The story of my wife and the student is not an isolated incident. My personal evangelistic efforts have been challenged time and time again by those who felt that taking the initiative to share Christ with a stranger and using a tool to communicate the gospel were at best ineffective and at worst damaging to the work of evangelism. This is perfectly understandable. For, given their relational-incarnational presuppositions, much of the boldness, strategy and methodology of the comprehensive-incarnational approach, is suspect.

 Specific Points of Tension

     Most of the tension in evangelistic philosophy and practice revolves around the issues of effectiveness and ethics. Let us take a look at these two issues in relationship to the two schools of approach.

 Effectiveness in Communication

     The relational-incarnational school suggests that evangelism done outside of a relational context is suspect as biblically deficient and an ineffective form of communication. David Wells, though not writing for the purpose of defending this perspective, nonetheless expresses the concern well. He writes, "The preaching of the gospel is not, then, a matter simply of blitzing the air waves or of impersonally distributing tracts. Christian salvation cannot legitimately be offered when it is severed from the life view in which it finds its context and meaning. And this framework cannot be reduced to brief slogans, isolated biblical texts or snappy bumper stickers.”1

     The relational school is concerned that evangelism attempted outside the framework of a relational element is "severed” from the authenticating power, relevence and meaning of the life of Christ, as manifested in the life of the evangelist. This is not a “legitimate” offer of the gospel and, therefore, would fall short of the standard of effective communication as modeled by Christ.

     The relational approach reasons that such evangelism fails to place the gospel in the meaningful “life context” of the values and transformed character of the messenger. Such an approach fails to earn the trust of the nonbeliever and never gives the evangelist the chance to deal sensitively with the real concerns and issues in the non-Christian's life. Such evangelism is more than likely to fail. Joe Aldrich labels non-relational, initiative evangelism as “confrontational-intrusional” evangelism. While he affirms that this is a legitimate biblical practice, he observes, “Many are being kept from making an effective decision because of bad experiences with a zealous, but insensitive witness.”2 Art McPhee asks, “Would it not, therefore, be much more...effective to share the Good News out of a relationship of trust, based on friendship?”3

     Thus, evangelistic practices that emphasize taking the initiative to share Christ with strangers or acquaintances, where no relationship of trust has been established, are considered to be outside the framework of a biblically effective pattern of communication.

 Ethics in Communication

     The second point of contention concerns the ethical dimension of evangelistic practice. Those favoring the relational-incarnation approach believe that evangelistic practice which relies on strategy, methodology and tools to provide the point of contact with nonbelievers is subject to ethical criticism. The Christian using a tool, or relying on a systematic, strategic, initiative-taking approach to communicate the gospel, is said to be violating the listener's integrity.

     James Jauncey writes, "Just buttonholing a stranger, witnessing to him and pressing for a decision will likely do more harm than good. Most responsible people react negatively and often quite violently to this kind of assault. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for human dignity and personality.”4

     Aldrich believes that "confrontational-intrusional" evangelism will often lead to a decision for Christ that is motivated by "manipulation, fear or the need to get rid of the evangelist."5

     Church visitation evangelism, which relies on strategy and initiative in contacting nonbelievers, rather than on building relationships, is said to have its roots closer to Madison Avenue than to the New Testament. The manipulative spirit of the advertising world, which uses trickery, entrapment and deceit, is said to typify such approaches. Evangelism that dares to confront strangers using a strategy, method or tool is a "clever, quick-sell scheme,"6 a hard-sell approach that attempts to force the gospel on presumably unwilling, unwitting listeners.

     How should those who are involved in the strategies and methodologies grounded in comprehensive evangelism respond to such thinking? Are not many of these concerns valid?

     I greatly respect the concerns raised by the authors. Nevertheless, I feel some inherent shortcomings of the relational-incarnation approach and their criticism of evangelistic practice grounded in the comprehensive school must be pointed out. Those who are involved in comprehensive-incarnational evangelism need not grow discouraged in their efforts or think that they are involved in second-class, ethically suspect or ineffective evangelistic practice.

