Archie wrote -

Which leads to the second danger. That is, in our training of people in our churches, we often train them to do personal ministry, and so they go from our churches to individually reach the world. However the evidence is that people are most likely to join a fellowship of God’s people because of the group that exists. This means we should think about and train each other in “pack” evangelism - assisting and supporting each other as we live in the world promoting Christ. This will help in drawing people from the world to the church. But it also means that we must think and work together in going out into the world too. How can we create ministries and work as a group to see others saved?

This was very similar to the point I was making in my original article. Archie has obviously articulated it better than I, because he has won Gordo’s cautious approval… ;-)

My approval is always cautious, my disapproval never so! ;-)

It’s a psychological shortcoming that will be remedied by death, like everything else.

What I like about Archie’s articles is not so much the writing style, or the bits I understand, but the bits that I find confusing. There’s so much in there that is not confusing that the little yet profound theological bits are easily skated over, but when I re-read they are the bits that cause me the most difficulty and give me the most profit.

My approval is even harder to find than Gordos, but I have to say that Archie is spot on here and I may even be in agreement with Gordo (but hopefully I have misunderstood him).  As Archie says, we mustn’t underestimate the “attractional” dimension of our church services, our communal life or the gospel.

At the same time we mustn’t get bogged down in thinking attraction is enough. We need to move outward, in word and deed, individually and together.

I think the reason the “pack” idea works is that God is redeeming us “relationally”. That is, through the gospel he reconciles us to himself, and also to one another in Christ. As a community we begin to reflect the new reality of the kingdom; and it is, I think, very powerful, even “compelling”.

While I’ve yet to plough through all the replies to this very interesting discussion, I just wanted to add my usual rant that many of us are struggling just to fulfil our work / family / church duties, let alone “make friends”. One Men’s Conference speaker apparently said, (I wasn’t there, too busy and burnt out!) “Modern Australian Christians are just too comfortable”. Well, comfortable financially? Maybe. But these days it seems every 2nd or 3rd Christian I meet is on anti-depressants or struggling to just stay married, let alone “powering on” doing the Moore Diploma at night school, reading every Briefing, corresponding on Forums, doing all their devotions and “church homework”, visiting all their Christian friends in the depression ward at hospital, AND making new non-Christian friends.

Historically and sociologically, we’ve never had so many “things per person” to attend to. From a not-so-comfortable modern Australian Christian buckling under the strain of it all — and having the usual rant.

In my own opinion perhaps we spend too much time ‘doing’ and not enough time ‘reflecting’ on best practice. Perhaps we have secret pride and avoid failure so we can keep our self esteem. There is a culture of self esteem/pride which may affect some churches in some ways, they may want to stay comfortable and don’t want to try new things out of fear of failure. The psychologists are re-writing the text book of self esteem, and are putting ‘self acceptance’ in its place, meaning that we accept possible failure and learn to deal with failure rather than avoiding failure.

In terms of best practice, do we consider the ‘relational’ side of evangelism as opposed to simply doing the ‘task’ of evangelism. I don’t think we’re taking the relational side of evangelism seriously if we do ‘survey evangelism’, 10 minute Gospel presentations at train stations, or short term missions away from their local region so they can’t maintain long term relationships with non-Christians they met. Unfortunately in too many cases we are constantly re-inventing the wheel of evangelism because there is not enough reflection and networking amongst people of other groups.

Are our churches missional? I notice some churches like to stick to their own church circle and rarely organise inter-church activities. So whilst one may apparently protect the congregation from transferring to another church (even though they’ll look around anyway), the church group may become clicky and only know how to relate to people within their own church, this is because they don’t mix/network with people from other churches. A missional church must certainly be prepared to deal with people of different personalities, given that a missional church aims to build relationships with non-Christians. I’m not sure there are too many Christians able to deal with people of different personalities.

