A Moravian Approach to Evangelism (2 of 2)

Monday, May 26th, 2008 | Papers

Evangelism is a task for all Christians. Every individual and every church develops habits of witness. This paper on evangelism in the Moravian tradition was written in 1989 as a partial fulfillment of Dr. Green’s Doctor of Ministry degree at McCormick Theological Seminary. (2 of 2)

Their Story

Not only must effective witnesses have a knowledge of The Story and My Story, if they wish to practice personal evangelism according to the model of Hunter’s Inductive Evangelism, they must also have a knowledge of Their Story—the unique story of the person with whom a witness is attempting to share the gospel.

It goes almost without saying that some things have not changed since the New Testament Era. Sinful people still want to be saved from their sins. Guilty people still want forgiveness. Dying people still want a hope to cling to. Anxious people still seek knowledge that will put some of their anxiety to rest. Lonely people still seek fulfillment in community. And seekers after truth still quest for meaning. But some things have changed, not just since the time of the New Testament, but in our lifetime. In the Lyman Beecher Trust Lectures, which he delivered at the Yale Divinity School in the Spring of 1960, Lord Donald Soper, a well known British Methodist pastor who spent thousands of hours on his “soap box” at Tower Hill—–the Areopagus of London, says that there are five great changes that have taken place in the world in the last few decades.

1. There is a change from knowledge to ignorance. The state of the hearer is today mainly secular. The religious background for those who go to church and those who stay away from church is largely destroyed. [Soper, 1962,p. 11]. Today, our images are secular images which we pick-up from books, magazines, newspapers, radio, movies and television. Not long ago, this writer used a scene from the motion picture “An Officer and a Gentleman” as illustration in a sermon. Afterward, one of the young professional women in his congregation told him that it was the most effective illustration he had ever used. He asked her if she had seen the picture. She answered, “Several times.”

2. There is a change from death to life. Soper writes:

It is only by a strenuous effort of will that you and I can think ourselves back into an environment where most people died before they were thirty-five and death was cheek by jowl with the living all the time. People who fell ill probably died of the ailment. In fact, death was the ever-present reality rather than life. Astounding changes have taken place in your lifetime and mine. The expectation of life is now well over sixty. Most diseases are curable and all will be. I remember so distinctly in the “blitz”, when I was partly responsible for looking after those who were bombed out in a large area of London, now few people, if any, anticipated that they were going to be killed. Many were killed, but life consciousness even in the disturbing situation was overwhelmingly stronger than the prospect of death. And if you remove the prospect of imminent death, and the close familiarity with it, a new factor enters for the first time in history into the thinking and attitude of ordinary people. (Soper, 1962:15).

If anything, our contemporary American society is even more life conscious and death denying than the British society of 1960 about which Soper wrote.

3. There is a change from guilt to doubt. Soper relates how, in 1960, he asked the great British Methodist, Dr. J. Ernest Rattenbury, who began his preaching in 1895, if there there was a difference between the attitude of people in his day, sixty-five years before, and the attitude of that day. Dr. Rattenbury responded:

In any congregation, normal or otherwise, sixty-five years ago, you could count on a general sense of guilt. Now the only thing you can count on is a general sense of doubt. (Soper, 1962:18).

Soper concluded, “As preachers we address those who are in various stages of doubt.” (Soper, 1962:19). That will certainly be true of those who attempt to become verbal witnesses.

4. There is a change from need to curiosity. According to Soper, “There is plenty of interest in religion but little concern.” (Soper, 1962:21). In our generation, people are religious from curiosity and habit. But many are not as concerned at incorporating the beliefs and actions of the faith into their lives. This is particularly obvious in those nations where people who belong to “the state church” attend church during the holidays, or, certainly, when a child is christened, but stay away in droves on most of the Sundays of the year. Reports of Christianity in the “Christian states” of Europe are nothing less than heartbreaking. They make one glad to live in a nation where the freedom to practice one’s religion and the separation of church and state are both guaranteed.

5. There is a change from belonging to alienation. Though he does not use the language, Donald Soper was one of the first to observe the subtle currents of society that would produce the “me” generation. Some now argue that the “me” generation has been replaced by the “we” generation, but the “we” implied in the statement is not a universal we, but a very specific we—couples, families, the like. Human beings in our society no longer simply belong to their place in the world as did their mothers and fathers. That physical place may still exist; but, chances are, they have long since left it, physically and psychologically. Our roots have been cut by mobility in our societies. And where shall we sink them? Many simply sink them into themselves.

Soper’s list is almost, but not quite what this author would make it. There is a sixth change that this writer feels bound to propose as he thinks specifically about the congregations of the Moravian Church that he has served to date and the communities surrounding them.

6. There is a change from having enough to having plenty. It was John Wesley who said, “Wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion.” (Kelly, 1972:55). The seed that our witnesses sow will often be sown upon ground already choked with thorns (Mark 4:18,19). Those they address will be among those whose lives revolve around “the cares of the world.”

The facts that we have outlined here are hard ones, but they cannot be ignored. If our witnesses are going to be effective, they must address The Story to Their Story. The Story about Jesus Christ must be told in such a way that it intersects with the story of the people to whom we tell it.

Witnesses must aim at identifying the specific needs of the person with whom they are attempting to share the story. Hunter suggests that people who wish to be effective witnesses can train themselves to identify the level of need that is present in people if they take the time to over-learn Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. Hunter writes (1981:43):

It is a component of communication theory that it does not help you if you learn it, it only helps you if you over-learn it. You must become so familiar with this hierarchy that you begin to think and function within the categories automatically, just as you now write a sentence without having to think consciously of nouns and verbs. (Hunter, 1981:43-44):

All these needs are relevant to every human being, and, as Maslow himself points out, the higher needs can be addressed only after the lower needs have been satisfied (1968:12). It must be kept in mind that a particular need may not always be center stage and currently motivating a person’s life. For instance, Kelly (1972:161) says that a person’s quest for meaning does not remain center stage forever; but, after a time of intensification often brought on by personal crisis, begins to recede.