 The Use of Rhetoric

     Rhetoric is "the art of using language so as to persuade or influence others...language characterized by artificial or ostentatious expression." Rhetorical speech is contrasted to "sober statement or argument."7

    It is obvious that some in the relational-incarnation school resort to the use of rhetoric in taking issue with the methodologies grounded in the comprehensive approach. Evangelists are said to "blitz," not "program" the airwaves with Christian messages. Tracts are "impersonally distributed," not "handed out with a smile and a prayer." Taking the initiative to share Christ outside of a relational context is pejoratively labelled "confrontation" or "intrusion."

    Using methods and tools is "artificial and contrived," implying that their users are participating in a shallow, premeditated attempt to manipulate the nonbeliever. Methods, tools and simple strategies for proclaiming the good news are described as "slick," coated with a Madison Avenue veneer. Words such as "stilted," "rigid," and "rote" are also used to describe such methods, implying that the one who would stoop to use them is either misinformed or a non-thinking, uncreative person.

     What ethically sensitive Christian under the lordship of Christ would want to touch such evangelism? If this were the reality of the situation, we would be ethically obligated to drop nonrelational, initiative-oriented evangelistism like a hot potato. But these rhetorical criticisms are, in most cases, exaggerations. The descriptions are meant to persuade, not inform; to move one to action-based emotions, not to stimulate thought and sober analysis of presuppositions, theology and practice. They are meant to make a point: If you want to refrain from committing ethical atrocities, if you want to be effective in evangelistic communication, stay with the relational approach or start using it right away.

    Rhetoric persuades with power because it is grounded in a kernel of truth. It is not an outright fabrication, but rather, an exaggeration of the facts. Have there been instances of nonbelievers feeling offended, deceived, manipulated, or talked at instead of to because of well-meaning but poorly practiced nonrelational methodology? Of course there have. But it is one thing to say that such situations have occurred and quite another to maintain that they are exclusively inherent to and inevitable in the nonrelational approach. Neither approach is free from criticism on these points.

 The False Dichotomy

     Closely related to rhetoric is the use of false dichotomy. This is a classic form of persuasive communication. While rhetoric relies on exaggeration, the false dichotomy resorts to oversimplification.

     The false dichotomy is thinking that insists on viewing situations as either/or issues instead of both/and issues. Two categories are set in opposition to each other with little or no possibility of combination or integration. You must be on one track or the other, black or white, the high road or the low road, but you cannot be on both. Such dualism betrays a lack of perception of the complexity of certain issues and the ability of humans to appreciate the ambiguities and multidimensional nature of such issues. The relational-incarnational approach has typically displayed such binary thinking by erecting a false dichotomy in two areas of evangelistic practice.

 People Versus Programs

     Evangelistic practices that widely use strategy and tools to contact nonbelievers and to enhance the communication process cut at the very heart of the relational approach. "Techniques aren't the most effective, especially for friends," says Becky Pippert. She adds that "techniques can be helpful to some people in limited ways, but they will not make us natural."8 And of course, we all want to communicate our faith naturally instead of seeming artificial or contrived.

    It is people or programs. Becoming programmatic (using strategies, tools and methods as bridges to initiate contact and communication) would make one so slavishly dependent on the tools and a rigid methodology, that he would be unlikely to relate naturally or sensitively to the listener as a real human being. Methods unnecessarily inhibit the communication process and serve only to "put off" the hearer. So we are left with two choices: (1) Use an "artificial" or "contrived" technique; or (2) choose the high road of "naturalness" and shun witnessing technique and tools.

     This is false dichotomy at its best. It completely ignores a third option, to be committed both to people and to a method as a means of communicating more naturally with a person. There is no inherent contradiction between methodology and a natural, way-of-life approach. In fact, they are a powerful combination which contributes to our personal and corporate evangelistic effectiveness. (We will consider this further in Chapter 20, “A Strategy for Every-Member Mobilization.")

     Like rhetoric, false dichotomy is usually based on a kernel of truth. Can a method be used to trample on the sensitivities of otherwise spiritually open nonbelievers? Of course it can. Can a gospel tract degenerate into a mere formula, to be impersonally imposed upon the hearer with no thought given to dialogue? Of course it can. Such practices probably happen every day, and those of the relational mindset are to be commended for wanting to avoid such problems. Implying that methods are likely to be ineffective, however, is not the answer. The real solution is the proper use of methods and tools.

