We’ve seen them in all manner of places—on street corners, in parking lots, at craft fairs, outside stadiums. Sometimes they’re on wearing placards, admonishing hearers to “turn or burn.” Or perhaps they’re warning America of coming judgment and doom. Others may prefer challenging individual “sinners” on the street, exposing them to their failure to live up to the Ten Commandments. A common justification from those “witnessing” is: “You need to tell people the bad news before they can listen to the good news.” After all, isn’t the Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)? Isn’t this the reality of Romans 1-3?
My friend Robertson McQuilkin has frequently said, “It is easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical tension.” I think that the “bad-news-first bears” (J) may serve as an example of this extreme. The point is that we should be careful about making hard-and-fast formulas (or, if you like, formulae) about communicating Christ to others. A wider read of Scripture presents a mixed bag; it isn’t a formula—indeed, a “uniformula”—announcing first, “you’re a sinner” and only then “there is a Savior.” I’m not denying hell, judgment, sin, or the need for repentance. Jesus saved his harshest message of judgment for the hard-hearted religious leaders of his day (e.g., Matthew 23), and he called on his hearers to turn/repent and align themselves with God’s kingdom agenda.
That said, Jesus had the strong reputation of being a “friend of sinners.” He reached out to the “unlikelies” of his day—those who, according to the religious authorities, were unlikely recipients of God’s kingdom blessings: tax gatherers, prostitutes, Gentiles, lepers, the ceremonially unclean, the demonized. Jesus let them know that God hadn’t forgotten them, that God was interested in them. Jesus illustrated the point that people need to know you genuinely like them and take an interest in them if your message is to get through to them.
How many of those preaching divine judgment in our day do so with tears in their eyes (Philippians 3:18)? How many of them have the reputation of being “friends of sinners”? How many of them truly follow in the way of the Master? It’s a lot easier to preach a message of judgment than to exemplify Jesus, who actually got involved in the lives of others. As David Kinnaman shows in his book unChristian (Baker), the unchurched are under the general impression that they are the “project” of the professing Christian. Most of them come away from “witnessing” encounters with the impression that Christians—however well-meaning— are also legalistic and arrogant or superior-minded. By contrast, the incarnate Christ had earned a right to be heard by paying the price of friendship with “outsiders.” Unfortunately, many of the law-first-grace-later messengers don’t exude a friend-of-sinners demeanor.
It seems that we should be careful about a formulaic method of communicating the good news. After all, helping people connect with Christ is more a process than it is an event. This process includes friendship, the integrity of Christian character, a loving community, and time process the implications of Christ’s Lordship. (See Greg Boyd’s Letters from a Skeptic [Victor] that nicely illustrates the process—even if you or I may not agree with all of Boyd’s arguments.)
So let’s explore whether we must follow the bad-news-first method—or if there’s more to consider. This is one of my longer pieces; so hang in there with me!
First, people will at some point need to be aware of the bad news, but are we the ones who have to bring this up? Too often we don’t even know where people are coming from. Perhaps they’ve been burned by the church or certain professing Christians, and they may even have a visceral reaction to the term “Christian.” Donald Miller puts it well in his Blue Like Jazz:
In a recent radio interview I was sternly asked by the host, who did not consider himself a Christian, to defend Christianity. I told him that I couldn’t do it, and moreover, that I didn’t want to do defend the term. He asked me if I was a Christian and I told him yes. “Then why don’t you want to defend Christianity?” he asked, confused. I told him I no longer knew what the term meant. Of the hundreds of thousands of people listening to his show that day, some of them had terrible experiences with Christianity, they may have been yelled at by a teacher in a Christian school, abused by a minister, or browbeaten by a Christian parent. To them, the term Christianity meant something that no Christian I know would defend. By fortifying the term, I am only making them more and more angry. I won’t do it. Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity and they will give you ten different answers. How can I defend a term that means ten different things to ten different people? I told the radio show host that I would rather talk about Jesus and how I came to believe that Jesus exists and that he likes me. The host looked back at me with tears in his eyes. When we were done, he asked me if we could go get lunch together. He told me how much he didn’t like Christianity but how he had always wanted to believe Jesus was the Son of God (Blue Like Jazz [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003], 115).
We may come in as spiritual storm-troopers rather than being “quick to listen and slow to speak.” Yet in 1 Peter 3, Peter exhorts wives of unbelieving husbands to focus on the way they live their lives—quietly, gently, virtuously—so that their husbands may be won without a word even though they didn’t believe the word of God (3:1). A virtuous life is a very attractive thing, and such a life may create a spiritual and moral longing in those previously disinterested in Christ—and this without a single word about anything, let alone sin!
Second, I have met plenty of “the encountered” who report that those “witnessing” about the bad-news-first commonly come across sounding judgmental, legalistic, and morally-superior, arrogant, and so on. Yes, rebels against God love darkness rather than light. But our focal point ought not be a guilt-finding mission. Our consciously taking on Paul’s chief-of-sinners title would go a long way in building bridges.
Third, like the prodigal son, most people already know they carry shame or guilt and are looking for relief, hope, acceptance, and friendship. As Romans 2:4 reminds us, it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance. Christian sociologist Rodney Stark comments: “Hell fire-and-brimstone sermons to the contrary, people respond far more strongly religiously to a carrot than to a stick. This has long been recognized by missionaries.” Stark ends his comments with the quotation from John 3:16-17: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved” (Rodney Stark, What Americans Really Believe [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008], 78).
Fourth, certain contemporary evangelistic methods in America would be deemed culturally insensitive in non-American contexts. Think of how missionaries are often taking years to learn a particular culture. Even once they have learned a foreign language, they still need to understand how the gospel connects to the culture and to the felt needs of people. For example, Muslims tend not to feel guilty (which is assumed by many American evangelistic methods), but dirty, defiled, fearful, and often full of shame; so the string of stories in Mark 5 of Jesus’ authority over impurity, demonic powers, and death resonate with Muslims (see Nabeel Jabbour’s The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross [NavPress]). Yet well-meaning American Christians often don’t take time to contextualize the gospel when speaking with non-Christians. They assume a ready connection exists between the non-Christian and the biblical worldview; this is, after all, “Christian America,” right? Even in 1913, J. Gresham Machen pointed out that caricatures and bad philosophies often prevent people from taking “sin” and the call to “repent” seriously.
