Category Archives: Evangelism

How should we be in the world but not of it? What does "not of it" mean?

Posted by Dan C. on

by R.C. Sproul

The New Testament tells us that we are not to be conformed to this world but that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12:2).

Let’s look at those two words that are crucial to that discussion in Scripture, the difference between conformity and transformation. The prefix con-means “with.” And so to conform to this world means literally to be with it. That’s one of the strongest drives and temptations that we have as Christians. Nobody wants to be out of it; we want to be “with it.” We want to be up-to-date. We want to fit in. And we’re often engulfed by peer pressure that wants us to imitate and participate in all of the structures and the styles of this world. The Bible says we are not to be conformed to the patterns of this world.

Now, when we hear that as Christians, so often we think that all we have to do is to become obvious nonconformists. So if the world wears buttons and bows, we don’t wear buttons and bows, or if the world wears lipstick, we don’t wear lipstick. We try to show ways in which we are different from the world. But that’s not what the Bible is talking about. It’s not just a matter of being different from the world; we are to go beyond nonconformity to transformation. That fits with everything the Scripture tells us of being salt and light to the world. Something that is transformed is something that is changed. The prefix trans-means “above and beyond.” We are to be above and beyond the standards of this world, not in the sense that we are to elevate ourselves in lofty status above everybody else, but that we are called to a more excellent way of life.

That doesn’t mean you drop out of the world; this world is my Father’s world, and this is the arena of God’s redemption. The tendency has always been to flee from the world and hide in the upper room, but God the Holy Spirit won’t tolerate that. He sends his people into the world. Luther said it this way: “There’s a normal pattern for Christian behavior. The person who’s converted out of the world spends his first days as a Christian in a tendency to completely withdraw from the world, as Paul went to Arabia, for example, or we might have a desire to be so far removed from the stains and the pollution of this world that we become monastic in our thinking—withdrawing, stepping out of the world altogether.”

But Luther said a Christian doesn’t reach maturity until he reenters the world and embraces the world again, not in its worldliness and its ungodly patterns but as the theater and the arena of God’s redemption. That’s what Jesus did; he went into the world in order to save the world. This world is the world that God has committed himself to renew and redeem, and we are to participate in that with him.

What Is Successful Evangelism?

Posted by Dan C. on

“Evangelism is a work of communication in which Christians make themselves mouth pieces of God’s message of mercy to sinners. Anyone who faithfully delivers that message, in a small meeting, from a pulpit, or in a private conversation, is evangelizing. The way to tell whether you are in fact evangelizing is not to ask whether conversions are known to have resulted from your witness. It is to ask whether you are faithfully making known the gospel message.”  – J. I. Packer

Consider for a moment the accounts of both Peter’s and Stephen’s proclamation to the Jews, recorded in the Book of Acts.

Peter

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:36-41 ESV)

Stephen

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” (Acts 7:51-53 ESV)

“Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:54-59 ESV)

Peter and Stephen preached the same hard message to both groups of Jews – that the Jesus they had crucified was the long awaited Messiah. Neither man minced words. Under the leading and power of the Holy Spirit, they accused their listening audiences that they had murdered their Savior. After Peter’s sermon, the listeners were cut to the heart and 3,000 were saved. After Stephen’s sermon an enraged crowd stoned Stephen to death.

Did Peter succeed and Stephen fail? Perhaps by the ‘head counting’ standards used in our day, but not by God’s standard!

Success in evangelism is measured by our faithfulness in delivering the unvarnished message that Christ died for OUR sin and was raised from the dead. to the glory of God, so that men and women who repent and believe the gospel would also be raised from spiritual death to spiritual life, and one day be raised physically to be with their Lord forever. God is in charge of the result.

Biblically Correct Evangelism Starts With . . .

Posted by Dan C. on

by Martyn Lloyd-Jones

All you do in evangelism, some say, is to call people to ‘come to Christ’, and you offer forgiveness. You call upon them to ‘decide for Christ’. They generally go on to say that if you afterwards go to the other meetings you will learn a deeper doctrine, a profound truth; but in an evangelistic meeting there is only a simple message – it is "Come to Jesus; come to Christ, decide for Him. If you want forgiveness, here it is". Now as I understand [Romans 6:17 (But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.) ], such teaching is not only dangerous, but utterly un-scriptural. That is why this matter is of such tremendous importance. That is not the message the Roman Christians had believed, otherwise Paul could not have drawn these great deductions from it. What then is it? ‘The form of doctrine delivered them’ was the full doctrine that Paul had been elaborating on throughout this Epistle to the Romans – nothing less. The message of evangelism is a message that starts with man in sin under the wrath of a holy God.