 Boldness Versus Sensitivity

     The second area of false dichotomy is the supposition that boldness and sensitivity are mutually exclusive. As we have noted, sensitivity, trust and the testimony of a changed life all find ample room for expression in a relational framework.

     But the reasoning is taken one step further to say that these qualities are likely to find expression only in the relational framework. How can the evangelist be sensitive toward a stranger with whom he has boldly initiated contact by means of a strategy or method? "Boldness must necessarily run roughshod over a sensitive dialogue grounded in trust," it is reasoned.

     The relational evangelist thus ascribes the qualities of impatience and insensivity to boldness. Boldness in evangelism would be "confrontational and intrusional," forcing a monologue, rather than dialogue. It would provide little or no platform on which to begin a true conversation touching on sensitive spiritual issues. Thus, initiating contact with strangers and attempting to communicate the gospel outside of a relational context is considered inherently insensitive and less than biblically effective communication.

     Once again, it is not as simple as that. We can be both bold and sensitive, for sensitive, authentic and effective communication does happen outside of a relational context. As C. E. Autrey stated, "Every experienced soul winner has seen men, women and children make decisions for Christ the very first time they were ever approached on the matter. These decisions were genuine and the life lived afterwards proved it."9

     A true biblical boldness, as we have discussed from the life of Paul, is committed to sensitive interaction with the hearers. The relational approach has not "cornered the market" on sensitivity. As we will discuss later, anyone committed to relevance, sensitivity and listening can achieve effective communication regardless of his relational status with the listener.

 Calling the Part the Whole

     The third error in relational reasoning might be termed "calling the part the whole." Such thinking is grounded in the assumption that one's attitudes and presuppositions encompass all that is relevant to a particular topic. Such thinking usually leads one to reason, "If it is different, or beyond my experience, it is wrong, or at best, suspect." This mindset is at odds with the spirit of comprehensiveness, which believes that one's opinion and experience are not the final word, but only part of a bigger picture.

     Many from the relational-incarnational approach fail to recognize that there is indeed effective and sensitive evangelistic life beyond its borders. Of course, I am not calling for a comprehensiveness with no limits. As I have argued, one's practice of evangelism must be grounded in an appreciation of the ethical and theological limits set by Scripture. But biblical theology and practice is the only limit to be placed on our philosophy and practice of evangelism. I would, therefore, reserve the term "comprehensively biblical" only for the comprehensive-incarnational approach to evangelism.

    It is not that the relational school and its resulting philosophy and practice are unbiblical; there is ample evidence in the New Testament to support this approach. But the relational approach cannot bear the weight of the label "biblically comprehensive." As a philosophy of evangelism, grounded in a presuppositional base, it has a tendency to confine legitimate and effective evangelism to a range of practice that is limited by its relational, ethical and communication concerns. Thus, it errs in calling the part the whole. This error in logic is what lies behind the rejection and/or lack of appreciation for the broad range of evangelistic approaches that find their rationale in the comprehensive mindset. Even more serious, however, the relational-incarnational school finds little room for some crucial theological considerations.

 Lack of Urgency

     The issue of urgency is not often seen in the relational scheme of things. Joe Aldrich writes that the relational-incarnational method is effective in that it "frees the Christian from unnecessary (and often unbiblical) pressure." This results in a strategy that is "low pressure and long range."10 Earl Palmer states, "Evangelism, like sanctification, takes time. Therefore, we must take the time it takes. When we relate to people, we must remind ourselves that we are on a long journey together. The idea that this is my only chance to talk to this person is a great detriment."11

     While it is true that we would not want our sense of urgency in communicating the gospel to be expressed at the expense of sensitivity and an appreciation for developing relationships, we must realize that we are dealing with matters of heaven and hell in evangelism. A biblically grounded sense of urgency carries with it the concerns of time, intensity and comprehensiveness.

