Some Good News About Goodnewsing

Jesus seemed to think that evangelism was an important part of being a disciple.  He told Simon and Andrew that to follow him would mean fishing for people.  He told those of his friends who stuck with him in Jerusalem that when he sent the Holy Spirit they would end up being his witnesses.  According to Matthew, his parting words make it clear that to be a disciple is to make other disciples.  It all seems pretty straightforward.  If we call ourselves Christians we are meant to evangelise.

The same is true if we call ourselves Baptists.  The official basis of our union only has three principles, one of those is that every disciple is to bear personal witness to the good news and take part in the evangelisation of the world. 

So, how’s that going? 

Ah, thought as much, sorry to hear that. 

More and more of us seem to have a problem with evangelism.  On the one hand we know we are supposed to, but quite frankly much of the evangelism we have seen puts us off. “If that’s what evangelism looks like I wouldn’t do it to my worst enemies.” Evangelism can so easily become intrusive, arrogant, pushy, manipulative, forced, artificial, dishonest - anything but good news.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way. 

If you are not a fan of some of the evangelism that you’ve seen, here’s some good news - not the good news, but some good news about the good news.

·      You don’t have to stand on street corners shouting at people.

·      You don’t have to pretend that you want people to be your friends, just so you can evangelise them.

·      You don’t have to devise a cunning strategy to get your friends to come to church even though you are pretty sure they don’t want to.

·      You don’t have to invite them to hear some minor celebrity who’s pretending to talk about being a celebrity when really that’s just an excuse to preach the gospel.

·      You don’t have to wear a wrist band and explain what the heart, the X, the cross and the question mark stand for, or be able to draw The Bridge to Life, or memorise The Four Spiritual Laws, or any other formula for that matter.

Those things aren’t what evangelism is.  They are just some of the ways that people have gone about evangelism.

OK, then, so what is evangelism?

To put it simply, evangelism is the communication of the gospel.  It’s all about helping people to find out about and understand the good news of Jesus in the hope that they too will want to follow him.  Evangelism is goodnewsing, getting on with life in such a way that people have a chance to discover Jesus for themselves.

If I’m right, and this is what evangelism is, another bit of good news is that it’s best not to limit evangelism to verbal proclamation.

We can communicate the good news as individuals or as churches by the way we are, and the stuff we do as well as the things we say.  Being, doing and speaking are all important modes of evangelism.  When we are the kind of church that is welcoming, friendly, outward-looking, generous and forgiving, we communicate the good news by embodying it.  When we work to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry and campaign for the oppressed, we communicate the good news by enacting it.  When we explain to our friends why we pray, how we came to follow Jesus or what God means to us, we communicate the good news by articulating it.

Of course these three modes of communication work best when they work together.  That way they make for a richer expression of the gospel.  Being on its own is too passive.  Doing on its own is too ambiguous.  Speaking on its own is too facile. Get it all together though and our message is more likely to ring true.

The next piece of good news is evangelism doesn’t always have to be the thing at the front of our mind, the thing we are consciously aiming at.  In fact it often happens best when it happens obliquely.  Ironically, if evangelism is always the primary motivator for everything we are, do and say we will end up actually undermining our evangelism because we will make it inauthentic, twisted, less than genuine.

So, for example, when the way we are bespeaks Christ, when our churches are hospitable, honouring the least and including the outsider, this is indeed evangelistic, it communicates the good news, but our primary intent here is not to communicate but rather, together as a church, to live a Christ-like life. Evangelism in this mode is more often than not a blessed by product of trying to be faithful, Jesus-type communities.

Similarly, if we only ever care for the needy or work for peace and reconciliation so that we can let everyone see what the way of Christ looks like, there’s something about our motivation that is not true to the Jesus we hope to communicate.  Again, gospel communication in this mode happens best when we are focussed something else, such as loving people, irrespective of whether or not they are interested in our message.

This also applies when we speak of our faith. When we explain to friends why we pray, when we offer a Christ-informed perspective to colleagues at work chatting about an event in the news, even on occasions such as these it is not that we think, “OK, now I am going to evangelise.” No, we just do it because part of what it means to live as a Christian is to speak as a Christian and therefor to speak of Christ.

