Evangelism is a task for all Christians. Every individual and every church develops habits of witness. This paper on evangelism in the Moravian tradition was written in 1989 as a partial fulfillment of Dr. Green’s Doctor of Ministry degree at McCormick Theological Seminary. (1 of 2)
A Moravian Approach to Evangelism
At the risk of sounding a bit patronizing, I am going to begin by asserting that, as a rule, Moravians are special people! No one could possibly accuse us of failing to maintain a vital Christian presence in communities where we have churches. But comparatively few Moravians report being regularly engaged in verbally sharing the good news about Jesus Christ—and fewer still are engaged in such a way that our work is accountable to our local churches. Dr. George Hunter (1981:35-36) presents a challenge for Moravians when he writes:
Christian presence is important but not enough, because “faith comes by hearing the Word of God.” Faith is not an infectious disease. People without it do not catch it merely by being with someone who has it. To be sure, the Word is lent credibility through caring service and finds its contagion through fellowship, but the Word must be uttered and interpreted so that human beings have the live option of getting their minds around it and betting their lives upon it. Most of our people have a presence in the world, but they do not proclaim the gospel or persuade many people to become Christian disciples.
If our denomination is to engage in a vital, ongoing work of evangelism, we pastors must become “pastor-teachers equipping the saints for the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12). This means identifying, training and encouraging verbal witnesses within our congregations. In the final analysis, however, it is the laity who must step forward to carry on the actual mission of the church.
This is not without complications. Moravian congregations exist primarily as what James Luther Adams (1976) would call voluntary churches (58). While we are encouraged to attend worship regularly, give according to a percentage, engage in personal devotion and bear verbal witness to our faith, few of us would tolerate being told that such things are absolutely essential to the practice of Christianity. Unfortunately, the practice of evangelism has often been relegated to churches of a more rigorist stamp where such things are not only encouraged but expected. For years this author has been haunted by a phrase from Dean Kelly’s book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (1972). In explaining why evangelism and church growth is more prominent among churches holding rigorist ideas, Kelly advises that “social strength and leniency do not seem to go together” (84). It would be difficult to find a less rigorist denomination than our own. While the personal commitment of the membership tends to emphasize the importance of personal faith in God, the congregational climate is liberal in the best sense of that word. In short, we are true to our motto:
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, love.
This author writes realizing that not every member of our congregations will take up the task of evangelism; but he is confident that pastors can provide an opportunity for those members who choose to do so to activate themselves. Every church has at least a few people who could band together as an evangelism committee or task force, thus marking the beginning of an evangelistic mission by their congregation, bringing it in line with the mandates of the 1983 Synod. (Crews, 1983:14).
The task that confronted this author as he began his theological investigation of evangelism was multifaceted.
First, given our American religious climate, evangelism had to be carefully defined. In undertaking this task it seemed wise to begin with the New Testament and work forward.
Secondly, the method of evangelism most appropriate to the situation in our Moravian Church had to be identified. The investigation of methods was limited to methods employed in the New Testament era.
Thirdly, the method selected from the New Testament era had to be examined, refined and modeled in the context of today.
Concurrent to the three aforementioned tasks, evangelism had to be demonstrated to be essential to the church’s continuing expression of the Christian faith. In this regard, it was particularly desirous that the content of the evangelistic message be demonstrated to belong to the essential nature of the Christian faith.
EVANGELISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The word evangelism does not occur in the New Testament. However, the word is formed from the stem of three New Testament words, one verb, euangelidzomai and two nouns, euangelion and “euangelistes”. euangelidzomai means “to proclaim good news;” euangelion means “good news;” and euangelistes, usually translated, “evangelist,” means “one who proclaims good news.”
euangelidzomai
In the Septuagint euangelidzomai is usually a translation of the Hebrew word bashar, which means “to proclaim good news” (Kittle, Vol. II, 1974:707). It occurs fifty-two times in the New Testament—once in Matthew, ten times in Luke, fifteen times in Acts, nineteen times in Paul, twice in Hebrews, three times in I Peter, and twice in The Revelation (Moulton and Geden, 1950:396-398).
In Luke euangelidzomai is used in reference to angels announcing the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19); and, later, the birth of Jesus himself (Luke 2:10). Likewise, euangelidzomai is used in connection with the preaching of John, the specific content of which related to the coming of one who was mightier than he (Luke 3:18). According to Luke, Jesus himself decreed that he was anointed by the Holy Spirit “to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18). At this point in salvation history, the good news is the “good news of the kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43). In Luke 7:22, Jesus again declares that he has come to preach good news, and the preaching of the good news is noted as one of the signs of the kingdom that has attended his ministry. Fittingly, the disciples of Jesus join him in proclaiming the good news (Luke 9:6).
