Several months ago I was tasked with writing some evangelistic material for Gospel.com. In the course of doing so I read a whole lot of “evangelism pitches” on Christian websites of every shape and size—I wanted to see how my fellow evangelicals were stating the case for Christ.
The truth was, I found an awful lot of evangelical Gospel presentations (including some that I myself had written in the past—I’m not pointing my finger at anybody) just… unconvincing. It was hard to pick out just why that was, because most of the presentations I found lacking got all the important facts (Jesus, sin, the resurrection, etc.) right. I just found it hard to imagine anybody being convinced by them.
This all came to mind when I read a recent post by Fred Clark at Slacktivist picking apart a “Gospel presentation” scene in the Left Behind novel. I don’t want to debate the literary quality or theological accuracy of Left Behind here, but Fred hits on a common problem with evangelical Gospel presentations: they employ circular logic and assume that the reader—who may not believe in the Bible at all—nevertheless shares certain assumptions about the authority of the Bible. Fred criticizes a Gospel presentation style that uses the Bible itself (verses like 2 Timothy 3:16) as a proof-text for the claims of the Gospel:
The assumption here is that “chapter and verse from the Bible to back it up” provides an irrefutable, indisputable trump card. The confusion here is not unique to LaHaye and Jenkins—it’s a common notion among American evangelicals.II Timothy 3:16 sums up what we evangelicals believe about the Bible: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” But evangelicals rarely cite this passage as a mere statement or summary of what they believe. They cite it, rather, as though it were proof and validation of that belief. (See also II Peter 1:21, Psalm 119, etc.) Every word in the Bible is true. How do we know? Because it says so right here in the Bible and every word in the Bible is true.
I’ve seen many Gospel presentations that, arguing for the reliability of Jesus and his claims, cite things like the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, the vast number of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, and other instances where one Bible passage provides supporting evidence for claims made elsewhere in the Bible. These things make a powerful case for the Bible’s internal consistency, and they can strengthen the faith of somebody who accepts the authority of the Bible—but to somebody who doesn’t trust the Bible, they are are no good as arguments for the truth of its claims.
Have you ever run into this situation when sharing the Gospel with somebody? Has somebody ever challenged you to point to evidence for a Biblical claim, and you found that the only evidence you could point to was within the Bible itself? What do you do in this situation?
For me, this is an illustration of several difficult truths about evangelism. For one, it shows the weakness of a Gospel presentation that relies on “proofs” and ironclad logic—most of the proofs we evangelicals cite assume a belief in the Bible. And secondly, it points to the wondrous paradox of sharing the Gospel: it’s we humans who are called to tell the Good News, but it’s God alone who has the power to touch a hardened skeptical heart.
Loading ...
January 8, 2008 at 18:39
I think you make a very good observation. We do base our case on a book that many do not give any authority to. I find that the “difference he has made in my life” approach…the story/testimony approach…can help. Though even that is not the final answer.
January 8, 2008 at 20:43
Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
We must not underestimate the power of The Word of God. Beside it is the Lord that has to do the drawing and convicting anyway. If someone wants a way out you will not be able to change their God given right to freewill. We do need to sense with the Holy Spirits leading whether the person we are sharing with needs more time to think without us trying to railroad or pressure for a decision. It may not be the right time for that person. See if you can say a prayer of blessing over them in nothing else. Pray and watch God move.
January 8, 2008 at 21:38
I was somewhat skeptical with the premise of the post, until your last sentence redeemed it. Of course evangelism is “God’s job” – thank God!
What the Bible says (yes, spoken by someone who has come to trust its authority and has a heart for evangelism):
—No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws them. (John 6:44)—The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts and guides into all truth. (John 16:8-13)—We come not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. (1Cor 2:4)—The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. (1Cor 1:18)
Our job is not so much to “convince”, but to be witnesses; shine like stars with our lifestyle, spiritual fruit, and good deeds; always be prepared to give a reason with gentleness and respect; and last but not least, pray.
Certainly our apologetics should be sound so we know how to “demolish arguments set up against the knowledge of God” (2Cor 10:5). We should likewise be unashamed of the Gospel and make our presentation of it truthful, accurate, and accessible.
But its effectiveness is not in its eloquence or intellectual persuasiveness. We merely sow the seed of the Word – God chooses how, when, and in whom it takes root.
January 8, 2008 at 23:12
Is it POSSIBLE to explain or prove God? And where does God tell us we have to? We aren’t in the business of winning debates or chess games. We are to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us. We don’t have to PROVE it or He are true any more than we have to prove the existence of our feelings. He is. The evidence is all around for those who truly seek it.