Now don’t get me wrong here.  I’m not against intentional proclamation of the gospel as one means of communicating good news. There will, of course, always be those times when our primary purpose is indeed to get the good news across. But these are evangelism’s special occasions not its everyday way of being. This is evangelism in its Sunday best not the kind of come as you are and take us as you find us evangelism which is the staple of ordinary goodnewsing. This matters, because when we allow disciples to believe that the exceptional is what defines evangelism we run the risk of putting them off.

Nor am I suggesting that we don’t have to speak about our faith.  I don’t think St. Francis ever actually said, “Preach the good news and if you must, use words” but I wish it hadn’t got round that he did.  Piping up about Jesus is a crucial part of evangelism.  But it’s a part not the whole. And it’s at its best when it’s not contrived but rather when we just tell our friends about Jesus, when we say what we say because that’s who we are, not because we are targeting someone, seeking to assuage our guilt or trying the get the pastor off our back.

I don’t know if these thoughts will help.  Some might think I’m watering down evangelism.  In which case I’ve not made myself clear.  I think I’m trying to beef it up.  I’m also trying to help people see that it can be a commonplace part of ordinary Christian living; something everyday for everyday disciples; something that everyday disciples just get one with; something for which the Baptist flavour of disciple becomes known – in life and not just on paper.  If that were to happen, that would be good news.

This was originally published in the Summer 2016 edition of Baptists Together

The Ethics of Evangelism - A Review

Thiessen, E. (2011). The Ethics of Evangelism: A Philosophical Defence of Ethical Proselytising and Persuasion. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.

Thank God someone is addressing this issue.  The very fact that so little has been written on the theme of the ethics of evangelism is itself an indication that we’ve got evangelism wrong.  The first priority of evangelism is to bear faithful witness, to communicate the message of Christ in a Christlike way; our primary concern is not results, success, effectiveness.  When we get these priorities wrong evangelism itself gets screwed up.

What we have in The Ethics of Evangelism is a careful and thorough if at times rather plodding attempt to address those critics who claim that proselytising is inherently unethical, that it is, among other things, disrespectful to seek to persuade people to convert.  The author is convinced of two things: that too often evangelism is in fact unethical and that it absolutely need not be.  It is desirable to seek conversions and it is possible to do so in an ethical way.

After a careful definition of terms Thiessen offers us a survey of motivations for proselytising followed by a reflection on the reasons why evangelism has become an increasingly controversial activity.  We are then given a number of examples of unethical proselytising before the author draws on the likes of Kant, Kung, Rorty and Rawls in an attempt to inform an approach to constructing a pragmatic ethic of proselytising.  Thiessen hopes this approach will win respect from people of all faiths and those of no faith – a bit optimistic this, I reckon.

The next section seeks to refute a range of objections to proselytising.  Thiessen takes on issues of epistemology, freedom, integrity, the individual and social nature of human being along with a range of broadly liberal misapprehensions as a way of clearing the ground for a set of positive proposals.  It is these proposals, a list of fifteen criteria for evaluating proselytising, that are the heart of the book and probably the most useful section for those engaged in evangelism including church leaders seeking to encourage their own congregations.

The book has many strengths.  I appreciate the exposure of special pleading and question-begging on the part of some critics of evangelism and the discussions of persuasion and interfaith dialogue were especially helpful.  Thiessen’s critique is consistently even-handed and carefully nuanced.  However, I am not convinced that The Ethics of Evangelism will have the impact that I would like it to have.  Unfortunately the style is hardly gripping and it falls between the stools of a genuinely rigorous academic treatment of the subject and one that seeks to have a broader appeal. 

Despite these reservations I welcome this book enthusiastically,  I hope that it will receive a wide readership, not least amongst church leaders.  I am convinced that the evangelistic malaise that has descended on our churches is due in no small measure to a loss of nerve on the part of Christians who are not comfortable with the very idea of evangelism let alone some of the approaches that were once popular.  We need to expose and eschew deceptive, manipulative, high pressure techniques and recover confidence in speaking of Christ in a Christlike way.  May this book help us along the way.

This review was originally written for Regent's Reviews and is reproduced here with permission of the editor.  Check out the web site to get a free pdf of a whole bunch of reviews. 

Seminar on Evangelism at Luther King House

Here's some details of a day long seminar that I'm leading on the subject evangelism as part of the series of "Church Saturdays" here at Luther-King House.  If you are in the Manchester area and fancy joining in a conversation about how we understand and undertake evangelism why not join us?

