Jul
25
2012
Unbelievable Gospel: A Conversation with Jonathan Dodson
"Many people find the gospel of Jesus Christ simply unbelievable. Contrary to what you might think, there are many good reasons for their unbelief." So begins Jonathan Dodson's Unbelievable Gospel: How to Share a Gospel Worth Believing, an eBook laser aimed at challenging our lethargy and lovelessness in evangelism. In the span of just 45 pages, Dodson offers numerous practical suggestions for how we can more effectively uncover---rather than hoard---the glorious gospel treasure with which we've been entrusted.
I corresponded with Dodson, pastor of Austin City Life in Austin, Texas, about this new project and the perennially challenging privilege of sharing our faith.
************************************
Why is our evangelism so unbelievable?
Think about the last time you tried to "share the gospel." What was going through your head? Were you angling to find an opening to mention Jesus (only to later congratulate yourself for mentioning his name)? Or perhaps you were more intentional, looking for an opportunity to lay out the gospel over lunch or coffee? In these instances, we often look to speak before waiting to listen.
Francis Schaeffer was asked what he'd do if he had an hour to share the gospel with someone. He responded by saying he'd listen for 55 minutes and then, in the last 5 minutes, have something meaningful to say. In other words, he listened in order to speak the gospel.
Our evangelism is often unbelievable because we don't listen at all. All too often the gospel we share is an information download, not a loving articulation of how the good news fits into the needs, fears, hopes, and dreams of others' lives. We content ourselves with "name dropping" Jesus, which gets us a √ in performance-based Christianity---unless, of course, we mention the cross, which bumps us up to a √+. This kind of evangelism, however, is more about clearing our evangelical conscience than compassionately sharing the good news with fellow sinners. Very often our gospel is unbelievable because we are motivated by unbelief in the gospel.
What concerns keep people from sharing the gospel? Are these valid?
The reasons our gospel is unbelievable go even deeper. The gospel is easily dismissed, not only because of our misdirected motives, but also because of the self-righteous manner of our communication---preachy, dogmatic, intolerant, impersonal, and shallow. Indeed, sharing the righteousness of Christ (justification by faith) in a self-righteous manner (justification by self) contradicts the gospel itself. It is simply self-defeating. People interpret the gospel by how we say things, not just what we say. So, yes, these concerns are valid. They create gospel interference that must be cleared away through repentance and recovery of a better, more believable evangelism.
It isn't enough to critique self-righteous evangelism, however. We must reconstruct a biblically faithful, culturally sensitive, and personally meaningful way of sharing the gospel. In Unbelievable Gospel, I propose we use Gospel Metaphors.
What are Gospel Metaphors, and how do they aid us in evangelism?
Gospel Metaphors stretch across the breadth of the Bible and communicate God's saving grace. They collect in the epistles as justification, redemption, adoption, new creation, and union with Christ. These graces aren't metaphors in the sense that they're symbolic of some deeper reality; rather, each gospel metaphor actually represents a facet of the gospel. For example, justification presents how a righteous God relates to unrighteous people by declaring them righteous. But this precious doctrine doesn't address the longing of every person in every situation. The socially connected, successful professional who has a good family may not be looking for acceptance. However, he may be looking for an identity that brings deeper satisfaction and joy, like being the son of the heavenly Father sent on forever-meaningful mission. We need all the Gospel Metaphors to communicate a host of relevant graces to real people facing real predicaments. Left alone, justification doesn't explain how we become part of God's family (adoption), receive forgiveness (redemption), escape his wrath (reconciliation/propitiation), or gain a new identity (new creation/ regeneration). Each gospel metaphor, then, conveys a unique blessing from the Father.
