My wife, Dawnelle, had been pursuing an evangelistic ministry in a dormitory on a midwestern campus. She had been contacting women through a letter of introduction inviting them to meet with her to discuss the gospel. She then visited the ones who expressed an interest.

     One afternoon she encountered criticism of her efforts from an unexpected source. A woman who had agreed to meet with her turned out to be a Christian, and she pleasantly but firmly expressed her disapproval of Dawnelle's approach to evangelism. She was concerned that Dawnelle, not having a personal relationship with most of the women she was meeting, was doing more harm than good for the cause of the gospel. She felt that my wife was not the "right person" to be sharing Christ with these women.

     Although convinced she was not doing more harm than good, Dawnelle did agree there was a better person for the job. She asked, "Would you see that every woman on your floor has a chance to hear the gospel?" The student replied, "No, I don't know how to go about it; besides, I'm not sure I'm even willing." My wife then replied, "Although I'm not the most likely person to reach your friends for Christ, it's because of thinking like yours that people like me have to go about it the way we do."

     This conversation typifies the philosophical differences among Christians as to how the work of evangelism should be pursued, whether in a dormitory, in a community or around the world. These differences can be traced to the evangelist's alignment with one of two philosophical approaches to evangelism. My wife, operating in the context of the comprehensive-incarnational school, believed that as many as possible should hear as soon as possible, as clearly as possible. She was thus compelled to initiate meetings with all who would listen, using any legitimate means toward this end. The other woman, operating in the context of the relational-incarnational approach, believed in the superiority of sharing Christ in the context of interpersonal relationships. She believed that to do otherwise, as my wife had done, was improper. (As is so often the case, however, this woman was inexperienced and untrained in evangelism and unwilling to back up her criticism with an alternative that would give her friends a chance to hear the gospel.)

     In this chapter we will discuss these two approaches in terms of their theological presuppositions and the practical ramifications of those presuppositions in evangelism, and we will evaluate each from a biblical perspective.

The Relational-lncarnational Approach

     The relational-incarnational approach claims this name because it is said to conform its evangelistic practice to the model of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Those who advocate this approach reason, "When God wanted to communicate with human beings, He didn't hire a skywriter to fill the air with messages. He didn't send us a tract from heaven. Rather, God communicated to us by becoming a man and dwelling among us" (John 1:17).

     Indeed, Jesus shared in the human condition. He got tired and thirsty, felt grief and experienced death. The writer of Hebrews states, "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same" (Hebrews 2:14). The writer continues, "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted" (Hebrews 2:16-18).

 Theological Foundation

     The point of this passage, at least concerning relational-incarnational evangelism, is that the effective communication of spiritual truth is by necessity personal and relational, since the truth is an actual person, Jesus Himself. The incarnation of Christ was the context in which God chose to communicate and demonstrate spiritual truth to men.

     We find Jesus beginning His earthly ministry by "preaching the gospel of God" and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:13,14). But Jesus did more than say the truth, He demonstrated the truth. His miracles and loving, compassionate service backed up His message.

     For example, as Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaum, He cast out a demon. As His audience witnessed this miracle, they said to themselves, "What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey Him" (Mark 1:21-27). The implication is that Jesus' verbal, propositional message was validated by the demonstration of the power of His miracles. What He did validated what He said to this audience.

    Relational-incarnation evangelism is an attempt to integrate Christ's communication model, His incarnation and His ministry, into the work of sharing the gospel. Let us look at the practical application of this approach.

 Practical Ramifications

     The relational-incarnational school reasons that since the Truth is a person; it is designed to be communicated in the context of the relational and personal. The propositional truth of the gospel message should not be artificially separated from the context of a real person, who bears witness to this truth by manifesting in his own character and relationships Christlike qualities and conduct. An emphasis on propositional content without such demonstration, it is reasoned, is a truncated approach to communication and therefore an ineffective and generally inappropriate approach to communicating the gospel.

     The communication principle, "Truth is a person," leads to a very logical result in philosophy and practice of evangelism. Here are some commonly taught principles of evangelism that find their source in this model.

     (1) Since effective communication requires both content and demonstration (context), then to communicate the gospel effectively, one should do so in the context of a warm, ongoing personal relationship where the messenger's life, demonstrating the power of the gospel, has been witnessed. This makes the gospel more meaningful and believable.

     (2) If such a relationship is absent, then the communicator should work to build one so that he can communicate the gospel effectively, i.e., in such away that makes the gospel meaningful and believable.

     (3) To validate the truth and relevence of its content, the gospel must demonstrate its life-changing power in human lives. Therefore, an evangelist must work at "earning the right to be heard" by his audience. He does this by living out the Christian life in their presence, letting his light shine before men in such away that they may see his good works and glorify his Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).