January 9, 2008 at 00:41
Lots of interesting ideas here…
The problem is the Bible is the word of God… we’re told to tell the Good News… not necessarily prove its authenticity. Or are we?
The problem is that if someone is not going to accept the Bible as fact chances are they aren’t going to accept any of your proof that its fact either.
The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD. If they aren’t going to believe God what makes you think they are going to believe your arguments.
Best as we can we need to be able to logically explain what we believe. I often times fall back on the completely logical course of thinking that since there is a creation there must be a creator since we all know that the existence of a building is irrefutable proof of a builder or builders. Once you’ve established there must be a higher being you need to be able to reveal that higher being to them…and that’s what the Gospel is. Revealing God to man.
Now how do you prove anything in there? Your life. If you’re living a life dedicated to God and following His commandments and LIVING what’s written in The Book then you have irrefutable living proof that what’s in there is real.
I think America has really fallen into this “Street ‘N Tracts” approach to sharing the Gospel. Chances are someone is not going to accept Jesus Christ because you met them on the street once and handed them a Bible tract. IT DOES HAPPEN. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t keep sharing the Gospel, but sadly programs such as “Way of The Master” emphasize this method of Gospel sharing when in reality its going to take A LOT MORE time and A LOT MORE effort and A LOT MORE sowing and watering to really share the Gospel.
If people aren’t given the opportunity to see your life in action following Christ’s commands and the Bible they are most likely never going to accept the words that come out of your mouth.
January 9, 2008 at 05:27
Andy
Your contradicting yourself. How can a Gospel presentation sound unconvincing to someone(You) who already believes it? You cant possibly judge that aspect of it because your already convinced
Your point would be better without that. Which is—this isnt a detective mission. Long debates about proof and fact gathering are pointless to a person wh wont ask Himself if what he has heard is true.
Paul was content to preach only Christ Crucified. There is almost no western human that doesnt know Christ crucified, rose, and died for our sins
The focus should be this—have you prayed and asked God in humility if this is true. God converts by putting Christ as an undeniable Fact in their minds. All the rest of theology, doctrine, difficult bible passages, problems with churches, evolution are answered though the prism and foundation of that concrete Fact—not the other way around
When we misunderstand it as a detective mission, we deny that it is supernatural.
January 9, 2008 at 09:25
It’s nice that you see the bible as the word of God and I do also. Now here is where the but comes in. So many when being told the truth from the bible want it to be explained so they won’t feel guilt or blame for something they had done. Then some just call you names because you speak the truth. I give this as an example in that if you say homosexual activities are considered an abomination as stated in the bible, then you are considered to be a homophobic. People cut you off and no matter what you say after that, they won’t listen. If you notice I didn’t say that the person who practices those aspects are not worthy of God’s love. I just pointed out a truth, one where in this society no one wants to hear. Jesus said to love God and to love one another, let others know that first, then the rest will come along. I gather that we all worry about gathering those who need the love of God and how we can best do that one thing that will bring them all home. Bring them to the rock and the rock will bring them home. In God’s Grace John
January 9, 2008 at 09:55
I agree with you, Andy. I’d much rather offer “evidence” for the gospel in the form of a transformed life than falling back on, “See, it says so right here in the Bible.” Of course, that suggests evangelism within the context of relationship instead of a drive-by method.
January 9, 2008 at 10:54
I am often excited when people question the historical nature of the Bible, because frankly, I think there is a lot of evidence to support its authenticity.
Of course this doesn’t mean simply quoting the Bible (although that can help). Instead it involves looking at the historical record. For any historical event historians look at things like eye witness testimony. What do the eye witnesses have to gain? Why would they lie? Etc… The more accurate someone (e.g., Luke) is in recording non-controversial historical events, the more likely they can be believed when making shocking claims. After all, no one is going to believe an outrageous claim if the author can’t get basic facts right. When someone can’t be trusted, no one believes their “tall tales.”
Another area historians study is manuscript evidence (i.e., do we have original copies? If not, how much of a gap is there?). Compared to other ancient writings, the Bible really shines. There is a lot of physical, reliable information evidence that the Bible we read today is the Bible that was written 2000+ years ago. Now this doesn’t mean the Bible is true, it just means that we know what the authors wanted to say.
One point I usually make to someone who is skeptical is this: if you reject the legitimacy of the Bible (as a historical document), then why don’t you reject the legitimacy of Homer or Plato? Because we have substantially less physical evidence for those works.