Assuming, as most scholars now do, that Luke-Acts is the work of a single author, it is reasonable to expect that euangelidzomai will be at least as well used in the second volume in that two volume work as in the first. The principle difference is, of course, that Jesus is no longer the one who proclaims the good news but is the subject of the proclamation. The good news is no longer just the advent of the kingdom—but the recognition of Jesus as the Christ (Acts 5:2). This good news is so radical that even the Samaritans are addressed (8:25); and, soon after, a gentile (8:35). In Acts 13:32, the content of the good news is specifically that “God raised (Jesus) from the dead” (cf. Acts 17:18).
St. Paul uses the word euangelidzomai almost as much as St. Luke. He is eager to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome (Romans 1:15; cf. II Cor. 10:16), and even more eager to preach to those who have never heard it (Romans 15:20). In I Corinthians 1:17, it is the cross of Christ which is emphasized as the content and power of the announcement or preaching. Paul feels a necessity to preach the good news (I Cor. 9:16). He wants to preach it without charge (I Cor. 9:18; cf. II Cor. 11:7). In I Corinthians 15:1f., the content of the good news which Paul preaches is defined as something he has received as “tradition.” The summary statement containing much of what the great New Testament scholar C.H. Dodd (1962) has defined as the Apostolic kerygma or preaching is found in verses 15:3-11.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
In Galatians chapter one, Paul uses euangelidzomai five times. Having established what his gospel had been among them—”that Christ gave himself for our sin to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (Gal. 1:4), Paul charges the Galatians to beware those who come with any other “good news” which is not really “good news.” For Paul, the content of the authentic good news is decidedly fixed.
Other New Testament writers use the word euangelidzomai. In Hebrews 4:6, it is written that even those who have received the announcement of the good news can forfeit it due to disobedience. I Peter 1:12 says that the good news was preached “through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” Verse 25 of the same chapter says that, “the word of God which abides forever is the good news which was preached.”
The author of The Revelation uses euangelidzomai twice. In chapter ten the reader is told that what the prophets have announced as good news is about to be fulfilled. In chapter fourteen it is an angel who announces that the hour of judgment and worship has come. Fittingly, the announcement is made to “those who dwell on earth, to every nation, and tribe and tongue and people” (Rev. 14:6).
euangelion
The noun euangelion appears 76 times in the New Testament (Moulton and Geden, 1950:397-398). It appears four times in Matthew, eight times in Mark, not at all in Luke, but twice in Acts, once in I Peter, and once in the Revelation. The remainder of the occurrences are in the Pauline Corpus. A study of euangelion adds little to the knowledge gained by the study of euangelidzomai. It is important to note that Mark prefers the use of the noun to the use of the verb which he uses not at all. Mark uses the noun euangelion in several different ways, but he does not wait long to give the word its deepest meaning. In Mark 1:1, the reader is informed that what he is reading about is “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” In Mark 1:14, the gospel is “the gospel of God.” In the majority of the remaining occurrences in Mark, euangelion stands alone, being the object of the verb krusso (“to preach”); and the reader is no doubt expected to appreciate that the content of the gospel has been fixed by Mark’s first use of it in chapter one, verse one. For Mark, as for the other New Testament writers, the good news is about Jesus Christ.
euangelistes
The word euangelistes occurs only three times in the New Testament, but these occurrences provide additional evidence of the essential nature of evangelism.
In Ephesians 4:11,euangelistes occurs in the plural. “Evangelists” are listed along with “apostles and prophets” and “pastor-teachers” as “gifts of the Spirit.” By the time Ephesians was written, the office of evangelist was well established in the church (Ephesians 4:11f.). Several important New Testament personalities were so identified. Philip was an evangelist (Acts 21:8), so was Timothy (II Timothy 4:5). Philip was ordained a deacon (Acts 6:5,6), but no doubt he was called an evangelist because of the special work which God led him to do (Acts 8:4f.). Timothy, too, received what might be called an ordination through the laying on of hands by the counsel of elders (I Timothy 4:14); and the writer of I Timothy twice mentions a “prophetic utterance” that pointed to Timothy (I Timothy 1:18 and 4:14) and once mentions the spiritual “gift” which he received. It is impossible to say whether or not this is a reference to a specific gift of evangelism or a specific appointment to the office of evangelist. However, it can be said that the author of II Timothy understands Timothy’s preaching and evangelism as the fulfillment of his ministry (II Timothy 4:5). Likewise, it could be argued that Philip was called an evangelist because he was particularly adept at communicating the good news—as among the Samaritans and with the Ethiopian Eunuch, and it may be that the writer of II Timothy was urging that particular young man to the same kind of success. Perhaps anyone who exhibits a particular talent for the task of evangelism can be called an evangelist?
Summary: It is clear that evangelism belongs to the essential nature of the various expressions of New Testament Christianity. Though only a few persons were designated as evangelists (Acts 21:8, II Timothy 4:5), and though it is not fully apparent whether these persons were ordained to that office or simply acquired the title due to their success in winning others to faith in Christ, it is abundantly clear that evangelism was the primary task of every major figure of the New Testament. Likewise, the New Testament churches assumed that a second generation of Christians would continue the evangelistic effort (Matthew 28; I Peter 3:15; etc.). According to the author of Acts, the risen Christ told his disciples that they would all be “witnesses” to him when they had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). Since it is well established that the possession of the Holy Spirit is the lowest common denominator of Christian discipleship (Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13), it could be argued that every Christian in every generation is charged with a responsibility to witness.