     Paul wrote, "Behold, now is the 'acceptable time,' behold, now is the "day of salvation"' (2 Corinthians 6:2). Paul is saying that the new age is here in Christ. The gift of forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit are available. There is no such thing as "business as usual" now that Jesus has died and has risen from the dead. One's eternal destiny is at stake. What could be more urgent?

     Paul, understanding the urgency of the hour, exhibited a corresponding intensity in his evangelistic appeal. He wrote that God is "entreating through us; we beg you in behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). The hour is urgent; therefore, my evangelistic appeal must manifest a corresponding intensity.

     Paul, grasping the scope of the evangelistic task, also wrote, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). Paul's concern was not limited only to those he could reach with a minimum of inconvenience. He was committed to doing whatever it took to "save some." The idea that for evangelism to be effective, it must be done in the context of personal relationships, or in the context of the nonbelievers' exposure to a living fellowship of the body of Christ, cannot bear the burden of the theological elements of time, intensity and the scope of the evangelistic enterprise.

     There are just too many people who need to know Christ as soon as possible to insist that effective evangelism must be relational in approach. Not everyone is blessed to have Christian friends who can "flesh out" the life of Christ. Not everyone is fortunate enough to witness the life-changing power of the gospel and new life in Christ as it is manifested corporately in the local church.

     Thus, a philosophy of evangelism that insists on the presence of a relational element (as a normative practice) will unfortunately exclude those not privileged to have meaningful exposure to Christian friends or the corporate witness of the church. This is why many groups practice initiative evangelism and employ strategies that encompass masses of people. It is not that they are against the relational element in evangelism, but they do not allow it to determine the scope of their outreach. Let's reach our friends. Let's do whatever it takes to communicate authentically to them. But let's not forget that others also need to hear the gospel.

 The Identification Factor

     It is obvious from our discussion of New Testament evangelism that the early church sought to cultivate a conducive context for the preaching of the gospel. They worked hard to identify with their audience, even to the radical extreme of Paul who desired "to become all things to all men."

     We need to go where the lost are, engage them on their own ground, speak to them in their own language, understand their concerns, hopes and dreams. We are reminded that "Jesus Christ was crucified not in a cathedral between two candles, but on a cross between two thieves on the town garbage heap; at a crossroad so cosmopolitan that they had to write His title in Hebrew, and in Latin and in Greek; at the kind of place where cynics talk smut and thieves curse and soldiers gamble."12 Jesus ate with prostitutes and sinners. He walked in the heat, filth and disease of the first-century world. He confronted demons, cried when a close friend died and participated in the joy of a wedding party. He stretched out His hand to bless children and to cleanse a leper. Jesus identified with us, that we might receive His grace and love. He came to call sinners, and to call them it was necessary to be in contact with them. Thus, to follow in Jesus' footsteps is to "seek the lost," to identify with those whom we must reach. But what does this mean in terms of a philosophy and practice of evangelism?

    Does identification with one's audience necessarily place the burden of the relational factor on the evangelist? I believe not. As Figure 3 shows, identification with one's audience includes, but is not limited to, the relational context. A knowledge of cultural thought patterns, language and the human condition from a biblical perspective are all facets of the broad concerns of identification. The core of identification is our common humanity. As one person created by God in His image and sharing in the certainties of the human condition (death, fear, guilt, alienation, loneliness), I have aright to speak to another person, created by the same God and sharing in the same human predicament. If our common humanity served as the only point of contact, I would still have significant identification with my listener.

FIGURE 3

DIMENSIONS OF IDENTIFICATION
 

Common Humanity—our shared image of God and the human situation.

 Language—the ability to verbalize the gospel to the listener in words he can understand clearly.

 Cultural Proximity—insight and empathy into the listener's cultural operating assumptions (secular, misdirected religious and nominalist) that influence response to the gospel.

 Physical Proximity—our availability to interact with the listener on a regular basis.

 Relationship Proximity—our level of intimacy with the listener, leading to insight into his personal decision-making process, his spiritual preparedness and his general response pattern to the gospel.

     Of course, language identification is also necessary for the effective communication of the gospel. At Pentecost, many people heard the gospel for the first time in their own language, and they became the first converts to the church (Acts 2:5-12).

