I have crafted these four questions (or clusters of questions) as simply and open-endedly as I could in order to make them communicate over a fairly wide spectrum. I would be very grateful if you would give your own answers, either privately to me by e-mail, or, even better, right here as a response to this topic.

Also, please pass these questions along to others whose answers could prove valuable in keeping the conversation going.

1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?
   
2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian but not a theologian?
   
3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?
   
4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer?
   

#1. To a non-christian the concept of salvation from sin may be foreign but the idea that human beings are not capable of living lives of joy, peace, security and fulfillment is very evident. That one needs help from a higher power is logical so then evangelism is the promotion of the idea/concept that help from a higher power is available/necessary. The scripture points to that higher power of God and His son Jesus Christ. If one believes what the scripture says then logically acceptance of Christ as one's Lord/Savior follows. As many things in life, the "proof of the pudding is in the eating". When one experiences conversion/salvation/rebirth/born again then the understanding is realised.

#2. Considering the above explanation it would seem that one could not be a Christian with out knowing the concepts above and having experienced the confession of personal sin and the resultant joy of salvation. Theological comprehension isn't necessarily a prerequisite to experienceing the saving power of the Holy Spirit by the acceptance of Christ as Savior.

#3. Friend's distinctives should be secondary to the primary experience of salvation. These distinctives should be and are a natural outgrowth of experiencing the love of Christ in our innermost being. As I once said in a faculty meeting at GFU, Friends distinctives may be subtle or obscure but they are real and make a powerful difference in the follower of Christ and in the ways in which one lives out their Christian witness.

#4. Having attended several Friends Meetings since a child I would say that the focus on evangelism was primary. Proclamation of the saving power of Christ by preaching/witnessing and acceptance of Christ as Savior by the individual was the primary starting point of the Christian life. There have been Friends who seem to emphasize/elevate other aspects of Friends belief. But only after one has realized the saving power/love of Christ does one have the motivation to realize the peace witness, life in Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, love for ones neighbor, relief of suffering, compassion for the poor, concern for the souls of the lost (mission work), etc.

Hope these answers to the questions help. I've had a concern for quite some time that in the current religious climate much of the focus has been on the more dramatic/emotional aspects and that we as Friends need to re-focus on the more urgent/necesary parts of our beliefs. Friends have always made a difference both locally, nationally and internationally and we need to train our children and inform our constituency/membership.

Peter Snow (on the way to becoming an aged Friend)

Thank you for providing the first response! It has been months since you wrote, and I'm only now starting to make regular public responses to people's comments. I figure it is time to stop worrying about whether I'd bias the contributions with my own comments.

I was intrigued by your saying that "... in the current religious climate much of the focus has been on the more dramatic/emotional aspects and that we as Friends need to re-focus on the more urgent/necesary parts of our beliefs. Friends have always made a difference both locally, nationally and internationally and we need to train our children and inform our constituency/membership." I've been more worried about a lack of emotional freedom among Friends, but your words reminded me of the late Barry Hollister observing dubiously that Friends seemed to have turned away from a commitment to global and community ministry in favor of self-help fascinations. The intuitive, almost naive, direct connection some Friends made between being a follower of Christ and being a disciple IN and FOR the world (although not OF the world) often seems to be lacking now. Maybe we're too busy theorizing.

Evangelism and the Quaker Testimonies. A response by John and Marjorie Scott

Question 1

Being evangelical is to witness in the written and spoken word, but most of all in deeds, to the ‘Good News’ of the ministry of Jesus encompassing the revelation of the nature of God as Love, his vision of The Kingdom of God on earth; the significance of his death on the cross and the promise of ‘life’ after death. We would see the need to differentiate between this and Bible literalism.

Question 2.

Ex Anglicans, our present ideas about evangelism, instructed by our Quaker insights would place emphasis on the importance of being a living witness to The Truth in our personal every day behaviour. In the present age we doubt the value of preaching, and proselytising to convince others of The Truth, although we would grant that the ways to The Truth are diverse. We do see the need to gently advertise the existence of The Religious Society of Friends, but not through ranting. Of course, we favour our conservative form of silent Worship, when it is a genuine ‘waiting on the Lord, as an excellent evangelical statement in itself, but do not deny the need of others for different forms of worship.

Question 3.

Nearly the whole of our lives, during times of high faith and low, even at one time, of none, we have spent much of our time and effort improving the lot of others through political, trade union and charitable activities. This is an activity in pursuit of the realisation at an early age of the great Jesus vision of the Kingdom on Earth. Much in the manner as the early visionary Quakers who were gripped by this same motivation. We do not know about an introduction to British Friends Christian faith because the beliefs of the majority of Friends are not clear to us. We ourselves have come through a period of agnosticism about the divinity of Jesus to the conclusion that calling ourselves Quaker means believing that Jesus was much more than a special human being or teacher. We therefore would affirm that Christ should be at the centre of our personal witness. We would probably seek to avoid the Bible language of the past to express this. Even though social concerns remain at the forefront

Question 4.

The history of Britain (formally London Yearly Meeting) was for us at its best when the Spirit of Christ was most evident in its activities. Perhaps this is an inevitable process with human institutions but when the fiery determination of the first and second generation of Friends to convince the World of The Truth in the Light of Christ passed on to succeeding, quieter generations the revolutionary heat subsided. The elemental discovery by George Fox that Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God is not only present in every human being but is alive, well and communicating, needs to be understood and reinforced over and over again in the human mind. Are we right to doubt if this essential refreshment is readily available now in Britain Yearly Meeting?
Whilst we are sure that The Truth impinges on every person in a different manner, we are concerned that extreme individualism in B.Y.M. will result in ineffectual and infertile anarchy. An important part of a positive evangelism is the public action of the Church to put into effect the Jesus concern for the poor, the oppressed, those who suffer, the sick, for those who are unjustly accused and imprisoned.

Signed, John and Marjorie Scott, Acomb, P.M., York M.M. from Ramallah on 25.11.2003.

Many thanks for your service in Ramallah.

You are right at least to be concerned and wonder whether "... this essential refreshment [of the ongoing presence of Christ] is readily available now in Britain Yearly Meeting...." I am benefitting this year from the wonderful generosity of one of the independent institutions within the Yearly Meeting (namely Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre) but the Yearly Meeting as a whole seems to be something almost entirely different from the movement begun by George Fox and his friends.

