evangelism

Christian Universal Salvation as a Better Motivation for Evangelism

1. Introduction: A Christian Universalistic Motivation for Evangelism

Evangelism is the announcement about God, God’s reign, and God’s salvation provided through Jesus Christ. Many believe that God’s salvation is limited because not all hear the gospel before they die or because not all accept the gospel. A dominant view holds that those who are not saved are condemned to eternal hell. Therefore, a major motivation for evangelism is to give persuasive opportunities for people to respond with faith and to be assured of eternal life. Conversely – and no less motivational for evangelism – those who are unable to respond or who reject the gospel are eternally lost in hell. James Packer, for example, says, “people without Christ are lost, and going to hell…And we who are Christ’s are sent to tell them of the One – the only One – who can save them from perishing…If [their need is urgent], does that not make evangelism a matter of urgency for us?”[1] In a similar vein, another Christian scholar claims that the doctrine of hell is the foundation for the church’s morality, spirituality, and mission.[2] Christians, with this view, hold eternal suffering in hell as a necessary motivation for evangelizing the lost.

There is, however, a minority of Christians who believe that, in the end, all will be saved. One such perspective has been recently articulated by David Bentley Hart. Basing his view on biblical exegesis, readings of Christian theological traditions, and metaphysical coherence, Hart argues for universal salvation through Christ, which he frames around issues of justice (the moral consistency of God and the analogous relationship between divine and human notions of the “good”), freedom (which is God’s gift and yet compromised in this life), and personhood (in which every human being exists only in relationship to all humanity).[3] In this paper I take up Hart’s argument in three parts – justice, freedom, and personhood – and contend that it is a better motivation for evangelism.

II. Justice

Any discussion about the eternal destiny of humanity is based on understandings of justice, which presupposes notions of morality, merit, and punishment. One prominent evangelical, Timothy Keller, explains hell and eternal life based on God’s justice, which he tries to hold together with God’s love. He affirms that in Christianity, “God is both a God of love and of justice.”[4] Because God loves creation, all that destroys “its peace and integrity” must be judged justly.[5] Keller believes that a high regard for God’s law and justice holds humans responsible for their disobedience – the ultimate consequence being a just sentence to an eternal hell.[6] Hell, for Keller, is not only God’s judgment, but the distorted notions of freedom that lead to a “prison of [a person’s] own self-centeredness.”[7] Justice requires punishment or penalty and for the “‘divine wrath’ against injustice to be appeased.”[8] This appeasement is accomplished by Jesus, in humanity’s place, on the cross. So, for Keller, evangelism is the proclamation of God’s grace – the forgiveness for injustices – that leads someone to “saving faith” through which they are restored to relationship with God for eternity.[9]

While there are convergences in Keller’s and Hart’s views, there is a significant difference in Hart’s understanding of judgment, which he thinks must be proportionate to the misdeed, corrective, and temporal. While there are different theories of justice,[10] the concept can be generally defined as “to each one’s due.”[11] For justice to be meaningful, punishment must be proportionate to the “infraction.” Any notion of penal justice presumes, as Hart affirms, “a due proportion between…intentions, knowledge and powers of the malefactor on one hand, and the objective wickedness of the transgression on the other.”[12] Keller, however, believes that because souls are eternal, the just consequence is that they are affected by their “moral and spiritual errors” forever.[13] Hart counters this idea, saying that “whenever the terms ‘justice’ and ‘eternal punishment’ are set side by side as if they were logically compatible, the boundaries of the rational have been violated.”[14] That is to say, regardless of a soul’s capacity for eternity, no temporal wrongdoing merits eternal suffering.

Furthermore, eternal suffering has the purpose of being punitive, but it is not corrective. For Christians, Hart contends that punishment is practiced as a remedial act and is conducive to moral reform, but it is not purely retributive.[15] Like Keller and those who see hell as necessary for holding humans accountable for their injustices, Hart believes that hell does instate human responsibility, but it does not need to be eternal in order to do so.[16] In this view, “the punishments of the life to come are (as Paul suggested in 1 Corinthians 3) merely the final, purgative completion of [God’s] act of rescue and restoration…”[17] Although harsh, this punishment is the “necessary means for bringing about the ultimate purification of every soul…”[18] Hell is a just response for disobedience that corrects and, ultimately, restores a human person.

That means that when the reformative purpose of the punishment is achieved, the punishment should cease. This has biblical support. There are some scriptural texts that speak of imprisonment or torture, but, importantly, they specify a limited term (Matthew 5:26; 18:34; Luke 12:47-48, 59). On the other hand, there are many texts that indicate universal salvation.[19] That said, there are also a few New Testament texts that refer to “eternal fire” (Matthew 18:6) and “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46). Most translations of the New Testament, render the Greek adjective aionios, from these texts, as “eternal” or “everlasting.”[20] However, Hart asserts that aeon, the noun from which the adjective derives, is most properly understood as “age,” a “substantial period of time,” or an “extended interval.”[21] Referencing uses of the term in the Septuagint and classical and Hellenistic Greek literature as well as understandings of early Greek theologians,[22] Hart convincingly asserts that neither the verb nor the adjective “have the intrinsic meaning of ‘eternal.’”[23] Rather, he believes it is best translated as “age,” which in the New Testament is differentiated between “this age” and “the age to come.”[24] So, for example, Hart renders Matthew 25:46 as: “And these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age.”[25] Similarly, he translates Matthew 18:6 as: “Now, if your hand or your foot causes you to falter, cut it off and fling it away from you; it is good for you to enter into life crippled or limping rather than, having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the fire of the Age.”[26]

In his critique of Hart, Michael McClymond claims that translating aeon as “of the Age” means losing not only an eternal hell but also eternal life.[27] However, McClymond seems to understand eternity as a static condition of life in which change is impossible for souls. In contrast, Hart believes in the possibility of change in the age to come.[28] Eternity does not fix one to a particular destination. While Hart believes in the existence of hell in the age to come, he understands that it will cease to exist “when all things are subordinated to him…so that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).[29]

Besides situating the terminology within a broader context of ancient Greek literature, Hart also points out that the scriptural texts about damnation in the age to come are parabolic or apocalyptic and are, therefore, symbolic.[30] While the historical and cultural distance between the authors and contemporary readers make certitude about the symbols’ referents impossible, they do beg interpretation. This is especially true of the Revelation of John that also contains references to the aeon of future torment, which Hart translates “unto the ages of ages” (Revelation 14:11; 20:10). Miroslav Volf, however, thinks that these images from Revelation are important for securing justice for evildoers. He believes that Christians must understand that the slaughtered Lamb and the Rider on the white horse are one and the same and, as God, he is the only one who can judge justly.[31] Nonetheless, if divine justice is to inform human justice, then they must be analogous. Volf must explain which injustices in this life deserve “eternal exclusion.”[32] When the proportion between the misdeed and the punishment is lost, “the very concept of justice has been rendered entirely vacuous,” as Hart asserts.[33] Although Hart’s view of Revelation is perhaps overly preterist, interpreting it as a text for an early Judaic Christian community and discounting any prophetic messages for the future,[34] he does recognize that the book itself – these texts notwithstanding – concludes with those who are outside being invited to wash their garments, enter through the open gates of the city, and drink from life’s waters.[35] In this way, readings of eternal suffering in the age to come are subverted from within the biblical text in which God makes “all things new” (Revelation 21:5).

Hart’s view of universal salvation provides a vision for justice that renders judgments that are commensurate with the evil done, that holds humanity to account and remedies their disobedient impulses, and that ultimately ends “the lingering effects of a condition of slavery that God has conquered universally in Christ and will ultimately conquer individually in every soul.”[36] This perspective is a better motivation for evangelism for at least five reasons. First, evangelists announce the goodness of God. The seeming injustice of God condemning some to eternal hell does not need to be defended by claiming that God’s perfect wisdom is beyond human intelligibility. The images of a strictly punitive god can be cast aside.[37] Second, human justice corresponds to God’s justice. Not only is God not perceived to be capricious or evil, but evangelists can proclaim God’s justice as grounds for human justice. This means that humans are held responsible for their actions and have a strong impetus for ethical living. Christians are motivated to evangelize so that the experience of hell is limited and avoided. Third, hell is remedial. Evangelists do not only proclaim just judgment for evildoers but also the promised correction and restoration through any punishment.[38] Fourth, because hell is not only temporal but a present experience, Christians are prompted to share good news not only about one’s future destiny but also about their current suffering. The gospel is the way through sin (forgiveness and reconciliation) and out of sin (sanctification and imitatio Christi). This implies also that evangelism does not end after one is converted but, because hell is a pending consequence for disobedience, it is the continuous call to conformity with Christ. Finally, the gospel is the proclamation that God ultimately does not repay humans according to their merits but claims all creatures for God’s self.[39]

III. Freedom

A common understanding about the gospel is that it is a gift to be freely received and not coercively imposed on anyone. Rick Richardson’s statement is typical: “God will not violate our freedom to choose. God wants love or nothing; forced allegiance is not part of God’s will.”[40] Similarly, for Keller, who, although he believes that justification comes through faith alone,[41] thinks that this rests on human choice. Those that do not choose to respond in faith, choose hell.[42] In fact, he defines hell as “one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.”[43] The permanency of hell, in this view, is proof of God’s absolute commitment to freedom.[44] Contrarily, Hart argues that freedom is the ability to choose that for which one is created, that humanity’s freedom is compromised by sin, and that God determines to work patiently in human beings, bringing them all to freedom.

