I know plenty of Christians who would like to become better “evangelists” but feel ill-equipped or incapable of sharing their faith with others. Some of these Christians have isolated themselves from the outside world; they live in a Christian “bubble,” so to speak, and have very few (if any) non-Christian contacts. Others have plenty of  non-Christians in their lives but don’t know how to start conversations that allow them to preach the gospel. However, while the isolated Christian may be in a more extreme situation than the one who just doesn’t know how to bring up Jesus in conversation, I think both cases stem from a problem which is relational in nature.

What I mean by this is simple: both Christians who are sheltered from nonbelievers and Christians who simply don’t know what to say to the nonbelievers in their life lack sufficient relationships to effectively lead people to Christ. In the first case, this is obvious. In the second, it is less obvious but, in my mind, accurate; if you don’t know how to turn normal conversation into an opportunity to share your faith with a particular person, you probably don’t know that person very well. I’m not saying you should wait until you could write a biography of that person before you begin evangelizing. However, it is most helpful to build relational capital (which translates into credibility) with your non-Christian friends and get to know them in a way which allows you to effectively critique their personal idols and contextualize the gospel message in a way that they’re more likely to understand and marvel at.

I have found that gospel conversations happen rather naturally with people as I get to know them as close friends. On the other hand, I know plenty of non-Christians with whom I’m a little uncomfortable when it comes to talking about my faith; I’m not sure how to approach the situation or go about evangelizing those acquaintances of whom I know little. This doesn’t mean I avoid tough conversations, but it does mean that I would do well to get to know these people and form deeper, more meaningful relationships with them.  But how? What are some practical ways I can get to know the nonbelievers in my life?

First, building meaningful relationships with nonbelievers requires quite a bit of time. A cup of coffee (or, if you’re like me, beer) every month or so usually won’t cut it. If I am truly trying to get to know someone and build relational capital with them, I want to come as close to living everyday life with them as possible. This may mean sacrificing my time, energy, and even money at times, but unless I’m willing to give a person a ride to work (even if I’d rather be at home watching movies) or feed them a meal (even if it means making an extra run to the grocery)—unless I’m willing to inconvenience myself for the sake of others—it is quite difficult to expect to have any significant impact in their lives.

With that being said, starting the process of building relationships with non-Christians isn’t as tricky as one might think. It requires a great deal of intentionality, but it doesn’t mean quitting your job and leaving the church just so you can spend time with nonbelievers. Instead, we should try to live missionally in everyday life; as we go about our normal, often mundane routines, we should always be thinking about the spread of the gospel. There are many practical things Christians can do to structure their lives in order to become more missional; with most of us, a few minor tweaks could make a world of difference. Therefore, without further ado, I’ve come up with a list of simple ways Christians can “tweak” their everyday lives to be more missional and build meaningful relationships with the non-Christians around them. If each of us did just one or two of these things, I think we’d be in much better shape when it comes to evangelism and mission.

Seven Ways to Live Missionally in Everyday Life

1. Find a coffee shop close to your home (preferably within walking distance, if possible) and frequent it on a regular basis (at least weekly, if not daily or almost every day). Get to know the staff and other regular customers; sit down with your coffee and read the paper there rather than getting it “to go” if at all possible.
   …
2. Join a club of some sort. It could be a gym, a parenting group, or an art class. Find something you love and you’ll meet plenty of non-Christians who share some of the same passions. Shared affinities go a long way in developing relationships.
   …
3. When you have to run errands, invite people along. You’d be surprised what people are willing to do when they’re bored! Try shopping with a non-Christian friend as you get to know him/her; it may even turn into a regular event. Or, if you’re having a cleaning day at your home, ask a friend if they’d like to come over to help. You can have quality time with other people even if you don’t see room for it in your schedule!
   …
4. Eat regularly at a certain restaurant or restaurants in your area; be consistent and do your best to go on the same night at about the same time if you can, trying to get the same server each time (and tip well, for God’s sake!).
   …
5. Get outside; go to parks, go on walks, or spend time in the yard. If you live in the city, try to walk to nearby places as much as possible. You’ll be amazed at how quickly faces become familiar. People who are outdoors are often very sociable and friendly.
   …
6. Attend neighborhood events and block parties whenever possible, even if you don’t know anyone else who’s going. If there aren’t any in your area, consider starting one.
   …
7. Have your neighbors over for dinner. Sure, it will be awkward at first if you don’t know them very well, but it can be a great way to open the door to otherwise hard-to-reach people. There are plenty of folks you may not see out and about but could become good friends once you break the ice and get them to come out of their shell. Inviting people into your home and showing them hospitality is a great demonstration of the gospel, as well.