Nor do I see dramatically effective social justice outreach - that is, outreach that is so effective that the small numbers in the yearly meeting don't matter. There is great dedication to several social concerns, but the impact is so limited because both the numbers of people and the budgets involved are so small. I wonder how many in the yearly meeting actually know how much prophetic as well as palliative work is being done by people who are not ashamed to be identified wholeheartedly as Christians. It is also sad to see Friends, when addressing diversity, to be focusing almost exclusively on sexual and theological diversity and leaving racial, economic and cultural diversity to more conservative Christian groups.

Greetings, Friend Johan Maurer!
Thank you for including us in your project. Lucy & I will try to answer the questions from our perspective.
1. Evangelism among unbelievers is sharing with others that God has solutions to our problems and that God's solutions are truly for our benefit.
2. The same among believers. Point them to the "Great Commission".
3. Both. The presentation of Christ's teachings and atonement would not be complete if ethical and social concerns were overlooked. But the ethical and social concerns that Jesus taught were not necessarily the same as the concerns that are based on politically correct practices today.
4. Yes, this was the basis of community life among Friends. They were a separate and distinct people who chose God's way instead of following the fads of their day.

Alvin & Lucy Anderson
members, Canton First Friends Church

1. How do you explain evangelism to a nonbeliever -

It is the good news that God is creator of the universe and its people and that He loves us with an undying love. He wants us to acknowledge that we are sinful creatures who need His help to change. We have to turn our lives around, surrender our selfish natures to Him and ask for His help. Then the help He gives frees us from the temptations we face and allows us to grow closer to Him.

2. I don't see any difference in how I would say it other than I would use their terms, like repent, grace, justification and santification. If these were fuzzy to them, I would explain their meanings. Many evangelicals use the terms, but they don't understand them.

3. I think it depends upon with whom you are discussing it. If they are evangelical, then start with the central role of Christ. If they are liberal, you start with the issues which Jesus speaks about in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the Gospels and what He requires of us His followers.Then you talk about how we find His presence to help us with living.

The reason I would do it that way is because an evangelical is less likely to hear you if you start with the issues, and a liberal is less likely to hear you if you start with Christ.

4. Again, it depends upon with whom you are talking. One third to one half of Western you would start with the centrality of Christ (when this whole struggle in Western is settled we will know the proportions better) For the rest you would begin with the other approach.

I wish each could see that they are all part of the same Christian Gospel - just accenting different aspects.


Florence Peery

Although I know a little about the current conflict in Western, I'm not qualified to comment publicly about it. There was a time (when I was general secretary of FUM, for example) when I got the sense that, by having to keep up with the politics of our yearly meetings, I simply knew too much about too little. The tired arguments between liberals and evangelicals didn't reveal anyone who was passionate about opening the doors of a living faith to new people who needed that faith. Of course I'm oversimplifying; some of the issues are important, and some of the people involved do have the needs of oppressed people in mind. But how do we convert our conflicts into conflicts about HOW WE HELP GOD'S PROMISES COME ALIVE FOR THOSE NOT YET AWARE OF THEM???

> 1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?
>

Here is an "it depends" question. How I would try to explain evangelism to a nonbeliever would depend on how the subject came up. For instance, is my nonbelieving inquirer, in fact, my atheistic but politically radical cousin? or a Buddhist Quaker? For my cousin, I might say that evangelism is about organizing people into communities that are shaped by the radical teachings of Jesus. To my imaginary Buddhist Quaker, I might say that evangelism is about introducing people to their Inward Teacher, Jesus. It would also depend about whether I was really trying to explain "evangelism" (the process or concept) or trying to "evangelize" these dear people. If the latter, the stumbling block in both cases, as far as my experience goes, is the question, "Why Jesus?" My cousin goes along with ethics of Jesus, and even acknowledges that religious language and faith is an effective motivator of personal and social change. But he is too enlightened to need such props. So, I resort to relating the personal experience of inward healing by Jesus. This is intriguing to him, but he shows no signs of making the leap of faith. For my hypothetical Buddhist, I might talk about having found in Jesus the one reliable spiritual guide, the one who reveals the loving heart of God at the center of the universe. I'm not sure that a good Buddhist would buy that idea, but if he or she did, it would be Good News! So, in these cases, I see that my explanation of evangelism revolves around presenting the possibility of a transformed life and a healing encounter with the source of love, plus an invitation to test that possibility out.

> 2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian but not a theologian?
>

I'm taken by the text of the Lausanne Covenant:

4. THE NATURE OF EVANGELISM
To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sin and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialog whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Savior and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship. Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his Church and responsible service in the world.

1 Cor. 15:34; Acts 2:32-39; John 20:21; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:11,20; Luke 14:25-33; Mark 8:34; Acts 2:40,47; Mark 10:43-45

Whether this is helpful to a Christian who is not a theologian, I'm not sure. The final sentence about the results of evangelism strike me as particularly important: obedience, incorporation into the community of faith, service. As C. Peter Wagner pointed out, this was written specifically to refute a notion of evangelism as simply proclamation of doctrine. To say that someone or some group has been "evangelized," one must actually have results in transformed lives!

> 3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?
>

My feeling is that the "historical, biblical Christ" referenced by the Lausanne Covenant is almost impossible to present without reference to Friends testimonies. For instance, there is no Jesus of Nazareth (who is the very image of God) who did not also say, "But I say to you, Love your enemies," or "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In this North American culture, at least, the individualistic and often nationalistic image of Christianity makes any proclamation of "Christ" that is seperated from his actual teachings and healing ministry suspect. If you invite someone to faith in a Christ who o.k.s violent retaliation against enemies or the commodification of women (or men) as sex objects, then it is some other Christ than the Christ of scripture.

For that reason, and because I think that Jesus modeled the idea that responding to people's actual needs comes first, I would say that evangelism always needs to present the fruit of the spirit first: inward healing, peace (inwardly or in society or among nations), equality (in relationships whether in the home or in society), freedom from materialism and the reduction of human purpose to consumption, etc., etc. The idea is to touch into the yearning for which Jesus, the Risen and Living Son of God, supplies the answer. The flip side of this is also true: it would never do to focus our presentation of Friends faith and practice on ethics or politics (I understand Friends are now listing the testimonies by the acronym SPICE -- simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality), as if these "values" stood on their own. To be evangelical (or, let us say, realistic), we have to acknowledge we cannot acheive any of this without supernatural help. It is a good idea to keep the "and" in faith and practice.

