The Evangelism of Despair: Proclamation v Invitation
In our last instalment, we looked at the post-fall estate of man and concluded that the Biblical picture of man is that he is “dead in trespass and sin”. As such, the idea of speaking about “seekers”, as one example, is incongruous with Biblical revelation. In this article, we will look at another incongruity.
Throughout the 50’s and 60’s, people became used to hearing about the invitation to come to Christ. This was popularised by men such as Billy Graham. This language is seen in the following sentence: “According to his staff, more than 3.2 million people have responded to the invitation at Billy Graham Crusades to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.” Consequently, this term was popularised and made its way into the psyche and vocabulary of Christendom.
Once more, the truly pertinent question is, “Does this term reflect the Scriptural position?”
Once more, we must answer, “No, it does not!”
If man is dead, then it stands to reason that he can neither seek nor respond to an invitation. Please, put this to the test. Go to your local cemetery and place an invitation on each tomb inviting the occupant to attend your next soirée. Now the safest way to do this is to make sure that you add an RSVP to the invitation. That way, if I am wrong, said soirée will not be ruined! However, you will not do this because, in principle, you know that I am right. The dead do not seek. The dead do not respond to invitations.
This brings us to the salient point. Salvation is and always has been a sovereign, authoritative, act on the part of God. Consequently, Scripture is oblivious to the terminology of invitation, but replete with the language of proclamation.
To start, consider the OT usage of “Thus says the Lord!” God did not just, “throw it out there”. He did not give the “Ten Discussion Starters!” or the “Ten Suggestions”, as some have termed it. Yahweh did not reveal His “opinion” in the form of “guidelines”. No! Yahweh revealed His Word and His Word was Law! This is the “Judges decision. It is final. No correspondence shall be entered in to.”
Jonah did not invite Nineveh to repent. He proclaimed Yahweh’s proclamation of Judgement (Jonah 3:2). Ezekiel did not invite the dry bones to knit themselves together. He prophesied the command of Yahweh, “Hear!” (Ezekiel 37:4) Moses did not invite Pharaoh to release Israel. Moses commanded Pharaoh to release Israel. Moses made proclamation to Pharaoh in the Name of Yahweh.
When we enter the NT, the language and method does not change. The Biblical approach can be viewed in the events surrounding Lazarus. He was dead. Helpless. Lifeless. Jesus did not simply invite Lazarus, “to pop on out” of his tomb at his first convenience. Rather, in a succinct summons, Lazarus was ordered from the tomb (John 11:43).
Thus, it is that in the NT we see preachers (having semblance to the prophets) appointed to proclaim the authoritative message of the fullness of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7; 11:1). People were not being invited with a ‘take it or leave it message’; rather they were being summoned or commanded with regard to an authoritative announcement. The heralds went forth in the name of the King!
For us the lesson should be clear. Is it not time that we stopped playing futile games with people’s souls? The only possibility of salvation, according to normal means, comes through the authoritative proclamation or declaration of God’s commissioned mouthpieces. Rather than invite, our Preachers and Evangelists should proclaim and summon.
It is time the mouthpieces remembered their ambassadorial roles, girded up their loins, and spoke with the authority of the Great King. Theirs is the glorious privilege of calling dead men to life. If they lose confidence and belief in their calling and are persuaded to remain quiet, then the tombs shall remain full. Others may seek to replace them and engage in the practice of placing invites on tombs, but it will avail naught.
Dead men must be summoned by the voice of Christ, not invited by the words of men!
Murray
Thank you for your article.
I think that it was C Dodd who argued that the scripture was both ‘kerygma’ (proclamation) and ‘didache’ (teaching). Is there any point to proclaiming if the relevance of the proclamation is not understood? In this sense mightn’t our proclamation necessarily be preceded by explanation. For example, in a culture that is persuaded that there is no absolute truth, ought our peaching and witness be accompanied by discussion/engagement concerning the inadequacies of a non-Christian worldview?
Might it be that such “pre-evangelism” (or ‘didache’) is a necessary prelude to our proclamation? In which case is there a danger in commencing our evangeism too close to the church door?
Your articles thus far have counterposed despair v’s seeking, dead v’s sick, proclaim v’s invite. As such it appears redolent of the “turn or burn” approach to evangelism.
Perhaps I have stereotyped your articles incorrectly but I wonder if there mightn’t be more emphasis on the appropriateness of engagement? Or is that better left to a series on apologetics?
