Still, from memory it seems as if the scripture accounts are full of gaping holes. That’s why we’ve filled in the holes with so many different ideas and techniques. I mean, we know Paul made tents, but what about the other apostles? Did they have day jobs? We know Peter preached in the streets sometimes, but was that the main activity the others did too in their travels? Or was their influence more (limited?) to closer friends and family?

I can hear some of my charismatic past talking right now too. They advocated nearly the same exercise. Go through Acts and find every time a miracle, healing, or exorcism was used spread the gospel. Back to Acts 3, the only reason a crowd had gathered around Peter (so he could preach) was that they were amazed he had healed the crippled beggar. This happens over and over again. They argued (rather convincingly at times) that the reason our evangelism sucked was because we had theologized signs and wonders of any sort right out the back door. Have we chopped off our right hand by limiting our “tools” to 16th century rhetoric or lately to 20th century psychology? I mean, if your going through Acts making lists of things, you’ll have a pretty incomplete picture if the special power moments are left out.

The gospels are even more interesting. Is Jesus a special case? I used to think so, but then I heard argued (again pretty well) that everything Jesus did was by the power of the Holy Spirit, who he had in full measure. We would be sent out with the exact same spirit, and so that’s why he said we would do “even great works” than he did. When Jesus healed a man, he wasn’t using special Son-of-God power, but Holy Spirit power. Perhaps the only things he did unique to the Incarnation were 1) forgiving sins, 2) coming back to life all by himself. Pretty much everything else was not a special case – stuff only Jesus could ever be expected to do.

That being the case, then looking at the gospels would also be a beneficial exercise!

What most helped me think about evangelism proper is a task that you have to do for yourself to get the full benefit of it. Go through the book of Acts verse by verse and find every reference to evangelistic activity of any kind (use a pretty broad definition and notice how the book itself labels what’s going on in each case). Then lay all those sections side by side and see what’s going on there, what are the common factors and the differences.

Or better yet, but a little more complicated: Do the same thing with the Four Gospels. Notice especially all uses of the words “gospel,” “good news,” “preach,” etc. E.g. “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Is this evangelism proper? I would certainly say so.

And then see where it all leads…

To me, thinking about evangelism begins with looking at current Christians and what brought them to the Lord. I found the discussion at Small Group enlightening. A mix of parents who loved Christ and showed a life worthy of emulating to a friend that invited someone to Youth Group.

The successful missionaries tend to be the ones also whose lives do the talking. Elizabeth Elliot, for instance, probably didn’t plan to have her husband murdered then to live and raise her daughter with his murderers. Not your gospel-in-a-can type of evangelism for sure.

Is it the mere fact that their religion was all-consuming? Mother Teresa’s sure was. Even my dad’s was. It was that which drew me like a moth to the flame, not the cute cartoons on the tracts in the back of the church. How to translate that to mass marketing in today’s comfortable culture? No idea. But it seems the espresso bars in the lobby don’t quite have the same impact.