So, I'm playing with the idea of outreach ads that would say something like, "Is the pace of life just too much? Be still and know that I am God." or "Can you imagine Jesus killing his enemies? Neither can we." And then an invitation to contact a Friends website. The point is to touch on the ethical and social concern as a hook that can point to Jesus, and even more importantly to a faith community in which (it is to be hoped) Jesus can be found.

I don't suppose that this is very different from more conservative church's idea of evangelism. I'm thinking of sample TV ads I've seen from a group called, "Faith Highway." The difference, I suspect is that I would advocate including the SPICE issues as well as the family togetherness and sexual ethics that they deal with. So, in a sense, I think the dichotomy that is often presented dividing evangelism and social concern is bogus. The question is whether we are willing to reflect the full range of Jesus' teaching, or to restrict it to the so-called "family values" fraction of his vision.

This does contrast with the fundamentalist vision of evangelism which primarily presents the Good News as a requirement to profess faith in Jesus in order to be saved from a future of hellfire. I repudiate that as magic rather than faith, and as sub-Christian. It represents a profound misreading of God's holiness and the atonement.

> 4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer?
>
I'm pretty ignorant on this. My sense is that the earliest Friends of Indiana Yearly Meeting were pretty influenced by quietism and didn't do much public presentation of Friends F&P. West Richmond, on the other hand, was profoundly influenced by Allen Jay and various other leaders who were followers of the Social Gospel movement.

Ben, I appreciate your well-considered response to Johan's questions, and agree that our Quaker approach to individuals should be tailored to the evangelist, the inquirer, and the situation. Thanks too for encuraging Friends to create two-sentence outreach ads that will connect with the experience of unchurched people and draw them in.

I like the recent SPICE acronym as a way to summarize important Quaker testimonies, and agree with you and other forum contributors who say that the Society of Friends is not founded on ethical insights, but on inward encounter with the Spirit of God (best personified by Jesus of Nazareth) that inspired these ideals. Regular meeting for worship that encourages our connection with the Holy Spirit is foundational.

Many Friends say something along the lines of Florence Peery's point, "I wish each [i.e., both 'liberals' and 'evangelicals'] could see that they are all part of the same Christian Gospel - just accenting different aspects" - namely the central role of Christ and the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

If I understand you correctly, you're coming down firmly on the necessity to lead out with the fruits (the testimonies). The spiritual roots are immediately present as well, but they are what nurtures our expression of the fruits and what keeps integrity in our communication, rather than being the central, narrow focus of what we say.

One of the immediate implications of this for me is the need to do evangelism WITHIN the Friends church!! Do we in fact believe that spiritually-empowered fruits will happen? Has the functional atheism identified by Parker Palmer, which I've seen in ALL the branches of Friends, not yet reached fatal dimensions among us? I see many examples of good, sensible but not particularly Spirit-led outreach work among Friends, and I see some examples of a sort of Quaker piety as well, but you're talking about something different from either.

1.  Explain evangelism for the non-believer
Just as one who believes strongly in any cause zealously advocates for the cause, so evangelism means zealously spreading and adhering to the gospel of Jesus Christ, as outlined in the New Testament. That is why George Fox founded the Quakers; this is our mission and purpose. Jesus summed up his directives: Love God and love your neighbour as yourself.
We acknowledge that "evangelism" has taken on some negative connotations, because some people have behaved like Christian terorists while calling themselves "evangelists"; others have behaved as though making much noise and quoting the New Testament are what evangelism is all about, but adhering to the gospel is every but as important than talking about it: "What you do speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you say!"
I would use quotes from Jesus' own words to illustrate, without getting into questions that depend on faith, such as His divinity, resurrection, etc.,

2.  Explain evangelism for the Christian layperson
I would use a similar approach to #1, except that I would say that, as Christians, we feel moved to share the comfort of being emancipated by our belief in Jesus with our fellow human beings, especially those who are unhappy and unfortunate. It is our Christian duty to evangelise. I would not have to explain in such detail what Jesus said.

3.  Which should come first: ethical and social concerns or the central role of Christ?
I always start with ethical and social concerns, as I can always find common ground here. What differs is what I put forward as the basis for behaviour in response to these concerns.
If I am speaking to committed Christians, or those who profess to be such, I remind them of the central role of Jesus, that Jesus is the model on which their lives should be based, and that we are called to do God's will, as expounded by Jesus. Too many of us Christians often forget the "forgive those who trespass against us" part or the "love your neighbour as yourself" part. They are, however, willing to acknowledge the central role of Christ. We need to be reminded of the implications of this.
If I am speaking to non-Christians, I take a humanistic approach: what Jesus put forward in His words in the Gospels is a blueprint for a better world, for a gentler, more peaceful way of relating to one another, and illustrate generously with quotes.

4.  Did early Friends in your Meeting consider #3? How did they answer it?
I do not have the advantage of having been around during the early days of Jamaican Quakerism. My answer is that any study of George Fox and the early Quakers shows clearly that their priority was to follow the directives of Jesus as outlined in the New Testament, and to model their lives on His. Judging by the readings and history which I have seen, Christ-centred lives meant attention to ethical and social concerns. That's why Quakers were known for their integrity and compassion. I frankly don't think they even thought about which came first - they were two parts of one whole.

Joan, hello again! I'm very glad you're part of this conversation.

You said, "Too many of us Christians often forget the 'forgive those who trespass against us' part or the 'love your neighbour as yourself' part. They are, however, willing to acknowledge the central role of Christ. We need to be reminded of the implications of this."

Under the message topic, "Identity and evangelism," I argued that "people observably seem to need formation and models on the way to maturity in Christ." This is a way of saying that we need to be reminded concretely of the implications of the central role of Christ. To me, this is a crucial aspect of waking Friends up to the urgency of evangelism. We need to work on being prepared to greet newcomers with a coherent explanation of why we care, and a corporate life that lives up to the promises implied in our outreach message ... or else we evangelize in vain.