Though evangelism will be defined later, one observation needs to be made now: The evangelists and witnesses of the New Testament announced the good news that centered in the story of the life, death, resurrection and rule of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:32, I Peter 1:3f., etc.).
EVANGELISM IN THE CHURCH
Evangelism has been discussed, defined and sometimes practiced by countless organizations, conferences and individuals for almost twenty centuries. In reading the many definitions produced by these persons and groups, one is struck by their numerous points of agreement. Though there have been, and continue to be, areas of disagreement in any reasonably complete definition of evangelism, they are comparatively few.
Areas of Disagreement
The first area of disagreement had to do with defining the thrust of the church’s mission. For a brief period in the first half of the twentieth century, roughly paralleling the Fundamentalist and Modernist controversies that rocked the church in America and the world, there was a great deal of debate between those who favored a pure evangelism of the Word and those who favored a social gospel. The debate centered on the question: Should the mission of the church address the needs of the body or the needs of the soul?
Today, though there is a general agreement among most theologians that “the gospel does always go beyond whatever works of love and justice we do in its name” (Wayne Schwab as quoted by Krass, 1981:45), the emphasis has changed from either/or to both/and. This rising sentiment was given voice by the Roman Catholic Bishops of the Americas when they wrote (Armstrong, 1984:24):
The evangelical commitment of the church…must be like Christ’s—an engagement with the poorest….God takes their defense and loves them. This is why the poor are the first addressees of mission and their evangelization is par excellence the sign of the mission of Jesus…. This commitment to the poor—a sign of authenticity—demands the conversion of the whole church in view of their total liberation.
The second major area of disagreement has to do with the field of mission. The question is: Should evangelism begin with the church?
Some definitions, including that adopted by the National Council of Churches, assume that the church itself is a field for evangelism (Armstrong, 1984:22):
Evangelism is making the gospel known to those who do not know it, in hope that they may be turned to God in faith, and making it more effectively known to those who already know it within the church, that their faith may grow in clarity and strength.
This approach would be in keeping with the word of warning attributed to Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23:
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.”
Other definitions like that proposed by Sweazey (1953) affirm that evangelism is “…every possible way of reaching outside the church” (19). This debate is certainly as old as the New Testament—-and most likely as old as the first congregation of Christians. It will not be solved here. Suffice it to say that it was a major topic of discussion for many of the active witnesses within our denomination polled by this author as a result of his interest in this topic. The conviction of many Moravians—a conviction held by Jesus himself and the World Council of Churches is that the church is indeed a field of evangelism.
Areas of Agreement
Most definitions agree that evangelism is proclaiming, presenting, sharing or otherwise making known the good news about Jesus Christ. A great many definitions would tie the proclamation to a definite, albeit simple content. But some, like that proposed by Dulles (1974), warn that evangelism “…should not be seen primarily as the communication of doctrine” (17). “The important thing,” says Dulles, “is introducing people to a blessed and liberating union with the Lord Jesus” (17). Most definitions assume an opportunity for response on the part of those who are evangelized. They have union with, are converted to, confess, follow or become disciples of Jesus Christ. It was Hunter (1981) who summed it up nicely when he wrote: “Whatever else one might mean by evangelism, one must necessarily mean the making of new Christian disciples” (21).
Finally, most definitions of evangelism assume the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who convicts of sin and righteousness (John 16:8); and it is the Spirit who enables us to believe in spite of the human condition (“The Liturgy of Adoration,” The Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church, 1969:18).
As a kind of summary, this author would offer the following definition of evangelism:
Evangelism means, God helping us to share our faith in God’s Christ with those with whom we already share God’s world, in hopes that more and more of us might live in fellowship with God and with one another in active anticipation of God’s kingdom and as responsible members of Christ’s church.
EVANGELISM METHODS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ERA
In his book Evangelism in the Early Church, Michael Green (1980) outlines four methods of evangelism employed during the lst Christian century and mentioned in the various documents of the New Testament. The methods were studied in hopes of discovering a single method in which to train the witnesses identified as a result of this intervention.
First, Green mentions what he calls public evangelism. Public evangelism he further divides into four categories:
1. Synagogue Preaching. Before the Council of Jamnia acted to exclude followers of the Way from worshiping in the Synagogue (Martyn, 1968:52f), it must have been common not only for Christian evangelist to attend synagogue, but to take part in the reading and teaching. Though the reliability of Acts as a historical source has been questioned (Haenchen, 1971:14f), we have no reason to doubt that Synagogue Preaching was a part of the Apostle Paul’s method of evangelization (Acts 13:16, 26, 38).
2. Open Air Preaching. There are several notable examples of Open Air Preaching in the book of Acts. The best known example is St. Paul’s address at the Areopagus where he declared that the “Unknown God” was the God and Father of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:16f).
