C.S. Lewis was not known for aggressive proselytizing during his tutorial sessions at Oxford and Cambridge. J.I. Packer once had the privilege of attending a Lewis lecture. “There was no clue that the man might be a Christian” Packer reports. There is nothing new here. It has long been known that Lewis, as Packer puts it, abhorred “the parading of one’s religion.” But how does such hesitance and reticence square with our Lord’s Great Commission to be his witnesses and make disciples?
Well on that score it appears most of us have got some catching up to do if Lewis’ reprimand is our aim. Reports and concrete evidence of Lewis’ astounding and continuing effectiveness in bringing sinners to faith and making disciples abound. Just ask Lye Dorsett, longtime curator of the Lewis collection at the Marion E. Wade Center at Wheaton College. Dorsett, during decades of worldwide travel and lecturing on Lewis always asked his audiences to raise their hands if Lewis was instrumental in bringing them to faith and/or nurturing them in the faith. It never fails. Many hands go up.
But still. Is it not a wimpy spineless cop-out to keep one’s mouth shut about the Savior when confronted with a stream of known unbelievers? I know. Lewis sought to avoid the ostracism and possible reprisals with which his Oxford and Cambridge contexts would have greeted any Christian proselytizers among them. Well, if that was Lewis’ aim, he failed miserably. Through his writing, public speaking, and radio broadcasting, the ostracism and reprisals came in by the buckets. I suspect Lewis’ selection of contexts for speaking out and keeping quiet owes nothing to cowardice but much to his highly developed sense of propriety, which is not that dissimilar from a sensitivity to differences in cultures or even sub-cultures (such as that between an Oxford conclave and a soccer stadium). However that may be, late in his life, Lewis admitted that from the time of his conversion in 1931, he understood his whole life as one of evangelism. To know Christ is to want Him known. Clearly, Lewis’ selective silences did not hinder his outstripping of many a Bible thumbing collar-and-back-into-a-corner style evangelist in terms of effectiveness.
Let’s shift gears slightly. Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle verbalizes a strong evangelistic understanding of the mission of the church and the Christian life but also adds “we don’t do anything silly such as knocking on doors or passing out tracts.” Skipping such well worn approaches has not prevented Mars Hill from drawing more than 7000 20 and 30-somethings to downtown Seattle for exposure to quite conservative Bible teaching on a weekly basis. Prolific author, professor at Chicago’s North Park University, and enthusiastic friend of Emerging/Emergent, Scott McKnight, consistently raises one concern regarding the emerging/emergent movement—squeamishness where evangelism is concerned. McKnight writes, “Any kind of Christianity and any kind of Christian that is not evangelistic is woefully inadequate. Unless you proclaim the good news, there is no good news at all; and if there is no good news, there is not Christianity.” Again McKnight, “I speak personally. I’m an evangelist—not so much the tract-toting and door-knocking kind, but I am the Jesus-talking and Jesus-teaching kind.”
While some evangelicals would find it very difficult to sanction Lewis’ strong selectivity of venue and audience for his own explicit evangelizing, many of these same folk voice high praise for the “storying” techniques pioneered by New Tribes Mission whose materials and techniques are in use by no less an evangelistically fervent group than the Southern Baptist Convention. “Storying” approaches to evangelism delay the direct presentation of the gospel in settings where comprehension of the gospel is deemed impossible because of deep worldview issues and other meaning-shaping cultural factors. New Tribes starts with Biblical stories beginning with creation and the history of God’s dealings with Israel so as to render the gospel meaningful in a particular cultural/linguistic context. If that takes some time and patience, so be it.
Is not the recognition that Europe and North America are comprised of a mosaic of sub-cultures one of the most intriguing and hopeful insights of the emerging/emergent movement and conversation? Is not actual communication of the gospel message a prerequisite for its acceptance or rejection? Ought not sensitivity to cultural factors result in selectivity of time, place, and mode of gospel presentation, not in flight from bold proclamation but precisely in service to its achievement? What do you think?
13 responses so far ↓
Adam J. // Feb 15, 2007 at 3:46 am
Wow, thanks for sharing that. I like to read Driscoll and was aware of his approach on this matter, but I was not aware that Lewis took a similar stance. It’s amazing that these men have been very effective in doing two things. First, in not driving away the culture which they wish to see saved. And also at the same time ministering to that culture and sharing the gospel with them in a relevant way.
