I wonder what Paul would say were he to sit in on much of what is called ‘evangelism’ in America.  Would Paul point out inadequacies with what passes for ‘good news’ in contemporary communities of Jesus’ disciples?  From what he wrote in his letters and from what Luke records of his activities, it is quite probable that Paul would take issue with the presentation of today’s version of ‘good news.’  What might Paul of Tarsus say is wrong with ‘evangelism’ in its early 21st century American ‘evangelical’ incarnation?  What corrections might need to be made to our message and, in light of that, our methods?   

Extracted from the full, rich, and enculturated writings of the New Testament authors, distilled down to palatable and marketable ‘timeless truths’, and compressed into short pithy statements, the ‘evangelistic’ message today presents itself  in roughly the following formula:  You are a sinner.  Sinners go to hell.  Believe that Jesus died for your sins and ‘paid the price’ for you. (Perhaps) be baptized—depending on your particular denominational affiliation. Publicly profess your agreement with a certain list of doctrinal statements.  So that you can have assurance that you will go to heaven when you die. 

We must say that this is surely not the gospel—the very best we can say is that it is a partial gospel.[i]  Certain implications drawn from such formulations are even counter to the gospel.[ii]  What then is ‘the gospel’?  Perhaps we might be helped by clarifying what ‘a gospel’ is.

A gospel is a declaration of the good news of a new reality.  In the context of the world of Paul and the recipients of his letters, Caesar’s gospel was, “Rome is here!  Caesar is now your king!  Now you can be under the rule of the greatest government, military, and economy in the world! (And if you don’t like it, we have swords and crosses to help you rethink your position.)” 

In contrast, the good news (euangellion) that Jesus proclaimed, thoroughly grounded in Jewish expectations of return from exile, was, “The Kingdom of God is on the way!  God is returning as king!  Now you can be under the rule of YHWH!”  The euangellion  was a proclamation of an inbreaking reality (the kingdom of God is near) and a summons for people to rethink what it means to be part of the people of God by placing their confidence in Jesus and his way (repent and believe).

Paul articulated this in more direct confrontation with Roman Imperial claims, but still grounded in Jewish expectations.[iii]  Paul’s good news was, “God is king!  Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by Israel and therefore, the Lord of the whole world!  Now you can be citizens of a kingdom that will outlast even Rome!”  Obviously there is more to what Paul was saying, but right away one can see how different these proclamations are from many contemporary expressions of ‘good news.’ 

This brings me to my big question.  How might contemporary articulations of good news (i.e., evangelistic message and methods) be realigned to reflect the gospel as understood by Jesus and by Paul?  I submit that what is needed is not new ways of presenting the current varieties of a ‘partial gospel,’ but a renewed message (which is really the full old message) both told and embodied by Christian communities as well as by individual believers.  

It would seem tidy to identify first, how the message needs to change, and second, how the methods need to change, but as I see it, the message and the method cannot be so easily distinguished.  The message calls for demonstration (method) which calls for explanation (message)—on and on it goes.  Therefore I want to outline some areas of change that I think will need to occur to bring evangelical evangelism more in line with the euangellion.

1. A Renewed Idea of Salvation. The good news is not that we get to go to heaven when we die, but that we no longer need to live as captives in the land of sin.  One significant shift that must be made in our thinking is to restore an appreciation for salvation as deliverance from captivity to sin.  Peterson’s rendering of Romans 6 gets right at the heart of Paul’s idea of salvation: “If we've left the country where sin is sovereign, how can we still live in our old house there? Or didn't you realize we packed up and left there for good? That is what happened in baptism. When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace--a new life in a new land!”

A large part of current ‘gospel’ formulas are concerned with ‘salvation’.  The problem is, however, that ‘salvation’ is usually limited to the idea of being saved from eternal punishment after one dies.  The good news in such formulas is, as the old hymn says, ‘the old account has been settled.’  Again, while this may be true, it is only a part of the whole. 

A further problem, as will be mentioned below, is that salvation has been torn from its cultural contexts (namely the Jewish concept of salvation as deliverance from captivity and exile).  Salvation in Paul’s letters, as with the rest of scripture, is what happens to people while they are still breathing.  Granted, it involves what happens after we die, but any articulation of good news, if it is to be faithful to the scriptures, must move beyond merely making travel plans for the afterlife, and on to qualitative transformation of identity, will, and orientation toward other people.

We need to start thinking of salvation in the terms that Paul did—as living as people who are no longer slaves to sin (citizens of the country of Sin), but are now slaves to righteousness (in the sense of living according to the new reality in the kingdom of God), and sons and daughters of God. 

2. “You Need Some Realized Eschatology.”  If the good news is that the kingdom of God is near—that God is becoming king over the whole earth—then those who profess to be recipients of this good news ought to be living according to another vision of reality.  In other words, if we share in the mission of proclamation of the kingdom, then we ought to live our lives according to God’s inbreaking rule and reign.  Paul puts more ink on paper about how people are to live in this new reality than he does about how we are to go around convincing people that they should.  Why?  Because when people live under the kingdom of God, they won’t have to come up with elaborate means of beating people with ideas.

Such an approach to life, however, will put us in greater conflict with the assumptions of our culture—assumptions, by the way, which are presently and comfortably shared by many in our churches.  If God is king, then the economy isn’t.  If Jesus is Lord, then the individual is not.  Realized eschatology is not merely an intellectual exercise, but something that demands transformation in our individual and corporate investments of time, energy, money, intellect, and desires.  If God is king, and I am not, then out go my power trips.  If Jesus is Lord, and I am not, then out go all my excuses for not forgiving. 

