I can still remember the failed evangelistic attempts of my Christian friends in high school. I was a non-practicing Jew, and they were "born again" Christians. During a skiing trip, one friend in particular kept trying to get me to listen to his "Christian" rock music, arguing that the quality was just as good. Well, frankly, the quality wasn't as good, and I just wasn't interested in religious music anyway. When I refused to bite, he tried to show me the clear "Christian" lyrics in the U2 tape I was listening to. "Did you know that the Son, 'Two Hearts Beat as One' is about a Christian view of marriage?" "No I didn't," I responded, "But who cares. It's just good music." Just for the record, that isn't exactly what U2's song is about.
Upon returning home, I dumped all my ski equipment in the back of my closet, along with the copy of More Than A Carpenter that was basically forced upon me. I also remember working as a waiter during those years. I especially hated having to work on Sundays because I didn't particularly enjoy all the "church people." It's not that I was biased about religious individuals, I just didn't like getting evangelistic tracts rather than tips (especially offensive were the tracts designed to look like dollar bills).
But a funny thing happened a few years later. I had just started my first semester at a nearby community college and was reading sections of the Old Testament which I hadn't picked up since before my Bar Mizpah at age 13. In my readings I came across a passage that literally floored me: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are of old, from ancient times" (Micah 5:2). I had seen all of the animated Christmas specials year after year, so I knew what the implications of "Bethlehem" were. In short, I was an over-night convert; in fact, the very next day I went out and purchased a copy of the New Testament and began reading it with a believing heart.
After this extraordinary event in my life, I hooked up with my Christian friends who were always trying to get me to come to their Bible studies. This time, however, I actually wanted to study the Bible. My friends were very excited over my conversion and invited me to their "Friday Night Bible Study." Unfortunately for me, it was not primarily a study of anything. There was a lot of guitar singing, and fellowship, but very little study. And wouldn't you know it, before I had a chance to dive into the punch and cookies, I was whisked off to go street witnessing with all the guys. They gave me a stack of tracts and told me to hand them out to folks on the pier. I felt quite awkward about this. I wondered to myself, "Have I become one of those religious weirdos you see in the airports?" But in my evangelistic zeal to share the transforming message about Jesus, I followed along.
That was ten years ago. Looking back on those days often makes me cringe. There I was, brand new to the faith, and within a year I had street witnessed, gone door to door, answered phones for the Billy Graham Crusade hotline, helped out teaching Sunday School to children in juvenile hall, and even considered becoming an overseas missionary with YWAM. The only problem was, I didn't really know what the Gospel was.
My experience is not unique. I have had a number of folks with similar stories to tell, some who are no longer Christians. This problem occurs when we push evangelism from our pulpits rather than the Evangel. I can honestly say that I never once heard the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone during the first two years of my Christian walk, but I sure had it drilled into my head that I needed to go out there and witness. The problem was, I knew I was to be a witness, but I didn't quite have down what it was I was to witness about.
The Pursuit of the Practical
In just one of his epistles, Paul could have guided us all through the "Four Spiritual Steps Toward Effective Evangelism," but he didn't. The apostles seemed to think that their time was best spent in defense of the Gospel message and in clarifying doctrinal questions. How boring! I want to know how to reach the busters, how to "grow" a church, how to plan a crusade, how to witness on a plane, how to, how to, how to…. But of these questions there is no end. The Bible, however, is simply not a "how-to" manual. But that's fine, because how-to manuals are outdated before any other kind of book (You have seen these types of books on sale for a quarter each at your neighbor's garage sale). The Bible gives us information that will not be outdated through the passage of time, and it does this by convincing arguments and by appealing to objective truth. Truth does not go out of style, and it does not become irrelevant. It may get ignored every once-in-a-while, but it does not lose its relevance.
Unfortunately for me, most of the people I met both before and after my conversion seemed to think that techniques and practical matters were more relevant than the truth which they neglected to teach me. It is at this point that I find a sharp contrast between today's evangelistic appeals and the content of apostolic preaching.
Theological Training
What good is a message without content? As I related in the beginning of this article, I was sent out street witnessing the first day I went to a Bible study. But our Lord's admonition is not like the shampoo commercial where, "You tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on…" Rather, our Lord's command was that we "go and make disciples of all nations…" Part of the problem in America is that we view evangelism as if it were simply getting folks to make a decision. We have been so influenced by Arminianism and anti-intellectualism that we have almost completely ignored discipleship. But it does make sense that you would train a person in the basics of the faith before you send him out to the mission field, doesn't it?
Unfortunately we don't do this. Therefore we must recover the lost art of catechism and theological training. If we did this, there would be less emphasis on the "stuff of evangelism" and more emphasis on the "stuff of the Evangel." Folks would cease trying to sell their religion by manipulative techniques, and would begin sharing their faith in convincing, thoughtful, and articulate ways. Just look at the Apostles' prayers and instructions in regards to equipping the saints:
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight (Phil 1:9).
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16).
Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:18).
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Tm 2:15).
Once a person has been thoroughly equipped so that he can "correctly handle the word of truth," then he can do the work of an evangelist. But not until then. Until a person can rightly distinguish the Law from the Gospel, he should not consider evangelistic enterprises. For how can one preach effectively, unless he first shows a person the demands of God's Law? And how can one comfort those terrorized by the Law, unless he preaches the Gospel in all of its sweetness?