MASLOW’S HIERARCHY AND THE CHRISTIAN WITNESS

According to Maslow (1968), human beings are composite creatures, partaking of both the animal and the divine (12). Most philosophies and religions have dichotomized this two-fold nature, teaching that the way to become higher is to master the lower. Maslow is on common ground with many Christian theologians in teaching that both the higher and lower natures are “simultaneously defining characteristics of our humanity.” He maintains that neither can be repudiated; they can only be integrated (11).

The lower needs—like those of hunger, affection, security, self-esteem, etc., Maslow calls deficiency needs (D-needs). The higher needs—like the desire for self-actualization, the need to know and understand, and aesthetic needs, Maslow calls metaneeds (B-needs). B-needs are growth needs, and Maslow is very much aware that one needs beauty, justice, goodness, wholeness, and order in one’s life just as much as one needs food, sex and security. However, Maslow emphasizes that D-needs always take priority over B-needs. Deficiency needs must be met before a person can set to work on fulfilling his or her metaneeds. Maslow writes (1968:173):

Man’s higher nature rests upon man’s lower nature, needing it as a foundation and collapsing without this foundation. That is, for the mass of mankind, man’s higher nature is inconceivable without a satisfied lower nature as a base.

According to Maslow, only the healthiest, most mature, and most evolved individuals may be able to repress the D-needs in favor of the B-needs; and these people are exceedingly rare (1968:173). Thus the evangelist attempting Inductive Evangelism must engage the individual at the lowest level on the hierarchy at which he or she is experiencing need.

The following outline of Maslow’s hierarchy is intended only to engage the student in meaningful dialogue:

Physiological Needs

Physiological needs include food, shelter, elimination and sex. While it is true that there is no way one can compare the gift of eternal life with the gift of a cup of soup and a crust of bread, it is also true that people with empty bellies and no place to sleep are hardly ready to be approached with the words of the gospel. They want the followers of the man who fed the multitudes to feed them. The element of the kerygma that appeals to persons with physiological needs is that “the New Age has begun.” Where physiological needs are the issue, it is true that (Armstrong, 1984:24):

The evangelical commitment of the Church must be like Christ’s—an engagement with the poorest. God takes their defense and loves them. This is why the poor are the first addressees of mission and their evangelization is par excellence the sign of the mission of Jesus.

Of course, there are times when the Christian witness must insist that the needs of the soul take precedence over the needs of the body. Take the matter of sex. Pagan religions saw that the sex need was met through the services of a temple prostitute. The Gospel uses an entirely different tact. It approves sex within marriage (Mark 10:6, I Corinthians 7:9); but the only provision it makes for the unmarried is to hold out the possibility of spiritually motivated abstinence. The kerygma offers primary hope for those for whom marriage is not an option with its announcement that Jesus died “to deliver us from the present evil age.” Certainly, this deliverance includes the possibility of deliverance from sexual sin.

Obviously, it is impossible for the witness to address the sexually active single person without being at least somewhat confrontational, for The Story reminds us that Christ shall return not only as Savior but as judge. Technically, the witness who engages in this kind of interchange is practicing deductive evangelism. Deductive evangelism is beyond the purview of this discussion, but there are two points that must be made here. First, the fact that it is necessary to discuss this problem serves as an additional warning that no one model of evangelism is always appropriate. If the witness truly cares about people, there will be times when he or she will have no recourse except to be confrontational.

Secondly, the author would point out how awesome a decision it is to follow this course. Writing in a purely secular sense, psychiatrist Scott Peck (1982:155) observes that, when a person confronts another, presuming to know what is best for that person, he or she is thereby “playing God”. He says that to do this without the total self-awareness demanded by love, is to be blissfully and destructively ignorant of the fact that one is playing God. Peck advises that one must always be aware of the awesomeness of this role, but he also advises that there are times when, “Love compels us to play God with full consciousness of the enormity of the fact that that is just what we are doing.”

This will undoubtedly be so for the witness.

The Need for Safety

Safety needs, like physiological needs,are D-Needs. If they are not met one’s development will most certainly be stunted, giving one little opportunity for developing spiritually. Since there are many things that can be classed under this heading, it will be helpful to begin this discussion with a description of the need as Maslow understands it.

Every human being must wrestle with two opposing forces. On the one hand, every human being has a need for safety, to stay close to the those things symbolized—and at one time actualized, by the mother’s uterus and breast. Human beings are afraid to take chances. They are afraid of independence, freedom and separateness. They want security. On the other hand, human beings have a need to grow. They are impelled forward by the unconscious need to attain wholeness and uniqueness of Self. Under the right circumstances, their movement is naturally toward the full functioning of all their capacities and toward confidence in their ability to deal with the outer world (Maslow, 1968:44).

Throughout life there is a tension set up in human beings between the need for safety and the need for growth. Growth takes place when growing appears more attractive and pleasurable than “holding on to the mother’s skirt” (a place of safety). It is accelerated when the growth takes place in a relatively safe arena. A good image here is the image of the child who explores a room while constantly assuring himself or herself that mother is still visible and watching. As confidence in personal safety grows, the child will wander farther and farther afield and grow apace.

The process of choosing between safety and growth is not something a human being outgrows. The mother’s “skirts” are replaced by the wife’s, or the husband’s, or the company’s, or the club’s. Frequently, ideas that one learns as a child grip and hold one throughout life, providing one with a feeling of safety. The tendency to grow is still operative, but if growth becomes too painful, one will not hesitate to seek out the old place of safety. A human being cannot grow mentally and spiritually until this need for safety is realized, or until the possibility inherent in growth appears more attractive and pleasurable than maintaining the status quo in a place of real or intellectual safety.

In presenting the gospel, the witness may have an opportunity to offer a place of physical safety to someone. However, it is more likely still that the witness will have the opportunity of presenting Jesus Christ as the way by which the individual in question can become not just a protected child—-but a protected child of God, at risk in the world, but not alone.

