Evangelism before and after Christendom

Some quick thoughts on evangelism following a lively discussion at Community Church Harlesden

Evangelism has clearly become for many Christians a problematic and frankly anti-social requirement of the faith. To some extent this can be dealt with at the level of practice - there are good ways and bad ways of doing personal evangelism. But I think there are some deeper conceptual issues involved that get us to the heart of the problem of what it means to be church today. It may help in this respect to think of evangelism as an integral expression of the state of a community’s existence - or perhaps better, of what God is doing through its actual, contextualized existence. This can be demonstrated by exploring the narrative dynamic of the ‘good news’ motif in the New Testament and then asking how we might interpret the present situation in the light of that dynamic.

For Jesus the ‘good news’, the euangelion, was an announcement about what God was doing to bring the oppression and captivity of his people to an end, to overthrow its corrupt rulers, and to inaugurate the new life of the age to come - that was the coming of the reign of God. Evangelism in the context of this early story about the renewal of the people of God was the announcement to Israel by Jesus and his disciples that this was about to take place - within the lifetime of those who heard it.

This is (at least analogically) the ‘good news’ of Isaiah 52:7-10 - the announcement to Zion that her captivity is ended and that her God reigns. The ‘good news’ of this ‘salvation’ is then proclaimed to the nations: all the ends of the earth shall see what God has done for his people Israel through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

This became Paul’s evangelistic, good-news-announcing mission; but the character and experience of the community was radically transformed in the process. So his ‘gospel’ morphed into the disclosure of a ‘mystery’ - the largely unforeseen inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant community (Eph. 3:1-10).

But the existence of this community, drawn from all the nations of the ancient pagan world, constituted a direct affront to the ‘good news’ of an imperial peace and prosperity guaranteed by the god and saviour Caesar. In this evolving narrative context evangelism became the bold - indeed reckless - community-based announcement to the Greek-Roman world that Christ and not Caesar was Lord. The Edict of Milan in AD 313 was the real-world vindication of this prophetic announcement.

For the modern evangelical movement evangelism has been at its best an expression of the church’s confidence that secular rationalism could not finally expunge biblical truth, that lives can still be transformed by putting trust in Jesus. But it easily degenerated into an expression of the church’s frustration, its fear of irrelevance, its desperation to maintain its privileged position within the Christendom paradigm. This, I think, explains why for so many people, both inside and outside the church, evangelism has become an embarrassing and offensive form of religious activity.

Within emerging paradigms, therefore, we probably need to start by asking: What is God really doing here? What is the nature of our exceptional existence? If, as someone suggested to me last night, the church might see itself, for example, as a sign of urban renewal - a missional, worshipping community of compassion and justice that resists the corrupting, soul-destroying forces of urban life - evangelism should be an expression, a public articulation, of precisely that re-orientation and the new possibilities that it opens up. The very existence of such communities is an announcement to post-modern, post-Christendom Western society that the creator God has not given up, that he has not simply capitulated to the forces of rationalism, materialism and cultural disorder, that Jesus still has the name which is above every name. That is ‘good news’.

This ‘announcement’, embodied in the whole life and practice of a community, is bound to have ‘personal’ implications; it is bound to impact individual lives; and some people are bound to hear in it an invitation from the God who has not given up. But it arises out of the concrete, biblically and prophetically interpreted, experience of a community. To a large extent our modern forms of personal evangelism have lost touch with this narrative-theological framework. We have put the cart before the horse. We have started at the wrong end, with the isolated personal experience, and as a result evangelism has become stripped of both meaning and integrity.

I have not read the following books, but I imagine they are worth considering as resources for this debate. Other recommendations are welcome.

Bryan P. Stone, Evangelism after Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness
Brad J. Kallenberg, Live to Tell: Evangelism in a Postmodern Age
See also Rogier Bos’ article on this site about Kallenberg’s ‘Conversion converted’ article in the Evangelical Quarterly.