In contrast to the “libertarian” model of freedom that values agency in terms of choice, the classical Christian tradition, according to Hart, understands freedom as “a being’s power to flourish as what it naturally is, to become ever more fully what it is.”[45] With this understanding, freedom is not the ability to select from various options. Rather, according to Hart, “to be fully free is to be joined to that end for which our natures were originally framed, and for which, in the deepest reaches of our souls, we ceaselessly yearn.”[46] The truly free human being is imaged by Jesus. With “perfect knowledge of the good” and being “perfectly rational,” he, in full freedom, could only choose the good.[47]

Human freedom, however, is compromised.[48] Hart says that “true freedom is contingent upon true knowledge and true sanity of mind. To the very degree that either of these is deficient, freedom is absent.”[49] Because rational freedom is teleological, there must be “a rational cognizance…of what constitutes either the fulfillment or the ruin of a human soul.”[50] When one’s choices lead to a self-damaging end, then the rationale that makes that choice is called into question. Furthermore, that which separates a person from God – the ultimate good telos for which humans are created – “even if it be our own power of choice, is a form of bondage to the irrational.”[51] Freedom is not simply the agency to choose but rather the demonstration that a person chooses well.

Bad choices reveal compromised freedom. Interestingly, Keller cites those suffering from “addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, and pornography,” as examples of not those who do not choose God and, therefore, merit unending hell.[52] However, as anyone acquainted with those who suffer from dependency issues knows, addictions reflect a bondage, not a choice. Addictions inhibit freedom. Even when the addicted want to choose to not consume another dose, they are not free to do so, giving stark depiction to the Apostle Paul’s words: “For I do not do the good I wish; instead, the evil I do not wish, this I do” (Romans 7:19).[53] Of course, there are different measures of agency as all humans wrestle in their negotiations with their desires and compulsions for the good. Yet, the claim that humans must respond to the gospel by freely choosing God does not take seriously enough the enslaving effects of sin and fails to recognize the existing limitations to human freedom.[54]

Along with humanity’s compromised volition and clouded rationale that call into question human freedom, God is not, as the free will proponents believe, one option to be chosen from among others.[55] Rather, Hart argues that God is “Being itself, the source and end of all reality, in which all things live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28).”[56] God, in the Christian view, does not exist as a being among other beings. Rather, all of reality, including freedom itself, exists from, in, and toward God.

This leads to the issue of divine determinism. Some justify eternal condemnation by appealing to God’s determination to preserve human freedom.[57] By God’s perfect love and knowledge, some, like Keller, claim that God also determines to save some from hell.[58] Similarly, Packer claims that God will not violate human freedom and yet will sovereignly make them willing to come to Christ by his grace.[59] Although God’s sovereign determination to save some seems to contradict humanity’s responsible agency to choose or reject Christ, Packer calls it an antinomy that is beyond human intelligibility.[60]

However, instead of employing divine sovereignty to explain why only some are saved, Hart affirms divine determinacy to save all. God is not an “external agency” coercing “creature’s intentions to bring them to the end he decrees.”[61] Rather, as creator, God “is already intrinsic to the very structure of reason and desire within the soul.”[62] Inasmuch as humans are free to will anything, it is because God “is making us to do so.”[63] God is both “the source of all action and intentionality” and the “transcendental object of rational desire that elicits every act of mind and will.”[64] For Hart, there is no need to appeal to antinomy. The “divine determinism toward the transcendent Good, then, is precisely what freedom is for a rational nature.”[65] Although freedom is only partial in this life and humans may need to go through hell to be liberated, God will inevitably set every soul free as they all find their home in God.[66]

This view of human freedom as created by God for God, limited, and ultimately guaranteed by God provides a better motivation for evangelism. The gospel declares that humans are created for freedom, but they are not free. This is particularly good news to those who are aware of their bondage or unfreedom. Understanding the limitations of human liberty, evangelists proclaim freedom as a consequence of the gospel, not its prerequisite. God does not absolutize one’s sense of freedom over their created purpose for eternal life with God. The gospel is the truth that brings freedom. Because this loving pursuit may take much time, Christians do not stop living and sharing the gospel after it has been heard.

Also, because human freedom is compromised, human responsibility is qualified. Although those who believe in eternal suffering cannot account for these, diminished rationale or external contingencies that influence behavior constrain human responsibility. Humans are not blameless, but they are not completely to blame.[67] Ultimately, the good news is that God takes it upon God’s self to rescue and liberate humans as they are unable to do this for themselves (John 8:36). Freedom is delivery from hell, which implies ongoing discipleship. On the journey to union with Christ, increasing agency is evidenced by the continuous “choice” for Christ.

Furthermore, because God is the source and goal of freedom, evangelists do not offer God on the marketplace of options for people to choose. Rather, God is at work in all creatures, shaping their desires, and “will drag everyone” to himself (John 12:32).

IV. Personhood

We have looked at justice, which is often viewed as the rapport between divine judgment and individual behavior, and at freedom, which is usually viewed as the individual prerogative to choose or reject God. Most Christians understand that the gospel is addressed to individuals who are saved as individuals. Even when an individualistic approach to evangelism is criticized,[68] it is fully defended as the locus of eschatological judgment. Hart contests this perspective, saying, “It would be possible for us to be saved as individuals only if it were possible for us to be persons as individuals…”[69] Persons, however, “are not self-enclosed individual substances,” but rather “dynamic events of relation to what is other than themselves.”[70] Therefore, humanity “cannot be saved as persons except in and with all other persons.”[71] Personhood, in Hart’s view, is constituted by humanity’s corporate identity, love by and for others, and memory of others.

Humanity is constituted corporately through creation, the fall, and restoration in Christ. Following the exegesis of Genesis by Gregory of Nyssa, Hart sees Adam, the primordial human being, as the “entire pleroma of all human beings in every age.”[72] In Adam, humanity shares a corporate ontology by virtue of their creation. Humanity also experiences together the collective effects of the Fall. Because of Adam, all humanity is infected with sin.[73] Humanity is “bound in disobedience” and experiences “shared brokenness” in the fallen world.[74] Paul says that all humanity experiences the fall so that God might show mercy to all (Romans 11:32). Just as humanity is created as an “indivisible solidarity” according to the image of God, humanity is recapitulated through Christ.[75] Because “the human totality is a living unity,” God enters “the plenitude of humanity as a single man…assuming humanity’s creaturely finitude and history as his own.” [76] “Reorienting humanity toward its true end…the incarnation of the Logos is of effect for the whole.”[77] This means that God is not simply making a way of salvation for individuals but for the whole fabric of humanity. “Each person is a body within the body of humanity, which exists in its proper nature only as the body of Christ.”[78] Thus, the resurrection is more than the reconstitution of individual corporality; it is “more crucially about the fully restored existence of the persons as socially, communally, corporately constituted.”[79]

That said, individuality is not dissolved in corporate humanity. Hart reiterates that “Christ’s assumption and final recapitulation of the human cannot simply be imposed upon the race as a whole, but must effect conversion of each soul within itself, so that room is truly made for God ‘in all.’”[80]

Humanity’s corporate identity is personally experienced through love and memory. No soul exists in isolation.[81] Each soul is “created by and sustained within the loves and associations and affinities that shape [them].”[82] Humans are attached to the ones they love not only by proximity but also across geography and generations.[83] Humans are “creatures of their loves” and “belong, of necessity, to an indissoluble coinherence of souls.”[84] Thus, in Hart’s view, there can be no eternal bliss for any individual soul without the eternal bliss for all of those who they love.[85] If one is suffering hell, then all those who love them cannot experience heaven.

Of course, some believe that redeemed persons can enjoy the new creation while their loved ones suffer.[86] Some propose that those suffering eternal perdition will be forgotten. Miroslav Volf, for example, argues that just as evil ceases to exist in the new creation so there will be no more memories of evil.[87] But does forgetting evil also entail forgetting the evildoer who is consigned to eternal punishment? Volf diplomatically avoids answering the question, referring his readers to the “hopeful universalist” Hans Urs von Balthazar.[88] However, too much hangs in the balance of Volf’s argument for the question to be left unanswered. If forgetting evil is necessary to enjoy eternal bliss, then the evil ones who suffer eternal hell must also be forgotten. Hart calls this “heavenly lobotomy” the decomposition of a person.[89] A parent, for example, is constituted by the relationship with their child. If they must eternally forget their child, a significant aspect of their identity is lost. If people are constituted by their relations to others, then the loss of the memory of others means a diminution of the one who forgets. Hart points out that when the “deepest emotional and personal elements that compose the soul [are] stripped away,” the soul that is saved loses any continuity between the person of this age and the one of the age of the resurrection.[90] Souls that, for the sake of heavenly bliss, must surrender their memories of the ones they love lose their personhood. If this is the case, then how can one call it “salvation?” Thankfully, forgetting or losing those who are loved or forfeiting any from the tapestry of humanity is not required. Through Christ’s obedience unto death, the whole human race is gathered in Christ and moved toward proper subjection until “they are yielded up as one body to the Father” and “God will be all in all.”[91]

This view of personhood constituted through corporate identity, love, and memory is a better motivation for evangelism. First, humanity is not saved as individuals but only together. That means that every person has a vested interest in the salvation of all other persons. Everyone experiences hell in some capacity until all are reconciled. Thus, each must be sharing the gospel so that all can be saved. Second, this proposal provides a strong basis for critiquing individualism and qualifies all individual decisions by their relationships to others. Third, this view roots evangelism in love and the promise of eternal life with each person’s loved ones instead of in fear of eternal perdition or in obligation to a command. Fourth, Christians do not need to forget others but can practice remembering others in prayer and in sharing the gospel.