For introverts like me, getting to know strangers isn’t always easy, and I know that many of us have complicated lives with families and rigid schedules that only add to our difficulty. However, if we live with intention, to the extent which our lives allow, I think much hardship can be averted. I fear that sometimes we’re so obsessed with figuring out how we can turn a conversation into an opportunity to preach that we often forget the importance of meaningful relationships and neglect to invest in building them. However, if we were only better at making friends, perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry so much about coming up with sneaky transitions into evangelism. We need to lay off the bait and switch, knock it off with the marketing, and stop making excuses for our laziness when it comes to programming mission into our daily lives. I, foremost of all, have fallen far short in this respect and can do nothing but pray for the Lord to change my heart and resolve to commit myself more fully to the mission of God, only by his wondrous grace.

 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,  explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things.

Acts 17:1-8 (ESV)

As of late, I’ve been reading The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, where Lesslie Newbigin very clearly articulates the tension between the need to relate to society and the danger of becoming subject to society; in this respect, the phrase “in the world but not of the world” may easily come to mind. Christians have a definite responsibility to engage the world around them as well as the solemn warning to remain “unpolluted by the world” (James 1:27). The question that must be asked is this: how can Christians effectively reach out to their culture without bowing down to its idols?

Newbigin points out that society is—and always has been—subject to what sociologist Peter Berger has called “plausibility structures,”certain frameworks of belief and practice which determine the validity of the various ideas and truth claims one might encounter (8). For centuries, the reigning plausibility structure has been the modern, rationalistic metanarrative (which only recently has begun to exit Western culture, though it has by no means disappeared entirely). Given this, through some careful introspection Newbigin came to the eventual realization that, in his desire to make Christianity relevant and appealing to modern minds, he had begun to “domesticate” the Gospel, attempting to fit it ever so neatly into the dominant plausibility structure which acclaimed reason and science as the only legitimate means of discovering truth (3).

This sheds light on how much of modern Biblical “scholarship” has been, in essence, nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the radical Gospel message with the plausibility structures of Western society; instead of allowing the Bible to scrutinize us, we have scrutinized it, throwing out so many Scriptural truths simply because they are not “plausible” to us in our modern, rationalistic paradigm.

It hardly needs to be said that the domestication of the Gospel strips it of its very power and thus is not a valid way of fulfilling the Great Commission. It is impossible to make disciples with a tamed, neutered message devoid of any subversion or challenge to existing worldviews. Yet at the same time, sound doctrine, when preached into a vacuum, accomplishes nothing; it is ineffective to merely assert Biblical truths from the street corner without making a responsible effort to impact people’s lives with the Gospel. In fact, the very nature of the Gospel demands that it be used as a sword to cut others to the heart rather than bricks out of which one builds his theological fortress.  As Christians, we have a responsibility not only to preach the Gospel but to make disciples—the application and appropriation of that Gospel to the people around us.

Our goal, then, is not to domesticate the Gospel, but to contextualize the Gospel, just as Paul did. This does not mean we “clean up” the Gospel to make it less offensive to the culture around us; to the contrary, we allow the Gospel to critique and undermine the very idols so enthusiastically worshiped in our culture. This of course requires some tact, and engaging the culture is no easy task; as Jesus said, we must be “shrewd as serpents but innocent as doves,” meaning that we are to be clever and perceptive, yet also above reproach. Our aim should be to participate in culture with the purpose of subversion rather than syncretism; the Gospel radically transforms life as we know it, and thus we should strive to also be known as “men who have turned the world upside down.”