God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. (Christianity and Culture,” Princeton Theological Review 11 [1913]: 7.
The gospel will not instantly make sense for people who have a completely different worldview. (Consider the momentous response to pre-evangelized Jews at Pentecost in Acts 2 with the lesser response of pagans in Athens in Acts 17.)
Fifth, how many of us came to trust in Christ because a stranger told us that we were sinners? Or did we come through friends or relatives who modeled an attractive, redeemed Christian life? The drumbeat of statistics over the years reveals that 75-90% of those who have come to Christ and faithfully continue in their discipleship were introduced to the Christian faith through believing friends and relatives; this personal connection to the gospel came through love, acceptance, and a modeling of the Christian faith. (For example, Win and Charles Arn, The Master’s Plan for Making Disciples [Pasadena: Church Growth Press, 1982], 43).
Sixth, the idea that “this may be the non-Christian’s only chance to hear the gospel and she may not hear it again” often turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Becky Pippert observes that Christians and non-Christians have one thing in common; they’re both uptight about evangelism! That is, we may actually create an awkward, confrontational situation (I’ve done this before!), and the non-Christian is put off by it all. As a result, the non-Christian doesn’t want to hear “the gospel” (or “whatever that was!”) again. Sometimes well-meaning Christians tend to take the entire burden of another’s salvation upon their shoulders and fail to trust in a sovereign God who may use us to be a stepping stone in another’s life. In John 4, Jesus reminded his disciples that they were “reaping,” thanks to the faithful labors of others who had gone before them.
Seventh, the “what if the person dies tomorrow?” question raises issues about our own view of God’s sovereignty. Keep in mind that while we are to be responsible witnesses, we mustn’t diminish God’s sovereignty on this score either. Will God put people into hell just because of our human failure (of the Christian witness)? Too often the “what if he dies tomorrow?” idea can often creates a forced “witness” that, in my experience, creates relational (not spiritual) awkwardness and turns people off on any Christian witness for the longer term. Relationships that respect the process, trust the Holy Spirit, and allow people time to think through the implications of the Christian faith are (statistically speaking) far more effective and long-lasting than the short-term, “I must tell him now or else” approach.
Those touched by Jesus knew that he first was genuinely interested in them. Perhaps that friend-of-sinners approach has something going for it! The confrontational method diminishes the listening and unfolding process involved in evangelism. The gospel should be expressed in a holistic and relational manner. Otherwise it more often than not appears to be a judgmental sales pitch.
Eighth, Jesus and other authorities in the New Testament don’t necessarily bring up sin at the outset, and they may in fact first “dangle the benefits of salvation” before them! The Samaritan woman in John 4 first received an invitation to receive living water so that she would never thirst again. It was only toward the end of the conversation that her being a sinner came up—which was actually an incidental point that almost didn’t get brought up!
The same goes for Paul in Athens (Acts 17). Though angered at its idols, he calmly built bridges with the Athenians, quoting the Stoic thinkers they were familiar with. Mention of repentance came only much later in the discussion.
Again, Jesus own missional message in Luke 4:18 (citing Isaiah 61:1) affirms benefits of salvation: Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, freedom for prisoners, release for the oppressed, and the year of the Lord’s favor. Notice that Jesus even leaves off “the day of vengeance” from the original Isaiah quotation!
Another famous Isaiah quotation brings good news without mentioning the bad news: “How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’ Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices, they shout joyfully together; for they will see with their own eyes when the LORD restores Zion. Break forth, shout joyfully together, you waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem” (Isaiah 52:7-9).
Ninth, in what ways can we build bridges with our postmodern peers? Try “idolatry”! While conviction of sin is important, we must be careful not simply to “scold” the postmodern or the “apatheist” (who doesn’t care if God exists or not) for, say, inferior moral standards or mushy views of truth. Yes, premarital sex or sexual lust is wrong, but usually we won’t connect with our audience if we focus on “doing bad things.” Rather, a more effective, and very biblical, emphasis comes by exposing the human tendency to make good things into ultimate things. Using the specific term “sinner” may not readily resonate with the postmodern, but the scriptural theme of “idolatry” often does. Idolatry is, as Tim Keller puts it, “building your identity on anything other than God.” So rather than coming across as scolding non-Christians, we should take this advice:
Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my ‘gospel for the uncircumcised.’ (Tim Keller, “The Gospel in All Its Forms,” Leadership Journal 29/2 [2008]: 15).
As a side note, as we grow in Christ, we will increasingly come to grips with the depths of our own sinfulness, which pales in comparison to any sin-detection going on around the time of our conversion. At the outset of our Christian pilgrimage, we are often oblivious to sin except in the most basic ways. Note what the famed preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote about his own experience:
Often . . . I have had the very affecting views of my own sinfulness and vileness, very frequently to such a degree as to hold me in a kind of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable time together, so that I have been often obliged to shut myself up….When others that have come to talk with me about their soul’s concerns have expressed the sense they have had of their wickedness, by saying that it seemed to them they were as bad as the devil himself; I thought their expressions seemed exceeding faint and feeble to represent my wickedness . . . . My wickedness, as I am in myself, has long appeared to me perfectly ineffable [i.e., inexpressible] and swallowing up all thought and imagination–like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my head. I know not how to express better what my sins appear to me to be, than by heaping infinite on infinite and multiplying infinite by infinite . . . . When I look into my heart and take a view of my own wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper than hell (Personal Narrative, Pt. XV).
Perhaps these reflections will give insight into more effectively helping others connect with the gospel. To reach people, we shouldn’t diminish the gravity of sin; rather, we should walk in the way of the Master, whose earthly ministry earned him the reputation of being a “friend of sinners.” May the same be said of us redeemed sinners as well!
132 replies to "Do We Need to Tell People the Bad News Before the Good News?"
God utilizes a wide variety of ways to bring folks through the narrow gate into a salvific, loving relationship with Him.
I’m for any means which are not prone to producing false converts.
Paul,
Great post. Definitely gave me a lot to think about. When I first saw the title I thought, “What good is it to talk about the the good news if we don’t first discuss the bad news?” If we don’t tell people about Hell then they will never know why they need a Savior. I have never really looked at it in a sociological manner before. It definitely changes things.