Oh, and I think Re: Mission: Biblical Mission for a Post-Biblical Church, which I have read, also helps to set evangelism and mission within a narrative biblical framework.

And ‘The meaning of “gospel” in Romans’.

No votes yet

Comments

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

Quote:

But it easily degenerated into an expression of the church’s frustration, its fear of irrelevance, its desperation to maintain its privileged position within the Christendom paradigm. This, I think, explains why for so many people, both inside and outside the church, evangelism has become an embarrassing and offensive form of religious activity.

I think there’s more to evangelism at the lay level than these sentiments. There are some deeply rooted worldview differences between the modern and emerging streams which first show their heads practically on this subject.

Whether or not it was held formally as theology, or believed by the average modern Evangelical churchgoer, the following picture was painted:

—Everyone was destined from birth to burn eternally in hell.
—God has offered a way to escape this by believing some things about what Jesus did.
—’Salvation’ means escaping eternal torment in hell.
—’being a Christian’ means believing some things about what Jesus did
—Therefore ‘salvation’ and ‘being a Christian’ are synonymous
—Unless you believe these things about what Jesus did, you will be tormented eternally in hell.

Now it can’t be denied that a great many people held, and still hold, this worldview. And people who took seriously its implications were acting in the most natural way, if they had an ounce of compassion in them, towards everyone who didn’t call themselves a Christian. There is a quotation that is often used in sermons on evangelism, which rather summarises the urgency felt by holders of this worldview:

Charles Pearce wrote:

Sir, I do not share your faith. But if I did - if I believed what you say you believed - then although England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would crawl the length and breadth of it on hand and knee and think the pain worthwhile, just to save a single soul from this eternal hell of which you speak.

Modern Evangelicals actually fall on the side of traditional Christian beliefs in this particular area - and on this question both Catholics and Protestants agreed all through the Reformation period. “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

The Emerging Church has fallen silent on the topic of hell, embarrassed by its portrayal all through Christian history. It is the subject to be avoided at all costs: instead let’s talk about God’s restoration of the planet, and justice, and other things. But the question of God’s justice is most pertinent when discussing hell. We need to decide what we believe about hell and then start talking about it again, if what we believe is different from what modern Evangelicalism held.

I know no better treatments of the subject than C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce. But more can be said, and needs to be said. Instead of glossing over the matter and jumping to a new concept and definition of Evangelism, we need to get back to the root of the disagreement. We need to understand clearly what we believe about hell in order to form a cohesive worldview in which evangelism has its place.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

Some good points - and well put. I agree that the emerging church has kept too quiet about the doctrine of ‘hell’, but I’m not sure C.S. Lewis is the answer. It seems to me that Lewis is still too preoccupied with ‘hell’ as an individual post-mortem destiny. I don’t think the root of the issue from a biblical perspective is to be found in whether individuals will be saved or suffer eternal torment if they are not.

So I’m a bit disappointed that you regard my admittedly hasty summary of the corporate narrative of proclamation as ‘glossing over the matter and jumping to a new concept and definition of Evangelism’. It seems to me that there is considerable substance to it and that we should explore this before resorting to the affirmations of modern evangelicals, no matter how illustrious. But I agree absolutely: ‘We need to understand clearly what we believe about hell in order to form a cohesive worldview in which evangelism has its place.’ We should talk more about this!

There has been a lot of discussion about hell on this site. You could have a look at ‘How context contextualizes the language of hell’, ‘The destruction of body and soul in gehenna’, ‘Emerging Visions of Hell: What are their consequences for missional living and intra-church relations?’ or the extremely long thread ‘Jesus, “Hell,” and Destructive Relationships’.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

I apologise: I need to explore this site more before saying that people have kept quiet on the topic!