So how can we go about contextualizing the Gospel? First, we cannot allow our Gospel to be viewed through the colored lenses of our society’s plausibility structure. Instead, let us allow our Gospel to be the very lens through which we see and understand all such plausibility structures. In this, we much more equipped for evangelism.

In this respect, it is most helpful to think of the Gospel as the over-arching Biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption and restoration. God created a world which was good (creation) but has since been corrupted by sin (fall). Jesus came to atone for that sin (redemption) and is transforming the brokenness of this earth, until his eschatological return when everything will finally be set right again (restoration). When we think about our current cultural situation as part of this Biblical metanarrative, we can look at the values, institutions, and aspirations of our world and see the corrupting effects of sin in each area.

Communicating how sin has led to brokenness and devastation in our world is a good first step to proclaiming Jesus as the just judge and merciful healer, the agent of true change, and the rightful King who will make all things new when he comes in power. By showing the depravity and fallen nature of those around us, we demonstrate the need for Christ, and by drawing attention to the fact that our cultural standards are far less glorious than those of God, we undermine our society’s flawed system of values. Furthermore, by pointing out how good gifts from God (in creation) have been cheapened, corrupted and ruined (in the fall), we set the stage for God’s answer to the problem we’ve created.

We should ask ourselves three questions.

1. What are the values of our culture, to what extent do they reflect Biblical truth and how do they fall short of God’s standard?
    
2. What are the institutions or systems in our culture, how do they reflect God’s good creation and how have we corrupted them?
    
3. What are the aspirations and desires of our culture, how are they intended to be satisfied in God, and to what has our pursuit of satisfaction elsewhere led us?

In other words, Christians need to be able to demonstrate the difference between agape love and worldly “tolerance;” we must show how worldly standards of peace and non-violence fall short of God’s shalom. The idea is to see how we, as sinful human beings, are too easily pleased in certain worldly standards of “goodness” and how the infinitely good God has a higher, much more beautiful standard which is for our own well-being.

Also, we should show how the institutions of our society fall short of God’s purpose. We should treat marriage as a wonderful gift God has given us for our good—a gift which we have trampled upon, chauvinists and feminists alike. We ought to speak of government and authority structures as systems which, while corrupted by pride, greed and tyranny, were indeed intended for good, to protect the innocent and punish the wicked, with those in high positions serving the lowly.

In addition to this, we must recognize and display how our aspirations and desires are futile apart from Christ; we were created to worship, enjoy, and find complete satisfaction in God. After all, it is God who provides for us and sustains us; it is he—and ultimately he alone—who fulfills our basic human needs and desires for love, security and justice. Though we may try to seek satisfaction elsewhere, by other means (perhaps codependent relationships, the hoarding of wealth or global warfare, for example), we will eventually be left unfulfilled and empty unless we repent and believe in the Gospel.

And the Gospel? Simply put, it’s the overwhelmingly good news that Jesus triumphs in the end. It is the very answer to our broken, fallen world. It is the comforting fact that God, in his transformative power, is in the business of fixing our mistakes, restoring what we’ve destroyed. It’s the sobering message that though we have all rebelled against God’s rightful authority (and thus become his enemies) he has made a way for us to be reconciled.

This Christianity is no mere additive to our modern or postmodern plausibility structure. It is an entirely new plausibility structure which happens to be fundamentally different from anything we’ve ever experienced. We are not trying to force an oddly-shaped puzzle piece into a space in which it simply does not fit, nor are we trimming off the edges of our puzzle piece so that we can make it fit. The fact is that we’re operating with an altogether different puzzle. And what a puzzle it is! The humble are exalted, the exalted are humbled; the meek and mourning and poor in spirit are the very ones who receive blessing! Those who seek to be the greatest must serve the lowly. Those who seek to live must take up their cross and die.