V. Conclusion

We have summarized Hart’s argument for universal salvation through Christ and identified advantages for galvanizing evangelism. According to Hart, the gospel is the announcement of God’s victory over death, sin, and the rebellious spiritual powers. The Son is sent into the world and “even into the kingdom of death” to liberate “his creatures from slavery to a false and merciless master.”[92] A summons to all humanity, persons experience salvation in a “new and corporate way of life…in the community of love.”[93] The gospel is the joyous proclamation that the lost can and will find their home in God’s kingdom. On the journey home, the purgation of hell is proportionate to the evil done, corrective, temporal, and ultimately vanquished. So, evangelists can stand on God’s goodness, ground calls for justice in divine justice, and call people out of their hells and into the mercy of God. Although human freedom is compromised, it is created by God and ultimately experienced in God. Thus, evangelists declare the evangel, not as a choice, but as the truth that liberates, even if it takes time. The evangelists proclaim the God who is undeterred by human notions of freedom but is committed to delivering all creation to freedom. Because humans are persons who are constituted by a collective ontology through love and memory, they exist only through one another. The evangelist calls all to eternal life, affirming that none can experience it fully until all creation does. This view of universal salvation in Christ serves as a better motivation for evangelizing.

Bibliography

Aristotle. “The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics.” Accessed May 14, 2021. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html.

Bates, Matthew W. Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019.

Calvin, John. “The Institutes of Christian Religion.” The Online Library of Liberty (2011): 1137.

Claiborne, Shane. Executing Grace: How the Death Penalty Killed Jesus and Why It’s Killing Us. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2016.

Edwards, Jonathan. “Why Saints in Glory Will Rejoice to See the Torments of the Damned. Stedman and Hutchinson, Eds. 1891. A Library of American Literature: An Anthology in 11 Volumes.” Accessed May 16, 2021. https://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/293.html.

Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019.

———, ed. The New Testament: A Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017.

———. “Traditio Deformis.” First Things. Accessed May 14, 2021. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/05/traditio-deformis.

Jersak, Bradley. A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel. Place of publication not identified: PLAIN TRUTH MINISTRIES, 2016.

Keller, Timothy. Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, 2016.

———. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, 2018.

———. “Preaching Hell In A Tolerant Age.” Sermon Central. Last modified January 30, 2018. Accessed May 1, 2021. https://www.sermoncentral.comhttps://www.sermoncentral.com/pastors-preaching-articles/tim-keller-preaching-hell-in-a-tolerant-age-752.

———. “3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election.” The Gospel Coalition. Accessed May 2, 2021. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-objections-to-the-doctrine-of-election/.

Lebacqz, Karen. Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986.

MacDonald, Gregory. The Evangelical Universalist. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006.

MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.

McClymond, Michael. “David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Last Stand for Christian Universalism.” The Gospel Coalition. Accessed May 14, 2021. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/shall-saved-universal-christian-universalism-david-bentley-hart/.

Nyssa, Gregory. On the Making of Man. Vol. The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene&Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection. 37 Volumes vols. 3 Series. Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle Edition., 2014.

Pachuau, Lalsangkima. “God’s Mission of Salvation: Dimensions and Scope of Salvation.” Presentation ESJ School of World Mission and Evangelism Seminar (Not yet published): 49.

Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2012.

Rawson, Katie J. Crossing Cultures with Jesus: Sharing Good News with Sensitivity and Grace. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, an imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Richardson, Rick. Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Paperback edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.

Stone, Bryan P. Evangelism after Pluralism: The Ethics of Christian Witness. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2018.

Volf, Miroslav. “Exclusion and Embrace: Theological Reflections in the Wake of ‘Ethnic Cleansing.’” Communio viatorum 35, no. 3 (1993): 263–287.

———. The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006.

---

[1] J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2012), 97.

[2] Michael McClymond, “David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Last Stand for Christian Universalism,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed May 14, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/shall-saved-universal-christian-universalism-david-bentley-hart/.

[3] Pachuau states that “those who emphasize God’s universal salvation tend to either disparage the name and role of Jesus in God’s saving act or make too general a point without attending to details…(Lalsangkima Pachuau, “God’s Mission of Salvation: Dimensions and Scope of Salvation,” Presentation ESJ School of World Mission and Evangelism Seminar (Not yet published): 47.) This is not true of Hart’s proposal for universal salvation through Christ.

[4] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, 2018, 75.

[5] Ibid., 76.

[6] Timothy Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, 2016, 101; “Preaching Hell In A Tolerant Age,” Sermon Central, last modified January 30, 2018, accessed May 1, 2021, https://www.sermoncentral.comhttps://www.sermoncentral.com/pastors-preaching-articles/tim-keller-preaching-hell-in-a-tolerant-age-752.

[7] Keller, The Reason for God, 82.

[8] Keller, Generous Justice, 100.

[9] Ibid., 139.

[10] See, for example, Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984); Karen Lebacqz, Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986).

[11] Miroslav Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace: Theological Reflections in the Wake of ‘Ethnic Cleansing,’” Communio viatorum 35, no. 3 (1993): 202; Aristotle, “The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics, (V.3),” accessed May 14, 2021, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html.

[12] David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), 45.

[13] Keller, The Reason for God, 83. Another rationale is held by Calvin who saw the eternal punishment of souls in hell as a means through which God receives glory and God’s honor is vindicated (John Calvin, “The Institutes of Christian Religion,” The Online Library of Liberty (2011): 1137.)

[14] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 43.

[15] Ibid., 44. See, for example, Hebrews 12:5-7, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 11:30-32, and 2 Corinthians 2:6-8.

[16] For Hart, hell is not understood as a torture chamber that forces people into salvation. Without specifying the details, Hart believes that it is purgative of sin and corrective of desires. With a similar proposal, MacDonald describes hell as a “post-mortem situation” where people face the terrible consequence of sin and are educated for salvation (Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006), 162).

[17] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 165. In the Apostle Paul’s only image of the final judgment, he says, “If the work that someone has built endures, he will receive a reward; If anyone’s work should be burned away, he will suffer loss, yet he shall be saved, though so as by fire” (1 Corinthians 3:14-15).

[18] Ibid. Hart points out that the English word “hell” is often the translation of different New Testament images (Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus), which effectively conflates the differences and tends to impose contemporary imaginary for hell onto the translations (ibid., 112).

[19] Hart cites Romans 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Romans 11:32; 1 Timothy 2:3- 6; Titus 2:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 1:9- 10; Colossians 1:27- 28; John 12:32; Hebrews 2:9; John 17:2; John 4:42; John 12:47; 1 John 4:14; 2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 18:14; Philippians 2:9- 11; Colossians 1:19-20; 1 John 2:2; John 3:17; Luke 16:16; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 (Ibid., 95-105).

[20] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 121.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., 121–125.

[23] Ibid., 123.

[24] Ibid., 126.

[25] David Bentley Hart, ed., The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). Hart notes that the word kolasis, translated by many as “punishment,” mainly connoted “correction” and was distinguished from timoria, which means “retributive punishment,” which is why he renders it as “chastening.”

[26] Ibid.

[27] McClymond, “David Bentley Hart’s Lonely, Last Stand for Christian Universalism.” See, for example, John 3:16.

[28] Although the meaning of 1 Peter 4:6 is contested, it does intimate post-mortem change.

[29] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 194–195. (It is important to note that Hart does not subscribe to the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory (ibid., 118).)

[30] Ibid., 106–120. Keller also makes this point: “All descriptions and depictions of heaven and hell in the Bible are symbolic and metaphorical (Reason, 273, note 10).”

[31] Volf, “Exclusion and Embrace,” 297–302. Volf does hold out the possibility for universal salvation (note 8).

[32] Ibid., 297.

[33] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 45.

[34] For a Christian universalist interpretation of Revelation, see: MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, 106–132.

[35] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 108–109.

[36] Ibid., 129.

[37] If humans who are evil know how to give good gifts to our children, then how much more our Father in heaven? (Matthew 7:9-11) and Bradley Jersak, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel. (Place of publication not identified: PLAIN TRUTH MINISTRIES, 2016).

[38] This has implications on how societies practice correction or retribution in their penitentiary systems. See: Shane Claiborne, Executing Grace: How the Death Penalty Killed Jesus and Why It’s Killing Us (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2016).

[39] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 52.

[40] Rick Richardson, Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 44; Pachuau, “God’s Mission of Salvation: Dimensions and Scope of Salvation,” 39.

[41] Keller, Generous Justice, 101.

[42] Keller, The Reason for God, 80.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 171.

[45] Ibid., 172.

[46] Ibid., 173.

[47] Ibid., 190. Following Maximus the Confessor, Hart states that unlike humans, Christ, who is the “divine Logos” and “of one essence with the Father and Spirit,” did not have a “gnomic” will – a “faculty of deliberation – but only a “natural” will – “the innate and inextinguishable movement of rational volition toward God (ibid., 188-189). Thus, his will is perfectly free to choose only the “Good” and only will of the Father.

[48] See, for example, John 8:34.

[49] Hart, The New Testament, 177.

[50] Ibid., 178.

[51] Ibid., 173.

[52] Keller, The Reason for God, 80.

[53] Hart, The New Testament.

[54]  For example, see 1 Corinthians 13:12.

[55] While Hart does not discuss how this view of freedom commodifies faith, Stone does make this connection, critiquing the western church’s cultural accommodation to consumerism. (Bryan P. Stone, Evangelism after Pluralism: The Ethics of Christian Witness (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2018), 94.)

[56] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 181.

[57] Others, like Calvin, in fact, assert that God predetermines that some will suffer eternity in hell (Calvin, “The Institutes of Christian Religion, III.23.11.”).

[58] Tim Keller, “3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed May 2, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-objections-to-the-doctrine-of-election/.