Paul,
Thanks. This was rockin’ awesome.
Another side of the this whole issue is the folks doing the evangelism. So often I’ve seen teachers and preachers instruct that telling unbelievers they are sinners first is the way to do evangelism. When the well meaning followers feel awkward or unsure about this style of evangelism, they are told, by themselves, or by others, that they are not following God’s command and their love for Jesus is called into question. These means are manipulative and unpleasant, sometimes causing believers to fall away.
I recently had a falling out with a friend of mine because he told me my heart must be hard towards God because I didn’t want to participate in his evangelism event. I can’t tell you how much it hurt my feelings.
Anyway. Great post. I’ll be sharing this with others.
I want to be that kind of witness like you talk about, but I feel like if I don’t talk about how sin relates to God’s wrath and how Jesus takes away His wrath, it will lead to an easy belivism type of attitude in which people think “yeah I already believe all that” yet there is no real evidence of repentence..how do we get repentence into the converstion in such a way that doesn’t totally turn people off from what we are saying..I do agree that speaking of idolatry instead of pointing our fingers is a better approach, it just gets hard to really drive home the point of this is something that needs to be repented of..especially in the overchurched south where everyone is a “christian”
SMACK!!! And it’s a home run… Outta the park!!!
I’ve personally held for years that the best way to reach anyone is through friendship, and a loving relationship. Recently there has been a spat of Guerrilla Witnessing going around, I can’t think of anything more out of touch than confronting complete strangers on the street and telling them their sinners. It’s not like *we don’t already live in a media dominated society or anything!!*. I’m *pretty* sure they already know, and confronting them just tarnishes our image.
Christianity has a cost, but that gets lost in peoples desire to force the salvation issue, ‘Get Em Saved’ is the battle cry!!
I was saved by an ex-con who worked for me, we got know each other well enough to have some awesome arguments about God, I was the new age defender and he was the traditional. I would have not even listened had we not become friends, eventually God had mercy on me and I got saved.
Great Article Paul!!!
Reminds me of the Young Life method of evangelism where the goal of the evangelist is to “Earn the right to be heard” by going where your mission field is and building a relationship with them.
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, so forgive me if this sounds rushed. I basically am living my life right now with the strong belief that you really ought to know someone to the point of strong friendship before you try and get them to ‘turn before they burn,’ so to speak. I really don’t know anyone’s heart all that well, only God truly knows the whole heart, so it behooves me to try and really get to know people individually before trying to take the splinter out of their eyes. The best way to help someone carry their burden with them is to really get to know them. Of course, I am not saying that God can’t use those who stand on street corners, indeed, many have a great heart for those who do not yet have a deep relationship with Christ. In many ways, maybe there is a NEED for these type of people who ‘stand out’ from the crowd in their witnessing for Christ, even though sometimes its a bit too ‘abnormal’ for western standards.
My point is that maybe America is numb to how good we have it as a nation. Not very many people give credit where credit is due for how this nation was founded: Judeo-Christian Principles. So, in a way, I am thankful that we still have a freedom of speech and expression of religion that allows for this kind of religious zealousness. If you go to North Korea and try this kind of stuff, its either death or imprisonment. Plus, maybe some of these street preachers are like the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, both these prophets were not shy at shouting and praising God from the rooftops. Of course, we should always remember to check each tree individually for the kind of fruit it bears.
Wonderful post Paul. It does amaze me how well we can do at doing missiology to other countries, but fall flat on our faces in our own backyard.
Great heart, Paul. Very beautiful.
Daniel (comment #4)
I’d say that bringing people to Christ is a process, as discipleship is not a one-time event. I even think we can prepare people for discipleship even before their conversion, and when they do convert, they have many seeds of the eternal things of God already planted in them ready to grow.
So, each case deserves its own considerations. At some point we will need to become aware of the holiness-unholiness gap between God and fallen humanity. It just might not be the first point we address. We will trust God to lead us along in pouring our lives into the people we know.
[…] Self-submitted photographs of people, tabulated by weight and height. Interesting stuff. Via Metafilter.(tags: health photos photography images height weight statistics photo biology)Parchment and Pen » DO WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE THE BAD NEWS BEFORE THE GOOD NEWS? […]
Great post.
To the extent that your message is that we don’t need to take it upon ourselves to convince people that they are sinners, I fully agree. However, I suspect you’d agree that it’s crucial that people come to this awareness for themselves. In Mere Christianity, Lewis argues that awareness of the moral law and that one has transgressed against it is the necessary precursor for the Gospel message to have anything to say to a person. I question how it can the Christian message could possibly resonate with a society is convinced that there are no moral boundaries and no possibility of ever doing something that is “wrong”. The church is in a tough spot — telling people that they’re sinners doesn’t exactly attract an audience, but being relentlessly upbeat a la Joel Osteen results in a Christianity that is little more than a therapy session or a motivational speech. I don’t know how the church as a whole should walk this tightrope. But I do like the approach you suggest for us as individuals.
I’m familiar with Ray Comfort, and I think he has some worthwhile things to say. I appreciate that he has given a lot to thought to the problem of ‘false conversion’, and addresses this head on with a couple of talks posted on his website. As I looked further into his teachings I cam across some YouTube clips of his evangelism methods…that which he teaches others, so I know exactly what you are talking about here. When I watched some of those videos I thought to myself that it seems very awkward and abrupt and I couldn’t picture myself doing that with someone I’d never met before. I agree with your friend McQuilkin when he says, “The point is that we should be careful about making hard-and-fast formulas (or, if you like, formulae) about communicating Christ to others.”
This is a very key thing to keep in mind when sharing the gospel. Over the years I’ve become very aware that when I share the gospel with someone God’s Spirit is there…helping with the right things to say. It’s important to be sensitive to the person we are talking with…to know a lot about what they believe about God, and even what their struggles in life are (if you have the opportunity to get to know them well). I read a book by Lee Strobel on evangelism and he (and another evangelist I know) strongly recommend that rather than hitting people with information you begin with questions. Lee said that sometimes he will simply ask someone what they believe about God, and with each response he will ask another question until they have said as much as they can think to express. He said that often they come to somewhat of a dead-end, realizing that they are really pretty unsure and don’t really have much to say which is of any definitive substance. At that point you know where they are coming from and you can better, and more accurately speak to their specific misunderstandings. And just the fact that you have taken the time to listen to them and hear them out tends to make…
continued…… tends to make a person more open to listening to what You have to say. I really want to develop the skill of asking good questions as I seek to share the gospel.
