The most common question I am getting about The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited is this one:
How do we evangelize now?
A friend the other day says to me, “I was talking to a young pastor who likes your book but asked me, ‘What do I say to someone if I have 3-5 minutes?’” [Blech, I thought, that 3-5 minute thing is a problem that only soterians care about.] Later that day a former student says to me, “If you had to talk to a young adult who didn’t have anything to do with the church, what would you say?” And this one comes all the time, “If you are right about the King Jesus gospel, and I’m mostly with you on this one, how do we evangelize?” Some say to me “I can no longer manipulate people to feel guilty; I want to participate in drawing people into the kingdom who live under the King. How do we evangelize?”
How have you learned to evangelize (I prefer “gospel”) in the post sin management era, in a post soterian culture? What are some things you’ve learned?
The answer is as simple as it is profound.
If I have to sum this up in one word we have to “witness.” Our responsibility is not to persuade, or to convince, or to defend. Our responsibility is to be a “witness” — but a witness to what? Exactly.
We are witnesses to Jesus as Messiah/King and Lord, the one who saves.
Our responsibility is first of all to live in such a way that we embody what Jesus calls us to do.
Our responsibility is to point people to Jesus, to tell the Story of Jesus, and to tell of our own story with Jesus.
I make an observation about how our New Testament is organized. First “the gospel.” They are called The Gospels today but they are the one and only gospel in four versions, four “witnesses,” four “gospelers” (or four evangelists). Those four books are the place to begin because that is how the New Testament begins. We begin with the gospel, and that means we begin by telling people about Jesus. Almost any passage will do. You can begin with the genealogy or the Sermon on the Mount or his miracles or his parables or his life events, or even the big events. If you want to know how to “witness,” read the Gospels. In those four books you will see time and time again how to tell a story so that it leads us to think about Jesus.
But this implies knowledge of the Bible or even a church context. The first thing to do in any “gospeling” event is to aim at pointing people to Jesus. It might be an observation: “Jesus called us to serve one another.” It might be a question: “Why wouldn’t a Jesus follower want to reach out in love to a Muslim neighbor?” Or it might be a more direct witness: “Jesus long ago once told us a story about a woman who anointed his feet and got some religious leaders irritated.”
What we ought to be about is getting people to think about Jesus, holding classes where all sorts can come around to learn about Jesus, offering public discussions about Jesus. We want to stir an interest in Jesus. We are not trying first to stir interest in our church, or in someone’s sins or in some kind of theological debate.
We are witnesses. First and foremost we are witness to and about Jesus. Our calling is to draw attention to Jesus and to call folks’ attention to Jesus. The Story of Jesus awakens faith and in that context the summons to repent, to be believe and to be baptized can be given.
The focus is not on what people get if they accept Jesus; the focus is Jesus. He’ll give them what he wants. And he wants.
I’m with you, Scot, on that 3-5 minute thing. Why is it that the ultimate test of any perspective on the gospel is its compatability with a super-fast, digestible sales pitch? Something seriously wrong going on there…
For the whole day today I was thinking about what it means by “witness”. I thought about that reading the first few chapters of Eugene Peterson’s memoir. But I have to agree, as much as this is simple, it is truly profound. We are not the centre of attention but Jesus is the one who takes centre stage in our gospelling.
Scot,
I am anxious to read your book. It sounds absolutely fascinating. Based on the handful of posts that I have read here, it sounds like Jerram Barrs, “The Heart of Evangelism” might be a very helpful companion to your text. He lays out seven principles of gospel communication. It doesn’t really fit the whole “3-5 minute”, “Knowing God Personally”, model.
I am curious if you have read it? If so, what did you think of the perspective that Barrs takes?
Daniel,
Yes, I read Barrs book when it came out and I like his approach.
In our community, we are discovering the powerful intersection of living in such a way that we embody what Jesus calls us be AND practicing radical hospitality. It is far from easy, but it has been a beautiful journey.