In order to share a believable gospel, we need to listen to others so well that we can discern which Gospel Metaphor to bring into their lives. If we know their hopes, fears, dreams, and concerns, we can lovingly demonstrate how the good news is better than their best and worst news. To the beat-up, worn-out drug addict, we can share the hope of new creation. To the guilt-ridden, shame-carrying mother, we can share the hope of sin-forgiving, shame-absorbing redemption. To the skeptical urbanite, we can communicate an authentic apologetic that resonates with personal union with Christ. In the book, I share five stories of how I listened to different people and attempted to share an appropriate, liberating gospel metaphor that addressed their deepest longings. I'm recommending that we share the gospel in a way that is, first, centered on the gospel, and, second, embodies the gospel.
How can a church move from treating evangelism as an event to cultivating evangelism as a lifestyle?
When moving from event to lifestyle, love is essential. Love is also awfully inefficient. When the event is done, everyone can go home. But love never tires. It's easier to describe a first-century event than to listen closely enough to tell someone how Jesus' accomplishment is personally meaningful to them. Evangelicals are known for busyness and efficiency, both of which tend to grind against the supreme value of love. So repentance is the first thing we must do to move away from event-driven evangelism.
Second, we have to rethink our approach to evangelism. If we understand evangelism as an event, we'll pour inordinate resources into training people how to preach and evangelize. A major problem with this, however, is that the persons we're seeking to evangelize often aren't interested in events and can even parrot our answers. On Judgment Day, many will say: "I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins." In fact, they likely heard this right answer at an event. But Jesus will respond: "Depart from me; I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23). Faithful evangelism, then, gets beyond events and information into the longings of the heart. It slows down long enough to love someone into Christ. The heart, the seat of our longings and thoughts, is where gospel seed must be sown.
Third, evangelism must be situated in a bigger subset of gospel-centered discipleship. The gospel is what motivates authentic evangelism. When we taste the goodness of Christ, enjoy his rich promises, and rest in our union with him, we're more likely to communicate a convincing gospel. We talk about what we're taken with. And this doesn't happen by implementing programs; it happens by preaching, teaching, counseling, and modeling the gospel of grace in everything a church does.
If our discipleship is motivated by the gospel in all of life, we'll also be more inclined to slow down, listen to others, and bring a meaningful explanation of the good news into the lives of others. Having the attitude that was in Christ Jesus, we will put others' needs, stories, hopes, and dreams before our own, listening with wisdom and patience, ready to bring a Gospel Metaphor into their lives that can change everything. And when we fail to love, as I do every day, we have the renewing love of God, wooing us to repentance and fresh faith in his ever-relevant gospel. In fact, when we share how we struggle to believe the gospel with others, the gospel actually becomes more believable. When humble confidence produces genuine confession, the gospel rings with authenticity. We must not only tell but also show how we have found a gospel worth believing and re-believing each day. When we do, we lift up Christ above any methodology, so that men and women can be drawn to him.
23 Comments
A Gospel that saves:
- Doesn’t require eloquent wisdom (1 Cor 1:17)
- Will sound like foolishness to those perishing (1 Cor 1:18)
- Will be a stumbling block to those perishing (1 Cor 1:23)
- Doesn’t require lofty speech or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1)
- Doesn’t require plausible words (1 Cor 2:4)
- Can be shared out of personal weakness (1 Cor 2:4)
- Can be shared with much fear and trembling (1 Cor 2:3)
- Will not be reasoned or understood, by those without the Spirit (1 Cor 2:12-16)
- Can be preached with ill intent and still be effective (Phil 1:15-18)
- Doesn’t require knowing names, meeting a physical need or having a personal relationship (Acts 2:14-41)
But the Gospel instead
- Is the power of God (1 Cor 1:17, 18, 24; 1 Cor 2:5, Romans 1:16)
- Must be spoken/preached (Rom 10:13-17, 1 Peter 1:23-25, 1 Cor 15:1-4, Rom 1:15)
- Requires Hearing (Acts 2:14, Luke 8:4-20, Heb 5:11, Rom 10:17)
Salvation is a miracle that happens to you
- Eph 2:1-10, 1 Cor 1:30, Deut 30:6, Ezk 36:27, John 3:1-8
Do you believe in the power of the gospel preached to save, or does your gospel require smooth words, pure intent, apologetics, personal relationships and social reform to be effective?