Chris
Greetings Chris,
Thank you for the questions and continuing interest.
First, you once commented that your mind tended toward a love of sophistry. May it be, my friend, that this tendency is possibly providing a stumbling block at this point? I make this observation in light of the fact that some of your conclusions are based on projected and faulty assumptions.
For example, C. H. Dodd (Realised Eschatology) and others of the Dodgy Theology Brigade (Bultmann – Existentialism; Dialectical Theology) did not share the same view of Scripture as you and I do. His distinction between “proclamation” and “teaching” was an attempt, in part, to establish a new genre. Whilst some of his statements ring true, the simple reality is that he divided these terms in an unBiblical way in order to establish his theory – It was the preaching that was important; not the content. Kerygma was not Gospel. Anyway, enough on this.
The point to be made is that I would be very wary of adopting the dichotomy proposed by Dodd. I do not share that view. Nor was that view intended by my use of the term “proclamation”. I need to make this point as your criticisms or questions are based on the dichotomy drawn by Dodd and as a consequence, many false assumptions are made.
The proclamation of Scripture is, in simple definition, God’s appointed and commissioned mouthpieces speaking with God’s authority. Biblical “preaching” and “proclamation” rightly mimic the Ambassadorial role given to such men.
Therefore, when the commissioned teach, they also proclaim. When they proclaim, they may exhort, they may counsel, they may apologise, or they may teach. The necessary point is that these men “spoke with authority”. Their mission was one of authority and that authority was carried in their voices and attested by works of power.
In consequence of this, I am somewhat bemused by the use of your term “pre-evangelism” and your seeming concern for a tape measure to be tied to the front door. Dear Chris, I sincerely believe that this language reeks of too much that is modern. God has one Word. That Word both edifies the saved and calls the lost. A preacher preaching on a Sunday in a worship service speaks with authority and God can use that Word to either end. Similarly, the Street Preacher / Evangelist preaches that same Word. Is it therefore condemnable that a Christian, hearing the Evangelist, finds edification and food for his soul, whilst the unbeliever in the Church service is converted!??
It is patent that many of our modern theories on evangelism simply do not accord with what we find revealed to us in Scripture.
Second, yes, my articles have juxtaposed concepts. They have done so for a reason. In order to expose what I see as failures in modern evangelistic methods and strategies, I have deliberately tried to use this method for clarity.
Despair versus Hope – aimed at showing that it is wrong to use any method that gave assent to the idea that man could do anything of himself and in himself to obtain salvation. This despair, choose another term if that would bring comfort, is necessary both for the sinner and the evangelist. Where is Christ, if man can save himself?
Dead versus Sick – this point is fundamentally important. It explains why “despair” is necessary and it clarifies some of the following points. You concur with the concept, but I must admit to being unsure as to which position you take. In short, this is the watershed. If man is sick, nothing I say in these articles will “ring your bell”. My assertions will cut across your fundamental presupposition at every point. If you believe man is dead, then the following assertions should prove to be of little problem, even if they need to be fleshed out at some point. This is the case unless there is an inconsistency between presupposition and application.
Proclamation versus Invitation – is but the logical application. Dead men do not respond to invitations. As stated, dead men must be called forth from the tomb on the authority of Jesus Christ. Not being flippant, but I can only apologise if this logic tears at many of the modern strategies and thereby causes discomfort. Not being arrogant, I have but tried to give voice to Scripture.
Might I back this with an unusual Scripture? Revelation 14:6-7 states, “And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an [the] eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
Here, in the angelic proclamation of the gospel, we see the essence of the proclamation. It is “command” and not the “invitation” so prominently spoken of in our day. I cite this in the hope that by using a benign reference, people might see the validity of the point being made. If this is what the angel proclaims, why would man’s proclamation be essentially different?
Once more, if this be the Biblical picture, why burden it with the nomenclature of the modernists? Why is this position “redolent of the ‘turn and burn’ approach?” Such clichés are reminiscent of the old days of “Bumper Sticker” theology. In essence, what is wrong with “turn or burn”? One may view it as crass, but it states the issue in a nutshell. If man does not turn from his sin then he will pay for his sin in his own person. It seems to me that one of the true failures of modern evangelism is in not using the Biblically appointed terms.
