Assumption: Godly Christian living in response to the gospel is a clear and unequivocal command in Scripture. It also commends the gospel to a watching world. For instance, 1 Peter 2:12: “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation”. However, I want to suggest that godly Christian living in response to the gospel is a completely inadequate mission strategy doomed to failure.
Godliness in itself cannot teach the gospel. In fact, without explanatory speech, it teaches precisely the opposite of the gospel. Godly living without accompanying speech teaches religion and not grace. Living a good life without speaking the Word of the gospel cannot possibly work.
God works by his word, and our part in God’s plan is to speak. As Paul puts in 2 Corinthians 4:13, “we also believe, and so we also speak”. Do you believe? Then speak! The transforming gospel of Christ only goes out as believers speak. While the godly life is a vital support and confirmation for those listening, it is not the heart of mission. Of course, when that life is combined with speech, then those lives are amazingly powerful. But without words, the example achieves nothing.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard the counsel that living out the gospel of grace before a watching world is our key evangelistic strategy. In terms of speaking the gospel, we are passive. We are to ‘speak when spoken to’. Sydney evangelist and teacher John Dickson writes,
Contrary to the conclusions of P.T. O’Brien [et al.] the proclamation of the gospel never appears as even a minor duty of Paul’s converts. Paul usually portrayed believers as passive in relation to the preaching of the gospel: they were those who had merely ‘received’ the message and were now obliged to live in ‘faithfulness’ (ethically or confessionally) to it. (Mission Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities, p. 311.)
However, that ignores the reality of what unbelievers actually see when they observe a Christian life without any further explanation. Christian lives in themselves do not proclaim Jesus. In fact, without accompanying speech, all the unbeliever sees in our lives is religion. They assume that we are living such good lives because we are trying to get in God’s good books. The profound problem with that is that religion and the gospel are opposites. Religion is us trying to do things to get to God; the gospel is God reaching down and saving us when we did not deserve it. The only way that someone will see the gospel in you rather than religion is if you speak it to them. If you don’t speak, then all they will see is a moralist trying to earn their way to heaven.
The only thing that advances the kingdom of God in this world is the verbal proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ and him crucified. That is, the only way the gospel will be heard is through us. If we don’t speak, we only communicate religion and death.
I agree with your general point, bro, but I have a couple of points of disagreement:
I agree with the overall spirit of this post—very much so. But a couple of negative reactions:
I think this second point is the heart of John Dickson’s comments.
Thanks, Gavin, for your post. I agree with you. Dickson’s argument is, in my view, based on a misreading of 1 Peter 2:9-10, and a misreading of who the ‘brothers’ are in Paul’s letters.
Several years ago I spoke at the funeral of a Christian man in a rural area. The members of the congregation of which he’d been a part put on a wonderful lunch for everyone who came. After the lunch, a lady came up to me and said: “I am so touched by the people here, they are so different.” She paused and said, “It must be the wonderful country spirit.” The congregation learned from that just how important speaking the gospel, as well as living by the gospel, is. Mission without words is not mission.
Hi Gavin,
How’s things going?
I just wanted to echo something that Mikey Lynch said …
I obviously think that we do need to speak to gospel: it is clear that the good news is something to be proclaimed!
I also agree that often if people look at our lives, they will see moralists and not the gospel … but I don’t think that’s necessarily because it’s not being explained but because we are moralists!
Rather, people should look at us, and although words of explanation are needed to take things further, they should see grace-filled lives where we are loving others freely and clearly not doing it to earn anything. If people can’t even get a whiff of that from our actions, then I think something’s wrong with us.
If, however, it does always look like moralism, won’t our words ring hollow as we say it’s not about earning but it looks to others like it is?!
Jesus did say people would know we are his disciples if we love each other; people should be able to look at us and see something different to the moralist. I think we need to examine ourselves hard if that is not happening.
Oh, and we need to keep proclaiming the gospel!
Cheers, bro!
Hello Michael! Thanks for your comments. I’ll check out your blog too, bro.
Mikey and Michael,
Hope you’re doing well in Tassie and Sheffield.
Mikey writes, “Gospel-shaped lifestyles are different to religious lifestyles and leave a different impression.”
I think that can only ever be the case if they are accompanied by speech.
