I can't be exhaustive. This is just a post, not a book. And there are some issues I'm undecided on or too hesitant to address here.
One of the factors we should take into account when deciding how to handle matters related to evangelism is the principle Paul discusses in Colossians 4:5. Start where you have the most opportunity, then work out from there. The large majority of professing Christians in places like the United States don't make much use of the opportunities they have, even where the conditions are most favorable.
A good way of evaluating our opportunities is to consider the expectations of other people. You're expected to express your beliefs, initiate discussions, and be involved in other relevant activities in a context like your home. There's a lot that people generally consider acceptable and even expected in a context like meals or holidays in your home that wouldn't be considered acceptable or be expected elsewhere. It's easier to lead a prayer before a meal or celebrate a holiday in a particular manner in your home than in somebody else's. To one extent or another, there are similar factors involved in certain settings in school or the workplace. You have opportunities with your cubicle or office at work that you wouldn't have in somebody else's cubicle or office.
Similar principles apply to other platforms that are widely perceived as belonging to us in some way, such as a blog, Twitter account, Facebook page, book that we publish, or podcast, television show, or radio program that we host. Those kinds of platforms have the major advantage of being able to reach far more people and significantly better people in some ways (people in better positions in society, a wider variety of people, etc.) than can be reached in face-to-face contact in our everyday lives. It's astonishing how uninterested so many professing Christians are in using such tools. Many are even contemptuous of them (e.g., the popularity of derogatory comments about the internet). Remarkably, many professing Christians make little or no effort to use something like a Facebook account for purposes like evangelism and apologetics.
But these opportunity principles are just part of what we need to take into account. Regarding some of the other factors involved, here's something I wrote to somebody in private correspondence a couple of years ago:
Under most circumstances, we should approach evangelism as we do other contexts in which we're trying to persuade people (politics, ethics, etc.). We take into account Biblical principles about making the most of opportunities, being silent in certain situations, not casting pearls before swine, etc. The narrative portions of scripture, in both Testaments, often approvingly describe people going about their lives and passing other people by without trying to evangelize every person they come across. In Acts, Paul followed the social customs of his day by waiting for particular opportunities to address government officials in particular ways rather than just stating the gospel every time he came across somebody. Even when given an opportunity to speak, he often did so over lengthy periods of time, sometimes during multiple meetings rather than only one, with background information about himself, apologetic arguments, or other preparatory material coming before any presentation of the gospel. Bringing the gospel to people involves more than the end of the process, even though that end of the process is what people often focus on. We're never commanded to provide a summary presentation like Paul mentions at the opening of 1 Corinthians 15 to every person we meet. We should be prepared to provide such summaries, and I'd expect the average faithful Christian to present the gospel like that occasionally, but it's not the only way of bringing the gospel to people, and it's not always the best way.
One way to think about evangelistic issues is to draw analogies to other areas of life that are similar to a significant degree. If you have a sense of guilt about how you're handling evangelism, would you apply the same reasoning to politics, moral issues, health issues, etc.? If you're concerned about the immorality of abortion or the importance of not being overweight, does it follow that you're going to try to start a conversation about those subjects with every person you meet and provide each of those individuals with a ten-second summary of your view without any supporting arguments? Would you have a sense of guilt if you didn't approach abortion or weight issues that way? I doubt it. You'd take a large variety of factors into account (your reputation, your oral communication skills, your writing skills, the likely receptivity of your audience, how much time you have, how to balance your opportunity in this context with your other responsibilities in life, etc.), and you'd try to come up with an approach that makes the most of the circumstances. In one case, it will make the most sense to have a lengthy conversation with somebody about the issue in question. In another case, a shorter conversation will make more sense. And in another case, not discussing the issue at all is the best approach. You can't resolve every issue by drawing analogies like the ones I've mentioned here, but drawing analogies to something like politics or health issues is helpful to some extent.
God can intervene in our circumstances, so that we have reason to depart from what we'd normally do (e.g., Acts 8:29). But we shouldn't treat such exceptions as if they're normative. Be open to the exceptions and be obedient to God when those situations come up, but don't have a false sense of guilt for not approaching all of life as if it's exceptional. A lot of modern approaches toward evangelism put too much emphasis on exceptional circumstances while poorly preparing people for handling other circumstances that should be a much bigger part of our lives and have a lot to do with evangelism (studying apologetic issues, praying, building web sites, Sunday school classes, Christian organizations, and other tools that can be used to further the gospel, etc.). It was important for Philip to obey the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:29, but it also was important for somebody else to have gotten the Ethiopian eunuch interested in scripture, to have provided him a translation to read in his own language, for Philip to have followed social customs by waiting for the eunuch to invite him onto the chariot rather than going there on his own initiative, etc.
People will sometimes bring up Ezekiel 3:18-21 and suggest that the principles described there are applicable to Christians with regard to evangelism. Supposedly, if we don't evangelize people, the blood of their souls is on our hands.
I doubt that that application of the passage is correct. For one thing, I doubt that Christians are comparable to Ezekiel in his role as a watchman. The apostle Paul probably comes closer than anybody else to being comparable to Ezekiel, even to the point of applying the bloodguilt language to himself (Acts 18:6, 20:26) and speaking in somewhat similar terms elsewhere (1 Corinthians 9:16). But modern Christians aren't equivalent to Paul (e.g., apostleship, receiving revelation from God that was intended to become part of the rule of faith and wouldn't be made public if he didn't communicate it to other people). And I doubt that the Ezekiel 3 passage is even applicable to Paul. Ezekiel and Paul can be similar in some ways while being different in others. I see no reason to apply the passage to Paul, much less to Christians in general.