Another point that needs to be made here is the fact that witnessing to others about Christ must be theologically based or it will wind up being testimonial. In other words, if I don't have a solid understanding of the doctrines of the Christianity, I will inevitably end up talking about the effects of religion on my life, rather than the objective message of the Gospel itself. J. Gresham Machen is helpful at this point:
From the beginning Christianity was a campaign of witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merely what Jesus was doing within the recesses of the individual life. To take the words of Acts in that way is to do violence to the context and to all the evidence. On the contrary, the Epistles of Paul and all the sources make it abundantly plain that the testimony was primarily not to inner spiritual facts but to what Jesus had done once for all in his death and resurrection.
Christianity is based, then, upon an account of something that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it is rather important that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a man takes his seat upon the witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important thing is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (1)
Effective, Christ-centered, evangelism must therefore be based on the "facts" of Christianity, not the "effects." When you think about this, it makes perfect sense. Just about any religion or ideology can make a difference in a person's life, and yet, all of these different belief systems cannot be simultaneously true. But if a religion is presented first of all as being true, then it has implications on everyone, not just those for whom it is helpful. This brings me to my next point.
Whatever Happened to Apologetics?
Why was I so surprised to see the passage I found in Micah 5:2? Because no one ever showed it to me. In their zeal to convert me, my friends spent all their energy thinking of techniques by which I could be saved, rather than approaching me with sound arguments in support of Christianity. What they didn't realize is that I thought all religion was absurd, so all of their attempts to get me to read Christian books or to listen to Christian tapes were equally absurd. But in my case, a simple discussion of fulfilled messianic prophecy could have been an open door to sharing the Gospel with me. All they had to do was to give me reasons for their faith.
Apologetics is a crucial ingredient missing in much of contemporary evangelism. The Apostle Peter gives us the clear and familiar admonition to: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pt 3:15). But we do the exact opposite. We don't give reasons for the hope that we have; we simply force our faith on others in the form of tracts, booklets, and cassettes. And very few of us take the time to prepare ourselves for the tough questions of the faith that non-believer might ask us. But there is much wisdom in Peter's command. Just look at the example of Peter himself in his famous Sermon at Pentecost:
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know…God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (Acts 2:22, 32).
Notice that Peter did not simply demand blind faith. Whereas in evangelical circles you might see a shirt or bumper sticker with the slogan, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," Peter here appeals to commonly known evidence (as you yourselves know), and eyewitness accounts for the authority of his claims. Peter just didn't have time for evangelistic techniques. He was convinced that the message he was preaching was true, and that is why he gave solid and convincing reasons for his faith, as he explained the meaning of the cross and resurrection. And we must not forget the success of Peter's sermon either, for Luke records that "about three thousand were added to their number that day."
Stephen is another good example of the importance of apologetics in evangelism. In Acts 6:9-10, Luke records that as men were arguing with Stephen about the strange new teachings of Christianity, "they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke." We can take a few things from this passage. First of all, it is all right to argue. By this I am referring to the exchange of propositions, not hostile confrontation. Many American Christians think that arguing is a negative thing, but we are called to argue for the truth of Christianity in the same way an attorney would argue for his client's innocence. Another thing we can take from Stephen's example is the fact that no one could stand up to his wisdom, or the Spirit by whom he spoke. The Holy Spirit likes sound arguments and sanctifies them for his own use. Is it any wonder that he is called the "Spirit of Truth?"
Then there is the example of Paul. This apostle's message was simple. In the words of Festus, Paul was obsessed with "a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (Acts 25:19). He was not like many of these religious mystics who constantly speculate on spiritual and religious matters. This man was convinced that the whole issue of religion was wrapped up in one thing, and in one thing only; "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Paul was comfortable with this type evangelism because, as he explained to Festus and King Agrippa, "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).
Apologetics then is a way to give credibility to the Gospel message. It prevents your listeners from thinking, "Oh, this is one of those religious messages." If Jesus really did rise again from the dead in time-and-space history, then his claims about himself are vindicated. This is why for Paul it all hinges on the resurrection. But you know, in all my years as a non-Christian, I never once heard this type of message. Sure, I saw the bumper stickers that said, "Try God," or "Give Jesus a Chance." But those appeals only made me feel pity for the Christian deity. I had simply never heard of a God who had "given proof [of his coming judgment] to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead" (Acts 17:31). Christianity is not afraid of the truth, it is upheld by the truth. Therefore we must make every effort to remove every obstacle from the eyes of an unbelieving world.
Conclusion
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the person who has done a little work in basic theology and apologetics will probably not have to spend much time with various evangelistic techniques. Those who confidently know what they believe, and why they believe it, are ready at all times to "give a reason for the hope that [they] have." They know both how to articulate the hope that they have (the Gospel), and to give convincing reasons for it (apologetics). This type of evangelism isn't done only on Friday nights down by the pier, and it isn't something that has to be scripted. It springs forth naturally from a confident heart standing firm in a reasonable faith, well-saturated in the Gospel of grace.
There are a lot of people in this world who are still at the place I was ten years ago. They think religion is an absurd, trivial and meaningless pursuit, and the fish on your car simply won't convince them otherwise. Please, for their sake, do the work of a well seasoned evangelist, giving them reasons for the hope that is within you. New evangelistic ideas and techniques will come and go, but don't settle for them. Follow, rather, the Apostle's instructions when he encouraged Timothy to "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction" (2 Tm 4:2).