Evangelistic Fragment Five: Faithful and Distinctive

(The fifth of an as yet undetermined number of thoughtlets on evangelism that have dribbled out of my brain, down my arm and through the keyboard.   Mainly because I'm preparing to teach an MA module on evangelism.)

The previous fragment spoke of evangelism in three modes: being doing and saying.  All three modes depend upon the maintenance of a distinctive identity, distinctive practices and a distinctive message.  No distinctiveness, no news. 

Evangelistic Fragment Four: Communicating The Gospel In Three Modes

 (The fourth of an as yet undetermined number of thoughtlets on evangelism that have dribbled out of my brain, down my arm and through the keyboard.   Mainly because I'm preparing to teach an MA module on evangelism.)

When I describe evangelism as that aspect of mission that is concerned with communicating the gospel I have in mind far more than talking. 

Communicating good new should happen in three modes – being (how we are), doing (what we get up to) and speaking (what we have to say).  We need to be present, we need to be active and we need to be articulate or, if you prefer, we witness as we embody, enact and express the gospel. 

All three modes of communication are necessary: being alone is too passive, doing alone is too ambiguous and speaking alone is too facile.

Evangelistic Fragment Three: Evangelism, Communication and the Influence Spectrum

(The third of an as yet undetermined number of thoughtlets on evangelism that have dribbled out of my brain, down my arm and through the keyboard.   Mainly because I'm preparing to teach an MA module on evangelism.) 

I am suggesting that we think of evangelism as that aspect of mission that is concerned with the communication of the gospel.  If we are serious about communication we will do all that we can to make sure we take appropriate responsibility for three things: the content of our message, the process of its transmission and the likelihood of its reception.  This fragment is concerned with the third of these.

To seek to communicate presupposes to my mind that we are not indifferent to the response of those with whom we are seeking to communicate.  It also presupposes respect for the otherness of those with whom we are seeking to communicate; communication is not the same as imposition, when we impose we abandon any attempt at genuine communication.

Evangelistic Fragment Two: On The Relationship Between Evangelism And Mission

(The second of an as yet undetermined number of thoughtlets on evangelism that have dribbled out of my brain, down my arm and through the keyboard.   Mainly because I'm preparing to teach an MA module on evangelism.)

Evangelism  is that aspect of mission that is concerned with communication of the gospel, getting the message across.  Other vital dimensions of mission include making a difference for good in God's world irrespective of whether or not we get our message across. 

It is my conviction that mission in its fullest sense is about praying and working for the fulfillment of the purposes of God, seeking the establishment of the reign of God and therefore cooperating with the Spirit of God in every dimension of God's creative and recreative work. 

Contemporary Trends In Evangelism

I'm going to be spending a fair chunk of time between now and the start of next semester tarting up my MA module, Contemporary Trends in Evangelism.  Thought I'd send a call out to see if anyone would like to suggest anything that ought to be included. 

As it stands we take a look at:

• the shift in the dominant paradigm of evangelism from the revivalist rally to process evangelism courses 
• church planting and contextualisation
• evangelism as faithful, distinctive ecclesial witness
• evangelism and worship
• evangelism, community ministry and social action
• evangelism and the emerging church movement
• evangelism, pluralism and dialogue
• evangelism in the digital age

Persuasion

The opening session of a first year mission course that I teach here in Manchester always stirs up a vigorous debate.  I ask the students to fill in a questionnaire entitled, “Is It Mission?”  They are given a list of activities ranging from the overtly evangelistic (planting a church) through the clearly political (joining a march to campaign against a war) to the distinctly ecclesial (playing piano in church).  I then ask them to decide if the activity counts as mission or not.  Without fail a major part of the ensuing discussion focuses on one activity in particular, the one that speaks about persuading a friend to become a Christian.

It seems that many people, or at least many of my students, are not persuaded about the validity of persuasion.  Some seem to have a gut-level reaction against the very notion. In their minds the word “persuasion” hangs out with words like “pressurise”, “manipulate”, “brow-beat”.  This worries me.  Especially when they try to persuade me that I should join them in their rejection of persuasion!  It worries me not just because of the inherent contradiction.  No, it worries me far more because it is yet another sign of the way in which the church’s confidence in evangelism is evaporating. 