Not everyone agrees with me on this. One reader (whose permission I'm still awaiting to publish her full letter and name) wrote to me, "The living presence of Christ IN one is what changes a man and this only. If people need models to maturity in Christ, then Christ is not sufficient. Are you implying they are observing Christ IN those who are mature? Then can even an enemy copy behaviors and have no Light in him. As it is written, 'Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light'." Maybe this is true on some very theoretical level, but I believe it constitutes unhelpful spiritualizing of the matter. If we all automatically glowed attractively and winsomely and consistently as soon as we accepted Christ, why would there be the spiritual gifts of pastoring and teaching and exhortation? Why would Paul have written in Ephesians 4, "He handed out gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and pastor-teacher to train Christians in skilled servant work, working within Christ's body, the church, until we're all moving rhythmically and easily with each other, efficient and graceful in response to God's Son, fully mature adults, fully developed within and without, fully alive like Christ" ...?

In my experience, we ALL "need to be reminded of the implications of this" more or less constantly. In fact, the whole reason for the existence of the Friends church is to be that gentle and constant reminder of the implications of the central role of Christ.

It may be that we are on the cusp of a promising time for Quaker evangelism. The alliance of corporate power, fundamentalist religion, and the Project for A New American Century may have overreached with its invasion of Iraq and the huge budget deficit created by military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. The American mainstream may soon grow tired of orange terror alerts and come to see the downside of American military-corporate empire. There may soon be a renewed receptivity to a message of inclusion, Spirit, and search for common good at both the international and local church levels.

Evangelism, it seems to me, is simply calling people into spiritually-based community. In the case of Quakers today, that community should be based on Jesus as Christ ( i.e. crucial embodiment [but not sole messenger], the person we identify with the inwardly experienced Spirit of Truth/Love) and upon 350 years of Quaker experience of Christ Present.

Quaker evangelism has always taken many forms, since situations vary so greatly. Robert Barclay was evangelized at 17 by his father's Quaker cellmate, John Swinton, in Edinburgh castle. Swinton's words were confirmed inwardly when he worshipped with Quakers. He was convinced by the "secret power among them" that raised up the good and weakened the evil in him. So we can ask ourselves, "What was the early Quaker evangelistic method?" Was it Fox going into steeplehouses and denouncing formal, civil religion? Was it theological debates in public places? Was it the emotional power, the physical quaking, that happened in their meetings for worship? Was it their willingness to suffer at the hands of the government for their faith? Was it their inclusion of humble people and women in leadership? All of the above and more?

I wonder if the way you have posed question #3, (when to talk about Jesus and when to talk about ethics/discipleship) is helpful to the end we seek. I'm assuming that we want more clarity about how to preach the gospel in the 21st century. We lack clarity about our message as well as our methods. What is the good news we proclaim in a variety of ways depending on the cultural setting? Is it good news for the poor and the insecure middle class in a time of growing empire and oppression? Is it a call to soul-satisfying relationships and peace based on justice in a time of growing reliance on guns, bombs, and prisons? Is it a call to integrity and equality in a time of corporate greed and marginalization of have-nots? Is it going into the highways and byways and calling people to the blessed simplicity of God's banquet table?

At our best Quakers are just and ethical people. But there's got to be more. To get beyond legalism, shoulds, and oughts, there must be a shared experience of the inward power of the Holy Spirit within that enables us to do the will of God in our close personal relationships and our dealings with the world. Programmed religion can at best be a prelude to the experience of prayerful seeking together that gathers Quakers into the presence of the Holy. At worst, it's a more or less entertaining manipulation of people's thinking and emotions, a passively received presentation that legitimizes an unjust status quo and distracts people from the Word.

I continue to believe that Quakers today have a precious heritage that restores much of what was lost under the Constantinian church. I do not believe that the way forward is big churches or a continuing accomodation to popular religion that glorifies health, wealth, and a false patriotism. The Christ of the early church and early Quakerism is the Christ of discipleship! There can be no "central role of/for Christ" if the call to conversion from the world's ways is not sounded. If as Quakers we try to ease people into "Quakerism" with a message of cheap grace and cultural triumphalism that's easy on the ears, how can that message be undone later?

I may be crazy*, but in the real world where we can't emphasize everything simultaneously and where different temperaments and viewpoints see different priorities, I sense some inner tension in these two statements of yours: "To get beyond legalism, shoulds, and oughts, there must be a shared experience of the inward power of the Holy Spirit within that enables us to do the will of God in our close personal relationships and our dealings with the world." (I agree with that!) And ... "The Christ of the early church and early Quakerism is the Christ of discipleship!" I agree with that, too. I still think it is worth making the distinction between the fervent invitation to know and yield to the Holy Spirit, and the building of a witness of discipleship, because different people are differently able to serve one or the other goal. Yes, theoretically, the distinction is actually unfortunate. Historically, it has also had unfortunate consequences - playing into destructive partisanship between alleged 'liberals' and 'conservatives' who are equally loyal to the core Gospel. But that's why I want to promote a mutually respectful division of labor that takes into account the differing gifts involved while still working toward a unified goal - a Spirit-filled movement whose public witness has powerful prophetic and ethical dimensions.

---

* Actually, I think I am!

1 Evangelism to a nonbeliever is the introduction of the Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ.

2 Evangelism to someone who is already a christian but not a theologian is the teaching of the practice of christianity as taught by Jesus Christ,
his desciples,and early apostles.

3 In presenting Friends faith and practice,it is more important to emphasise the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and descipleship at a later point.

4 In the history of my Friends Meeting the earliest Friends considered this question and they introduced christianity by first church planting and then followed with a social concern like establishing a school or dispensary.

I hope these answers will be of some use to you.

Alfred Waudo, African Consulting Engineers

Dodge City Family of Friends is a recently developing congregation in southwest Kansas with less than four years of history. Consequently the majority of the congregation are recent Friends of Christ with only very few being long time Christians and a few being not yet Christian. We have been ministering with this congregation for the past 1½ years since our return to the USA from Bolivia.

During the summer months we have focused on developing the purpose and future plan of the congregation. For the past two weeks we have begun to develop various aspects of that purpose, the first being evangelism. Therefore your questions intrigue me as we have been addressing the same issues. Here are some of our conclusions, some congregational and some personal.

1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?

As a world society in general we tend to have many preconceived concepts or misconceptions about evangelism. Evangelism is not a crusade or a special event, not door to door or distributing tracts on the street corner. Those may be limited forms of evangelism but may contribute to our misconceptions about evangelism. One member of our congregation stated that she did not care for “evangelism” because she associated the term with an evangelist that was only out to raise money for his church projects or personal pockets. “In-your-face” evangelism is not necessarily effective.