Being able to distinguish between evangelism and proselytism will go a long way in a discussion such as this.
Paul W,
That’s a good distinction to press, though we need to define each term. I’m assuming your use of proselytism refers to converting into our group vs. another group.
Thank you, Scot, for the post. Like Tim, I am with you on the 3-5 minute thing.
For practical “evangelizing”, I’ve taken to inviting my non-Christian friends and family to join me whenever our church does community service type events. It’s been my experience that non-Christians WANT to help others, but no one ever asks them to do that! Plus, I figure them seeing Christians from all walks of life getting along and helping others is more of a witness than any 3-5 minutes of my canned gospel sound-byte message could ever make.
Peace, Brian
Even back when I was doing canned-gospel evangelism, 3-5 minutes was not enough time to share Jesus with anyone. That’s only enough time to get a tract into their hands, and extract a promise from them that they’ll really read it instead of chucking it into the nearest trash can. I needed at least 20.
Nowadays what I do is briefly share what God has been doing in my life. If that gets their interest, I invite them to my church, or find out what church they used to go to and encourage them to go back. If it doesn’t, oh well.
Great stuff, Scot. The gospels are, in one sense, reason after reason for people to trust/follow Jesus. We need to take all those reasons for ourselves, and be able to give them authentically to others. Another point here: our ‘testimony’ is not merely our conversion experience. Our testimony is everything we’ve personally experienced/witnessed of Jesus. Step one of witnessing isn’t telling something, it’s personally observing Jesus.
Scot, I look forward to reading The King Jesus Gospel. Thank you for calling the attention of the church to Jesus and his kingship. This post resonates with me because it describes what motivated me to become a Christian.
Nobody sat me down and gave me a gospel presentation. But I became involved with a Christian youth group (Campus Life) when I was in high school, and I was blown away by the way my friends talked about what Jesus had done–and was doing–for them. And I saw the difference he was making in their lives. After 4 months of just being around them, I made my commitment to Christ. I love your comment, “If you want to learn how to ‘witness,’ read the Gospels.”
Thanks for showing that sharing the gospel is a much more multi-faceted activity than we would assume from some of the evangelism training we often receive in evangelical circles. And, I would add, a much more exciting activity too.
I don’t think I agree with this sentence:
“We are witnesses. First and foremost we are witness to and about Jesus. Our calling is to draw attention to Jesus and to call folks’ attention to Jesus.”
First and foremost we are Disciples and/or Followers. Evangelism then is living a way of life that requires Jesus to be real. Malachi 3:10 as an example.
Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, “I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won’t have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test!
This pushes us to a crux. Either God is a fraud and doesn’t poor out his blessings like He promised. Or we have not yet begun to live as disciples. If we aren’t living as Disciples, we have nothing true to say to anyone else and all evangelism is then meaningless.
Adam,
I think Scot agreed with that: ‘Our responsibility is first of all to live in such a way that we embody what Jesus calls us to do.’
I would think that evangelizing would deal with each person you’re talking to on their terms, not yours. Perhaps they’ve never been “churched”, perhaps they were and left. Perhaps their reasons for not accepting Christianity are moral, or perhaps they’re intellectual.
One of the mistakes I see are approaches that fail to match the reservations of the target individual.
Adam, but isn’t this a both/and situation instead of an either/or? Is it possible to be a Godly witness without being a disciple? Is it possible to be a disciple without being a witness? It seems those two go hand in hand. It seems like you can’t have one without the other.
I just worry that if I don’t share my faith in action & words until I feel like I’m a perfect disciple… then I’ll NEVER wind up sharing my faith.
Peace, Brian
Adam I think you are making a distinction that isn’t really there. A disciple is a witness to Christ. The original goal of the disciples was to become just like their rabbi (which would be a witness as they lived like him). But even beyond that, look at Jesus’ call in Acts 1.8. I imagine this calling was for all followers/disciples & not simply those present on that day.