Love and Belongingness Needs

Love and belongingness needs are also D-needs. Everyone needs to be loved. If one is not loved as a child, or if one fails to perceive that one is loved, then it is likely that one will carry the deficiency with one throughout life.

The cults in our society have made their greatest impact upon those persons who are suffering love and belongingness needs. The Moonies, for instance, have exploited the fact that many people are willing to give others unbelievable control over their lives in exchange for a sense of belonging and being loved. People who have love and belongingness needs can be reached.

A Christian friend may be all they need to point them to Christ. This author knows of at least a half-dozen people who have become part of the fellowship of a local church, not so much as a faith decision, but because of their discovery that members of the church were open to their presence. He knows, too, of several instances in which these people have flowered as persons, becoming much that they might never have become, if their love and belongingness needs had continued to be denied. Obviously, the idea of Christian community is a powerful one for persons with love and belongingness needs.

The Need for Esteem

Esteem needs—-how one perceives one’s self and how one thinks others perceive oneself are D-Needs also. People are constantly shaping the way that they feel about themselves. According to Maslow (1968:5):

The serious thing for each person to recognize is that every falling away from species-virtue, every crime against one’s own nature, every evil act, everyone without exception records itself in our unconscious and makes us despise ourself.

The Prophet Ezekiel, speaking for YAHWEH, said the same thing about the people of Israel:

You shall remember your ways and all the doings with which you have polluted yourselves; and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed. (Ezekiel 20:43)

Karen Horney had a good word to describe what Maslow called an unconscious perceiving and remembering; she said it “registers.” If a person does something that he or she is ashamed of, it registers; or, if they do something that is evil, it registers. By the same token, if a person does something honest, fine or good it registers, too. In this way one tears down or builds up one’s self-esteem (Maslow, 1968:6).

The presence or absence of a sense of guilt is a major factor in determining the level of one’s self-esteem. Though it is true that the sense of guilt is diminished in many because of the liberality of the age, there are those for whom it is an overwhelming concern.

“He died for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age,” is the glad news of the kerygma for those who are oppressed and crushed by poor self-esteem. One who has entered into a relationship with Christ is hopeful that one’s sins no longer register in the Divine Mind. Then, too, the decision to follow Christ is a positive one that cannot help but register in the mind of the individual in a positive way. It is the first step toward building a new self image.

Those who lack the esteem of others can be approached in several ways. The fact that they are esteemed by God may reach them. Or, it may be that the appeal of Christian community is all that can satisfy. Finally, it ought to be observed that the witnesses themselves have the power to grant the first tokens of esteem. The expression of interest is often a powerful thing.

The Need for Self-Actualization

The need for self-actualization belongs to that group of needs which Maslow called growth needs, metaneeds, B-Needs. These are the needs that one begins to focus upon consciously and unconsciously when the D-needs have been met. One may temporarily suspend personal gratification if D-needs recur, but the mature person is capable of sustaining the effort required for self-actualization. The person moving towards self-actualization believes the dictum that one must be all that one can be.

At this point this author would part company with Maslow in one particular. In listing the characteristics which he believes to belong to those persons who have become self-actualized, Maslow writes in tones that this writer believes to be overly optimistic. Maslow lists the following characteristics of self-actualized people (1968:26):

1. Superior perception of reality.
2. Increased acceptance of self, of others and of nature.
3. Increased spontaneity.
4. Increase in problem-centering.
5. Increased detachment and desire for privacy.
6. Increased autonomy, and resistance to enculturation.
7. Greater freshness of appreciation, and richness of emotional reaction.
8. Higher frequency of peak experiences. I
9. Increased identification with the human species.
10. Changed (the clinician would say, improved) interpersonal relations.
11. More democratic character structure.
12. Greatly increased creativeness.
13. Certain changes in the value system.

Maslow intended that these characteristics be descriptive of people he defines as self-actualized. But one might easily be misled into thinking that people moving toward their own version of self-actualization are in pursuit of personal goals that automatically bring about these characteristics. This is not always the case. This writer knows numerous people who, having met their physiological needs, safety needs, love and belongingness needs, and esteem needs, have concerned themselves primarily with being all they can be in a way that Maslow would scarcely appreciate. For these persons, being all they can be may mean accumulating all that they can accumulate or achieving all that they can achieve in a way that is ultimately self-serving.

The witness will undoubtedly encounter such people. The witness will also encounter people who are intent upon moving toward goals that Maslow would happily define as self-actualization. These people may be attracted to the idea of personal growth that is inherent in the Christian faith. Even if certain persons are not attracted to the idea of Christian growth, those same persons may be attracted to the possibility of growing through service. These are the people whom Hunter (1981) believes may be approached through the Inductive-Mission model of evangelism.

The Need for Knowledge

Those who have met their D-needs, frequently experience a conscious need to know for its own sake, “for the sheer delight and primitive satisfaction of knowledge and understanding per se” (Maslow, 1968:63). According to Maslow, knowledge makes the person feel “bigger, wiser, richer, stronger, more evolved, more mature” (63). It represents the actualization of a human potentiality, the fulfillment of that human destiny foreshadowed by the possibilities of our nature (63).

Occasionally, one will meet a person who is concerned with the knowledge of religion for religion’s sake. When a witness meets a person of this bent, he or she will have numerous opportunities to build a bridge that leads from where that person is to the story of Jesus Christ. In this regard, the witness must never forget that Christianity, though not based upon “the wisdom of this world” (II Corinthians 1), has captured some of the finest minds this world has ever known; and that the fruit of these minds is at the disposal of the church.

The Need for Beauty

Maslow equates the need for beauty with the need for wholeness, perfection, completion, justice, aliveness (process), simplicity (honesty), goodness, uniqueness, effortlessness (beautiful functioning), playfulness (fun, joy), truth (honesty and reality) and self sufficiency (1968:83). The witness who knows the story of Jesus Christ knows that most of these values are embodied in Jesus Christ himself.

