TILL HE COMES Blog

Yesterday I introduced the idea that “evangelism” might be better termed “gospelism.” Doing so will help us see that evangelism is about revealing the gospel, whether by word or deed, and should not be equated with giving a one-size-fits-all, prepackaged, bullet-point presentation.

Let me try to explain in more detail what gospelism is.

A Definition Proposal
I want to propose the following definition of gospelism (aka Evangelism):

Gospelism is a way of life whereby, through our actions and words, we reveal the good news about Jesus to those who are being drawn ever closer to Jesus.

Let me unpack this.

First, it’s a way of life. The gospel is way more than just a set of Bible facts; it also contains truths about how live in light of those Bible facts. Therefore, while you can believe some of those facts without living them, those who do so don’t really understand the full gospel or it’s ramifications for our life. Also, we can never assume we fully understand and live according to the gospel. There is always more to learn, and more to practice. Gospel truths are a way of life that take an entire life to develop.

Second, evangelism does not just about what we say, but also about what we do. Since the good news about Jesus concerns all aspects of our physical and spiritual life, then we can live the gospel just as well as speak it. And how liberating this can be! We don’t have to beat ourselves over the head if the words didn’t come just right, or if we forgot eight of the fifteen points in the “gospel outline” that our pastor wrote up.

Sometimes, the best way of sharing the gospel will not require words at all. One of the sources that helped me see this is “Doable Evangelism.” Among other things, this site shows that “evangelism” can be simple acts of honesty, service, kindness, and grace toward other people.

Remember what St. Francis of Assisi said: “Preach the gospel always; if necessary, use words.” If we are living a life of love, grace, generosity, forgiveness, patience, honesty, sacrifice, etc, then our lives are living testimonies to the gospel, which is always more winsome than words.

This is why you should live intentionally for the gospel. Fill up at the same gas station every week. Use the same check-out person at the grocery store. Request the same server at the restaurant (and tip well). As we consistently live the gospel before people, they do take notice, and over time, the service aspects of the gospel may result in verbally sharing the eternal aspects of the gospel as well.

Finally, gospelizing is revealing the good news about Jesus to those who are being drawn ever closer to Jesus. This liberates us from trying to pack the gospel down into one five minute conversation. It can’t be done, so don’t try. Since there is so much information to the gospel, it is impossible to share it with any one person in any one setting. Rather, only bits and pieces can be shared at any one time.

Therefore, “evangelism” can be viewed as a process, rather than a one-time event. If we share or show a bit of the gospel to a person we will never see again, that’s okay, because they are in process just like we are, and God can bring others into their lives to show them more light. We must do our part, but we don’t have to do the whole part. We must always be looking for ways we can show or share the gospel with any and every person we encounter.

Similarly, if we are developing a relationship with a person, we know that we can’t dump the gospel truck on them, because (1) there is too much to share in one setting, and (2) we don’t know or practice it all ourselves. If we share the gospel with words, and they reject it, we can still be friends, because our life is “gospelism” (evangelism) just as much as our words.

Summary
To put is as simply as possible, I believe that “Gospelism is anything, whether word or deed, which reveals the gospel to others.

2 Comments »

Don’t worry. It’s not true. Google either crashed or got hacked today. Maybe it’s just a coding error.

Whatever is going on, all google searches are coming up with the statement that “This Site May Harm Your Computer.” Just for fun, I did a search for “google” on google.com, and found that google says that even their own site may harm your computer.

I love google, and am looking forward to upcoming innovations, such as their GDrive. I hope they get this fixed soon.

Edit: That was fast. It’s fixed.

1 Comment »

There is a lot of confusion today about how to evangelize and what to say and do in evangelism. I believe the primary problem lies in the word itself. The word proves the truth of the saying, “The translation is the traitor!” Let me show you what I mean.

You would never know it in English, but in Greek, the words “gospel” (Gk. euangelion) and “evangelism” (Gk. euangelizomai) have the same root. In fact, the word “evangelism” isn’t really a translation of the Greek word at all, but is instead a transliteration. The translators, rather than translate euangelizomai, just changed the Greek letters into English, and left it:

euangelizomai
evangelism

Sometimes, the English translations use the phrase “preach the gospel” which is better than “evangelism” but tends to make us think that the gospel is spread only by preaching, which as we saw in a previous post, is simply not true.