Another point which I’ve heard and evangelist make is that some people first need to simply be able to ‘trust a Christian’. As you point out, Paul, some have developed very negative and untrusting ideas about Christians and they need to see in us that we are genuine…that we really care about them and are willing and able to help them where they need help whether it be a listening ear or a physical/material need. This takes time, and certainly involves building a true friendship. Again, the more we know about a person the better we can fine-tune our approach to their specific needs and understandings.
I very much appreciate that you have addressed this subject as you have Paul, because I was leery of the ‘Way of the Master’ approach when I saw it. I wouldn’t doubt that some people have actually come to Christ as a result of someone ‘using’ that approach, because if they are hearing the gospel…’the power of God unto salvation’, they God’s Spirit will follow our witness (even if it is feeble), but I agree that this method might be a turn-off to some people…and prove to be very insensitive.
I’ve seen people come to Christ when I’ve shared the gospel without first having built a friendship with them, and I’ve also had other instances when I’v seen individuals receive Christ within the context of a friendship with me. Both are possible. It’s important to be PRAYERFULLY AVAILABLE for whatever opportunity He brings to us. I once had an amazing conversation with a stranger on a ski lift at Mammoth Mt.. He had just broken up with his fiance and was very heavy-hearted and confused. He was very open to talking with me and listened with interest as I shared the gospel. I prayed for him for months afterwards but I won’t know until perhaps when Christ returns if…
….he is now one of His children.
OK, last point: Daniel brings up a valid point of course, that at some point it IS necessary to discuss sin and the wrath of God, otherwise a person is not likely to come to a point of conviction over their sin (which is actually a work of God’s Spirit….not our brilliant words), but it needs to be said, or it makes no sense that Jesus would have to die for us!
This subject is near and dear to my heart for many reasons, not the least of which is that my own husband was a false convert for 21 years of our marriage. I thought, and he thought, that he was a Christian when we married. After all, he had ‘gone forward’ at an evangelistic concert…and ‘prayed the sinners prayer’…or something to that effect. He told me recently that he had gone forward because he was ‘scared to death to go to hell’. What was missing? I think that he had simply never come to a place of true Spirit-induced conviction over his sin. He had never repented. It was clear (once we married) that he was not living a life of submission to Christ’s lordship at all, and there was NO fruit evidencing a relationship with the Lord. His life was devoid of the fruit of the Spirit.
I’ve taken up more than my share of space here, so I won’t tell the story of his recent conversion, but let’s just say that God has taught me much through this journey….and it was a long and painful road.
Paul, you have said some wonderfully wise things here, which I have read twice, and hope to remember! I like your thoughts about discussing idolatry. I’ve never heard anyone say that before, but I will tuck it away for future use.
I LOVE that you have written on this subject, and I appreciate that this is your heart. Apologetics can be a lofty intellectual debate if one does not have a true passion for seeing people come into a relationship with Christ. You’re an amazing witness, Paul!
Excellent post Paul! Just the other day I heard Ray Comfort talking about always preaching the law in evangelism, and that not doing so will necessarily lead to false conversion. I thought to myself– how come I can’t find one sermon in Acts that sounds anything like a Ray Comfort message? (No personal offense to Ray!)
On a side note, I find it interesting that only a handful of people commented on this eminently practical post, while the newest post on free will (an issue that I’m confident nobody will ever really truly understand) has already racked up over 70 comments! :-p
Paul,
I don’t think there is a “one-size-fits-all” way of preaching the gospel, but I do think there is a “two-sizes-fit-all.” If you look at the way Christ preaches, it is according to the humility of the individual to receive the message. The humble, i.e. those who already know that they are sinners, get one style of preaching from Him to some extent; and the arrogant, i.e. those who think that they are acceptable to God already, get a much harsher form of preaching. I don’t think it’s as easy as saying that it’s simply the religious leaders, as He doesn’t speak harshly to Nicodemus, who comes to him in a humble manner; but does speak harshly to the Pharisees who come to Him with a higher view of themselves than they ought to have.
So, having said that, into which category do most Americans fall? I would say they are largely of the latter with some exceptions in the former. Americans are the new religious leaders by and large. So I don’t have a problem with the Way of the Master program for the most part because it also makes this distinction. If you notice, the bad news is given when a person thinks that they are good enough to go to heaven already. I’ve never seen them give it to a person who said that they probably weren’t going to make it.
I know there is a strong reaction from some people to have any sort of laid out methodology in their preaching of the gospel, but I feel, as much as you may have tried to buffer this with qualification, in many respects, this post will simply confirm to people that they don’t really need to challenge people concerning their sin, and those who stand on street corners, preaching the gospel, are just extreme. I can’t help but to picture Christ in the temple decrying the sins of the people being placed into that category and becoming a picture of an extreme fanatic to those who supposedly follow in His footsteps.
Maybe the real extreme is not wanting to ever be extreme. 😉
Ron,
I think the pattern I’ve spoken of above is the same in Acts (Acts 3:13-21; 7:51-53).
I only recently came across this site and have been wonderfully blessed by the content provide by the contributors. Posting here makes me feel like a child among men. However, I do want to make a few comments in response to this article. I appreciate many of the points made here. As a “street evangelist,” I acknowledge that there are many abuses in “street evangelism” that need to be noted. We can all add personal stories on both sides, but I have found non-Christians very open to “bad news first.” I have been thanked often for taking the time to talk honestly with people. Talking “bad news first” does not mean we have to be rude or judgmental – it can be done in love and compassion. In regards to friendship evangelism, Lost Cause Ministries has chronicled the witnessing encounters in the Gospels and in Acts. Of 89 cases of Jesus and the apostles engaged in evangelism, 77 (86%) took place among complete strangers. In the 46 cases in Acts, 38 (82%) took place among complete strangers.
