Gav’s post on the “danger of living the gospel without speaking the gospel” has sparked off one of those debates that we evangelicals sometimes have—you know those ones which seem to become more hairsplitting and hard to follow the longer they go on. In this case, it’s the old question of ‘whose job is it to evangelize?’.
Towards the end of the conversation Mikey Lynch makes this interesting point:
… 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 [Dickson] shows and tells us how all Christians will be inspired to speak about their faith, even if they don’t have to.
Mikey (and John, I think) are searching for an idea that is different from ‘should’—which doesn’t carry the sense of ‘ought’ and obligation—but which nevertheless affirms that it still is great when this thing happens (that is, ordinary Christians sharing the gospel). It’s desirable, it’s good, it’s to be celebrated, but it’s not a duty or a responsibility.
I have to say that this is the aspect of this particular argument (which has been pottering along for years in our circles) that I continue to find curious and dissatisfying. Is living the Christian life to be divided up into things I really have to do (because the Big Guy says so), and things which would be good to do but are optional?
Or to put the question in its purest form: What is the relationship between what is ‘right’ and what is ‘good’—between what we are commanded to do, and what we aspire to do because it is excellent and worthwhile? (For the ethicists amongst us, we are talking about the difference between deontic and teleological ethics.)
The answer to this crucial question will depend on whether you think God’s command is imposed arbitrarily on the world, or whether it conforms to the way God made the world to be. In other words, did God flip a coin to see whether stealing would be prohibited or not, or is there something about God and the world he has made, and the people who inhabit it, and his purposes for all of us, that makes stealing counter-productive, destructive and just plain ‘bad’?
If we say the latter (as I think we must), then we must also say that to do what is right is good, and to do what is good is right. ‘Ought’ and ‘good’ are, in the end, two different forms of moral language that are unified in directing us to live full, free, God-glorifying lives in God’s world (as we await his new world). These two ways of speaking are not exactly the same, and they are often addressed to different circumstances and contexts. But the common instinct to give a higher place to the ‘ought’ over the ‘good’ is more Pharisaic than Christian.
In fact, when we think about the different ways that the Bible drives our moral action (or ‘good works’), there are not only two kinds of language; there are many. In the word of God there are stories and examples that carry a moral lesson and power; there are urgings, pleadings, encouragements and exhortations; there are passive commands (“be filled with the Spirit”); there are the wise observations of Proverbs; there are positive, attractive descriptions of good people and actions; and most strikingly there is Paul’s characteristic indicative-creates-imperative move: since you are now this, live like that (Colossians 3:1-17 being a marvellous example).
God uses all of these kinds of language to call forth our action. Under the power of these words, we regard many different things as good, right, and worth encouraging each other to do, even though they are not so much as mentioned in the Bible. So here’s a list, off the top of my head, of things that the New Testament neither directly commands us to do, nor even gives any clear positive example of someone doing:
- supporting international relief agencies
- everyday Christians reading the Bible personally and regularly
- speaking or writing publicly from a Christian viewpoint about the political, cultural or social issues of the day
- studying the Bible in small groups
- going to church every Sunday
- baptizing people in church
- having special evangelistic church services or meetings
- inviting non-Christian friends to such meetings
- writing or reading Christian books
- having family devotions
- providing meals for sick congregation members
- setting up organizations or societies to promote the Christian cause
- caring for or stewarding God’s creation
Using different kinds of moral language, we urge, encourage, rebuke, stimulate, spur, exhort, push, persuade and generally egg one another on to get involved in these various good, right, useful and excellent things. The lack of deontic biblical language (‘must’, ‘ought’) would not hold us back from doing these things ourselves, nor from urging others to do them as well.
So why do we tie ourselves in knots trying to discover whether ‘all Christians are obliged to evangelize’ or whether there is a command for all Christians to evangelize? It’s an ethically confused question that leads not only to more confusion, but to less Christians evangelizing. Could we perhaps agree to move on to a different question? Such as: How could we encourage, inspire and equip more Christians to talk about Jesus with their friends?
Then again, if all this is too hard or unconvincing, and you really just want a biblical command, try this: “As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good” (2 Thess 3:13).
Thanks for this post Tony. You’ve quoted me, so I’ve gotta comment now!
This whole post is very, very helpful. I think the list of good things we urge people to do is a help in the discussion. Some of the categories you are introducing are pretty powerful.
A couple of reflections on your concluding paragraph:
There is still is a place for the distinction between, say, choosing to get married (a good thing in our good creation) and praying (a necessary and good thing). As a result, I don’t think this conversation is necessarily confused.
I doubt that the conversation leads to less evangelising necessarily. Pastoral situations differ, we mustn’t assume one outcome. I’d love a post on this – Evangelical pastoral rules of thumb – in the future.
I like your ‘way forward’: “How could we encourage, inspire and equip more Christians to talk about Jesus with their friends?”
“How could we…” should be the better question because the necessity of evangelism should be a given! Sadly it’s now however, and people need to be reminded of the consequences that not hearing the word will bring. If we are to love God and to love others then of course evangelism is necessary, and in fact it’s probably one of the few aspects of Christian life that are.
Thanks Tony. I too have shared your frustration at the sheer absurdity of the debate. This is by far the most sensible thing I’ve seen written on this topic.
It’s not a totally irrelevant discussion though is it? Both sides do have legitimate concerns – pastoral and mission concerns – that careful discussion will help naviagate:
1. One side is rightly concerned that cowardice and apathy take over churches due to Christians ‘copping out’ of being public with their faith.
2. The other side is rightly concerned that guilt and discouragement take over churches due to Christians trying to meet incorrect expectations.
The discussion may be worth having, Mikey, but my point is that the “Do we have to?” question will not help us in the navigation. By casting the issue as one of obligation (or not), it skews both the direction of the discussion and its possible outcomes.
Asking the right question is often the key!
(In this connection, Stuart Heath’s article in the current Briefing on ‘Doing good: the shape of the Christian life’ is really worth a read.)
TP
“it skews both the direction of the discussion and its possible outcomes.”
But in this case, the particular discussion _is_ “Do we have to?” and to change the question is to have a different discussion. It may not be the most central discussion to have about evangelism, nor the overall most helpful, but it is a distinct discussion.
In a sense your proposed way forward begs the question. It could equally well be phrased: “How could we encourage and inspire more Christians to promote the gospel in a variety of ways according to their gifts?”
Hi Mikey
Thanks for your interactions. I’m enjoying chatting this through.
To use a very old illustration: to ask ‘What colour is the equator?’ is to ask the wrong question.
And to point this out, and to suggest we move on to a better question is not to “beg the question”, but simply to recognize that the original question was built on faulty assumptions about the nature of the thing being asked about.
You’re quite right: the ‘do we have to?’ question is a distinct discussion. My suggestion is that it’s a not a very useful or helpful discussion, because it’s built on an inadequate ethical framework. So let’s move on to a more fruitful one.
TP