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
"2 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
Sure, do your best to help people hear, but don't accidently steal from the power of the preached gospel to save, your intent and delivery doesn't change it's saving effectiveness. But be a roman to the romans, sing songs in prison, feed the poor, just don't steal from the miracle of salvation.
I think that a lack of understanding of how people are saved, a lack of understanding of what the gospel actually is and accidentally elevating the intellect to be the ultimate truth determiner are the main reasons people don't share the gospel.
For example, consider the message we share:
Think about the message that we are asking unbelievers to accept, it’s a tough pill to swallow and as Paul says ‘foolish’ even. We expect people to find intellectually satisfying: a God we can’t see, who supposedly died on a cross, as one of three persons but only one God, who was said to have been raised to life three days later, and all of this was for some sin of mine that was originally introduced to the world because of a talking snake who deceived some guy named Adam in a garden thousands of years ago. And if I don’t believe in this God, specifically Jesus, whom I’ve never seen, who rose from the dead, healed the sick, walked on water, created the world with his words, all of which I have never witnessed, I will go to a hell. And hell only adds to this strange message, being a place that God made to ‘justly’ punish forever and ever those whom He made that don’t believe in Him. However, if I do believe in Jesus I will live eternally, happily ever after, shortly after this invisible three-in-one God comes back riding on a white horse to save me and lead me into his holy kingdom, dooming forever those who didn’t choose to believe this good news to hell. Think about how foolish this sounds to an unbeliever. We should feel embarrassed if the power of the gospel to save is reduced to reasoning abilities of the unbeliever as the ultimate determiner of truth, and we should be afraid for how preaching this message will make us look. It’s crazy. There is nothing intellectually reasonable to this message no matter how savvy and culturally relevant we are in other aspects of our life. If the power of the gospel is reduced to first requiring an intellectual understanding, not only does this create a problem for the mentally ill, but it is extremely embarrassing to expect that someone should believe this on the basis of reasoning. Sharing such a message and expecting an unbeliever to thrust aside reasoning will make me look foolish; this is a barrier to opening my mouth. This kind of thinking on behalf of a believer is insanity and circular reasoning. We expect unbelievers to understand this message and believe it before they can be saved, but in order to believe it; they must put aside their tendency to be rational. To make matters worse, what if I am not able to answer their objections? What if science, which we trust for things like cell phones, trips to the moon and heart surgery, discovered something that seemingly contradicts scripture and there isn’t a rational solution? This becomes another barrier to opening my mouth. A foolish message, my personal image and my inability to answer the objections are all reasons to keep my mouth shut as it relates to sharing the gospel, if this is how one is saved. We must move beyond seeing reason as what initiates new eyes to see. It's the power of the gospel preached that saves:
1 Peter 1:23-25
since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for
“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
Thanks for reading. Its late and I'm sure I missed your point.
[...] From the Gospel Coalition: [...]
Maybe these issues expose sin, and when called on it should be quickly repented of, but our sin does not entail a valid reason for others to maintain unbelief.
How can an unbeliever have a valid reason for unbelief when Paul explicitly says they are without a defense?
In fact, their (the unbeliever's) disgust in sin betrays any "valid" reason to maintain unbelief.
[...] so, there is so much more that could be said, but I read this blog post this morning that was helpful for my heart and soul as I pray to God for growth in an evangelistic [...]
Yes! I totally believe we need to listen to people and actually understand them before we try to convince them that they need Jesus. I feel like there have been times I just wanted to mention Jesus/ get through the whole gospel presentation I had memorized, because that would be an accomplishment I could proudly tell my Christian friends about- but actually, it might not have been what the other person needed right then.
