- Randy Nichols.

You’ve probably heard the quote, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, who said “Preach the Gospel at all times and if necessary use words,” which rings true in an age and culture in which talk is cheap and in which there is a significant degree of incongruence between words and actions. However, it’s worthy of note how often Paul arrived at new city, established a base of contacts and support, and then shortly thereafter began proclaiming the Gospel to those who would listen. True, Paul was extraordinarily gifted and hard-wired temperamentally for such an endeavor, yet the point is that both relational and declarative elements were included in Paul’s evangelistic methodology. I’m reminded of Paul E. Little, now deceased, who like Pippert, was an Inter-Varsity trained expert in evangelism from my generation, who made an observation similar to Pippert’s in saying that just as you wouldn’t think of flying an airplane with only one wing, neither could one engage meaningfully in the evangelistic enterprise over the long haul without a balanced attention to “word and deed.”

Pippert’s article is ultimately an appeal for balance between word and deed, relationship and proclamation. I can’t help but feel the internal struggle underlying Pippert’s writing as she attempts to hold these two poles together in tension. She lives and operates in an emerging post-modern context in which many are questioning the faith in which they were raised, while at the same time finding that fewer and fewer were raised in the faith at all. Yet, she has also experienced first hand what God can do when people authentically encounter Christ. Her thinking resonates with me by virtue of the fact that early Christianity was a grass roots movement which spread like wild fire over the then known world as converts to Christianity shared what they had seen, heard, and experienced of the saving power of Jesus Christ with people across the back fence, in the market place, along trade routes, or wherever their spheres of influence extended. People were deeply impacted by the truth of the gospel and swept up in a sense of urgency to share this message with others in a manner similar to Paul’s passionate statement in II Corinthians 5 – “the love of Christ constrains me” (puts me in a vice-grip). Reading between the lines, I sense that Pippert’s concern, and one which I share, is that in our legitimate fears about being “formulaic” in our approach and “off-putting” in our style, we will inadvertently hoard for ourselves the treasure that the world needs most, the precious gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation.” Perhaps I can best sum up what’s on my heart by saying, “With sensitivity to the intended recipients and a proper concern for timing, a balanced approach to evangelism must ultimately include a Spirit led combination of both word and deed in which this sense of a “Spirit led movement” is somehow recaptured and revitalized in our American context that is now the third largest mission field in the world.”

Christ’s example of evangelism has always struck a chord with me, but I have largely ignored the incarnational aspect of it. Pippert makes a nice observation about Jesus coming in the simple, mild, “human” form of an infant and what that means for a model of evangelism.

In thinking of Chirst-centered evangelism, my mind usually travels to the countless examples in the gospels of Jesus being relational, specifically in sharing meals (aka “really getting to know them”) with people of all stripes and reputations. A relational model of evangelism probably looked different within this culture because it was more of a communal culture. People interacted with their neighbors. People related with one another. Western individualism, which is exemplified in affluent America, is a huge obstacle in “getting to know people.”

Because of this, the neighborly gestures of a man fixing cars for his neighbors and his wife baking are indeed extraordinary. I do want to speak to your comment about the tension between letting your actions tell the story and being a “Boy Scout.” Can “sharing the source behind our love” be done in a way that doesn’t feel contrived or off-putting somehow? It seems (and this is just from some of my life experience) that sharing the source behind the love too soon can compromise the building of an authentic relationship. I am aware that the Bible talks about declaring the gospel with boldness and also that an uncomfortable reaction is often appropriate when presented with Christ or the gospel. But, if there is no trust built into a relationship, it seems like many would take their cookie or their newly rebuilt transmission, say a sincere thank you, and look for a good bakery or auto shop in their neighborhood from now on.

I suppose, if I had to quickly sum up my critique of Pippert, I would posit that evangelism is not quite so formulaic. In a pluralistic context where many are quite familiar with Christianity on different levels, evangelism is a multi-layered enterprise with many stages, hopefully with the final one being a clear presentation of the Gospel message and an invitation to accept it personally.

I know this really wasn’t the main point of your blog, but I guess that’s the beauty of this format…you can go off on a tangent! I’d be interested to read any thoughts you have in response. Thanks and keep writing!