The Wanderings of a Theological Vagabond

Evangelism is destroying the Church. Our constant focus on bringing those outside our communities inside, with little focus on genuinely making disciples has left our Churches a ‘mile wide, but merely an inch deep’ (to borrow an overused cliche). I think a redefinition of ‘evangelism’ is in order for the restoration of the fidelity of our Christian communities.

Our Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are internally divided being far more concerned with condemning homosexuality or ending abortion than making genuine disciples of Christ.  And even when we ‘evangelize’ individuals, we teach them that all God requires of them is to feel sorry and ask God to press the ‘reset’ button.  The combination of an constantly tumultuously  Christianity and the ever increasing number of converts convinced by an oversimplified Gospel has left the contemporary Church without a voice in our American culture.  Some churches (read: Emerging Church) are seeking to rectify this problem but their answers thus far (start new ‘cohorts’) has largely just contributed to the problem (although I give them many kudos for at least trying).  In order to genuinely rectify this situation, our ‘Evangelism’ needs reconstruction.

Evangelism, in America, would better be defined as converting Christians to become disciples of Jesus before convincing those outside the Church to follow Him. This concept will come as quite disconcerting for many within our local communities, but provided the opportunity, a Biblical and historical case can be made in defense of this new definition.

What does the Bible say?

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Mathew 28.19-20)

If one truly wishes to be true to the Gospel’s account of the ‘Great Commission‘ then they must be concerned primarily with Making Disciples (there is no mention of conversions according to our contemporary definition) by baptizing and teaching them to obey the teachings of Jesus. I dare say that to rigidly interpret this commission as ‘go tell unconverted people they’re going to hell unless they pray to Jesus for forgiveness of their sins’ is a bit of a stretch from this Biblical text.

The Gospel of Mathew teaches

And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly {poison,} it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mathew 16.15)

This passage actually would strongly suggest an outward focus on evangelism. This passage fails to conflict my thesis though. Our redefinition of evangelism should be viewed as a recalling of God’s people from exile, so that they may once again become a beacon to the world around them. At what point will our ranks become so spread and divisive that the building will collapse onto its ever-weakening foundation?

Also, if we are going to rigidly interpret the Mark passage as universally binding then we also must provide the necessary signs for each conversion. I’d like to see Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron offer those kind of statistics.

Next post I will begin to survey the definitions of ‘evangelism’ throught Church history and interact with contemporary thought on this issue. In the meantime, I would love to hear your thoughts on my proposition thus far.

Earl

Post a Comment