I guess effective evangelism is impossible to measure, because each situation is going to require individual attention and a response that makes sense in that situation.
your list is great Mike Carpenter but I don't see those issues in his article at all. I think in some ways he is saying some of what you're saying: we may get all nervous trying to think of some way to squeeze Jesus into the conversation with an unsaved friend, when all we needed to do was listen and know a person, let them open up and open up to them personally too(sharing out of personal weakness) and we will know what their main barriers are to the gospel, and how they have misunderstood it, and a timely word. Besides that, waiting on the Holy Spirit may produce(and has for me) moments which I could never have manufactured in my life, in response to my prayers. Of course, this is different from public evangelism or preaching, but I believe that most Christians in history have been won by friendship evangelism. Great article
I don't think that the purpose of Schaeffer's "listening for 55 minutes" was that he might properly apply the gospel to the individual's worldly/sinful* "needs, fears, hopes and dreams". That sounds decidedly prosperity driven... Are we to convince them to come to Christ so He can fix their marriages and mortgages and have their best life now? Or as Reidhead said, "Nonchristian friend, you come to Christ and love and serve Him as long as you live, whether you go to Hell at the end of the day, because He's WORTHY."
But the 55 minutes he would spend listening and asking questions was for the purpose of bringing them to the point where they realize their awful, 'hopeless' predicament as a sinner before a holy, just and loving God and almost cry out, "What must I do to be saved?" It was then, with the last 5 minutes, that he would bring out the mercy of God in the face of Jesus Christ out from behind his back (so to speak) and explain to them the gospel. And yet he said, "As I push the man off his balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him." [so throughout "Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer" by Bryan A. Follis]
"I've said over and over, I would spend 45-50 minutes on the negative, to really show him his dilemma--that he is morally dead--then I'd take 10-15 minutes to preach the Gospel. I believe that much of our evangelistic and personal work today is not clear simply because we are too anxious to get to the answer without having a man realize the real cause of his sickness, which is true moral guilt (and not just psychological guilt feelings) in the presence of God." ["Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People" by Will Metzger p.71]
The Puritans called this 'Law work' and as Paul puts it in Romans 7, "I once was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died." It is through the law that sin is shown to be sin and might indeed be recognized as sinful beyond measure. It is this very practice of Law work that Paul takes up from Romans 1:18-3:20 after pausing his thought of a free righteousness being offered in the gospel in Romans 1:16-17 (realizing that his readers did not realize yet their guilt) and then takes up that great theme again in Romans 3:21. And I think we ought to mirror his method in our own evangelism as did Schaeffer.
I don't want it to seem that I'm discounting the need that we need to be motivated by love and concern not moralistic 'evangelical' piety... But it is first a love concerned for Christ's glory and that He is worthy to receive the full reward of His suffering and then a brokenhearted love for our fellow man, sinners just as we are, in need of a Savior just as much as we are daily dependent upon Jesus. Who am I to be responding to such a pastor and author? But I just thought it was very important the context in which Schaeffer was speaking when he made that comment about "listening for 55 minutes." It was not so that he could mold the gospel to their situation through 'metaphors' or any other method, but that they would see their desperate need for a Savior. At the end of the day, if we drop all the new methodology and terminology, evangelism is delivering to all as of first importance what we 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 afterwards to many witnesses.
*Without Christ we are spiritually dead and thus any 'needs' we are able to articulate in that state are by default carnal, earthly and sinful.
Yes...my problem with the article is that it makes evangelism about how well we can "listen" and apply gospel metaphors to someone's life...I don't think that really is the gospel. We should definitely be sensitive and loving to unbelievers but preaching the simple gospel is the power that saves.
Great article Dodson! Most comments here are misunderstanding your heart and compassion for the lost. Your a gift to our local body here in San Diego and this has already helped me on mission to those around me. Thanks bro!
Thanks, Chris.
I'm surprised by some of the responses here, particularly given that it's obvious that some commenters haven't read the short eBook.
@Aaron, thank you for engaging the interview and for your concern for the gospel. I do disagree with your starting place in evangelism--total depravity--which leads you to sweeep away the longing and desires of men. I suggest that, while affirming that doctrine, we start with the imago Dei, which recognizes the vestige of divine longings and the human purpose of community, glory, creativity, and so on. Even Calvin recognized the seed of religon in men. Schaffer would agree with this starting point. However, I am not trying to represent Schaeffer or Calvin on the whole but rather, my own point of view.