[59] Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 111–112. While both Keller and Packer draw on Reformed theology, Packer places more weight on divine choice about human salvation than Keller who emphasizes human choice.

[60] Ibid., 24–29.

[61] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 183. Following Nyssa, Hart understands creation within God’s freedom. God does not create or redeem out of any need but rather ex nihilo. Creation out of nothing is revealed in the creation narrative and also in the creation of a child in an old, barren womb, in the creation of a people out of insignificance and slavery, in the resurrection from the dead, and in the recreation of all things. God freely creates and freely recreates all things (Ibid., 68–73. Gregory Nyssa, On the Making of Man, 23, vol. The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection, 37 Volumes vols., 3 Series (Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle Edition., 2014).

[62] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 183.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid., 179.

[66] Ibid., 195.

[67] Ibid., 43.

[68] Richardson, Reimagining Evangelism, 55; Katie J. Rawson, Crossing Cultures with Jesus: Sharing Good News with Sensitivity and Grace (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, an imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2015), 83; Stone, Evangelism after Pluralism, 98. For a critique of the predestination of individuals, see Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019), 136–137.

[69] Hart, The New Testament, 144.

[70] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 151.

[71] Ibid., 146.

[72] Ibid., 139; Gregory Nyssa, On the Making of Man, XVI.16 (37 Volumes vols)., 3 Series (Catholic Way Publishing, Kindle Edition., 2014).

[73] David Bentley Hart, “Traditio Deformis,” First Things, accessed May 14, 2021, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/05/traditio-deformis. Hart, following the Eastern Church, does not affirm Augustine’s interpretation of genetic guilt based on his Latin translation of Romans 5:12 that “all sinned in Adam.” Rather, Hart follows the Greek text that states that “all sinned because of Adam.”

[74] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 145. See, for example, Romans 11:32.

[75] Ibid., 140.

[76] Ibid., 141.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ibid., 153. Here we may mention a glaring omission from Hart’s proposal. When Hart says, “the body of Christ” or the “community of love” (p. 205), he seems to imply but does not explicitly state that this is the Church. Although he assumes the authority of Scripture, appeals to arguments from Christian tradition, and ultimately understands universal salvation through Christ, he does not mention the church’s place or role in mediating salvation or its message.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Ibid., 143.

[81] Ibid., 149.

[82] Ibid., 153.

[83] Ibid., 154.

[84] Ibid., 152–154.

[85] This is a major problem for the belief in ultimate annihilation of those who do not choose Christ. For an explanation of this view, see: Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ, Paperback edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 459–460.

[86] Jonathan Edwards, for example, asserts that the saints in glory will rejoice to see the torments of the damned. According to Edwards, the suffering of the wicked will increase the jubilation of the saints, and, because they love reflects God’s love, they will no longer love the damned (Jonathan Edwards, “Why Saints in Glory Will Rejoice to See the Torments of the Damned. Stedman and Hutchinson, Eds. 1891. A Library of American Literature: An Anthology in 11 Volumes,” accessed May 16, 2021, https://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/293.html).

[87] Miroslav Volf, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006), 190–191.

[88] Ibid., 180.

[89] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 150.

[90] Ibid., 151–152.

[91] Ibid., 142.

[92] Ibid., 205.

[93] Ibid.

What Do We Mean by “Evangelism?”

Word Made Flesh presently ministers in nine countries where we live among the poor and long to communicate the Good News of King Jesus and His coming Kingdom. Typically, the term we ascribe to this activity is “evangelism.” But as we minister among the poor, we wrestle with the limitations and follies of our traditional understanding of the concept.

The word “evangelism” often conjures in the contemporary mind images of televangelists, traveling preachers or zealous proselytizers. When we define evangelism, we usually talk about “getting people saved” or “making sure you know where you are going when you die.” Although we do long for people to come to know God and to have eternal security, this view is a narrow and truncated form of biblical evangelism. Such a view creates a gospel that is mere word, void of content. It secularizes and domesticates the gospel, which constrains it to the private realm and withdraws from social and political sin. It turns the gospel into a consumer product by aiming to satisfy the individual’s needs while lacking the commitment to transform humanity. This gross individualism has mutilated our concept of evangelism and fed the atomization of humanity and society.

This faulty understanding, propagated by many American evangelicals, has been successfully exported to evangelical churches around the world. Consequently, when telling our fellow Christians that we evangelize, some think we’re only talking about biblical paper dolls moving across flannel boards or PowerPoint presentations. Worse yet are the unsatisfied frowns we often see when explaining that we do not simply evangelize through our words. Therefore, we want to take this opportunity to reflect on the meaning of biblical evangelism so that our concept and practice of mission may be radicalized.

We must ask ourselves what biblical evangelism is, and how the tradition of the church can correct our currently deviated understanding. The word “evangelism” is derived from the Greek euangelion, “good news, gospel, evangel.” Likewise, “evangelization” means “to announce the good news.” However, since the early 19th century, church and mission circles have changed and increasingly distorted the meaning of the verb “evangelize” and its derivatives (David Bosch, Transforming Mission). In this article, we will attempt to outline an understanding of evangelism as differentiated from contemporary definitions and in line with its original meaning.

Evangelism is often described as the proclamation, presence, persuasion and prevenience of the gospel. Let us outline each of these aspects of evangelism, then look at their implications.

Evangelism is Proclamation

Evangelism is proclamation, but it is not synonymous with verbiage. It is helpful to distinguish between euangelion (gospel) and kerygma, the Greek word that refers to preaching or proclaiming that which is fundamental and all-embracing in the New Testament. Kerygma was the event of being addressed by the word. Some have suggested that there was a particular kerygmatic formula about Jesus—that is, the “language of the facts,” and the facts being that God came in Jesus Christ, was crucified, resurrected and ascended. But evangelism cannot be reduced to verbalizing the Good News. Proclamation from the pulpit or mass-media tends to be a monologue, detached from relationship. Evangelism that is reduced to only proclamation is extremely individualistic. It often leads people to an interior repentance that is merely felt or pondered in thought without becoming real repentance (See Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads).

Biblical evangelism is personal. The Word was made flesh. The gospel was embodied in the person of Jesus. That is why the expression “gospel” is used in the New Testament to refer both to the apostolic proclamation of Christ and to the history of Christ. The gospel is the message; the gospel is also the life of Jesus. In Christ, the message and the messenger are indivisibly one. Jesus desires to disclose Himself; He is the Evangelist in that He continually is communicating and drawing humanity into dialogue with God. He communicates personally to persons, and He commissioned persons to continue communicating personally.

To evangelize is to communicate this joy; it is to transmit, individually and as a community, the good news of God’s love that has transformed our lives (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation).

Therefore, the proclamation must be made in relationship and in the power of the Spirit. Paul says, “For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess. 1:5).

Evangelism is not just proclaiming otherworldliness. Either to justify the status quo or to anaesthetize our inability to change it, we often preach about the “pie in the sky.” Of course, we do believe and proclaim the wonderful day when God will consummate His creation, when justice and righteousness reign, and when God’s people dwell forever in His presence. But God wants us to experience abundant life even now. He wants us to experience the in-breaking of His presence and to participate in the anticipatory celebration. Jesus invites us to pray: “Let Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). An overemphasis on otherworldliness causes us to detach ourselves from creation and from history. Consequently, evangelism does not speak about the promises for creation, that God will make all things new, nor does it seriously confront historical sins. That is why it is important to remember that we do not emancipate ourselves from history altogether, but we take the past promises of God up into our hopes of the future consummation as disclosed by the gospel (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit).

The other side of otherworldliness is this-worldliness. But evangelism is not synonymous with the gospel of progress or any other socio-political movement. The martyred Archbishop Oscar Romero pointed out,

The danger of reductionism as far as evangelization is concerned can take two forms. Either it can stress only the transcendent elements of spirituality and human destiny, or it can go to the other extreme, selecting only those immanent elements of a kingdom of God that ought to be already beginning on this earth (Voice of the Voiceless).

Unfortunately, human projects have identified themselves as the coming Kingdom of God. Much of modern mission has piggybacked on the colonization of the world by Western powers. The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ was adulterated with the promises of Western culture, which assumed itself to be better and more advanced. Often in the name of civilizing, the church transplanted a foreign god and a foreign religion that not only failed to keep its promises but also actually led to cultural regress (See Jonathan J. Bonk, Missions and Money). The gospel cannot be identified with any cultural, social or political movement. In fact, it must confront and challenge them (Mortimer Arias, Announcing the Reign of God; Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society). True evangelism is Good News. It rings true in an indigenous environment because the people exist through the Word (John 1:3) and because the Spirit has already been there preparing the hearts of the people (Rom. 2:15).

Evangelism is Presence.

Evangelism is presence but needs explication. The gospel is not only declaratory; it is performatory. It can be the first because it is the second (Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society). The presence of the gospel is of particular importance today as we are flooded with words, yet often experience the powerlessness of language. We know that our “actions speak louder than words,” that our lifestyles “speak for themselves,” and that a message is validated by its medium. The people of God embody, explain and are the living interpreters of the gospel. A Romanian Orthodox missiologist, Ion Bria, said, “[Evangelism] is not only oral proclamation of the gospel but also martyrdom (martyria), the following in the steps of the crucified Christ” (The Liturgy after the Liturgy). Martyria means “witness.” First we witness through our lives and deeds, then we explain what happened. For example, Jesus’ witness to the Kingdom provoked those around Him to ask questions. Who is He that even forgives sins? Who is this Jew that receives a drink from a Samaritan? Who is this Prophet that dines with sinners? The gospel, then, is an answer to the question that a person or a people is asking (Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society). Jesus’ example shows that evangelism does not only mean that we “go and tell”; it also means that we witness through the work and lifestyle of the Christian community, provoking questions to which the Good News of Jesus Christ is the answer (Myers, Walking With the Poor).