In the end there is nothing that is 100% conclusive about Christianity. I can’t take God into a laboratory and study him. I don’t have any YouTube video of Jesus’ resurrection. And I think that’s the way God intended it to be. At some point we have to decide with both our hearts and our minds as to whether God is real.
But in my opinion there is more than enough physical evidence to make that a resounding “yes!”
January 9, 2008 at 11:35
Don’t be too sad. Even the bible says we’re preaching foolishness. [1 Corinthians 1:21]
January 9, 2008 at 12:22
Evangelism is sharing the Gospel, not debating its veracity.
It is not up to us to convince, but merely to Introduce people to GOD. HE will have his own Conversation with them in HIS time. That is one fact I have seen and experienced myself.
January 9, 2008 at 13:02
Not only does God say His word will not return to Him void, some have dug into Scripture in order to prove it false only to fall at the feet of Jesus. Most who “do not believe” in the truthfulness of the word of God do not know what it says. We tell them what it says and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts.
January 9, 2008 at 17:12
“Paul was content to preach only Christ Crucified” – yet he made the effort to at least illustrate his message with contemporary Greek & pagan poetry & philosophy, except where talking to an audience who shared his acceptance of the Hebrew Bible…
January 9, 2008 at 19:31
Many of you are correct in saying that it is ultimately up to God to move someone’s heart. Many of you are also correct in saying that the evidence of one’s walk with Christ is far more convincing than anything science can come with. After all, if I said I was really good friends with Bill Gates you probably wouldn’t believe me. Now if I showed you a few e-mails from him and some pictures of he and I at a party, that would be better evidence. But those can be faked rather easily. However, if I were to introduce you to him in person that’s a lot harder to fake.
I also appreciate e. barrett’s comments on the authenticity of the Bible. The truth is, some people need to hear a clear logical reasoning for faith before they will let their hearts follow. People who consider themselves “intellectual” or who just don’t want to be taken for a fool will demand reproducible evidence. These people really do need more than a brief lesson in the accuracy of the Bible. One excellent example is someone like Lee Strobel.
My point is simply this, Paul admonishes us to be all things to all people (1 Corinthians 9:22) so that by all possible means we may lead some to the Lord. I think Andy makes a great point that we should all be continually looking for evidence that supports the authenticity of the Bible. After all, God invites us to reason with him.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
Isaiah 1:18
January 9, 2008 at 21:38
Andy I completely understand where you are coming from. Sometimes I don’t find a presentation convincing and there may be a few reasons, such as nerves on the presenters part, no prescence of the Spirit either in the the words or presenter or both. Certainly the details may be spot on but if it’s not a sermon done with the will or inspiration of the Spirit then it will be empty and powerless.
The other side of the coin is that it may not be “for” us or we’ve become jaded or if it’s one of our own sermons then we can become fretful and overly critical of our own work or we simply didn’t follow the spirits leading during it’s preparation or presentation. I know there has been many times over the years when choosing what I thought after prayer were the right songs to lead at a service only to run around like a headless chook on Sunday morning changing songs because he’s (The spirit) made it abundantly clear what he wants done.
Yet another aspect may be – if we would like the message to get through to someone who is a non-believer we can become overly anxious. I have to remind myself that sometimes all I’m meant to do is just sow the seed and someone else will reap it, it just takes a while to grow before it can become reaped. It would be so great to be there and see the lights go on in their head.
One of the best tools I’ve found for discussing the pro’s, con’s and realities of the Bible is Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that demands a verdict”. It’s an absolute cracker for dealing with so many varied perspectives on the validity of the Bible, from historical/archeaological data to eye-witness accounts, from legal to medical evidence. It has left many a person I’ve spoken to with much to think about.
It’s interesting just how many people only have anecdotal data to support the way they think – on both sides.
January 10, 2008 at 02:11
‘Has somebody ever challenged you to point to evidence for a Biblical claim, and you found that the only evidence you could point to was within the Bible itself? What do you do in this situation?’
Just point to that place again….
The person may not be convinced that there is such a thing as a talking donkey.
But if I speak to him for 30 minutes or so, you would be amazed how many people start to believe that a donkey could actually have talked.
January 10, 2008 at 02:14
‘why don’t you reject the legitimacy of Homer’
You mean Homer wrote fiction?
The events in Homer are fictionalised….
Why do Christians always manage to shoot themselves in the foot when they speak?
January 10, 2008 at 11:00
You are right that we need to establish the reliability of the Bible before we can use it as an authority. However, the reasoning and evidence for it’s trustworthiness are not widely known among amateur apologists and misconceptions abound among skeptics and “the public” – relics from the Enlightenment.