How does bare action communicate anything? What does feeding the poor in Calcutta tell us about Christ or Christians? The same person can be doing the same action for entirely different motivations—one, out a sense of response to God’s grace; another, in an effort to co-operate with God’s grace and so merit salvation. The action itself—in fact, the whole life in itself—doesn’t communicate anything.
My point in the post is that the perception is almost always the latter (works salvation) because that is how the sinful unregenerate heart is wired. People see our works done by grace, and see religion … unless we speak. People will only know we’re doing good as Jesus’ disciples if we explain the gospel that drives us.
Sure, if we’re not living by grace at all then the problem is even worse.
Go well.
Gav
Gavin you wrote
Like all the others here, I agree that we should not talk—as some do—about ‘preaching the gospel in word and deed’.
The deeds don’t preach the gospel; they adorn it. Evangelism must be defined—to quote you—as the “verbal proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ and him crucified” and for completeness (if not pithiness), I would add “and risen as Lord of all”.
I would add two comments. Firstly, being picky with words, like you have been, I am not convinced that you have been sufficiently precise in saying that “the only thing that advances the kingdom of God in this world is the verbal proclamation …”—i.e. evangelism.
My reasons are that the Scriptures seem to intimately connect other human activities with helping gospel proclamation (which we agree is the essential ingredient).
So Paul says several tiimes that people help him—especially in his gospel preaching—by their prayers. See, for example, where the Romans were to “strive together with him in your prayers” for his deliverance (Rom 15:30-31); likewise the Philippians in chapter 1:19, and the Corinthians 1:11). All examples occur in the clear context of Paul’s gospel preaching ministry continuing.
So I think we can say that as people help Paul, or any gospel preacher, by their prayers, they help advance the kingdom of God.
Hence Paul’s requests in Eph 6:19-20, Col 4:2-4, 2 Thess 3:1-2.
From another angle, 2 Peter 3:11-12 makes the astounding comment that the holy and godly lives of Christians hastens the coming of the day of God: I would argue this godly living advances the coming of God’s kingdom.
And we have already agreed that Christian love for others and godly living adorns gospel preaching. It’s not evangelism. Such deeds are dumb, and can not themself preach. But again I would argue they help advance God’s kingdom if they adorn the gospel.
So I am suggesting that it was a bit imprecise for you to say that evangelism the only thing that advances God’s kingdom.
I think this is probably behind the title of John Dickson’s book Promoting the Gospel. Prayer and godly living do not preach the gospel. But (assuming we have let on that we believe in Jesus) they do promote the gospel when it is preached, as it must be.
That leads to my second point. Gavin, you wrote
Again, I agree with the problem with not speaking. But the thing that we don’t get a lot of information of in the New Testament is how ordinary people let on that they were Christian, and about how they spoke the gospel, and more broadly, about how they spoke of their Christian beliefs and practices.
Sometimes people get interested in the gospel by being attracted to people they realise are clearly Christians. But it can be someone else who actually explains the gospel, at least in any detail.
There is room for great freedom here. But there’s a danger if people feel pressured into pulpiteering and other forms of evangelism they are not gifted for.
For example, by saying you are a Christian, by mentioning prayer or church in your conversation, by leaving a Bible on your desk … all these things give clear hints that you are a Christian believer.
They do not explain the gospel. But combined with a godly life, the New Testament leads me to expect that being public about being a follower of Jesus, and living in a godly way, will lead to opportunities.
Of course, I would like people to be more pro-active in seeking to raise gospel matters in conversation with non-Christians on many occasions. (I’d like to be that way myself!)
And I would like people to be equipped and willing to share the gospel reason for their hope—equipped for answering common questions (1 Peter 3:15-16 and Col 4:5-6).
Thanks for the response, Gavin.
I’m not convinced that ‘bear action’ doesn’t communicate anything—partly because there really isn’t such a thing as ‘bear action’! Speech is so clearly integral to ‘loving each other’, especially in Paul’s letters. Loving each other means forgiving each other. I’d say this is action, but it isn’t necessarily what we’d call ‘gospel proclamation’ … except that I think the fact of this and the way it is done can and does communicate the gospel. The fact that we forgive unconditionally speaks very strongly. I was having a conversation with someone where I suggested that he forgive someone who had wronged him and he said, “What, after all he’s done to me?!” I tried to show that that was the point! But what I want is for him to see us forgiving each other as a Christian community: in seeing it, he may not fully understand the gospel, but I’m sure he’ll see something more than moralism … cos I don’t see many moralists truly following the way of the cross in truly sacrificial, other-person-centred living.