3. Teaching Evangelism. Michael Green observes that one of the less felicitous aspects of C.H. Dodd’s outstanding work on the apostolic preaching is “…the arbitrary separation it makes between preaching and teaching.” (Green, 1980:209). Acts 19 provides us with just one of many examples of Teaching Evangelism. For three months Paul was a regular at the synagogue in Ephesus where he “…spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 19:8). Until recently, the Moravian Church placed responsibility for evangelism with The Board of Christian Education and Evangelism. Certainly, the Sunday School teacher will have at least some opportunities to do the work of evangelism.
4. Testimony. Since testimony is of signal interest to this intervention, what Green says on the subject is especially worth noting (1980:209f):
The frequency of (the) note of personal testimony in the New Testament needs no emphasis. The writers are full of the difference which being in Christ has made to their lives, and actively commend him to others. They breakout joyfully, “Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!” (II Cor. 9:15), or speak sorrowfully of “…sinners of whom I am chief” (I Tim. 1:15), or joyfully of Christ’s wonderful deliverance from the “law of sin which dwells in my members” (Romans 7:23).
More will be said about personal testimony later.
Secondly, Green mentions household evangelism—a reality dear to the heart of every paedobaptist. The Acts of the Apostles offers numerous examples of Household Evangelism (See especially Acts 10 the conversion of Cornelius and Acts 16 the conversion of Lydia and the Philippian jailer and their families). Likewise certain of the epistles contain references to the importance of the conversion of families following the conversion of an individual. (EDIT). Certainly, the individual witness may occasionally encounter opportunities for sharing the gospel with an entire family; but one wonders if the individualism that is encouraged in our society has not robbed household evangelism of efficacy. Of course, there is a different kind of “household evangelism” that will interest the Christian who shares his or her home with a relative or friend who has yet to embrace Christ in their own right.
Thirdly, Green mentions literary evangelism. Though some scholars would argue the point, it is still customary to hold up the four gospels and certain of the epistles as examples of literary evangelism. The author of Luke/Acts wrote to Theophilus “…that (he) might know the truth concerning the things of which (he) had been informed” (Luke 1:4). The author of the Fourth Gospel wrote so that “…(the reader) may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). Likewise, The Epistle to the Hebrews is a masterfully constructed sermon that would have obvious appeal to Jews, and the author of the First Epistle of John writes that his readers “…may have fellowship with (believers); and …(that) his joy may be complete.” (I John 1:4). Literary Evangelism continues to be popular to the present day, and the phenomenon of Internet publishing will, undoubtedly, make it even more popular in the near future. Some of the persons that we identify as witnesses, may indeed be interested in developing their skills as literary evangelist.
Finally, Green mentions personal evangelism. The classic, New Testament example of personal evangelism is the work of Philip the Evangelist with the Ethiopian eunuch, the royal financier of the Candace, the Queen of Ethiopia. The eunuch had been to Jerusalem, perhaps to stand with other “God-fearers” in the gentile court of the temple, but, as many pastors have observed, “He had missed the 11:00 a.m. service of the 1st Church of Jerusalem.” It was a case of “but God.” A messenger of God directed Philip away from the revival that he had started in Samaria and to the desert road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza. As Philip walked down the road, he drew near enough to the chariot of the eunuch to hear him reading aloud from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. “Do you understand what you are reading?” asked Philip. And the Ethiopian responded, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” Seizing the opportunity, Philip began with that scripture and “told him the good news of Jesus.” It is not long after that Philip is holding a baptism. (Acts 8:26-40).
Certainly,this is an extraordinary instance in that God’s intervention is extraordinary—and made extraordinarily obvious to the reader; but a more ordinary version of this scenario has repeated itself over and over again from the earliest days of the Church until the present time. Count Zinzendorf, the leader of our renewed Moravian Church, made much of the principle of “the candaced soul.” He specifically instructed the early Moravian witnesses, missionaries and evangelists to:
Look for seekers after the truth who, like the Ethiopian eunuch, seem ready to welcome the Gospel. (Hutton, 1922:20).
It was this method that struck a cord in this author’s thinking. While the other methods of evangelism offer viable options for many Moravians, personal evangelism is clearly the single most appropriate method for all Moravians. The other options offered engage limited numbers of persons—pastors, church school teachers, those persons who happen to share their home with non-Christian relatives, etc.; but personal evangelism is appropriate for almost every member of every congregation.
In the course of his research, this author discovered a contemporary model for personal evangelism that he considers most attractive. It is called Inductive Evangelism.
PERSONAL EVANGELISM: THE INDUCTIVE MODEL
George Hunter (1981:38) defines two conceptual approaches to evangelism.
The first of these conceptual approaches Hunter calls Deductive Evangelism. The following outline is that followed by someone engaged in Deductive Evangelism:
1. The witness announces a general gospel to the person with whom he is sharing.
2. The witness appeals to this person for an umbrella commitment to the general gospel that has been shared.
3. It is presupposed that if the person accepts this general gospel, he or she will later work out the implications of this commitment throughout his or her life.