     (4) Since effective communication demands both demonstration and content, both word and deed, then each is considered a legitimate expression of evangelism in its own right. Presence both individual and corporate, it is reasoned, is an aspect of true evangelism, as are proclamation and persuasion. Thus, to evangelize is to be present and do, as well as to proclaim, persuade and speak.

    Given the need of the situation (i.e., the listener is a stranger or has not had the opportunity to see the good news modeled in the life of the messenger or church), it is sometimes necessary just to be silently present to reflect the truth of the gospel. To speak at such times would be a violation of the nonbeliever's spiritual sensitivities, and integrity constituting an inappropriate, ineffective and possibly unethical evangelistic practice. Thus, the development of a presence witness is given sequential priority over proclamation and persuasion as a general rule.

 Strengths

     I see three major areas of strength in using the relational-incarnational model of communication in evangelism:

     (1) The first strength might be called the friendship factor. Since relational-incarnational evangelism places great emphasis on the cultivation of warm relationships as a platform for evangelism, this opens the way for the development of enduring friendships between Christians and non-Christians. One builds a natural bridge for the gospel. The chances that the nonbeliever will come to a true understanding of the gospel are higher than when a person shares Christ with a stranger. Thus, we are more likely to see a higher percentage of informed decisions for Christ in this context.

     The quality context developed in the relational approach also increases the chances for the new Christian to grow in his faith after conversion. He already has at least one friend in God's kingdom, and now he has a readily available and comfortable bridge into the fellowship of the local body of Christ.

     (2) The second strength of the incarnational approach is the time factor. There is no rush here. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are relationships that become fertile soil for the spread of the gospel. Trust must be cultivated. It is not automatic, especially in this day and age. The audience must be given the room to reflect on the quality of life of the evangelist and to begin to make the link between this quality and the truth of the gospel. In an age of hype and empty words, this demonstration of consistency is a welcome relief. The gospel is not just one more message in the already glutted marketplace of ideas. It is backed up by changed lives, spiritual power, and the love of the evangelist.

     (3) Time and friendship combined create an environment factor where the evangelist can be sensitive to the felt needs of the potential believer, to walk in his shoes for a while. We cannot attain a deep discernment of the hopes, fears and spiritual sight of a person without taking time to be a student of his life. This environment breeds trust on the part of the nonbeliever and sensitivity on the part of the evangelist.

 The Comprehensive-Incarnational Approach

     As the title suggests, this approach to evangelism takes seriously the communication principles and the theological concerns of the relational-incarnational model of evangelism.

 Theological Foundations

     At the same time, however, this approach seeks to incorporate other theological factors and communication principles, broadening the approach and giving it its comprehensive nature. This approach is based on several theological presuppositions:

     (1) The truth of God's saving grace has been incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, the living Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, the comprehensive-incarnational approach embraces the spirit and concerns of the relational school, implementing this approach whenever appropriate.

     (2) The gospel message, the "word of the cross" (1 Corinthians 1:18), is God's Word of testimony to the saving work of the person of Christ. In this message, God Himself is "powerfully present," for it is the living message of the living, incarnate Christ. It is the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and in this gospel, the sinner encounters Christ in all of His saving power. The gospel is the "power of God for salvation" (Romans 1:16). As such, it has the inherent ability to win its own hearing, create its own platform of relevance and engage the hearts of the lost toward the end that sinners, convinced of its truth, can be saved. Thus, theological priority is placed on the presentation of this Word (proclamation and persuasion).

    (3) The Holy Spirit is God's seeking agent in salvation. He works ceaselessly to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11), and to bear witness in unbelievers' hearts to the grace, truth and saving power of Jesus as the gospel is communicated (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Thus there are always men and women ready to respond to the gospel if they could only hear it proclaimed.

     (4) Every Christian is designated an ambassador for Christ and, as part of the local body of believers, he is God's chosen agent to manifest His saving concern for the world by bringing the gospel to the lost. God sovereignly has chosen to equip and use those yielded to His power and purposes in the work of drawing the lost to a saving knowledge of Christ. All believers are called to a maximum mobilization toward this end.

     (5) The hope of heaven, the awesome reality of hell, the brevity of life and the responsibility of human decision highlight the urgent nature of the task of evangelism. It is imperative that all appropriate means possible be pursued so that as many as possible will hear as soon as possible and will understand the gospel as clearly as possible.

 Practical Ramifications

     The following principles of evangelism are grounded in the theological presuppositions of the comprehensive-incarnational approach:

     (1) Since the gospel message, in conjunction with the convicting work of the Spirit, is sufficient to produce authentic conversions, legitimate and effective communication of the gospel can and often does take place in a context lacking demonstration, deed, presence and, generally, the relational element. Thus, priority is given to the persuasive-proclamation of the gospel.

