The Upstream Collective is currently in Asia with Ed Stetzer on a Jet Set Tour. They are meeting with local pastors and field workers to learn more about the culture, the work currently being done there, and to come up with ways that American churches can partner in the work.
A recent Twitter update from Upstream read: “We share the gospel to build relationships, not build relationships to share the gospel.”
This is an interesting quote and I would love to know the context within which is was shared. But in an effort to generate a little discussion, and in preparation for an upcoming post and video clips by Ed about Social Justice and Evangelism, I thought I would post a couple of thoughts. Again, I don’t know the context for the quote above, and am interpreting it from a Western European perspective where I have lived for over three years.
The Gospel is by nature a divider. There will be some that hear and believe in the Gospel resulting in salvation. Yet at the same time there will be those that hear and do not believe. Sharing the Gospel to build relationships assumes that you will be building relationships with those that believe, not with those that do not believe. From this group a church will/can be planted, established, discipled, and multiplied. But is it safe to assume that those that are lost in Taiwan, and those that are ministering to them are at a different place in their journey towards Christ? In other words, is there fertile ground in Taiwan by which we can forsake relationships with all, in order to focus on those that are ready to respond to the Gospel. This, of course, is not a bad thing. In fact, I rejoice that there are those in Taiwan that respond to things like the EvangeCube and are coming to faith. I, however, have not encountered fertile ground in Europe by which I can forsake relationships with all in order to focus on the few that will respond positively to the Gospel.
I can’t help but think that I would reverse this statement for it to be more accurate in my European context. Europeans are relationship driven. By and large things like the EvangeCube don’t work. They’re a turn off to the average European. But relationships, relationships are where life happens. Relationships are my opportunity to be Jesus, to introduce to Jesus, and to lead to Jesus. I build relationships to share the Gospel. I simply can’t expect, in a European context, to build relationships as a result of my sharing the Gospel. I have to build relationships in order to present the life saving message of the Gospel.
Well, I did discover the American West, albeit at the behest of one Thomas Jefferson, who simply threw out sections of the Word with which he did not believe were palatable. So, take this for what it’s worth.
I don’t think the statement and reverse statement are mutually exclusive. For example, and I think you pointed this out in your post, the EvangeCube may very well be God’s design on some individuals, while the ’7-year investment’ may be God’s design on others. We see these types of examples in life all the time, and both variations of ‘the statement’ may work in one country, including Western Europe.
I guess my question to you is, should we discard the ‘four spiritual laws’, or the EvangeCube, because we think the Lord wouldn’t use those to bring people into a relationship with him? I would almost be certain that every person that God has predestined to be eternally with him will have a different story as to how they came to know their Almighty Savior, and some will include an experience with even the most basic tract. From breaking the language barrier, to someone in Asia (for example) finding the way to Heaven in a coat pocket when suit shopping, I don’t think we should be so quick to rule this out.
On relationships, I think we are moving toward a more relationship based witness. People all over the world are tired of the hypocritical believer, they need to see something real through a friendship, just as a beginning. Even so, I think that our relationship with Christ should be the exact reason that motivates us to build relationships and hope to see someone would come to know the same Jesus we know. This, on it’s own, would solidify the first version of the Upstream statement.
To answer your question, no, I don’t think we should throw out the EvangeCube or the 4 Spiritual Laws as a means to leading someone to Christ. I would say though, that those types of things, generally speaking, will be less effective in a post-modern, post-Christian culture.
I’m not sure where Taiwan sits on the modernity scale, but they are not a post-Christian culture. They’ve never been a Christian culture, so they can’t be post-Christian. This may be why more “direct” forms of evangelism work with Taiwanese.
This is the main reason I prefaced my argument from a Western European worldview. In my context the 4 Spiritual Laws or the EvangeCube are going to be of little effect.
Sorry, one more thing. Based on the original quote, I would think that by “gospel” the definition would be centered around the “plan” of salvation. Based on this definition I can’t see it working like that in Western Europe.
My definition of “gospel” is not single in its scope. It’s much like the Trinity, a 3 in 1 approach. One, the synoptics teach that the Gospel is concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Kingdom of Earth, which has at it’s core a focus on social and behavioral change. Two, the Gospel of John teaches that the Gospel is about eternity, the whole “what happens when you die” conversation. And three, the Gospel that we see in Paul writing about focuses primarily on justification by faith.
All of these, in my opinion, make up “the Gospel”. And if this is my working definition of the Gospel then the statements are closer to being mutually exclusive. I have to be in relationship with someone to flesh out this definition of the Gospel. It can’t be done through door to door evangelism. This is not the Gospel presented in the 4 Spiritual Laws. It doesn’t make the Gospel in the 4 Spiritual Laws wrong, just incomplete in my opinion. So again, if my task is to take the Gospel to those who’ve never heard it I have to do that through relationship with them.
Thanks for your comments. From my previous contexts, I find the approach referred to in the quote above to be an attempt to maximize ROI while keeping the time required per conversation to be minimized. This process and language to me is descriptive of a manufacturing or automated system. These systems breed efficiency, though effectiveness is difficult to measure–though books like “The Celtic Way of Evangelism” provide good insight at this point.