Billy Graham is practicing Deductive Evangelism when he points out the sinner’s need for salvation with the ringing declaration that, “The Bible says…..” Unfortunately, so are witnesses who beat others over the head with the gospel simply because they have taken the seat next to theirs on an airplane.
The second of these conceptual approaches Hunter calls Inductive Evangelism. According to Hunter, Inductive Evangelism begins where people are rather than where we would like them to be. He writes (1981:39), “The point of contact between people and the gospel is people’s needs, hopes, yearnings, fears, longings, and deepest motives.”
The following outline is like that followed by someone engaged in Inductive Evangelism:
1. The witness discovers, or the other person shares, some particular need for which the gospel is relevant.
2. The witness then shares a particular point or facet of the gospel that is relevant to the need.
3. The witness appeals to the person for a commitment or response to the facet that has been shared.
4. The witness knows that God will be involved in the process of evangelism. The witness has faith that after the prospect has had one or more particular experiences in Christian commitment, he or she will “taste” what Christianity has to offer human beings. As a result of the witness, the prospect now has a beachhead of experience from which he or she can decide whether to respond to a more general explanation of the gospel and to a more general appeal for commitment at some later point, say days or weeks later. (1981:45)
Hunter goes on to suggest that the best way for witnesses to become sensitive to the needs that are common to all human beings is to overlearn Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. (EDIT). His theory is that a witness will then be able to use his or her general knowledge of human need (and the proper Christian response to that need) to identify and speak to the specific need of the person with whom the witness is attempting to share the gospel.
The personal touch of the Inductive Model is particularly attractive. However, in its simplest form, the Inductive Method is not always suitable for the situation in our congregations.
In his last, and perhaps most important work, Letters and Papers from Prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1953:161) raises a question that is relevant to the situation here. He asks, in a world come of age, are Christian witnesses to make it their task, “…to fall upon one or two unhappy people in their weakest moment and force upon them a sort of religious coercion?”
This question is relevant for our American Moravian Church because many of the persons that we encounter will rank very high upon Maslow’s hierarchy—they will be well educated, fairly affluent people more concerned with the cost of a new car than with food for tomorrow or shelter for the night. If the task of the evangelist is to engage only those persons whose needs are obvious ones, then we Moravians must fall silent before many of our friends and neighbors.
In answering his own question, Bonhoeffer writes (1953:165):
I should like to speak of God not just on the borders of life but at its center, not just in weakness but in strength, not, therefore, in man’s suffering and death but in his life and prosperity.
Bonhoeffer makes a key point. If the Inductive Model of evangelism were aimed only at the lower levels of human need, it would not always be relevant. It would have to be abandoned. Thankfully, Hunter has given his basic model an added dimension. He speaks of it in two parts. The first, that which has already been considered, he calls the Inductive-Grace Model. In this model, the evangelist uses what he or she has learned about the needs of his or her contact as the bridge across which to share the gospel message. If the contact has met all their lower needs—and thus ranks high upon Maslow’s hierarchy, the witness then shifts to the Inductive-Mission Model. In this model, the evangelist approaches a strong person whom he or she has reason to believe may be a concerned person, and says: “What do you think our church could do to make our community a better place to live? to reduce suffering? etc.?” Or, the witness might approach the contact and say, “Will you join Christ and us in one of these causes?” (Hunter, 1981:49). Hunter concludes (49):
The great mandate for modern evangelism is to find people where they are now on the hierarchy of motives and to engage them at the appropriate level.
The Inductive-Mission model is at least as attractive as the Inductive-Grace model. Indeed, it fills this writer with additional hope for the possibility of integrating an evangelistic enterprise with an enterprise of equal importance that is already underway in most of our congregations. The Synod of 1983 also recomended that each congregation establish a Social Concerns Committee. (Crews, 1983:14). In at least one congregation of this author’s knowledge, the Social Concerns Committee is open to members and non-members alike. This committee has already attracted several persons into its membership who have defined themselves as marginally Christian but socially committed people. Without knowing it, the members of this congregation have been practicing evangelism along the lines of the Inductive-Mission model. How exciting it is to think that the persons attracted to the church because it provided them with an outlet for their caring activities, may eventually be won to faith in Christ because of that attraction. This practice is highly recommended to all our our congregations!
The Story, My Story, Their Story, Our Story
It would appear that one of the best ways for witnesses to engage in personal evangelism is as follows: First, a witness listens to Their Story—the unique story of the person with whom he or she is attempting to share the gospel, then, using My Story–the witness’s own God-story or faith-story (as in personal testimony), the witness shares The Story—the essential story of the life, death, resurrection and rule of Jesus Christ. If the person with whom the sharing has taken place responds positively, then he or she becomes a part of Our Story—the church’s continuing exploration, experience and explanation of The Story.