Let me suggest a new term instead of evangelism. How about “gospelism” (evangelizing = gospelizing)? This would help show a clearer connection between the gospel itself and the activity of spreading the gospel. This would really help clarify what gospelism is (i.e., what evangelism is) and how to carry it out.

What is Gospelism?
If (as we saw in a previous post) the gospel is more than a set of propositions which must be believed to receive eternal life, then gospelism is way more than just sharing a set of propositions to a person in the hopes that they will believe and receive eternal life.

Put another way, gospelism takes place whenever the gospel is revealed.  And if the gospel contains all sorts of truths about the temporal and eternal benefits that are offered through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then logically, any time we share (either by word or deed) any of the truths related to the gospel, we are gospelizing.

Since the gospel contains truths about how to live life in light of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, “gospelizing” is not only done with words, but with actions as well. Ideally, since the gospel is related to all aspects of life, our entire life – all we say and do – will be gospelizing.

More concretely, since the gospel affects how we interact with others, how we spend our money, how we use our time, etc., we are gospelizing not only when we preach and teach about the gospel, but also when we treat others with kindness, fairness and honesty, when we show forgiveness and grace, when we stand up for the poor, the neglected, and the outcast, and any time we reveal the changes that the gospel has brought about in our own life.

I’ll expand on this idea more tomorrow in Part 2.

7 Comments »

I still have an exciting announcement which I want to make (well, it’s exciting to me…), but it will have to wait until after I am done with this current series on the gospel and evangelism.

In two previous posts (here and here), I introduced the idea that to properly proceed in our mission to others, we need a proper understanding of the gospel and evangelism. In this post, I will discuss briefly the content of the biblical gospel. But first, let me give some background.

Background
About two years ago, I published an article called “The Gospel is More than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone’” in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In the article, I challenged two of the more popular definitions of the gospel. First, that the “gospel” is equated with nothing more than “believe in Jesus for everlasting life.” There are some who think that this is the entirety of the gospel message, and those who ask others to believe more than this are adding to the gospel. I argued that the gospel is way  more than such a pared down message.

A second view I argued against was that the gospel could be limited to a set number of theological propositions. Depending on who you read, most Christians have between five and ten propositions which they say constitute the entire gospelm, all of which must be believed for a person to receive eternal life. This view is based primarily on a faulty understanding of 1 Corinthians 15. Generally, they include the following in their gospel definition: 
      -human sinfulness
      -the deity of Jesus
      -the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins
      -the resurrection of Jesus
      -the necessity of faith in Jesus to receive eternal life

Against these two views, I argued that the biblical gospel is pretty much everything related to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, including the prophecies about Him, and the ongoing empowerment for life with God that we receive as believers. I wrote:

This gospel contains everything related to the person and work of Jesus Christ, including all of the events leading up to His birth, and all the ramifications from Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for unbelievers and believers (p. 50).

Response
Understandably, I received a lot of criticism from various groups for questioning their traditional teachings and practices regarding the gospel. One primary criticism was that my idea was new, and nobody else was saying such things as I had written. This is a weak argument, but interestingly, since I wrote the article, is seems that nearly every book I read has ideas which parallel the content of my research. One book in particular really helped my thinking.  It is Transforming Mission by David Bosch, and it is now one of the top three most influential books I have ever read. He shows over and over that the gospel is not only a set of facts or propositions to be believed, but is information about how these beliefs will change our lives and how we interact with others.

Gospel of Faith, Love, and Hope
Let me provide a few quotes from Bosch which show this, and then I will close this already-too-long post with a few summary ideas.

“The good news is that the reign of God, present in Jesus Christ, has brought us all together under judgment and has in the same act brought us all together under grace. And yet, this does not mean that the gospel is an invitation to mystical introspection or to the salvation of individual souls, climbing out of a lost world into the safety of the church. Rather, it is the proclamation of a new state of affairs that God has initiated in Christ” (Bosch, 148).

The gospel of the early church “was practiced not as a stratagem to lure outsiders to the church but simply as a natural expression of faith in Christ” (Bosch, 49).

Similarly, salvation is way more than just “entrance into heaven when you die.” Salvation involves all aspects of life and living. It is a full redemption. “Whatever salvation is…it includes the total transformation of human life, forgiveness of sin, healing from infirmities, and release from any kind of bondage. …It does not have only a ‘vertial’ dimension” (Bosch, 107).