Jesus Christ does not just commend the beautiful life to us, he demonstrates the beautiful life in his person. This author recalls how Mahatma Gandhi found Ruskin, who wrote much about beauty, ultimately unsatisfying because he did not live as nobly as his convictions, and Jesus ultimately satisfying because he did. One’s mind races with images of Christ as a result of reading Maslow’s list. Surely, there are countless bridges to be built from that life to the lives of those who have a need for beauty.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

But how does one learn where the person with whom they are attempting to share The Story ranks upon the hierarchy? There is no substitute for listening. This writer has often heard those skilled at personal evangelism and those who would like to be speak of “winning the right to speak.” By this, they mean that they do not feel comfortable sharing something as sacred as The Story without first demonstrating a degree of personal concern for and personal investment in the person with whom they are attempting to share. But how does one demonstrate this concern and make this investment? This writer would follow the lead of M. Scott Peck and Richard Stoll Armstrong and suggest that an act as simple as listening may be the key. According to Dr. Peck listening is

nothing less than an act of love. In his book, The Road Less Traveled, Peck writes:

The principal form that the work of love takes is attention. When we love another we give him or her our attention ….by far the most common and important way in which we can exercise our attention is by listening. (Peck, 1978:120, 121).

In building a case for this assertion, Scott Peck reported that many of the people he sees as patients have the sense that they are being truly listened to, often for the first time in years, and perhaps for the first time ever! (Peck, 1978:129).

This theme was picked up and asserted by several members of a discussion group lead by this writer who had dedicated themselves to the study of Dr. Peck’s book, A Road Less Traveled. One lawyer in that group, a former military counsel who had often been called upon to play the role of public defender, said that when he began the work, he often found himself surprised that his roughest clients—those accused of the most horrible crimes, invariably wanted to talk the most. He said that, at last, it occurred to him that he may well have been the first person who ever truly listened to many of those men. To them, his careful listening was an act of tremendous kindness—and, as Peck would have it, love. The comments of that young lawyer were immediately picked up and echoed by a public school teacher in the class whose specialty is children that the school system has classified as “difficult.” Her observation was that, simply by listening to the difficult children assigned to her, she had often effected a radical change in the lives of her students. “It is often as if I am the first person ever to listen to them,” she said.

This writer realizes the risk of making a general statement on the basis of a few, very specific testimonies, but he cannot help but feel that the psychiatrist and the lawyer and the teacher are speaking with an authority that few have the audacity to deny. Listening may be a work of love that can be both given as such and perceived as such.

If one balks at the idea of declaring listening to be an act of love, one must at least admit the truth of Richard Stoll Armstrong’s assertion that listening is an act of service that one human being can render another. In his book, Service Evangelism, Richard Stoll Armstrong suggests that listening may frequently be the service that a witness trained in one of his evangelism seminars offers a person with whom they share the gospel. Certainly, listening is the key to discovering Their Story. As Armstrong writes:

If one wishes to be an effective witness for Christ, one must first know how to listen. (Armstrong, 1979:90).

But good listening is difficult.

First, it is difficult because people talk so much more slowly than we can think. (Armstrong, 1979:90). The brain of the listener inevitably outpaces the mouth of the speaker, taking one mental sidetrack after another. In their book Are You Listening, Ralph G. Nichols and Leonard A. Stevens warn:

Talkers and listners are like the tortoise and the hare in the well-known fable. Poor listners eventually end up in the predicament of the hare who outraced the tortoise. He stepped to the side of the path and went to sleep. (Nichols and Stevens, 1957:82).

Secondly, good listening is difficult because we employ emotional filters. (Nichols and Stevens, 1957:89). Because the life experience of the listener is different from life experience of the speaker, the listener hears things that the speaker does not actually say, while often failing to hear what the speaker wants most desperately to say. This writer once had a successful politician who was an international officer of the Toastmaster’s advise him that, in every speech, there were at least four speeches: the one the speaker prepares, the one the speaker delivers, the one the audience hears, and the one the speaker wishes he had delivered. The good speech is one that communicates what the speaker actually means to communicate to the majority of those who hear it. But we are not talking about speaking—-we are talking about listening. Very few of the people to which we listen will be as organized as a “Toastmaster.” Their “speech” will not be good. They will frequently be speaking under a great deal of mental pressure, rattling on, trying to convey to us in a single sitting the sometimes inadequately formed mental image of their situation which, more often than not, will have been building for months or years. How carefully we must listen if we hope to discover their need! The person who steps forward for training as a verbal witness must be as committed to listen as they are eager to speak. But is eagerness enough? Can we learn to listen well? The answer to the later question ultimately lies with the witness; but, in his book, Service Evangelism, Richard Stoll Armstrong lays down six very practical “Rules of Good Listening.”

Rules of Good Listening

1. Compassion. The word is a composite of two Latin words “com”, meaning “with” and “pati,” meaning “to suffer.” (Armstrong, 1979:93). If one is going to listen well, they must learn to suffer with the one to whom they are attempting to listen. This writer had a rather dramatic opportunity to do this several years ago. A unchurched person with whom he had begun a semi-pastoral relationship because she worked for a parishioner called him at 3:00 a.m. one morning with the news that her son had been killed in a car wreck. The situation was bad enough in itself, but the irony of it made it doubly so. He had been returning from Chicago where he had one a stay in a fancy hotel because he had excelled in selling grave plots! When this writer entered the woman’s home he was greeted with loud screams and cries. Immediately, she began to question God whom she believed to have “willed” her son’s death. This writer could not speak a word. He could only sit with this woman sharing the darkness of the night, suffering with her, protesting with her, hurting with her. It was only after a period of weeks that he could say to her, “My God is not the kind of God who wills such a thing.” If one is to listen well he or she must learn to “sit where the one to whom they are attempting to listen is sitting.”

Ezekiel provides us with a dramatic example. He went in the heat and bitterness of his spirit to speak a word against the people of Israel, but God ordered him to physically sit where the people to whom he was to prophecy were sitting. It was after he sat “overwhelmed among them” that Ezekiel was able to speak effectively. (Ezekiel 3:14,15).

