I would like to start by clarifying what my concern is in all this. I am attracted to OST for many reasons, not least because I believe that a theological orientation that stresses relationship and narrative and historical context is more helpful than one that, in contrast, stresses text, dogma, and going to heaven when we die. My own covenant orientation (and I confess my perspective here represents a small minority of readers) strongly compels me to speak up for evangelism nevertheless. I too am put-off by evangelistic styles that employ manipulation, that disrespect the "target," and that repulse disinterested observers; yet to be critical of a set of evangelistic styles does not mean that evangelism itself is the problem. I appreciate the championing of holistic evangelism, which is not just addressed to the ultimate destiny of the individual but also to freedom from the bondage of sin in this world; yet I see both in the ministry of Jesus and in the apostolic charges to the church that the ultimate destiny of individuals remains at issue.

In particular, I was troubled by aiming the focus of the narrative "earthward, not heavenward," or directing the focus of salvation "here-and-now…rather than…the life to come." However, I do recognize that nobody here has called for the abolution of evolution or a spiritual dimension to salvation. It’s just that I believe the church must champion evangelism, including addressing the spiritual dimensions of life in Christ. Given the biblical narrative’s connection of the church with the promise to bless the nations, given Jesus’ example of giving his life to this end, and given the apostle’s perspectives on the importance of actually telling the story to all peoples so they can receive all our blessings, perhaps I just get scared when a major church movement knowingly wants to focus on the social dimensions of salvation at the expense of the spiritual.

Part of my problem with seeing a similar evangelistic mandate in the old covenant is that I’m afraid old covenant themes will be brought forward into the new. For example, I believe that Israel was often an instrument of God’s wrath on the nations—physically dominating them in the name of YHWH to God’s glory. How the church is hobbled today in sharing Christ’s love by the crusades and conversions at sword-point of the past. I am willing to be shown that there was some real evangelistic mandate in the old covenant, but remain far from convinced by the arguments that have been outlined so far. The argument from Isaiah, for example, is ambiguous at best, and comes from a point in the narrative 800 years after the old covenant was presented and accepted—and at a time when God was unfolding his plans that Jesus and the apostles later claimed applied to them. And Ephesians 3:4-6 implies that the idea that the Gentiles were to be incorporated into God’s people was not revealed at the time of Isaiah as it was revealed in Christ.

I also see this issue as critical to our understanding of the historical narrative. Did God plan for Israel to fail at her purpose of bringing salvation to the nations? Or did his plan for Israel succeed in creating a people for his name? Or did his plan require that Israel serve as an example of man’s inability to keep covenant? I believe his plan was that through the new covenant people would repent and be blessed; this covenant was given by Jesus to his apostles—men from Israel and Judah—and at Pentecost was extended to still more of Israel and Judah—in fulfillment of prophecy; but the new covenant, unlike the old, is meant to incorporate many beyond the boundaries of Israel and Judah.

Finally, there has been some talk of the church’s "priestly" role or her "worship" mandate as distinct from her evangelistic role. Once again, I must ask if we are incorporating old covenant notions of priesthood or worship inappropriately. Consider Romans 15:8ff (especially v. 16; Paul understood his mission to the Gentiles a priestly service, and their conversion an "offering").

As I review the conversation, I think I’d have to agree with Peter that we’re championing differences in emphasis and priority rather than throwing out evangelism or compassion.