     The first two identification categories, common humanity and language comprehension, are essential to the effective communication of the gospel, but the categories of cultural values, physical proximity, and relational proximity are matters of degree of effectiveness, not necessities.

 The Gospel Content

     Relational-identification is ideal, and therefore to be heartily pursued in the communication process whenever possible, but it is not theologically mandatory in order to present the saving truth of the gospel effectively. Nor is it a prerequisite for effective communication of spiritual truth. This reasoning is grounded in the New Testament teaching on the nature of the gospel and work of the Spirit. The real issue is, does effective evangelism require an authenticating human context? Most in the relational school answer yes. Joe Aldrich states, "Christians are to be good news before they share the good news. The words of the gospel are to be incarnated before they are verbalized. Let me put it another way. The music of the gospel must precede the words of the gospel and prepare the context in which there will be a hunger for those words." This music of the gospel is "the beauty of the indwelling Christ as lived out in the everyday relationships of life"13 (emphasis added). I believe, however, that this emphasis on the life and relationships of the messenger, while in one respect is quite healthy, at the same time does not give due credit to the truth of the self-authenticiating nature of the gospel.

     Acts 17:1-4 and 1 Thessalonians 1:1-6 give us the context of Paul's proclamation of the gospel in Thessalonica. Paul walked into town a total stranger, but soon the gospel itself began to create its own context of authority, relevance and power. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 states, "For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.”

     Here we have the three key ingredients of context, which took the gospel message from the realm of "word only" (or the word of men) and authenticated it as "the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

     (1) The first ingredient is the power of the Holy Spirit. In 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Paul probably was referring to the fact that his gospel preaching was validated by the Spirit's powerful work in the midst of the Thessalonians. Romans 15:19 says that Paul preached the gospel "in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit."

     In Acts 14:3, Luke says of Paul's witness in Iconium, "Therefore, they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands." Whatever these attesting miracles were, it is clear that the awe-inspiring presence of God was evident as Paul delivered the gospel. (See also 1 Corinthians 2:4.) The Spirit's witness is necessary if the gospel is to be perceived by the audience as the message of God.

     (2) The second ingredient is the gospel's ability to bring "full conviction" as it is preached. The gospel has the power to convince. It is the truth. The gospel penetrates the "thoughts and intentions of the heart." It is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12). It "performs its work in those who believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and the result is "full conviction" (1 Thessalonians 1:5). As the Holy Spirit convicts men of their sin, the possibility of right standing with God, and judgment if they refuse Christ's offer of salvation, a need is created in their hearts that the gospel alone is designed to meet. It is the perfect cure for the now-revealed illness. The hearer finds himself with a mind convinced of the truth of the gospel message because of the "ring of truth" and self-evident authenticity of the message.

     (3) The third ingredient in the gospel context is the evidence of the lives of Paul, Silas and Timothy, the "kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake." Paul was convinced that effective communication was grounded in two factors, truth and personality. He shared not only the gospel, but also his own life with the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 2:6).

     But the real issue is the relationship of the gospel to one's life, and the priority of each in the spiritual communication process. This is the point of contention between the relational and comprehensive schools.

     The relational school suggests communication of the gospel through two channels of equal priority, the gospel and the evangelist's life. But I would suggest an analogy from the world of music: the relationship between a song's melody and harmony. The melody is the organized succession of tones, the musical structure that makes one song recognizable from another and memorable to the listener. As such, the melody stands on its own. The harmony is a set of additional notes whose sole purpose is to enhance the musical beauty of the melody. It is meaningful only in relationship to the melody and, of course, cannot stand on its own. In the same way, the gospel is the melody. It can stand on its own; it is recognizable and memorable. Our lives are the harmony, enhancing and beautifying the gospel, but meaningful only as they relate to it. Paul's life did not produce the power and conviction experienced by his converts; only the Spirit and Word could do that. But his life was in harmony with the "melody" of the gospel.

     Thus the Spirit and the Word produce the power and conviction necessary or a context of authentic communication and true understanding leading to conversion. The gospel creates its own platform for effectiveness. It calls attention to itself; it earns its own right to be heard.

