Is evangelism necessary?
Christian theology allows for the possibility that people will somehow respond to the gospel in this life without having consciously done so. Paul says that those who reject God will be without excuse; if one had to actually hear the gospel in order to accept salvation, then one might reasonably wonder why not hearing it in the first place doesn't count as excuse enough. Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness, and yet he had not so much as sniffed a Jack Chick evangelisation tract. The biblical God responds to the movements of the heart, and some such movements are salvatory, it seems, irrespective of the theological content of the brain. So the question arises: is evangelism, strictly speaking, necessary? I'd like to look at some reasons why, even if it isn't absolutely necessary to have heard the Christian gospel in order to approach God, it is nevertheless important for Christians to spread the gospel message, perhaps through long-winded blogs with endearing pictures. The first one is this: Even if you can approach the Christian God without knowing the Christian message, there is a sense in which unless you’ve heard the Christian gospel, you can’t know what kind of God you’re approaching. It is customary for Christians to say that God loves us. It is probably true to say that he loves us unconditionally. In at least one sense, though, it is not the whole truth. God’s love, if I'm reading my bible the right way up, is not the kind that doesn’t really mind what we get up to. He is, if I might so put it, infinitely sensitive to us; which is the precise opposite of being laissez-faire. The God of the bible has his own standards, of course. We can’t meet them, of course. Such is the fix we’re in. But it is a mistake to think that a God who combines omniscience with intense love will simply accept us no matter what we do - as though we're simply interesting bacteria in a large petri dish. We have responsibilities, and these responsibilities are as real as God. Such is the awful dignity of being made in his image. I’ve never understood the mechanics, but I do know that the Christian message is that God is willing – he told Julian of Norwich it is his perpetual delight – not to ignore but to bear our offences rather than demand that we try to meet his standards. He knows better than to expect us to achieve parity with our maker. But only in the historical Jesus can we see just what it means to bear our offences. Reject the picture of God that the Passion paints, if you like; but it is Christianity's distinctive picture of God. Until we behold the flesh and blood Galilean hanging on a cross, we won’t ever see in real terms how the God of the Christian creeds feels about us: the fusion of love and agony. We will never be able to approach this God in the one way that could really work, that could get us from where we are to where he is. That is, we could never approach him on the basis of a divine condescension that shoulders the pain that we cannot help but cause him. The cross is both the symbol and the actualisation of the one thing that we must accept in order to draw near to the God of Christianity: the fact that we meet him not on the basis of obeying his rules, or of getting a wink and a free pass, but on the foundation of a gratuitous love that only embraces us because it suffers us. Christianity starts with the horrible truth that we are what God loves but cannot touch; he takes us into his hands as nails. But he takes us nonetheless. To really enter this particular God’s love, we have to see what it is that we’re entering. Otherwise we could end up somewhere else. To try to enter this love on the basis of our own worthiness, or on the grounds that God must be too nice to turn us away, is to try to enter a different kind of love, or I suppose a different God. You might say that hell is this different kind of love, or the love of a different god; and the damned are those who settle eternally together on their idol’s altar, wondering why it’s so cold.
Comments
In Christ, we all become 'one body'. We participate in the body and in the life of the Church.
The question should be 'What is (or should be) the mission of the church?' What are the roles of the church - worship, sacraments, fellowship of believers, social action and mission/evangelism?
How do we communicate God's love both to those individuals around us and to wider society?
That's an important point, Murray. Individualism is implicit in the approach of the evangelical church. (I remember reading a Homer Rogers book when I was a rabid young evangelical and thinking, 'What?') We evangelicals tend to think of the sacramental communions as fatally lacking our focus on having 'Jesus as my personal saviour,' not understanding that those churches are steeped in a corporate understanding of salvation, and that they often find 'me and Jesus' rhetoric plain embarrassing. So many doctrines, from the idea of priests to veneration of Mary come to life when one truly thinks of the church as a body.