Newbigin puts it quite well: “The Church…as the bearer of the gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure which is at variance with, and which calls in question, those that govern all human cultures without exception” (9). By taking a look at “gospels” of our culture, we may begin to demonstrate their utter failure to bring satisfaction, wholeness, peace, and justice to this world. And in doing this, we hope to lead a downcast, despondent and worn-out society to fall before the Most High God—the very One whose overtures they have so long ignored—in desperate and radical repentance. Let us be known, too, as men who have turned the world upside down.

°Reference: Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989)

In my time in the contemporary church, I’ve experienced several different ecclesiological models and have come to notice that most churches follow (perhaps unknowingly, in some situations) a very simple model  to facilitate both mission and discipleship. I have found it helpful to diagram these models for the sake of better understanding them, and am still in the process of drawing conclusions, at least in some respects. While these diagrammed models and their explanations are largely based upon my personal experience, I want to be clear that I am not criticizing any particular church; if I am critical of a certain model, I do not want people to think I am slamming the Body of Christ. I am trying to figure this out as much as anybody. So, for your consideration, I submit my three diagrams along with the insights I’ve had, in the hope that by sharing my ideas, I may benefit from the critiques and comments of others. 

1. The Linear (“Seeker-Driven”) Model

This model is by far the most common in the contemporary church today, but it is also the model I disagree with the most. Under the “seeker-driven” model, people are drawn to a weekly event (that is, a church service) through attractional “ministries” such as gourmet coffee, high quality music, and various entertaining gimmicks. The idea behind this model is to get as many people to come to a Sunday church service as possible and then try to herd them into small groups, where discipleship takes place. Thus, the mission of the church consists, for the most part, in this attractional method of marketing and promotion. Sunday services are mostly about reaching out to visitors and less about discipling the congregation; therefore it is common to hear topical sermons which are often watered-down from Scripture. This is done intentionally to make visitors feel welcome, in the hope that they may join the church and eventually plug into small groups where they will (ideally speaking) experience spiritual growth.

While this model is effective in bringing in large numbers of people, it also has many flaws, in my view:

• Spiritual growth is viewed as an assembly line, except the machinery often breaks down late in the process; this often means many churchgoers but few who are discipled.
• There is an overall view of “church” as a weekly event, rather than a community of people.
• Visitors to a service are often treated as numbers making up an audience of consumers rather than real people.
• Mission and discipleship are viewed as two separate processes which generally take place through well-orchestrated programs.
• Because of these things, church easily becomes a mere additive to a person’s life, rather than being central to all things.
• As a result, it is more difficult to stir members to participate in evangelism and discipleship; various programs, which try to fix this problem, thus become the lifeblood of the church. 

2. The Cyclical (“Missional Community”) Model

The “missional community” model, however, is a radically different alternative to the “seeker-driven” model of a church. Church is rightly viewed as a community of people rather than a mere event; Sunday services receive much less emphasis and become more like celebrations of family than altar calls. Within the larger church community, however, there are smaller “missional communities” which in many respects are microcosms of the church as a whole, being more than just small groups while still submitting to authority and leaders of the larger church (therefore remaining a little less than house churches). Thus, instead of treating people like consumers, this model treats them like neighbors and seeks to bring them into the community by means of interpersonal relationships, not bells and whistles. This requires that the members of the church take ownership of their faith and responsibility to make disciples, which may prove to be difficult. However, the idea of people reaching people is attractive. Furthermore, discipleship and mission are essentially understood to be two sides to the same process; both are accomplished by preaching the Gospel, which is the necessary curriculum both for believers (members) and unbelievers (non-members). In this way, the “missional community” model of church is cyclical in nature; as people are brought in to the community of faith by means of relationships, they also bring others into the community in the same manner, and the Gospel is preached to all as the source of spiritual growth. 

I feel like this model is pretty solid; I hesitate to say that there are “weaknesses” to it, but I do think that this model makes some things more difficult:

• The success of this model relies heavily on the church members rather than programs or systems. This means that if the community is not active in pursuing relationships and preaching the Gospel, it will become inward focused and fail to grow.
• Also, it is important to remember that society still generally sees Sunday as “church day,” and therefore we should be considerate of first-time visitors in our weekly services. 