To establish reliability this I would cite the “earlyness” of manuscripts, the faithfullness of reproduction and the archaeological confirmations which are all empirically demonstrable. I would also point out that objections to miracles are a priori (preconceptions) and not based on evidence.
Next I would point a willing seeker straight to Jesus and invite people to test His claims and pray ernestly for a sign which I have no doubt they will receive as promised in the Gospel.
Whilst circular arguments should be avoided I think you’ll find all good argumentation and investigation is “spiral shaped” and neither completely inductive or deductive. You start with some assumptions plus experiences to be investigated which reveals new patterns which indicate new principles which are continually tested and modified or verified. All science is like this and cannot ultimately prove itself conclusively.
January 10, 2008 at 11:18
“Why do Christians always manage to shoot themselves in the foot when they speak?”
Stephen, it seems you’re the one firing away with non-sequiturs, though I wouldn’t unfairly generalize that athiests “always manage” to do that.
He clearly wasn’t referring to the “legitimacy” (i.e. facts) of Homer’s fictional writing, but rather to the widespread acceptance that a copy of Homer’s writing today accurately reflects what Homer originally wrote. Considering the overwhelming manuscript evidence for the Bible relative to Homer, why not then fairly assume that the Bible today likewise reflects what was originally written (as some deny)?
Whether or not that original writing is fact (historical, authoritative, inspired, etc) is another important question, but a separate one.
January 10, 2008 at 13:52
We can see from the early manuscripts that scribes would change whatever they wished, to suit their own private theological agendas.
You just have to look at the footnotes of any Bible, and you will see places which state ‘Some early manuscripts have….’
And these are just the tip of the iceberg.
Of course, the real problem is that the closer you get in time to Jesus, the less and less miraculous he appears.
The earliest writings reveal whole groups of converts to Jesus-worship, who simply scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise corpses.
Paul writes to them to tell them that Jesus became a life-giving spirit, and cannot find one single eyewitness detail from anybody about what a resurrected body was like.
He has to work entirely from his own theological reflection – almost as though nobody had ever seen a resurrected body.
Later Christians, of course, had no hesitation in having a Jesus who showed people exactly what this resurrected body was like.
It is a bit like the earliest witnesses to the shooting of JFK having no idea about this second gunman.
The stories about a second gunman only come much later.
January 10, 2008 at 16:06
Hi Stephen, not sure where you’ve gotten this (mis)information, but the truth is exactly the opposite of what you present.
Even skeptical scholars put the Gospels in the late 70s-80s AD. And Paul’s proclamation in 1Corinthian 15:3 dates back to around 54 AD, remarkably and reliably close to the actual events and too close to allow for corruption or legend to develop unchecked by contemporaries who were still alive.
There he says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
January 10, 2008 at 20:07
You do make a valid point, but there is a place for logical thought and discussion within helping a skeptic along. There is also Biblical support for such logic and reasoning discussing the hope we have in Christ.
January 11, 2008 at 01:37
What misinformation?
Paul was writing to converts to Christianity who simply scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse.
The Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, has emailed me to say that it was ‘very unlikely’ that these people had heard stories of Moses rising from the dead to talk to Jesus.
If the return of MOSES was not something that was widely talked about by Christians, then what stories were talked about? Where is this alleged oral tradition that allegedly existed before Mark wrote a Gospel?
As for ‘appeared’ in 1 Corinthians 15….
The early Christian creeds , such as the one in 1 Corinthians 15, ‘that he appeared to Cephas’ The word for ‘appeared’ is ‘ophthe’. This is used a few times in the New Testament and it is used for other ‘appearances’ to Paul and Peter. If we look at some other appearances to Paul and Peter, we can see what Paul meant by ‘appeared’, which he uses so many times in 1 Cor. 15.
Matthew 17:3 . Moses and Elijah ‘appeared’ to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah bodily resurrected when they ‘appeared’ to Peter? If they were, what happened to their bodies? Did they die again? If they were not bodily resurrected when they ‘appeared’ to Peter, why is it beyond all doubt that Jesus was bodily resurrected when he ‘appeared’ to Peter?
Acts 2:3. Tongues of fire ‘appeared’ to Peter and rested on each one of them. Did real , physical fire come down from Heaven and rest on Peter, when it ‘appeared’ on Peter? Were the apostles heads physically on fire? If not why did Jesus physically appear to Peter when he ‘appeared’ to Peter?
Acts 6:2. The God of glory ‘appeared’ to our father Abraham. It seems that God was in the habit of making bodily appearances. Either that or ‘appeared’ in 1 Cor. 15 does not mean a bodily appearance.