Paul starts with that way back in chapter 1, in verses 16, 17, and 18. "I’m not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith. For (because) the wrath of God is (already) revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold (down) the truth in unrighteousness." That is an essential part of the message.

You can not skate lightly over and around sin in evangelism, and say to people "do not bother about repentance now. Come to Christ first, you can repent afterwards." No! The doctrine of sin is a vital part of this ‘form of doctrine’ [mentioned in Romans 6:17] that produces the amazing result. We all have to see ourselves under condemnation, bound for hell, hopeless and helpless in sin and under the wrath of god. We have to see the foul, terrible nature of such a condition, its slavery to sin and Satan, and the terrible end to which it inevitably leads. That is part of the message.

Then comes the utter hopeless of all human striving and effort to achieve salvation. it took Paul most of chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Romans to unfold this aspect of the doctrine. The Gentiles with their philosophy cannot deliver themselves, neither can the Jew, the man who boasted that because he had the Law a happy future was assured to him. ‘No’, says Paul, "you are no better than the Gentile. Knowledge of the law does not save; you have to keep the Law." So he concludes "that there is no difference; all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". The whole human race has failed. You cannot save yourself. It matters not at all how good and moral and excellent and religious you may be. This counts for nothing. Whether you are circumcised or not does not matter; and all mortality is useless in and of itself. man by his own effort cannot save himself. Paul elaborates the teaching to remind them of it, and to confirm them in it.

This is all a part of evangelism. Evangelism does not consist in telling stories and playing on people’s emotions, and then pressing them to a decision at the end without any true knowledge on their part of what they are doing. No, But it is the outlining of this ‘form of doctrine’, this message, this truth. Then you go on to tell them that from this complete hopelessness and helplessness and despair God has provided a way of escape: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood". That is the message, that is the "form of doctrine that has been delivered". That is the immediate agency that produces this great change

Evangelistic Thoughts

Posted by Dan C. on

“If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on public preaching of ‘the plan of salvation’ in America for one to two years. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airwaves and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God, and the Law of God until sinners would cry out, ‘What must we do to be saved?" Then I would take them off in a corner and whisper the gospel to them. Don’t use John 3:16. Such drastic action is needed because we have a gospel hardened generation of sinners by telling them how to be saved before they have any understanding why they need to be saved.”  – Paris Reidhead

“The gospel of submission, commitment, decision, and victorious living is not good news about what God has achieved but a demand to save ourselves with God’s help. Besides the fact that Scripture never refers to the gospel as having a personal relationship with Jesus nor defines faith as a decision to ask Jesus to come into our heart, this concept of salvation fails to realize that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified coheir with Christ and adopted child of the Father.”  – Michael S. Horton

“Let eloquence be flung to the dogs rather than souls be lost. What we want is to win souls. They are not won by flowery speeches.”  – Charles H. Spurgeon

“Our business is to present the Christian faith clothed in modern terms, not to propagate modern thought clothed in Christian terms. Confusion here is fatal.” – J. I. Packer

“The Holy Spirit can’t save saints or seats. If we don’t know any non-Christians, how can we introduce them to the Savior?” – Paul Little

“Evangelism is not salesmanship It is not urging people, pressing them, coercing them, overwhelming them, or subduing them. Evangelism is telling a message. Evangelism is reporting good news.” -  Richard C. Halverson

“Love your fellowmen, and cry about them if you cannot bring them to Christ. If you cannot save them, you can weep over them. If you cannot give them a drop of cold water in hell, you can give them your heart’s tears while they are still in this body.” – C. H. Spurgeon

“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46)”  ― Jesus Christ

Top 10 Worst Bible Passages

Posted by Dan C. on

Readers of the humorous Christian website shipoffools.com were asked to submit their ‘favourite’ worst verses to compile the list, in a light-hearted project called Chapter & Worse.  It’s an interesting list:

This is the top 10 list in full:

No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

I’ve heard most of these, but was surprised that the #1 verse was on the list until I realized that the original site is visited mostly by Christians. Many of them are used by non-Christians as excuses for continuing in rebellion against God, but they are also problematic for Christians to explain to the same non-believers.

