(Why A Recovery of Theology & Apologetics Is Essential
For Our Evangelism)
by Shane Rosenthal
I can still remember the failed evangelistic attempts my
friends tried on me during my high school years. I was a non-practicing Jew,
and they were "born again" Christians. During a skiing trip, one
friend in particular kept trying to get me to listen to his
"Christian" rock music, arguing that the quality was just as good.
Well, the quality wasn't as good, and I just wasn't interested in religious
music anyway. When I refused to bite, he tried to show me the clear
"Christian" lyrics in the U2 tape I was listening to. "Did you
know that the song, 'Two Hearts Beat As One' is about a Christian view of
marriage?" "No I didn't," I responded, "But who cares. It's
just good music." Just for the record, that isn't exactly what U2's song
is about.
After I returned home from my trip, I dumped all my ski
equipment in my closet, along with the copy of More Than A Carpenter which was
forced upon me. I also remember working as a waiter to earn extra money during
this period. I especially hated having to work on Sundays because I had to deal
with all the "church people." Its not that I was biased about religious
folks, I just didn't like getting evangelistic tracts rather than tips
(especially offensive were the tracts designed to look like dollar bills).
But a funny thing happened a few years later. I had just
started my first semester at a nearby community college and was reading
sections of the Old Testament (I hadn't picked it up since before my Bar Mizpah
at age 13). In my readings I came across a passage that literally floored me:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins
are of old, from ancient times" (Micah 5:2). I had seen all of the
animated Christmas specials year after year, so I knew what the implications of
"Bethlehem" were. In short, I was an over-night convert; in fact, the
very next day I went out and purchased a copy of the New Testament and began
reading it with a believing heart.
After this extraordinary event in my life, I hooked up with
my Christian friends who were always trying to get me to come to their Bible
studies. This time, however, I actually wanted to study the Bible. My friends
were very excited over my conversion and invited me to their "Friday Night
Bible Study." Unfortunately for me, it was not primarily a study of
anything. There was a lot of guitar singing, and fellowship, but very little
study. And wouldn't you know it, before I had a chance to dive into the punch
and cookies, I was whisked off to go street witnessing with all the guys. They
gave me a stack of tracts and told me to hand them out to folks on the pier. I
felt quite awkward about this. I wondered to myself, "Have I become one of
those religious weirdos you see in the airports?" But in my evangelistic
zeal to share the transforming message about Jesus, I followed along.
That was ten years ago. Looking back on those days often
makes me cringe. There I was, brand new to the faith, and within a year I had
street witnessed, gone door to door, answered phones for the Billy Graham
Crusade hotline, helped out teaching Sunday School to children in juvenile
hall, and even considered becoming an overseas missionary with YWAM. The only
problem was, I didn't really know what the Gospel was.
My experience is not unique. I have met a number of folks
with similar stories to tell, some who are no longer Christians. This problem
occurs when we push evangelism from our pulpits rather than the Evangel. I can
honestly say that I never once heard the doctrine of justification by grace
alone through faith alone during the first two years of my Christian walk, but
I sure had it drilled into my head that I needed to go out there and witness.
The problem was, I knew I was to be a witness, but I didn't quite have down
what it was I was to witness about.
The Pursuit of the Practical
In just one of his epistles, Paul could have guided us all
through the "Four Spiritual Steps Toward Effective Evangelism," but
he didn't. The apostles seemed to think that their time was best spent in
defense of the Gospel message and in clarifying doctrinal questions. How
boring! I want to know how to reach the busters, how to "grow" a
church, how to plan a crusade, how to witness on a plane, how to, how to, how
to.... But of these questions there is no end. The Bible, however, is simply
not a "how-to" manual. But that's fine, because how-to manuals are
outdated before any other kind of book (You have seen these types of books on
sale for a quarter each at your neighbor's garage sale). The Bible gives us
information that will not be outdated through the passage of time, and it does
this by convincing arguments and by appealing to objective truth. Truth does
not go out of style, and it does not become irrelevant. It may get ignored
every once-in-a-while, but it does not lose its relevance.