2. Concentration. “The other person must feel that I am really “hearing” him or her, really listening. (Armstrong, 1979:93). In order to accomplish this the listening witness must control the language of his face and body. Are the eyes of the witness focused upon the speaker, or do they wander? What about the position of the body? Is it erect, alert? The effective witness must be continually aware of what he or she is communicating with his or her body language.

3. Control. “I must learn when to speak and when not to speak. I must control my urge to answer every question asked, or to say more than what must be said,” says Armstrong. (Armstrong, 1979:93). This writer has sat for two hours and more speaking no more than a few dozen words, listening as a troubled person poured forth their story in a torrent of emotion and emotion packed words. It is difficult to control oneself for so long, but it is often necessary. Nichols and Stevens advise the listner to employ only limited verbal reaction to speakers who are speaking in reasonable fashion. They write:

As the talker proceeds the listener may employ what has been called a series of “eloquent and encouraging grunts”; “Hmmm,” “Uh-huh,” “Oh,” or “I see.” If the talker pauses momentarily, the listener should remain silent, perhaps continuing to nod his head indicating understanding, until speech starts again. (Nichols and Stevens, 1957:53).

4. Comprehension. Armstrong observes that, as a listener, one’s responsibility is not to agree, but to comprehend, to understand where the speaker is coming from. The witness must not allow his or her negative reaction to something that the speaker has said to undermine his or her commitment to effective listening. (Armstrong, 1979:93).

5. Clarification. “Clarification is an essential part of good listening.” (Ibid.). It is the process in which the listening witness periodically halts the speaker and repeats what he has heard the listener saying. This serves to reinforce the idea that true listening is going on. It also serves to insure that the witness is indeed comprehending the true problem. It is also possible for the listening witness to aid the speaker in clarifying his or her situation through asking questions that lead the speaker to speak his piece more thoroughly or clearly. Nichols and Stevens furnishes the additional helpful advice that, “If the talker becomes wild and unreasonable, the listener should restate what has just been said, putting it in the form of a question.” (Nichols and Stevens, 1957:53).

6. Commitment. Armstrong shows his essential agreement with M. Scott Peck when he writes, “Good listening presupposes a relationship, and as a Christian I am committed to do what love demands.” (Armstrong, 1979:93). One cannot be a good listener without first committing oneself to what Peck calls the “work of attention.” The failure to make this commitment must certainly mean to fail at the task of witness, and, still more, to fail the God who gave us the capacity to listen. If the witness is to discover the needs of the person with whom he is attempting to share the gospel, he or she must invest himself or herself fully into the act.

Our Story

Our Story is the story of the church’s continuing exploration, experience and explanation of The Story. Our Story began when the risen Christ breathed on the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). It extends across twenty centuries and provides the logical connection between The Story and My Story. As Stroup (1981:146) has observed:

The narrative which binds the church together and links it to other Christian communities in the past and other Christian traditions in the present begins with but is not limited to the narratives of Scripture.

In the New Testament era the person who embraced The Story was inevitably led to become a part of Our Story. His or her baptism made each a part of the church. The privilege of belonging to and participating in a Christian community is not to be enjoyed unthinkingly. As Bonhoeffer (1954:18) has observed, this fellowship is purely of grace.

If newcomers are ever to become a part of a congregation, then the effective witness must help them to learn something of the common narrative that binds that particular congregation together. As Stroup (1981:133) has written:

The community’s common narrative is the glue that binds it members together. To be a true participant in a community is to share in that community’s narratives, to recite the same stories as the other members of the community, and to allow one’s identity to be shaped by them. If a person has only a casual acquaintance with a community’s stories and life, it is questionable to what degree that person is a participant in the community. A person is a member of a community only when he or she remembers with the other members, only when the community’s common narrative and the past it preserves are appropriated and extended into the future, both the future of the community and that of the individual.

The challenge, of course, is that the community must select those Shared Centers of Value and Power (SCVP’s) that unite, rather than those SCVP’s that seperate.

For instance, some church’s live with such narrow SCVP’s that they are impossible for newcomers to share. A good example is a church this author once served that had moved from one location to another in 1949. For more than a generation the church lived so much in the past that new members from the new community were excluded because there was no way that they could adopt as their own the stories of a key layperson who had been the backbone of the church in the old days. The man died in 1949, but his ghost still walked the halls of the church, and many of the decisions of the official board were made based on what this person would approve or disaprove. It was not until we had achieved a number of significant triumphants in our own day that the congregation could let go a little of their past to celebrate the present, and, in the language of Wesley, begin “to serve the present age.”

One of the key tasks of a pastor in such a situation is to “manage symbols.” This means accenting those symbols which are relevant for today, and playing down symbols which are, for newcomers, impossible to embrace. While I realize that Israel was to tell their story to those who joined with them in Cannan land after the Exodus, that story was so big, and so revelatory of the kind of God that God Was and Is, that it was embracable by all. The story of the sacrifice that a local congregation made to build a new building does not carry the same religious significance. A line from Robert C. Worley’s book, A Gathering of Strangers is relevant. Worley observes that it is not, and I quote, “the Wholly Other God who keep people apart from the fellowship of the community, but the concete reality of the local church.” (Worly, 1983:28) Though he did not mention narrows SCVP’s, there can be little doubt that we can make the association.

It is into the local expression of the church, with all of its inherent amalgam of good and bad, that the witness is attempting to draw persons that he or she might assist in coming to faith in Christ. If those persons are ever to become a part of a congregation, then the effective witness must help them to learn something of the common narrative that binds that particular congregation together. As Stroup (1981:133) has written:

Our Story will be not be developed here. However, there is one point that needs to be made with regard to the part that it plays in the evangelistic enterprise.

Clearly, there is a potential for conflict between the manifest culture of a church and the kind of culture that may emerge as a result of identifying, training, and encouraging effective witnesses (Worley, 1976:94). This potential for conflict is reduced if the witnesses and those who believe because of their witness are made mindful of those elements of Our Story that constitute the common narrative of the local church. Though aimed at developing witnesses capable of relating The Story to Their Story through My Story, this thesis intervention was careful to educate those same witnesses in the importance of Our Story.