In our affirmation of evangelizing through presence we must also recognize that this aspect has received current favor by many because we have lost confidence in the Truth—which if it is true, compels us to proclaim it. The Good News is entrusted to us. If we fail to proclaim it, we are unfaithful stewards. The gospel must be explicit. Though we often like to quote St. Francis of Assisi who said, “Preach the gospel and use words when necessary,” we must also realize that he did use words and many heard the Good News and many came to the Lord. In fact, he preached to a Muslim sultan, who invited him because he had heard of St. Francis’ lifestyle. Peter exhorts us to live such a lifestyle:

Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Pet. 2:12).

Evangelism is Persuasion

Evangelism is persuasion, but not peddling or proselytizing. Persuasion is convincing people of the gospel through apologetics². Paul said, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). But evangelism is not selling or enticing people to buy a marketable product. Paul said, “For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 2:17). The Indian theologian Vinay Samuel is fond of saying that evangelism is a commitment to sharing, not an announcement of expected outcomes (Myers, Walking With the Poor).

Evangelism means persuading people, but it does not mean proselytizing them (See Lesslie Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble). Evangelism does not mean making converts—though that is a desired result—or adding members to our club. Many times, we find ourselves struggling with feelings of guilt because there seems to be no tangible “fruit” from our ministry. At other times we find ourselves tempted to tell other Christians what they want to hear: “… we just saw another one come to the Lord,” “… he has been coming to church on his own accord for a few months now,” or “… she is starting to pray at mealtimes.” These remarks may bring a few pats on the back, but only serve to propagate the misconception about “successful” evangelism.

When we place exclusive emphasis on the winning of individuals to conversion, baptism and church membership, numerical growth of the church becomes the central goal of mission. Then seeking justice and peace are separated and relegated to the margins of the church’s mission. Over the last century, much of the church has defined its failures and successes by numbers. If the church was growing numerically, it was successful; if not, it was failing. Though a growing church may be a sign of God’s life and work, this predisposes us to value the size more than the persons. Just as the ideology of the Industrial Revolution turned humanity into a cog in the machinery of society or an item on the assembly line of productivity, so the ideology of modern church success has turned humanity into a donor resource and community into church membership. This is not simply evangelism misconstrued; it is anti-evangelism because at its core it dehumanizes.

If Jesus is the model Evangelist, then we must let the cross be the critique of evangelistic success. At the cross, those persuaded by Jesus’ ministry either betrayed Him or went into fearful hiding. At the cross, there were no supportive crowds, no grandiose church buildings and no tally of the day’s converts. “Successful” evangelism is faithfully testifying to the crucified God, who died to preach the Good News to a lost and confused world; the attestation of successful evangelism is the Resurrection. This understanding puts the indication of success not in the response of the evangelized but in the obedience of the evangelist.

Evangelism is not an activity for non-believers only, because Christians never cease to need evangelism. Avery Dulles reminds us that evangelism is not complete with the first proclamation of the gospel: “It is a lifelong process of letting the gospel permeate and transform all our ideas and attitudes” (Cited in Bryant Myers, Walking With the Poor). This creates space for our worship, discipleship and spirituality to be evangelistic. This also frees us from our “savior complex” and releases conversion and salvation to God. As the song joyfully affirms: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev. 7:10).

Evangelism is the Prevenience of the Spirit

Evangelism is the prevenience of the Spirit, not simply the activity of the Christian missionary. It is not enough to speak of the proclamation, presence and persuasion of the gospel; we must also recognize the prevenience or the previousness of the Spirit (Lesslie Newbigin. The Open Secret). That is to say that long before the Christian arrives with the Good News, the Spirit of God has been moving, preparing and wooing humanity to Himself. Evangelism participates in and flows from God’s previous activity.

Implications for Life and Ministry

This brief analysis of evangelism as proclamation, presence, persuasion and the Spirit’s prevenience has many implications for our lives and ministries. We learn that evangelism is holistic, not fragmented. Holistic ministry is an approach to mission that considers the whole of humanity without compartmentalizing it, the whole of society without atomizing it, and the whole of the cosmos without categorizing it. Each day the WMF community welcomes hundreds of children in our lives and homes around the world. This welcoming includes shelter, advocacy, education, the sharing of meals and discipleship. We minister to the whole child—mind, soul and body. We also minister to the families of these children. We do not isolate them from their society or from their world but try to bring transformation within it.

In his book Good News and Good Works, Ron Sider attempts to work out an understanding of doing evangelism and doing social action without confusing the two tasks. Sider defines evangelism as leading a person to become a personal disciple of Christ while arguing for social action as transforming social and political structures. He tries to preserve the integrity of evangelism by not confusing it with social action and vice-versa. Although Sider does affirm that the separate activities are inseparable, Vinay Samuel criticizes him for being dualistic. Samuel argues that we cannot be “dualistic evangelicals who think it is possible to come to Christ and not be engaged in social justice” (Chris Sugden, Seeking the Asian Face of Jesus). Because the evangelism is holistic, we cannot divide its parts. When Jesus brings the child, the outcast and the weak into the center of society, justice is done and the Good News is proclaimed. When, in the name of Jesus, street children learn to read and write, eat healthy meals and are protected from police brutality, the Good News is proclaimed.

Evangelism is transformational. Christ’s announcement of the coming Kingdom of God included community building, confrontation and intentional conflict, liberation, hope, repentance and the forgiveness of sins, persecution, healing, miracles and discipleship. Biblically, we are not called merely to supply a different interpretation of the world, of history and of human nature, but to transform them in expectation of a divine transformation (Jürgan Moltmann, A Theology of Hope).

Evangelism, for Christ, was transformation. This transformation influenced the whole of society and the whole of humanity. It demanded a response, either total acceptance or total rejection.

Biblical evangelism finds its basis in a proper Kingdom-of-God understanding. This Kingdom understanding requires total submission to the all-encompassing nature of this Kingdom. Such submission touches on every aspect of living, being and doing.

Evangelism is an announcement. The New Testament theologian N.T. Wright searches biblical history to learn what evangelism meant for Jesus and the apostles. He states, “The gospel is for Paul, at its very heart, an announcement about the true God as opposed to false gods” (What Saint Paul Really Said). Whether it is to the god of money, the god of sex, or the god of power, the gospel of the Kingdom announces the end to false gods, and their reordering and consummation into a new Kingdom. Wright likens evangelism to Caesar’s herald, who proclaims the royal announcement. The herald would not say, “If you would like to try to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero.” Rather, the herald’s proclamation is an “authoritative summons to obedience—the obedience of faith.” The Gospel of God is not an alternative to other gods, but it is the heralding of the Kingdom by which all others will be judged. The Apostle Paul writes, “The gospel is the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Wright comments, “The gospel is not just about God’s power saving people. It is God’s power at work to save people.” Evangelism, therefore, is the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord.

This New Testament understanding of evangelism has deep implications on our practical ministry. We can no longer understand evangelism as mere words. We can no longer hold evangelism in one hand and social justice in the other while claiming that we are faithful to biblical evangelism. We can no longer democratize evangelism by submitting it to public opinion for its acceptance. Instead, we must acknowledge the totality of biblical evangelism: Jesus is Master of all, will be all in all, and is turning the kingdoms of this world on their heads.

Correspondingly, evangelism is a denouncement. When we announce the totality of Jesus’ lordship, we simultaneously denounce any opposition to His reign. Gustavo Gutierrez says that the church must make the prophetic denunciation of every dehumanizing situation, which is contrary to fellowship, justice and liberty. The truth of the gospel, it has been said, is a truth which must be done” (A Theology of Liberation).

Walter Wink says that “evangelism is always a form of social action. It is an indispensable component of any new ‘world’” (Naming the Powers). That is to say that the Good News engages and challenges persons, societies, structures and the cosmos. We fully realize that only persons can repent and receive Christ, but persons are social beings within social structures, and the gospel announces the lordship of Christ over the whole cosmos, including its society, structures and systems. Wink goes further to affirm that “social action is always evangelism, if carried out in full awareness of Christ’s sovereignty over the Powers.” Although there needs to be more than a simple awareness of Christ’s lordship for this statement to be true, it certainly shows our need for a paradigmatic change in our understanding of evangelism. “Jesus did not just forgive sinners, He gave them a new world” (Wink). If this is true, then we rule out the idea that evangelism and social action are two separate segments or components of mission.

David Bosch explains that evangelism is mission, but mission is not merely evangelism. Thus, these terms should not be equated. Bosch, in a very detailed examination of evangelization and mission, shows that evangelism must be placed in the context of mission. Each context demands that the gospel addresses its particular predicaments: injustice, corruption, abortion, murder, greed, gluttony, drug abuse, etc.

Evangelism that separates people from their context views the world not as a challenge but as a hindrance, devalues history, and has eyes only for the “nonmaterial aspects of life” … What criterion decides that racism and structural injustice are social issues but pornography and abortion personal? Why is politics shunned and declared to fall outside of the competence of the evangelist, except when it favors the position of the privileged society? (Bosch, Transforming Mission).

Could it be that we have re-defined evangelism to suit our own lifestyles and forfeited biblical evangelism because it is too radical? Biblical evangelism is Jesus’ Good News to the poor, imprisoned, crippled, deaf and blind; biblical evangelism is Jesus’ invitation to follow Him and to become His disciples; biblical evangelism is Jesus’ call to service in the reign of God; biblical evangelism is a call to mission.