We may feed the poor in Calcutta like other people do, but there will be something different about the way we do it and the way our lives are integrated into that ‘feeding’. If people are seeing us in action, it is likely they will see more than the action of me giving someone a meal; they will also see how I deal with those who are ungrateful, difficult, brash, uncaring—how I talk about other collegues, how I look out for people who cause me trouble. And if people aren’t able to see that, then perhaps we need to think about how we can expose them to that more.
What am I trying to say? I can’t get over the fact that Jesus said people will know if we are his disciples if we love each other (which includes the way we speak to each other). It really seems to me that Jesus feels actions (i.e. the way we live our lives as community speak very loudly). We speak it as well, which is vital, but that doesn’t mean our love for each other doesn’t speak of the one we follow.
Ta
Michael
Sandy,
I don’t think the problem is what is being affirmed, which everyone seems to agree on, and which is nicely clarified in your post. Everyone in this discussion would gladly affirm the place of prayer, the importance of godly living, the reality of giftedness, and the variability of opportunity.
The problem is what is denied. Gavin is saying that every Christian should take the initiative (not merely in response to a question) to speak up about Jesus, in ways small and large, as they have opportunity, up to and including sharing the news of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. John has been speaking and writing against this idea for many years, such as in his scholarly work on the subject, which Gav quoted. The more popular level Promoting the Gospel takes the same line, although it is more softly expressed, and hedged with more qualifications.
John is a gifted and good guy, and a friend. I just happen to think he is wrong on this particular point (which he knows very well!).
The best all round statement on this question remains, in my view, chapter 4 of Know and Tell the Gospel. Get yours here!
Hmm. Gav’s original post was also giving a less significant place to the distinctiveness of Christian godliness.
I am sure the above description does not mean to insinuate cunning or cowardice on John’s part.
Can I make three points of clarifaction?
First, Promoting the Gospel is very helpful in separating “small ways“ of “speaking out about Jesus“ from evangelism proper. These “small ways“ make up the bulk of what most of our churches call evangelism, and what most of our pastors have in mind when they urge everyone to “do“ evangelism. So if our definition of evangelism is broader, then our disagreement with John is less!
Second, the tone and the teaching of Promoting the Gospel may remove the “should“ from this equation, but it doesn’t remove the “would“. Over and again John shows and tells us how all Christians will be inspired to speak about their faith, even if they don’t have to.
Given the scarcity of explicit commands for individual Christians to evangelise (Matt 28, Eph 6[?], 1 Pet 2[?]), the bulk of your exhortation has to be “would“s rather than “should“s—even if you disagree with John—doesn’t it?
Third, “John has been against … this“. The ‘this’ in that sentence means “the command for every Christian to evangelise“, not “the act of every Christian evangelising“!
I agree that godly living alone is not enough. But I wonder what we can learn from 1 Peter 1:3?
Gavin writes:
Peter, however, seems to be suggesting that for wives of unbelievers at least, their godly living without speaking should commend the gospel, and not just religion—so much so that husbands are to be won ‘without a word’.
Peter seems to assume that the husbands have already heard the gospel from others (they “do not obey the word”), which perhaps fits with Sandy’s suggestion that “it can be someone else who actually explains the gospel, at least in any detail”.
I found Promoting the Gospel a helpful, encouraging and provoking book which rang true to my own personal experience as a Christian over many years, living with a wide range of fellow Christians from a number of denominations, from all walks of life.
We all know and sometimes agree that we don’t always “take the initiative” for many and varied reasons. Witnessing involves many and varied approaches where sometimes taking the initiative is appropriate and other times waiting for an opportunity or responding to a question is the obvious way forward.
A relentless praying for guidance, wisdom and opportunities to witness generally and specifically for those who are known to us is essential.
Sandy Grant’s response is, I believe, a reasoned, realistic and biblical statement.
Sandy is absolutely right. We all bring different gifts to the table, and we are most effective when we recognise that and build on it.
Those who say “every member is an evangelist” seem to be trying to put everyone into a similar mould. The message appears to leave no room for distinctions of opportunity and giftedness.