When I was a teenager my best friend worked hard to persuade me that my objections to Christianity weren’t as well founded as I thought they were.  If he hadn’t I would never have come to faith.  I am really glad that he persuaded me.  If antipathy towards persuasion takes root then many of today’s Christians will never even attempt to persuade their friends to join them in following Christ.

What makes it difficult for me though is that as well as worrying about the reactions of my students I also sympathise with them.  They do have a point you know.  Too many of our attempts to persuade have indeed bordered on the hectoring, the underhand, the dishonest.  I still wince at the memory of the closing night of one fortnight-long town-wide mission in which I was involved.  It had not gone well.  At least when measured by the number of “decisions”.  The evangelist who was heading up the mission and preaching at the nightly rallies in the town’s theatre was also disappointed.  He didn’t say so, but you could tell.  You could tell because on the last night of the mission when it came to the appeal he tried a novel tactic: “OK I’d like everyone here to raise their hand in the air.  Now, if you don’t want to become a Christian please put your hand down.”  I ask you!

As those committed to the way of Christ, committed to truth, committed to the dignity of all people we ought to run a million miles from any attempt  to persuade by bullying, by trickery, by dishonesty.  An underhand presentation of the gospel is a contradiction in terms.  More than that, it’s a monstrosity.  But that does not mean that we should give up seeking to persuade.

Yes, persuasion alone is inadequate.  Yes, conversion nearly always comes about through far more than logical argument alone.  Yes, being good news and acting good-newsily is just as important as debating the issues.  But we have to recognise that in this world of many stories, this time of multiple worldviews, seeking gently, confidently and respectfully to persuade our friends to repent and believe the good news is not only legitimate, it’s crucial.  If we don’t, we fail in our calling.  We fail our Lord.  We fail the world for which he died.

Persuaded?

My turn to do a month's worth of opinion pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. With the agreement of the editor I'm posting my BT article here. To check out the Baptist Times as a whole click here.

Why we should ban evangelism

My turn to do a month's worth of opinion pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. With the agreement of the editor I'm posting my BT article here. To check out the Baptist Times as a whole click here.
 
I’m really pleased that Chris Duffet is going to become president of the Baptist Union.  Chris is an evangelist.  His love for Jesus and his love for other people are truly infectious. He’s also an innovative thinker and a bold practitioner.  Those of you who know him will agree that he doesn’t need any advice from me when it comes to evangelism.  Those of you who know me won’t be surprised that I’m going to give him some anyway.

I think Chris should use his presidential year to promote a total ban on evangelism, a moratorium of at least five years. Let’s see if he can’t get us to cancel our Alpha courses, tear up our Back to Church Sunday leaflets, forget all about friendship evangelism (please God let’s forget about friendship evangelism) and call off the search for the next Billy Graham immediately – there isn’t one.

Evangelising is so central to following Christ that we have to ban evangelism.  Unless we do we will never learn what it’s all about.  You see we have a problem.  Evangelism has become something it was never meant to be.  It’s become a thing.  Worse than that it’s become a particular thing. A special thing.  Something that requires a method (preferably one that “works”) and ideally a programme (the very latest if at all possible).

Over the years since big Billy Graham style rallies became unfashionable and unworkable I’ve lost count of the various projects and schemes that have been heralded as the next big thing: JiM, Minus to Plus, Power Evangelism, Challenge 2000, Alpha, Fresh Expressions.  Each one was seen as the answer. None of them “worked” – not really.  And in the process we’ve lost sight of something truly precious:  the idea that all of us are called to bear witness to the good news every day of our lives. 

Evangelism has come to be seen (first and foremost) as the domain of the specialist organisation and the uniquely gifted individual.  Something they do and which from time to time the enthusiastic among us get to join in, for a while.  It’s nothing of the sort. 

Each and every follower of Christ is called to bear witness.  The things we say, the stuff we do and the way we are, these are the beating heart of goodnewsing, helping people to hear, see and experience gospel for themselves.  It’s meant to be a part of who are, our very identity: witnesses of Christ.

We could learn a thing or two here from our cousins, Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Not only is the word in their name, it’s how they see themselves, it’s written right through their sense of who they are, it’s why they draw breath.

As Baptists with our rightful insistence on the Priesthood Of All Believers we should be the first to champion that  other great reformation doctrine, the Evangelisthood Of All Believers. 