But evangelical ecclesiology is pretty weedy. The current focus on 'apostolic ministries' (based on directly-bestowed charisms rather than apostolic succession) leaves me cold, for a reason I can't quite put my finger on. I think that if you're going to reject the idea of apostolic succession, but you want to install a working ecclesiology, you'd be better off with an one based on 'where two or three are gathered in my name...' and, 'By this will all men know that you are my disciples - that you love one another'.
I'm inclined to think that the non-trad protestant churches act as a sort of 'scab' - they rush in to fill the wound between the divided parts of the church catholic (roman, orthodox, coptic etc) who accept each other's apostolic validity but don't drink each other's wine. (I'd love to hear your views on apostolic succession vis a vis the anglican communion, by the way - I'm utterly confused about that whole issue - I want to believe that anglicanism is legit, but I keep encountering heavyweight RCs who say otherwise.) Anyway, that's why evangelical protestantism is so fissiparous - it's a scab that has formed where churches of the 'corporate' model of salvation have split; its matter is composed of fervour; it aggressively preserves the essential paradoxes of Christianity (law and grace, inspired scripture and human inscripturation, Jesus' manhood and deity) and it exerts on the traditional communions the pressure to be as passionate as they are orthodox. As such, it is vital. But 'free church' protestantism won't fulfil its destiny until it has helped heal the schism between the apostolic communions. IMHO...
I'm drawn to (radical Lutheran) Gerhard Forde's idea about being the ones who dare to proclaim the gospel that everyone - Christian and non-Christian alike - is terrified of: the gospel of absolutely free grace purchased by Christ's suffering and death alone. That is, the gospel of 'there is now no condemnation...' Not sure where the idea of 'corporate salvation' fits into that, though.
Thanks for that one, not easy. I'll answer, but I'm only a servant sat in the pews I have no authority...
1) As discussed in previous threads, the 'Anglican Communion' includes a wide range of beliefs, from Anglo-Catholic to evangelical. Is the church 'protestant' or 'catholic'? - I think is a major problem for the Roman Catholic church because it makes it difficult to formulate one policy.
2) The Church of England, continues the tradition established by both the celtic saints and the mission of Saint Augustine from the Pope (hence apostlic). There are other complicated arguments about other links with other history apostolic churches that also enhanced the apostolic links. But I acknowledge that Roman Catholics and probably Orthodox would argue that the succession was broken by the action of Henry VIII and the protestant reformation. But many in the church would argue that we are a 'reformed' catholic church and that we continue that tradition.
3) The Orthodox Church who did not accept many of the practices of medieval catholicism and who reject the more extreme 'monarchy' aspects of the papacy have in more recent history had good relations with many in the Anglican Communion. Their 'autocephalous' church structure is more similar to the Anglican Communion. They lack the massive 'roman curia' and central administrative principles and also view the Pope as 'the first amongst equals'. Potentially relations between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church could be more difficult to resolve.
4) In practical terms the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church now share the same church calendar and festival days (the majority) and use the same lectionary! There is more shared use of hymns, music, worship and prayer. Over the last fifty years the changes on the ground have been significant as have the increased co-operation at local level between the priests. Although all this should not disguise the many problems and many difficulties.
5) I have heard many different arguments about the ordination of women priests within the Anglican communion and whether it has finally made communion with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches impossible forever. I do not know, forever is a long time and church history unveils itself slowly.
6) Time scales are long within the church and there has been a separation between Orthodox and Rome for nearly a thousand years, that is not going to me mended quickly but there is an increase in dialogue and a common understanding that it is a major problem in Christ's church if it cannot speak with one voice the rest of the world.
7) One should also not forget that within English culture 'catholic' and 'Pope' are still very evocative words and provoke surprising reactions from people. I am sure this is also true for many Roman Catholics when they consider 'protestant' churches. Understanding, co-operation and finally 'communion' will be difficult.
8) I do not think that in the future the differences of doctrine or tradition should be insurmountable. I believe some form of shared communion should be possible and that arguments over apostolic tradition and the validity of holy orders could be overcome.
Sorry went off topic a bit, but needs to be seen in regard to the overall relations between the churches.