Furthermore, if the view of Ezekiel 3 in question were correct, I'd expect to see some discussion of it in the New Testament (or more discussion, if you think passages like Acts 18:6 and 20:26 are referring to the Ezekiel passage). I doubt that the Corinthians, for example, who are criticized for so much in Paul's interactions with them (and in First Clement and elsewhere), were evangelizing every relevant person they came in contact with, despite the sins Paul and others criticize them for in other contexts. Yet, we don't see them being criticized for something like having the blood of people's souls on their hands for not evangelizing enough. Nor do we see such a criticism elsewhere in the relevant sources.
You could argue that Ezekiel 3 is applicable to Christians in a secondary, lesser way. But I don't normally see the passage applied with that sort of qualification attached to it.
Having said all of that, my sense is that the vast majority of Christians should be doing far more in evangelism and related contexts than they are doing. And we have many advantages over past Christians (longer lifespans, more political freedom, more advanced technology, better medicine, etc.), so we're more accountable than Biblical groups like the Corinthian Christians in some ways. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required" (Luke 12:48).
Most lack of evangelism is due to fear of what people will think of you. I include myself in that, even though I suppose I may do more evangelism than the average Christian. That's where the guilty feelings come from, and rightly so.
ReplyDeleteBut guilt will only motivate so much. Wanting God to be glorified and love of neighbor will go much further.
Paul repeatedly asks for boldness, so it's definitely not a new problem.
Geoff,
DeleteYou've mentioned some relevant general principles. Fear is often a factor in neglect of evangelism. And we should be motivated by a desire to glorify God and by love for other people.
I'm addressing a lot of issues beyond general principles like those, however, and I want to use your comments as an opportunity to expand on what I said earlier. The general principles you've brought up are often abused.
For example, it's often stated or suggested that love should lead us to do things like evangelize everybody we sit next to on an airplane. Not only do I see no justification for that sort of conclusion, but I also don't remember any of the people promoting that conclusion ever saying that we also have an obligation to evangelize every person sitting two seats away from us on the flight. Or the people sitting in front of us. Or the person on the end seat across the aisle. Or every person we walk by when shopping at a grocery store. Or how the management of the store would likely respond if we behaved that way. Etc. Often, people have a fear of evangelizing (or concern, hesitation, embarrassment, or whatever else other than fear) because the form of evangelism in question is problematic and warrants the negative response under consideration (fear, embarrassment, or whatever). That kind of evangelism shouldn't be considered obligatory and often doesn't make sense. We typically don't approach other issues in life that way when we're trying to persuade people about those other issues (politics, health, finances, ethics, etc.).
When people are fearful or embarrassed, for example, we need to ask what they're fearful or embarrassed about. Being embarrassed by your appearance or voice isn't the same as being embarrassed by God or the gospel. Let's say two men are approaching strangers on the street to present to them a thirty-second summary of the gospel. One man is six feet tall and has a loud, clear voice. The other is five feet tall and has a speech impediment. And most likely, the latter man has experienced a lifetime of disadvantages because of those characteristics (embarrassment, disrespect, worse relationships, etc.). The fact that he's more fearful than the first man probably has a lot to do, maybe entirely to do, with such factors, not something like being ashamed of the gospel.
And why should they be taking the approach of presenting a thirty-second summary of the gospel to strangers on the street? There's no obligation to do that, and other approaches would be advantageous in various ways (e.g., reaching more people through a YouTube video; communicating more precisely and with better documentation through writing; talking to people one-on-one in more depth in a setting that's better than the side of a street).
One of the problems here is that people often draw Biblical analogies that overlook or underestimate significant differences. I've discussed the example of Ezekiel 3. Another one is the work of the Seventy in Luke 10:1-20. When the Seventy are sent out, they perform authenticating miracles. That's not equivalent to giving people a thirty-second summary of the gospel with no accompanying argumentation or evidence. And it's not as though we should see Christians in general as equivalent to the Seventy. Similarly, the summaries of gospel presentations in Acts are accompanied by references to the authenticating miracles performed by the early Christians, lengthy discussions they had with the people they were attempting to persuade (e.g., 2:40, 19:8-10), etc. That sort of scenario doesn't bear much resemblance to a lot of modern forms of evangelism.
God can, and sometimes does, work independently of argumentation and evidence. But we have a standing obligation to use the mind God has given us to reason with people as our normative approach. If God chooses to work in people's lives apart from that means, then that's his choice, not ours.
DeleteSomething else that's important to note, which is often underestimated, is how much a culture like modern America is aware of what Christians are doing and has set up obstacles to try to prevent it. There are reasons why the list of contexts in which we supposedly shouldn't discuss religious matters tends to keep growing (the government, schools, businesses, workplaces, etc.). There are reasons why activities like evangelism and apologetics are commonly referred to derisively as "proselytizing", "forcing your views on other people", etc. The culture is deliberately making evangelism more difficult than it ought to be. To an extent, they're reaping what they've sown, having "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" (Acts 13:46).
On the one hand, it makes sense that Christians wouldn't be involved in certain forms of evangelism, would be discouraged by how the culture responds to evangelistic efforts, etc. On the other hand, we have to keep evangelizing, and the large majority of Christians aren't doing nearly as much as they should.