OK, so I made that last bit up.  And yes, it will never catch on as a title.  But I still think I’m right.  This is too important to be left to the experts.  It’s a job for amateurs – literally those who do it out of love, even if they are not especially skilful.

And no, of course evangelistic programmes and special events are not ultimately incompatible with personal witness but I am serious in my belief that our obsession with method has ripped the heart out of goodnewsing.  And my tongue is poised but certainly not fully planted in my cheek when I suggest that a moratorium would be good for us.

So, how about it Mr. President?

Digital Evangelism

jesus_with_cat5
Originally uploaded by pixelwhip

On Monday I'm going to be looking at digital evangelism with my MA class. Here are some of the questions we will discuss:

• In what ways does the medium of the internet affect the way we witness?

• In what ways does the medium of the internet affect the content of our witness?

• In what sense are people on the internet real people to whom we need to witness?

• In what sense is the internet a new place where Christians should bear witness?

• Are there some understandings of evangelism that are particularly appropriate to the internet and if so are there other understandings that are particularly inappropriate?

• To what extent is a witness on the internet disembodied witness and can disembodied witness be faithful witness?

Anyone out there want to join in? Have you got any questions of your own? What about answers?

Alexander Maclaren, liberal evangelism and a church's future.

Got to preach for the first time yesterday at Alexander Maclaren’s old church. Maclaren was one of the great Victorian/Edwardian preachers, the northern Spurgeon. Wonder what he would have made of it. Not the sermon, the church.

The folk at Union Chapel, Fallowfield, Manchester now meet for worship in what was the church hall, the “sanctuary” having long since been demolished. Just by way of a reminder though a slice of Maclaren’s pulpit stands in the corner of the vestibule, at once a piece of Baptist Heritage and a free church relic.

Just under thirty of us gathered to worship. The service was formal but relaxed and the morning followed the locally established pattern of an act of worship, a break for coffee (this week with added sliver wedding anniversary chocolate cake) and then a follow-up session exploring a particular theme. I had been asked to address the question of evangelism in a liberal church.

It was good to see a church creating space for interactive reflection. It was good to see that they were entirely at home with the process. Good too to see congregation that regards itself as liberal trying to get to grips with how they might evangelise in a way that is true to their own convictions. If my experience is anything to go by this is an emerging trend.

The issue is a pertinent one for the folk at Union. They find themselves between ministers wondering about the future of the church. What will they need to do if they are to have a future; what kind of minister do they need to help them find a viable and effective way ahead?

As I made my way home after what I hope was a useful discussion I couldn’t help but feel wistful, melancholic even. In Maclaren’s day the 1,500 seater chapel would have been full. Churches knew what they were and where they stood. They also knew what they had to do and as long as they did it well they would prosper.

We live in different days. The challenge facing congregations such as Union chapel are by turn daunting and challenging. Whatever future they fashion for themselves, one thing’s for sure it won’t be as a Victorian preaching barn. Here’s hoping though that it will be a future marked by the manifest blessing of God.

Evangelism as Call and Response

Just been reading the opening chapter of Walter Klaiber’s Call and Response: Biblical Foundations of a Theology of Evangelism. Enjoying it a lot. Didn’t think I would, not least because it’s a translation from the German and in places it reads as such. As is often the case though with translations it’s a matter of finding your ear, once you do Kaliber is well worth a listen.

He tries to root our understanding of “evangelism” in the biblical notions of bsr and euangelizesthai without limiting it’s meaning to such usage. He is well aware that we make meaning by usage both consciously and unconsciously. It’s not just a matter of “what did it mean” or “what has it come to mean” but also “what would we like to make it mean.” Always important I think to come clean on that one.

Along the way he makes a number of interesting observations. Here are some snippets:

In the light of 1Co 9:22b-23 (I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.) he asks if it could be that our participation in evangelism is itself vital for the health of the church and our Christian lives, since it plugs us into the cycle of divine life that is to be found at the interface between boundary-crossing-proclamation and the response of faith.

Aware of those who have been “evangelistically injured” he asks “how evangelisch is our evangelism”, or to go all the way with the English translation, “how gospel-like is our proclamation of the gospel?” A really important question this.