Acts 16:9. And a vision ‘appeared’ to Paul in the night. This says straight out that Paul and ‘ophthe’ mean a vision. Did the man from Macedonia physically travel to Paul when he ‘appeared’ to Paul?
Revelation 11:19 The Ark of the Covenant ‘appeared’ within his Temple. The whole of
Revelation is a vision, and we have another use of ‘ophthe’ to mean vision.
Revelation 12:1. A great portent ‘appeared’ in heaven. Still more visions.
Revelation 12:3. And another portent ‘appeared’ in heaven. Still more visions.
One thing the New Testament insists upon is that Peter and Paul were precisely the sort of people to have dreams and visions and to act upon those dreams and visions as though they were real. (Acts 10, Acts 16 etc.)(or Philippians 3, or Romans 1), never speak of a corpse rising and walking the earth.
January 11, 2008 at 15:31
Thanks Stephen… but you don’t have to be a Biblical scholar to understand that the same word can have strikingly different meanings depending on context. (“A ghost appeared to the girl,” vs “The girl appeared from hiding under the table”).
So, context: instead of merely fixating on the word “appeared”, look a few words before that at the word “raised”, which itself is in the context of what is said to have happened to Christ on the “third day”, according to scriptures not just in New Testament but also Old that predict One whose “body will not see decay” and will “not be abandoned to the grave” (Psalm 16).
Notice also the word “received” – meaning that this was not merely Paul’s creed as a man you simply dismiss as prone to hallucination. This was a creed passed down to him from the earliest eyewitness disciples, who alongside him insisted upon witnessing the physical resurrection of Jesus even unto their death. Paul merely mentions his own participation at the end.
Therefore, “appeared” in Mat 17 can refer to Moses and Elijah’s immortal souls appearing visibly at the transfiguration, while in the context of 1Cor 15 should properly be interpreted (and is commonly interpreted by even most skeptics) as referring to physical resurrection.
January 11, 2008 at 17:23
andy
i just visited the Billy Graham museum @ Wheaton College and was extremely suprised by the way Graham explained the gospel. Since i’m only 22, i grew up right ofter Graham’s hayday and never actually heard him talk. I did find that his presentations seemed to be very much the types of presentations that you described in your article.
I found that Graham never seemed to answer the question “WHY?” Why does following Christ make me whole? Why is following Christ better than not? Those are questions that i think must be included in a gospel presentation.
January 13, 2008 at 03:28
If we actually listen to people and find out what they needs are there is probably something about Christ we can tell them that will resonate with them. Christ is the central figure of the Bible. The Old Testament culminates with him. The New Testament is based on him. If they embrace Christ I trust the Holy Spirit to help them figure out the rest later.
Christ strikes a chord with people who reject the validity of the Bible or even his deity. Somewhere in those 66 books there is probably something that speaks to their felt need. People are more willing to listen if our motive is to help rather than sell.
We also all have our own stories to tell as well. If they consider me a friend they are less likely to just dismiss my experience.
Years ago a person who I saw every day but had never spoken to me before confronted me in the halls on my high school, told me I was going to hell and gave me a tract that said “Smile, Jesus Loves You.” Follow-up involved discussions in which people tried to win arguments. None of them asked me to lunch or what music I liked. Nobody acknowledged any of the points I tried to make and seldom answered the questions I asked. They just told me things that sounded like they’d been to training. This method was singularly ineffective with me as at that time I thought I needed friends not religion. It probably does work on some people or Christians wouldn’t keep doing it.
January 16, 2008 at 15:15
Paul certainly thought Jesus was raised.
In a new body, made from heavenly stuff, having become a life-giving spirit, leaving the flesh and bones in the ground.
Acts does have a Peter saying that the flesh of Jesus did not see corruption.
But the author of 1 Peter 1:24 knew that ‘All flesh is grass’.
Early Christians just did not believe in corpses rising from the ground.
That is why Christian converts in Corinth were baffled by the concept of resurrection, as they could not see how they could be raised like Christ.
They clearly disbelieved in anything which survived death (as they did not take part in baptism for the dead)
So how could they live again, when they were not gods like Jesus?
Paul answers their worries by telling them it is foolosh to discuss how corpses can rise, and says that they will share in the nature of the second Adam (and become life-giving spirits), just as they presently share in the nature of the first Adam (and have flesh and blood bodies)
I should point out that there is absolutely zero evidence that the disciples preached a resurrection of a corpse.
Even Paul says that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision…