I promised a few weeks ago to spend more time thinking and writing about ecclesiology. Doing so requires reflection on the story of God and his people.
I am in the midst of a great ongoing discussion with thewalrus about whether evangelism is an OK thing to do to people. I am arguing that it is, under certain conditions. One of those conditions came up wihen Amy and I were talking with our church planting mentor recently.
He asked us which churches in Seattle are growing, and I said that I was hesitant to answer conclusively because I think some churches are growing at the expense of the Kingdom as a whole. Their theology says that what’s good news for us is bad news for everyone else.
In one sense, this is understandable. If we have The Truth and you don’t, too bad for you, right?
If someone declines to get in on our way of life, then yes, they are missing out, and that’s too bad for them. But that doesn’t mean the Good News has to be bad news for them.
I believe in a way of life in Jesus, in covenant with the Creator God, that is good for the whole world, even for those who don’t buy in.
Say there’s a sale at Macy’s, the best sale ever. I’m going, and I want all the pople I care about to benefit from the amazing prices. I invite people to come with me, offer to give them a ride, even to loan them money if they’re short on cash. Anything so they don’t miss this opportunity.
Let’s say my friend Bob isn’t into shopping, and says he probably won’t go to the sale, even though I know he needs some new clothes and will save money. (Never mind how I know this - stick with me.)
When I hear Bob’s response, what are my options?
1. Do nothing. Enjoy the benefits of the sale for myself, but don’t worry about Bob. After all, it’s his life.
2. Tell Bob he’s a fool, and go on and on about the horrible consequences of his choice. Tell him he’ll suffer if he doesn’t go to the sale, then write him off. Don’t talk to him again, except to remind him of the sale.
Most churches take one of these first two approaches, neither of which embodies God’s promise to make the people of Abraham - and ultimately the church - a blessing to all the peoples of the earth.
How can the church bless those who have not accepted its message? There is a third option in our fable.
3. Go to the sale, enjoy it fully, and get something for Bob.
You word things in a way that I find very interesting. Do you really think of evangelism as something that is done to people or are you making a particular point?
Justin, I think you’re moving closer to my position here…but that all comes down to what you mean by “get something for Bob.”
amtog, I can’t answer for Justin but I certainly think it is something done “to” people even though it’s in the name of being done “for” them.
…But aren’t we all really trying to sell one another something when we are engaging in dialogue about anything that has more than one side? The real issue eventually has to become HOW I sell it and if I am selling it because I think you need it or because I am happy with it and I think you might like it, too.
If I am trying to sell Bob something that he doesn’t want or isn’t good for him, then it’s my bad, but if I am genuinely and authentically trying to sell Bob on something that I enjoy and I want to “share the wealth” then that’s another approach totally. If I am pretending to like it, but really just want Bob to buy stuff from my favorite uncle’s new store, then that’s subversive and deceitful.
So, the real issue, to me is more about how I am peddling what I believe and not whether or not I should morally peddle it.
Bob never likes anything I buy for him.
I bought him a Joshua tree planted in his honor to reforest the Sahara.
He didn’t like the fact that he was responsible for watering it on Thursdays.
thewalrus-you’re right; doubtlessly there have been Christians who “did evangelism to people” but it wasn’t because that was the model given to them by the God and King that they’ve given their allegiance to.
Jesus commanded his followers to “share the good news”, not to sell it or impose it. To do either immediately invalidates the goodness of the news.
WHY must we “SELL” something to people that in the day of the Apostles attracted people by its own power? It seems to me that we turn off more people than we attract with the “our’s is better” than “their’s” IF Jesus Christ was the answer 2000 years ago why do we assume the question has changed becauase the methodologies have changed? Pogo was right. “We have met the enemy and they is us.”
WHY must we “SELL” something to people that in the day of the Apostles attracted people by its own power? It seems to me that we turn off more people than we attract with the “our’s is better” philosophy than “their’s”. IF Jesus Christ was the answer 2000 years ago, why do we assume the question has changed because the methodologies have changed? Pogo was right. “We have met the enemy and they is us.”
Personally, I think its a shame we’re using the language of commerce to describe evangelism at all. Whether its in Justin’s indirect reference to a third-party’s sale or (most troubling to me) April’s direct equation of persuasion of any type to selling, I think we’re betraying a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Kingdom. Are you “selling” yourself when trying to woo your mate? Are you “selling” something to your child when you try to raise them with appropriate discipline? No, you are acting passionately on something you are passionate about. Telling my wife that she is beautiful and that I love her is only a sales tactic if I’m trying to get something from her, if its, in fact, motivated by personal gain and not love.
If evangelism is done out of a loving heart, motivated by a sincere desire for the other to experience what we have experienced, it is not a “sale” at all.
PArker and Nathan-
I do not like the sales metaphor either. you could substitute ”party” or any other positive event for ‘’sale” in my post above.
But evangelism must necessarily be a matter of persuasion. If it weren’t, Paul’s ministry would have been unnecessary, even misguided.
If you can make a claim and just have God back it up with a display of power, good on ya. I don’t think most evangelists can get away with that, though.
Persuasion is an art, and a skill that can be used for noble or evil ends. Along the same lines as my argument in the Evangelism & the Potential Death of Discourse post, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with trying to persuade someone else to adopt your views - it just has to be done appropriately or, as Parker pointed out, we risk doing more harm than good.
Hello Justin,
I’m a friend of the Grubbs’, and Ms. Gail told me about your websit and some of the things you’re interested. I’m an avid student of Judaism and the Hebraic roots of Christianity (among other religions of the world). I personally hold to a lifestyle based completely on Torah observance, although I believe in Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of the one true G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Anyway, just wanted to say I appreciate what you do and I’d like to keep in touch with you and your website. Send me an email sometime, and we can talk more. Nice to meet you!
Shalom,
Aaron
In my defense, I didn’t actually come up with this analogy. I was trying to work within the constraints of the analogy that was already provided there. I was also trying to make a point that intent is what’s most important in the exchange of ideas (i.e., an exchange of ideas–rather than money or product). I don’t equate evangelism with selling a product and I don’t think Justin was either, but I am not blind enough to believe that there is no element of philosophical marketing, whether right or wrong, inherent in any conversation where our intent is to influence another person to our way of thinking.
Personally, I am the first person to agree that we can do more through acting out our faith then we can by persuading others through dialogue, but we were talking about methods of dialogue here. I am just saying that anytime we have a dialogue where the intent is to persuade, we are exchanging (bartering, marketing, exchanging, selling, etc.) our philosophies in hopes that the other person will receive (buy into) our ideas.
What’s most interesting to me is the fact that there are so many churches out there looking for their next great marketing campaign and searching for ways to “attract” more people to their church, and yet, here we are dickering over the use of marketing metaphors.
You need to check out
churchmarketingsucks.com