     We have now covered the errors of using rhetoric and false dichotomy, and calling the part the whole. The last area of improper reasoning in this approach is what I call false comparison.

 The False Comparison

     Many in the relational-incarnational school suggest a one-to-one relationship between Christ's ability to incarnate the life-changing power and moral character of the gospel and our ability, as His children, to do so. Jesus' very presence is said to have been evangelistic. He did not just bring the word of truth; He was the word of truth. He did not just preach the gospel; He was the gospel and, of course, still is the gospel. Therefore, my presence (life, character and service) could also be termed "evangelistic" since I bear witness of Jesus as I live out a lifestyle that reflects His presence. By implication then, living the Christian life in character, fellowship and service is as valid a form of evangelism as is sharing the gospel. In line with such reasoning, one author wrote, "Perhaps we don't have a big enough definition of evangelism. When I say 'evangelism' I mean not only verbal proclamation but visual proclamation as well: the whole disclosure of God in the world."14

     Joe Aldrich, an articulate spokesman for this position, has written, "In the truest sense, evangelism is displaying the universals of God's character – His love, His righteousness, His justice and His faithfulness through the particulars of my everyday life. Therefore, evangelism is not a 'special' activity to be undertaken at a prescribed time. It is the constant and spontaneous overflow of our individual and corporate experience of Christ." He concludes that "even more specifically, evangelism is what Christ does through the activity of His children as they are involved in (1) proclamation, (2) fellowship, and (3) service."15

     Thus, true evangelism is seen as not only the communication of the gospel, but also the "fellowship" and "service" of the saints. As we can see, the one-to-one comparison of a person's life to the life of Christ would lead logically to a one-to-one comparison of that life (fellowship and service) to the gospel of Jesus Christ (proclamation). Both are presumed to be efficient conveyors of good news and, therefore, evangelistic in nature. As Aldrich states, "Evangelism, then, is stereophonic. God speaks to His creatures through two channels: the written word and you, His 'living epistle,' His 'good seed.’ ”16

     But what are we to make of such a comparison? I believe that this reasoning errs in two major areas. First, it is grounded in a misunderstanding of the technical, biblical definitions of witness and evangelism which leads to an artificial distinction between those terms. It is reasoned that " as long as a man simply tells another about Jesus, he is a witness. But the moment he tries to get that person to do something with Christ, he leaves the realm of witnessing and enters the province of soul winning, i.e., one who seeks to 'manipulate a prospect into doing anything with Christ.’ ”17 Thus, "witnessing and soul winning are two different specialities," and the teaching that "evangelism equals soul winning" can lead only to unhealthy evangelistic models to the hurt of the evangelistic enterprise.18

     I believe that such reasoning misses the point of the New Testament teaching on the nature and activity of the witness and of evangelism. It is technically incorrect to broaden, and therefore dilute, the New Testament meaning of witness by including a nonverbal, nonpersuasive ministry of "being light to the world" and/or a verbal testimony to Christ with no emphasis on the decisive nature of the gospel.

     To be a witness, in Luke's terminology, means "to bear witness in the sense of proclaiming Christ" (Acts 4:33; 23:11). Luke 24:48 and Acts 1:8 indicate that the apostles were witnesses, having been "commissioned by the Lord with the proclamation of the message of the kingdom.”19

     In Acts, the verb (to witness) is used in solemnly declaring and attesting the apostolic preaching in order to win a favorable verdict from the hearers (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 20:24).20

    Thus, Luke uses this word in the sense of giving "the full proclamation of the message of Christ," the "testimony to Jesus as the Christ (Acts 18:5), the proclamation of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), [and] the urgently wooing address of the gospel of Christ.”21

     It is not surprising that in this context of bearing witness (Acts 28:23), Paul also saw fit to "convince" or "persuade" nonbelievers to come to Christ. "The term witness suggests something of the atmosphere of a trial, a lawsuit between Christ and the world, in which the apostles are witnesses."22

     Thus, the role of the biblical witness to Christ and the gospel is (1) to acquaint himself thoroughly with the facts of the case, i.e., the historical gospel information; (2) to deliver the facts faithfully, regardless of the circumstances or unpopularity of the facts, i.e., to be ready to suffer unjustly; and (3) to describe the meaning and significance of the facts to others with a passionate persuasiveness. The concept of a biblical witness is placed firmly in the context of persuasive proclamation of the gospel and is to be identified biblically with soul winning – asking someone to do something with Christ. The apostolic witness was intended to elicit a response. They preached, as Bunyun put it, what they "smartingly did feel." Our witness can do no less.