En route he offers up this from Barth

… a Church which is not … an evangelizing Church is either not yet or no longer a Church or only a dead Church, itself standing in supreme need of renewal by evangelisation. CD IV 3.2:874

In his consideration of the relationship between evangelism and the church’s wider mission Klaiber recognises that everything the church does has a missionary dimension but he sees mission itself as the life of the church directed toward the wider world rather than toward God or towards its itself. The Church’s mission exists in martyria (the proclamation of the word through public sermons, private conversations and the eloquent but silent faithfulness of lived lives), diakonia (care, healing, comfort, counsel, engagement in the pursuit of justice peace and conservation) and koinonia (communion before God in prayer and Eucharist and the mutual ministry of the body of Christ). Not a perfect systematisation, but certainly a helpful one – and if you want it without the Greek, witness, service and communion, or simpler still, saying, doing and being.

Within this wider understanding of mission, evangelism per se should properly be seen as an aspect of martyria. It is speech (but not mere speech) addressed to and in conversation with those who have yet to encounter or understand the gospel and has in mind that they should respond by embracing the gospel and living out the implications of such a decision.

What I like about Klaiber is his reminder of the importance of verbal witness as a concept that lies at the heart of evangelism. When so many speak of the need to walk the talk it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of the importance of talking the walk. Similarly, when so many, quite rightly, warn about the dangers of an obsession with results, emphasising instead the priority of faithful witness, we mustn’t be allowed to forget that evangelism looks and longs for a response.

Contemporary Trends In Evangelism

I’m in the middle of shaping a new MA module on Evangelism. It would be great if anyone out there wanted to chip in.

What, in your opinion, are the major developments in the practice and theology of evangelism in past 50 years? What do you think are the most significant books on the subject written in recent times? What are the key issues with which students of evangelism in western culture ought to grapple?

What d’ya reckon?

Hope '08

Hope08 was the big evangelism / mission thing last year. Don't know what you made of it. Here's what Theos made of it. They were commissioned by Hope08 to produce and independant report.

Incarnation, Proclamation and Evangelism

I get to spend a bit of time later on today at the Urban Expression Teams day. I won’t be able to stay for the discussion in the afternoon though which is a shame. The topic is an important one, The relationship between incarnational and proclamational mission.

Put simply incarnational church planting (Urban Expression is a church planting agency) begins when a small group of Christians lives and grows church in a particular place, taking shape as it attends to the gospel, engages with the wider community and actively seeks the kingdom. The old approach to planting was for one church to send twenty or more people to start a service in an under-churched area and then arrange evangelistic events and activities.

The incarnational approach is a definite improvement. However, incarnational planters run the risk of repeating a mistake made so often by the church throughout history and especially in recent years. We see weaknesses in an established way of doing church, initiate change and in the process utterly overreact and neglect real strengths in the old approach. So for instance, the charismatic movement’s stress on experience led to a regrettable disdain for learning and serious theology; the early/mid 20C reaction against the Social Gospel led to an unbiblical exclusion of social and political action form it’s understanding and practice of mission. The examples are many.

My point is this: there is no reason on God’s earth why an incarnational approach to mission and church planting should neglect a deliberate, intentional and strategic approach to proclamation.

Evangelism is at heart about communicating good news, expounding the gospel, making it public, rendering it manifest, causing it to become apparent and present. I like to think of it as goodnewsing. I also find it helpful to remember that it’s about doing, saying and being. Now, not all of these dimensions have the communication of good news as a deliberate intent, at the forefront of our attention. Evangelism suffers when we reify it, turning it into nothing more than a thing that we do and distinguish it from the doing saying and being of following Christ. (See this from Steve Holmes for some wise words to this effect.)

We evangelise when the stuff we do in pursuit of peace and justice such as providing shelter for the homeless or campaigning against poverty, gives expression to the way of Christ but our attention is not directed to getting across a message but to the needs of the homeless and the poor. We evangelise when the way we are bespeaks Christ, when our churches are hospitable honouring the least and including the other. Our primary intent here is not an act of communication but the living of a Christ-faithful life. We evangelise too when we speak of our faith and the one in whom that faith is placed, when we explain to friends why we pray, when we offer a Christ-informed perspective to colleagues conversing about an event in the news. Even here it is not is not that we think, “OK, now I am going to evangelise.” Rather, because we live as Christians we also speak as Christians. All good incarnational stuff.