3. The Overlapping (“Funnel”) Model

One other model which is perhaps viable is what you might call the “funnel” model, in that both weekly events (services) and small groups are designed to “funnel” new people into the church community, where discipleship takes place. This model takes a two-pronged approach and is, in some ways, a combination of the two previous models; it utilizes both attractional ministry (i.e. marketing) and relationships, although perhaps to lesser degrees than the other models. Mission and discipleship may be somewhat distinct from one another, but they are not nearly as disconnected as they would be in the “seeker-driven” model. Both occur in weekly events, as well as in small groups. You will see that I used a Venn Diagram to illustrate this. Also, like in the “missional community” model, the Gospel remains central to the discipleship process and is preached both to believers and unbelievers as the A-Z of the Christian faith. 

In many cases, I find that this model is followed by people who initially pursue the “missional community” model but (perhaps due to a lack of church growth or pressure to perform) end up only partially adopting the cyclical, “missional community” approach (they may even call their small groups “missional communities,” but they do not fully function that way; true missional communities are not an extension or ministry of the church but the very composition of the church). My question is whether or not this model is legitimate; does it achieve the best of both worlds or compromise between good and evil?

As of now, my feeling is that this third model is, in fact, legitimate; as long as the Gospel is the center of both mission and discipleship, I think it is viable. While I am not a fan of marketing, I do not think its use automatically disqualifies this way of doing things, as long as one is careful to avoid “selling out” in respect to attractional ministry. Furthermore, it seems that with this model, the health and growth of the church is less dependent upon the members of its community doing their job to evangelize, but at the same time, it is not completely rooted in programs or systems, either. This perhaps puts more stress on the leadership to disciple people, but an ample numbers of diverse leaders should be able to do the job. Then again, should the health and growth of a community not rely primarily upon its members? Does this model run the risk of hindering communal life? And is it really just trying to escape failure by putting its hope in structures and systems, or are the added structures and systems valid organizational tactics which aid in the cause of the Gospel? 

I don’t think that I would personally choose this third model over the “missional community” model, but I would much rather see churches follow this model fall victim to the seeker-driven craze. In many respects, I am still pondering all of this, and I continually find myself having more questions than answers. For this reason, I would appreciate any feedback. Feel free to alter my models, offer additional alternatives, or shoot down everything I’ve said. And in the end, may God—not any particular model for “doing church”—receive glory.

When nonbelievers look and scoff at Christians as foolish, silly and dumb, we know that the joke’s on them. But perhaps their criticism of Christianity as anti-reason is somewhat valid, at least in the way the Christian faith manifests itself in the contemporary church?

Amid the present-day milieu of  decaying modernity (and the subsequent increase of religious pluralism), I believe that there is a rapidly growing need for intelligent Christianity in America, a nation which appears to be earnestly pursuing the status of a “liberated” post-Christian society. It seems now that we are casting off the shackles of foolish superstition, we are free to experience true life—or so we think. The fist of dogmatism finds any fragment of legitimacy it once grasped now slipping right through its tired, arthritic fingers. 

Thus, in order to appeal and witness to this ever-changing culture, it is, in my mind, imperative that Christians are educated and equipped to effectively relate to and participate in even the most sophisticated societal discourse. This doesn’t mean just watching secular movies to “keep up” with what’s going on in the world. It requires significant learning in areas of philosophy, logic, and rhetoric which will enable us to truly engage those around us in an intelligent and level-headed manner, for the sake of the Gospel. I suspect that this is a bit controversial, and I am willing to dialogue, but let me at first list a few short reasons why I hold this opinion.

1. We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to people, not just into a vacuum. 
I understand that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12 ESV). I recognize that God can (and in many situations does) use the proclamation of Scripture alone to convict and convert people. However, we cannot misapply the fact that God’s word is powerful to excuse a lack of responsibility on our part. We are instructed to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and doing so requires some tact. Being able to understand a person’s worldview in order to carefully and shrewdly critique and subvert it allows us to communicate the Gospel more effectively. Furthermore, knowing what we’re talking about adds legitimacy  to our faith claims, especially in a society which no longer privileges Christianity nor takes it for granted.