In the case of the women at the well, Jesus found a point of contact with her, then discussed her sins – all within, what, 5 minutes?
Yes, there are abuses, but there are many examples of loving evangelists on the streets seeing wonderful results by the power of the Spirit.
I appreciate this article and some of the good points made, but feel it paints with a very broad brush and presents some faulty assumptions.
You make some good points, Hodge. I think most Christians are very good at finding excuses not to open their mouths and speak the message of salvation. Many in fact will never really share the gospel with anyone. Deeds alone are not enough. So I try not to be critical of those who have the boldness to proclaim His name even if some are turned off by it.
Hi Hodge! I’m totally open to correction, but I can’t say that I see Comfort-style law preaching in Acts 3:13-21. Repentance is preached, which nobody should have a problem with.
Regarding Acts 5, Stephen does mention the Jews not keeping the law, but where is judgment (i.e. “the bad news”) mentioned? (Maybe they stoned him before he got the chance!) Whatever the case, I have no big problem saying that this is a legitimate example of preaching the law.
There is nothing wrong with preaching the law. My only observation was that my reading of the Acts sermons reminded me nothing of the videos I’ve seen of WotM guys doing street preaching– and I think the difference is more than one of style.
Finally, to clarify: I don’t necessarily have a problem with Comfort’s method, or the man himself. I admire his boldness and wish I were that bold myself. I am more than a little put off, however, when his method is presented as THE biblical method, when in fact it entirely missing (or at least, fairly rare) in the recorded evangelistic messages recorded in Acts.
Other Paul, thanks for your contribution! It’s good to hear from a seasoned evangelist. I’ve thought the same thing many times about the examples in the Bible of ‘stranger encounters’. I think it’s very possible for us to miss opportunities to share the gospel if we get too hung up on the idea that we have to build a friendship with someone before we can tell them about Jesus. We shouldn’t be closed to those brief single-encounter opportunities. Are we ever going to see the person we sit next to on a plane again? In a way it’s sometimes actually easier to get to the gospel with someone who isn’t part of your daily life (and maybe easier for them too). You’re less prone to be hesitant based on concerns about how it might effect your future relationship with them…..(not that you would purposely choose to never again speak to someone you have witnessed to, but sometimes it just works out that way).
If we become sensitive to the Spirit’s promptings in the area of speaking the gospel we learn the joy of responding spontaneously to opportunities which arise suddenly and unexpectedly. If we are available and tuned-in, God will uses us!
Part I:
Thanks to you all for your input on this topic. My main emphasis was not to speak out against talking about the good news (and the bad news!) to strangers on planes (I do this all the time), nor am I saying that street and door-to-door evangelists cannot be effective in what they do. I know some who are quite effective (there are plenty who aren’t!), but for most of us, we tend to more effectively communicate the gospel in the context of relationship.
I am trying to get away from the commonly-heard “spiritual law” that the law-first/salvation-later message is the formula to follow. Again, I don’t see this uniformly proclaimed in the Scriptures. Mentioning idolatry (which is the heart of sin) is quite effective, and this image is often a better way to connect with our American audience than with the use of other equally biblical theological terms. Also, I think that the church should first model repentance and sensitivity to sin, and when we talk to others about falling short of God’s mark (“sin”), we should be quick to acknowledge our own fallenness. (We can come off quite self-righteously, can’t we?)
Now the law-salvation sequence is true ontologically (in reality)–that is, our falling short of God’s demands and holy character leads to God’s gracious act of salvation in Christ); Yet this isn’t necessarily the sequence to follow in conversation, as the Scriptures themselves indicate. (Note: Nicodemus, though a religious leader, wasn’t a “hard-hearted” one.)….
Part II:
Keep in mind too that in a “Christianized” nation, we are often up against a lot of caricatures and misunderstandings (see the book *unChristian*), and I find it is often helpful to earn the right to be heard. I give my students an assignment to interview a non-Christian in a very low-key way (“why do you believe what you do?)–basically a listening exercise. The vast majority of the interviewees have been turned off by hypocrites and burned by the church (another kind of “turn and burn”!), and in such cases a listening ear from a friend meets with less resistance than a (Christian) stranger’s approach on the street.
While we see a lot of preaching and encountering strangers in the Scriptures, keep in mind that Jesus is still called a “friend of sinners”–not merely a “preacher to sinners.” Also, Paul’s “method” of going to synagogues first was a way of getting a foot in the door with those familiar with the biblical worldview (Jews, God-fearers, proselytes). When he left town, any who came to Christ would be the ones to communicate the gospel to their circle of friends and relatives.
This will have to suffice for now. Thanks to you all for joining the conversation on this important topic.
Helpful comments, Paul….and what a great assignment for your students! I wish I had learned that back in my Biola days. I bet your students have some great stories to tell after they’ve completed that assignment.
One thing I have learned over the years is that sharing the gospel means being willing to lay aside my agenda, often at a moment’s notice. It is a sacrifice of time, but has a great reward of joy.
I understand what you are getting at, that we don’t need to hit people with the ‘you’re a sinner!’ message straight out of the gates. As you say this can come across as very self righteous. God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to sinners— hopefully we will continue in that humility, always realizing that we are wretched sinners undeserving of God’s grace.
Did you actually read my too-long post? Bless you! (blushing smiley face needed)
Thanks, Susan, for your further comments. Yes, I did read your entire post before I posted mine! I just offered general responses to all the contributors, but thanks for your excellent insights and openness.
OK, well I didn’t want you to think I was slamming you 😉
May it never be…..!
If you have a lot of free time (and don’t mind wasting some of it) you should jump onto Michael’s calvinist post! There are 50 comments to every one on this thread. Sad but true.