I wasn’t accusing you specifically of glossing over the matter, Andrew. I agree with your synopsis. I meant that more generally, most Emergent conversationalists seem to redefine evangelism without mentioning what they believe about individuals’ eternal destiny. They don’t go far enough back behind the issue of evangelism to touch on the cause of different beliefs about evangelism. Surely if ‘unsaved individual souls’ will burn forever in hell, then ‘saving’ them is still infinitely more important than caring for the environment, influencing politics, and even looking after the poor and oppressed?

So I think there is a lack of communication between Emergents and Evangelicals on the subject of evangelism, because of underlying issues that haven’t yet been discussed. It’s no wonder modern Evangelicals still place such a high importance on evangelism considering their beliefs about hell! And until we can explain what we believe about hell, there’s no point emphasising the importance of justice, ecology, poverty, etc. They will just turn round and say “I’m saving people from an eternity of torment and you’re bothering me about 70 years of poverty?”

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

There’s an interesting and very thoughtful contribution to this subject from six years ago here, which I suspect would chime with Andrew’s position.

I also suspect that in wanting to throw out the bathwater of poor evangelistic practice, which they find offensive, emergent postmoderns are also in danger of throwing out the baby of what evangelism has always been all about - namely the presentation of Jesus, in particular the NT selected accounts of who he was, what he did, and who and what he continues to be and do today (Acts 1:1). Jesus is presented in this way verbally as well as by the church’s actions (cp Matthew 5:16). This always calls for an individual response, as well as having a corporate significance.

Andrew is saying something which I think is unique: that there is little if anything that is of direct relevance to us today in the NT accounts of Jesus and the apostles - in the gospels and the letters. It is not surprising therefore that he has some difficulty in describing what is left over for the church today in relation to the original NT faith. Euangelion, or gospel, means something entirely different for today’s church from what it meant to 1st century Christians (in his view).

Oh and Andrew, it’s time the promotion for my second and third books graced the main section of the homepage - with a nice thumbnail of the cover please. I need to get the message out there.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

Andrew is saying something which I think is unique: that there is little if anything that is of direct relevance to us today in the NT accounts of Jesus and the apostles - in the gospels and the letters.

No, Peter, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying. The New Testament euangelion, though contextualized, is directly relevant to us in two respects.

First, from a narrative-historical point of view, we are part of a people that was saved and transformed by Jesus’ death for the sins of Israel. We participate directly in the Spirit; we live directly under Christ’s lordship. The historical narrative itself can be good news for the whole world, but this good news is mediated through the changing historical existence of the community of blessing.

Secondly, Jesus’ resurrection came to be seen not just as a vindication and restoration of Israel but also as the beginning of a new creation - it becomes genuinely cosmic. The people that was renewed through his faithfulness finds itself existing as an anticipation of the new heavens and new earth. Inasmuch as we share directly in Jesus’ resurrection, we constitute the possibility of new creation - and with considerable humility we communicate that hope to the world.

So I would suggest that we relate narratively or historically or diachronically to the good news of Israel’s salvation; we relate existentially or cosmically or synchronically to the good news of new creation. Both axes intersect in Jesus.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

Andrew - I think I did understand you - or at least, I am drawing out the implications of what I understand you to be saying.

The people that was saved and transformed by Jesus’s death was historic Israel - according to your view. It was their history, not ours, according to you, that the death of Jesus was addressing. By implication, the resurrection of Jesus was for them rather than for us. Or where is it suggested that the death of Jesus was for them, but the resurrection was for everyone?

How do we then become part of that people? On what grounds may we participate directly in the Spirit?

Your explanation bypasses the need for personal encounter of people today with the cross of Jesus. But I would say that the death of Jesus is as essential for dealing with the problems of the old creation in our lives just as it was in Israel’s life, and the resurrection can only introduce the new creation following the necessary accomplishment of the cross for us just as it did for them.

This is my understanding of the New Testament, and the perspective it brings to provide an understanding of the Old.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

The people that was saved and transformed by Jesus’s death was historic Israel - according to your view. It was their history, not ours, according to you, that the death of Jesus was addressing. By implication, the resurrection of Jesus was for them rather than for us. Or where is it suggested that the death of Jesus was for them, but the resurrection was for everyone?