Hi Dave,

I really feel the weight of what you are saying and think in part this is because we have structured our church life around keeping things busy and prgrammed rather than structure around relationships. 
It is interesting that you frame your main spheres of life in terms of duties that seem to be wearing you thin and leaving no time for friendships.

what i find depressing is how much energy and attention is centred on preachers rather than the gospel, as well as buildings budgets, bodies & busyness seeming to dominate thinking about what makes for a good church. There needs to be another ‘b’ in that grim equation - buildings budgets bodies busyness and burnout.

Simon

you raise an important question regarding the dynamic of evangelism and I fear that sometimes we evangelise out of mere duty and a sense of oughtness rather than our of joy in knowing the Father through son. I doubt there is anyone who would question that the best missional endeavours are always relational yet it is questionable whether our structures reflect that.

regarding attraction

Archie hits this well when he highlights that it is the one anotherness of gospel communities in mission that not only has evangelistic clout but it is an embodying of the gospel’s power as it is lived out together.
yet so often we given time energy and money to developing the ‘b’s rather than that which is geniunely compelling and has gospel traction.
I wonder sometimes if our reliance on buildings programs etc betrays our beleif in the gospels power to save? We think that God’s work depends a persons gifts, a certain style of service, the right kids program, a decent car park, a glossy bulletin and sexy website. None of these are bad in and of themselves, but I wonder whether we would be more missionally effective if we weren’t so affluent, aspirational and dependant upon tools.

if Newbigen is right then the only instrument that God has given us in mission is the gospel word being lived out in gospel communtiy and proclaimed from that community. all mission should happen in the context of community - not apart from it.

Shane Rogerson - 30 April 2008 12:08 PM

if Newbigen is right then the only instrument that God has given us in mission is the gospel word being lived out in gospel communtiy and proclaimed from that community. all mission should happen in the context of community - not apart from it.

It is hard to disagree with this as a general statement, but it is also quite hard to see then what is excluded in practice.

The first time I told someone the gospel was at high school, and it certainly wasn’t part of a Christian community, even though after I became a Christian, I myself was part of a Christian community and had learnt the gospel in that community, and through reading. But at the pointy end of evangelism, it was still a solo conversation between me and a schoolmate. Mind you, he didn’t become a Christian either, but I don’t think that his lack of responsiveness is because he hadn’t heard the gospel or been evangelized. And results are not the test of faithful evangelism anyway (and I don’t think you are arguing this).

And I became a Christian not in the context of community, but because another friend at school bothered to tell me the gospel, and I responded over a period of months with belief. The community, to be honest, had very little to do with it at all, except that my friend’s minister at church had revved him up to talk to his non-Christian friends. But on that criteria, every act of evangelism is an act of the community, even if I parachute onto an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, find one man there, and tell him the gospel (because after all, i came from a Christian community).

So I don’t say that community is irrelevant, in fact, it is hard to think of anyone who would argue this. It’s just that once we’ve acknowledged that the community is a part of the process, to a greater or lesser extent, the ‘so what’ question in terms of our practice comes right to the fore.

In other words, having established that the gospel creates the community gathered around Christ, and that this is all terrific stuff, and that we should now get on with telling people the gospel, shouldn’t our churches just get on and encourage people to do what works, so long as it doesn’t involve underhand methods (2 Cor 4:1-2)?

If the minister had encouraged the friend who evangelized me to really just focus on bringing people into touch with the community, and not think of evangelism as a solo enterprise, the bottom line is I probably wouldn’t have gone along to his events and I certainly wouldn’t have heard the gospel through him.

(I would’ve still become a Christian I suppose, because that bit was predestined before the creation of the world)

Many thanks for that Gordo, I think you’ve articulated the “traditional” approach to evangelism well. If I can summarise -

1. The minister “revs up” the lay Christian to engage in personal evangelism
2. The Christian builds relationships with unbelievers in their various spheres (work, sport clubs etc)
3. The Christian take the initiative to share the gospel with the unbeliever, either through a tract or by inviting the unbeliever to an outreach event

I believe this is the model that has been presented, generally, in the various Anglican churches I’ve attended over the last 18 or so years. Have I summarised it fairly?