     (2) Whenever possible, the messenger should make every effort to highlight the harmony that exists between the gospel and the reality of his changed life, pointing to the supernatural presence of Christ in His messengers and church, and thus enhancing the attractiveness of the gospel to the watching world.

     (3) The evangelist is called to commit himself to an evangelistic ministry in which he (a) boldly takes the initiative with all who will listen, (b) shares the gospel in a spirit of sensitivity, (c) shares the gospel with a spiritual perception grounded in an understanding of the communication process, and (d) maximizes his impact for Christ by using every manner of ethically appropriate, biblically effective strategy and methodology that he can.

     (4) It is imperative to mobilize the church for the work of evangelism. To do this, evangelistic training, tools and strategies are employed to ensure that the barriers of fear, inertia, lack of experience and lack of contact with the nonbelieving world are overcome. All believers should be given the opportunity for training in how to engage in evangelistic contact with friends, acquaintances and anyone else who will listen.

 Strengths 0f the Comprehensive Approach

     (1) The primary strength of the comprehensive-incarnational approach is its theologically comprehensive nature lending to its effectiveness.

     For example, this approach provides a flexible and comprehensive framework for evangelistic ministry. It emphasizes the theological urgency of evangelism. At the same time it emphasizes sensitivity in communication, recognizing man's spiritual blindness and the necessity that he not only hear the gospel but also understand its personal implications.

    The comprehensive-incarnational school places an emphasis on both God's role and the Christian's role in evangelism. God's role is (a) to motivate the Christian to go into the harvest fields and (b) to convict and regenerate the lost. The Christian's role is to communicate the gospel boldly and sensitively to all who will listen, giving them an opportunity to make a Spirit-led, intelligent decision for Christ.

     (2) The second strength of the comprehensive-incarnational approach is that, while taking to heart the strengths of the relational-incarnational school, it goes beyond the scope of this approach and seeks to reach those who are beyond the influence of a loving relationship with a Christian or the visible expression of the body of Christ.

     As we have noted, the comprehensive approach assumes the sufficiency of the power of the gospel and convicting ministry of the Spirit to elicit a saving response from the lost. Thus, the evangelist knows that, while the "relationally contextualized," gospel may be ideal, the joyful truth is that the supernatural power of God's Word and Spirit do not make this a theological or practical necessity. I do not mean to downplay the relational context, but rather to emphasize the will and the awesome power of God to save sinners. He is able to use any human yielded to His purposes and power, no matter how "relationally unlikely" that person may be.

     The comprehensive approach acknowledges that the scope of one's ministry is not defined by relational concerns, but by the necessity that God be glorified in the preaching of the gospel to "all nations" (Matthew 28:18-20).

     (3) The comprehensive-incarnational approach embraces all means to reach all men. It acknowledges that many methods of doing evangelism are biblically sound and effective in practice. Hence strategy, training, tools and evangelistic techniques are readily utilized to enhance the effectiveness of the church. Because of this multifaceted approach, many who would not be mobilized by the relational approach are exposed to actual "frontline" evangelistic experience.

     The comprehensive-incarnational approach is grounded in the New Testament data on evangelism and those theological concerns touching on the evangelistic enterprise. Within this context every effort is made to ensure that as many as possible will hear as soon as possible and understand the good news clearly.

 Covering Some Tracks

     It is not this author's intention in this or the next chapter to erect a "straw man," a relational evangelist, and then proceed to set fire to him. Therefore, let me make a few things clear.

    I do not want to give the impression that everyone in each of these two schools is equally committed to all aspects of this philosophy and approach. There is ample room for variety and even disagreement among those in each school. Therefore, when I state that the relational or comprehensive schools adhere to a certain position, I mean that this a generally held position – not a hard and fast rule adhered to by 100% of those aligned with that approach.

     Nor am I saying that each school is mutually exclusive and inherently at odds with the other. It's quite possible that some who are more aligned with the relational approach, in its presuppositions and application to evangelism, would be flexible enough to agree philosophically with, if not practice, some of the principles of comprehensive evangelism.

     By definition, those who align themselves with the comprehensive approach embrace the spirit of the relational approach, seeing it as an effective, and at times, even the most appropriate, means of sharing the gospel. But they are compelled by the great need for all men to hear the gospel to go beyond this approach to embrace a more comprehensive scope of ministry and methodology.

     But, with all this in mind, the fact remains that there are significant differences in evangelistic practice between these two schools. Let's take a look at this in the next chapter.