Online Source

Divine Sovereignty Versus Pragmatism

Posted by Dan C. on

What does God’s sovereignty have to do with the subject of this book? Everything. The very reason many contemporary churches embrace pragmatic methodology is that they lack any understanding of God’s sovereignty in the salvation of the elect. They lose confidence in the power of God to use the preached gospel to reach hardened unbelievers. That’s why they approach evangelism as a marketing problem. Their methodology is shaped accordingly.

More than thirty years ago, J. I. Packer wrote,

If we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the gospel is preached, we shall start to think that it is our responsibility to secure them. And if we forget that only God can give faith, we shall start to think that the making of converts depends, in the last analysis, not on God, but on us, and that the decisive factor is the way in which we evangelize. And this line of thought, consistently followed through, will lead us far astray.

Let us work this out. If we regarded it as our job, not simply to present Christ, but actually to produce converts—to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also successfully—our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and calculating. We should conclude that our basic equipment, both for personal dealing and for public preaching, must be twofold. We must have, not merely a clear grasp of the meaning and application of the gospel, but also an irresistible technique for inducing a response. We should, therefore, make it our business to try and develop such a technique. And we should evaluate all evangelism, our own and other people’s, by the criterion, not only of the message preached, but also of visible results. If our own efforts were not bearing fruit, we should conclude that our technique still needed improving. If they were bearing fruit, we should conclude that this justified the technique we had been using. We should regard evangelism as an activity involving a battle of wills between ourselves and those to whom we go, a battle in which victory depends on our firing off a heavy enough barrage of calculated effects.

What Packer was warning against is exactly the kind of thinking that has given rise to the user-friendly church and its market-driven, pragmatic philosophy.

Actually, the pragmatic approach to ministry is nothing new. It has roots deep in American church history. The main  was not made by Harry Emerson Fosdick, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, or any other contemporary advocate of pragmatism. They, along with others, have followed the influence of another man—early nineteenth-century evangelist Charles G. Finney.

Charles Finney got off on the wrong foot when he dismissed the orthodox view of divine election as “an exercise of arbitrary sovereignty.” He rejected the doctrine that conversion is wholly a work of God. He taught instead that faith is fundamentally a human decision and that salvation is secured by the sinner’s own movement toward God.

Although Finney’s fundamental theological error was his rejection of God’s sovereignty, that led inevitably to other errors in his teaching. He concluded that people are sinners by choice, not by nature. He believed the purpose of evangelism should therefore be to convince people to choose differently—or as many would say today, “make a decision for Christ.” The sinner’s choice—not God’s—therefore became the determinative issue in conversion. The means of moving out of darkness into light was in Finney’s opinion nothing more than a simple act of the human will. The preacher’s task was to secure a decision of faith, applying whatever means proved useful. Finney introduced “new measures” (unconventional methodology) into his ministry, often using techniques whose sole design was to shock and intrigue apathetic churchgoers. He was willing to implement virtually any means that would elicit the desired response from his audiences.

Charles Finney’s approach to ministry thus foreshadowed and laid the foundation for modern pragmatism. His teaching and his methods have colored much of American evangelism for the past century and a half. He could rightly be called the father of evangelical pragmatism. The modern market-driven ministry is simply a culmination of the movement Finney began (see Appendix 2). We would expect those who reject the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty to follow Finney, but not those who say they affirm it. Their pragmatism becomes a denial of their theology—a kind of spiritual schizophrenia.

____________________

The above is an Excerpt From Ashamed of the Gospel:  When the Church Becomes Like the World  (page 167), Dr. John MacArthur

Sinner, Save Thyself!

Posted by Dan C. on

If most of today’s evangelistic efforts were summarized into a succinct sentence, it might be the title of this post – “Sinner, save thyself!”

Before you think me off my rocker, hear me out. You might change your mind, as well as your approach to evangelism (if you are engaged in that noble endeavor).

I make my assertion based largely on the very vocabulary we use! If and when we get to the point when we feel comfortable inviting non-believers to the Cross of Christ we way things like:

“Would you like to ask/have you ‘asked Jesus into your heart?”

