I read an interesting article last week called Rabbinic Questioning – A better way to Evangelize. It was adapted by Randy Newman from his book Questioning Evangelism: Engaging People's Hearts the Way Jesus Did. He writes about using effective questions (in contrast to spouting off explanations) as a better way to do Evangelism.
I found this particularly interesting because of a tape series I heard years ago by Os Guinness on apologetics. He said almost everything Newman said, except he was talking about apologetics, not evangelism. This dovetails with a conclusion I have been coming to over the years: "Evangelism" and "apologetics" are an unhelpful segmentation of Christian witness.
When I hear "evangelism," my mind turns to images of telling another person why they out to be a Christian and inviting them to become one. Maybe it is a rational presentation of the gospel story, a personal testimony, or perhaps the "Four Spiritual Laws" formalistic approach, followed by an invitation. Of course, a Billy Graham Crusade comes to mind as well.
Apologetics is most closely aligned in my mind with the idea of defending the faith. The apologist has an answer to every question. Theistic proofs are studied and mastered. An arsenal of arguments exposing flaws of competing positions is developed.
The problem with this notion of evangelism is that I find very few people are interested in my faith or the Christian story. They are usually happy it works for me if I tell them my story. The problem with this idea of apologetics is that I believe the Word of God is full of mystery, paradox, and nuance. I also see my objective as introducing someone to the lover of my soul, not to win an argument. So what to do about evangelism and apologetics?
Os Guinness observes that human beings are in a dilemma because of our fallen condition. Our lives gain eternal meaning and purpose only from God, but because of our sin, we are isolated from God and don't know how to come back into relationship. We can't live in isolation from God, so we create a culture to give meaning and purpose to our existence. But, if we look too closely at culture, we see that what the culture offers is an illusion (although it is a powerful illusion.) We can't live in isolation from God. We can't fully embrace the culture if we probe too deeply. So, what do we do: Diversion.
Guinness suggests that the cultural sham of meaning is sufficient enough to hold most of society most of the time, as long as people don't dig too deep. To keep people from going too deep, the culture offers diversion. Maybe it is materialism. Perhaps it is an inordinate focus on family. Maybe it is a single-minded focus on some achievement. Then there are the less socially sanctioned diversions, or self-medications, like additions to substances, sex, or gambling.
Because of these effective diverting tactics, most people are sufficiently content. They are not asking the question for which we are offering an answer through Jesus Christ. They do not adequately feel the tension between the reality of their lives and the sham the culture offers. At most, maybe 2-3% of the population is in sufficient enough tension that they are asking the question. Often this occurs during traumatic life changes like a divorce, the death of a loved one, or financial ruin. So, must we wait for trauma to hit before we can effectively get people to where they can hear the gospel?
This is where I think we need a new understanding of apologetics. The root word that apologetics essentially means "giving a word back." More about this tomorrow.
Leave a Reply