Brothers,
I'm hoping that your comments in response to this blog entry will help to sharpen my thinking on evangelism. I've told most of you, but in the Lord's sovereignty, I had a three hour Gospel-conversation with a Math major from Berkley about two weeks ago. Oddly enough, this encounter came on the heels of thinking/praying/searching the Scriptures/talking with Ann(i)e about evangelism.
Lately I've really questioned my approach to evangelism, which has basically been to try and get my hearer to think I'm cool and likeable and be sure that 'Scott would never believe anything that's crazy'. Once I think they think I'm cool enough, I tell them about the Lord and the Gospel and then...I stop. No call to repentance and faith, at least not one with any weight, pleading, etc.. I feel like this is the outcome of fear of man in my heart and a distrust in the Word of God as used by the Holy Spirit to change sinful people. I really feel like, in my evangelism at least, I'm a functional arminian.
So here are some thoughts on evangelism.
Broad Affirmations Concerning Evangelism (several of these, in principle at least, are from Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God"):
1. We should tell nonbelievers (and fellow brothers/sisters) what we think God would have them know that they do not currently know.
2. Every unbeliever intentionally distorts the truth (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 1:18-2:16; 2 Cor 4:4).
3. Every unbeliever knows God (Rom 1:21) and doesn't know God (1 Cor 1:21, 2:14) at the same time.
4. Our arguments for the faith must use knowledge based on "fear of the Lord" and not "foolishness"--this dichotomy being found in Scripture.
5. We must make direct apologetic witness not to the unbeliever's empiricist epistemology, but to his/her memory of God's revelation and the methodology implicit in that revelation.
6a. The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity with the most active part (temporally) in evangelism: Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:4-5; 2 Cor 3:15-18; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13-14.
6b. Our promise in Scripture is that the Holy Spirit will tie itself to God's Word...ergo, in evangelistic conversation we should make a beeline to Bible-talk (of course our particular words are 'tailored' to our hearer...of course!).
7. All arguments are circular to a degree--those for Christianity being no different--but there is a difference between 'narrow' circular arguments and 'broad' circular arguments. Both these being equal and depending on whom we're talking to, we should opt for the more fruitful option, which I think is the broad kind (but see #9 about the legitimacy of the narrow kind as well).
8. Scripture never argues for the existence of God; rather, the Bible states that He is clearly revealed in nature and in the hearts of men. I think this is true... Any pushback on the first part of that?
9. Scripture never rebukes childlike faith. In fact, I can think of few more beautiful dispositions towards God than that displayed by the new believer who lacks even a 'broad' circular argument for their faith (much less the arguments that evidentialists and classical apologeticians tout!), but simply believes the Lord because the Bible tells him/her to do it. I love it!!!!!
10. Because of #1, along with the fact that we are only messengers for the Lord--waiters that are just trying to get the food from the kitchen to the table without messing it up--there is a very real aspect of us talking "at" people as opposed to "with" them in evangelistic encounter. I say this because I'm not sure we can tell unbelievers what the Lord would have them know without a confrontational aspect to what it is we're saying(which is what I see in Acts, 1 Cor., etc.). This doesn't have to be prideful, pharisaical or selfish because we're not carrying our own words, but the words of another--the Lord. In keeping with authorial intent we should also carry His demeanor while speaking His words. And His is a demeanor of severe seriousness. "It is a gross insult to God, and a real disservice to men, to cheapen and trivialize the gospel by one's presentation of it." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)
11. However, we must balance #10 with what Paul says in 2 Tim. 2:24- "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..." Any practical suggestion (a hypothetical anecdote maybe) for what numbers 10 and 11 look like in tandem?
12. Creativity has its place in evangelism. I couldn't agree more with J.I. Packer: "Christ's command means that we all should be devoting all our resoureces of ingenuity and enterprrise to the task of making the gospel known in every possible way to every possible person. Unconcern and inaction with regard to evangelism are always, therefore, inexcusable." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)
13. The examples I see in Scripture (in 1 Corinthians in particular, but not exclusively) show Christians coming away from evangelistic encounters looking foolish, crazy, or both--the very adjectives I've strained so hard to avoid. "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it power." (1 Cor 1:17)
14. The community of the local church is singled out in Scripture as a way unbelievers will know we are truly Christian. Therefore, we should bring nonbelievers to our meetings together.
What do you guys think about #5 and in particular the second part about an innate methodology? What about #10? These are the two that I wouldn't have thought about a month ago, am comfortable with for now, and think some of you guys might disagree with. If you don't disagree, help me think through how these principles should apply to my evangelistic encounters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
you're so hot.
After much too long, my comments.
I'm more and more persuaded by you than maybe it seems. Just keep arguing with me and I'll be convinced. I appreciate your post, and I could agree with all of them (including #5 and #10). Thinking back on our conversations, I share your apprehension with apologetics, but I don't share what I perceive to be your apprehension with philosophy (that's faithful to Scripture, obviously). You said the other day, you don't see much use for it beyond the Trinity/christology constructs. So, you hate apologetics or philosophy, or both?
Other thoughts:
1. When disavowing classical apolegetics, don't we need to separate our own emotional tendencies from the actual viability of a methodology? While we might not be able to engage in classical apologetics ourselves, I don't think Craig, Moreland, et al. are practicing it in an attempt at intellectual respectability. They practice it because of their understanding of epistemology and conversion and their desire to be faithful.
2. I think I agree with #5, including resisting any obligation to answer questions according to another's empiricist epistemology. I wonder, though, with this resistance, are there some well-meaning questions you would refuse to answer? If someone asked you to not tell but explain the Trinity or about human responsibility and divine sovereignty or about eternity. Your thoughts come across as resulting in a fideist, don't-ask-questions-just-jump, view of conversion.
I guess that's my main beef -- if someone asks me a question about what Christians believe, I want to answer (within a confessedly supernaturalistic worldview). As well, if someone makes an irrational claim against Christianity, I want them to know that they are wrong, that they have no ground on which to stand, hopefully in order to bring them to the point where their refusal to believe is only rebellion.
I agree and am guilty of number 1. I need to think more about number 2.
Post a Comment