The questions become: 1. does this approach fit the cultural context and/or 2. is it consistent with Scripture. You have tackled #1 above. I would like to read your thoughts on #2.
Thanks again.
I am a pastor in Birmingham, AL and am currently with Upstream an Ed here in Taiwan.
In my own context in Birmingham, I am completely averse to such things as tracts and, for the most part, street evangelism as such. I pastor an inner-city church, working to build cross-cultural lines that break down walls built by decades of churches flowing through communities with no real desire for long-term relationship with anyone inside. The people have been overrun with tracts and arms-length evangelism, and many have chosen to “pray the prayer” @ the end of the 2 minute drill in order to get to the free stuff that inevitably follows (food, clothes, paying the power bill, etc…). Thereby, the use of such tools with no intent of relationship after the fact has been destructive, as we now deal with generations of people who call themselves Christians but have no idea who Jesus is, which is the common situation in the South, specifically as it pertains to poor communities.
So, again, in my own context, I find these tools not only useless, but a destructive and disastrous way for churches to feel as though they have accomplished something and added to their numbers with no real cost to them. In short, if I were to walk into one of the government housing projects in which we minister with a tract in hand, there would be an immediate assumption by the residents there about who I am, and all credibility or chance to reach them with the Gospel would be lost. I believe (and I am speaking in incredibly broad terms here) that the use of such tools in past generations has created generations of individuals with “walk the aisle” syndrome and no follow through in living on mission for Christ.
That being said…
Taiwan is a completely different context and culture, pre-Christian in nature, with what appears to be a mild indifference to the Gospel. Many of them have either never heard it or just don’t care. There is a respect from the Taiwanese people for one another and for us (Americans) that we do not find in Europe and in many cases in America. It seems to me through observation that the tract is a completely useful tool in this context, given proper application.
We sat through a training session yesterday with a local pastor who walked (or dragged, as the case may be, as most of us- I believe- share the same aversion) us through presentation of the Gospel in his local context using the Evangecube. It was the same presentation we have seen for years in the states, save this one difference…
As we listened to him speak, his heart was for these people, and he was willing to actually invest in them following the Gospel presentation, which brings me to my this conclusion:
The problem is not the tract. The tract can be a useful tool as it clearly presents the Gospel. Sure, many argue that it does not present the complete Gospel (an argument I have heard coming from my own mouth on occasion), but it does include the things Paul found necessary to proclaim to the people and call it the Gospel- Christ died, was buried, an arose on the third day (1 Cor 15.1-4). The problem is when Christians believe that the entirity of their responsibility is to form tackle someone who appears lost, force them to read a tract and make a decision and walk away.
If one has no desire to walk through the process with another who is lost, then there is no desire for their salvation in the first place. There must be follow-through. There must be relationship, discipleship, and honest concern for the development of the new follower of Christ. .
As one of my new friends here with us in Taiwan said, “I believe God is more interested in the process than in the decision”. He is right. So should we be more interested in walking with the lost, not fulfilling a momentary need in ourselves for another notch on our belts.
Hearing this local pastor speak to us yesterday with such fervor for the lost and hearing the stories of how he connects with new followers of Jesus to disciple them, I believe he is right to continue using the tracts to introduce the Taiwanese people to the Gospel. In his context, it makes sense. It seems as though he keeps Starbucks in business meeting with and discipling those who have chosen to follow Jesus because he took the time to flip a through a card with them (up, down, left, right, for those of you familiar).
He is creating disciples of Jesus who are creating disciples of Jesus who are creating disciples of Jesus and so on, which is the Biblical model. Instead of using a cup of coffee or a worship service or a lengthy friendship to do so (as it is and should be in other contexts and cultures), he begins with another tool, and often a new disciple of Christ is born.
Glad to see you posting again. Welcome back!
As a missionary currently serving full-time in Western Europe, I get what you’re saying and have to agree. If other cultures respond genuinely to tracts or cubes, Praise God! But if Europeans respond as if we’re carrying flame-throwers, eliminating any chance of interaction, then we have to rethink the approach. Jesus didn’t hand out tracts or use cubes.
Gospel incarnate or Gospel information… God can use either, but I see the Gospel fleshed out as more effective and desirable, regardless of the context.
First, let me say I appreciate the conversation. After being away from {c|d} for a while it’s encouraging to see responses to a post of mine.
Instead of responding to each of the comments I will summarize just a couple of thoughts and answer “almost an M’s” question.
While this post wasn’t necessarily about tracts, street evangelism, and the “evangecube” the comments have taken us that direction and I’m happy to go along for the ride. My initial thoughts had to do more with relationships and our intent in building them. The original comment seemed to say to me that relationships should/will form as a result of Gospel penetration. I argued that, based on context, the opposite would be true, that relationships will lead to Gospel penetration.
Having said that I’d like to briefly address a question about whether the original quote is consistent with scripture. My short answer is yes, but it comes with a caveat. If the conversion is followed up with authentic discipleship then I think it is scriptural. We were commissioned (all of us) to make disciples, not converts. So, if the gospel is presented in order to build relationships and those relationships are centered around the discipleship and growth of the new convert then I don’t have a problem with it. And I think this is what Rodney is alluding to in his comment as well.
Well said, Ray. That is what I was alluding to- unfortunately not nearly as eloquently…