Hmmmm…it seems like the Bible says some things about proclamation too. I agree we are witnesses, but I think there is a time for proclamation as well.
One more thought. What would you say to a dying man (say at an automobile accident)? What if he felt the urgency of his situation and knew you were a Christian and asked you to help him? What would you say? It almost sounds like you’d say “blech.”
The fact that our evangelism is more geared toward people accepting a “thing” like eternal life or forgiveness, or trusting a sacrificial event or formula more than a whole Person–the fact that we have these evangelism questions at all in response to Scot’s book and its thesis–is strong proof of how deeply we have shifted from declaring a person, a King, and inviting people to trust and follow him, and shifted toward isolating his sacrifice and asking people to trust “it”, as an event or accomplishment. The difference makes a world of difference for (non)discipleship.
There is a profound theology in the King Jesus Gospel. Scot mentioned it like this: “…the Story of Jesus awakens faith and in that context the summons to repent…” The soterian gospel is so entrenched. The soterian gospel has wrapped around western Christianity like tough roots of a tree that are sapping the strength out of the original King Jesus Gospel. Inherent in the soterian gospel is the compulsive need *to persuade* the other (in three minutes or less if we can). A witness makes declarative statements about Jesus and His life at the same time as that witness is living the Jesus Way within a community of believers. The Story of Jesus awakens faith. Do we believe that any more? To make the Gospel a sales pitch is pathetically off target IMO.
Scott (18),
I’m not speaking for Scot, but his advice still holds: Act out of our experience and knowledge and Spirit of Jesus. I’d pray for him, for his healing at least (right then and there) and talk to him, listening to him and for any insights from God’s Spirit. Making sure whatever medical help is on its way would also be key. The issue of conversion, to me, is trusting whatever life we have left to Christ; maybe he’d get there.
Great conversation everyone. I am really enjoying the back and forth. I think that Michael Green’s “Evangelism in the Early Church” could be a helpful reference point for us. If I recall correctly, and it’s been a while, he argues that the model we see in the Gospels and early church is that of both/and. He argues for proclamation (i.e. our witness), integrated living within the community, and being invitational into the community of faith. These would not be either/or evangelistic models.
We need to be very careful about the “conversion” mindset. It seems what Jesus was after and the early church following after him, was repentance and thus inclusion in the community that is marked by faith. While we can call this “conversion” we have to be careful that we don’t boil it down to “praying a prayer”. Evangelism in the early church was so much broader in its scope than the turn it took in the Second Great Awakening under Finney’s influence.
Lives marked by repentance and faith are not brought about by praying the “sinners prayer” or by “deciding to accept Jesus” but by consistent and faithful discipleship.
I guess to summarize we need authentic proclamation (see the book of Acts) and we need followers of Christ living authentically in their neighborhood (see the book of Acts), and faith communities living together intentionally (again, see Acts). Another way to state this would be three modes of evangelism: ministry mode, natural mode, and body mode.
Scott (18)
I want to add to what T said. There are times in life where we boil down the message overall to help communicate truth. This could be in a last minute situation (as you describe) or to a small child, etc. What I hear Scot saying against the Soterian Gospel is assuming that the boiled down message is the entire message. Understanding the full King Jesus Gospel will better help us adapt & boil down the message in these situations. It will also help us share the gospel more effectively in the vast majority of situations where we have more than 3-5 minutes.
So in the moment you describe, you do as T said…you do your best in the moment with the Spirit’s leading (and at the same time helping physically as able).
But, I get the sense in our soterian world, that we don’t trust the Gospel to do it’s work. We don’t have faith that someone can read/hear the stories of Jesus and make sense of it without us boiling it down to a couple concise points that fit neatly into a small booklet (or in a 3-5 minute “pitch”).
And, it seems we’re more concerned with the “pitch,” than we are having conversations with the people we encounter everyday. It’s like we’ve built our theology on hypothetical conversations with people in automobile accidents, instead of thinking about what ongoing, redemptive conversations might look like.
