Rightness, Appeal, Efficacy

Nothing I've said so far in any of my criticisms about hell-first, turn-or-burn, Way of the Master evangelism would likely make any real headway with an evangelist dedicated to such approaches.

Why?

Because, as Ray Comfort and other such hell-intensive evangelists insist, theirs is the only biblically supported means of sharing the gospel. They lead with conviction and fear of hellfire not because they think it's the most appealing or logical (by the world's standards) but because they understand the scriptures as mandating that the gospel be spread in that way.

To paraphrase their rationale: it's nice to talk about a loving God who wants the best for your life, but the Bible talks about hell, the lake of fire, and the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hell's existence--the damnation awaiting humanity for its sin--is the controlling reality. Sovereign God ordains it, and only sovereign God can save a helpless humanity from it. To spread a gospel of love and ethics without highlighting the threat of eternal punishment is to corrupt the scripture, to go against doctrine.

Thus, in presenting a criticism about the lack of appeal of hell-first evangelism, I've missed the point. Its effectiveness in attracting the unsaved or in producing lifelong Christians is secondary. After all, it's the Holy Spirit, not the evangelist or her techniques, that enables conversion in the first place. The evangelist's job consists only of following what the Bible says to do, not to innovate new and better--hipper--techniques.

Churches and denominations go astray (in this line of thinking) when they borrow too much from the secular self-help culture of personal empowerment or liberal-left tolerance to re-make God as some kind of namby-pamby grandpa who loves without judgment. The Bible's image--a righteous God simultaneously infuriated at human sin and forgiving toward those whom God saves--naturally seems foolish to a rebellious culture. That's their problem.

Being right takes precedence over being appealing.

Indeed, many conservative evangelicals argue that the newer "soft-sell" (i.e., non-hell-first) techniques of evangelism are not only wrong but ineffective. Such goodness-of-God pitches, goes the argument, produce converts who expect that life as a Christian will be one blessing after another, full of health and prosperity. Disillusionment and bitterness soon follow, though, as these new converts discover that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. Cancer, financial ruin, heartache--all of these affect Christians just as much as they affect anyone else. Thus the prosperity gospels (or Word of Faith theologies) get lambasted for offering a false promise and creating disappointed apostates convinced that the church is full of hypocrites and liars.

I support this line of argument. Any Christian pitch that promises wealth and comfort is in my book suspect, and I join conservative evangelicals in distrusting the prosperity or Word of Faith gospel movements.

But I would argue that the "hard-sell" fight-or-flight, avoid-hell evangelism is similarly ineffective.

I've criticized hell-first evangelicals for downplaying the full import of an eternity of unmitigated torture. Oh, the Way of the Master mentions hell, but it avoids dwelling on hell. To do so would be to underline the ludicrousness--the un-justness--of God's judgment. Even the worst convicts, the foulest offenders, receive finite punishments. Even for them, overt torture is distasteful. But Hell is God's place of torment for any and every offender, from the mass murder down to the occasional fibber, and it is infinite both in terms of sensation (hell is the worst, most unendurable pain you can imagine times a million) and in terms of time (hell lasts for ever with no reprieve). What possible offense--let alone a single violation of one of the ten commandments--could justify that punishment?

I submit that hell-first evangelicals likewise underplay the full import of Christianity. One of the defining features of evangelicalism, a feature with a longer legacy than even biblical inerrancy, is its picture of conversion as a singular experience. Evangelical testimonies typically revolve around an individual's moment of decision, the temporal point at which they become a Christian.

Now, this moment gets rendered in very particular ways depending upon the evangelical tradition. For some, the moment involves nothing more than belief in the saving act and power of Christ. For others, the moment involves "giving your life to Christ" or "accepting Jesus into your heart as Lord." For still others, the preferred language is "repentance," turning from dependency upon yourself and surrendering to the sovereign power of God to save you. These differences may seem minor to outsiders, but they can prove quite sharp, the source of vicious schisms and quarrels (more on that later).

Whatever the exact language--and nearly all evangelicals would insist their language involves faith, not works--the result ought to be a life lived for Christ. This is a vital point. Evangelicals will argue that no one can earn their way into salvation through good works or beneficent intentions. Humans by themselves cannot save themselves. Going to church, reading your Bible, following the ten commandments--none of that will save you. Only belief in Christ as savior can do that.

Nevertheless, the tacit understanding is that anyone who authentically believes in Christ (or whatever the exact term) will in practice strive to pattern their life in a way that results in church attendance, Bible-reading, commandment-following, etc. If someone makes a profession of faith (i.e., "gets saved") and then proceeds to live their life exactly as before, the legitimacy of their salvation experience is in doubt.

Now, evangelicals will divide on whether or not such a person is actually saved. Some are quite cavalier about weeding the true from the false converts. Others are hesitant to second-guess what the Spirit might be doing in the hearts and minds of others.

Regardless, however, the "normal" expectation among evangelicals is that turning to Christ ought to have consequences beyond the convert's essential salvation from hell. Turning to Christ, believing in Jesus's salvific act, ought to result in a deep and abiding change to the patterns of one's inner and outer life. It is a momentary decision with a lifetime result.

It's in the lifetime after the decision that I see the problem with fight-or-flight evangelism.

More tomorrow,

JF