However, none of this is to say that this richer, more integrated, more natural understanding of evangelism has to exclude deliberate, intentional, planned goodnewsing when our primary purpose is indeed to get a message across. As long as such activities are appropriate to the their setting and faithful to the gospel, refusing imposition and resisting distortion for the sake of “success” then they absolutely have a place. Why not?

Of course the sine qua non of goodnewsing is that whether it be our primary concern or a gracious by product given as we pursue other priorities, whether it is doing, being or saying it has to arise from lives given over to knowing and following Christ. Otherwise our doing is so much busyness, our saying mere words and our being an empty shell.

Conversion and Pluraism

east vs west muslim christian
Originally uploaded by Frank Benson

My turn to do a month's worth of opinion pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again.

With the agreement of the editor I'm posting my BT article here. To check out the Baptist times as a whole click here.

It’s not often the BBC quotes scripture. Last week however, Mtt 28 featured prominently in its report of the Church of England’s general synod. The established church has been debating a proposal that it should make explicit its intention to seek the conversion of people to Christ.

I am not in a position to comment on the reporter’s opinion that the proposal was a covert attempt to arrest a “liberal drift”. The reaction in the media though does raise some interesting questions about evangelism in a society of many faiths.

Commentators have weighed in on both sides. “To fail to seek conversions is a denial of the gospel.” “Aggressive proselytising is disrespectful and runs the risk of destabilising inter-faith relations.”
I reckon both sides of the argument are right. And wrong.

The out and out evangelisers, the proclaimers, the converters need to think carefully about their understanding of evangelism. Yes, we should resist the notion that evangelism need be crass and insensitive. But we should also acknowledge that it can be, and often has been.

I recall with embarrassment the street preachers in Wakefield who so vigorously harangued passers by, launching bible verses like projectiles, that they were arrested for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. Jesus wept.

Seeking the conversion of others ought not to be controversial but it is truly a sensitive issue. It becomes particularly sensitive when we, the Christian majority, seek the conversion of a distinct, minority group who feel beleaguered, misrepresented and under suspicion. It is one thing to witness to Christ in our weakness, another thing entirely to do so from a position of power.

Yes, sharing Christ is in itself an act of love and compassion. How important then that we do all we can to make sure that the way in which we speak of him does not deny the very message we seek to convey.

On the other hand those who imagine that respecting others requires us to abandon all attempts to persuade them of the truth of our convictions are surely misguided. A commitment to social pluralism – the view that other faiths, cultures and world views have every right to share fully in society, indeed that they are welcome to do so - is not incompatible with seeking conversions.

Yes, dialogue is a vital dimension of Christ-like evangelism. Yes, true dialogue must include a readiness to listen and learn, recognition that we do not have a monopoly on truth. But no, persuasion is not a dirty word. It’s what happens in mature relationships, in adult conversations. The best forms of dialogue include, but go beyond, the mere gathering of information or the acquisition of insight. If truth counts for anything then all parties have to speak from a position of conviction and commitment and with an openness to conversion. There are many out there, the BBC included who would seek to impale us on the horns of false dilemmas. We must resist the pressure to choose between closed-minded, fundamentalist certainty and timid, liberal relativism.

To participate in God’s mission in today’s multi-faith Britain is to pray and to sweat till we see justice, peace and a welcome for all. It also to speak whenever we can, to do whatever we can and at all times to live in such a way as to persuade as many as we can to follow the one who is the source of existence, the key to life and the destiny of all creation. These callings are not and must never be allowed to become incompatible, indeed they are one.

Evangelism After Christendom

This is the book that got me blogging again. I'm probably going to do two or three posts on it. Not so much reviews as appetite-whetters. I hope. Here's the first.

I knew this was going to be one of those books that would do it for me. I got through it really quickly even though I kept re-reading bits just to make sure I’d got it right. My wife also knew it was going to be one of those books. She was doing her own reading but I kept on interrupting her saying, “This is great; this bloke knows how to write.” She’s very patient my wife.