One of the most unfortunate things that I see in Christianity today is the “get em to pray the prayer” mentality that leads to people that think they are saved but have merely prayed a prayer, or to Christians they will never move beyond the infant stage of their faith. The approach that Driscoll and Lewis take seem to avoid this issue altogether and instead are making disciples, not converts.
Josh Champlain // Feb 15, 2007 at 8:16 am
I agree that it behooves the Christian to speak the Gospel to unbelievers in a way that they can understand the message. I also think that the Christian will know when he/she is behaving cowardly.
Brad // Feb 15, 2007 at 8:56 am
Interesting parallel, thanks.
Reading this post reminded me that the first “Christian” book that was ever given to me to read was Mere Christianity. At times it is hard to believe that living here in the Midwest, reading Lewis at the age of 26 was the first time I was ever challenged with the claims of Christ. He either was or wasn’t who He claimed to be.
While I am sure I had the gospel “presented” to me on other occasions in my life, I was unwilling or unable to hear because of my own cultural factors.
Ariel // Feb 15, 2007 at 5:26 pm
This question forces us to consider what it is we aim for when we “share the gospel.” One school of thought, which continues to be propagated in seminaries, is the shotgun wedding with Jesus. But witnessing needs to have the goal of clarity and understanding, not spitting out a quick “salvation plan” and asking for a decision while the victim’s eyes are still dilated.
Brad // Feb 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm
“shotgun wedding with Jesus” is a perfect description. Very funny!
Adam L. // Feb 16, 2007 at 1:12 am
I am most definitely in favor of the time-tempured “storying” approach, most especially in cultures and areas that are ignorant of the Story. Yet, while I will probably never do this myself, something disagrees with me when I hear people say things like, “Nobody should ever do these bold, in-your-face, cold call, door-to-door evangelization attempts.” There does seem to be some biblical precedent for it. While a healthy context is most certainly ideal for evangelization and should be normative, there does seem to be “something” about things that are completely random, but happen at an appropriate kairos–something that (at least for me) catches you off guard and makes you think. It kind of stays with you. But it only works like that, I think, if such an occurence is rare, non-archetypal. Otherwise it becomes the kind of white noise I think the post-Christian world got rather sick of.
Dr. Mark DeVine // Feb 16, 2007 at 6:40 am
As I peruse the comments it seems obvious that we all want to see the gospel shared and that is just the problem with approaches that ignore those factors that New Tribes take so seriously, we fear that too often, the gospel is actually not being share at all. And that can’t be good.
Charles Churchill // Feb 16, 2007 at 10:35 am
Ariel’s shotgun wedding with Jesus metaphor is quite apt. Paul speaks of planting, watering, and harvesting, but modern evangelism teaches people that they are to harvest at every encounter. Forget about checking to see if what’s growing is Christian, just grab whatever it is by the green part, yank it out of the ground and put it in the saved basket. Also, forget about discipleship, that’s just Biblical crazy talk.
Regarding Lewis and when he chose to witness, I’m beginning to see that God’s grace is not some ointment that always does the same thing in every situation, grace is God’s specific provision in a specific situation. Grace in short, is the work ingof God. Where C. S. Lewis chose not to witness and was blessed for it, I might choose the same thing and find God angry with me. God’s grace is bundled in with what we know of Him, with what authority/responsibility we have in the specific situation and to the specific people, and with what He is trying to accomplish there. We cannot freely copy a fellow Christian’s decisions as if all situations that appear the same are the same.
Thanks for sharing this. I thought it was great.
Eric T. // Feb 16, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I believe Dr. Devine is correct, everyone does have the same goal in mind and that is seeing people come to faith in Jesus Christ. The methods, yes, may differ but where we must be concerned is with the result, that is, we have the privilege of becoming something we could never be on our own, namely, children of God. How God does that for each of us is different, what is amazing is that He does it at all, considering the whole “enemies” and “children of wrath” hurdle that needed to be overcome. I can only speak for myself that God saved me in an amazing way and so far I haven’t used the method with which He saved me on anyone else, I don’t think I would want to and it certainly wouldn’t be culturally relevant if I did. Well, it may have been culturally relevant for those who at one time occupied a tie-died van with smoke rolling out the windows. Anyway, the final result is what we are all seeking for and it is obvious the methods are more diverse than can be charted. Hopefully, Jesus will return soon and straighten this whole thing out. Until then, may the debate rage on and may we be assured that people will continue to get saved even in the midst of disagreement over methodology.