What is the Gospel?
The most basic definition of the “gospel” (Gk. euangelion) is “good news.” But that is not really what the biblical gospel is. Based on my years of studying this issue, and especially on my reading over the past few years, I am more convinced than ever that the gospel is message for all people about all the temporal and eternal benefits available to us through Jesus Christ.

Certainly, the message of eternal life is central to the gospel. However, what we Christians often neglect is that there is more to the gospel - much more. The biblical good news also tells us about how God wants to rule and reign over all aspects of life, how there is nothing beyond the scope of redemption, how there is hope for the future, a source of joy and gladness to be had, true community to be experienced, and peace to be introduced. It is good news for the poor, the lonely, the hurting, the despised, the neglected, the abandoned, the abused, the slandered, the outcast -  indeed, for all who are suffering mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually.

The gospel is more than “believe in Jesus for eternal life.” The gospel is even more than “Jesus died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, so that all who believe in Him might have everlasting life.” These are the “bulls eye” central tenants of the gospel, around which everything else has power and significance. Without the truths of the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no gospel, but the gospel is way more than a message about justification and how to get eternal life. If we limit it only to that, we are proclaiming a partial gospel at best.  

The full gospel is full-orbed in the claims it makes about our present life and eternal existence, and what Jesus wants to do with both.

Now, if this is true, what does that do to our “evangelism”? I will address this question in the next post.

7 Comments »

Have you heard the good news? There is something better to this life than what you are currently experiencing – not necessarily easier, but definitely better.  And the best part is that what I have to tell you is not only for this life, but also about the life to come!

In our culture, conversations about the biblical gospel could possibly begin in such a way. Such a conversation would be awkward with a stranger, and maybe only slightly more natural with a friend. Regardless, it will lead to way more dialogue than the following statement:

Did you know that you are a sinner, and are destined for hell? However, God, because of His great love for you, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for your sins, and rise again from the dead. If you will just believe in Jesus for eternal life, you can go to heaven and be with God forever when you die.

If you have ever tried to “evangelize” with such a line, you know how (in)effective it is! And yet, the vast majority of Christians today seemt to think that evangelism us best accomplished with option number 2.

Here is a nice rule to remember when trying to engage people in discussions about spiritual matters: Your immediate goal is not to win a conversion, but to win another conversation.  (I read that somewhere, and cannot remember where.) Of the two options above, which one is most likely to win another conversation?

Only pick the second one if your idea of a conversation is someone saying “F*** you!” as they walk away. Sadly, many Christians are fine with such a response, because, as I shared in my last post, they believe that as long as they “share the gospel” the “blood of that person is on their own head.” In my view, this reveals a very poor understanding of the gospel. Of course, I am not even sure that the first option above is a good beginning point either. While the first option is more likely to result in dialogue, if you start off with such a statement, it reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of evangelism.

To truly engage people in discussions about Jesus and the gospel, a few things are necessary. Many believe that a relationship or friendship with the person is necessary, but I disagree. While a relationship is incredibly helpful, it is not required. Instead, at the most basic level, two things are required: First, an understanding of what the biblical gospel is, and second, a good grasp of how to share this gospel with others (aka “evangelism”).

I will briefly discuss both over the next couple of posts.

3 Comments »

Have you ever heard a pastor give a sermon on Ezekiel 33? God tells Ezekiel to cry out against the unfaithful watchmen in Israel who did not warn Israel about impending judgment. He says that because they were silent, the blood of the people who die will be on the heads of the lazy watchmen.

Every time I hear this passage preached, the application is the same: “If you don’t tell people that they are going to hell, when they die, God is going to hold you responsible! Their blood will be on your head! So never miss an opportunity to tell a friend, a coworker, a neighbor, a relative, or even a stranger on the bus about Jesus!”

I heard this passage preached just last week with this exact application.

I have always been uncomfortable with preaching this passage this way, but only last week did I understand why. First, the passage has nothing to do with eternal destinies, but only with temporal judgment on sinful Israel. So from that perspective alone, the “bloody head evangelism” application is illegitimate.

But more than that, as I listened to this pastor preach, it hit me that all he was really endorsing was “hit and run evangelism.” He was basically saying that as long as a Christian got something out about sin, hell, and believing in Jesus for eternal life, their duty to warn others was fulfilled. They were no longer responsible for that person. The pastor’s exact words were “Their blood will be on their own heads rather than on yours!”