In post-Christendom contexts, people need to be taught and shown their need for Christ, how their desires, though corrupted, can often be fulfilled by God through repentance and faith. I am asking us to explain Christ more profoundly to them, just as you would with an unreached people group who do not understand their purpose, sin, Christ, and faith.
@Clark the gospel is simple and complex. The gospel is comprised of the gospel metaphors, so I humbly disagree. The NT explicitly connects these metaphors to the gospel and uses them in evangelism. Jesus himself used gospel metaphors all the time---living water, new birth, treasure in a field. We do well to follow in his footsteps.
I encourage people to get the eBook and then reflect on your own evangelism before the Lord. At the very least, the Spirit might use it to stir up more love for the lost and deeper worship of Christ.
[...] There’s this pastor down in Austin, Texas. He’s basically a Mark Driscoll kind of guy. You know, the “hey, I’m cool, let’s sit in and listen on me talk and drink coffee for Sunday morning” kind of guy. People that are associated with this kind of thinking are part of The Resurgence and Acts 29 network. They typically prize themselves on being “intellectual” Christians. However, they really aren’t very intellectual. They are engrossed in theological studies (which is great by the way) but really don’t understand the content and context. The place it effects the most is the gospel. Many of these people have a “lifestyle” evangelism mentality. They are more about doing the appropriate things then actually making a proclamation. I don’t think they misunderstand this on purpose, I just don’t think they really understand the scriptures. Let me explain what I mean by quoting this latest interview. [...]
I didn't read the 45 page ebook, and therefore, my apologies for my previous long knee-jerk reaction. I responded more out hearing that something (including strategy) adds anything to the power of the gospel preached to save. I gave many biblical reasons in my first post regarding the power of the gospel preached being enough, which I encourage you to consider their implications. I am a firm believer that the preached Gospel is the means by which a person is saved; not of course apart from the Holy Spirit working on the heart, but nothing more required on my part. The gospel specifically summarized as Paul did in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is Christ crucified, buried and raised on the 3rd day. This is what Paul considers, foremost, so that is my starting point and what I see him and the other apostles preaching; he says to practice what he does (Phil 4:9). I also find the patterns of conversions in the book of Acts to be highly inclusive of the preached message of Christ crucified and risen prior to belief.
On a personal note, I am a struggling doubter of 24 years and cringe/become fearful when I see anything stealing from the miracle of God's work on stone, dead, dark hearts (like mine was). My believing comes into question most everyday, and if it was up to me to feel confident about my faith because I considered some facts, or how someone communicated this foolish message to me, I wouldn't be comforted and in fact it was the lack of understanding why I even cared about God that drove me for a season of time towards despair and departure from the faith. I know my heart is deceitful and maybe I decided to believe because I don't want to go to hell, instead of because I love Jesus. However, from a perspective of total depravity (which I know you don't agree with) my struggle makes more sense to me. My strength comes in trusting that God will finish what he started and not some questionable moment in time where I chose to believe. If my salvation is based on the purity of my decision at some point in the past, I am not so sure I'd wake up fighting for the faith most days.
Additionally, when there is room for pride to be lurking behind the scenes of this miracle work (i.e. craft the message such that the listener can...) I also knee-jerk to question its biblical accuracy. Do we want the new professing believer to walk away thinking their salvation was because they saw the reasonableness of a foolish message, or, that a miracle just occured on their heart causing the foolish message to be beautiful? One approach about killed me, literally. If there is room for boasting, my first response is...run away! I could be wrong, but I would argue that scriptures are explicit in the preaching of the gospel being the means by which people believe (1 Pet 1:23-35) and less specific on how our righteous deeds, which God grows (1 Cor 3:6), plays a role on the heart of an unbeliever (i.e. singing in Jail). I think we to easily get caught up in focusing on our actions playing a role in an unbelievers decision for Christ, outside of what is explicitly shared; preaching Christ crucified and risen. I think this inappropriate focus is true because we recognize how foolish this message really is, and we want to make it more rational. But prior to God making us alive, this message is either a stumbling block or foolishness, and we were all dead in our sins and prefering it (Eph 2, John 3:19). I'm not saying go live a crazy unbiblical life, of course be loving, of course listen, of course do, of course use relevant launching points, but be careful not to let those things trump the power of the preached gospel. Faith comes from hearing (Rom 10:17).
