It's not a regular occurrence that - even as the minister - I feel the need to speak in overtly theological terms to my Church Council, but this happened at our meeting last night. In the course of the report that I offered, I shared brief reflections on a couple of theological topics of interest that I thought I'd expand upon here. Today - evangelism.
For a lot of Christians, it seems that "evangelism" is a dirty word. We don't like to think about it. Even more, we don't like to do it. It has overtones of fundamentalism, it makes us think of Bible thumping preachers who threaten people with hell unless they believe what the preacher believes, perhaps the word conjures up images of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door, disturbing people's peace. (Actually, I rather admire the JWs for that devotion!) But as much as we might be nervous about evangelism, we also can't deny that it's a part of our faith. Ephesians 4:11 tells us that some are called to be evangelists, and 2 Timothy 4:5 tells us that apparently even if we're not called to be an evangelist (presumably meaning devoting our lives to the work) we're still expected to do the work of an evangelist (presumably as time and life allows and as God raises up opportunities.) Yes, I realize that both passages are likely pseudo-Pauline, but they're still in the New Testament. Evangelism is a part of what we're called to do.
But what is it? And how has it changed over the centuries? And what does it look like today? That's what I want to reflect on. I don't claim any scholarly authority to be engaging in this process of reflection. I'm no expert on evangelism, and I'm not called to be an evangelist. But I do have thoughts to share, based on a lot of years of study and pastoral ministry and trying to get churches to engage the world around them (sometimes successfully, sometimes not, and usually not without a certain amount of resistance.) First, though, I want to mention what evangelism is NOT. Let go of this whole concept of "lifestyle" evangelism. It sounds so good, I know. But frankly, I think it's an excuse to avoid doing the hard work of evangelism. It's basically saying "I don't want to talk about God or Jesus; I just want to do good things for people and live a good life." I have no objection to doing good things for people and living a good life - but give up on the idea that this is "evangelism" of any sort. If you do good things or live a good life without referencing God or Jesus, that's not evangelism - it's just doing good things and living a good life! I hope everyone tries to do that. It would make the world a better place. But evangelism it ain't! Sorry! Evangelism is, at its heart, some type of proclamation of the good news that God has given that we as Christians have found in Jesus. You can't do "evangelism" without reference to good news, to God and/or Jesus (preferably "and").
There are, I suppose, a lot of ways of defining the "good news" that we're to share. To put it into a modern context with a word that modern people can relate to and that has little if any baggage - I define the good news as "freedom." Jesus said "the truth shall set you free." Jesus identified himself as "the truth." Evangelism is proclaiming freedom in and through and because of Jesus. Evangelism is inviting people to experience that freedom in and through and because of Jesus. Yes - evangelism is inviting people to faith in Jesus. So, "lifestyle evangelism" really doesn't cut it, because it really isn't invitational. It might get you a lot of credit for being a really nice and good person, but it's not invitational in terms of Jesus. I'm going to suggest that as we look over the history of the church there are four discernible periods of evangelism that we find, where evangelism has looked and felt quite different. This isn't an exhaustive list; it's just my broad perception of how the Christian community (or the "Jesus Movement" - I kind of like that better) has defined and lived out its call to be evangelists or at least do the work of evangelism.
The first period I would suggest was a period of essentially "no evangelism." It was the very beginning of the movement. Post-crucifixion, post-resurrection, before the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It was characterized either by hopelessness (post-crucifixion) or aimlessness (post-resurrection and pre Pentecost.) When you're hopeless, you have no good news to share. When you're aimless, you don't know what the good news is supposed to be. For a few weeks, that was the Jesus Movement. Gathered together, huddled against the world, wandering without any clear sense of direction, doing a lot of talking but not taking a lot of action. If that sounds familiar, keep reading!
That period only lasted that few weeks. Pentecost was a virtual explosion that blew the fresh wind of the gospel into the world and that motivated the followers of Jesus to share it. I'm going to call this period "evangelical evangelism." Redundant? Not really. This would be an evangelism that's totally focused on the proclamation of good news. It's committed to "walking the walk" - and it's committed to walking the walk with those around you, and sharing their lives. It's the Antioch model of Christianity, where Paul went to Antioch to preach and stayed in Antioch for a long time. This kind of evangelism can't be inconsistent with your proclamation, but it's not lifestyle evangelism, because it's focused on teaching and preaching; public proclamation that proclaims the good news - and always in the name of Jesus. And it's committed to sharing the lives of the people who you're sharing the good news with. You're not approaching them from above; you're simply coming alongside them. This type of evangelism characterized the Jesus movement for a few centuries.