Aside from being a terrible application of this passage, such an approach to evangelism is simply scary, and probably does more damage than good. It gives a Christian the sense that as long as they get the gospel off their chest to anyone and everyone they come into contact with, they are no longer responsible for that person. Once the other person “hears the good news” they are solely responsible for what they do with it.

With such a perspective, it is not necessary for any Christian to befriend or develop relationships with other people. It diminishes evangelism down to a simple proclamation of a few Bible facts. Under the guise of “caring for people’s eternal destinies” it reveals a heart that really doesn’t care about the person.

This is not what evangelism is or how it should be done. Over the next couple of posts, I will suggest some better options.

5 Comments »

My good friend Mike at Church For Men Florida posted a great article recently about the phrases “Let me pray on that” and “That’s not my spiritual gift.” Here is what he wrote:

The phrase “Let Me Pray On That” can also mean the following:

1. I have no intention of doing it.

2. I am stalling and or I don’t want to make a decision.

3. I am using the phrase “Let Me Pray On That” as a crutch

The phrase “That’s Not My Spiritual Gift” can also mean the following:

1. I am lazy

2. I don’t want to do it.

3. Isn’t there some other poor schmuck we can get to do it?

How true.

I remember once asking a member of my church youth group if he could help me out with something one weekend, and he said he had to ask his dad. I happened to overhear the exchange, and when the young man asked, his father said, “I’ll pray about it.” As the father walked away, the young man turned back to me and said, “That means ‘no.’”

People aren’t stupid. They see what we are doing.

God Told Me…
Another phrase that gets abused a lot is “God told me…” I personally think that many Christians use this to justify their own decisions and keep people from questioning the decision or voicing dissent. After all, you can’t argue with God.

Of course, if God did not really tell the person what they are claiming He did, then they are putting words into God’s mouth, and laying 0n Him the blame for our poorly made human decisions. This, I think, qualifies as using the Lord’s name in vain. Whenever we use God’s name to justify our own actions, we are on very dangerous territory.

9 Comments »

What do you call people who are not Christians? Have you ever thought about the terms we use, and how these terms are either (1) condescending and rude, and/or (2) biblically inaccurate?

The words we use to describe people who have not believed in Jesus for eternal life reveal a lot about our theology, what we think of them, and how we will interact with them. It could be argued, I suppose, that we shouldn’t have a title or term for those who don’t believe in Jesus. We are all just “people.” But I think some sort of term is appropriate and necessary to give Christians a sense of community, and to help help differentiate ourselves from the rest of the world, while at the same time inviting them to join us in our mission.

Whatever term we use, it must not reveal an arrogance about our present condition, but must be loving and kind. It should also reveal an openness to other people joining us. If possible, it should also be biblical. Below are a few terms I have either used or heard others use, and why they should not be used. I will conclude with two terms that I am currently trying to use. Tell me what you think!

Pagan
I have never used this term, but I’ve heard some Christians use it. I think this is a slanderous term and should not be used.

Non-Christian
I have used this one, and sometimes still do, but it has negative overtones. Also, most ‘Christians” are nominal (in name only) and so while they claim to be Christians, they really aren’t. So how do you classify them? Are they “non-Christians” or not? Besides, it’s not biblical.

Pre-Christian
I once had a pastor friend who used this term all the time. While it does do away with the negative connotation that “non-Christian” has, and does seem to indicate that others are welcome to join us, it is not very precise or biblical. Furthermore, it is terribly arrogant and condescending. It assumes that everybody is on their way to becoming a Christian and once they become full-fledged Christians, they have truly arrived. I detest this term.

Target
Wow. What can I say about this? I hear this one used by door-to-door evangelists and street preachers a lot. I guess when they see a “target” they take aim with their gospel guns and start firing.

Sinners
This one is negative and judgmental. Yet people use it (and I have too) because it seems to have some biblical basis. However, I don’t use this any more. In Scripture (and in experience) everybody is a sinner – even those who have believed in Jesus. Anyone who sins is a sinner, and since we all sin, we are all sinners. So aside from being negative and judgmental, it is imprecise and unbiblical. All of us are sinners. If we call a certain group “sinners” it gives the wrong impression that we don’t sin any more.