That all being said. I didn't read the ebook and so I may have accidently turned the conversation in an unintended direction and I do apologize. I will go read your ebook. But I stand behind my conviction that God's miracle work of saving someone because I shared a foolish message doesn't require anything added (please consider my points in the previous posts). I'd be happy to discuss this more off-line and in a manner that accounts for all your details and intent as I do care about the gospel and I care about the great commission and doing this in unity and community of other believers.
Thanks.
@Mike et. al.
To clarify, I affirm the doctrine of total depravity and that salvation comes by hearing the gospel communicated and responding by faith alone through Christ alone by grace alone, for which to God alone belongs all the glory.
The gospel is communicated in many ways in Scripture; I'm simply advocating we do the same using the biblical categories.
I rejoice in God's miraculous work in rescuing you from depression and judgment. God's grace is great isn't it?!
Thanks for your clarification. I see the different ways the core gospel message in the new testament is brought about but the core remains the same. This observation can simply mean that whatever you need to direct the conversation towards preaching the good news is the point.
I'm saying there is precedent that demonstrates the delivery has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the preached gospel to save. Please review my first post. Yes we see different launching points and variations to how the message of Christ crucified, buried and raised is preached, but if all my reasons outlined in my first post are true, then the way this message is delivered appears to be irrelevant.
Additionally Jesus seems to suggest, taking Luke 8:4-21 as my example, that He intentionally spoke in parables so that "‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’". In other words, He isn't making the message clear and easy to understand. In fact, Jesus seems to be saying in this parable, don't worry how you cast the word, but instead, be careful how you listen (count how many times Jesus says "hear/listen" in this parable). In other places people are warned about becoming "dull of hearing" and we all know that faith comes from hearing.
So, although I haven't yet finished your book, though I have started, I think I'm compelled by Scripture, to see the power of the gospel preached to be all that is required, nothing more added, no special spin required. Sure be natural, but apparently Paul and Jesus seem to make this tactic irrelevant.
I am enjoying your ebook, and agree and appreciate with much of what I have read. I have prayed that God would help me learn from it.
I really would enjoy a heart to heart conversation. I want to be open to the truth, but I can't deny what I've recently been learning.
Enjoy Today.
Thanks by the way. Gods grace and mercy are real heart breakers. I hate that i dont often enough realize it, even after all He has done in my life. Peace.
I thought of one other place that seems so obvious that it isn't how, but that it is preached, Peter with Cornelious in Acts 10/11.
Peter starts off saying, I'm not supposed to be talking to you, referring to a racially inflammatory reality that existed between Jews and Gentiles (clearly a tactic we wouldn't use). Obviously it was received just fine but this certainly could have been left out Peter.
But he speaks and it was the hearing that is highlighted:
Acts 10:44
"44 While Peter was still saying these things[gospel-christ died, buried, risen], the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word."
He summarized his experience with his Jewish friends in chapter 11 saying:
Acts 11:14
"he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household."
It was the declaring of the message, regardless of his opening tactics, by which he cornelious heard and was saved.
I'm trying to be short but this was just another example of the power of the message preached and the importance of the listener to hear. Tactics here seemed irrelevant. Just preach it.
Anyway, read the whole story, it really stood out to me how much depends on simply preaching the good news, but also that hearing was important. What role we have in the listeners part to hear seems unimportant and really out of our control.
@Mike
I appreciate your desire to uplift the supremacy of the Gospel.
You said above that: "I'm saying there is precedent that demonstrates the delivery has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the preached gospel to save."
I agree with you in this. Paul speaks in Romans that it is the "power of God for salvation".