I had a joke – and I use that term very loosely – come across my screen the other day. It had to do with a Microsoft programmer who passed on. He was given a choice of Heaven or Hell. He was offered a preview. He looked at the first pictures. A beautiful beach. People playing. Sun shining. In short, he says, “Heaven looks good”. The angel escorting him says, “No, that was hell.” The programmer chooses Hell on this basis. Immediately he finds himself in a lake of fire. He screams out, “What happened to the beach?” As the angel walks away, he says, “Oh that was just the promo!”
Now, the clear intention is a sideswipe at Microsoft. Obviously their “promos” and “claims” are not met in reality, at least in the view of some. I wonder sometimes if the Church and the modern evangelistic pursuits are not guilty, at times, of this same error. Do we misrepresent the whole issue, on both sides? If Billy Joel had a real concept of Heaven and Hell, would he have penned, “They say there’s a heaven for those who will wait. Some say it’s better, but I say it ain’t. I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun.” Yes, I know it’s a song. However, the concepts belie something.
Lastly, it is for this very reason that I am urging a return to the Biblical model in regard to evangelism. True proclamation, including apology, teaching, and exhortation must once more be brought to the fore. This proclamation, filled as it will be with Biblical content, is the only hope for any of us, regardless of our estate.
I hope this adds clarity.
Kind regards,
Murray.
Addition:
I might also add that my whole purpose in this endeavour is to see a return to the Biblical model of Power so that we faithfully impact this world for Jesus Christ as we have been commanded.
It is to give voice to Paul’s affirmation that “He is not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation.” Maybe we need to give up our ‘theology of bifurcations’ and begin to understand the Scriptural point of unity. God’s one Word saves. This word saves, not just in a forensic act of justification — death to life; but it saves in the fullest sense of building us into the radiant, glorious, image of Jesus Christ.
For too long we have held salvation in a wrong way, limiting it to only the initial conversion of the sinner. Because of this limitation, dominion has been divorced from evangelism, sanctification from Word, Christ from the believer, and the result has been nothing short of impoverishment!
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. We all need the Gospel. No matter our estate; our role; our function — we all need the Gospel power declared with authority.
Regards,
MMB
Murray
Perhaps my language is redolent of modern jargon. Indeed, I may have been imprudent to raise Dodd’s name but my concern remains.
If there are no seekers, if all are dead and unable to respond except the Word be preached with proclamation in authority, am I wrong to imagine that the gospel can be relayed to others on the basis of reason and persuasion?
Chris
Good day Chris,
Thank you for the question.
To begin. I do not wish to be rude, but we have come to an impasse, based seemingly on presupposition, and I have already exceeded the time budget for this project.
Whilst, I appreciate the questions you have raised, I have done my best to give both substantial answers and the logic involved in application. I have given texts. I have given my position on texts you have raised.
Thus, we have sharpened each other (Proverbs 27:17) and I fear that a continuation may lead to disintegration (Romans 12:18).
Therefore, my friend, the only advice I can give in this matter is to return to the Scriptures and look for the answers they will give as the revelation of God’s truth.
In answer to your question, the answer is, Yes! — depending upon what you mean by “relayed”. Again, I would insist that we are adopting foreign terms and concepts — not pointed at you.
For yourself, Chris, and any others who question the position outlined, may I encourage you to do some word studies. We hear much today in regard to evangelism, but the word studies will show a paucity of support for those positions.
For example:
1. The overwhelming usage of “preach the good news” is found in the mouths of the commissioned — God, Jesus, Angels, Apostles, Prophets. This is the majority usage — the overwhelming majority. The word is not found, contrary to CG, directing the laity to “preach”.
2. The term to preach (proclaim), is likewise found in the mouths of those commissioned to speak. It is interesting that the term is nearly always used in reference to salvation as opposed to some other piece of news.
3. In the English NT (NASB) the term preach is used 107 times; proclaim 53. This is to be contrasted with persuade (14) and reason (86). In regard to the high count of the word “reason”, it must be said that the majority usage is “for this reason” and it does not refer to “reasoning” as in presenting an argument. The word used thusly, does not seem to reach double digits.
One must also note that Luke 16:31 makes the point that men will not be persuaded by anything but Moses and the Prophets. If they be ignored, then even the raised dead will avail naught. Similarly, most uses, in terms of Gospel presentation, refer to Paul in Synagogical disputation or teaching. His audience could be reasoned with because there was a shared belief.