I would like to direct those who are posting to this site: http://www.thespurgeonfellowship.org/Downloads/feature_Sp08.pdf
which is an excerpt from D.A. Carson on what the Gospel is. If we only go by some of the examples given in the book of Acts and the Gospels, we will miss the explanation of the gospel message in the letters. Many of the explanations are explicit, while others are implicit, especially when taking into account the whole New Testament. The “Bad News” is definitely a part of the message of the Gospel, whether it is given first or later. Here is the excerpt: Here is an excerpt from the link above: “When Jesus announced the imminence of the dawning of the kingdom, like John the Baptist he cried, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matt 4:17; cf. Mark 1:15). Repentance is necessary, because the coming of the King promises judgment as well as blessing. The Sermon on the Mount, which encourages Jesus’ disciples to turn the other cheek, repeatedly warns them to flee the condemnation to the gehenna of fire. The Sermon warns the hearers not to follow the broad road that leads to destruction, and pictures Jesus pronouncing final judgment with the words, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (7:23). The parables are replete with warnings of final judgment; a significant percentage of them demonstrate the essential divisiveness of the dawning of the kingdom. Images of hell—outer darkness, furnace of fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, undying worms, eternal fire—are too ghastly to contemplate long, but we must not avoid the fact that Jesus himself uses all of them. After Jesus’ resurrection, when Peter preaches on the day of Pentecost, he aims to convince his hearers that Jesus is the promised Messiah, that his death and resurrection are the fulfillment of Scripture, and that God “has made this Jesus, whom you crucified [he tells them], both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).
That is every bit as much threat as promise: the hearers are “cut to the heart” and cry, “What shall we do?” (2:37). That is what elicits Peter’s “Repent and believe” (3:38). When Peter preaches to Cornelius and his household (10:23-48), the climax of his moving address is that in fulfillment of Scripture God appointed Jesus “as judge of the living and the dead”—and thus not of Jews
only. Those who believe in him receive “forgiveness of sins through his name”: transparently, that is what is essential if we are to face the judge and emerge unscathed. When he preaches to the Athenian pagan intellectuals (17:16-34), Paul, as we all know, fills in some of the great truths that constitute the matrix in
which alone Jesus makes sense: monotheism, creation, who human beings are, God’s aseity and providential sovereignty, the wretchedness and danger of idolatry. Before he is interrupted, however, Paul gets to the place in his argument where he insists that God has set a day “when he will judge the world with justice”—and his appointed judge is Jesus, whose authoritative status is established by his resurrection from the dead. When Felix invites the apostle to speak “about faith in Christ Jesus” (Acts
24:24), Paul, we are told, discourses “on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” (24:15): apparently such themes are an irreducible part of faithful gospel preaching. Small wonder, then, that Felix was terrified (24:25). How often when we preach the gospel are people terrified? The Letter to the
Romans, which many rightly take to be, at very least, a core summary of the apostle’s understanding of the gospel, finds Paul insisting that judgment takes place “on the day when God will judge everyone’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares” (Rom 2:16). Writing to the Thessalonians, Paul
reminds us that Jesus “rescues us from the coming wrath” (1 Thess 1:10).
Well that is just a sampling, but there is a lot more. The point is, sinners need the truth. Many will turn from the truth because they love darkness rather than light. Others it will be the smell of death. But Christ’s promise is that he will bring in His sheep who hear His voice and know His voice. I think it is clear in scripture that we should just be ready to share the whole counsel of God out of love and obedience for Him and out of compassion for the lost.
Hi Paul Copan, Susan, and others,
I still like my comment in #1. 😉
Ummmm, Dr. Copan’s counsel is fine, and I did notice that his original post does pre-emptively anticipate objections. At least some of them.
But I’m glad that Susan picked up on my “false convert” concern.
And another poster picked up on “Easy believism”. I think there’s a tendency to offer cheap grace and that the modern church errs more in the direction of cheap grace than fire-and-brimstone. Bonhoeffer’s book called the The Cost of Discipleship has left a lifelong impact on me and really drove home the point of joyfully bearing the Cross for Christ’s Glory.
My hope is that “Friendship” Evangelism doesn’t dilute and water down the Lordship of Christ who is our Savior.
FWIW, I may dance to the beat of a different drummer. I don’t need a person to be my friend and “to earn the *right* to speak truth” in my life. My relationship with the messenger doesn’t interfere with my ability to understand the substance of what s/he is saying. At least most of the time.
For others, well, I know it’s different. Someone has to be their friend before they’ll listen to them.
Anyways, I really appreciate this post and the feedback/pushback that Dr. Copan has received.
The laborers are few….
Paul Copan is right about the uselessness of claiming that everybody is a sinner.
Luke 1
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.
It is really pointless Christians telling people that they have all broken the Lord’s commandments and regulations, when sceptics will point out that their own Bible claims some people were ‘blameless’.
Dr. Copan,
For reasons I do not know, the man that led me to Christ never mentioned that there was a bad side. His total focus was on the question, “Do I want to go to heaven when I die?” In fact, he never implied that I was not on my way to heaven (i.e., a very liberal understanding).
He simply told me that what God required was that I accept Jesus Christ as my God. I can still remember that night – 43 years ago – when I told God the Father that I was accepting Jesus Christ as my God. I can still describe my initial experience with God as him in some way being a “savior.” But at that time my idea of a ‘savior’ was not from a bad to a good situation. It was simply what I was under the impression God would have me to do (believe on Jesus Christ and I shall become a member of the family of God) to go to heaven.
Consequently, I never developed an idea of God ‘condemning’ me. My sins were not discussed as this man witnessed to me. Shortly after I became a Christian, as this man was teaching me, obviously I had questions about “the bad side.” However, I was never asked to see myself as an enemy of God, but rather seeing a God who loved me and therefore made a way for me to enter heaven one day (something I think all humans have an innate understanding of).
I think this has had an impact on my later theology. I am not overly Calvinistic. The “love” of God was the main focus of my experience of accepting Christ as my Lord/God. As a result, it is not a simple concept for me to see God in a more Calvinistic light (with respect to sins and condemnation).
To some extent, I think I am not Calvinistic, not primarily by my own choosing, but by the way I was first introduced to God, who and what he is. It would be near impossible for someone to convince me my earthly father was different than I have come to know him over the years. The same with my heavenly Father.
That’s the best I can explain it.
CQ
I appreciate the desire to emphasize the good news of Jesus Christ, which is what “gospel” is all about. And I agree that “bad news first” approaches can often come across as judgmental. I do think 2 points should be kept in mind in this discussion.
1) An understanding of the person you are witnessing to is very helpful in what aspect of the gospel to emphasize. For example, someone who knows who Jesus is and also knows how bad their own sins are may need a better understanding of the extent of grace. Or someone who has grown up thinking they are a good person who doesn’t need to worry about hell may need a fuller understanding of the extent of sin and the consequences of their own sin. Or someone who is searching for a higher spirituality for their life may need to understand who the true Creator is and how He sent His Son for us so that we can have an eternal relationship with our Creator.