Unbelievers
For a long time, this was my preferred term. Though it has a negative connotation, there is some biblical basis to it. Furthermore, it brings out the main difference between people who have believed in Jesus for eternal life and those who have not – belief! However, I don’t use this term any more. This partly because of the negative undertones, but primarily because it is inaccurate. Everyone is a believer. Everyone believes in something. Even atheists are “believers” in that they believe there is no God. I have been called an “unbeliever” by Muslims, and my immediate thought was, “Hey! I believe; I just don’t believe like you believe.” Furthermore, there is much more to the Christian life than just believing the right things.

People who are Far from God
This one is gaining in popularity among “missional” churches. However, like “unbeliever,” it is just plain wrong.  It is often used to describe people who live in great depravity and sin. However, Jesus says that such people are closer to the kingdom of God than are most religious people (Matt 21:31-32). You might be more accurate if you refer to the people in the pews as those who are “far from God.”

Disconnected
This certainly seems to invite people to become connected, but in a negative way. It is also not found in Scripture. Thrid, almost everyone is connected to some group in some way, so they are not really disconnected. They are only disconnected from the church, and frankly, fewer and fewer people want to be connected to the church. Also, many people in the church are disconnected as well. They attend church, but are not really being the church.

The Others / Outsiders
These are the terms I currently try to use. I learned them from David Bosch, in his amazing book, Transforming Mission (p. 137). I think these terms avoid most (but not all) of the negative connotation of many of the terms above. They do not seem to be judgmental, and seem to be the technical term used by Paul in his letters (cf. 1 Cor 5:12f, 1 Thess 4:12). Also, these terms seems to invite others to come inside and enjoy the community that (hopefully) we have, even if they have not yet believed in Jesus. They do not imply that “belief in Jesus” is the end-all of the Christian life.

So what do you think? Have any to add? Disagree with anything above? Let me know!

24 Comments »

How is that for a blog post title?

Ok, students, I have an assignment for you.

In Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, he references a quote from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud which supposedly says, “Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 4,37A). The Rabbi who wrote this was speaking in reference to the prophecy in Genesis 49:10 that the scepter will not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes.

I looked it up, and as far as I can tell, no such quote exists on that page of the Talmud.

So either somebody “invented” this quote because it makes a cool point in a sermon, OR the reference in wrong.

I called a “Jews for Jesus” friend of mine to see if he uses this quote in his evangelistic efforts, and he said, “All the time. It is very effective.” I asked him if he knew if the quote was authentic or not, and he assured me it was, even though he didn’t know where it could be found.

Then I aksed my new Jewish friends to help me find it, but they say the quote doesn’t exist. They suspect that some Christian invented (aka “forged”) the quote in an attempt to get Jews to become Christians. If true, somebody better tell all the pastors and authors who use this quote in their teachings (e.g. Chuck Missler, me, and others).

Finally, I tried to do some research online to find it, and discovered that lots of people have the same question, but nobody has yet found the quote. I tried to check some Jewish websites, and in the process, found out that many Jewish websites “rest” on the Sabbath (e.g. www.artscroll.com - try to access this site on Saturday before sundown). Very interesting.

So, I decided to ask you! Let me know what you discover…if anything.

6 Comments »

I am approaching the one year anniversary of a particular personal crisis. While the situation still stings, I have a bit of perspective now, and am actually quite thankful about what happened.

As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a wooden power line pole that had resprouted limbs. When I saw it, I did a double take. At first I thought maybe the electrical company had just strung wires to a tree. But upon closer examination, it was clearly a power line pole. It apparently had been a tree at one point (I guess that’s where power line poles come from), had been cut down, stripped, and then used as a power line. Over the years, it has resprouted limbs. I didn’t know such a thing was even possible.  Even as I write this, I am doubting what I saw, and want to go take another look.

It seemed to me when I saw it that I was to be a picture of what has happend to my family and I during the past year.

I was like a tree that had been cut down, stripped of it’s limbs and bark, and then covered in tar and stuck in the mud to hold power lines. A year ago, we had our feet cut out from under us, and were stripped of all that we knew and held dear. I personally felt like my identity and value as a man had been stripped away from me. I felt dead and empty. All the plans, goals, and dreams I had for my life vanished in a day. I searched for new ways of gaining value, but for the most part, they were mere shadows of the dreams I held before, like a tree that had become a power line pole.

But recently, I feel like I am beginning to resprout. I see branches, buds, and roots beginning to form. New life is rising out of death and ashes. I am not sure what the future holds, but I am hopeful…

In the next week or two, I will unfurl one of these new branches, so keep posted!

5 Comments »