Evangelism is simply sharing good news. In this sense we can be evangelical about our paycheck, a new baby, a new car, or a new house. We have found a new life of peace with God, joy through all circumstances, and hope for future life. This new life we want to share exuberantly because it has eternal meaning for us (not because we feel obligated to fulfill a requirement of our religion).

2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian but not a theologian?

At DCFF we have been looking at the stories of our own lives and the needs and concerns that we had in our life that are now replaced by peace and joy. We have noted that we had similar needs and concerns and that our friends, neighbors, and co-workers also have these concerns. We are beginning to share our story and experience with other in the hope that they will also experience peace and joy in a personal friendship with Jesus.

3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?

Jesus did not commission us to evangelize but to disciple. Evangelism is only the first step of discipleship. In this first step Jesus did not even expect his disciples to follow him because of their excellent morality and social concern. He called them from where they were at to follow him into discipleship. Ethical and social concerns are integral parts of discipleship that grow out of one’s friendship with Christ rather than develop ones relationship to Christ.

I hope that these comments are helpful to you. We have neither history nor comment related to question #4. Blessings to you as you investigate these issues and carry on in God’s ministry

Jerry Clarkson, Pastor
Dodge City Family of Friends
Dodge City, Kansas

(I asked Alfred to elaborate a little on his experience with Friends' work in the Samburu district, one of the newest sites of Friends' work. His reply is under the "Speaking from experience" message title.)

1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever? I guess I'd have to ask you that question! The word has a lot of meanings, and within NWYM, and within RFC, it has a lot of meanings, as well. Outward enthusiasm about the Gospel. Fundamentalism. Salvation through Christ.

For me it has to do with the spreading of the word and the work of Christ in an open and unabashed way. It also means salvation through a personal relationship with God through Christ, but I emphasize relationship, not simply belief. I don't think that my belief has much to do with it, because God is still God, and still there, regardless of my belief.

To me it does not mean trying to conver poor and marginalized people in the Third World. It does not mean simply "Jesus Christ is the only answer" - because that response to every question eliminates the possibility of choices, even the difference between good and evil (yet we see every day in the press the notion our violence, our cruelty, our greed, is good, or at least acceptable, because we are a "Christian nation", whereas if anyone else does these things, particularly if they do them to us, those very same things are Evil.). It also eliminates the need to act, since mere belief "solves" the issues of our relationship with God and our relationship with our neighbor.

2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian but not a theologian? This raises questions rather than answers. What is the difference between evangelical Christianity and Christianity? What is the difference in how an evangelical Christian treats other people, as opposed to a non-evangelical Christian? Does an evangelical Christian love God more than a non-evangelical Christian? Or is evangelism a subset of Christianity which is "true Christianity" thereby precluding the possibility that non-evangelicals are Christians at all? Is the difference simply cultural?

3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on? I think that is why we have "Faith AND Practice". In my mind, Christ is meaningless without ethics and descipleship; and the reverse is true, as well. On an academic, or stereotypical level, this more or less defines the differences along the Quaker spectrum, with some Friends emphasizing Works to the exclusion of Belief in Christ, and others emphasizing Belief Christ to the exclusion of Works. In my experience, when you get down to one-on-one, there is not much difference between evangelical Friends and "liberal" Friends where Faith and Practice are intertwined.

4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer? Not being a historian, I will have to demur on this one.

1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?

The sharing of the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ with others on a one to one basis, in small groups and in larger groups (congregations)

2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian but not a theologian?

The teaching of the complete work of God from the creation to the end of time including the coming of himself in the person of Jesus Christ to bring
forgiveness and show us the way to peace of mind and fulfillment.

3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and
discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?

I believe it is more important to teach the central role of Christ first so the ethical and social concerns have a meaningful, strong base from which
to carry out those concerns. Even though the ethical and social concerns are placed in a secondary position there needs to be a balance in order to have the witness of love and commitment to correct those inequalities that surround us in our world. Without the love, empathy, selflessness, humbleness and
dedication to assist in correcting the suffering and injustice around the world our message of Christ (evangelism) becomes hypocritical.


4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer?

Since most of my life was spent in connection with Mid-America Yearly Meeting I will have to answer from that view point. I feel their first priority
was to teach the central role of Christ but often it stopped there and social and ethical concerns were relegated to a secondary priority. Unfortunately,
except for a few, social and ethical concerns were strongly connected with those who did not believe the Bible as the inspired Word of God or the virgin birth and did not believe in the life and atonement of Jesus Christ. There must be a balance and not be exclusive, one of the other.

Dear friend,

I find your question very interesting.

I always explain that evangelism is taking the good news to others: sort of like telling them what you know about Jesus and the good news He has left us with. I explain this way to anybody who asks, and since there are no other Quakers here, I sometimes do explain to other christians that some Quakers in the past and even today are not evangelicals, but we are.

Now, when I present faith and practice, first I have to explain the whole history of Quakers, since here nobody knows who we are. So I start from Fox and then Penn's work, and always mention the freedom of expression and adoration which he set up in pennsylvania, then tell of his treaties with the Natives (I work with natives here), and the rest of the story. I enjoy telling this, and people surely enjoy listening: I once received an invitation to go preach to the top FARC leader who happened to be here (in secret) seeing a doctor after someone close to him heard the whole story. But he had to leave in a hurry, because it was discovered he was here. I've been praying for him since, and recently he released a bunch of kidnapped tourists and has asked for peace in Colombia. They thought all christians were like the puritans who were killing Quakers before Penn founded the state.

Now, if I meet with someone who is not a christian, then I first discuss christ and being saved, then when many say they don't trust the local churches, mostly pentecostals with ignoramuses for pastors, we explain the whole Quaker story, and beliefs, and faith and practice.

Love,
Vanessa Di Domenico
Maracaibo, venezuela
members of Klamath Falls Monthly Meeting, Oregon

Perhaps you can consider translating some of your wording to Universalist?In 1985, PacYM's new Faith and Practice was Christocentric, and the resulting fuss encouraged some of us to canvass people, "what do you mean when you say...?" From this I learned that those using Christian language and those using universalist language agreed on much of their understanding of Friends ways, but understood poorly what people meant who used different words for the same concept. Because of the difference in language, I may be answering a question different from the one you asked!