2) Scripture allows for many methods and means of sharing the faith. For example, Jesus gently confronts the woman at the well regarding her sin without developing a longterm relationship with her first (John 4). Peter’s emphasis on who Christ is brought the crowds to a realization of their need for Christ (Acts 2). Philip finds someone already looking at Scripture and ready for guidance to the good news of Jesus (Acts 8:26-40). Paul’s messages in Acts 13:14ff and Acts 17:16ff show Paul’s understanding of the culture and religious backgrounds of the people he is speaking with. And Paul spent 2 years sharing his faith with everyone who visited him (Acts 28:17-31) and Jesus spent time with His disciples long before they fully understood Him.
“blameless” is referring to a sinner that has repented and is following God now. Hence, Job is blameless, yet seen as sacrificing for his sins and the sins of his sons. This, therefore, is irrelevant to the discussion of how to address a pre-repentant sinner.
‘“blameless” is referring to a sinner that has repented and is following God now.’
I can’t see that in the text.
Should I repeat it?
‘Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.’
Nothing in there about repentance. Are you sure you have the right page?
Thanks for the additional comments. I don’t think there’s much I’d disagree with in most of the recent posts.
Okay, maybe in my next post I’ll do something on Calvinism (or non-Calvinism) next time and really draw a big crowd!!
Yes, the need for repentance certainly accompanies the proclamation of the gospel. As I indicated, we may not use the specific terms “repent” or “sin” (and the Bible has lots of alternate words), but rather “turn away from finding security in creaturely things [idolatry]”; the point is that at some point we all need to acknowledge our wrong in misplacing our trust and connect with God.
That said, friendship need not water down the gospel message, including the need for repentance and judgment; at least in America, statistics indicate that friendship, Christian community, and the opportunity to process the implications of the Christian faith (counting the cost) have been vital to robust discipleship on the other side of conversion. It’s not that it doesn’t happen outside of that context, but those are just the statistics.
Steven, you’re back! I think the last time you commented on my blog was around the publication of Antony Flew’s book *There Is a God*. At any rate, most people reading the Bible recognize that the word “blameless” doesn’t literally connote perfection (the sinfulness of humanity is a theme reinforced repeatedly throughout Scripture); it’s like a meteorologist who says that sunrise or sunset will be at such and such a time. We all know that, while phenomenologically true, it’s not literally so (we don’t say, “What a beautiful earth-turn”). I don’t think you’ve stumped us!
Yeah, like you have time to read and respond to 300 comments, Paul!
I actually favor these discussions which don’t fire 50 comments/hr. into my inbox. I’ve been deleting all of the “Calvinist” comments without even reading them. Who has time for that!?
….it would be interesting to get your perspective on that topic however. You are one who I fear might actually make me think twice about the ‘other side’.
And this is the Bible that uses that language in a specific way. So “blameless” to a Biblical author is a repentant sinner following God. Otherwise, why does David say he is blameless while acknowledging that he has been a sinner? Why is Job offering sacrifices for his sins and the sins of his sons when he is called blameless? They are blameless because they are living according to ALL of the commandments, which of course includes (drum roll please) . . . the commandments concerning how to become spotless/cleansed from their sins (i.e., repentance and sacrifice). Hence, they followed these commandments and walked as righteous and blameless people before God, not because they were perfect; but because they were cleansed by God through this. I think in order to stretch it to what you want it to say, you’d have to ignore the way the term is used throughout the Bible.
There’s also a mention of deacons that need to prove themselves blameless (1 Tim 3:10 ESV though different Greek word used (ανέγκλητοι) with similar connotations), yet no one would dare suggest that Paul’s authorial intent was to imply that a deacon’s blamelessness equals Christ’s sinlessness.
I asked a friend who does a lot of evangelism for his take on Dr. Copan’s article. Here’s his response:
“My uber brief thoughts in response to Copan’s article is as follows:
1. This article reminded me of A general observation I’ve made many times: Many folks who don’t like certain evangelistic methods that start with the bad news often don’t do evangelism themselves. Thus, I like my way of doing it better than their way of not doing it. Of course, I’m not saying Copan doesn’t do evangelism, nor am I saying that all evangelistic methods are worthy of consideration simply because people employ them. I’m just saying that it is much easier to write about it and critique others’ efforts at it than to actually do it ourselves. I may wonder about the presentation of a guy yelling at the top of his lungs at the flea market standing on a soapbox, but as long as he’s preaching the truth with a concern for souls, then I’m happy with it. The Apostle Paul himself said that some men preach Christ with envy, some with contention, but he said he’d rejoice either way since Christ was preached even when it was obvious that less than ideal attitudes, motives, and methods were utilized.
2. I’m scratching my head wondering why Copan referenced men like Donald Miller and Greg Boyd to make his points when other Biblically orthodox men can answer to the problems of equivocation in religious conversation in our pluralistic culture (i.e., D.A. Carson)? This implies that Boyd and Miller are orthodox evangelicals.
Greg Boyd is an open-theist, which I take to be a damnable heresy and Donald Miller denies that truth is objective and knowable.
(cont.)
Also, I have noticed that some who quote Emergents like Boyd and Miller favorably do so because they don’t like the emphasis of other professing Christians on pointing out the unbeliever’s sin. My brief response is “If it’s good enough for the Apostles then it’s good enough for me.
3. I agree with Copan that different people come to Christ in different ways and so, we shouldn’t be stuck so much on one particular “method”. The main thing I focus on in my own evangelism is exalting Christ as the solution to our sin problem. Then when the objections come, I answer them with Scripture.
4. Copan is concerned about “scolding unbelievers”. I am too. However, unbelievers will not like what you have to say regardless of how you say it and the context in which you say it. Should we present the truth in love? Absolutely. However, the gospel is offensive no matter how much we “love” on sinners.