4. Yes, a discussion may need to be had at some point in regard to the place of apologetics, conversation, and the like. However, these will never be of any value if the above aspects are not realised or the weight they carry given due consideration. In other words, if we will not lay a Biblical foundation and respect that foundation, then any other discussion is moot and endless discussion follows for lack of a reference.
6. Again, contrary to CG, we do not see the laity of Scripture exercised as evangelists as the modern concept insists. This falls in line perfectly with what is said above. Now, today, you will be told about the wonders of “every member evangelism”. Great! However, what they do not tell you is that it is not up to every member to take the role of the “evangelist” (Ephesians 4:11). Consequently, they do not equip the laity for their role. Hmm!??
Thank you again, Chris. I appreciate your time and engagement.
Regards,
Murray
Murray
Forgive me my obduracy. Please charge my intransigence to stupidity rather than meanness of spirit.
If I understand your response correctly, I am wrong to think that the gospel can be relayed via reason and persuasion. I thank you for setting me straight. I value too your encouragement to address myself to scripture. To this end I wonder was Paul wrong to treat the Ephesians to reason and persuasion both in their synagogue, for three months, and in the hall of Tyrannus, for two years? “And he entered into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. ~ (Acts 19:8-10 ASV)”
Which being then an incorrect approach how is it that Luke reports that the whole of Asia heard the word of the Lord?
Chris
PS ~ There is one other matter that I raise with some hesitance. It seemed to me that as your articles unfolded there was a firm confidence in the adequacy of correct preaching to bring men to faith. I endorse such unreservedly, but I was hoping that there might also have been some clearer indication or perhaps greater emphasis to indicate that it is the Holy Spirit’s ministry to convict concerning sin and the create faith in the sinner’s heart. Perhaps these things were present and I failed to observe them correctly.
Thank you for your articles.
Greetings Chris,
Forgiveness is always forthcoming, though I doubt that any forgiveness is truly required in this instance as no true wrong has been committed.
The issue at point has nothing to do with slowness or one’s IQ. It has to do with a willingness to read and believe the Biblical data. Once again, this is not a pointed jab; it is the simple reality. We have grown up in or on the cusp of the “Billy Graham Crusade” era. Like it or not, this approach to evangelism has had a major impact upon “how” evangelism is done in our day. In a similar way, the whole approach in missions has become one of pragmatism. What we see clearly in Church Growth as it pertains to worship, is also evident in the modern approach to missions. In short, most Christians do not believe that God has prescribed a method and means for evangelism. This is the hill that we must climb.
If I say, “Take this salami, thrust it upon a sharp stick, roast it in fire, and you will be saved!” you would quickly tell me that there is only one way of salvation prescribed in the Bible and that ain’t it! Yet, when it comes to other topics, we do not seem to have such a conviction. Why?
A cursory reading of Scripture shows that there is no pragmatism reflected. The means and method were constant and consistent. Even when the pragmatists throw in Paul’s “All things to all people”, they show that they are grasping at straws — when the Bible shows Paul in action, it shows him in consistency not in inconsistency.
My adjuration that people read the text and not read into the text is borne out by the text you quote. As noted in my last response, the term “reason” is used rarely in terms of an intellectual interaction. Where it is used, it clearly points to the fact that there was a common basis for such interaction.
Thus, in the case you present, Paul continues his pattern of Synagogical instruction (Acts 17:2). Now the question that is most often overlooked is this one: Who was in the Synagogue? The answer comes back, “Primarily Jews!” Now, we explode the myth: Were all of these Jews unfaithful hard-hearted Pharisees? The answer, No! In these Synagogues there were people of faith — if you will. They believed in God. They looked for Messiah. They believed God’s revelation — they adored the Law and the Prophets. On the other side, there was indeed the “pew warmers”. However, we must remember that these “pew warmers” also believed (as in gave mental assent to certain facts) in God and His revelation. Hence, Paul could reason with these people.
Consequently, we read in Acts 17:2-4: “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
What is often overlooked, because of our evangelistic biases, is the fact that just because Paul was the “Apostle to the Gentiles” does not mean that his only interest was evangelism — understood in the modern truncated sense. Paul was a Commissioned man. His task was dominion. Thus, he preached Christ and he trained converts. Paul did not do half a job.
So, in Ephesus, Paul went as was his custom to the Synagogue. He reasoned with them. When some were hardened so as to stir up trouble, Paul withdrew the disciples and he taught them for two years. I believe it to be a great imposition upon the text to see the two years in the halls of Tyranus as being equated with unbelievers. It seems most logical to see that Paul took the fruit gleaned from the Synagogue and developed or disciplined those given to his care.