“Would you like to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior?”

“If you choose to follow Jesus. . . .”

“Do you feel Jesus knocking on the door of your heart? Why don’t you just open that door and let him in?”

I even heard a dear family friend once exclaim “I didn’t know it was that easy to save yourself!” when she was told that because she accepted Jesus she was saved. I believe this friend is indeed a Christian for several reasons, and at the same time I think that the exclamation is a quite logical response, given the circumstances of the conversation.

I also know that some of us (evangelicals) believe that it is an individual’s personal natural free will decision that actually determines salvation, although had Christ not gone to the Cross salvation would not be possible for anyone. In other words, God made it possible for us to find salvation, and we ‘close the deal’, so to speak. It is widely assumed we all have the same degree of ‘free will’ possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall.

Without getting into any doctrinal issues around that assumption, it exists all across Christendom and colors the majority of today’s evangelistic efforts. We establish warm relationships (a good thing), begin discussing matters spiritual and when the moment has arrived for a decision, we make a statement or ask a question requiring the prospective believer to do something and he/she will be saved!

Now I am not saying that we don’t accept/receive/choose Christ. We are, after all, responsible to do so. However, such language is not found anywhere in evangelistic encounters in the New Testament. The language of the NT is merely to ‘repent and believe the gospel’ (See mark 1:15).

“God doesn’t challenge us to volunteer for Jesus, He commands all people everywhere to repent.” Jim Wilson, Moscow Idaho

I can think of several reasons why we don’t simple use NT evangelism as the model for our own efforts, but it’s not the intent of this post to air my personal opinion. I just wanted to get folks thinking. Are we in fact telling those to whom we witness to ‘save themselves’?

If that’s the case, then we are giving to many ‘a reason to boast’, are we not? And doesn’t that collide with. . .

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,  not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” – Eph 2:8-9

Food for thought . . .

Have a blessed day.

“I am not ashamed of the gospel.”

Posted by Dan C. on

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
(Romans 1:16)

Paul

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God. . .  which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. 
(2 Timothy 1:8, 12)

Paul

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
(Mark 8:38)

Jesus

The Offense of the Gospel

Posted by Dan C. on

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,”

1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV

“A gospel which is after men will be welcomed by men; but the true gospel of the grace of God needs a divine operation upon the heart and mind to make a man willing to receive into his utmost soul such a distasteful truth.

My dear Brethren, do not try to make it tasteful to carnal minds. Hide not the offense of the cross, lest you make it of none effect. The angles and corners of the gospel are its strength: to pare them off is to deprive it of power. Toning down is not the increase of strength, but the death of it.

Learn, then, that if you take Christ out of Christianity, Christianity is dead. If you remove grace out of the gospel, the gospel is gone. If the people do not like the doctrine of grace, give them all the more of it. Whenever its enemies rail at a certain kind of gun, a wise military power will provide more of such artillery.

A great general, going in before his king, stumbled over his own sword. I see, said the king, your sword in is the way. The warrior answered, Your majesty’s enemies have often felt the same. That our gospel offends the King’s enemies is no regret to us”. – C. H.Spurgeon, 1834-1692

_________________________

“There is no offense whatsoever in going to India, into the heart of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam and declaring that we are there to talk about social justice and public policy and the concerns of poverty. There is no shame in that.

All of the shame lies in going there to declare that Jesus is Sovereign Lord, He is the Savior, and He is the only way. And it is that message which is foolishness in India and foolish in America, which is the message that we have been called to proclaim and to live, and the implications of which put the foot down in the realm of justice and in the concerns of poverty and so on.

But I have a sneaking suspicion and an increasingly deep-seated concern that there is here in North America a growing loss of confidence in the Bible itself as the unerring word of God and an increasing willingness to play fast and loose with the uniqueness of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, and to the extent that that is true, the cutting edge of world evangelization is radically affected.” – Alistair Begg, 1952 – Present

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

1 Corinthians 1:22-25 ESV

Should Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well be our ‘model’ for evangelism?

Posted by Dan C. on

I ask the question because I am often told that Jesus’ personal encounters with people he touched in the New Testament, especially the woman at the well in Samaria should be the evangelistic model that we also use to share the message of the gospel.

