In my Small Group at church we are studying a series on evangelism called 'Walk Across the Room' with the purpose of encouraging us as individuals to be more
conscious in terms of how we think and what we do and say with our non-Christian friends.
Firstly I have to say that I have never spent much time thinking on the topic of evangelism until now. I have to admit to being uncomfortable of 'evangelism' in the active sense the book seems to suggest - i.e. looking for and acting for direct opportunities in order to speak of Jesus with individuals. Don't get me wrong, I love to talk about him and what he has done and wish for all people to understand that as well but I think the world of today is a very different one in many ways to the one in which the early (and later) Church used that form of spreading the gospel.
In earlier times Christianity was smaller numerically, geographically and in terms of influence to the point that Christians were widely vulnerable to and indeed were persecuted. It needed to be more proactive and visible and 'evangelical' as it were to draw attention and people to it. It simply had to be noticed in order to survive and propagate.
This was also done in a culture that was much more religiously aware and spiritually active (for good or bad).
Although I think there is still a place for high-profile evangelism like this in some circumstances I equally don't think there is anything incorrect in tempering our evangelism methodology depending on the time and society we live in.
Christian evangelism has come and gone in many forms and to many degrees over the centuries and I don't think there is any shame or guilt in acknowledging and learning from that. Society creates and innovates and so should evangelism. Good things can come from doing so and exploring the many possible ways of introducing Jesus.
(Although saying that I certainly wouldn't want to reintroduce the enforced evangelism that Europeans practised on the people of the South Americas upon their discovery...)
This is one of the reasons why I feel frustrated at apologetics in particular being used as an evangelism hammer by some Christians. More often than not we are wrong in how we use it as well as with the specifics of what we are saying. There is a place for rationality in our faith (and we should certainly be taught that (well) in our churches), but it should not be a wonder-cure or fulcrum around which to introduce people to the person of Jesus.
There is a time and a place for different weightings on evangelism strategies. I don't think an 'us/them' culture with a need to pro-actively 'do' evangelism (however gently) to win people over is what is best in today's Western culture where Christianity is pretty well known in one form or another and the speed of our culture creates multiple changing demands on our attention.
Today I think the best strategy might be relational with no fixed agenda. People for the sake of being interested in people and not people as projects nor people as outcomes, favouring neither Christian nor non-Christian with who we invest our time and interest in.
Hmm, sounds a bit like what some guy who claimed to be the Son of God might have been doing once upon a time...
Strategy thinking aside
Duncan has a good quote from CS Lewis on his blog that I will also copy here:
The world does not consist of 100% Christians and 100% non-Christians. There are people who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name….There are people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.
- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
I think this echoes a lot of my own thinking over recent years when it comes to people in general and how I should be thinking about them especially in terms of pro-active evangelism. I don't (and I would argue that I never can) know for certain if someone is or isn't a Christian so really struggle with how to practically evangelise beyond simply just being around and living with all people in public conviction and living of what I believe.
I think it is difficult not to judge someone either way but we must live with doing our best not to and seeing people rather than a divide between 'us' and 'them', Christian and non-Christian. Ultimately we all will be judged one way or the other, but that is certainly not our job or place to do.
Not only is this I think a more Christ-like way of living and engaging with those around us but I think also enables us to be wiser and more humble when engaging in the world as a whole. We are called to be salt and light in a world gone wrong, but sometimes I think we try too hard to do that for the sake of doing so rather than because its needed at a particular point or situation.
If we live in self-prescribed Christian 'bubble' isolated from the rest of humanity and Creation it can be easy to become suspicious of both. This is a perfectly natural reaction, we humans like to form groups and exclude and include individuals from those groups. However it is unnecessary as there is a lot of good in this world outside the Church itself. God created us all inherently good and for good. Sin smears that and Christ renews us, but that goodness is still an intimate part of all that God has created including all people.
Goodness and good people are not monopolised by the Church and we would do well do remember that when thinking of those outside the church and how to introduce them to being friends of Jesus.
Posts
