"Lifestyle evangelism" isn't evangelism

[SolaScriptura]

I wrote this because yesterday I had a lengthy discussion with a couple peers who are practioners of this method. It is important to remember that lifestyle "evangelism" isn't evangelism.

The Myth of Lifestyle Evangelism

 

[SolaScriptura]

*bump*

Just to make sure that people who need to have their bubble burst do so.

 

[MW]

When "evangelism" is made the activity of every Christian it is bound to be redefined in terms of something every Christian can do and lose its distinctive quality which requires a special calling.

 

[Frank]

That's a good thought Ben. I would have to agree... I have never observed a "Moral Lifestyle" bring anyone to faith in Christ. In fact, sometimes they look at me strangely and it might even be more difficult to share the Gospel... 1 Peter 4:4 (ESV)
4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you;

 

[earl40]

When "evangelism" is made the activity of every Christian it is bound to be redefined in terms of something every Christian can do and lose its distinctive quality which requires a special calling.

With you here. Curious does the pastor have the charge to do this only in the context of church or is he allowed to evangelize at McDonald's?

 

[CuriousNdenver]

From your blog post:

" ... we don’t share the Gospel on the front end of relationships because we think we haven’t “earned” the right to do so, and once we do have an established relationship we are reticent to share the Gospel because we are loathe to risk damaging the relationship. Talk about being on the horns of a dilemma!"

Spot on.

Although, I have to say that I have had instances where people have observed my life under trials and asked where my strength came from. Yet, if I don't share the gospel then, or create an appropriate opportunity to do so (if I'm at work), it is still not evangelism.

I met a man a few years ago who was gung-ho for "Way of the Master" evangelism. He said he liked to share the gospel with folks before they got to know him and realized what a jerk he was. I don't know him well enough to know if he was joking or not. But - if we have an ongoing relationship with someone who we share the gospel with - it is important that our life reflects our faith. Maybe this is one reason some are reluctant to share with people they see regularly.

 

[kvanlaan]

Ben, I agree wholeheartedly - it is the ultimate bait and switch. You thought I was XYZ and began to open up to me, so I showed my true colors and blindsided you with the gospel, which is possibly a full 180 degrees apart from what you thought I was. Mormons, for instance, live extremely moral lives...

That being said, we do want to live a life that shows that Christ is the centre of our world, our purpose, and that we do not compromise Scripture to 'build bridges'. I remember hearing that if you are a believer and not a missionary, you are a mission field. I do believe that, but we are not all evangelists; the gospel is a precious thing, it shouldn't just be tossed around willy-nilly.

 

[Steve Curtis]

About this, Spurgeon notably said:

"Once more, he who really has this high estimate of Jesus will think much of him, and as the thoughts are sure to run over at the mouth, he will talk much of him. Do we so? If Jesus is precious to you, you will not be able to keep your good news to yourself; you will be whispering it into your child's ear; you will be telling it to your husband; you will be earnestly imparting it to your friend; without the charms of eloquence you will be more than eloquent; your heart will speak, and your eyes will flash as you talk of his sweet love. Every Christian here is either a missionary or an impostor. Recollect that. You either try to spread abroad the kingdom of Christ, or else you do not love him at all. It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus and a totally silent tongue about him."

The salient point, of course, being that "lifestyle evangelism" (at least as I've often seen it expressed) does seem to have a strangely "silent tongue" about the good news of Christ.

 

[kvanlaan]

I was listening to/reading something this weekend (don't recall names or whether it was a sermon or article) about the Olympics and the gist of it was that if you bump into an Olympian, you will know within a few short minutes who you are talking to. They have spent their lives preparing for one or two kicks at the can, and it comes roaring out at every opportunity. Every day is spent balancing diet and training, etc. etc. Odd that we so often don't match the fervor of the secular world in something that is so much greater than anything they could possibly offer. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ben, I agree wholeheartedly - it is the ultimate bait and switch. You thought I was XYZ and began to open up to me, so I showed my true colors and blindsided you with the gospel, which is possibly a full 180 degrees apart from what you thought I was.

That is a good point about the bait and switch.

 

[Leslie]

I think the bottom line is that it is nearly impossible to effectively share the gospel in Western culture. It is considered rude to bring up the subject. We Americans have the choice between continuing to live in comfort, and going to live in a place where people are hungry to hear. In much of the developing world, plus in M nations, there is a lot of openess to the gospel, in the latter case just because it's suppressed by the authorities. Persecution creates hunger amongst unbelievers.

