The central idea that is forming in my mind is based in II Corinthians, which I happened to be reading recently. In 4:2, and again in 5:11, we notice the theme of conscience. I think this is key. In evangelism, it isn't so much about what I think is true, or what you think is false; it's a matter of the conscience, both mine and yours. The miscellaneous shreds of truth that have collected in the bottom of my knapsack may be genuine, but they may not necessarily be the truth-key that will fit the lock on your heart. We have to stop dealing primarily with truths-falsities and get back to dealing with people. Jesus saw the questions, yes, but He also saw the people behind them, and sometimes this led Him to answer in a deeper way.This has led me to reject most of the law-oriented confrontational evangelistic "formula," advocated by Ray Comfort and others. While I appreciate their passion, and think many of their premises are valid, I'm not convinced when it comes to the method. Boyd argues, and I tend to agree with him, that this approach hearkens back to Old Testament principles and is not necessarily a good way to build the Kingdom:
"The trouble with this approach, of course, is that despite the veneer of civil religion, most people in America aren't worried about whether they break one of the Ten Commandments now and then, and they certainly don't see the logic behind the claim that infractions of this sort warrant everlasting damnation. Just because the evangelist thinks this doesn't mean the person they're confronting thinks this, and the lack of shared presuppositions makes the encounter odd at best."*
Boyd talks next about why a proper understanding of accountability is so important, and then goes on to examine some of Paul's evangelistic methods. Paul quoted scripture to the Jews; it was something they subscribed to and so it made contextual sense. Paul didn't quote scripture on Mars Hill: he quoted pagan philosophy. In doing so he showed some simple consideration of, and appreciation for, his audience. These are basic communication principles! Where did we get this idea that we have some kind of moral wild card to play when witnessing? Why are we of all people exempt from the normative cultural standards of consideration? I wonder, supposing Jesus showed up for one of our evangelistic encounters, with all our talk of holiness and hell, if he wouldn't rebuke us like he did the disciples in Luke 9: "You know not what manner of spirit you are of."
What if, instead of judging and intimidating people, we chose to love them and listen to them? What if we took the time to build relationships and give people a reason to hear us out? Granted, there is much work to do, and time is short, but what if we someday find ourselves giving an account for what we thought were harmless shortcuts?
*Gregory Boyd, The Myth Of A Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), p. 156-157
Addendum: To get the most from this post, you now must go here and read the comments.
5 comments:
I like the last paragraph. Right on.
pete.
I had a long response all typed out, but my computer decided to ditch that web page. I'll do another one maybe tommorrow.
Hey, another thing I agree with you on! Maybe you’re not so bad after all :).
Comfort's tactics hit home, and hit it hard, when dealing with Christian's fallen from grace or simply those that have a "Christian" background. Like you mentioned, this is principle of communication, that we relate to one another based on understood perspectives, or paradigms.
Yet in nearly every other encounter this would seem a clumsy way to interact with someone... banking entirely on the hope that they will believe what you are saying and become overwhelmed with guilt.
Probably the only thing and did not like was the brief allusion to relationship evangelism right there at the end. I don't know of an example of this in scripture. Usually we see one of two scenarios that are repeatable: speaking to crowds and conversations with individuals. There are, of course, much more elaborate stories of miracles and the like, and yet little or no in the way of on-going relationships (beyond that of a crowd following you around... sort of like Keith Green as he housed and fed all those unbelievers... not necessarily as "friends" but as "people" and with the objective of teaching them about the Lord).
Bravo.
-Garrett
Yes, I must take friendly issue with this one.
I must say, I was a bit startled by your second paragraph. “In evangelism, it isn't so much about what I think is true, or what you think is false; it's a matter of the conscience, both mine and yours.” It is interesting to note that Paul says they commend themselves to everyone’s conscience by “...the open statement of the truth...” This means dealing with “truths-falsities”. Granted, Paul wasn’t always doing this in the context of a rigorous philosophical debate, or through “fire and brimstone” preaching, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t dealing with truth and error. If you step away from truth and falsities, you step away from reality.
Your point is well taken that I can build arguments up to the moon, and give enough answers to fill a textbook, and still not answer the heart behind the questions most people ask. I believe this is because the hardest questions are really existential in nature, even if they’re couched in logical terms. (And the final answer is not just an abstract proposition, but a person.) If you are saying that we need to guard against becoming too absorbed in abstract argumentation that we lose sight of the individual, I’m right behind you. However, I believe the distinction between dealing with truths-falsities, and dealing with people is an unjustified, and hopeless one really. (The whole point of evangelism, whether it is public preaching or casual coffee-cup discussion, is to share the truth (that is, the reality) of Christ.)
Although I do think we need to take our cultural context into account, I’m troubled by someone who bases an argument against confrontational evangelism on how “most people in America” would respond. It seems to me that this level of pragmatism is inexcusable.
Thanks for keeping your blog active. Whether I agree or disagree, it is always interesting reading.
-Max
Actually, Max, I think we agree.
I did not intend to introduce an antithesis between "truth-falsities" and "people." As you say, that is to deny reality. I am only suggesting that we reverse the order. Sort of like bringing the seeker to the truth instead of bringing the truth to the seeker.
That should have been clearer. Thank you for clarifying.
I see your point regarding evangelistic pragmatism. It was likely rather unfair of me to quote Boyd piecemeal but I was trying to save space. I wanted to quote the whole section. I think his analysis is much deeper than simple pragmatism, but I'll just have to let you read it for yourself.
That said, I can't escape the feeling that we are in need of a little "pragmatism," (or common sense, if you prefer,) in our interaction and dealings with people. Follow the Spirit, yes, and if the Spirit leads you to do or say something outrageously ridiculous, you are a fool if you don't.
But we have to take the blinders off. We have to take responsibility, at least in part, for the culture being turned away from Christianity by the wrong things. (1 Samuel 2:17) Too much of the current version smacks of consumerism, reductionism, and a host of other 'ism's and schisms that just don't belong in the Kingdom.
I really appreciate everyone's input that makes this type of discussion possible.
Post a Comment