Decades ago, Francis Schaeffer wrote, “Pre-Evangelism is no soft option.” His words ring truer than ever. Many people we know find the starting points of our gospel presentations unintelligible, bizarre, overbearing, and certainly unwelcome.
“Would you like to know God personally?” doesn’t carry the same cache it once had. It’s debatable if it ever resonated as much as we thought it did but, for the sake of argument (and the limits of a blog), please go with me on this.
We need to start further back in our conversations before getting to point one of our however-many-points gospel outline. Paul did so when he spoke on Mars Hill (Acts 17) as contrasted to his starting point to the more Biblically literate congregation in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13). And Jesus began further back in his conversation with the woman at the well (John 4) than he did with the religious leader Nicodemus (John 3).
But what does it look like to start further back? What images can we envision to help us move our hearers from “That’s just crazy!” to “Hmmm. Maybe I need to think about this” to “Tell me more.”
I can think of five images that help me as I engage in conversation with outsiders. I’ll offer them one at a time over the next several blogs. But I’ll tease you by stating all five now:
- Leveling the Playing Field
- Stepping on the Clutch before Shifting Gears
- Turning Down the Thermostat
- Taking off the Mask
- Facing in the Same Direction
I’ve written about leveling the playing field elsewhere but it’s such an important practice for pre-evangelism, I want to revisit it here. Many non-Christians feel superior to Christians because they see themselves as more “tolerant” or “open-minded” or “not superstitious.” Some feel morally superior because they see us as homophobic and bigoted. Others feel intellectually superior because they base their beliefs on science and what can be proven and we base our beliefs on faith, something that cannot be proven.
Before we get too far into the conversation, it may be wise to try to level the playing field. Otherwise, we face an uphill battle that may be insurmountable. This is not easy. And in some cases, it requires numerous approaches from a variety of angles. But, until your conversation partner realizes his position is just as narrow as yours, your efforts may not be as effective as you’d like. Similarly, until your skeptical friend admits her reliance on science is a faith position – just like your reliance on the Bible – your words may fall upon deaf ears.
Our attempts may sound something like this:
• “You say that Christians are intolerant. It sounds like you’re intolerant of Christians. Aren’t we both somewhat intolerant?”
• “You say it’s wrong to condemn people for their beliefs. Aren’t you condemning me now for my beliefs?”
• “You asked me if I ever have any doubts. I do. Do you ever have any doubts about your beliefs? I think it would be interesting for us to compare our doubts.”
• “You say that science is a better way to know things than faith is. How do you know that? Or how have you come to that conclusion? Isn’t your trust in science a kind of faith position?”
Again, I acknowledge this may take some time. But I think it’s time well spent. I encourage you to try it out. If you’d like to tell me about your experiences, I’d love to hear about them. Let’s explore this further in future blogs.