When we first came to this location it was right after the overthrow of communism. For the first 5 years or so, I never once gave a ride to an unbeliever without his hearing the gospel from one of my workers in the back of the car. This was spontaneous; I never told them to do it, nor did I compliment them for doing so. This has totally stopped, now that we are 23 years after the cessation of persecution.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think the bottom line is that it is nearly impossible to effectively share the gospel in Western culture.

Well, now, I think that's a bit overstated...

 

[MusicMan]

There is some truth to it. We are so "culturally" Christian in the west that people either feel oppressed having to hear about it, feel they are already saved because they were given a Bible once, or they just want to argue talking points.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[118min]

I agree with you Ben. Stephen did not need to be critiqued by a lifestyle evangelist advocate; Neither did Jeremiah, Isaiah, or countless others in Scripture. Pharaoh ignored God , hated God, ignored Moses and despised Moses; there was nothing in Moses' lifestyle that would have changed that; The same could be said for Korah's rebellion, Cain's murder of Abel, or Noah's rowdy neighbors. The unregenerate hate the aroma of Christ and without cause. (John 15). The concept does invent this impossible burden to carry which relentless screams, "be better, do better, make a difference through your behavior." in contrast to the promise of Jesus that His yoke is easy and His burden is light, He will give us a rest to boast of Him. A rest that lifestyle evangelism never can provide.

 

[SolaSaint]

About this, Spurgeon notably said:

"Once more, he who really has this high estimate of Jesus will think much of him, and as the thoughts are sure to run over at the mouth, he will talk much of him. Do we so? If Jesus is precious to you, you will not be able to keep your good news to yourself; you will be whispering it into your child's ear; you will be telling it to your husband; you will be earnestly imparting it to your friend; without the charms of eloquence you will be more than eloquent; your heart will speak, and your eyes will flash as you talk of his sweet love. Every Christian here is either a missionary or an impostor. Recollect that. You either try to spread abroad the kingdom of Christ, or else you do not love him at all. It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus and a totally silent tongue about him."

The salient point, of course, being that "lifestyle evangelism" (at least as I've often seen it expressed) does seem to have a strangely "silent tongue" about the good news of Christ.

I knew Spurgeon would have the answer and I like what he says. However should evangelism depend upon the situation or the person we are sharing the gospel with?

 

[VictorBravo]

However should evangelism depend upon the situation or the person we are sharing the gospel with?

As with all things, there are degrees. Ben's post started out with peers, which I took to mean ordained ministers or chaplains. Because they have a calling to evangelize, a "lifestyle evangelism" approach is a cop-out.

For lay people doing their jobs among unbelievers, I don't think you must discuss the gospel at every moment. If you have work to do, that is the primary immediate focus, usually.

And your lifestyle does have something to do with your credibility. But that doesn't mean you just hide your faith for the purpose of gaining friendship, I'd think it would be exactly the opposite. And when the occasion arises, of course you speak, just as Peter said in the passage Ben cited.

Here's an example that came up a while back--I'm sure others could think of other opportunities. A prominent opposing attorney was sort of surprised and happy with my forthright assessment of the case we had, and my approach to settle it. He said something like, "you're a good man, Vic."

And I responded, practically without thinking: "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God."

He reflected on that a bit and said, "that's from the Bible, right? Who said that?"

Which allowed me to discuss the rich young ruler, the futility of works, the goodness of God, the deity of Christ, the gospel. All of it in an informal and conversational way among friendly peers.

But the conversation never would have happened if we were personally adversarial. In that sense, lifestyle, or personal conduct, matters.

 

[Leslie]

Occasions do come up in Western culture to share the gospel. But if you were rumored to be a Christian while doing a secular job in a solidly M culture, you'd have people showing up on your doorstep, begging to be evangelized, once the rumors got out that you were a Christian. That is unheard of Stateside. The fact that there are not more people doing this is testimony to the fact that Western Christians would rather be comfortable than to evangelize. If you want to catch fish, you have to get into the water when and where the fish are hungry. Otherwise the pickins will be few. Right now the fish are biting in the M world and in some inhospitable tribal areas.

