Evangelism #Fail

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by benreed and Seth Caddell, Collegiate Magazine. Collegiate Magazine said: RT @benreed: Is your approach to sharing your faith setting you up for failure? New post: http://bit.ly/e6BtE7 [...]

While I agree with your basic premise here, I think we need to be clear that the salvific power of the Gospel in not transmitted through human relationship, but through faith in Christ. Look at the conversions on the day of Pentecost, or Ananias’ witness to Saul/Paul, or Peter & Cornelius’ household, or Philip & the Ethiopian eunuch. Those models come much closer to the “Roman road” methodology than to a more relational model.

Granted, there is a theological subtext to those conversions in Acts that’s probably meant to communicate more to us about the power of the Holy Spirit than to endorse a particular evangelistic model. But isn’t that also the point, that the Holy Spirit can (and often does use) the one-time evangelistic encounters just as well as He can use our long-term investments in others?

In short, I agree that the emphasis on “hit-and-run” evangelism missed the mark. But for many, the relational emphasis has become a way to avoid ever proclaiming the truth in love. Unless we pair it with a bold witness, we’re destined for another unviable evangelism model.

Ben,

I grew up with the Romans Road and with the awkward walking up to people and asking them if they know where they’re going when they die. Looking back I wish I could take a lot of that back (bad PR for Jesus). I am totally on track with your post here and would agree that evangelism needs to be based in relationship. As obvious at it seems many people don’t get it. Thanks for the post!

Relationships far more important than we give them credit for many times. The whole “don’t care how much you know until I know how much you care” mindset is real.

Good thoughts, I like Todd’s as well. I would add that one-time evangelistic efforts work better when there is already a common assumed worldview. So that when in 1950 you said, “There is a God, you need to repent, and here is the way to do it.” That was perfectly well and acceptable because in the U.S. in 1950 most assumed, there is a God, (it is the Judeo-Christian God), and I know I’ve messed up, and I know I need to come to Jesus (because there aren’t any other good options). Chances are today, one-time evangelistic efforts aren’t going to be as effective, because we are not all speaking the same message. I think we are living in an Acts 17 world.
However, to give some credence to Todd, we never know what the Lord is doing in and around us in the lives of people, you may be one in the long string of conversations to bring them to Christ.

“The salvific power of the Gospel in not transmitted through human relationship, but through faith in Christ.” –couldn’t agree with you more, Todd.

Relational evangelism doesn’t preempt us from actually, verbally sharing the Truth. Rather, I see this as propelling our current relationships forward, because in each and every encounter we face, we’re looking for unique ways to love, show grace, compassion, and forgiveness, because: 1) we have been redeemed, and our new heart compels us to this. 2) we know that when we live the Gospel, our verbal message of Truth makes much more sense than in the “hit-and-run” approach.

“Bold witness” without the context of a relationship often comes across as brash judgmentalism, when that’s what I’ve done. I’m not saying it can’t work. But I think there’s a better way.

Enjoying the dialog!

Brent…great points here. I agree with you totally. But I’ll respond to your last statement: “we never know what the Lord is doing in and around us in the lives of people, you may be one in the long string of conversations to bring them to Christ.”

* I agree, but wonder if there’s not a better, more effective way. Because, yes, you could be the one through whom God brings the harvest in that person’s life. But I think that there’s a better way of sharing our faith than the hit-and-run (Todd’s words) approach.

“Bad PR for Jesus…” That’s hilarious! I like that.

Sure is, Matt!

I couldn’t agree with you more. I think the most effective way to see someone come to Christ is through relationship, hands down.

Not to mention, I’ve always had issues with these four page tracts that try to sum up the gospel in 4-5 points. If following God, or even just coming to him in the first place, could be done in 4-5 points, I think He would have just dropped a tract down out of the sky, instead of giving us this massive book filled with stories and poems and songs. I imagine it’s almost offensive to God when we try to make following Him about nothing more than the points in the Romans Road.

I agree completely agree, Ben, and I will say that the relational evangelism is, I think, the normal pattern for reaching others with the Gospel. It certainly seems to be the most natural –and winsome–way for believers to share their faith. I also agree with Brent that the “hit-and-run” methods made at least some sense in the cultural context that gave birth to them (although even then, you had guys like Iain Murray who noted that they were fatally flawed). By “bold witness,” I simply meant having the courage to actually lead into conversations about the Gospel message. I don’t think that conversations have to come across as brash judgmentalism, just that need to happen. I’ve think many approach relational evangelism with the idea that, “I’ll just be a good friend and let them bring up the topic when they’re ready.” And too often, it never gets discussed.

Also, my pastoral experience has shown me there are times people desire Truth so intensely that relationship seems to take a backseat. I’ve done enough funerals and made enough hospital visits to know that in moments when people are thinking more intensely about death, they are much more open to the stereotypical evangelistic conversations. Does a previous relationship help immensely in those situations? Sure. Is it necessary? I remain unconvinced.

I suspect I’m going to be a bit of an odd-man-out here (except Todd) and say it’s a both/and, not either/or.

Relational evangelism can be incredibly effective, but it can be very tempting to sacrifice telling the Truth to keep the relationship. This doesn’t always happen, certainly, but it does happen. Street evangelism, likewise, can be incredibly effective, if done well. The question is, how are you doing it? A humble attitude and a pleasant demeanour go a long way, y’know?

Aaron,
I wasn’t trying to set out a comprehensive take on evangelism…just talking through my own experiences, and the way that they so rarely worked. I agree with you that it doesn’t have to be an either/or. And really, I was going after the idea that says you can check off evangelism from your spiritual to-do list for the day if you drop a tract in the tip jar instead of money.

Yes, street evangelism can work. And if God prompts, I’ll talk to someone I don’t know. But in general, I look to bring the Gospel to bear in the relationships that I have…whether those relationships are with friends or casual acquaintances.

You’re right…there’s the temptation to just allow things to remain neutral, and not bring the Gospel to bear. But the onus is on me at that point…not on the method.

So…yes, street evangelism can work, but is it the best way for us to spend our time?