The Story
As noted, the good news has a definite content, and that content is Christ. Dodd (1962) attempted to isolate the content of the good news as it may have been set forth by the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers of the New Testament era. Dodd’s findings are consistent with the research into the New Testament experience of evangelism already presented in this paper. They may be summarized as follows:
1. The prophecies are fulfilled, and the new Age is inaugurated by the coming of Christ.
2. He was born of the seed of David.
3. He died according to the Scriptures, to deliver us from the present evil age.
4. He was buried.
5. He rose on the third day according to the Scriptures.
6. He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and Lord of the quick and the dead.
7. He will come again as judge and savior of humankind.
8. The risen and exalted Christ has received the promised Holy Spirit; and, having poured it out upon his church, now offers it to all who repent and are baptized in his name. (1962:17-26)
A theologically astute Moravian could not help but note that, in formulating the eight doctrines which it considers “essentials,” the Moravian Church has remained uncannily close to the major elements of the kerygma as it is presented in the New Testament and isolated by Dodd. In his book, Becoming a Member of the Moravian Church (1954:22), John Groenfeldt numbers eight of these essentials. They are:
1. The doctrine of the universal depravity of human nature, that since The Fall (which we Moravians are free to interpret figuratively or literally) there is no health in man, and that he has no power to save himself.
2. The doctrine of the love of God for sinful humanity, that he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
3. The doctrine of the real godhead and the real humanity of Jesus Christ; that the only-begotten Son of God, through glory which he had with the Father before the world was, took on him our flesh and blood, that he might be made like unto his brethren in all things, yet without sin.
4. The doctrine of our reconciliation with God and justification before him through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; that Christ was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification, and that alone by faith in him we have through his blood forgiveness of sin, peace with God, and freedom from the service of sin.
5. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the working of his grace, that without him we are unable to know the truth; that it is he who leads us to Christ, by working in us the knowledge of sin, and faith in Jesus, and that he gives us the witness that we are children of God.
6. The doctrine of good works as the fruit of the Spirit, that in them faith manifests itself as a living, acting power, which impels to follow willingly the commands of God, in love and gratitude to him who died for us.
7. The doctrine of the fellowship of believers with one another; that they are all one in Christ Jesus, the head of his body, and are all members of one another.
8. The doctrine of the second coming of the Lord in glory, and of the resurrection of the dead unto life, or unto judgment.
Groenfeldt concludes:
These are the doctrines that the Moravian Church holds to be the “essentials.” Acceptance of these basic teachings of the Christian faith is asked of all who would become members of the Unitas Fratrum. With a special emphasis on the relationship we hold to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, the church expects a spirit of unity on the part of all its members in regard to these essentials. On other matters, especially where the Scriptures are not explicit on particular points, the Moravian Church allows for variation in our individual point of view, providing we keep a spirit of brotherly love and tolerance toward one another even when we are unable to agree on some of these “non-essentials,” or secondary matters. (Groenfeldt, 1954:22).
Both of the above lists accent the true humanity and divinity of Christ, his death, his resurrection and rule, his coming again as judge and savior of humankind, and the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that, while the triune nature of God is arguably implicit to both lists, neither mention it specifically. One cannot help but think of Brunner’s (1949) observation that, “the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity…is not a Biblical kerygma (preaching), therefore it is not the kerygma of the church” (206). The kerygma is limited—and wonderfully so, for its limitation enables Christian witnesses to concentrate on the simplicty that lies on the far side of complexity.
The fact that the New Testament kerygma and the kerygma of the Moravian Church share so many commonalities —particularly this limitedness, may be more than a happy accident. The essentials of Moravian doctrine were not formulated by theologians operating within the confines of great universities, but hammered out by missionaries and evangelists close to the action who had made sharing the gospel their number one priority.
Consider the lesson in evangelism learned by the first Moravian missionaries to Greenland. Their work in that frozen and inhospitable land did not meet with immediate success. Indeed, after more than a year on station, they were so discouraged by the total lack of reception that the Eskimos had given them, that one of their number could write:
Here toils a little group of men,
Endowed with scanty powers;
And day by day, in blank despair,
They count the dreary hours.
(Hutton, 1922:70)
But the time came when the message of the missionaries to Greenland was received. Their first successes came immediately after they abandoned preaching abstract theological doctrine and adopted the picturesque narrative method in which they simply told the story of Christ’s suffering and death. In his book, The History of the Moravian Missions, (1922), James Hutton describes this change of method and the results that it produced:
In the past they had discoursed about the Fall of Man and the Plan of Salvation; hence forward they gave the people the Passion History in detail;and the Eskimos themselves soon noticed the difference. At the story of Adam and Eve they had merely wondered; at the story of the Crown of Thorns they wept; and, sometimes, at the baptismal service, their tears dripped into the font. (73)
When informed of the success of the Greenland mission, Count Zinzendorf said, “Henceforth, we shall preach nothing but the love of the slaughtered Lamb” (Hutton, 1922:73).