     In looking at the second error of this false comparison, it is plain from our previous discussion on the definition of both "gospel" and "evangelism,"23 that neither of these terms allows for the nonverbal/nonpersuasive "service" and "fellowship" of the saints to be included under the technical definition of evangelism. While the methodology of first-century evangelism was indeed flexible, the definition of what constituted true evangelism was narrow and precise. Evangelism is soul winning. It is the proclamation of the gospel with a view to persuading lost men and women to come to Christ. Anything less is not evangelism.

 Divine Channels?

     The one-to-one comparison assumes that both one's life and the gospel are divine channels through which the living Christ is communicated with saving benefit to the nonbeliever. While I would never want to minimize the crucial role of the quality of life of the one bearing witness to the gospel, we must ask, "Is the one-to-one comparison valid?" I believe the answer is no.

     Jesus was the perfect, sinless Word of God incarnate. In Him all the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form (Colossians 1:19). He was the gospel itself. In like manner, the gospel is the light of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). But we fall far short of this. True, we are in the process of being renewed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18), and we will manifest, to a degree, the character and service given us by Christ.

     But we must keep in mind that we are limited in our reflection of the glory of God in the face of Christ, due to our continued fallenness. Our lives, character and service do not bear witness to the glory and saving presence of Christ on a level equal to that of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel. Our lives do not do justice to the nature and intent of true evangelism. Here are some reasons.

    Our lives, in the process of sanctification, cannot bear the burden of purity, truth and glory inherent in the gospel. As Alan Walker commented, "A serious fallacy has spread through the church today. It is the so called presence concept. While valuable as a protest against too great a trust in merely verbalizing the gospel, the presence concept is a danger as a half truth. The presence idea is the reappearance of one of the worst features of the liberal era of theology. It claims that it is only necessary to be kind and good, to be concerned. The presence idea is filled with pharisaism, a pharisaism which claims that quality of life can be so transparent that Christ shines through. It is a denial of the evangelical faith which believes that a man must, through repentance and faith, be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.”24

     The idea that "I don't speak, I let my life do the talking" or "I shouldn't speak until my life has done some talking" forces us to ask, "Whose life is good enough for such an assignment?"

     Samuel Shoemaker once said, "I cannot by being good, tell men of Jesus' atoning death and resurrection, nor of my faith in His divinity. The emphasis is too much on me, and too little on Him. Our lives must be made as consistent as we can make them with our faith; but our faith, if we are Christians, is vastly greater than our lives. That is why the 'word' of witness is so important.”25

     This subtle shift toward the life of the messenger and away from the content of the gospel is noted by another author: "Relational evangelism, in spite of its good intentions, does not put its emphasis on the hearing of the word of truth as the necessary kindling which the Holy Spirit ignites in regeneration (Romans 10:17). Relational evangelism's approach can neglect the theological content of the gospel by shifting the focus to the personality and experience of the evangelist.”26

     The "stereophonic" approach (God speaking to the lost equally through two channels – you and the gospel) is confusing for the non-Christian. Instead of being exposed to the clear witness of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel, he is exposed to its dim reflection in a fallen human life. True, this life should be different from that of the unregenerate. But understanding the source of this distinction becomes a burden of spiritual discernment that the non-Christian cannot bear.

     How is he to tell the difference between the solid and attractive lifestyle of the Mormon family across the street and that of the evangelical family next door? Both husbands go to church on Sunday with the entire family, treat their kids and wives nicer than does anyone else on the block, are faithful to their wives and are very friendly. They are both against abortion, don't drink or smoke, and are continually mentioning Jesus Christ and their activities at church. How is a spiritually blind, unregenerate man to distinguish between the truth of the gospel and the lie of a cult? Between that which brings eternal life and that which leads to death and destruction? If the lost are to "tune in" on the character and lifestyle of the messenger before they hear the gospel, and if this channel is considered to be on a par with the gospel message channel, then I must argue that the lost will not have access to the clear information they need on which to base any sort of eternal decision. At best, they will pick up "static" when the life of the messenger falls short (which is inevitable for all of us) and contradicts his perfect message. How can we expect the non-believer to know that we are a reflection of the good news until they know what the good news is?

