The Dual Effect Of The Evangelistic Methods?: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 3

[0]

Over the last few days, I've been carefully, thoroughly and respectfully responding to an article written by Pastor Randy Clark entitled Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism. In this article Clark attempted to make a case arguing "Biblical evangelism is a revelation encounter with the power and presence of God, resulting in faith (“hearing” and obeying God)[...]"[i]; this of course is something which no Christian should take issue with; but the crux of his argument is that "[new Christians] come to Christ primarily through the demonstration of the power of God in signs, wonders, healings and [miracles,]"[ii] (my emphasis). In the first part of my response, located here, I represented the frequency of reported signs and miracles and their effectiveness. I also showed however that signs, miracles and wonders were not the only method God used to bring people to repentance. I briefly went through 5 methods God uses to bring people to repentance of which signs, miracles and wonders was only one package and apologetics is another.

In the second part, located here, I showed how both the two methods of evangelism, 1) signs, miracles and wonders and 2) apologetics were used together and how if divorced or used separately they would fail. God used, not to the exclusion of signs, miracles and wonders but in addition to them, the tool of apologetics - the defence or explanation of these signs, miracles and wonders.

As cited before for many people apologetics is a scary word and a paradigm that thus should be avoided. The reason for this is because for many people, as Dr. Richard L. Pratt explains is often ...thought to be too philosophical, abstract, and impractical for the layman."[iii] Apologetics is often associated with the academics: philosophy, logic, the sciences, history, etc. in an attempt to show the truth of Scripture. But the average man or woman who isn't in any of these fields has a life to live where they have a family and friends and a job, etc. Most Christians want to learn how to represent God in their lives by how they do their job and how they act at the office water-cooler; in sum they want to be the evidence for God. And due to life being 'life' most people don't have the time to dive into these deep academics. However let us say your child comes home from school after learning about how God has been disproved via science; and assuming that you have been telling them  from the cradle the truth (God created them and the universe) they believe you; nevertheless though they are curious and they ask you why is their teachers wrong? What are you going to tell them? Or what if a colleague asks you over coffee break about how you reconcile the evil that they keep reading about in the newspaper with your belief in the existence of an allegedly all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God; what are you going to tell them?

I am positive Clark would have answers for all of these questions - they may be good or bad - but they would be answers; in sum he would have his apologetic. So it is safe to assume that Clark isn't against the use of apologetics in-toto; he admits:

It may be perfectly reasonable to show that Christianity can be confirmed by biblical archaeology or philosophical proofs for the existence of God,...[iv]

But he makes a judgement call that is not his to make in his next statement:

...but apologetics appeals more to those who already believe than to those who don’t.[v]

Read his statement carefully: "...apologetics appeals *more* to those who already believe than those who don't." He asserts that the study of apologetics, the proofs for God's existence, the evidence from creation, and so on is really for the edification of the believer than the unbeliever. What is the judgement call that he is making? Its subtle but its there: 'Evangelism is the cooperative work of the evangelist and the evangelized'. Since apologetics in Clark's view (and many others, BTW) serves the Christian in most cases then don't use it on the non-Christian, even though it may actually work on a small number of unbelievers. I am reminded of a gentleman who told me one time while I was street preaching that he prefers to use the evangelical method that gets most persons saved - the simple 'Jesus loves you' method. It stands to reason that Clark is someone who would agree with this person. However here is the problem, evangelism is not a numbers game! And even if it is, as discussed in the previous articles, this is the ratio of Evangelist to God success rates for salvation: Evangelist - 0%, God - 100%.

Evangelistic methods meet needs:

Why is Clark's judgment call not his to make? Who is he to determine what tool to use? As described in part one of this response, there are 5 main types of evangelical methods that has been used. Each method is akin to a method of meeting a need. If someone came hobbling up to you holding their chest, sweating and mumbling, "c-c-c-call, call 9-1-..." then they collapse to the ground. Would you interpret their body language to mean that they are exhausted and thus you 'serve them' by getting them a coffee? No. If you had any sense you'd be on the phone with emergency calling for an ambulance as this person has just had a heart-attack.

In the same way, wisdom should be used to determine what a person needs in terms of evangelism. Some people don't need to be given more proofs for God's existence, or evidence for creation; what they need is someone to love them and 'show and tell' the love of Christ. Giving an essay on the ontological argument of God to someone who needs to be loved is like giving a cup of coffee to someone who just had a heart attack. Conversely however if someone is clearly trying to make sense of their world regarding mere their existence - they are asking question about creation, morality, evidence for God, etc. - then discussions that play in the sandbox of academic (science, ethics, philosophy, history, etc.) would be the remedy.

So arguing for the abandonment of apologetics in evangelism is parallel to telling someone that due to them being in a minority their concerns are not really important - "but hey let me tell you that Jesus loves you and allow me to show you a wonderful sign instead."

However is the number of those who are saved through inquiry really small? No. Thousands upon thousands of people have been brought to the cross because they had questions that were answered by God obeying Christians.

Evangelistic methods have a duel effect:

However all methods of evangelism are not only good for bringing people to the foot of the cross; these same tools keep people there. Even though someone might have found salvation because of signs, miracles, and wonders of God that they were a witness to; the tool of apologetics, or a reiteration of Jesus love, and all the rest of the methods all play an active part to keep them there. In the same way even though someone may came to salvation through inquiry, what would be keeping them there is the use of all forms of evangelism. So the point is we should never stop showing and telling the love of Christ, answering questions people may have and standing on the word of God as foundation.

________________

[0] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 13, 2014
[i] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014
[ii] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014
[iii]Richard L. Pratt, Every Thought Captive: A study manual for the defense of Christian truth. (Atlanta Georgia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 7.
[iv] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 13, 2014
[v] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014