An Intervention

Theories abound. This author wished to put those expressed in this paper into practice. The following intervention took place in a local church in the mid to late 1980’s. It is offered here for the instruction of those who wish to build on the experience. May God grant you success far greater than ours! Since this intervention was done as a part of Doctor of Ministry Thesis for McCormick Theological Seminary, it is presented, from this point on, pretty much as written. I want to thank the members of Fries Memorial Moravian Church for being my guinea pigs—and my friends!

The Theological Principle

The theological principle underlying this intervention is that the church is called to be an evangel proclaiming and embodying the good news of God in Jesus Christ. If the church is going to do this effectively it must identify, train and encourage witnesses who are capable of sharing their faith in a winsome way. Personal evangelism conducted in an inductive manner by witnesses who are willing to listen to, identify and meet the needs of others is, perhaps, the ideal method by which lay persons may share their faith.

Objectives and Interventions

The primary objective of this intervention was to identify, train, and encourage vital, verbal witnesses within the congregation at Fries Memorial Moravian Church. A secondary objective was to establish a permanent evangelism task force to lead the congregation in its evangelistic mission. It was important to this author that this was done in such a way as to accent the voluntary character of the congregational life at Fries Memorial. P> Identifying the Witnesses

Three great New Testament themes motivate persons to engage in evangelism: 1). A sense of gratitude to God; 2). A sense of responsibility or duty to God; and 3). a sense of concern for one’s fellow human beings (Green, 1980:111).

In the fall of 1987, an Evangelism Emphasis Month was conducted at Fries Memorial. The Biblical mandate for evangelism was addressed; and, in hopes of identifying persons to serve on an evangelism task force, the major motivating themes of the New Testament were highlighted.

Evangelism Emphasis Month

Four special Sunday worship services were held during Evangelism Emphasis Month. On each of those four Sundays the worship and the sermon addressed some facet of evangelism. In addition, special guests were present to share their faith-stories and their method or reason for engaging in evangelism.

1st Sunday. The theme for the day was, “The Real Thing.” On the first Sunday the congregation was given a short questionnaire to help determine its evangelism quotient. Results of this survey proved of limited usefulness. Persons who answered the survey in positive terms were later to approach this author with real misgivings about the church being more intentional with regard to evangelism. Anticipating these misgivings, the sermon defined the essential nature of evangelism and attempted to overcome objections to the evangelism of television preachers and other well-meaning enthusiasts who have managed to turn off more persons than they have managed to turn on.

2nd Sunday. The theme for the service was, “The Satisfied Customer.” The special guest was Mr. Chuck Chambers, the president of the Direct Marketing Division of Sara Lee Corporation. Mr. Chambers shared his story. The sermon, building upon remarks by Mr. Chambers, sought to challenge the “satisfied customers” who were present to share their satisfaction with others. An invitation to join the Evangelism Task Force concluded the sermon itself.

3rd Sunday. The theme for the service was “The Gifts and Tasks of Ministry.” The special guest was Mrs. Alma Owens, a house wife and Bible study leader from another Moravian congregation. Mrs. Owens shared her story, and spoke of her fifteen years as a Bible study leader. This author was pleased to report that he personally knew of dozens of people who had made professions of faith and joined local churches because of the work of Mrs. Owens. The sermon picked up on the theme accented by Mrs. Owens’ presence, that the church is gifted by God to accomplish the task of evangelism that he has set for it. Special emphasis was laid on the fact that, though not all Christians are evangelists, all Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit for effective witness (Acts 1:8).

4th Sunday. The theme of the service was “The Concerns of Christ.” The special guest was Mr. George Hamilton, IV, a noted country music personality and a frequent guest of Dr. Billy Graham. Mr. Hamilton grew-up at Fries Memorial and is very much a part of the church’s story. Mr. Hamilton shared his story. He also shared his personal reasons for taking an active part in the evangelistic effort of the church. According to Mr. Hamilton, his involvement began after a visit behind the Iron Curtain where he saw a group of Polish Christians beaten and imprisoned simply for making a cross of flowers in a public square. The sermon addressed the temporal and eternal concerns that Christians have traditionally borne for those who remain outside the church. Evangelism was portrayed as a multidimensional engagement with human need.

George Hamilton, IV was back at Fries that same evening. Accompanying himself with an acoustical guitar, he sang and talked about the transformation that Jesus Christ had brought in his own life. Almost 300 persons were present. Ever mindful of this author’s aspirations of identifying volunteer witnesses, Mr. Hamilton emphasized the need for personal evangelism. “Dr. Graham may not be able to reach your neighbor or friend,” he said, “but you may be able to do what he is not able to do.”

An invitation to join the Evangelism Task Force was extended to the members of the congregation throughout Evangelism Emphasis Month. From the beginning, the congregation was told that the primary goal of the Evangelism Task Force would be to train the volunteers to be more effective witnesses. However, it was also made clear that the secondary goal of the Evangelism Task Force was to assist the official boards of the church in developing a strategy of evangelism that could be sustained by the congregation over a long period of time. The appeal to volunteer for the task force was issued through the weekly newsletter, “The Messenger”; from the pulpit; and through personal contact.

The Evangelism Task Force

Eleven persons answered the invitation to join the Evangelism Task Force. The actual training began less than a week after the appearance of George Hamilton, IV and the closing of Evangelism Emphasis Month.

The Training.

The training. The initial training sessions were spread out over a nine week period. Each session was two to three hours long. The sessions grew longer as group involvement increased. The first five training sessions were held in the church; then, at the suggestion and invitation of group members, the initial training sessions that remained—and most subsequent sessions, were held in the homes of group members.

SESSION ONE

The first session was dedicated to defining evangelism. The group engaged in an interactive Bible study on evangelism in the New Testament as it has been presented in this paper.