     Even the most perfect life ever lived was radically misunderstood by many in His audience. Jesus manifested the very life of God, yet was rejected and put to death by His own countrymen. The pagan neighbors of Peter's audience unjustly slandered the Christians as "evil doers." This should convince us of the limits of letting our lives speak for the gospel or of placing the testimony of our lives on a par with the gospel. The gospel is too important to be left to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of human character and behavior. It must be allowed to speak for itself in all its power and authority.

 The Difference It Makes

     The relational school in general has a built-in aversion to methodology, technique, tools and systematic strategy. The practical result of this, I believe, is illustrated in a story told about D. L. Moody. One evening after a crusade meeting, Moody was confronted by an irate man who challenged his methods in bringing the gospel to non-Christians. Moody calmly asked him, "Tell me, what methods do you use in doing evangelism?" "I don't do evangelism," responded the man. To which Moody replied, "Well, I think I like the way I do it better than the way you don't. "

     Moody's experience is still common today. Usually those critical of methods offer none as a better alternative. Carl Henry observed, "Every method of not evangelizing is wrong – and many methods of evangelizing are right."27 As Benjamin Oisraeli once said, "It's easier to be critical than correct. "

     The avoidance of methods can lead easily to the inactivity of paralysis. It is no accident that where you find an emphasis on how to do evangelism, there you will also find people doing evangelism. The reason is that it has been made easier through the availability of a simple strategy and method. The questions, "How do I start, and how do I communicate the gospel clearly?" have been answered. The usual doubts and fears about sharing the gospel have been substantially resolved, enabling the once inactive believer to take his first concrete steps in evangelism.

     It is also no accident that, generally, where you do not find a method, there you will not find the widespread practice of evangelism. Only those who are by nature creative and outgoing will find the resolve to overcome their fear and inertia and engage in evangelism. The rest will be paralyzed by the simple question, How do I go about doing this?" Evangelism may be much discussed and positively reinforced but, in the final analysis, little is done. While we need to be flexible in our methods and avoid building a monument to anyone approach, we also need to realize that a method is often the difference between doing evangelism and just talking about it.

 The Relationship Short-Circuit

     While it is not the intent of those who lead the way in relational evangelism, emphasis on the evangelist's quality of life and his relationships with non-Christians can be misapplied easily to the practice of evangelism.

     First, the emphasis on sharing the gospel in the context of a warm, ongoing relationship is easily misinterpreted by the one overcome by the cultural undertow of convenience and comfort to mean that no initiative need be taken to verbalize the good news. To fulfill our calling as ambassadors, we only need to engage in a friendly relationship with a non-believer and point generally to Jesus. But the claim that everything we do is evangelism, or that developing relationships is evangelism, is often a cover-up for a witness that is so vague that nothing we do is evangelism. Such thinking can degenerate easily into a philosophy of evangelism that elevates the cultivation of relationships above the theological concerns of the urgent and crucial nature of the gospel.

     The spirit of convenience can creep in here. If evangelism is hard, creates tension and is subject to rejection, such a "rocking of the boat" is to be avoided, lest it jeopardize the relationship. What is sacrificed is a clear presentation of the gospel and the call to decision. The end result is inactivity and/or verbal reticence in the name of sensitivity and relationship building.

     Second, this reasoning severely limits the scope of evangelism to encompass only those non-Christians to whom the evangelist can relate in an atmosphere of ease and harmony and in a convenient manner. The majority of non-Christians will be excluded from one's realm of witness.

     In summary, a lack of a comprehensive mindset leads to an unfamiliarity with, if not rejection of, theological concerns and practical methodology that encourage the doing of evangelism. Evangelism is nothing if it is not done. The gospel is powerless to change lives if left untold.