My own observation is that a message like Gavin’s does very little practical good; it simply leaves people feeling guilty and impotent. I’d be interested to hear what Gavin discovers after preaching such a message to his flock for a few years.
I was encouraged by Ray Galea’s recent comments about evangelising as a community, rather than solely as individuals (or was it Archie Poulos?). That way lies some fruitful possibilities, I believe.
Thanks for all the comments. I aim to turn out a response to some of the ideas raised (particularly Sandy’s) in another post.
In relation to Craig’s thoughts specifically. I’m not sure how my message leaves people feeling “guilty and impotent”.
All I’m saying is that if you don’t explain to someone that you’re living out of grace rather than religious zeal and works righteousness, the later is all they will see.
I have been teaching this message for the last few years and it’s a delight to lead such a mission-minded church. We’ve almost doubled in that time, including significant evangelistic growth. I see no signs yet of guilt or impotency… I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
BTW isn’t guilt sometimes good if it leads us to repentance and greater obedience.
<i>I’m not sure how my message leaves people feeling “guilty and impotent”.</i>
I was more referring to the message that everyone is an evangelist and should be out proclaiming the gospel. For those who are not gifted in this way, or lack opportunities – it is a message that will leave them feeling guilty and powerless (to do what is asked of them).
<i>All I’m saying is that if you don’t explain to someone that you’re living out of grace rather than religious zeal and works righteousness, the later is all they will see.</i>
Yeah, the conversation kinda moved on to a debate about Dickson’s ideas. To be fair, you explicitly raised Dickson in your piece.
<i>I have been teaching this message for the last few years and it’s a delight to lead such a mission-minded church. We’ve almost doubled in that time…</i>
Praise God! Yet I’m pretty certain if I go to your church, I’m not going to find 100% of your congregation racing around sharing 2WTL every week. I’m sure I’ll find someone, perhaps an elderly lady, whose major contribution to evangelism is bringing scones to the outreach nights. And that’s all you really expect her to do, and you’re grateful for that contribution…
<i>BTW isn’t guilt sometimes good if it leads us to repentance and greater obedience. </i>
Well, subjective guilt sometimes corresponds to objective guilt. But often it doesn’t.
Sorry, but I have enormous problems with the article in both content and tone. I don’t have time for a more extended comment but I look forward to reading Gavin’s response to Sandy’s very pertinent comments and questions.
Just a few quick things, then.
As a few others have noted godly, grace-filled living is not a “tool” to achieve “mission”. Inevitably, as in this article, the line seems to run, this is important, God-given and necessary, but it’s not the “main game” or the “real job” or “true mission”, which is what Christians should really all be on about.
Strikes me the New Testament just never speaks this way. Godly, grace-filled living, is the calling of all Christians in response to the grace and generosity of God. Jesus seemed to expect that such lives would result in people’s eyes being lifted towards the Father’s glory and mercy (Matthew 5:16).
And, it seems to me, that a verse like Ephesians 2:10 reads very much like a “mission statement” for Christians – “For we are what God has made us (check earlier, it’s by God’s grace, through faith, not works so that none can boast) created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.”
Gavin, can I say as well that I find it staggering that your assumption about the general lack of utility of good living to achieve a goal is backed up by only one verse. And, it should be noted, this verse is one in which Paul is explicitly referring to and defending his own ministry as an apostle and NOT as you extrapolate offering a general observation, instruction or command for other Christians.
I am also deeply disturbed that for all your affirmation of godly living as a “clear and unequivocal command of Scripture”, the effect of the article is to limit the desire of evangelicals to be doing good in situations where the gospel cannot be preached in words. It makes me very sad that someone could seriously suggest in the comments that feeding the poor in Calcutta provides no insight into the character of Christ or his followers.
I’m sorry Ben, but you appear to have understood neither the content nor tone of my post.
I’m not against godly living, or simply doing good deeds for good deeds sake. How and why would I possibly suggest that!
Such actions glorify God, please Him, and CAN be a crucial aspect of mission.
My point is simply that actions without words will always be misunderstood as works-religion by the watching world, unless we speak.
The Great Commission commands disciples to go and make disciples. But as we read Acts and the letters we see how this was obeyed: by the church with multiple gifts playing a whole range of roles to contribute to this task of making disciples. I don’t think it’s a strong proof text.
The spiritual warfare of Ephesians 6 is talking to the church as a whole community. How each individual participates in the gospel war is perhaps spelt out in the rest of Ephesians. I don’t this is a strong proof text for every member evangelism either.