5. My view is that an appeal to a Christian sociologist to determine the effectiveness of certain evangelistic methods is less than helpful. Here’s why: Before the advent of the 60s, the modern missionary movement has done just fine with the gospel without any appeal to sociologists. Heartcry Missionary Society has been funding indigenous missionaries to countries around the entire globe yet the message is the same, turn from your sins to Christ or perish. This ministry has been quite effective in spreading the gospel and making disciples by simply training indigenous missionaries to preach the gospel without the help of any sociologists, Christian or otherwise. The bottom line is this: God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners. We are to be obedient in evangelism and God will do the rest.
See, that’s the wonderful thing about spiritual pride. It allows us to feel superior to others whether we’re actually accomplishing anything or not. We can even be smug! How fun is that?!!
And just as a reminder, here’s a quote from the OP.
“Many folks who don’t like certain evangelistic methods that start with the bad news often don’t do evangelism themselves. Thus, I like my way of doing it better than their way of not doing it.”
Actually, I’ve often found this to be true. Those who are most critical about methods are often entirely negligent about sharing the gospel. HOWEVER, I would not be so quick to assume that Paul Copan is not sharing the gospel! Have any stories for us, Paul?
Nevertheless, TU&D’s friend has made some wise observations.
Check out this response to Paul Copan’s article here – http://letmypeopleread.blogspot.com/2010/03/response-to-paul-copan-on-bad-news.html. While there may be good points in Paul’s subject, it seems unbalanced Biblically.
Jesus did use different means of evangelism and would use his law effectively as he did in witnessing to the “Woman at the well” in John 4. Why do we pit agressive evangelism vs. friendship evangelism, or law-first evangelism vs. grace first evangelism? Those distinctions we are making are confusing and may not exist at all. All friendship evangelims is agressive evangelism and vise versa. All grace evangelism is law evangelism because the revelation of God’s law is a gracious act of God.
All evangelism must proclaim the responsibility of mankind toward their creator as the law giver. The Holy Spirit uses the whole counsel of God’s word in the proclamation of the Gospel. The results in evangelim must be left to God. If we think that our techniques are ultimatly the reason for the conversion of sinners, then we are on a endless (and error prone) marry-go-round of determining which technique works. When we are faithful in proclaiming the gospel we are successful. The issue is faithfulness not technique.
Let’s not be ashamed about the proclamation of any part of the Gospel message, and let’s not truncate the message of the Gospel to a thin Gospel rather than explaining the Gospel in its fullness.
“Do We Need to Tell People the Bad News Before the Good News?”
I wonder what Dr. Copan thinks of this award-winning senior pastor’s thoughts on the subject:
“I have been taught that Roman Catholics feel their religion is THE religion, the only religion, the only right religion. Christians think that confessing Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. For Muslims, adhering to the tenets of the Qur’an and living the Muslim life constitute a life of Truth.
These religions in effect limit the capacity of God to embrace all of the people God created, seeing as how religions do teach that God created all people. These religions, through their proselytizing, serve to confuse and coerce people into THEIR way, and suggest that all who do not commit to THEIR way are apostates.
Please.
Would it be a fact that this God, the creator of us all, would have created people of different cultures who would create different religions based on their cultures would ban those people, condemn them to hell or eternal suffering?
Can it really be that God, who is supposed to be loving, would allow such errant ways to go on for such a long time if their ways were all so abominable to Him?
It seems that the way to “share” one’s religion is to live it. A life lived that shows love and compassion and inclusion and empathy would be a draw for anyone seeking peace and truth. God is Love; that is what we are all taught. Proselytizing does not transmit a feeling of love; it creates an atmosphere of tension based on religious competition.”
(cont.)
“In the end, I have to say that the thought of proselytization seems antagonistic to and at odds with the notion of God as One God, as the Shema says. There is One God, writes Paul. There are several ways to get to this God, and I would bet that God is all right with all of them. At the end of the day, it is not how we get to God that is most important.
It is, rather, that we, no matter what religion we are, get to him.”
Seriously TUAD, Do you really think that Paul Copan would agree with that nonsense? If so, you’ve completely misjudged him. Paul definitely seeks to share the gospel with others. He is an Evangelical apologist you know. He purposes to help us to overcome the sorts of objections which we will commonly encounter as we engage with those not-yet-saved… as we attempt to share the gospel with them. Paul is not about winning arguments for argument’s sake. He want’s to see people come into a true relationship with Jesus. Paul is a very kind man…very non-abrasive. It makes sense to me that Paul would seek to build friendships with people and then share the gospel with them. He has the right desire! So what if he chooses not to start with a 10 commandments approach to evangelism. It’s not like he has it all wrong you know. And quite possibly he has successfully shared the gospel with hundreds of people!
Susan,
My goodness! What an outburst! I just asked what he thought of it, that’s all.
I haven’t jumped in because I’m leaving for Chicago today, which comes at around mid-terms!
Let me be brief. As some of you don’t know me, I feel like the apostle Paul in some ways–writing like a fool to defend myself: “I must be out of my mind”–indeed, “it’s a trivial thing for me to be judged by you or by any human court,” Paul wrote. Well, for those who do know me (Susan is aware of what I’ve been up to over the years), here’s a brief synopsis.
I was in charge of evangelism and discipleship when I was on staff with a church in upstate New York–involved in college campus ministry, international student outreach, open forums for the public. Since then I have spoken on scores of university campuses doing open forums. I regularly challenge students to think about their own will in relation to the evidence, reminding them that evidence will be useful for seeking hearts, not for resistant ones.
In conversation and correspondence, I’m often praying with atheists and agnostics. I have lots of non-Christian friends. I regularly engage with non-Christians in lengthy discussions, and it’s been a joy to see a good number of people come to Christ through the ministry God has given me.
As for quoting Boyd, note my disclaimer. As for citing Miller, I actually first spotted this quotation in J.P. Moreland’s book *The God Question*. I think I’m fairly good company here. And keep in mind that all truth is God’s truth! Even when Paul quoted pagans in Athens, he didn’t say, “Now, I’m not in agreement with other aspects of Aratus’ thought, but he gets it right here.” So again, it’s hard to be St. Paul!
Also, on the interview assignment, a number of students have reported that these conversations have led to professions of faith on-site–not to mention new bridges built for conversations later on.
As I’ve said, some Christians are too formulaic in their “gospel presentations.” My corrective comes from the examples of Jesus and Paul…