Can the issue here be one of context and not of supremacy? When presenting the Gospel to the lost is there not also the need to contextually love them into it? This is not an addition - this IS the Gospel.
In Colossians 4:3-5, Paul writes:
"At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison— that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.
Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Paul asks them to pray that he would be clear. He also commands them to have speech that is gracious. Is this not presentation?
Can I just go up to person I don't know without hearing their story while preaching hellfire and brimstone telling them they're going to hell because of their sin, Jesus died a bloody death, and now He is risen and feel like I've presented a true Gospel to them? It is not a matter of eloquence - it is a matter of loving them.
I think Jonathan is reminding us that context is important even within our own culture and families.
Thanks for a good article. I did have one question for Jonathan,
"Very often our gospel is unbelievable because we are motivated by unbelief in the gospel."
Help me understand what you mean by this "motivated by unbelief".
@Steve
I really am compelled by your ideas and if I was not open to be true to scripture I might have attempted an explaination that stayed in line with my point; which I do think there is a spin that could be given to your ideas that simply state that Paul isn't saying presentation is key here and I might attempt one. But to help you appreciate what gives me the freedom to attempt such a task, which I could use some help with are the reasons I gave in my very first post. Let me summarize them:
In Philippians 1, Paul says roughly paraphrased it doesn't matter the intent of the deliverer but that Christ is being proclaimed. This really challenges my understanding.
In 1 Corinthians 1-2, Paul says many things that also suggest that how the gospel is delivered isn't important but that it is delivered.
So what I need help with is a better understanding of what Paul is saying. Is he saying I'd prefer to speak in appropriate ways but thankfully the power of the gospel is enough, or am I miss understanding the facts presented in Philippians and 1 Corinthians, which I do see as him saying delivery isn't key.
My current convictions about those two passages and a few others seem to be at odds with presentation being required and I would need help seeing and welcome it to them differently. However I do believe that Paul asks us to live in a manner worthy of the gospel and so certainly one would expect love, patience and all the fruits of the Spirit to be at the root. But It is loving, I could argue, that presenting the gospel is loving. The question that we are asking is, is it loving to present the gospel without shaping for the context? Paul seems to rejoice either way. So this is where it rubs for me. We need to explain clearly what Paul is saying if in one place it appears that approach doesn't matter for effectiveness and that he prays for proper presentation(as you shared).
Now, I personally like and prefer to shape and contextualize because this seems more effective, but I'm not convinced this is necessary for reasons summarized above and in my first two posts. I'm being challenged to see the absolute miracle work of the gospel preached, that not only is the message foolish but the delivery can be too, and it is actually humbling me.
So I invite your assistance to explain Philippians and 1 Coronthians 1-2, so that I can keep from error. Side note: this miracle work of the gospel preached is really helping my doubting nature, so I'm now also biased because of how it seems to be killing some doubt. However this doesn't mean I have a correct understanding of the power of the gospel preached or what Paul is saying.
How do you think a deaf man would feel if he, coming to Jesus, was told, “Behold, I heal you – of your blindness.” Sure, sight is a good thing. But that doesn't meet the need of the man afflicted with deafness. He would probably leave Jesus feeling frustrated, confused, or annoyed.
In the same way, if I go into a student's dorm room and he shares that he is afraid of rejection from his parents, what will be his reaction if my solution is: “Great. Here's how to go to heaven when you die.”? Do you see the disconnect there? What if instead I shared how I have experienced ultimate acceptance through Christ, and how he can too?
[...] Unbelievable Gospel: A Conversation with Jonathan Dodson – Evangelism is always a hot topic—lifestyle vs. confrontational vs. relational vs. whatever. I appreciate this interview of the author of a book on evangelism. It’s helped me think about the importance of understanding the person I am evangelizing to more effectively, and “believably” love them with the gospel. (HT: Larry Rogier) [...]
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/25/unbelievable-gospel-a-conversation-with-jonathan-... Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in general interest. Bookmark the permalink. ← Real Lives- a week of true stories about people amazingly changed by Jesus [...]