Why Evangelism Methods Must Change
By Jonathan Dodson | September 30th, 2008 | Category: Missional Church | 9 commentsReflecting on the nature of faith in a recent sermon, I pointed out that believing that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead is not sufficient for saving faith. Too many people in America believe that they are Christians, that they are “going to heaven” simply because they believe the facts of the gospel. That is not saving faith. Faith is requires more than agreement with the facts of the gospel; it actually treasures a Person, Jesus Christ. Because faith is the result of a process of hearing the gospel, seeing the gospel, and embracing the gospel over time, our evangelism needs to accommodate this reality, as well as nurture true faith, not just mental assent. I was recently asked what I think about Evangelism Explosion (EE) as an evangelistic tool. Although it provides a clear explanation of gospel basics and is very good at training people to parrot biblical answers, it does not do the hard work of contextualizing the gospel. Moreover, I have a few other concerns about EE and evangelism programs in general. In short, our evangelism methods must change if we are to see true, saving, perservering faith emerge. Many evangelism programs are deficient on these counts:
- Deficient view of Heaven. Many evangelism programs are focused on “getting people to heaven” not treasuring Christ or living out his mission. Ultimately, we don’t GO to heaven; heaven comes to earth through the already/not fully lordship of Christ. Moreover, going to heaven is not the goal of biblical discipleship. Treasuring, obeying, and sharing Christ is.
- Tend toward a mental assent view of Faith. Although many cover some of the gospel basics, they lend themselves to a mental assent understanding of faith. I realize there is a statement in the EE process that denies this. However, the 7, 8 or 9 steps are typically information-centered and mechanically driven. Less open to process evangelism. The Kennedy Questions operate on the assumption that “knowing the right answer” is central, answers that have been conditioned through modern lenses, answers that many Christians can provide without truly “believing.”
- They aren’t in the vernacular of most Americans. Most Americans are inoculated to the EE way of “sharing the gospel.” –“If you died tonight and stood before God and he said: “Why should I let you into My Heaven?” what would you say? — Most Americans can answer that question, and many believe it, without a modicum of desire for Jesus. We need a new language for evangelism that is biblically faithful and culturally relevant.
I have lots of ideas of what should be changed, but not a lot of what should be new.
What are your thoughts on what should evangelism methods look like … practically?
[...] Jonathan Dodson on why evangelism methods must change. [...]
Hello Jonathan,
My name is Alex van Nes and I am leading EE here in Belgium and Holland. I totally agree with what you said in this article. But…. are you aware the EE has gone through a major shift already this last year? Because of the change of society, culture and ways of learning, our complete revised version is called XEE (designed and meant for GenX-ers). Have a look at it at http://www.xee.info
It is a lot less preaching and a lot more interactive, build much more on relationships before we share the Gospel with them. I am especially happy with the first four lessons about Connecting, something that needs to happen before we share the Good News.
I have been working with now for over a year, and those who have done the old version you refer to in you article, and very happy with this revision. EE is ready for the coming generation.
Alex
Thanks for sharing this update with us, Alex. XEE looks much better than EE and it is wonderful to hear of its effectiveness in Belgium! Love the emphasis on eternal life starting now.
Jonathan have you ever come across Two Ways to Live? My denomination is kind of saturated with 2 Ways in the same way that a lot of American groups are saturated with EE. If you have looked at it have you got any thoughts on it – particularly on how one could improve it.
Yes, I am familiar with Two Ways. Love the pictures and theology in that one, but I still have concerns about it:
1. It is driven by information, not dialogue.
2. The rich descriptions of the gospel are too lengthy for a five minute conversation.
3. It seems to be tract-driven? Do they offer a Two Ways training that is conversational?
4. No real apologetic. We have to surface the need for the gospel through loving inquiry.
I wish I could find something that trained people on loving inquiry, soft apologetic, strong gospel, and multi-faceted understanding of how to bring the gospel into lives, e.g. counseling, service, film, books, that work within the vernacular of our cultures.
Joe Thorn offers a very helpful approach: http://thesubtext.org/2008/08/01/gospel-connections-in-suburbia/
I agree and have preached that same kind of message of an active and lived faith springing from the grace of God. In a consumer world though, it is tempting to think in terms of what needs to be mentally purchase to get the big return.
[...] is a response in the negative from Jonathan Dodson: Reflecting on the nature of faith in a recent sermon, I pointed out that believing that Jesus died [...]
[...] to Office: Church or Home? Why Evangelism Methods Must Change Church Planting Manuals Reviewed Tools For Missional Church And today’s post: Church Planting [...]