Home

"Focus on the Family" Article

What Students and Leaders Say

A Pastor's Story

What's So Special About Youth EE?

Clinician Stories

BACK

Submitted by:
Richard Bond
Vice President/Youth EE

The theological basis for relational evangelism comes from a perspective on the doctrine of the incarnation. In John 1:14, we read that “...the word of God became flesh and dwelt among us”. The Greek term for flesh, here, is sarx, which is used when referring to flesh, muscles, tissue and the like. The implication is that the Jesus who was born, was a human being through and through. The term, “incarnation” is taken from the Greek word, “in carne” or literally, “in the flesh”.

Yet at the very same time Jesus was and is also fully, God. To put it another way, God, not ceasing to be God, became a human. To diminish either characteristic in our understanding of Jesus, leads us to heresy. Indeed, at different times in our church history theologians have erred in both directions, and much to their eventual demise. It is not the purpose, here, to go into all of the negative ramifications of such errors, but only to say that a Biblically healthy view of the incarnation includes fully both the human and divine character of Christ, except of course, that He was without sin.

Relational evangelism emphasizes that the incarnation is the ultimate example of God initiating personal, intimate contact with mankind in the context of a relationship. In Christ, we have “...the visible expression of the invisible God”. (Colossians 3:15 JBP) We can “Behold the glory of the Father” because Jesus came to us “in the flesh” In John's Epistle, (I John 1) he emphasizes that they had their senses exposed to Jesus (we have heard, seen and touched Him). Through the incarnation the Infinite God became the Infinite Personal God. It is also interesting to note that the term, “dwelt” in John 1:14 is an Aramaic term which is translated, “pitching one's tent.” The imagery is rich, as we have a Savior who did not merely put in an appearance for an hour or a day, but who “pitched his tent” among the human race, consenting to “make Himself nothing." (Phil. 2:7)

This is the truth of the incarnation that gives relational evangelism its methodology for reaching the lost. As God personally brought the Good News to mankind, so we are to “incarnate” Christ to the lost, that is, to penetrate, (pitch our tent) significantly into the lives of the non-Christian for the purpose of not only verbalizing the Gospel but also to live it before them. As Christ lives His life through the believer, they see the “visible expression of the invisible God” as well as hearing the Word of salvation.

Relational evangelism looks to the life and actions of Jesus as the role model. While there are examples from scripture where Jesus did not need a long period of time to “build a relationship” with a person in order to present the Gospel, there are likewise abundant examples of building relationships with people and of taking the initiative in conversations. In the opening chapters of the Gospel of John we see Jesus going to a wedding feast where there were a lot of people, among them, folks who had no idea who He was. I would suggest that many of those people would not have wandered into the temple or in some other way placed themselves near Jesus on their own. He went to where they congregated.

He stayed up late at night to speak with Nicodemus. He went where no self respecting Jew would have gone, into Samaria, and in the process no doubt assisted in the “downfall” of his reputation in order to reach out to a Samaritan woman who was of ill repute. He consorted with the poor, the sick, with tax collectors and all sorts of sinners. In short, it could be argued that His strategy was to GO.

The implications of this strategy are far reaching for relational evangelism. As Jesus went, He did not just preach the Word and give signs of His authority through His miracles, He literally penetrated the life and culture of the people. Effective evangelists, then, must be prepared to penetrate deeply into the culture of the lost, yet, at the same time not be contaminated by it. Some Christians would rather avoid the possibility of contamination of the worldly culture and will tend to establish a "fortress mentality" attitude toward evangelism. Indeed, there is a balancing act, being in the world yet not of the world. The Christian witness must be willing to spend whatever time and energy that is necessary with non-Christians in order to build a genuine relationship with them. Once accomplished, the “right has been won” to share the Gospel.

The major problem with relational evangelism often lies in the lack of ability of the witness to discern when the relationship has been sufficiently developed to effectively share the Gospel. Hence, we hear the criticism: “relational evangelism is 90% relational and 10% evangelism”. I would suggest that the error is not in the approach to the lost, but rather in the lack of using opportunities when they present themselves.

From my experience, there are vast numbers of people who do not require a great deal of relationship building in order to obtain a productive atmosphere for sharing the Gospel. However, there are also vast numbers of people who do require time and effort in order to establish a needed level of trust before they are willing to hear something that they view as deeply personal as how to have an intimate faith in God. For these people, a questionnaire or a brief introduction section of the EE Presentation will not be enough. In fact, in EE we teach that to push a person that is not ready to hear the Gospel can do great harm.

By seeking to incorporate a more relational approach to people, EE would position itself to be more effective with a wider variety of non-Christians. This would make a strong impact, I think, as we teach “Evangelism as a Lifestyle”, because the hard task of building trusting relationships will already have been accomplished. At this point we should be cautious not to fall into the trap of weak relational evangelism that “wins the right to be heard”, then never uses that opportunity.

The biggest roadblock in sensitizing EE witnesses to a more relational style is that many lack relational skills in ordinary circumstances, in the first place. Many have difficulty relating to non-Christians on even casual levels. Those skilled in relational evangelism understand that it is necessary to be genuinely interested in the secular world of non-believers. There is a tendency to merely feign interest and thereby attempt to short circuit the process. Often there is not enough patience to "go the distance" with hard-to-reach people and some wonder if all the effort is worthwhile when there are so many others who are already responsive to hearing the Gospel. It may be, that out of such frustration people criticize relational evangelism, that it does not produce results quickly enough.

To simplify the discussion, let us consider that there are only two possible evangelism strategies available to us: relational evangelism, and EE. Because relational evangelism reaches many that would not be approachable through EE, the emphasis should be both, not either/or. That is, both approaches are valid and one may be more effective than the other, depending on the person and the situation. Most of us tend to think our way of witnessing is the most effective, but rather than criticizing the other approach we should attempt to incorporate some of the principles of that strategy to strengthen our own.

When the Apostle Paul told the Christians in Thessalonica that, (I Thes. 2:8) “...it was a joy to give you, not only the Gospel, but our lives as well, so dear did you become to us”, I believe he was referring to deep, personal and significant relationships that he had made in the process of sharing the Gospel.

For another article on Incarnational Evangelism, go to;

Incarnational Evangelism

BACK