Relational Evangelism

Just this past week I was talking with someone about Emmaus Road Church and the fact that we're still meeting on Sunday nights with just us and one other person. That's one new person total in over 5 1/2 months of ministy here in Toledo. Not exactly stellar if you use the standards by which many church plants are measured.

Now I'm as good at justifying myself and make excuses as the next person, but I don't think what I'm about to say concerning our "numbers" at ERC is in any way a justification or excuse for our low numbers.

The conversation I had earlier turned to the subject of evangelism. The question arose about whether we might need to do more head-on evangelism to reach people. I had explained that we've made numerous significant relationships with many neighbors and have had a lot of contacts with folks in the community around us. But the question remained, are all of those contacts and the relationships really getting it done when it comes to growing a church and reaching people for Christ? Good question, and one I've asked myself a lot over the last few years.

My conversation partner brought up two examples to prod me further. First, he asked about Jesus' calling of the disciples--"Come and follow me"--which appears to indicate Jesus made a cold call to join Him, and they did. Second, he asked about the examples of the Aposlte Paul and John Wesley who preached publicly in what ostensibly was non-relational evangelism--speaking to large, unfamiliar crowds.

It was in answering these two questions that the reality that good evangelism has always been relational became apparent.

Matthew 4: 18-21 is the reference to the calling of several of the disciples. Often when we read it we take it out of context or we don't do a little common sense thinking about it (we fail to use common sense way too often when we approach the Bible--not explaining things away, but simply using common sense). Usually when I've heard people talk about Jesus calling the disciples we assume that Jesus neither knew these men nor did they know him; He just walked up, and His personal charisma and attractiveness reeled them in (pardon the pun).

I read it a different way. What makes us think that Jesus didn't know them before? As a rabbi or teacher (as Jesus is often called), He would have had contact with many people through His teachings. As a person who had to eat, He would have to have bought food from the local fishmongers and fishermen. As a carpenter, He may have even crafted fishing boats for the locals. All of these instances provided ample opportunity for Jesus to have contact with them.

And even more than that, how many of us would drop everything--family, friends, house, job (assuming we like our job)--to follow someone we know nothing about? If we wouldn't, then common sense says they wouldn't either. Moreover, why would Jesus choose men about whom He knew nothing to carry on His work after He'd returned to heaven? Doesn't it make much more sense that Jesus would have chosen persons whose character and personality He knew something about?

But beyond all of this, we have record in John's gospel that Jesus did already know these men. John 1:35-42 let's us in on this fact. You say, "Ah, but what about Nathanael? (See John 1:43-51. Some scholars think that the disciple Bartholemew is the same person as Nathanael.) It seems Jesus didn't know him ahead of time."

It helps if we understand the phrase "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree." That phrase in Jewish tradition commonly referred to one who was a student of Torah, as rabbis were often said to sit down under a fig tree to teach their students. In other words, Jesus had seen Nathanael learning about Torah and the Messiah at a previous time, perhaps when Nathanael was unaware he was being observed. And to take the relational evangelism element even further, even though Nathanael may not have known Jesus personally up to this point, he never-the-less was brought to Jesus on the strong recommendation of a close friend, Philip.

Concerning the Apostle Paul and John Wesley's preaching, I would simply point out two things: First, both Paul and Wesley (and many others I might add) utilized the public forum in a way consistent with their culture. Open air preaching or teaching was more common then than it is today. People who preach on street corners today are more often than not seen as something out of the ordinary. In Paul's and Wesley's days, it was not so. Second, both of them, although they preached (evangelized) in a public setting, in a seemingly impersonal, non-relational sort of way, were preaching to folks many of whom would join or were already part of communities of Jews or gentile Christians. For Paul is was the synagogue or house churches of his day. For Wesley, it was the bands and societies that he started in every town he visited. There existed strong relational ties in both instances.

All of that is to say that relational evangelism is a legitimate, and perhaps even superior, form of evangelism and one that we would be smart to follow.

As we've attempted to make many friendships here in Toledo, we understand that it accomplishes two things. First, it connects us to each other as humans in a way that God intended; indeed, relationship makes us more human, more like God intended. Second, it gives those whom we know, the opportunity to see and feel the incarnational love of God in Christ through us, and hopefully, they will come to know the fullness of life that is in Jesus Christ too.

Well, if you've stuck around this long, I'd love to hear your thoughts--even, and especially if, you disagree with me. I'm certainly not done learning.