Here's why Evangelism After Christendom does it for me
• It echoes much that I have felt and said for a while now. For instance: we need to re-imagine evangelism because it has become a dirty word, not only for those beyond the church but also for those within; we need to question the dominant strategy of translating our message into terms that will appeal to the world, paying more attention instead to cultivating the practice of hospitality so as to create space for people to learn the language of the gospel; the gospel is not primarily a product to be sold.
• It says what I would have loved to have said but with an insight, clarity and authority of which I am incapable. It is full of elegant, well turned phrases. There are passages on virtually every page that I want to read out loud to people.
• It takes evangelism seriously, practically seriously and - all too rare this - theologically seriously.
• It avoids the classic modernist accommodation of both evangelicalism and liberalism.
• It resonates with much that I have found helpful in the writings of Walter Brueggemann and others who have been influenced by postliberalism and radical orthodoxy
• It takes church seriously at a time when many serious disciples are so frustrated with the church that they are tempted to abandon it.
• When I put the book down my overwhelming feeling was not that I had learned some helpful stuff but rather that I had been challenged to live a holier life. Not so much “Do I know how to evangelise?” as “Am I really prepared to try and live like Christian?”

Dentistry and God Talk

Taking photos distracts me from my mild dentist-phobia.
Originally uploaded by Mollissima!

Found myself talking about God at the dentist’s yesterday. Both the dentist herself and the dental nurse had their questions. Getting caught reading books on evangelism after christendom can lead to some interesting conversations.

The dentist, a practising Catholic, wanted to know the difference between being an evangelical and being evangelistic, “They are not the same are they? Because Catholics can do evangelism but I don’t think they are evangelical.” And, “At the freshers’ fair at uni I was talking to the Christian Union but when they found out I was Catholic they said, ‘Oh no, this is not for you; the Catholic Society is over there’.” Thinks: Catholics doing evangelism? – please God. Thinks 2: When oh when will evangelicals learn to be generous and hospitable?

The nurse told me how she had initially taken atheism for granted but was now developing an interest in God. “People always gave me the impression that God was like a man up in the sky but I reckon God’s everything that’s all around us. What do you think?”

As the novacaine took effect I found myself thinking about David Hay’s research into the spirituality of those who don’t go to church. Apparently there’s a growing readiness out there to speak about things spiritual but a groping after a language with which to do so. It seems that people are uncomfortable with transcendent, anthropomorphic God-talk finding it much easier to conceive of the divine as an immanent presence. Not sure if the nurse was groping towards pantheism or panentheism but I do know it’s hard to give a coherent answer with your mouth full of fingers, cotton wool, vacuum cleaners and instruments of torture.

Liberals and Evangelicals: the Coy and the Cocky

Tiny Sign
Originally uploaded by probationboy

This is the first of three posts arising from reactions to my recent poll which asked if evangelical/conservative Christians are better at evangelism than liberal/radical Christians.

Tim suggested that this was a strange poll and Jody is clearly unimpressed by what passes for making disciples in evangelical circles. This first post then relates to some of my concerns about evangelism and explains some of the reasons behind the poll.

My own recent experience and reading has persuaded me that the missiologist David Bosch was onto something back in the 90’s when he suggested the possibility of a coming together between the evangelical and liberal movements. (1) If this is right it is a good thing. Each movement has distinctive strengths that are lacking in the other. In relation to evangelism liberalism tends to be much less formulaic and dogmatic than evangelicalism and much better at humble, respectful dialogue but evangelicalism evidences much more enthusiasm and is much more likely to actually get on with sharing the faith.

What I long to see is an expression of protestant Christianity which combines the best of both these approaches. Many seem to think at that the two sets of qualities are incompatible. I cannot accept this. For example I can’t see why it isn’t possible to enter into genuinely open dialogue with an enthusiastic hope that the other will come to follow Christ. I think it was David Bosch again who spoke of the need for a bold humility.

My fear though is that we will end up running away so fast from the more distasteful approaches to evangelism to be found in some forms of conservative Christianity that we will end up being coy about verbal faith sharing and luke warm when it comes to helping others to become disciples. Certainly recent expressions of classic liberalism, most forms of post-evangelicalism/emerging church are depressingly diffident when it comes to telling people about Jesus. The former is declining at a rate approaching the speed of sound and the latter is patently failing to make significant impression upon postmodern generations.

Sure evangelism is about far more than telling, Jesus didn’t call us to be gobs on legs, but why oh, why do we find it so hard to embrace a genuinely holistic form of witness holding together being, doing, showing AND TELLING?


1. This coming together, if it is to happen, is unlikely to embrace the whole of evangelicalism. I suspect that the future of evangelicalism will see a bifurcation between those who become ever more entrenched in reactionary forms of neo-fundamentalism and those on the left wing of the movement who recognise the need for significant change.