Often the fear in removing the imperative of ‘every member evangelism’ is that it will be a ‘cop out’ for cowardly Christians. Is this fair? Is this a good enough reason to keep the imperative?
I have to accept the admonishment to verbally proclaim the Gospel more, but I have to say that the proclamation of the Gospel is more than words. In “Les Miserables” the bishop hands Valjean the silver candlesticks and releases him from arrest by the police. Victor Hugo writes, “To this celestial kindness he opposed pride, which is the fortress of evil within us. Valjean was indistinctly conscious that the pardon of this priest was the greatest assault and the most formidable attack which had moved him yet; that his obduracy was finally settled if he resisted this clemency; that if he yielded, he should be obliged to renounce that hatred with which the actions of other men had filled his soul through so many years, and which pleased him; that this time it was necessary to conquer or be conquered; and that a struggle, a colossal and final struggle, had begun between his viciousness and the goodness of that man.”
This might be fiction, but it demonstrates the threatening nature of demonstrated grace in the life of an unbeliever.
Thanks Mikey and Michael for your last two comments.
Regarding the Great Commission and the book of Acts. What about Acts 8:1-4? “Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.”
In verse 4 the word for ‘preached’ is the word that Dickson emphasises as the specialist word… they ‘evangelised’ as they were scatted. Ant that’s everyone except the apostles. It’s the regular, garden variety Christians, who, as they are scattered, preach the gospel to fellow Jews. This wasn’t the apostles, it was everyone else.
BTW where exactly do you see in Acts “the church with multiple gifts playing a whole range of roles to contribute to this task of making disciples”?
Regarding the Victor Hugo quote. How has the Gospel of Christ been preached in that story? Valjean resolves to be a gracious person as a result of having experienced grace, and in that sense it’s a wonderful illustration of what it is to be transformed by grace (especially when paired with Javert’s opposite reaction to grace). But he hasn’t actually heard the Gospel, has he?
Two further quick responses to Mikey (sorry for the delay):
1. Just to clarify—no, I wasn’t implying that John was being sneaky in Promoting the Gospel, merely that, as many have noticed, it’s a softer and more nuanced version of his argument (and a better argument for all that, in my view).
2. The point you make about ‘should’ and ‘would’ is a key one in this discussion, and worth pursuing further. How does the NT drive Christian living? What are its forms of moral command and persuasion? What is the difference, finally, between something which ‘good and pleasing to God our Saviour’ and something which is commanded? Is it a matter of optional versus compulsory? Or have we lapsed into a Pharisaic ethic at that point?
In the end we ought to do that which is good, and it is good to do the things we ought.
I feel a separate post coming on about our ethical frameworks (or the deficiencies thereof), and the problems we get ourselves into.
Thanks for your response Tony and … thanking you in advance for that forthcoming post on ethical frameworks
Thanks for your questions Gav:
1. Acts 8 – could be one of two things. Either it’s anybody and everybody preaching the gospel, which would be excellent. The discussion is not about whether Christians *will* evangelise, but whether they *must*.
2. Where in Acts do you see a multiplicity of gifts? I think it’s clear in many, many places. Prayer, hospitality, praying, prophesying, accomapnying…. But note I said ‘Acts and the letters…’
Here’s a thought for discussion.
Gavin seems to be saying that the words we speak explain our actions in a new light, shows them to be actions out of grace rather than works.
How about the other way around?
How about our actions actually explain our words? When we talk about God forgiving people, is it not our action as we live lives forgiving each other that give meat to the bones of those words? (Ephesians 4:32 in the context of 5:13-15), its as we walk in love that it makes sense of the statement that Christ loved us (Ephesians 5:2). Its a bit chicken and egg, but I think shows the necessity of both. It seems to be the way we walk (which includes the way we talk to each other, but not, it seems, specifically ‘evangelism’) that is the light that exposes darkness (5:13).
Is that what Newbigin is talking about when he says that the church is the hermeneutic of the gospel? And perhaps what Jesus is saying when he says that people will know we are his disciples (perhaps because it has been claimed verbally?) by the way we love?
The following two pieces were very helpful to me on this subject:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/is-the-gospel-preached-or-lived/
http://joshhlim.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/living-the-gospel-a-confused-gospel/