SESSION TWO

Participants discussed contemporary methods of evangelism with which they were familiar. The strengths and weaknesses of various notable ministers, ministries and methods of evangelism were discussed. The concept of personal, inductive evangelism was presented against a background similar to that found on pages 10-14 in this paper.

SESSION THREE

The theological framework of this thesis intervention was shared with the witnesses. Particular attention was given to the concepts of The Story, My Story, Their Story and Our Story as they are set forth in the early part of this paper. Interestingly enough, though the theological persuasion of the volunteers varied, all were convinced of the need to limit the content of the story.

SESSION FOUR

In the first hour, this author shared his own faith-story. Students were asked to think about the ramifications of telling The Story by using My Story. Elements of The Story and how they relate to the needs of Their Story were discussed in detail. Students were given the assignment of writing their own faith-stories for reading to the group.

SESSION FIVE

In the first hour, Maslow’s hierarchy was discussed. Particular attention was paid to its value for the Christian witness. In the second hour, students were asked to read (or tell) their faith-stories. The class was asked to listen to the story of each witness for the purpose of identifying the place on Maslow’s hierarchy at which the gospel addressed the needs of the witness. Members of the class were also encouraged to help each other correct their hermeneutic, each person checking his or her story against The Story “…lest somehow (they) should be running or have run in vain” (Galatians 2:2).

SESSION SIX

Session Six was a continuation of Session Five.

SESSION SEVEN

Session Seven was a continuation of Session Six.

SESSION EIGHT

This session was to be dedicated to role playing, but the group matured and went to work so quickly it was possible to discuss a number of actual encounters. Group members had a praxis to reflect upon and learn from. The plan to use role playing was discarded.

SESSION NINE

During this session participants had an opportunity to deal with the question “So what?” The training was complete, and the volunteers became the Evangelism Task Force that the congregation at Fries Memorial Church had needed.

Results

Evangelism Emphasis Month

The timing of Evangelism Emphasis Month was terrible. It followed on the heels of a year in which the second page of the local paper was filled with headlines about Jim and Tammi Bakker, Jessica Hahn, Jerry Fallwell and all the other evangelists who have recently provided this nations’s Fourth Estate with so much to write about. Unfortunately, it was not possible to abandon a task set six-months before Jim Bakker went public with the details of his downfall. Things moved forward.

Though a showering of congregational support was expected for the pastor’s thesis project, it was not forthcoming. Indeed, attendance at morning worship was off during the whole month; and the level of congregational enthusiasm did not even approach that generated during recent building enterprises.

Perhaps the congregation had a hard time dealing with evangelism as a Doctor of Ministry Project? If this is the case, the congregation was reflecting the feeling of this author. Just before Evangelism Emphasis Month actually began, he became a little uneasy with the idea that one could program an evangelistic effort. For a period of weeks he was haunted by the thought that, “It is not possible to program a revival.” Over and over he told himself that that was not what he was trying to do. He told himself that he was out to identify, train and encourage witnesses; and he plunged on.

Evangelism Emphasis Month was not finally a disappointment.

First, the special guests who told their Stories in morning worship generated a great deal of excitement in those who heard them. Even persons who were not interested in becoming members of the Evangelism Task Force were interested in the stories of these vibrant Christian lay people.

Secondly, as a result of one of the Sunday sermons preached during this period of time, the pastor was actually invited into the home of a visitor to “tell his story” to a single-parent and her three teenage children. Never before had he had quite so specific an invitation to share his witness. That family has been attending Fries since.

Thirdly, the visit of George Hamilton, IV caught the imagination of the church and—in some measure, the attention of various persons in the Moravian denomination. More than half of the resident members of Fries Memorial were present at the evening concert, and a number of Moravian pastors attended, too. So did the editor of The North American Moravian, the official publication of the denomination. He was excited by the evening, and offered the pastor an opportunity to write an article on evangelism. The article was to be entitled “What opportunities would a secular family moving to your community find in your church?” This opportunity was turned over to a member of the Evangelism task force.

Finally, it was in actually recruiting the Evangelism Task Force that Evangelism Emphasis Month proved most successful. Eleven people volunteered to be trained as witnesses. A questionnaire distributed to the congregation revealed a pool of at least 50 others who may someday be recruited. It was a small beginning—-but, in reality, it was scarcely possible to deal with a larger one.

The Evangelism Task Force

The composition of the Evangelism Task Force was encouraging. One husband and wife pair were former United Methodist and members of the church less than two years. A second husband and wife pair—one a life long Moravian, the other a former Presbyterian, had a six month old baby whom they brought to the sessions. A single professional woman—a Presbyterian who has been attending Fries, came to watch their child. However, by the end of Session One it was clear that this woman wished to be a member of the task force, and the group made other arrangements for baby sitting. A third husband and wife pair were members of another Moravian church before coming to Fries two years ago. Three young married women came alone—their husbands had each volunteered to keep their children on the nights the task force met so that they would feel free to participate. Two of these women were new members at Fries. One had grown up a Presbyterian, the other a United Methodist. The third woman was a life long member of Fries and a member of the Board of Elders. Last—but far from least, a grandmother who had recently lost her 21 year old granddaughter in an automobile accident came. This lady, a member of Fries for about ten years, had been a Congregationalist before she had become a Moravian. Except for the young Presbyterian woman already noted, the members of this group were faithful, highly dedicated and highly visible members of Fries Memorial Church. They did not come from the same clique. They fell at various places on the theological spectrum—from liberal to conservative and from charismatic to traditionalist; but they had this in common: each was a deep-thinking Christian.

The volunteers came with an eagerness to learn to share their faith more effectively. Three written statements are typical of the reasons given:

1. To learn to share the grace of God. 2. To bring others to Christ. 3. To cultivate my own faith in order to accomplish this. 4. Because I need tools for verbalizing my faith. 5. To gain tools—to be a part of a support team—to serve Christ more effectively within my family, my church and with those he brings my way.