 

[SolaScriptura]

In that sense, lifestyle, or personal conduct, matters.

Vic -

Of course lifestyle matters. I'd perhaps go beyond your statement and remove the "in that sense" because conduct matters, period. But I think it is important to distinguish living as obedient children of God in such a way that our lives (increasingly) reflect conformity to the laws, values, and priorities of the Kingdom simply because this is what Christians do, whether or not is has any missiological or evangelistic benefit.

 

[reaganmarsh]

The text which Mr. Bottomly cites gets to the heart of the matter.

If a Christian is reliant upon their own consistency of life as lived before an unbelieving world (however "missionally" or "incarnationally" it is framed) then at best we will make converts to ourselves -- to reliance upon our own moral fiber, or human ability, or "the goodness in each of us," or some such nonsense.

If "no one is good, but God alone," however, then any good thing seen is us is of God's grace (1 Cor 4.7) and any compliment or praise given to us is an opportunity to speak, however briefly, of the mercy of God in Jesus. It points beyond us, to the necessity and grace of the Cross.

That's what Mr. Bottomly helpfully modeled for us, and Ben's article drives that basic idea home well.

I enjoyed your article, Ben.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

There is some truth to it. We are so "culturally" Christian in the west that people either feel oppressed having to hear about it, feel they are already saved because they were given a Bible once, or they just want to argue talking points.

Not so in Denver, Colorado. To suggest to an average Denverite that they were "culturally" Christian would be fighting words.

 

[Leslie]

There is some truth to it. We are so "culturally" Christian in the west that people either feel oppressed having to hear about it, feel they are already saved because they were given a Bible once, or they just want to argue talking points.

Not so in Denver, Colorado. To suggest to an average Denverite that they were "culturally" Christian would be fighting words.

Please explain yourself. If Denver is not culturally Christian, what is it? Culturally secular, Muslim, or something else? I don't understand why anyone would take offense.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I've been struggling with the question whether I should reveal to or conceal from others my good intentions and deeds, or whether I should make my deeds look good or bad to others.

 

[earl40]

I've been struggling with the question whether I should reveal to or conceal from others my good intentions and deeds, or whether I should make my deeds look good or bad to others.

I can understand your struggle here also. If you read this site for any amount of time you will get a mixed message on evangelism and who is allowed perform this official function within the church. On one side (#1) we have the reformed baptist and most PCA pastors who charge and encourage everyone within their church to evangelize. The other side (#2) says the only proper person to do such is a pastor.

Here is my conclusion on the matter...I am a member of a PCA church which encourages it's members to "tell people about Jesus" in the highways and byways. Now I do such as the occasion arises in the context daily living with the intent to hopefully have the Holy Spirit use that conversation to change the heart. Now is this "evangelism" in the "proper" sense? Many would say no (side #2) and others yes (side #1). If no, the one side (side #2) would say God uses unordained persons to spread His Word via sinful activity. The other side would say they did evangelize and did not sin (side #1). So is speaking about The Lord Jesus in the natural context of daily living evangelism? That is the question beaten around here all the time and for the life of me I can not figure out what the side #2 means when they say we are allowed to speak of Jesus and His Gospel is not evangelism.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I have heard it said that evangelism is every Christian's privelege, but for the pastor it is his duty. However, given the statement by Matthew Winzer above, it seems that evangelism is more than just sharing the Gospel or doing good to others. Perhaps it includes preaching with authority regardless of the audience's will to listen?

 

[earl40]

I have heard it said that evangelism is every Christian's privelege, but for the pastor it is his duty. However, given the statement by Matthew Winzer above, it seems that evangelism is more than just sharing the Gospel or doing good to others. Perhaps it includes preaching with authority regardless of the audience's will to listen?

This I think gets to the crux of the matter. Is evangelism the preaching of The Gospel to convert the lost to justification or is it the preaching of the entire council of God to those that are already justified. I think it is both in my opinion. This issue can be driven in what context one is speaking about. In Ben's OP it is of course speaking to the lost to be justified. In the context of those to who the preacher preaches The Gospel does both...justify the unconverted and sanctify the justified.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think the bottom line is that it is nearly impossible to effectively share the gospel in Western culture.

Well, now, I think that's a bit overstated...