2. Anti-intellectualism is not helpful to the Body of Christ.
If you know me, you know that I don’t completely buy into our society’s extreme glorification of a college education, and that I very strongly believe that salvation is by grace alone—not knowledge. However, the developing worldwide religious landscape consists of rapidly developing Pentecostalism, which is particularly flourishing in Third-World countries (albeit not absent in the U.S). While I rejoice that people are coming to know the name of Jesus, I am concerned over the potential for a dangerous misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit and a general disdain for rational decision-making. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-23, Paul encourages believers to use their minds in (rather than detach them from) corporate worship. God gave us a rational mind so that we might bring glory to him and edify other believers by using it appropriately.

3. Most people—even in the church—don’t have a Christian worldview.
Perhaps this is more indicative of a theological problem or a flaw in our discipleship methods, but Christians should be able to comprehend how the Gospel of Jesus should determine the way they view the world. Of course, we’re not going to agree on everything, but the foundational understanding that Jesus’ death and resurrection is so significant that it actually defines who we are and how we think about things needs to somehow be built into our discipleship processes. I realize that not everyone has the same I.Q., but most people should be able to learn how to view things through the lens of the Cross, at least on some level. By having a better education—particularly one which emphasises the Gospel as their metanarrative, Christians are better-equipped to think critically about and interact with the world around them, enabling them to recognize, avoid, and work more effectively in tearing down the idols of 21st century society. 

Of course, the problem is that there are very few systems in place (at least that I am aware of) which achieve this type of Christ-centered, intellectual preparation. Based upon my personal experience (and that of many like me), Bible colleges across the nation generally leave graduates ill-equipped to make a difference in (or even think critically about) society. And while some programs at secular universities may offer a more rigorous academic environment, they most certainly fail to promote a Christian worldview, thus leaving the average Christian very few opportunities to receive an education which will significantly aid them in their life of faith and fulfillment of the Great Commission. 

I’m not sure what needs to happen, but it appears to be an issue which must be dealt with by the local church. I know I feel a need to read more and do what I can to sharpen my mind, yet I still long for some type of training or preparation in the church which would help guide me in this. Throughout the centuries, a solid education has proven quite helpful to so many believers—from Paul to Luther and Augustine to Schaeffer. And sure, the present day perhaps has its share of theologians and scholars. But wouldn’t it be haphazard to ignore the need for educated Christians in each and every local congregation?

Why is it that Christians always seem to reach new levels of lame-ness in their bumper stickers, T-shirts, and mainstream music? Do we really think that by ripping off pop culture we’re somehow being “relevant” to the world around us? I apologize for being cynical, but when I first saw a “Jesus Got ‘R Done” shirt a few years back, I wanted to punch someone in the face. How can we expect to be taken seriously if we’re most well-known for stealing worn-out cliches and making them even more annoying?

Our problem is that we’re simply reacting to culture. Many of us just try to copy it; others of us are fed up and simply abandon it. Yet neither of these approaches is healthy. Instead, Christians should be participating in the creation of culture for the sake of engaging and changing culture. If anything, we should be leading the charge in innovation and creativity, under the conviction that through Jesus, God is reconciling the entire world to himself. Not only can we bring God glory through creating beauty and utilizing our gifts, but we can greatly impact a world which desperately needs the gospel.

Tim Chester (The Crowded House, Sheffield, UK) has recently produced a series of blog posts concerning this very issue which have been quite successful in articulating the Biblical foundations for creating culture and demonstrating how such principles can be put into practice.

Here are links to the posts on his blog, in order:

Covenanted for Culture, Redeemed for Cultural Renewal

The Role of Christian Artists

What is True Art?

Cultural Renewal and Church Planting

I think any Christian—especially those interested in urban ministry, church planting, or the arts—will find these posts very helpful. I have benefited from reading them and recommend that everyone check them out (especially the first one).