Another note (since Scot and Scott both raised this) on “how do we evangelize?” We need to learn to accept the kind of help from the Spirit that the Spirit obviously gives our NT ancestors. Gifts of insight, power to heal, conviction to speak with authority, etc. These are all things that the first “witnesses” needed to be Christ’s witnesses. Do we really think we won’t need such help? Jesus himself tied the Spirit’s power to being his witness. It’s going to be hard for anyone to function Christ’s witness without developing an ongoing and functional relationship with God’s powerful and surprising Spirit.
We do what Jesus did and taught. We watch him work in the gospels and today through his creation and people. We receive his very powerful and alive Spirit for continued work and guidance. We thereby bear witness of a kingdom and a king that is in, but not of, this world.
Scot
Not trying to be contentious but how should we understand these passages in light of your statement that it is not our responsibility to persuade?
Acts 18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
2 Corinthians 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
Paul apparently thought persuasion played some role. That being said, my first reaction to this piece (I haven’t read the book) was that it takes a lot of pressure off.
Thanks.
To all responders,
What I’m trying to get at is that the Gospel and Evangelism isn’t a head thing or even a language thing. It’s a life thing. How we live is the only kind of evangelism that works.
Scot wrote:
“What we ought to be about is getting people to think about Jesus, holding classes where all sorts can come around to learn about Jesus, offering public discussions about Jesus. We want to stir an interest in Jesus.”
This is all very head type stuff; classes, discussions, etc… We should be feeding the poor, healing the sick, and raising the dead.
I think T is right when he said “We do what Jesus taught”. Emphasis on DO; and this statement is in opposition to “We teach what Jesus taught.” To trust that Jesus is alive and active in the world is to trust that Jesus is still teaching. It’s our place to act and let our actions do the teaching.
Just to be clear, I’ve just begun Scot’s new book and look forward to it greatly. I’m just raising questions in my previous comment and I’m personally wrestling with this.
To the congregation I serve I am always challenging them to believe far more than what Scot calls the Plan of Salvation. I’m just personally working through the implications of this.
And I think what John Frye (20) said is true – the “soterian” way of thinking is deeply entreched.
Just a thought or two. Fred (#26), it would certainly be an interesting discussion to have to distinguish between Paul’s apostolic calling and the behavior it entailed and then to ask whether that’s normative for all Christians and for the gathered church. Should we all be doing that, or are there NT patterns of life that the church should embody, including evangelism, that are related but distinct from Paul’s apostolic behaviors.
Adam (#27), I hear you and agree largely with what you’re saying, but I think it’s not good to think in terms of “evangelism that works.” IMO, we should be thinking in terms of faithful evangelism, or something like that. When the focus is on “what works,” we tend to override other considerations.
What a refreshing alternative to the “Repent for Hell is near” evangelism I see all the time around here. I have found that unchurched people do have a curiosity about Jesus even if they don’t like Christians.
I bought a 12-pack of beer at Wal-Mart the other day and tucked into the top was a tract warning me about Hell.
Just to add to Paul’s point (#23) — I totally agree. You can’t anticipate those moments in life when you do need to “boil down” the gospel into a shorter summary. What’s needed at those moments is an instinctive response. What readies us for those occasions is the increasing education in the church of the wider gospel story and its many facets, implications, etc. When we’re growing in understanding of that, it equips us for those moments when we need to speak a timely word.
Adam #27-
“It’s our place to act and let our actions do the teaching.”
How do our actions explain who Jesus is and what He did? The gospel (the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ) are to be proclaimed. We “do” because of who He is, and what He did. That news needs to be told.
Tim @ 29
Good point. It seems to me that persuasion plays at least some role though loving can be just as persuasive as spoken language, perhaps more so. The second verse really doesn’t imply a spoken word.
Fish @ 30
I presume you returned the beer.
Rick #32
Jesus taught to forgive our enemies, to sell everything we have, to die for the sake of others. These are insane teachings because if you follow them, you will die and what good are you dead? Unless, Jesus actually defeated death. Then death is nothing to fear.