Unfortunately for me, most of the folks I met both before
and after my conversion seemed to think that techniques and practical matters
were more relevant than the truth which they neglected to teach me. It is at
this point that I find a sharp contrast between today's evangelistic appeals
and the content of apostolic preaching.
Theological Training
What good is a message without content? As I related in the
beginning of this article, I was sent out street witnessing the first day I
went to a Bible study. But our Lord's admonition is not like the shampoo
commercial where, "You tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and
so on, and so on..." Rather, our Lord's command was that we "go and
make disciples of all nations..." Part of the problem in America is that
we view evangelism as if it were simply getting folks to make a decision. We
have been so influenced by Arminianism and anti-intellectualism that we have
almost completely ignored discipleship. But it does make sense that you would
train a person in the basics of the faith before you send him out to the
mission field, doesn't it?
Unfortunately we don't do this. Therefore we must recover
the lost art of catechism and theological training. If we did this, there would
be less emphasis on the "stuff of evangelism" and more emphasis on
the "stuff of the Evangel." Folks would cease trying to sell their
religion by manipulative techniques, and would begin sharing their faith in
convincing, thoughtful, and articulate ways. Just look at the Apostles' prayers
and instructions in regards to equipping the saints:
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and
more in knowledge and depth of insight (Phil 1:9).
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16).
Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ (2 Pt 3:18).
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a
workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of
truth (2 Tm 2:15).
Once a person has been thoroughly equipped so that he can
"correctly handle the word of truth," then he can do the work of an
evangelist. But not until then. Until a person can rightly distinguish the Law
from the Gospel, he should not consider evangelistic enterprises. For how can
one preach effectively, unless he first shows a person the demands of God's
Law? And how can one comfort those terrorized by the Law, unless he preaches
the Gospel in all of its sweetness?
Another point that needs to be made here is the fact that
witnessing to others about Christ must be theologically based or it will wind
up being testimonial. In other words, if I don't have a solid understanding of
the doctrines of the Christianity, I will inevitably end up talking about the
effects of religion on my life, rather than the objective message of the Gospel
itself. J. Gresham Machen is helpful at this point:
From the beginning Christianity was a campaign of
witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merely what Jesus was doing
within the recesses of the individual life. To take the words of Acts in that
way is to do violence to the context and to all the evidence. On the contrary,
the Epistles of Paul and all the sources make it abundantly plain that the
testimony was primarily not to inner spiritual facts but to what Jesus had done
once for all in his death and resurrection.
Christianity is based, then, upon an account of something
that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it
is rather important that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a man
takes his seat upon the witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut
of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important thing
is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.1
Effective, Christ-centered, evangelism must therefore be
based on the "facts" of Christianity, not the "effects."
When you think about this, it makes perfect sense. Just about any religion or
ideology can make a difference in a person's life, and yet, all of these
different belief systems cannot be simultaneously true. But if a religion is
presented first of all as being true, then it has implications on everyone, not
just those for whom it is helpful. This brings me to my next point.
Whatever Happened to Apologetics?
Why was I so surprised to see the passage I found in Micah
5:2? Because no one ever showed it to me. In their zeal to convert me, my
friends spent all their energy thinking of techniques by which I could be
saved, rather than approaching me with sound arguments in support of
Christianity. What they didn't realize is that I thought all religion was
absurd, so all of their attempts to get me to read Christian books or to listen
to Christian tapes were equally absurd. But in my case, a simple discussion of
fulfilled messianic prophecy could have been an open door to sharing the Gospel
with me. All they had to do was to give me reasons for their faith.
Apologetics is a crucial ingredient missing in much of
contemporary evangelism. The Apostle Peter gives us the clear and familiar
admonition to: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks
you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pt 3:15). But we do
the exact opposite. We don't give reasons for the hope that we have; we simply
force our faith on others in the form of tracts, booklets, and cassettes. And
very few of us take the time to prepare ourselves for the tough questions of
the faith that non-believer might ask us. But there is much wisdom in Peter's
command. Just look at the example of Peter himself in his famous Sermon at
Pentecost:
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a
man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did
among you through him, as you yourselves know...God has raised this Jesus to
life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (Acts 2:22, 32).