Living under the kingdom of God—a present and future reality—isn’t about doing-what-we-don’t-really-want-to-do-and-not-doing-what-we-really-want-to-do.  It is seeing the incomparable beauty and value of life-under-YHWH, and throwing ourselves headlong into it.  The best thing that could happen to a person is not that they ‘make a decision for Christ,’ get hit by a bus and die.  The best thing that could happen to a person is that they would, in this life, come to know God—rather, to be known by God—and experience the goodness of life under his reign. 

You may be wondering, What does this have to do with evangelism?  Such a life is a demonstration of the good news.  If we had whole communities of people who lived according to such a vision of reality, we would hardly need an evangelism committee/

3. Story Your Life.  In a culture that denies the possibility of an overarching explanation of life, the people of God cannot afford to forget the story that is to shape them. The alternative is to be shaped by the fragmented ‘un-stories’ of our culture. Regrettably, this is already under way.

One of the most urgent needs of our churches is to relearn God’s story—to understand the grand story of God and his people.  In teaching and preaching, we need to be healed of what Winn Griffin has termed versitis and topicalitis.[iv]  Several writers and teachers today have provided very helpful, and sometimes controversial, articulations of the scriptural meta-narrative.  From Stanley Grenz’ Theology for the Community of God, to Brian McLaren’s The Story We Find Ourselves In, to Winn Griffin’s Story v1.1, to N.T. Wright’s series on Christian Origins and the Question of God, and many others, there is a renewed effort to help the church recapture a sense of its identity and eschatological trajectory by relearning ‘God’s Story.’

Pop-evangelicalism, what I see as the current condition of many ‘evangelical’ churches in America, is neither sustainable in its present form nor compelling to people ‘outside’ the church.  What is present is exposition-reduced-to-moralisms, topic-driven teaching, and other ‘programs’ that produce fragmented, individual-centered thinking and acting people, perhaps well-intentioned, but absent of any integrated identity that would be formed by retelling and rehearing its story. 

The impression I get is that most people in pop-evangelical churches are not able to tell the story of the scriptures (either because they do not know what is in the Bible or because they do not have a sense of how it ‘fits together’), and therefore are left to reduce it to a sloganized ‘plan of salvation’.  The frightening reality is that our churches reflect more of the surrounding culture than the story that is supposed to form them as the people of God. 

One significant thing that I think must take place is that preachers and teachers need to start providing their brothers and sisters with an integrated view of the scriptures.  To violently paraphrase Paul, How can they tell the story if they don’t know it?  And how can they know the story if all they hear is ‘How to Pray So You Can Get More’? 

4. Do You Have a Few Years? Let’s Take a Walk.  We need to stop trying to fit the gospel onto bumper stickers.  Todd Hunter’s hypothesis that “something went drastically wrong when a reductionistic rendering of the Gospel got married to the American marketing machine” suggests that minimalization, while perhaps expedient, is not helpful in the long run.  This is a big story and it takes time to get your mind around.  It also takes more than words to understand it.  We can be honest with people and say, “This story is too big for me to tell you in four sentences.  Can we walk together for a few years so you can see it properly?” 

We need to stop thinking in terms of converting people in one conversation, and start thinking of discipling people in terms of years (with conversion perhaps taking place somewhere along the way).  This will not necessarily take place in formal contexts.  It may even take place without people knowing it at first.

It seems to me that as the gospel grips us in the transformation of our lives, the demonstration of the good news (life in the kingdom of God) will grip those with whom we work, play, and live.  Of course we need to be ready to tell people the good news (proclamation), but it is the quality of our lives that will give our words weight (demonstration).  Concurrently, the quality of our lives (demonstration) will require us to explain the reason for our ‘differentness’ (proclamation). 

That’s a Good Start, I Guess.  I hope to see these changes (and more!) take hold, not only in ‘emerging churches’ but in many other local expressions of the church.  Maybe then we can stop trying to market a truncated version of the gospel that tries to give people religiously flavored version of what they want.  Maybe then we can stop being so anxious about “trying to interest the uninterested” as someone said, and start to “pour ourselves into the people who are.”  Maybe then we can stop pouring resources into programs that might make us feel good but produce little of the desired results.  Maybe then we can start pouring our energies into the ‘unhidable life’ that comes with seeking and receiving life in the kingdom of God.  Maybe then evangelism would once again be good news.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Dallas Willard notes some of the various problems with ‘partial’ gospels in The Divine Conspiracy, pp. 35-55.  This article is not concerned with outlining the particular problems with current articulations of ‘good news,’ but, rather, with highlighting certain areas of transition that may be necessary for ‘evangelism’.

[ii] One major implication from certain ‘gospel-as-plan-of-salvation’ views is a dualism that undermines a sense of responsibility for creation.  What matters is the ‘spiritual’, while the ‘natural’ is variously evil and/or insignificant.  Other problems may include making statements of belief, ‘sinners prayers’, and even baptism into their own sort of meritorious ‘works’. 

[iii] A brief outline of this may be found in N.T. Wright’s article, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire” http://www.allelon.net/stories/storyReader$134

[iv] See Winn Griffin’s “Story v1.1” at http://media.t1host.net/gems/allelon/story1.1a.pdf

Print-friendly version of this page