First of all let me say that all of the accounts of Jesus recorded in the New Testament in which he fed people, forgave sin, healed, raised the dead, taught a principle, or whatever, are all ‘gospel’.

I also think that we have, two principal ‘models’ for presenting the message of the gospel – Jesus’ example and the post-resurrection/Pentecost example of Paul and the Apostles. They are distinctly different ‘models’ and, I think, for good reason.

First and rather obvious is the post-resurrection model based on the definition of the gospel as "Christ died for our sins, was buried, and resurrected…" contains elements that would have in the ‘future’ while Jesus was still walking around feeding, healing, raising dead folks, and teaching Kingdom principles. Can you imagine Jesus meeting someone and saying:

"Hello, I’m Jesus and I’m going to die for your sins, stay in my grave for a few days and then rise for the dead, just for you!"

It’s also important to remember the purpose of all the feeding, healing, raising from the dead, and teaching that Jesus did had the purpose of identifying Him as the long promised messiah; a promise known to even the Samaritans, who were considered persona non grata by religious Jews.

Immediately prior to His resurrection, Jesus promised ‘power’ to carry out the mission to be Christ’s witnesses to Jerusalem, Samaria and beyond. It’s only natural that the message would become more than one about Jesus’ activities during His three short ministry years. After Jesus’ resurrection, the gospel message became much bigger! Jesus followers could now proclaim "Christ died for OUR sins!"

During His life, Jesus demonstrated love and compassion while demonstrating that He was indeed the Messiah, the Christ, the Deliverer. What that mean to the Jewish masses was however a differently deliverer; another temporal King David. That dream was shattered at Calvary, but a bigger dream was realized, permanent forgiveness for sin because of Jesus’ perfect life and sacrifice for our sin instead of temporary atonement based on the ritual sacrifices of men.

Because of Christ’s death for the sins of His people, exactly as announced to Joseph before Jesus’ birth, the gospel to be preached in Jerusalem, Samaria and beyond is exactly as Paul unashamedly preached:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

(1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)

When we examine the growth of the church recorded in the New Testament beginning with the book of Acts, the evangelistic ‘model’ we see is the proclamation of Christ’s death for sin, personal repentance and belief in Christ as the substitutionary sacrifice for OUR sin. That seems to be it. We do see the miraculous, but as means of authenticating the Apostles’ ministry just as Jesus performed miracles primarily to announce His divinity. Discussing sin, and we must, carries with it the probability of also addressing the topics of God’s justice, eternal punishment, and the prospect of Hell; all of which are offensive to every unbeliever except those with ‘God-opened’ hearts. That probably means that many more will find your message offensive than will welcome it.

What about our evangelistic ‘models’? I find many who delight in sharing Christ and gospel, who completely omit the topics of sin, God’s justice and judgment. Or, they place the issue of sin on the back burner as a background thought while using the temporal benefits of belief in Christ as the primary message, using Jesus’ encounters with people as their model for evangelism. Jesus seemed to place sin on the back burner, didn’t he? He didn’t mention sin to the woman at the well until after his discussion with her about living water. Case closed!

IS the cased ‘closed’?

Before you answer, consider that Jesus knew the heart of the woman at the well, as he did the hearts of all the others to whom he demonstrated love and compassion. He spoke of sin to some, but not to others. He knew who was already dealing with sin issues and who was not. He knew who would just walk away happy and healed and who return to give thanks and worship Him. He knew all of these things. Save for the possibility of supernatural ‘discernment’, such as that of Peter confronting Ananias and Sapphira, as well as Simon the sorcerer, we do not. Also consider that just as Paul and the Apostles, we live in a post-resurrection, post-Pentecost world. In other words, our ‘evangelistic’ climate is exactly the same as when the early church was in its infancy! There have been technological advances and cultural/societal changes, but lost men are still lost for the same reason – unbelief, with the same issue – sin.

We love the examples of others we can adopt as models for our own behavior. It’s not a bad idea, and often we do just that. Why re-invent the wheel? Find a good process and if it’s the ‘best practice’, go for it!

When it comes to sharing the message of the gospel, we have two great models, Jesus himself and the Apostles who were sent by Christ to ‘grow’ the church Jesus was, and even now is, building.

So back to our original question. . .

Should Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well be our ‘model’ for evangelism?

I’ll leave it at that and pray that God bless your sharing of His gospel!