There is one other witness that we would draw into our discussion about the content of The Story. This writer would now call upon the testimony of E. Stanely Jones, the United Methodist missionary and evangelist whom Bishop James K. Matthews once appointed, “ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of God.” (Jones, 1975:155)
In his autobiography, A Song of Ascents, Jones relates a personal conviction learned on the field of mission that is particularly relevant to our point, and a potential source of real hope to Moravians who wish to become witnesses. Looking back over more than forty year of service in India, he writes:
When I went to India, I was holding a very long line before the non-Christian world, a line that stretched from Genesis to Revelation, on to the Christian church and to Western civilization. Like many others I was bobbing up and down the line fighting behind Moses and David and Jesus and Paul and Western civilization, and the Western church built up around Christ. I was sweating, trying to hold such a long line. The non-Christian almost invariably pitched the battle at the Old Testament or at Western Civilization or the Christian church. I felt the heart of the matter was being left out—Christ. So I decided to shorten my line and take my stand at Jesus Christ and refuse to know anything before the non-Christian world save Jesus Christ and him crucified. I would bring everything to him. My task was simplified. (Jones, 1968:92)
The Story is The Story of Jesus Christ. Successful missionaries and evangelists of many different persuasions working in many different times and places have discovered or confirmed this over and over again. How fortunate that this conviction has been held by the Moravian Church from its inception. We see it in the preaching of Hus, and we see it in the preaching and practical administration of Zinzendorf. The advice he gave the earliest missionaries is still valid for us:
(When you find a candaced soul), you must go straight to the point and tell them about the life and death of Christ. (Hutton, 1922:20)
If we have a Word to speak and a Story to tell, it is The Word about Christ and The Story of Jesus. The New Testament writers do not preach hope, they preach Jesus Christ as the one through whom the entire world has been born anew to a living hope. (I Peter 1:3). They do not preach forgiveness, they preach Jesus Christ as the one through whom we are restored to God and to one another. (EDIT). They do not preach justice, they preach that it is Jesus the Christ who will establish justice (EDIT); and, having preached him, they invite us to join with them in living in anticipation of that justice! In the strange and wonderful world of the New Testament, it is everywhere obvious that God himself has reached down into the life of this world in the person of his Son. If we Christians are so bold as to think that we have something that others need, it is not because we think that we are any better than they, nor is it because we think that we are any wiser than they in a worldly sense. It is simply that we have opened our lives to the influence of One which a purely human reason has every cause to deny. It is not because of reason that we have opened our lives to him. It is—-if we can dare to finger a cause, it is because He has drawn us to himself. His Holy Spirit has broken down our objections, trampled upon our fears and caused us to doubt our doubts. And now we operate according to a different wisdom. Now we “believe in him whom we have never seen” (I Peter 1:9).
So, having noted that if we have a story to tell it is The Story, it must be added that certain parts of The Story are more relevant to the evangelistic task than others. This has never been more true than it is today. Chances are, when an evangelistic opportunity finally presents itself, the witness will be addressing someone who is locked into “one of the various stages of doubt” (See: Their Story). That being the case, the first task of the witness often becomes one of enabling the person with whom they are talking to see that there are many legitimate points of question in regard to our faith. Not even Christians have to believe or disbelieve every doctrine of the church, and we certainly do not have to affirm every action that the church has ever taken! It was Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, the benefactor of the renewed Moravian Church, who once said, “All essential theology can be written with large characters on one octavo sheet.” (Lewis, 1962:15). According to the work done by C.H. Dodd, the “apostles” would have agreed. As we have seen, the content of the good news can indeed be reduced to a few lines on a page in a narrow little book. Yet these few lines contain more wisdom than all the libraries of man, for, as we believe, it is divine wisdom that reaches our eyes and our ears not just to inform us but to transform us. No wonder Zinzendorf could say, “When you find a candaced soul you must go straight to the point and tell them about the life and death of Christ.” As St. Paul himself has advised:
If you confess with your lips, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)
All of our attempts to evangelize must lead to this one point, the point of the Lordship of God’s Christ. There are many points of question with regard to our faith, and one may ponder them for a lifetime; but there is one Point of Decision, Jesus Christ. It is at this Point of Decision that the witness must make his or her stand. Remember, when the people to whom we speak decide who wrote the book of Genesis, or whether the world was created in 7 days or seven gazillion years, they don’t really decide anything at all—God decided these things long ago; but, when they decide to accept or reject Jesus Christ—and his offer of forgiveness, hope and direction for life, they actually decide something completely existential and intensely personal.
My Story
As has been noted, personal testimony played a major role in public evangelism during the New Testament era. Since one’s faith-story is not something that one lightly shouts over the back fence, it is reasonable to suppose that it must have played an even larger part in personal evangelism.