A people was saved by Jesus’ death - hence the words of the angel to Joseph: ‘She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ In the first place, that people is identified as historic Israel, because it is historic Israel, centred on Jerusalem and the temple, that faces the judgment prescribed by the terms of its covenant with YHWH.

But historic Israel as defined by the Law and the land was a historically conditioned expression of the ‘family’ or ‘descendants’ of Abraham, which is why Paul can argue in Galatians 3:7 that it is ‘those of faith who are the sons of Abraham’. So while historic Israel did not escape the wrath of YHWH, a remnant of this people was saved on the basis of faith.

The distinction that you make between ‘their history’ and ours is a false one: we are part of the same story. We have become members of a people which at that moment in its story was saved by the faithfulness of Jesus and of those who followed him down the narrow and dangerous path that led to life.

The resurrection of Jesus on the third day was the ‘resurrection’ of a people that had been subjected to punishment because of its sin:

Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (Hos. 6:1-2)

This forms part of a narrative about the salvation of the people that had inherited the promise to Abraham.

But - and here’s the important development - because Jesus’ resurrection itself was not metaphorical but real, a matter of a new ontology rather than merely of historical transformation, I think it comes to be seen an event with direct implications for the whole cosmos - and therefore for the whole of humanity (mediated by the ‘mission’ of the restored people of God). I think we see something of this transfer in Romans 8:18-25, where, as I have argued both here and in Re: Mission, the resurrection that is a vindication of suffering, faithful Israel is regarded by the whole of creation as a foretaste of its own eventual redemption from its bondage to death and decay.

So the resurrection was both for them and for us, but according to different narratives.

Does this historical approach make the cross irrelevant for people today? No, because resurrection as a cosmic event is just as much a victory over death as resurrection as the culmination of the story of corporate renewal that dominates the New Testament. So I think we still need to say that the dying to the old humanity and assumption of a new humanity that is entailed in becoming part of God’s new creation people is a participation in the death and resurrection of the cosmic Christ. But this thought is marginal to the primary concern of the New Testament, which has to do with the historical salvation of a people facing terminal judgment, on the one hand, and a drawn-out conflict with Rome, on the other.

Re: Evangelism before and after Christendom

At the moment I believe that mankind is worthy of universal judgement. But I also believe that that universal judgement was fully meted out in the flood and that God’s relationship with mankind now is one of accommodation. The idea of a universal eternal-pain-in-hell judgement to come is a contradiction of the obvious implications of the flood narratives. In Noah, God has agreed not to judge the world as a whole any more. The consequence of this is that man must forge his own destiny independently of God and subject to mortality and subject to him bearing the (earthly) effects of his own sin.

The gift of Jesus is the answer for those individuals who do not want to go the way of the world. It is the gift for those in the line of Seth as opposed to those in the line of Abel. If there is a resurrection (which I think is a probable interpretation of the New Testament) then it is a resurrection in which everybody will see the chance they missed and then be thrown in the fire of destruction or a resurrection to eternal life in Christ.

As noted in another thread a while ago, I don’t believe the flood was historical but is a myth (or literary device) to explain God’s present relationship with us (just as the Garden of Eden narratives also are).

Evangelism is therefore the announcement not of salvation from eternal hell but of power and meaning in life (i.e. this life), a reversal of the spiral of sin, selfishness and degradation inherent in man as he is now, justified and consummated in the resurrection to eternal life. The church is (and/or ought (i.e. its mission is) to be) the New Jerusalem - big enough for everybody, full of the healing power of the spirit and full of the moral purity of disciples - the one place on Earth where God is fully and substantially present. That presence is effectively the prime earthly benefit of Christ’s atoning work because it reverses the effect of the fall of man in Adam, which was to prevent access to the Garden, thus excluding direct contact between man and God.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.