Now, if evangelism is not happening, it must be because the laity are either untrained or unmotivated (because of either laziness or fearfulness). The minister, then, sees his job as training the laity in sharing the gospel, and motivating them to share it.

Have I been fair in my summary?

I have a few questions (not just for Gordo, for anyone) -

Is there a biblical basis for this model?
How does it compare to historical models of evangelism?
Has it been effective?
Should it be seen as the “primary” method of evangelism?
Does it make an unwarranted assumptions about people and their capabilities?
If it has worked in the past, will it continue to work in the future?
Has it been effective? Does it work in your church?

To be honest, I feel like I’m pointing out the elephant in the room…

Craig Schwarze - 30 April 2008 02:35 PM

Many thanks for that Gordo, I think you’ve articulated the “traditional” approach to evangelism well.

Actually, my argument is that the ‘traditional’ approach to evangelism is to tell people the gospel!

I don’t care how it happens, that’s the whole point. But in my case, a guy at school talking about it to me, 1-1, was so effective that here I am. In human terms I owe Woody my life.

Actually, my argument is that the ‘traditional’ approach to evangelism is to tell people the gospel!

Well, that’s not in dispute. I think we are discussing the “when/where/how” question here…

Which is an interesting but secondary question, and as long as we’re not left insisting that we shouldn’t do it one way or the other, I’m happy. I used to say that people shouldn’t do walk-up tract evangelism thinking that it was going to be effective, but given the number of people I’ve now met who became Christians that way, I’ve learned to shut up.

as long as we’re not left insisting that we shouldn’t do it one way or the other,

Certainly not. If people are finding walk-up or whatever to be effective, go for it. I suspect that a pastor who is 90% happy with how evangelism is going in his church is not going to be much interested in the alternative models we are discussing.

I know I’n neither from Sydney or an Anglican but I hope you don’t mind me making a contribution?
Few people would argue with the conviction that God is sovereign and saves whoever he wants through whatever means he wants. I know of people from Muslim backgrounds for whom dreams have been decisive. The 3000 on the day of Pentecost were saved outside of a community, as was the Ethiopian eunuch. But what we have to grapple with is what is Biblically normative. If we can do that, then that is where we should put our energy. Of course, that doesn’t mean not doing so-called personal evangelism, but it does mean investing in exposing people to a believing community where they can see the gospel at work. The weight of emphasis in the 30 years I’ve been in ministry has been overwhelmingly on the side of personal, detached evangelism. Could now be a good opportunity to redress the balance? To recapture the one without completely letting go of the other?

I know I’n neither from Sydney or an Anglican but I hope you don’t mind me making a contribution?

Steve, your contributions are very welcome. I hope you’ll continue to interact with us on this topic and others.

The weight of emphasis in the 30 years I’ve been in ministry has been overwhelmingly on the side of personal, detached evangelism.

That’s been my experience too. And I’ve observed that the subject is often a source of frustration for pastors and laity alike. So I want to affirm what Gordo’s mate did, but also explore the alternatives…

Steve, thanks very much for dropping in and offering your observations. I’ve read the review of your book that was in The Briefing, and also the interview with you, but not yet the book I’m afraid to say! Still, both interview and review have encouraged me to go and check the book for myself.

It’s funny that this morning I was running slightly behind, so I got into a taxi, and got to talk to the driver about the judgement of God in our 13 minute drive over to Kingsford! The conversation as far as I can recall it is here. Humanly speaking, it was the ultimate in unplanned gospel conversations and totally devoid of any community context.

I realize of course that you aren’t suggesting that such a conversation is excluded from the notion of biblical evangelism! It’s just funny how it happened at the same time as this discussion was going on. Perhaps it illustrates the whole idea that if the gospel is the power of God for salvation, we should just pray and do what works, recognizing that God will use whatever he wants (the power of the community, arguments from reason, chance encounters, every day circumstances, whatever...) to respond to the prayers of people who want to see evangelism happen.

That said, He may even use our church committee plans to drop the previous way of doing things, and try a new way of reaching unbelievers!