The only question I'll attempt is #3.

If by Christ you mean continuing revelation, well, in my understanding, that leads to the (particular) ethical and social concerns. I would include it in a first description of Friends, but would describe it differently: a willingness to labor together for common understanding of Truth. An openness to listening to God's will, present in the majority understanding, perhaps, or perhaps in the dissenting voice. An acceptance of the complexity of Truth, at times, its simplicity at others.

Except for those of us who never tell anyone we are Friends, there is an evangelical component when we mention how Friends discussions shape our thinking and values. People understand Friends, for better or worse, through how well we represent views as fixed or open to discernment, and to continuing revelation, to a willingness to ask questions about issues and wrestle individually and corporately with the answers. When I see Friends at this labor, listening to others, speaking their understanding when it is needed by the group, this seems to me a willingness to follow God's will at its best.

I feel uncomfortable when people extol too much Friends positions on xyz. Some positions, from slavery to today's laboring on same-sex marriage (in many/most Meetings), have undergone a discernment process. Other positions may have gone through a discernment process around the time of WW2, but not since, and may not be vital to Friends today. Many issues have undergone little in the way of a discernment process. At times, Friends discussion can be simply a poll of current prejudices. On other issues, the presence of deep discernment, its quality, is clearer.

Friends talk about experiential understanding. In science, that would mean doing the experiment one's self, or reading about it with understanding. For people not in science, it means an acceptance of the valid experiments of scientists. I'd like to see this experiential understanding become more important -- but not everyone gets equal credit for the quality of their experiment! Friends would benefit from discussing more the role of science.

Policy positions can develop from this discernment process, but I am uncomfortable with policy discussions in the absence of considering our own behavior and feelings. It's HARDER this way, but the quality of our recommendations on policy are much improved when they are not simply an isolated consideration of what THEY can do. And they are more spirtually honest.
--
Best wishes,
Karen Street

It seems that I should attempt to respond to the invitation of Johan Maurer to discuss the topic of "Evangelism and Quaker Testimonies".

For many years I have been a member of Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative). However, in my childhood and youth I was closely associated with Iowa Yearly Meeting (FUM). For more than twenty years I lived and worked in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting area and participated in that Yearly Meeting as an associate member.

I will endeavor to speak to the four questions posed by Johan Maurer:

l. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?

Johan Maurer implies that evangelism applies primarily to the spreading of a Christian message. However, evangelism in its widest definition would seem to describe the proclamation of ones faith, whatever it might be, the proclamation of the Truth as it has been revealed to one's understanding. In making this proclamation to nonbelievers, one must appeal to the nonbeliever's present understanding growing out of the nonbeliever's background and own experience.

2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a Christian and not a theologian?

Friends have generally been skeptical of theologians since the very earliest Quaker evangelists suffered at the hands of theological students at Oxford and Cambridge. Friends have emphasized the capability of even the most simple and uneducated among us to know and recognize the leadings of God in some measure. We can explain that these divine leadings can be revealed and expressed in the social interactions among people as well as in sacred scriptures, that the giving of a cup of cold water to one who is thirsty can express the nature and the will of God.

( I write as one who has studied the Christian theology and Quaker faith and practice in academic settings, and I have one or two advanced degrees, but no Ph.D.)

3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a latter point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith?

I endeavor to be a Christian and to follow the basic concepts of the Christian and Quaker culture which has been my heritage. I seek to know a personal God with human attributes and I can see revelation of the nature of God in the life of Jesus. However, it is difficult for me to comprehend Jesus as my "personal savior" as some evangelical Christians would demand. I am not satisfied with being just a rational universalist. However, I endeavor to recognize the universal Christ in other religious faiths, while crying out against religious oppression and cruelty wherever it may exist.

In our modern world, it is difficult to accept the Judeo-Christian scriptures without question. I endeavor to follow the findings of the "Jesus Seminar" and other attempts to rediscover the historical Jesus and his message. The early Quaker message emphasized the primary importance of the direct experience of the living Word, and many have been drawn to Friends because of this testimony, and not because of any demand to accept the inerrancy of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

In my own time, a number of seekers from other Christian denominations and other faiths have been drawn to the social movements in which Friends have given leadership, such as the peace movement and the civil rights movement, and some of these seekers have gone on to find meaning and fulfillment in our Friends religious fellowship.

4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer?

Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) grew out of a revival movement among Friends which was sweeping the country and which culminated in a small group of "Conservative" Friends withdrawing from the larger body following a particularly tempestuous revival meeting in Bear Creek Quarter in Iowa in 1877. About 1917/18, Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) incorporated Hickory Grove Quarter in eastern Iowa, a portion of Ohio Yearly Meeting (Wilburite) that had separated from Gurneyite Friends in Ohio ca. 1854/55. ----- The early group of Conservative Friends, in Iowa and throughout the United States, considered themselves to be Orthodox in theology. However, they realized that the theology and practice of the leaders of the revival movement differed decidedly from traditional Quaker theolgy and practice. Early Quaker thought had emphasized "that of God in every person", the basic worth of every person and ability of every person to respond to Divine leadings. The theology of the revival movement was the theology of the American camp meetings all over the frontier which emphasized the utter depravity and sinfulness of men and women and their only hope of salvation being the acceptance by faith of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.------ The leaders of the revival movement showed little appreciation of the traditional Quaker culture and sought to undermine the authority of Elders and Recorded Ministers and to make the position and doctrine of the revivalist preachers supreme.

In the years following the Separation of 1877, some of the Conservative Friends were primarily concerned to maintain a rather closed society, a faithful remnant separated from the world, dedicated to the maintenance, as best they could, of the culture of a peculiar people.

However, among some of the younger generation there was a desire to maintain contact with the concerns of the larger society and various strands of more liberal Christian thought. My grandfather, who was a child at the time of the Separation, was introduced by an English uncle to Darwin's concept of evolution, and there was interest in the thought of Leo Tolstoi and in concepts of the Socialist Party led by Eugene V. Debs.

With the coming of World War I and military conscription, a number of the young men of Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) took the conscientious objector position and suffered in the military camps until the establishment of the American Friends Service Committee enabled some of them to be furloughed to do reconstruction work in France. Here they came in contact with other young Quakers of like mind from throughout the United States and the British Isles, and a new vision was opened to them of what the Society of Friends might be.

