Evangelism’s Hidden Assumptions: When Theory & Praxis Contradict
Central to the Christian faith is the task of evangelism. Orthodox Christians affirm this need for witnessing in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth (cf. Acts 1:8). Nonetheless, bearing witness to the cross of Christ comes with its own unique challenges and principles about its content, as well as its approach or method.
Among these challenges are some important basic assumptions. For example, the evangelist assumes that his task is God-ordained, and rightly so. Why else risk one’s life and reputation if God hath not said, “Go and preach”? Another example, the evangelist assumes that this Gospel is not something that is optional for everlasting life. Indeed, any notion of pluralism or inclusivism becomes acceptable if Christ’s atoning work is merely one of many ways.
Although one’s presuppositions are often unstated, they shape praxis. As a result, the Christian must evaluate what assumptions he is making in his practice. What assumptions does contemporary evangelism entail? This essay will highlight three different, yet common assumptions that are pervasive today in evangelicalism, and especially in Arminian Baptist circles.
Dualism Run Amuck
The term “soul-winning” has been around for quite some time in American Christianity. Some in fundamentalist circles may associate the term with a John R. Rice title [1]. Others, particularly younger ministers, may believe the term is simply dated. Regardless of one’s preference, it is this interesting juxtaposition of ‘soul’ and ‘winning’ that is in question here.
What is assumed when evangelism is practiced through the conceptual lens of “soul-winning”? The Christian tradition has long affirmed the fact that man consists of at least two related, yet distinct parts: body and soul [2]. Yet the connections between these two are inseparable. Man was created to function as a unified whole, even if he has various faculties, e.g., intellect, affections, will. While some early Christian heresies taught that material entities such as the body are evil, biblical Christianity has always affirmed the intrinsic goodness of the body. Simply put, embodiment is not a bad thing!
Yet the language of soul-winning can lead to or at the very least support that mentality. If Christians understand that they are under sin’s curse, and that sin will lead to their ultimate condemnation and death, they must understand that God’s redemptive work extends both to the spirit and the body. Despite the fact that our bodies will return to the earth (assuming we die before the Second Coming) the resurrection of Christ has implications for the future of our bodies. The language and logic of 1 Corinthians 15 spells this out explicitly.
It should be noted that the use of ‘soul’ as synecdoche is acceptable. Indeed, most English translations of Acts 2:41 bear this out: “many souls were added to the church.” Referring to people as souls that need saving or another person as “a kind old soul” makes sense as far as English idiom goes. Yet sometimes one’s terminology betrays what they really believe. Theological discourse is no different. If we speak about soul-winning as a task that has more to do with our winning efforts in some contests, or if we speak of it with the mentality that God is interested in rescuing untarnished souls from worthless tombs, this may do violence to the call for bodily consecration in Romans 12:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 3:16-17. One’s theology of salvation is warped if this is the case.
Prevenient Grace Requiem
Another important assumption tied to a theological concept is that of the nature of saving grace. Some notion of prevenient grace has always been present in the larger Arminian and Wesleyan tradition. The fact that man can freely choose or reject God’s grace only makes sense when we understand it is grace that is first offered by an initiatory act of God. We choose Him only because He first chose us.
Many times, however, a minister’s approach in issuing forth invitations for response in worship betrays the aforementioned position on how men are drawn to God. This is true in personal evangelistic encounters, corporate evangelism, and in worship services. The critic may point to examples in the New Testament as evidence to the contrary. Words such as “persuaded,” “convinced,” “reasoned,” and “disputed” permeate the New Testament text (particularly Acts). It is certainly true that a call to accept the Gospel is not an endeavor abstracted from heartfelt concern, passion, and urgency.
However, the tendency always exists to feel that conversion rests primarily on the evangelist’s efforts in the moment of their presentation and appeal. The pulpiteer may prolong an invitation at the end of a service (even when there are only so many stanzas to a hymn), or a new Christian may feel defeated as they leave their first evangelistic encounter without seeing a conversion. However disappointments such as these can and should be tempered by the fact that 1) the Spirit can and must do what we cannot, and 2) depravity runs far deeper in people than we often realize.
The impact that sin has had on all human faculties is often underestimated by zealous evangelists. All so-called irrefutable historical and philosophical facts can be wielded in an evangelistic encounter, while the irrational, self-deceived unbeliever may blithely continue in their disbelief. This is a reality seen in Scripture, and it is observable to any who have been witnesses very long. The evangelist must not presume that the depth of depravity, prevenient grace, and the power of the Spirit are not factors that shape our evangelism.
Mere Belief
Perhaps the most pernicious lie that Satan has marshaled in his quest to hinder the church’s work is that mere mental assent is equivalent to biblical faith. Yet any believer who has read the epistle of James is aware that faith apart from works is no faith at all (cf. Jas. 2:14-26). Even demons’ theological views are orthodox. They know Jesus is Lord, and they shudder.
Many evangelistic programs and literature, especially in the latter part of the 20th century, have promoted formulaic approaches to evangelism that perpetuate this faulty practice of ensuring that one simply make the proper profession and they consent to an orthodox doctrinal statement. While this unquestionably has a role in evangelism and discipleship, do the practices of the church provide significant space for that profession to be tested through catechesis, discipline, and visible growth?
Let it be said promptly that delaying baptism, for instance, is not the cure-all answer to ensuring that individuals who say they are converted are truly converted only after the body of Christ decides those converts aren’t “sheer believers.” At the same time, does it not accord with Scriptural wisdom and church tradition to squelch the pursuit of worldly aplomb that causes churches to be filled with theologically orthodox, practicing atheists?
Conclusion
These are just a few of many concerns that could be raised concerning the state of Protestant evangelism in our present day. Certainly the wisdom of the whole counsel of God has always been crucial to faithful proclamation. Yet in these “spiritual, but not religious” days it would serve the bride of Christ will to reflect carefully upon her theological assumptions as she engages the world with the Gospel.
_______________________________________
[1] See John R. Rice, The Soul-Winner’s Fire, and Personal Soul-Winning: How to Do It.
[2] I realize that other anthropological models exist and have existed in the history of Christianity (especially in the 20th and 21st centuries). Yet some version of dualism has been the most common perspective. See John Cooper’s Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
April 15, 2011
I agree mostly. I really liked the Mere Belief section. It frustrates and saddens me that a lot of times it doesn’t matter how you say it, people just don’t understand that they themselves are trapped. You try your best to explain the beautiful lie they are living in, but they don’t listen. They assume the message is for the “hypocrites” around them without realizing that they in fact are perfect reflections of the people they hate. I guess the only thing that can wake them up is the Holy Spirit. Anyhow, good essay. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed reading it. 😀 [originally submitted on 4 August 2010]