Redefining Evangelism

Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about the concept of evangelism as it is generally taught in conservative, evangelical churches. If you’re anything like me, this is what you've heard, the general message from the front: “You need to witness more. You’re not doing enough to spread the good news of the gospel. You need to be bolder, more confrontational; you need to tell more people you meet about Jesus. Swallow your fears and do whatever it takes—hand out tracts, leave tracts in bathrooms, leave tracts on your co-workers desks or work stations, whatever. Just do it, because it’s what God says in the Bible we should be doing.”

Or words to that effect. Basically the message I get is that I’m not evangelizing enough, that I could and should be doing more, that I am generally a failure. And, that evangelism consists of quoting Bible verses to people and telling them what the gospel consists of: the good news of Jesus dying on the cross to be their personal savior.

We heard a guy in church recently who is an expert on evangelism, and he shared story after story of how, wherever he goes, he tries to “be the light” that Jesus spoke of that is not “hidden under a bowl.” For him, this means that everywhere he goes, he tries somehow to work Jesus into the conversation, or give out a Bible, whether he’s at the grocery store, watching planes take off and land (it’s a hobby for some people apparently), or doing balloon art on the streets. I was almost surprised he didn't tell the "sitting on the airplane and leading someone to Christ" story.

But I noticed one conspicuous element absent from his talk—there was absolutely no mention of any kind of relationship-building with these people, or that in the context of that passage it refers to people "seeing our good works and glorifying God." Hard to do that outside of the context of a relationship, isn't it?

It would seem that most of his conversations are like “cold calls,” where somebody tries to sell you something door-to-door or over the phone. However, what was all over his sermon was how we should do it like him—be bolder, “be the light,” always be on the lookout wherever we are for an opportunity to “share the gospel”—the good news.

I am willing to bet good money that most people hearing sermons like this walk away feeling like shameful failures because they can not, or are unable to do it like this guy. After all, he does this for a living! He’s a successful example of what Christian evangelism is supposed to be all about! Isn’t he?

Well, I have some reservations about it. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the guy hasn’t actually done some good, planted some seeds, or led some people to the Lord. I’m sure he has. But I wonder about motivating people by making them feel like they aren’t doing enough, intentionally (or unintentionally) shaming them into feeling like failures for God.

Reflecting on this sermon, I had some thoughts on what I call a model of “Leadership Evangelism.” It involves seven points based on a leadership paradigm we came up with several years ago for our church that I have adapted to fit into an evangelism context. It begins with the initial premise and then works backward to a conclusion. Here goes:

1. Leadership is influence. Maxwell said it, and I believe it is true. Granted, influence comes by way of a lot of different means: wealth, position, social status, etc. These are not the means of influence I am advocating here.

2. Influence is not manipulation. Manipulation involves deviousness, trickery, or the idea of presenting something such that the person presenting it knows it is false, but does so because it is personally advantageous. So what is influence, as I define it?

3. Influence is inviting another person to experience a new reality or paradigm by first consistently modeling the effects of that new reality in your own life. To establish that the new paradigm has any validity whatsoever, some sort of positive outcome must be demonstrated. This can establish a level of relevance, which will be compelling to some.

4. Ideally, people are influenced by someone else they trust. Generally speaking, people will not value the word of a person that they know cannot be trusted. So how does one establish trust with another person?

5. Trust is earned by demonstrating consistent faithfulness over a long period of time, in the context of a relationship. Trust is not established overnight; it takes many months or years of modeling consistent, faithful behavior to build a higher level of “trust equity.”

6. We have to earn the right to tell a nonbeliever about the gospel. Because the church and Christianity has such a deservedly bad reputation, we are fighting an uphill battle. We have to work twice as hard to gain half as much, but this is simply the reality of our situation.

7. Being a friend to a nonbeliever is doing evangelism. This right here takes most of the pressure and the guilt right off. All you have to do is be a friend, and you are evangelizing.

Sometimes evangelism is a “one-off” type of situation, such as Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. And for this guy who spoke, if he has the gift of evangelism, then these one-offs might be just the ticket--for him. But what if that approach doesn't work for me?

When we orient the discussion in terms of giftedness and 1 Corinthians 12, then him expecting others to be like him is, to use Paul's metaphor, to expect a toe to become an eye. Maybe for me, I can't be an eye because I am a toe.

However, we can't escape the reality that all believers are supposed to evangelize on some level. What I'm arguing is that--in the context of giftedness--if you are a toe, then be the best toe you can be. I wonder if that just might be a whole lot more compelling than trying to be something you're not. Being a faithful friend to a nonbeliever, simply being yourself and not trying to force the issue all the time under compulsion, may be the most balanced alternative here.