It is not necessary that the Christian witness be able to speak in terms of his or her conversion. It may be that, like the author of the 22nd Psalm, the witness can say to the Lord, “Since my mother bore me, thou hast been my God!” (v.10)
How beautifully appropriate that statement may be for one who has been raised in a Christian home. The emphasis here is upon may be, for such is the case only when the child of a Christian home has consciously appropriated the faith of his or her parents. As Dr. Scott Peck (1978) has observed, “There is no such thing as a good hand-me- down religion” (194). So, too, in his scheme of faith development, James Fowler (1981) says that, before a person can ascend to Stage IV, Individuative-Reflective faith, he or she must first deal with the “tyranny” of their personal they (179). This happens when one critically reflects upon one’s previous assumptive or tacit system of values, and then adopts them or dismisses them for one’s self. This is nothing less than “a relocation of authority within the self” (179). According to Fowler, it is a process absolutely necessary to attaining a mature faith. So, while it is not necessary for the witness to have a conversion story, it seems right to assume that any effective witness will be able to sprinkle the telling of The Story with his or her testimony of what Jesus Christ has meant in the witness’s own life. Indeed, it ought to be said that it is in telling one’s own faith-story that one has the opportunity to tell The Story. As Marquart (1981:21) has observed:
In the scriptures, the focus is not usually on “My Story” but on “His Story,” the gospel. Even so, like Paul and like the woman at the well, it is good and proper to be able to tell another person your own God-Story. Your God-Story may be the avenue by which a person comes to know Jesus Christ.
Telling My Story as a lead into the story is ever a challenging proposition. Some have done it with more success than others. Dr. E. Stanley Jones, the United Methodist missionary and evangelist, is a case in point. Dr. Jones advocated six guidelines for faith sharing (1968:237). These guidelines (in bold print below) should be especially helpful for witnesses who wish to engage in personal evangelism according to the Inductive-Grace model. The guidelines are noted in bold print below. The author has followed each of them with what he believes to be a relative comment about their application.
GUIDELINES FOR FAITH SHARING
1. Witnesses share only what has become real for them. If witnesses speak of inner peace, etc., and then live as if they have none, their testimony will have a hollow sound. The most effective witnesses will speak only of verified results.
2. Witnesses share what their faith means to them in their everyday life. Certainly, witnesses will be able to express the hope that they have within them (I Peter 3:15). But the people of this world are now far more concerned with life than with death. We live in a society which hides death and avoids thinking about the great beyond. The appeal which begins with pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by is not as effective as it was even a generation ago. People today want help with their life, their family, their work, their relationships, etc. Effective witnesses will be able to address those things because of the help their faith has given them in those areas.
3. Witnesses do not argue. All too often Christians are more concerned with winning the debate than with simply sharing what their faith means to them. It is perfectly possible for Christian witnesses to win every debate and lose the ear of every person whom they defeat in debate. The goal of witnesses is not to outmaneuver the faithless, it is to assist the faithless in finding faith. Effective witnesses must learn simply to share, trusting the Holy Spirit to be a part of the sharing process.
4. Witnesses do not speak in meaningless abstractions or in theological jargon. Nothing turns people off quicker than using a vocabulary that means nothing to them. The Christian vocabulary that many witnesses have learned as their native tongue is a foreign language to many of the folk with whom they are likely to have opportunity to speak. As one evangelist has observed, “If we are going to reach the world, we must first re-mint our language” (Soper, 1962:13). Effective witnesses will certainly talk about God—but they may find it furthers their purpose to use a minimum of god-talk.
5. Witnesses do not criticize the faith or lack of faith of those to whom they are witnessing. In the Round Table Meetings he held for the purpose of interfaith dialogue and sharing, E. Stanley Jones encouraged even the atheists to speak about what their atheism may have done for them. It was Krister Stendahl who said that witnesses are not ready for interfaith dialogue until they are willing to be converted to the truth of another (Fowler, 1981:186). Within a certain context, that is good advice for Christians who are attempting to witness to those who belong to the religion of unbelief. This does not mean that witnesses are encouraged to be uncertain of their own faith. On the contrary. Witnesses are encouraged to be so certain of their own faith that Jesus is the Truth, that they are confident that all truth (no matter what its source) must ultimately be rooted in him. The Moravian Liturgy of Education stresses this confidence in the second verse of its final hymn:
May we all science and all truth
With eager minds explore;
Lead us alike in age and youth
Thy wisdom to adore.
(The Hymnal, 1969:91)
6. Witnesses do not preach. Witnesses are ever mindful of the content of The Story, but witnesses must refrain from announcing The Story to the person with whom they are sharing like Peter preaching on the day of Pentecost. There is such a thing as being too articulate, and Christians who brandish quotes from the Bible like a naked sword are always in danger of it. The opportunity for witness is not an occasion to display one’s conviction of one’s own religious superiority. Effective witnesses share The Story within the context of their Faith Stories like, “Beggars sharing with other beggars where they have found bread.” Nothing makes the gospel any less appealing than verbal witnesses who offer it from a position of superiority.
One of the best ways to learn how to tell one’s faith-story is to write it out. It often helps, too, to listen to the faith-story of others. For those who are interested, this author has included a link to his own faith-story.
Please Continue by reading “A Moravian Approach to Evangelism ” (2 of 2) clicking on the Paper Category and selecting the appropriate file.
Worth Green, Th.M., D.Min.
EverydayCounselor©
New Philadelphia Moravian Church
4440 Country Club Road
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27104