Paul exhorts us in 2 Timothy 4:5 “to do the work of the evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” From the aspects discussed in this article, it is easy to see how our ministry will reflect our understanding of the meaning of evangelism. We must unlock the shackles of our contemporary definitions and seek to know God’s intention for evangelism. He is calling us to announce the Good News through proclamation, presence, persuasion and the promised prevenience of the Spirit. This means we must denounce anything that opposes the gospel; we must be holistic and transformational in our evangelism; and we must do evangelism in the context of mission.

Our hope is that we lay our ideas and misconceptions before Jesus, where they can be transformed and radicalized. Jesus is the Gospel made flesh. He is the embodiment of the Good News. He is the point where the evangel and the evangelist are one. Our prayer is that by His Spirit, we may be Christ’s heralds, announcing the coming of the new heaven and the new earth, and that the Good News of the Father would truly be Good News to the world.

Ce înţelegem prin „evanghelizare”?

Dintr-un articol scris de mine în 2000:

„Cuvântul Întrupat” (Word Made Flesh) slujeşte în prezent în nouă ţări unde lucrătorii misiunii noastre trăiesc în mijlocul săracilor şi unde încearcă să propovăduiască Vestea Bună a Regelui Isus şi a venirii Împărăţiei Lui. Termenul pe care îl atribuim acestei activităţi este „evanghelizare”. Dar, pe măsură ce slujim în mijlocul săracilor ne lovim de limitările şi absurditatea înţelegerii noastre tradiţionale a acestui concept.

Cuvântul „evanghelizare” evocă de cele mai multe ori în minţile contemporane imagini ale tele-evangheliştilor, ale predicatorilor care călătoresc sau ale zeloşilor prozelitişti. Atunci când definim termenul „evanghelizare” vorbim de cele mai multe ori despre „a-i salva pe oameni” sau despre „a fi sigur de locul unde mergi după moarte”. Cu toate că dorim ca oamenii să ajungă să-L cunoască pe Dumnezeu şi să aibă siguranţa mântuirii, acest punct de vedere este îngust şi trunchiat faţă de forma evanghelizării biblice. Este rezultatul culturii noastre post iluministe care L-a privatizat pe Dumnezeu şi care a expediat Evanghelia bisericilor geto-uri, doar ca pe un cuvânt lipsit de conţinut. Aceasta secularizează şi îmblânzeşte Evanghelia, lucru care o constrânge doar la domeniul personal şi care se retrage de la angajarea socială şi păcatul politic. Aceasta transformă Evanghelia într-un produs de consumat care are ca scop satisfacerea nevoilor individuale fără luarea angajamentului de a transforma umanitatea. Acest individualism brut a mutilat conceptul nostru de evanghelizare şi a hrănit atomizarea umanităţii şi a societăţii. Această înţelegere greşită, propagată de mulţi evanghelişti din Vest a fost exportată cu succes bisericilor evanghelice din lume. Ca urmare, atunci când spunem prietenilor noştri creştini că evanghelizăm, mulţi cred că ne referim la personajele biblice de hârtie de pe flanelografe sau la prezentările PowerPoint. Mai expresive sunt încruntările pe care le vedem când explicăm faptul că noi nu evangelizăm numai prin cuvinte. De aceea, vrem să folosim ocazia aceasta de a reflecta la înţelesul evanghelizării biblice astfel încât conceptul şi practica misiunii să fie radicalizate.

Trebuie să ne întrebăm ce este evanghelizarea biblică şi cum tradiţia bisericii ne poate corecta înţelesul deviat. După episcopul Mortimer Arias, termenul de „evanghelizare” vine din grecescul „euangelion” care înseamnă „vestea bună”, „evanghelie”, „evangel” şi din „euangelizomai” care înseamnă „a anunţa vestea bună”. Dar aşa cum subliniază misiologistul David Bosch, de la începutul secolului al XIX-lea, verbul „a evangheliza” şi derivatele lui au fost reabilitate în biserici şi în cercurile de misiune. Lucrarea de faţă va încerca să contureze o înţelegere a termenului de evanghelizare ca diferenţiat de definiţiile contemporane şi convergent spre înţelesurile lui originare.

Evanghelizarea este proclamare

Evanghelizarea este proclamare dar nu este sinonim cu verbiaj. Este de ajutor să facem diferenţa între euangelion (evanghelie) şi kerygma, cuvântul grecesc care se referă la predicare sau proclamare a Evangheliei ceea ce este fundamental şi atotcuprinzător în Noul Testament. Kerygma era evenimentul de a fi adresat prin cuvânt. Unii spun că exista o formulă „kergymatică” despre Isus, care reprezintă „limba faptelor” şi faptele în desfăşurare, Dumnezeu venit în persoana lui Isus Christos, crucificat, înviat şi înălţat. Dar evanghelizarea nu poate fi redusă la verbalizarea Veştii Bune. Proclamarea de la amvon sau prin mass media tinde să devină un monolog detaşat de relaţia cu oamenii. Evanghelizarea care este redusă doar la proclamare are un criteriu arbitrar pentru o viaţă creştină autentică şi este foarte individualistă cu consecinţe ale unei pocăinţe interioare (metanoia) care este percepută doar la nivelul simţurilor sau al meditaţiei fără a deveni realitate. Evanghelizarea biblică este personală. Cuvântul a fost făcut trup. Evanghelia a fost întrupată în persoana lui Isus. Acesta este motivul pentru care expresia „Evanghelie” este folosită în Noul Testament pentru a face referire şi la proclamarea apostolică a lui Christos şi la istoria lui Christos.

Evanghelia este mesajul dar în acelaşi timp, Evanghelia este viaţa lui Isus. În Christos, mesajul şi mesagerul sunt în mod inseparabil una. Isus doreşte să se reveleze pe Sine, El este Evanghelistul prin faptul că El, în mod continuu, comunică şi atrage umanitatea spre un dialog cu Dumnezeu. El comunică cu persoanele în mod personal şi împuterniceşte (termen militar) persoanele să continue să comunice la modul personal.

„A evangheliza înseamnă a comunica această bucurie, înseamnă a transmite, individual şi ca o comunitate, vestea bună a iubirii lui Dumnezeu, iubire care ne-a transformat vieţile”  Prin urmare, proclamarea trebuie făcută în relaţie şi în puterea Duhului Sfânt. De aceea, Pavel spune: „Evanghelia noastră v-a fost propovăduită nu numai cu vorbe, ci cu putere, cu Duhul Sfânt şi cu mare îndrăzneală” (1 Tesaloniceni 1:5) „Prin proclamarea Evangheliei, înţelegem, prin urmare, toate expresiile bisericii şi ale creştinilor, expresii făcute prin limbă care au drept conţinut istoria lui Christos şi libertatea omului pentru Împărăţia pe care o deschide acea istorie.”

Aceasta înseamnă că evanghelizarea nu este doar proclamarea despre o altă lume. Ori pentru a justifica „status quo”, ori pentru a anestezia inabilitatea noastră de a schimba acest „status quo”, predicăm de multe ori despre „plăcinta din ceruri”. Sigur că noi credem şi proclamăm ziua minunată când va domni dreptatea şi neprihănirea, când poporul lui Dumnezeu va locui pentru totdeauna în prezenţa Lui. Dar Dumnezeu vrea să experimentăm viaţa din abundenţă acum. Vrea să experimentăm manifestările prezenţei Lui şi să participăm la celebrarea anticipată. Isus ne invită să ne rugăm: „Vie Împărăţia Ta precum în Ceruri aşa şi pe pământ” O subliniere prea mare a „celeilalte lumi” ne face să ne detaşăm de creaţie şi de istorie. Rezultatul ar fi că evanghelizarea noastră nu ar vorbi despre promisiunile lui Dumnezeu pentru creaţia Sa, nici despre faptul că Dumnezeu va face toate lucrurile noi şi nici nu ar confrunta în mod serios păcatul istoric. De aceea, este important să ne amintim că nu ne eliberăm de istorie ci că luăm promisiunile lui Dumnezeu din trecut în speranţele noastre despre ceea ce se va întâmpla în viitor, aşa după cum o arată Biblia.

Cealaltă extremă a „celeilalte lumi” este „această lume”. Dar evanghelizarea nu este sinonimă cu Evanghelia progresului nici cu orice altă mişcare social politică. Episcopul Oscar Romero, care a fost martirizat, spunea: „pericolul reducţionismului, în ceea ce priveşte evanghelizarea, poate lua două forme: ori subliniază elementele transcedentale spiritualităţii şi destinului uman, ori poate merge la cealaltă extremă, selectând doare acele elemente imanente ale Împărăţiei lui Dumnezeu care îşi au începutul aici pe pământ.” Din păcate, proiectele umane s-au numit singure venirea lui Dumnezeu. Mult din misiunea modernă a mers pe spatele colonialismului lumii prin puterile vestice. Mesajul Evangheliei lui Isus Christos a fost pervertit cu promisiuni ale culturii vestice, care s-a presupus a fi mai bună şi mai avansată. De mult ori, în numele civilizaţiei, Biserica a transplantat un Dumnezeu străin şu o religie străină care nu numai că nu şi-au ţinut promisiunile ci au dus chiar la regres cultural. Evanghelia nu poate fi identificată cu nici o mişcare culturală, socială sau politică. De fapt, ea trebuie să le confrunte şi să le provoace pe acestea. Evanghelizarea adevărată este Vestea Bună. Şi asta sună a adevăr într-un mediu primitiv pentru că oamenii există prin Cuvânt (Ioan 1:3) şi pentru că Duhul a început deja să pregătească inimile oamenilor (Romani 2:15)