If we don’t fear death then we can forgive our enemies, sell everything, and insanely rely on Jesus to provide everything we need. The way we live is proof that Jesus is real because there is no other possible way that life can happen.
But we don’t live that way. We tell other people to believe in Jesus and then we hate our enemies. We tell other people to believe that Jesus will sustain them, and we sell nothing. Our actions are speaking louder than our words. We don’t believe in Jesus. Our actions prove it.
In the words of St. Francis of Assisi “Preach the Gospel always and, if necessary, use words.”
How long does it take to read 1 Cor 15:3-5? How long does it take to read the book of Romans?
It may be silly to use the 3-5 minute question as the best test for the authenticity of our Gospel but it’s just as silly to say that any formulaic summary of the Gospel is somehow selling out.
Adam (34), how do you fit your way of “preaching” the Gospel with Paul’s in Rom 10?
Are there places in the NT where someone is said to have preached the Gospel through their lifestyle?
Adam #34-
I have to agree with what Joe Thorn wrote on this:
“In 2009 Ed Stetzer wrote, “Francis never actually said this, nor would he have done so due to his membership in a preaching order.” Earlier that same year Mark Galli (who has written a biography on St. Francis) wrote in Christianity Today, “The problem is that [St. Francis] did not say it. Nor did he live it. And those two contra-facts tell us something about the spirit of our age.” He backs it up historically, and then gives us a picture of the real St. Francis–a gifted preacher who developed other preachers.”
Thorn went on to say:
“The gospel is solely the work of Jesus Christ to which we bear witness. His substitutionary life, death, and resurrection is our salvation. We cannot “do” the gospel, or “be” the gospel, but we can and must preach the gospel. In fact, most of the time when the gospel is referenced in Scripture it is connected to proclamation.”
Now I would say the gospel is more than what Thorn is stating (shout-out to Scot’s new book on this topic), but Thorn is right about what we are proclaiming.
Here is that Joe Thorn post:
http://www.joethorn.net/2011/01/18/francis-preaching-and-the-gospel/
Scot –
Maybe something is clicking for the first time with this, but Protestantism has lived with Luther’s Law/Gospel dynamic for roughly 500 yrs. While the way we evangelize (“soterian”) might be a gross simplification of that, we have preached and taught that that law kills and the gospel makes alive. What I am reading is not that law/gospel is a mistake, but that the gross simplification we make of it isn’t helpful (the 3-5 mins is a big mistake), and a more if you will catholic statement of continuing grace (or Kingdom living) is necessary. Is that close? Are you essentially questioning at least how we have applied law/gospel?
Mark,
I’ll go ahead and say Luther’s Law/Gospel hermeneutic was a mistake!
At least where it goes as far as to call Jesus’ own teachings “law” no matter how much they are given as an act of grace, no matter that Jesus calls them “Spirit” and “life.” Luther said only that which consols is gospel. Given the abuses from which he arose, I don’t blame him. But his Law/Gospel distinction has more to do with those abuses he suffered than the scriptures themselves.
The Evangelical concept of evangelism has been the single greatest topic of frustration/confusion in my whole Christian walk of nearly 20 years.
I would like to offer a couple of quotes on the subject.
“Being a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means living in such a way that one’s life would not make sense if God did not exist.” Cardinal Suhard
Evangelism is often presented as something that starts with a sales pitch and ends in an argument. That’s wrong from start to finish. At its core, evangelism involves telling your story. That’s not a debate or an argument, it’s a testimony, a narrative (one that hasn’t ended yet) [Slacktivist “Use Words if Necessary”]
From Abraham, through Moses, the Psalmists, prophets and wisdom of Israel, and from Jesus and the apostles, we learn that such a biblical lifestyle includes justice, compassion, humility, integrity, truthfulness, sexual chastity, generosity, kindness, self-denial, hospitality, peacemaking, non-retaliation, doing good, forgiveness, joy, contentment and love – all combined in lives of worship, praise and faithfulness to God. (On being doers of the word. From the Lausanne conference 2010: “We Love God’s Word”)
I also wrote a blog post a few months ago on why I oppose evangelism altogether (as it is mostly understood in our context). I am not an academic so please overlook its crudeness.