Then came what I'm going to call "conversion evangelism." Although conversion was always central to evangelism - why share the story if you don't want people to believe the story you're sharing - now it became central to what was happening. This happened around the same time that the church began to amass power - secular and not just spiritual power. Converting people to Christianity (rather than simply sharing the good news) became the goal. This period lasted over a millennia, until the mid-20th century I would say. Now, as a convert myself, I don't deny the ability of the gospel to "convert" people. The problem with conversion being the primary goal rather than the delightful outcome is that it can easily take the focus off the person being evangelized and on to the evangelizer. So, "how many people have you converted" or "I led Harvey to Christ last night" becomes the way of measuring "success." Faithfulness to God and gospel eventually becomes secondary; getting some "notches" on the conversion belt is what counts. Ultimately, this too easily becomes a prideful, self-centred form of evangelism. It may, indeed, bring people to faith in Christ - which is a gift to them - but at what cost to the heart and soul of the evangelist?
Beginning in the mid-20th century, we entered a period of what I would call "institutional evangelism." This wasn't so much a change in the "how" of evangelism, but rather was a subtle change in the "why" of evangelism. Society changed. Culture changed. And the church (which had been striding like a colossus over the Western world forever, it seemed) was suddenly threatened. The signs began appearing. Membership started to decline. Attendance started to decline. The culture stopped taking it upon itself to promote the gospel (no prayer in schools anymore!) and the church found itself pathetically ill-equipped to respond. As numbers went down, so did dollars go down. Churches struggled to pay salaries, to pay bills, to maintain buildings. In the midst of the struggle, mission became secondary - or at least the mission became, essentially, "save the church." We desperately tried to find ways to reach people - which sounds good, except that the motivation was bad. We wanted to reach them for our sake, not for theirs. Basically, we wanted something from them. We wanted their behinds in the pews, their dollars in the collection plate and their hands helping to keep the building standing and open. And in the midst of the desperation, we forgot that living the the gospel is about giving - not getting. People are smart. They realized that the church wanted something from them. And the more we wanted something from them, the less inclined they were to give us anything. It's a vicious cycle. It's hard to get out of. Because too many of us honestly believe that being a Christian is about having your behind on the pew, and putting your money in the plate and helping keep the building open. Increasingly I suspect, congregations couldn't explain what their purpose or place in the community was. They were just there, and they wanted to stay there. As a corollary to this, suspicion began to develop toward newcomers (because they don't have the same level of commitment to the building) and especially toward the poor and less fortunate (because they don't have much to give.) The church had become a frightened few. Some call it a "faithful remnant" - I'm not convinced about the "faithful" part to be honest, because I believe that, increasingly, those who remain are motivated not by faith but by fear. That isn't to say that they don't have faith, but their motivating factor is fear over the changes that are happening and the losses that are coming. What evangelism does get done is done for the purpose of maintaining the status quo for a little while longer. Institutional evangelism accomplishes nothing for the church. Its primary accomplishment has probably been the rise of the "spiritual but not religious movement." "I believe in God and I believe in Jesus, but I don't want anything to do with that church." And that's basically where we sit now, perhaps even having gone back to the beginning. Increasingly without hope for the future, we've entered the "no evangelism" state. We're hopeless and aimless. The future is bleak, and we don't know what we can do to change it.
Except that God is always leading us to something new. And I think there's a new style of evangelism on the horizon. Maybe this is a cycle. I've argued that the church moved from "no evangelism" to "evangelical evangelism" - from being hopeless and aimless to suddenly understanding the good news and sharing it with people, for no reason other than that those early followers of Jesus believed it was valuable for others to know it. The focus was on proclamation supplemented by relationship. I think we're in a similar shift now, with a bit of a twist. I think the successful evangelism of the 21st century will be what I'm going to call "relational evangelism." It's going to be about meeting people, taking care of their needs, helping them with their trials, journeying with them through life. Some might call this the "missional" or "emergent" church. The idea being that the "new" and "contemporary" church is about more than buildings and liturgy - it's about people, and it's not really about "us" - it's about "others." It's about those who don't know Jesus. This will be similar to "evangelical evangelism" but the priority will shift. Evangelical evangelism was focused on proclaiming the good news to others while also walking the walk with them. Relational evangelism will be focused on walking the walk with others, while also proclaiming the good news. It will be about the church getting out of the building and to the people, or at the very least it will be about using the building for the sake of others and to meet their needs, and not just as our own little clubhouse where we focus on our own needs and wants. It will be about building completely unselfish relationships with those around us. Asking nothing of them, but offering everything to them.
There's a challenge in that. If our focus isn't on bringing people into the institution but is on meeting their needs while they're outside the institution, then the institution may well die. That's a risk. And those who love the institution (as I do for the most part) and those who are dependent on the institution (as I am to a large extent) are going to find this unnerving, and maybe even frightening. But it may also be the church's salvation. There's an old saying - "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care." If we show people that we care about them - with no ulterior motive, asking nothing from them, and for no reason other than that we care about them - perhaps we may even find resurrection and new life! That is, after all, what Jesus did!
No comments:
Post a Comment