In my own time, I spent twenty-two months in Civilian Public Service camps at the end of World War II, and then, in 1949, found myself in federal prison along with a number of Iowa Friends and friends of Friends, because of declining to register as required by the Selective Service Act of 1948. Many of those who have been active in the support of Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) during the past 50 years have been those who sought to uphold the Friends peace testimony during World War II and the Viet Nam War. They have found in the Yearly Meeting a place of refuge and support, although some of us are still considered to be felons, not entitled to vote or to fully participate in the political arena.

So, at the present time, we still struggle to proclaim a message of peace and social justice, to be evangelists of a message sounding through the years from Jesus and the prophets, hoping that we can speak to the condition of seekers of our own day and walk in the light of the Truth of the living Christ.

----- Herbert Standing, 1806 Bear Creek Road, Earlham, Iowa 50072.

I welcome your invitation to consider “evangelism and the Quaker testimonies.” I agree with you that the testimonies are (and should be) an outgrowth of a conviction of sincere evangelical experience. I use "evangelical" in the broader sense of the term, to apply to any proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In that sense "evangelism" applies just as much to feeding the hungry and clothing the naked as it does encouraging a spiritual transformation within another's heart. It is all a part of the same message and any attempt to separate love for our fellows from providing them the assistance that they genuinely need is a denial of the message of Jesus Christ. I care not whether that is a "liberal" or a "conservative" perspective, so long as it is truth. [As a political aside, I believe that what are generally termed "conservative" values are generally the most life giving, affirming, and are in the long term the most personally and socially beneficial. Other reasonable persons might disagree.]

I do have a problem with insistence upon the authority of scripture by persons who do not actually adhere to its message. I am thinking in particular of Jesus command to his disciples:

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

And also the example that he set with his ministry here on earth as typified in the following statement:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I believe that here and elsewhere in scripture is found a general principle that mandates that ministry must start with oneself, proceed to family members and close friends, then to companions and fellows of the same religious body, and only then to reach out to the world at large. It seems
to me that any religious body that presumes to minister beyond its borders should first set their own house in order. It is not prudent, good management technique, and places one at risk of the charge of hypocrisy, to sent missionaries to the farthest reaches of the earth and yet fail to minister to its own adherents first at home. Most disgraceful are "ministers" who travel abroad at great expense to their own family obligations.

I recognize your tremendous energies that have been devoted to the latter endeavor and commend you highly. I have heard directly from several persons who consider themselves to be allied exclusively with Friends General Conference who have expressed pleasant surprise that they found you to be open and receptive to listening to tier (non exclusively Christian) concerns.

In my perspective, to make the distinction between "evangelism" (presumably to strangers in other cities and places) and "holding dialogues across the full diversity of Friends" is a false dichotomy.

To put it bluntly, I do not believe that Evangelical pastors should be representing the Religious Society of Friends to the world at large until

1. they have a rudimentary understanding of the religious and social heritage of which they are a part.
2. recognize how their "evangelical" perspective is an integral part of that heritage and identity.
3. know when and what part of their message is a departure from their own religious tradition.
4. have learned to communicate the gospel message within the context of their religious identity by forming a shared vocabulary regarding ideas and values with other Quakers.

Thinking back on my own experiences with unreformed Baptists, soldiers, sexual deviants, grafters, suicides, financial deadbeats, and other worthless who have found a home in Quaker pulpits... (Personally, if someone owes me money for something that I sold and delivered, just paying the bill will do wonders for the "salvation" of my soul)

Attending some Friends Churches is a bit like seeing a parking lot full of Fords at a General Motors production plant. There is nothing illegal about it, but it is rather unbecoming, and it makes wonder how someone can promote a product when its own workers aren't totally sold.

Paul Davis
p-davis@earthlink.net

There's a lot of truth in what you're saying. However, I would differ with a couple of points - not major differences, really. For example, I would not want to have to be perfect or my community to be perfect before we begin being prophetic either inside or outside our boundaries. I would not want to wait to have perfect peace in my heart before beginning to advocate for peace outside the boundaries of the peace community. (HOWEVER, I would NOT pretend that I have found the secret of true peace if I have not! To THAT extent I would agree with you 100%.) Quaker evangelism, in my opinion, involves making ACCESS to the Quaker message as universal as possible, so it simultaneously requires building a healthy Christian community AND communicating about that community to those not in it.

Secondly, I wondered a bit about your blunt assertion that evangelical Friends pastors should not represent the Religious Society of Friends to the world at large until they meet your four conditions. Taken just as you've said it, you may have set up a very fruitful potential debate, but ... who decides when the conditions have been fulfilled? I know a lot of liberal Friends who would not meet those criteria very well. And No. 4 seems impossible to fulfill - you're essentially asking evangelical pastors to let themselves be held hostage by those who are most hostile to them in the Quaker world. And I do mean "hostile" judging by some of the anti-pastoral feelings I felt in Southeastern Yearly Meeting. And why single out pastors, when there are lots of evangelical Friends who are not pastors and who are equally gifted as evangelists?

I do know that there are Friends pastors who have come in from other sectors of the religion industry and have set up shop in a Friends meeting without knowing much about their new home. And there are Friends pastors who operate with a chip on their shoulder about this or that aspect of Friends faith and practice that they, for some reason or other, think is "liberal." However, they are a minority among the pastors I've known and observed. Friends also risk getting distorted on the liberal end by becoming codependent to wounded people from outside Friends who have become allergic to anything within Friends that reminds them of the oppressive aspects of their earlier spiritual homes.

> 1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?
A nonbeliever of what? It makes a difference. For example, here in Iraq I find very few people who are "non-believers" in any faith tradition. Not many are actually Christian believers, but when the question is asked here, "Are you a believer?" it usually means do you believe in Allah and the teachings of Islam.

So, in my context I have to think in terms of how I would explain evangelism to a Muslim. As far as I know, there's not much of an evangelistic tradition in Islam. However, once an individual becomes aware of the "truth" they are then bound to consciously accept or reject it, and rejecting it is in essence damnation. Therefore I might explain evangelism as the telling what I consider to be the truth to those who are uneducated, and the truth for me means the reality of God's love through the sacrifice of his son Jesus.
>
> 2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already a
> Christian but not a theologian?
I'm going to skip this one, Johan, since I'm obviously in a space that isn't conducive to this question.