http://jointhediscussiontheologyandme.blogspot.com/2011/02/glory-of-lord-has-departed.html
Scot,
It’s looking like I will buy yet another of your books. Your post reminded me of a helpful note I keep on my iPhone:
“The Church proposes, she imposes nothing.”
Pope John Paul II
Peter G. (#35), might Matt. 5:16 be an instance? Also, should there be a distinction made between the apostles’ proclamation in Acts and the activity of evangelism to which the church is called? It may not necessarily be the case that our evangelism must resemble the apostles’ ministry of proclamation.
I’ve not yet read Scott’s book but I will get it soon and I am enjoying the lively debate here!
my 2 cents:
I think we’ve simplified the gospel to “believe” when I think “follow” is a better term. All of life lived under Jesus authority is key (I think this is where Scott heads in his book)
The gospel is much more than just the soterian view, but that view is the start of a life lived by the gospel.My immediate concern is that we can miss the key issue of justification which is the reason Jesus came. Justification is the start of a life lived under Jesus lordship, you cannot lose the soterian view without losing the cross. But we must ensure that is not where our gospel ends – the cross is only the start of the gospel.
Witness/evangelism has to be built into relationships with unbeliever, tracts and street corner evangelism by and large will not work. But even with out unbelieving friends we need to have the 3 minute version up our sleeves – but again it is not guilt trip and “you must believe” it is much more “Jesus is Lord – come and follow”
Speaking about Jesus is necessary. As earlier posters noted the St.Francis quote is untrue, not only that it is un-biblical. I have never heard of anyone who has come to Christ because of a friends well lived life, sure it might make them curious…and then? At some point our witness must be proclaiming, debating, convincing and contending for the faith. I’m with Scott (18) in that it almost seems like you might saying “blech”
“Our responsibility is not to persuade, or to convince, or to defend.”
I think I understand and can appreciate where you’re coming from. But I am curious, Scot. How would you understand 2 Cor. 5:11 where Paul is talking about having been given a ministry of reconciliation and he says, “Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men” (NIV). In the 4 other versions on my bible software (ESV, KJV, NLT, NAS) they all translated “peitho” as “persuade.”
These and other passages of scripture (like Acts 17:2 where it says Paul “reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead”) seem like a measure of persuasiveness was involved.
One thing that I noticed is that we look for the easy way to evangelize (or Gospel). We look for formulas and patterns that can be repeated in all situations.
I think the easiest answer comes with a simple phrase from Jesus, “Abide in me and you will bear much fruit.” Which is followed of course by, “For apart from me you can do nothing.”
Evangelism isn’t something that can be put on paper. Perhaps there are times it needs to be a 3-5 minute statement of proclamation. Perhaps others its realizing there’s a man on the side of the road who is sick and needs hospital care.
My point is that there is no format for witness. Due to this, the one thing we can say we need, is continual reliance on Jesus. We need to abide in Him and do so in prayer, in fasting, in meditation and in solitude. We need to do so with an earnest heart. And we also need to trust that the Holy Spirit will open our eyes to the needs of the people around us.
Francis Chan asks, “Where has the extraordinary power of the Church gone? Why does a Church that started out so powerful now look so plain?” His answer (which I agree with) is that we have forgotten to trust in the power of the Holy Spirit!
Yes, there are commands and guidelines that Jesus reveals, however; even in His life, I don’t recall Him doing the same exact thing twice…
Thoughts?
My first response as I read this post is a perhaps trite phrase, but one that seems to work:
“It’s that easy. And it’s that hard.”
