Evangelism [ INCOMPLETE ]
Josiah Jordan
Today, Christians are so bogged down by the fact that unbelievers see their faith as historically oppressive and morally intolerant that the Christians ' goal is no longer to win them to Christ, but to persuade them that Jesus loves everyone, regardless of faith, sexuality, gender, and the like. While this love is true, the problem with this message is that it falls short of our true calling as evangelizers who must go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this day and age, we have come to people in the name of reconciliation, good works, and a humanism that leaves the unbeliever satisfied but not saved.
As Christians, we often subscribe to a“ love the [ unbelieving ] sinner, hate the sin” mentality, but we have come to realize that, in this culture, hating the sin is incompatible with loving the sinner. What remains, then, are two options for our evangelistic pursuit. On the one hand, we may choose to hate the sin but fail to convince the unbeliever that we accept and love him as he is; for, if this is so, it must be that the unbeliever regards his sin— whether it’ s the lifestyle he lives or the practices he engages in— as a part of his identity. To hate the unbeliever’ s sin, then, would be to hate him, as well— even if hating his sin and warning him against it is what it means to truly love him.
And so, we might be drawn to the second option, in which we may convince the unbeliever that we accept and love him as he is, even if it means disregarding the sinfulness of his lifestyle or practices in order to do so. By disregarding his sin, however, we inevitably disregard what it means to truly love him, at which point we also completely misunderstand what it means to truly evangelize. Consider this: if an unbeliever living in sin no longer sees our Christian faith as intolerant of his lifestyle and therefore puts to rest his preconceived notions of Christianity as a close-minded and oppressive religion, then we have been deceptively convinced that the unbeliever is now open to accepting Christianity and, thus, Christ. At this point, the peace we ought to experience only upon his acceptance of Christ we now experience upon his mere openness to Christianity— and so it is at this point our evangelism comes to an end. Indeed, in this model, our evangelism ends upon the reconciliation between believer and unbeliever, without regard for reconciliation between Christ and the sinner. Our evangelism ends when we have caused the unbelievers to no longer see us as the bigoted, homophobic, and misogynistic Christians they’ ve seen us to be for so long. But it seems that we have become too preoccupied in trying to fix the reputation a Christianity that led slavery, the Crusades, and our parents’ sociocultural traditionalism, that we have left salvation in Christ out of our evangelism. Sin is okay, so long as tolerating it is necessary and sufficient for convincing the believer that he loves and the unbeliever that he is loved. In this day and age, our evangelism is satisfied when the unbeliever is satisfied, even if the unbeliever’ s satisfaction does not rest in Christ alone.
Surely, then, we may come to ask: what’ s the point of our evangelism if not for Christ? What do our efforts to build relationships with unbelievers amount to but eternal unfruitfulness if they are not to see the unbelievers’ ultimate acceptance of Christ? Why consult more creative ways to reach our college communities as campus ministers if our end goal ends at serving the community or building larger fellowships? Even if our end goal is to show the love of Christ through good works, we have fallen short of what it means to evangelize if good works are not purposed for a person’ s ultimate salvation; for what good have we done for an unbeliever if that good not be eternal? What eternal good have we done for a poor man or a hurting sister if our aid and support ends upon their being aided and supported but not their hearing of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross? Surely, just because a Christian is good to an unbeliever does not make the unbeliever any more inclined to see the Christian as a Christian than he is to see the Christian as a good, moral Buddhist. Accordingly, our evangelism must center around Christ, and not the Christian, Christianity, or the unbeliever, himself.
In this day and age, our evangelism is satisfied when the unbeliever is satisfied, even if the unbeliever ' s satisfaction does not rest in Christ alone.
In the end, this message is a call for intentionality in our evangelism— a move from surface-level outreach to a kingdom-minded effort. Surely, seeing to it that believer and unbeliever be reconciled is not wrong, and neither are good works. And while it is true that every believer has a part in evangelism— whether it be planting the seed, watering the seed, or preparing the ground— we cannot become so dependent on others’ roles that we effectively become stagnant and also forget our own capability to see God’ s work come to full fruition. In these last days, we ought to have an eternal purpose in all that we do, and this more than for the sake of our unbelieving family members, friends, and enemies— but for the sake of Christ, without Whom none of this would even matter.
Josiah Jordan is a junior concentrating in Philosophy.
20 Spring 2017