Agreed. Here's what Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote 40 years ago:

I want to support this contention by certain other statements. Here for instance is one, which, to me,
has an almost amusing aspect to it. These proposals that we should preach less, and do various other
things more, are of course not new at all. People seem to think that all this is quite new, and that it is
the hallmark of modernity to decry or to depreciate preaching, and to put your emphasis on these
other things. The simple answer to that is that there is nothing new about it. The actual form may be
new, but the principle is certainly not a new one at all; indeed it has been the particular emphasis of
this present century.

 

[CuriousNdenver]

Please explain yourself. If Denver is not culturally Christian, what is it? Culturally secular, Muslim, or something else? I don't understand why anyone would take offense.

Mary, Denver has become exceedingly secularized, and multicultural. There are very few faithful churches in the heart of our city. What remains there, are mostly a few holdovers of the mainline denominations. These churches glorify sin and many embrace other religions, especially Buddhism.

There are large Muslim, Hare Krishna, Hindu and Buddhist communities, along with representatives of almost every other cult imaginable.

This January, our state legalized recreational marijuana. Street crime is on the rise and we have an epidemic of hit-and-run accidents, many of which kill pedestrians. It demonstrates a callousness about human life.

When you walk down the street, almost anything goes. Homosexuality is not tolerated - it is glorified. Our city is anything but "Christian," even nominally.

In fact, on my secular college campus, Christians are looked on by most with derision. To acknowledge faith is somewhat accepted, but to address sin - any sin, even with love - is to draw accusations of intolerance. (Yes, they are intolerant as they accuse us of intolerance.) To speak of a holy God who can not tolerate sin is anathema in the eyes of the majority. We are accused of "hate speech," which is now a crime. In the heart of our city, true Christianity is a minority.

I have done street evangelism for several years here. I have encountered many who have never heard the gospel.

The suburban areas are a bit different. There are more churches and Christians, though many are of a broad evangelical bent, rather than reformed.

We desperately need faithful churches in the heart of our city. Church planters - if you read this - please consider the heart of Denver and the Hispanic barrio in southwest Denver.

 

[Toasty]

I've been struggling with the question whether I should reveal to or conceal from others my good intentions and deeds, or whether I should make my deeds look good or bad to others.

I can understand your struggle here also. If you read this site for any amount of time you will get a mixed message on evangelism and who is allowed perform this official function within the church. On one side (#1) we have the reformed baptist and most PCA pastors who charge and encourage everyone within their church to evangelize. The other side (#2) says the only proper person to do such is a pastor.

Here is my conclusion on the matter...I am a member of a PCA church which encourages it's members to "tell people about Jesus" in the highways and byways. Now I do such as the occasion arises in the context daily living with the intent to hopefully have the Holy Spirit use that conversation to change the heart. Now is this "evangelism" in the "proper" sense? Many would say no (side #2) and others yes (side #1). If no, the one side (side #2) would say God uses unordained persons to spread His Word via sinful activity. The other side would say they did evangelize and did not sin (side #1). So is speaking about The Lord Jesus in the natural context of daily living evangelism? That is the question beaten around here all the time and for the life of me I can not figure out what the side #2 means when they say we are allowed to speak of Jesus and His Gospel is not evangelism.

Suppose that there are some non-Christians in a lay-person's home. (I don't have a church service in someone's home in mind.) They could family members or friends. If he tells them about how God saves His people from their sin, the other side (#2) would not call that evangelism. Just because the other side (#2) does not call it evangelism does not mean that they think that it is sinful.

 

[Justified]

It seems to me "lifestyle evangelism" is just an excuse to never actually evangelize. Self deception seems more appropriate term. One who has this mind set (I used to in the past) uses it so that they can be friends with someone without ever damaging the relationship or causing friction; that's the real use of "lifestyle evangelism."

 

[Frank]

Thought I might share another Martin Lloyd-Jones Quote:

The modern Christian seems to think that he is doing something wonderful when he behaves very much like the man of the world; he tries to argue that this is the way to win him. But he is not winning him! Our Lord could mix with publicans and sinners, but He was never mistaken for one of them; He was called the friend of publicans and sinners, but the contrast was there even in the criticism. And the point is that the true Christian, because of what has happened to him, because of this regeneration, because of the work of the Spirit, because he has been made anew, is of necessity a different man, and should show himself to be a different man.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1982). Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17–5:17 (pp. 86–87). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.