Folks, as a world, I think that we are desensitized to religious claims, and for good reason. We have a bunch of people running around saying things like if you just believe some guy is god then you will go to heaven when you die. Step back and think about it, that is simply silly.
I have found that my trump card, and I only play this card with people who have come to know me, goes something like this:
DRT – I have really been getting into religion lately, and I’m not talking about what they teach in church. I mean, imagine, just imagine if it was really and actually true that there is a god and that we can somehow know what this god is like. I’m tired of coming up with pocking holes in the religions out there. I have decided to figure out what we really should believe.
Other – well, I don’t believe in any of it.
DRT – Me too. And I think that most of it has gone quite wrong. But the more I look into it I think there is something that actually makes sense. I am thinking that there is actually something there that makes sense. I am thinking that Jesus really may be the face of god here on earth. Imagine that, if Jesus really is god, I mean just imagine that!
[People are not out there looking to know how they are going to go to heaven. You have to get that out of your mind. Or if someone has already been molested by a campus crusader, then just let them know that we aren’t really sure what happens then, but just think of the implications if god really did come down to earth as a human and we know what he said and what he was about. That is extremely cool.
We don’t need to sell heaven. We don’t *want* to sell heaven.
The sales pitch is that if god really did come down here and we know what he said, then we will want to know that. It really is that simple.]
I pastor a church in a small Midwest city with 20% unemployment and a soaring drug problem that has been documented by both A&E and the New York Times. We are are evangelizing by re-neighboring areas hit the hardest by drugs and prostitution and adopting those in local treatment programs among other things. We point them to Jesus and train are people to do through a Free Seminary program. We do so because we try not to separate the Great Commission from our King’s command to love the “least among us.”. Thanks for the discussion, Dr. McKnight.
Hello Scot, greetings from Germany!
http://context21.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/meine-buchempfehlung-im-oktober/
My comment on ur book for my German friends…
Thank you Scot for helping us to rethink how we present Jesus. I suppose I would add that how we present Him it depends on the context and culture. Jesus, here in Dublin at least, is a familiar name, use as a swearing word or a coma, between sentences, but also for those still faithful to the Catholic church, the “person” that they receive every Sunday in the Eucharist. For many people God is somebody to be afraid of, somebody to keep happy: Some people would say that they do certain things to keep the man above happy. So for me, in some cases, is to invite them to see that God is near, as D.Willard would say and that a life without fear of God, without anxiety, with a constant companion, is possible, and that Jesus modelled that for us. This would be just the opening of a long conversation that could last a couple of years before somebody decides to follow Him, at least this is what happen in our irish culture.
This really resonates with me because I hate doing evangelism because it is awkward but I am tired of feeling guilty for it. This is the perfect solution!
The ‘witness’ focus you emphasize here can be found throughout the gospel records and in Acts. If we can identify the most important element after the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 it would be the disciples witness. Their tongues speech ‘declared the wonders of God,’ and Peter’s sermon in the same chapter, as well as the sermons and Spirit demonstrations that followed, all pointed people to Jesus as Messiah, King and Lord. It would seem that witness should be our focus as well. As Jesus said plainly in Acts 1:8, “you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you shall be my witnesses…” How else can a finite human being adequately witness to an infinite God without the enablement of God’s Spirit?
Enjoyed the book BTW
Scot,
I grew up in a very soterian gospel culture and now work in children’s ministry. One of my roles is to help parents learn how to talk to their children about following Christ in a concrete (developmentally appropriate) way. I have about 30-45 minutes a few times a year to teach parents how to “lead their kids to Christ.” Since I am now wrestling with redefining the gospel, I feel a little stuck in guiding these parents. I understand the lifelong commitment of parents to disciple their kids. However, the pattern of “evangelism” at the church I’m in would be to present the basics via John 3:16 and to lead kids in a prayer to trust Christ. It’s easy to talk about how eternal life starts now so that it’s not just an “evacuation plan” gospel. However, I’m curious how you would offer a simple explanation to a child that includes the King Jesus gospel.