Will Vaus // Feb 19, 2007 at 7:27 am
A few points of clarification:
1. C. S. Lewis did not believe it was right to be paid for doing one thing and actually be doing another. Lewis was paid for being a teacher of English literature, therefore he thought it wrong to use his job to proselytize. However, if a student asked him a question about Christianity or his own Christian faith then Lewis would respond. I can think of at least one case where Lewis led a former student, through correspondence, to faith in Jesus Christ.
2. Lewis was quiet about his faith, unless asked, in his everyday life around Oxford and Cambridge because he knew what effect an importunate bit of personal evangelism would have had upon him as a young atheist in 1920’s Oxford.
3. Therefore Lewis’s approach to personal evangelism was to (a) wait to be asked, (b) then engage in dialogue, (c) offer reading suggestions to the inquirer, (d) continue corresponding and/or dialoguing if the person was open to it, and until that person came to faith.
4. Most importantly, Lewis prayed for many people he knew to come to faith in Christ. He often mentioned in his letters how encouraging it was to his faith to see people translated from the “praying for conversion” column to the “praying for growth in Christ” column.
5. The clues to understanding this part of Lewis’s life are there in his correspondence, three fat volumes of which are now available to all to read. I highly recommend reading all three volumes of the “Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis”.
Dr. Mark DeVine // Feb 19, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Will
Thank you for this very informative and helpful comment.
Deborah // Jan 19, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hello…
I’m not a regular reader…just got linked to this site via another blog, but felt compelled to comment. I absolutely must agree with the statement that “Any kind of Christianity and any kind of Christian that is not evangelistic is woefully inadequate. Unless you proclaim the good news, there is no good news at all; and if there is no good news, there is not Christianity.” I must, however, respectfully disclaim and challenge the idea that passing out tracts is “silly”.
Presenting a dichotomy of both boldy proclaiming the Gospel and effectively reaching our culture is, at least in my personal experience, something that is used as an excuse. I agree that methods can, and sometimes need to change.
However, the perceived “negative” tone towards, perhaps, “less modern” tools of sharing Jesus and His Good News (while I personally understand some of the root of that negativity) is not fully justified.
I believe people like Mark Cahill have done an incredible job of boldly loving God and loving people enough to share both the bad news of their lost condition and the Fabulous News of God’s great love and salvation for them directly and clearly, all-the-while living out the understanding that it is the Holy Spirit that draws people to Himself. I’ve seen the entire video of the first one (Pride Goes) presented at this link,
http://www.markcahill.org/video.html
and I have been personally challenged to get off my butt and be willing to be bold about meeting people where they are with the Incredible News of Jesus Christ.
Eternity is a long time. I pray that I live in such a way as to be “that-kind-of-glad” how I spent the few brief moments given me here.
Thanks for thinking…and sharing…I’ve enjoyed what little I’ve read, even from the links from this page.
~Deborah
Dr. Mark DeVine // Jan 21, 2008 at 8:55 am
Deborah
Thanks so much for your comments. I appreciate what you have shared. Surely recognition that not all unbelievers should be approached with a “tract-toting, door-knocking style” need not involve dissmisive rejection of such metods in some contexts. And I do think that some who flippantly eschew such types of evangelism may be retreating from evangelism per se. I think McKnight sees such abandonment of evangelism as abandonment of the gospel itself and for that reason I welcome his challenge to some emerging church folk.
In a chapter for an up coming book entitled “Evangelicals Engaging Emergent” I expand my term of scrutinty regarding the emergin church to “conversion-seeking” evangelism. It strikes me that this qualification helps to focus more sharply the issue McKnight raises in my mind. It is not clear to me that McKinght would welcome this sharpenning of the focus.
Thanks agan for your thoughts and for the link.
Leave a Comment