The problem with traditional approaches to evangelism is that most Americans do not find it hard to believe that God loves someone like them. The typical Americans has internalized the God is love concept as well, if not better than the typical evangelical Christian.
Therefore, if a Christian approaches a non-Christian and says that God is going to condemn them to hell if they don’t accept Jesus, what the non-Christian is going to hear them saying is “God is not as loving and forgiving as you think. Christians believe that God is not all-forgiving love, but rather a wrathful God.” The non-Christian will immediately reject this message as categorically untrue, since they know the truth: God personally takes Love as His primary identity, not wrath.
If the conversation continues the evangelical will continue to convict the non-Christian of their sins because if they don’t God will condemn them to hell. If the Christian is successful in their arguing and the non-Christian converts, the new Christian’s new view of God will be one who’s primary concern is the holiness of people. Therefore, this new Christian, like the Christian who converted them, will be more concern about being holy and legalistic than being loving and kind.
Instead, the Christian evangelizing to the typical American should not focus on God’s wrath, but rather God’s love. Instead of trying to call the non-Christian’s mind to their sin, they should call attention to their pain.
Pain and stress is the ache in our modern lives that doesn’t jive with our notion that God is love. The Christian message in modern times shouldn’t primarily be “If you don’t believe, you’re going to hell after you die,” but rather “If you don’t follow Jesus, you’re going to miss out on the fullness of the loving God’s mercy and compassion.” In short, instead of convincing people that “God is wrath” we should be convincing them that “God is even more loving than you think.”
Christians believe that the answer to pain is found in the life and death of Jesus. Jesus died in an act of God’s love so that we may have life and have it abundantly. Not just so we can go to heaven, but that we can be transformed into new creations where the pain and suffering we and those around us experience is confronted and undone through acts of sacrifice and forgiveness.
So instead of using scare tactics which innately turn the evangelist into a judgmental dogmatic, we should be meeting people where they’re at and share with them a message of hope and love that, if accepted, can offer the non-Christian a life of meaning and purpose.
2 comments:
Hmm. This will be some rambling. I understand your point, but don't know if I can go along with it. Some notions - don't use the "preach at them" method and shout dogmatic things at them. There was a non-student guy named Dave that came to Parkside and did "turn or burn" stuff. Very hard sell. Gotta know the audience. Are you addressing one-shot deals where you see someone once and come out with your best impersonal Gospel pitch? Most, if not all, evangelism I think should be done a relationship level. Knowing someone and talking with them over time. Lots more time there to feel things out and address issues instead of three canned paragraphs that might hit the target. My point is that you can't get around sin. Hell is the eternal consequence and pain and suffering is the temporal consequence of sin.
First, I completely agree with you about the relational nature of evangelism. Although I think we'd both agree that people can be converted after a short conversation, we are called to build relationships with others...not simply give them a three paragraph package on Jesus, heaven, and hell. I think we're on the same page here.
As for the content of discussing what it means to be in a proper relationship with God, I'm not trying to negate sin nor its consequences, but I am struck on how differently modern evangelists present the Gospel to unbelievers as compared to Jesus or the apostles in Acts.
Modern evangelicals talk about sin and damnation, as though saving you soul from the fires of hell is the only thing that they're concerned about. Meanwhile, Peter, Paul, and Jesus rarely talk in such terms. They talk about Jesus and how Jesus fulfills the promises of God and thereby fulfills our deepest needs. Of course, salvation from hell is part of it, but it hardly takes center stage.
When we force hell and sin to take center stage in evangelism we are ignoring the real needs that the non-Christian currently has (i.e., we're not in a respectful relationship with them where we learn and acknowledge their needs as they define them).
No one's gonna say they're completely happy or fulfilled. Instead of trying to re-interpret their brokenness for them into the theological language of sin, I think we should try to show the non-Christian how Jesus addresses their brokenness and work out from there.
I think we're more likely to be successful with this approach because we're respecting the person and not arrogantly saying, "You say you're depressed and lonely, but t know what the real problem is...it's sin." Jesus mets them where they're at and will lift them out of their world of troubles, whether they call the hurt in their life as "sin" or even if they see it as their fault or not.
If a relationship with Jesus begins, then the eternal consequences of hell are avoided all the same. And the new believer is more likely to say, "Eternal life as a newly created being of God begins today!" instead of just thinking that Christianity is primarily about escaping hell's fire.
Post a Comment