Evanghelizarea este prezenţă

Evanghelizarea este prezenţă dar nevoie de explicaţii. Evanghelia nu are doar caracter declarator ci este şi dusă la îndeplinire. Poate acoperi prima trăsătură pentru că o are pe cea de-a doua. Prezenţa Evangheliei este de o importanţă particulară astăzi, când suntem invadaţi de cuvinte şi când experimentăm sărăcia limbajului. Ştim că faptele noastre vorbesc mai tare decât cuvintele, că felul cum trăim vorbeşte de la sine şi că mesajul este validat de mediul lui. De aceea, Leslie Newbigin, misionar în India a spus: „Biserica este hermeneutica Evangheliei” Oamenii lui Dumnezeu întrupează, explică şi sunt interpretarea vie a Evangheliei. Ion Bria (misiologist român ortodox) spune că e vorba nu numai de „proclamarea orală ci şi de martyria” Termenul martyria înseamnă martor. Bryant Meyers spune: „pentru creştini, a fi martor este integral pentru ceea ce suntem şi pentru ceea ce credem.” Evanghelizarea ca spunere a Evangheliei este de obicei actul al doilea. În primul rând, mărturisim prin viaţa şi faptele noastre, apoi explicăm ce se întâmplă. De exemplu, mărturisirea lui Isus despre Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu i-a provocat pe cei din jurul lui să pună întrebări. Cine este acesta care poate să ierte şi păcatele? Cine este acest evreu care bea apă de la o femeie, care mai este şi samariteancă? Cine este acest profet care mănâncă cu păcătoşii? Evanghelia este răspunsul la întrebările unui om sau ale unei naţiuni. Aceasta înseamnă că evanghelizarea nu înseamnă numai „du-te şi spune!”, înseamnă a mărturisi prin lucrul şi stilul de viaţă al unei comunităţi creştine, comunitate care să provoace întrebări la care răspunsul să fie vestea bună a lui Isus Cristos.

În afirmaţia noastră de evanghelizare prin prezenţă, trebuie, de asemenea, să recunoaştem că acest aspect a primit o oarecare favoare din vreme ce am pierdut încrederea în Adevăr – lucru care, dacă e adevărat, ne convinge să proclamăm. Vestea bună ne este încredinţată. Dacă nu o proclamăm, suntem administratori necredincioşi. Evanghelia trebuie să fie explicită. Chiar dacă ne place să-l cităm pe Sf. Francisc de Assisi, care a spus: „predicaţi Evanghelia, dar folosiţi cuvintele doar atunci când trebuie”, este important să realizăm că el a folosit cuvintele şi mulţi au auzit Vestea Bună venind la Dumnezeu. De fapt. El a predicat unui sultan musulman care l-a invitat să-i vorbească pentru că auzise de stilul de viaţă al Sf. Francisc. Petru ne îndeamnă să trăim astfel de vieţi: „să aveţi o purtare bună în mijlocul Neamurilor, pentru ca în ceea ce vă vorbesc de rău ca pe nişte făcători de rele, prin faptele voastre bune pe care le văd să slăvească pe Dumnezeu în ziua cercetării.” (1 Petru 2:12)

Evanghelizarea este persuasiune

Evanghelizarea înseamnă persuasiune (convingere) dar nu prozelitism şi nu este vânzare prin amăgire. Persuasiunea înseamnă convingerea oamenilor de adevărurile Evangheliei prin apologetică. Pavel spune: „ca unii care cunoaştem frica de Domnul, pe oameni căutăm să-i încredinţăm” (2 Corinteni 5:11). Evanghelizarea este o invitaţie care ţinteşte spre un răspuns. Scopul este de a face ucenici şi de a forma comunitatea creştină. Evanghelizarea este o petiţie: „Vă rugăm fierbinte, în Numele lui Hristos: Împăcaţi-vă cu Dumnezeu!” (2 Corinteni 5:20). Ambasadorii lui Hristos nu au nici o autoritate decât autoritatea de petiţie; noi suntem cerşetori pentru Hristos. De aceea, evanghelizarea nu înseamnă a vinde sau a amăgi oamenii să cumpere un produs de piaţă. „Căci noi nu stricăm Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu, cum fac cei mai mulţi; ci vorbim cu inimă curată, din partea lui Dumnezeu, înaintea lui Dumnezeu, în Christos” (2 Corinteni 2:17). Noi suntem cerşetori care spun altora unde pot găsi pâine. Teologul indian, Vinay Samuel, spune că evanghelizarea este angajamentul de a împărtăşi, nu un anunţ al rezultatelor aşteptate.

Evanghelizarea înseamnă convingerea oamenilor dar nu înseamnă prozelitism. Evanghelizarea nu înseamnă a obţine convertiţi, deşi acesta este un rezultat dorit, nu înseamnă adăugarea la numărul membrilor în clubul nostru. De multe ori ne găsim luptând cu sentimente de vinovăţie pentru că nu par a fi rezultate tangibile în misiunea noastră. Alte ori, suntem tentaţi să spunem altor creştini ceea ce vor să audă…”tocmai am văzut un altul întorcându-se la Dumnezeu…vine la biserică din proprie iniţiativă de câteva luni…a început să se roage la masă”… Astfel de remarci ar putea aduce câteva bătăi de încurajare pe umăr dar servesc numai la propagarea concepţiei greşite despre evanghelizarea de succes.

Atunci când punem un accent exclusiv pe câştigarea oamenilor spre convertire, botez şi membralitate, scopul central al misiunii devine creşterea numerică a bisericii. Astfel, căutarea dreptăţii şi a păcii sunt separate şi demise spre marginile misiunii bisericii. În secolul trecut, multe biserici şi-au definit eşecurile sau succesele pe baza numerelor. Exista succes dacă biserica creştea numeric şi eşua dacă nu se întâmpla asta. Deşi o biserică în creştere poate fi un semn al lucrării lui Dumnezeu, aceste lucruri ne fac să dăm mai multă valoare mărimii decât persoanelor.

Aşa cum ideologia Revoluţiei Industriale a transformat umanitatea într-o rotiţă din maşina societăţii sau într-un produs fabricat în serie, şi ideologia succesului bisericii moderne a transformat umanitatea într-o resursă de donat şi comunitatea în membralitate în biserică. Iar aceasta nu înseamnă doar evanghelizare greşită ci anti-evanghelizare pentru că în adâncul ei dezumanizează.

Dacă Isus este modelul Evanghelistului, atunci trebuie să lăsăm crucea să fie criticul succesului evanghelizării. La cruce nu sunt mulţimi care aclamă, nici biserici somptuoase, şi nici înregistrările cu convertiţii zilei. Evanghelizarea de „succes” este mărturisirea cu credinţă a lui Dumnezeu crucificat, care a murit ca să predice Vestea Bună unei lumi pierdute şi confuze. Atestarea unei evanghelizări de succes stă în Înviere. Această înţelegere pune indicatorul succesului nu pe cei evanghelizaţi ci pe felul cum răspunde evanghelistul la chemare.

Evanghelizarea nu este doar o activitate pentru necredincioşi pentru că şi creştinii sunt într-o permanentă nevoie de evanghelizare. Avery Dulles ne reaminteşte că evanghelizarea nu este completă cu numai prima proclamare: „este un proces de o viaţă în care lăsăm Evanghelia să intre şi să ne transforme toate ideile şi atitudinile” Aceasta creează spaţiu pentru închinare, ucenicizare şi spiritualitate pentru a fi evanghelişti şi de asemenea ne eliberează de „complexul de salvatori” lăsând convertirea şi salvarea în mâinile lui Dumnezeu. Aşa cum afirmă cu bucurie cântecul: „mântuirea este a Dumnezeului nostru care şade pe tronul de domnie şi a şi Mielului:” (Apocalipsa 7:10).

Evanghelizarea este prevenienta Duhului

Evanghelizarea este preveniența Duhului şi nu doar simpla activitate a misionarului creştin. Nu este suficient doar să vorbeşti despre proclamare, prezenţă şi persuasiune, trebuie şi să recunoaştem preveniența sau precedenţa Duhului. Aceasta înseamnă Duhul lui Dumnezeu lucrează, pregăteşte şi caută să câştige umanitatea pentru Sine cu mult mai înainte de a ajunge misionarul cu Vestea Bună. Aceasta înseamnă că evanghelizarea participă la şi curge prin activităţile anterioare ale lui Dumnezeu.

Implicaţii asupra vieţii şi misiunii

Analiza aceasta sumară a evanghelizării ca proclamare, prezenţă, persuasiune şi anticipare a Duhului are multe implicaţii asupra vieţii şi misiunii noastre. Învăţăm că evanghelizarea este holistică(totală) şi nu fragmentată. Misiunea holistică este aceea care ia în considerare umanitatea în întregime fără a o compartimenta, societatea în întregime fără a o atomiza, universul în întregime fără a-l categoriza. În fiecare zi, în comunitatea Cuvântul Întrupat (Word Made Flesh) primim sute de copii în vieţile şi în casele noastre în toată lumea. Această primire implică un adăpost, consiliere, educaţie, părtăşie la masă şi ucenicizare. Misiunea noastră se adresează copilului în întregime – minte, suflet şi trup. Ne adresăm, de asemenea şi familiilor copiilor. Nu încercăm să-i izolăm de societatea sau de lumea lor ci să aducem transformare în interiorul acestora.

