings me to another question: Is to subordinate and to listen to your leaders in church always being obedient to God? I don’t think so, but when I read (or listen) to preachings of John Bevere and others, I’m not so sure anymore. Their bottom-line is to endure until God takes one out of it.
Comment by: Bob
21 09/17/08 9:17 AM | Comment Link |Hi Gecko - Glad it helped a little, it’s tough finding our way sometimes. There are all kinds of folks in most churches, even though we sometimes frustrate each other that’s still part of the beauty of it. People trying to get on the same page enough to serve God. Leadership is a huge part of it. That’s why I get frustrated when I see massive influential churches that are dependent on the charisma and philosophy of their leader instead the power of the gospel.
I think no two people have identical faith and that’s part of the beauty. My only caution is we don’t get to discard what we don’t like just because we can’t reconcile it. For example, God in the old testament seems far more harsh than God in the new testament. I don’t like that. But it’s there and it’s there for a reason, even if I can’t get my head around it. So yes, we have a right to explore and question, but not to change for our own comfort.
Pastors are human like everyone else. I don’t think we’re called to agree with them, but we are called to support, encourage, and honor them as people who dedicate their lives to the church. Also I respect their training and years of study as they know things I haven’t come across yet. I don’t think that’s the same thing as being obedient to God though. God communicates his desires for us in his word. Leaders are supposed to communicate those things to us but in their humanness they may make errors on occasion. At one point, the church was okay with slavery. It was a big deal for people to speak up against it in the church but it was the right thing to do. They were not disobeying God, they were doing what they knew was in keeping how God wants us to treat others. So no, if you think something is wrong, you should be able to speak up in a loving way and examine it together.
I saw this link today and it made me think of you: http://www.last.fm/music/Brooke+Fraser/_/Shadow+Feet
Talks about change and things being tough but persisting to the point of being found in God. I thought it was encouraging. Hope it blesses you the way it did me.
I realize we’re a little of topic here. Should we move our conversation to the why Gecko almost left the church page?
Comment by: gecko
22 09/21/08 5:02 AM | Comment Link |Hi Bob, yes, it’s o.k. to move. Read you there on the why Gecko almost left church page!