>
> 3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to
> emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics
> and
> discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social
> concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If
> the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?

For me, it's important to emphasize the central role of Christ because there are differing opinions and manifestations of this concept within current Friends meetings. My faith as a Friend has its core definition as a Christian, and the ethical and social concerns are merely my way of showing the fruit of my knowledge of Jesus.
>
> 4. In the history of your Friends meeting or yearly meeting, did the
> earliest Friends consider this question (#3)? What was their answer?
>
Sorry, Johan, I don't really know the answer to this one for either West Richmond Friends, or Hesper Friends Meeting in Iowa.

3. In presenting Friends faith and practice, is it more important to emphasize the central role of Christ and then introduce issues of ethics and discipleship at a later point, or do you find that the ethical and social concerns are a more effective introduction to Friends' Christian faith? If the answer is "it depends," what does it depend on?

It is more important to emphasize Christ's central role and then introduce the issues of Christian growth, character and ethics. This is so because, there was a reason God sent His son Jesus Christ. It was that man was not able to live righteously on his own. Biblical history is a record of beginnings and deteriorations for all who did not worship the true God. It begun with Adam and by chapter 7 of Genesis, God destroyed mankind through the flood. He begun again with Noah, but deterioration followed. God then calld Abraham and Israel his descendants. Their history is one of deterioration under the Kings, post exilic deterioration under the governors and prophets despite the efforts of key servants of God (Zerubabbel, Joshua, Zechariah, Haggai, Nehemia and Ezra Malachi etc).

It is only through Jesus, that humans begun to get spiritual satisfaction and empowerment to live righteous lives. George Fox was not a man sold out to service and standing for the truth until he met Christ. By the time he met Christ, he was almost giving up on life. He had talked to many people as he sought the truth and did not find it. None told him that Jesus was the answer! God intervened when George had the voice telling him that there was one who could speak to his condition. From then on he had spiritual rest and became empowered to be gin preaching, serving and standing for the truth.

Over the years Christians have failed to convince a lost world because they do not live out the power and love they profess to have. This makes it difficult for their witness to make any impact, for their character denies their faith. A Christian should seek to reveal to all people the secret of walking in the enabling love and power of God and that is Christ. Everyone must have a chance to repent and commit his life to Christ knowingly. They should then seek God daily to be filled by His Holy Spirit. They must on a daily basis read the Holy Scriptures and practice what they learn. In this way a Christian will be a role model, a source of hope and an encouragement.

Thank you sooooo much for your contribution to the dialogue. I think I will now start commenting on what people are sending. So far I have simply posted without comment, but it is time to model the exchange that should be happening.

Some people could say that there is a contradiction in your words. You say first that "It is more important to emphasize Christ's central role and then introduce the issues of Christian growth, character and ethics." Good. But then you say, "Over the years Christians have failed to convince a lost world because they do not live out the power and love they profess to have. This makes it difficult for their witness to make any impact, for their character denies their faith. A Christian should seek to reveal to all people the secret of walking in the enabling love and power of God and that is Christ." So which REALLY is first, emphasizing Christ's role OR revealing the secret of walking in that love and power?

I don't see these as necessarily contradictory, but IN FACT Christians argue for one or the other and thereby avoid doing EITHER!!! I suspect that the emphasis probably depends more on personal gifts (e.g., having the gift of evangelism OR the gift of administration or helps or mercy) but a passion for communicating Christ will probably overcome the apparent contradiction.

If you saw the Web forum, you probably saw the post by Larry Kinser, the head of church planting for Evangelical Friends Church Southwest, and my response, under the "Identity and Evangelism" topic. In any case, thank you for being very honest about what has robbed Christians of our effectiveness in communication.

May your ministry be very fruitful!

> 1. How would you explain what evangelism is to a nonbeliever?
>
> 2. How would you explain what evangelism is to someone who is already
> a Christian but not a theologian?

I don't mean to be difficult or uncooperative, but I have a hard time with the way these two questions are phrased. Perhaps it is because I don't fit into the 'theologian' category, much preferring the mystical and experiential side of relationship with God. Knowing too many "Christians" who are far from what I understand Christ's teachings to be, and others who would never call themselves Christian yet appear to me to be very close to God, I have found words like "Christian" and non-believer poor descriptors of a person's spiritual state. Even there, trying to describe someone's spiritual state, is not always relevant because most of us are on paths/journeys. I know people who's paths have led them into very "un-Christian" realms, only to discover in those places great truths and a spiritual vitality they would never have achieved on a more conventional, church-acceptable route. We are told not to judge and I find this to be particularly good advice when considering a person's relationship with the Spirit. I shy away from terms that box us into a saved or unsaved category. So here is my description of evangelism, that I would give to you, and to my moslem friends, to someone who calls herself atheist, and to anyone on the street:

Evangelism is clearly a word that carries much baggage, and it stirs up a strong range of feelings. I have met too many people who have been wounded by evangelism being used as a sword. Yet I have met many people who have gotten definition for their longings, have found answers, and who have reflected, in a very deep manner, on their lives because of evangelism. For me, evangelism is three things. Sharing, living, and listening. It is sharing my experience of God and those things that have been meaningful as a result of this experience. It is living the consequences and imperatives that profound experiences of God make unavoidable. It is listening to, and validating the experiences of God that others have already had.

I have seen how much of the Christian world talks of evangelism as doing this sharing in order to get others to believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as Savior. Though I was educated in a Christian Missionary school and heard this from a very young age, I have never understood what these words mean. What does "believe in Jesus" mean? This and may other pieces of jargon, some of which appear to be mandatory parts of speech in some churches, tend to be theological and very human expressions of the Great Unknowable. Again, I am not theologically inclined, and I have a hard time inviting anything or anybody "into my heart". But I have no trouble at all saying that learning about Jesus has changed, and continues to change, the way I see other people and the world. If asked, I can give examples. I can't talk about atonement, because that aspect of Christianity has never had any meaning for me. It would be dishonest for me to talk about any sense I have of my sins being washed away. I don't feel "saved", and I don't understand what others say I have been (or would be) saved from. I do often feel a closeness to a powerful and living God. I once heard that sin--in the original biblical sense--meant to miss the