În cartea sa, Good News and Good Works ( Vestea Bună şi faptele bune), Ron Sider încearcă să formuleze o înţelegere a ceea ce înseamnă evanghelizare şi acţiune socială fără a le confunda pe acestea. Sider defineşte evanghelizarea ca fiind conducerea unei persoane spre a deveni ucenic personal al lui Isus Christos iar acţiunea socială ca fiind transformarea structurilor sociale şi politice. El încearcă să păstreze integritatea evanghelizării neconfundând conceptul cu cel de acţiune socială şi nici invers. Sider afirmă deci că cele două aspecte separate sunt inseparabile dar Vinay Samuel îl critică considerându-l dualist. Samuel spune că nu putem fi „evanghelici dualişti care să credem că este posibil să venim la Christos fără a ne angaja în dreptatea socială.”  Pentru că evanghelizarea este holistică nu îi putem divide părţile. „Expresii de tipul Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu, predicare, proclamare, prezentare sau tradiţie doar reproduc aspecte parţiale. Ele nu cuprind tot conţinutul sau toată aura Evangheliei sau practicile acesteia, cum ar fi evanghelizarea – ceea ce înseamnă eliberarea lumii în viitorul lui Dumnezeu.”

Atunci când Isus aduce în centrul societăţii pe copil, pe lepros şi pe cel slab se face dreptate şi este proclamată Vestea Bună. Atunci când copiii străzii învaţă să citească, atunci când mănâncă sănătos şi când sunt protejaţi de abuzurile poliţiei, este proclamată Vestea Bună.

Evanghelizarea este transformaţională. Vestirea Împărăţiei lui Dumnezeu pe care o face Christos include construirea comunităţii, confruntare şi conflict intenţional, eliberare, speranţă, căinţă şi iertarea păcatelor, persecuţie, vindecare, miracole şi ucenicizare. Din punct de vedere biblic, noi „nu suntem chemaţi doar să furnizăm o interpretare diferită asupra lumii, istoriei şi naturii umane ci să le transformăm pe acestea în aşteptarea unei transformări divine.”³ Evanghelizarea a însemnat transformare pentru Christos. Transformarea a avut impact asupra întregii societăţi şi asupra întregii umanităţi. A impus un răspuns: ori acceptare totală ori respingere totală.

Evanghelizarea înseamnă vestire. Teologul N.T.Wright specializat pe Noul Testament a căutat ce a însemnat evanghelizarea pentru Isus şi pentru ucenici. El spune: „Evanghelia este pentru Pavel o vestire a Dumnezeului adevărat faţă de dumnezeii falşi.” Fie că e vorba de dumnezeul banilor, al sexului sau al puterii, Evanghelia Împărăţiei anunţă sfârşitul lor şi re-orânduirea acestora în Noua Împărăţie. Autorul aseamănă evanghelizarea cu solul lui Cezar care proclamă un anunţ împărătesc. Solul nu spune: „dacă aţi vrea să încercaţi experienţa de a trăi sub un împărat, aţi putea să încercaţi cu Nero” Dimpotrivă, proclamarea solului este „o chemare autoritară la ascultare – ascultarea credinţei” Evanghelia lui Dumnezeu nu este o alternativă la alţi dumnezei ci o solie a Împărăţiei de care vor fi judecate toate celelalte. Pavel spune: „Evanghelia este puterea lui Dumnezeu pentru mântuirea fiecăruia care crede.” (Romani 1: 16). Wright comentează: „Evanghelia nu este doar despre puterea lui Dumnezeu care salvează oameni, ci puterea lui Dumnezeu la lucru salvând oamenii”. Evanghelizarea este, prin urmare, vestirea că Isus cel crucificat şi înviat este Domnul.

El continuă: „imediat ce înţelegem aceste lucruri distrugem dintr-o suflare dihotomia dezastruoasă între ‚predicarea Evangheliei’ şi ceea ce a fost numit cu prea mare uşurinţă ‚acţiune socială’ sau ‚dreptate socială’.  Această înţelegere nou-testamentală a evanghelizării are implicaţii adânci asupra misiunii noastre practice. Nu mai putem înţelege evanghelizarea ca fiind doar cuvinte şi doar atât. Nu mai putem ţine evanghelizarea într-o mână şi dreptatea socială în cealaltă şi să susţinem că suntem credincioşi evanghelizării biblice. Nu mai putem democratiza evanghelizarea supunând-o opiniei publice pentru acceptare. Dimpotrivă, trebuie să acceptăm totalitatea evanghelizării biblice: Isus este Stăpânul a toate, va fi totul în toate şi acum răstoarnă împărăţiile acestei lumi cu sus-ul în jos.

Evanghelizarea este denunţare. Atunci când anunţăm totalitatea domniei lui Isus, denunţăm în mod simultan orice opoziţie a lui. Gustavo Gutierrez spune că biserica trebuie să: „facă denunţarea profetică a oricărei situaţii care dezumanizează, care  este contrară părtăşiei, dreptăţii şi libertăţii. Adevărul Evangheliei, s-a spus, este un adevăr care trebuie făcut. Autorul clarifică mai departe: „denunţarea se obţine prin confruntarea unei situaţii date cu realitatea care este anunţată: dragostea Tatălui care cheamă pe toţi la Christos şi prin acţiunea Duhului pentru a uni cu El pe toţi în comuniune.”³

Walter Wink contribuie la acest punct de vedere spunând: „evanghelizarea este întotdeauna o formă de acţiune socială. Este o componentă indispensabilă a oricărei lumi noi.”³ Aceasta înseamnă că Vestea Bună angajează şi provoacă toate persoanele, societăţile, structurile şi cosmosul. „Oricând se produce evanghelizarea în deplină cunoştinţă a Puterilor, fie în confruntarea celor aflaţi în poziţia de putere sau eliberând pe cei zdrobiţi de putere, proclamarea suveranităţii lui Christos este prin sine o critică la nedreptate, idolatrie…rezultă deci că schimbarea structurală nu este de ajuns; inima şi sufletul trebuie de asemenea eliberate, iertate, energizate şi reunite cu Sursa lor.” Înţelegem deplin că numai persoanele se pot căi şi Îl pot primi pe Christos dar persoanele sunt fiinţe sociale iar Evanghelia anunţă domnia lui Christos peste întregul cosmos incluzând aici societăţile lui, structurile şi sistemele. Wink continuă: „ acţiunea socială este întotdeauna evanghelizare dacă se produce în deplină cunoştinţă de suveranitatea lui Cristos asupra Puterilor.” E adevărat că pentru a fi adevărată această afirmaţie, este nevoie de mai mult decât de o simplă conştienţă a domniei lui Christos, arată totuşi nevoia de o schimbare paradigmatică în înţelegerea evanghelizării. „Isus nu a iertat doar pe păcătoşi ci le-a dat o lume nouă”, dacă această afirmaţie este adevărată, atunci putem elimina ideea că evanghelizarea şi acţiunea socială sunt două segmente sau componente ale misiunii.

David Bosch explică faptul că evanghelizarea este misiune dar că misiunea nu este doar evanghelizarea. De aceea, aceşti termeni nu trebuie egalaţi. Bosch arată că evanghelizarea trebuie plasată în contextul misiunii. Fiecare context cere ca Evanghelia să-i adreseze situaţiile specifice, cum ar fi: injustiţie, corupţie, avort, crimă, lăcomie, îmbuibare, droguri etc. „Evanghelizarea care separă oamenii de contextul lor vede lumea nu ca pe o provocare ci ca pe o piedică, nu dă valoare istoriei şi are ochi numai pentru aspectele non materiale ale vieţii.”

Bosch întreabă: „Care criteriu decide că rasismul şi injustiţia structurală sunt aspecte sociale dar pornografia şi avortul ar fi personale? De ce este evitată politica şi împinsă în afara competenţei evanghelistului cu excepţia momentelor când favorizează poziţia în societatea privilegiată? Se poate să ne fi re-definit noi evanghelizarea astfel încât să se potrivească stilului nostru de viaţă, se poate să fi pierdut noi evanghelizarea biblică pentru că este prea radicală? Evanghelizarea biblică este vestea bună a lui Isus pentru săraci, pentru cei închişi, şchiopi, surzi şi muţi; evanghelizarea biblică este invitaţia lui Isus de a-L urma şi de a deveni ucenici ai Lui; evanghelizarea biblică este chemarea lui Isus de a sluji în Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu; evanghelizarea biblică este chemarea la misiune.

Pavel ne îndeamnă în 2 Timotei 4:5 „fă lucrul unui evanghelist şi împlineşte-ţi bine slujba”. Din aspectele discutate în acest articol, este uşor de văzut cum misiunea noastră reflectă înţelegerea noastră asupra evanghelizării. Trebuie să descuiem cătuşele definiţiilor contemporane şi să căutăm să cunoaştem intenţia lui Dumnezeu pentru evanghelizare. El ne cheamă să anunţăm Vestea Bună prin proclamare, prezenţă, persuasiune şi anticiparea promisă a Duhului. Aceasta înseamnă că trebuie să denunţăm orice se opune Evangheliei; trebuie să fim holistici şi transformaţionali în evanghelizarea noastră; trebuie să facem evanghelizare în contextul misiunii.

Speranţa noastră stă în faptul că ne aşezăm ideile şi concepţiile greşite în faţa lui Isus pentru a fi transformate şi radicalizate. Isus este Evanghelia întrupată. El este întruparea Veştii Bune. El este punctul unde evanghelistul şi „evangel” sunt una. Rugăciunea noastră este ca prin Duhul Lui, să fim solii lui Christos anunţând venirea unui cer şi unui pământ nou, şi că Vestea Bună a Tatălui să fie într-adevăr Vestea Bună pentru lume.

Q: ideas for the common good

The Q online journal posted an article that I wrote a few years back called “What Do We Mean By Evangelism?” https://www.qideas.org/essays/what-do-we-mean-by-evangelism.aspx