Notice that Peter did not simply demand blind faith. Whereas
in evangelical circles you might see a shirt or bumper sticker with the slogan,
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it," Peter here appeals to
commonly known evidence (as you yourselves know), and eyewitness accounts for
the authority of his claims. Peter just didn't have time for evangelistic
techniques. He was convinced that the message he was preaching was true, and
that is why he gave solid and convincing reasons for his faith, as he explained
the meaning of the cross and resurrection. And we must not forget the success
of Peter's sermon either, for Luke records that "about three thousand were
added to their number
that day."
Stephen is another good example of the importance of
apologetics in evangelism. In Acts 6:9-10, Luke records that as men were
arguing with Stephen about the strange new teachings of Christianity,
"they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he
spoke." We can take a few things from this passage. First of all, it is
all right to argue. By this I am referring to the exchange of propositions, not
hostile confrontation. Many American Christians think that arguing is a
negative thing, but we are called to argue for the truth of Christianity in the
same way an attorney would argue for his client's innocence. Another thing we
can take from Stephen's example is the fact that no one could stand up to his
wisdom, or the Spirit by whom he spoke. The Holy Spirit likes sound arguments
and sanctifies them for his own use. Is it any wonder that he is called the
"Spirit of Truth?"
Then there is the example of Paul. This apostle's message
was simple. In the words of Festus, Paul was obsessed with "a dead man
named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (Acts 25:19). He was not like many
of these religious mystics who constantly speculate on spiritual and religious
matters. This man was convinced that the whole issue of religion was wrapped up
in one thing, and in one thing only; "If Christ has not been raised, our
preaching is useless and so is your faith." Paul was comfortable with this
type evangelism because, as he explained to Festus and King Agrippa, "What
I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and
I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his
notice, because it was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).
Apologetics then is a way to give credibility to the Gospel
message. It prevents your listeners from thinking, "Oh, this is one of
those religious messages." If Jesus really did rise again from the dead in
time-and-space history, then his claims about himself are vindicated. This is
why for Paul it all hinges on the resurrection. But you know, in all my years
as a non-Christian, I never once heard this type of message. Sure, I saw the
bumper stickers that said, "Try God," or "Give Jesus a
Chance." But those appeals only made me feel pity for the Christian deity.
I had simply never heard of a God who had "given proof [of his coming
judgement] to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
Christianity is not afraid of the truth, it is upheld by the truth. Therefore
we must make every effort to remove every obstacle from the eyes of an
unbelieving world.
Conclusion
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the person who
has done a little work in basic theology and apologetics will probably not have
to spend much time with various evangelistic techniques. Those who confidently
know what they believe, and why they believe it, are ready at all times to
"give a reason for the hope that [they] have." They know both how to
articulate the hope that they have (the Gospel), and to give convincing reasons
for it (apologetics). This type of evangelism isn't done only on Friday nights
down by the pier, and it isn't something that has to be scripted. It springs
forth naturally from a confident heart standing firm in a reasonable faith,
well-saturated in the Gospel of grace.
There are a lot of people in this world who are still at the
place I was ten years ago. They think religion is an absurd, trivial and
meaningless pursuit, and the fish on your car simply won't convince them
otherwise. Please, for their sake, do the work of a well seasoned evangelist,
giving them reasons for the hope that is within you. New evangelistic ideas and
techniques will come and go, but don't settle for them. Follow, rather, the
Apostle's instructions when he encouraged Timothy to "Preach the Word; be
prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourageppwith
great patience and careful instruction" (2 Tm 4:2).
Shane Rosenthal received his B. A. in liberal studies from
Cal-State Fullerton, and is presently working full-time for Cure as the
producer of The White Horse Inn radio program. In addition to his production
responsibilities, Shane is also in charge of editing all Cure tape masters,
managing the layout/design of modernReformation, and handling all of Cure's
e-mail correspondence.
1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), p. 53.
____
From and article posted in 1995 Modern Reformation Magazine
No comments:
Post a Comment