Consequently, as those being taught went back to their lives, they took Christ with them. They no doubt established places of worship. Their priorities changed. Their cultural perspective was changed. This is clearly seen by the revolt of the “silversmiths” who saw that the Gospel preached and taught impacted upon their business. The Gospel was truly iconoclastic.
A second point is to once again underscore the fact that Paul was a commissioned man. I highlight this point because of its importance. As noted in the previous response, Paul was able to speak with authority because of His office. Consequently, even his “reasoning” was an authoritative proclamation.
As yet, I will not have made much ground. The point of this is to understand the Biblical usage of words as deliberate and not accidental. You continue to ask about the proliferation of the gospel using the word “relayed”. Now, I admit that the Gospel can be “relayed” in many ways. Here then is the crux, the salient point, if you will. These articles were not designed to look at the possibilities of human ingenuity, but to focus on the Biblical command and pattern.
Men are capable of inventing all types of possibilities. However, these articles look for success in evangelism. They look for certainty, probability, not just the possibilities of man’s inventiveness.
In modern evangelistic practice, we have become very inventive. We insist on everyone’s right to proclaim the Gospel with authority and to manifest that proclamation by absolutely any means. Yes, the Gospel is “relayed”, but is it effective? Is it blessed? Do we see the consequent result of evangelism — the nations obeying Jesus?
The answer is a resounding, No! As you have admitted, in places where we seem to see movement of the Spirit, we are not seeing the dominion of Christ as a result.
The purpose of these articles has been to make people think about evangelism and all that is tied up in evangelism – Its root, its purpose, its method, its means. Thus, it is not just about preaching, but about the preacher. It is asking the question of roles and how they are to be Biblically implemented.
This then leads to your “hesitant matter”. I am now the one who must offer the apology. I have not made statements in accord with your desire because I assumed that it would be understood as implied. For this oversight, I am truly sorry.
The whole point of these articles is to show that salvation is not by man — either that of the sinner or the evangelist. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation rests in the eternal decree of God and His unsearchable wisdom. The means of that salvation is Jesus Christ — the One who obeyed God fully and became the sinner’s substitute. No man can go to the Father without Jesus Christ. Men are dead, not sick. Dead men need to be called! Enter the Holy Spirit. No man will partake of salvation unless he is quickened by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, the wind blows where it will — so is the Spirit. It is the Spirit’s work to make alive and to apply the finished work of Christ. As noted previously, you can put a life giving elixir into a gold chalice and place it in a dead man’s hands and it will avail him naught. He needs to be made to drink. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.
However, there is one further question, by whom does the call come? Is it not the preacher? Again, this is not to instill a magical power into man. Rather, it is to honour the Word of God and acknowledge that God has instituted the preacher as the means by which the Holy Spirit shall work. The preacher can preach till he is blue in the face, of himself, and no soul shall live. Equally, sitting on our hands waiting for the Holy Spirit to work is as futile. God has appointed the two to work hand in hand. Romans 10:14: “And how shall they hear without a preacher?”
So, in short, the thrust of my articles, which have obviously failed in expression, is to point Christians to the means of dominion evangelism that is sanctioned by Scripture. This means is pointed to precisely because it is the method by which the Holy Spirit works. This is the probability of success as opposed to possibility of man’s ingenuity and inventiveness.
God will work by His means most often and most powerfully. That He uses “crooked sticks for a straight hit” does not ever give us the right to become comfortable with the crooked stick status. We should never expect that God will work by any means other than that which He has sanctioned. If God does so, that is His prerogative and we should never presume upon such.
At present, I see much presumption and much confusion. Because evangelism, in its modern understanding, has become the sole purpose of the Church and the Christian, we have adopted an ‘ends justifies the means’ type of approach. After decades of disappointment, fluff and bubble, and hopeless invention, I am simply asking that we might be wise enough to return to the Scriptures and ask God for His wisdom and direction.
The answer is there. The answer is plain. The question is, “Are we willing to lay aside that to which we have become accustomed in order to become Biblical?”
Peace be upon you, Chris.
Regards,
Murray
Murray, that is excellent. I particularly appreciated the use of satire to great effect! Very instructive and clear. Thanks for this series – Isaac.
You are welcome Isaac. I am pleased that you found them instructive.
Regards,
Murray