The enthusiasm of the participants was outstanding. Ten minutes into Session One, a young woman said, “This is so exciting. This is what I have been praying for. This is going to be all that I expected and more!” The volunteers were ready to go to work. Thirty minutes into the session, a casual observer would have guessed that he or she had stumbled into a well-established group.

By the time Session One ended with the group members holding hands in a circle and praying the Lord’s Prayer in unison, all of the doubt that this author had had about the legitimacy of this enterprise had dissipated. An experiment in intentional evangelism was underway.

The Work of the Task Force

The primary work of the task force—that of telling The Story to others through personal, Inductive Evangelism began almost immediately. These examples stand out:

1) A cousin from out of state was visiting with one of the women in the group. The cousin, a young woman in her late twenties, was involved in the New Age movement. She described to the group member how, in a recent experiment, she had been, “Taken back to the womb and re-born.” The cousin described her experience in grand language, then she asked the group member if she would like to have the same experience. The member replied, “But I have been born-again.” Then the task force member read the third chapter of John with her cousin and followed by sharing her own faith-story.

2) One man was late for a session, but he came in beaming. Just as he had been leaving the office, his supervisor had asked where he was going. The task force member explained to his boss that he was going to a meeting with a church group where he was learning to share his faith better. His supervisor asked, “What is your faith?” The task force member spent the next hour sharing The Story through telling his faith-story. His supervisor who has been openly hostile to Christianity listened respectfully, engaging the group member in real dialogue. (As of the spring of 2000 this man is a real force in our denomination, and has been for more than a dozen years! The member of the task force who led him to Christ has moved on to serve in another denomination. Such is life.)

3) Another man in the group had a similar experience. He was working on an unsolicited written response to the experience of telling his story. His boss—the owner of a small advertising and communications firm with whom he works closely, discovered him in the act. The group member suggested his boss read what he had written. The boss did. He was impressed. By his own confession the boss had walked out of the Catholic Church as soon as he was able; but inspired by the frank way in which the task force member communicated his faith, he asked one faith related question after another. The conversation lasted an hour, concluding only when a customer called both participants away. It was the first of many conversations. The task force member has found sharing his faith a pleasure rather than a trial. “I am prepared,” he says. (Addendum: Six months later—following this author’s move to another church, this individual, his wife and two childen joined Fries Memorial).

4) A young woman in the group was writing out her faith-story when her 10 year old son came to her. He asked what she was doing. She told him. He asked to hear it. She read it for him. He then told his faith-story to his mother, later sharing that fact with his younger brother. The younger brother then dictated his faith-story to his mother!

The mission was begun. Many times during the course of our sessions, volunteers reported sharing their faith outside the group. The examples given above were typical. None of the task force members reported immediate conversions, but all had faith that the Holy Spirit was active in the witness they had shared. Likewise, they expressed confidence in the way they handled the situations, and gratitude that they had a support group with which to share their experiences.

Though this author developed several questionnaires to monitor the progress of the group, the group quickly progressed beyond anything he had anticipated, rendering the questionnaires almost useless. The only remaining instrument of evaluation was participation and observation, and the progress of the group was monitored without effort as teacher and students united in their common task. However, it must be observed that this circumstance left the author no completely objective means of evaluation. If he were to undertake the same task again, he would anticipate more group development and plan the questionnaires accordingly.

A secondary purpose of this intervention was to establish a permanent task force to assist the official boards of Fries Memorial in developing and implementing a strategy of evangelism. Nine of the eleven volunteers completed the training and volunteered to become permanent members of The Evangelism Task Force at Fries Memorial Moravian Church. As noted, by Session Nine the task force had begun to work on its secondary mission. At that session, the volunteers considered a number of possibilities for engaging in mission. Led by the pastor, each shared his or her dream with the group. The dreams differed, but two emerged as consensus favorites. Most group members wanted a lay witness mission to be held in the church. This is a real option and a pastor and a lay person from another Moravian congregation which has recently held a lay witness mission has been invited to meet with the task force in the near future to answer questions about their experience. In addition, many group members wanted to start a second group just like the first. It was reported that many people in the congregation have become interested in going through the training. Citing their fear that the task force must resist all temptation to become just another fellowship group, several members of the task force volunteered to help the pastor start this second group. These volunteers suggested that that they would eventually be able to lead groups on their own.

Evaluation

Both the primary and secondary objectives of his thesis intervention project have been met.

Eleven witnesses were identified. Nine of the eleven were trained; and,

just as importantly, encouraged in the task of personal evangelism using the Inductive Model. The small size of the group was perfect. Jesus himself appointed only twelve disciples to be with him (Mark 6:7-13). And, as Coleman (1963:117) has observed:

The best work is always done with a few. Better to give a year or so to one or two men who learn what it means to conquer for Christ than to spend a lifetime with a congregation just keeping the program going. Nor does it matter how small or inauspicious the beginning may be; what counts is that those to whom we do give priority learn to give (their faith) away.

Well before the end of the sessions, each and every member of the Evangelism Task Force had shared his or her faith outside the task force.

The secondary objective of this intervention—to establish a permanent task force to guide the congregation of Fries Memorial in its evangelistic mission, was achieved also. When the Evangelism Task Force of Fries Memorial meets, it does not meet as a group of persons appointed by others to perform a task for which they have no interest, it meets as a group of trained volunteers who are vitally interested in furthering a mission in which they personally wish to engage.

The theoretical framework and the theological principle underlying this thesis intervention were confirmed. The model of personal, Inductive Evangelism proved to be an ideal model of evangelism for lay persons eager to engage in the mission of the church.

Significance

The significant learning that occurred during this intervention is built around the elements previously labeled The Story, My Story, Our Story and Their Story.

First, it must be noted that limiting the content of The Story to the New Testament kerygma enabled a theologically diverse group to meet in harmony. Each of the witnesses quickly saw that many points of question could be left open if only the witness concentrated on the point of decision, Jesus Christ. The decision to limit the content of The Story reduced the theological learning necessary to the task of witnessing to a gracious if necessary minimum, and it provided a meeting ground upon which to build community in the task force. The task force agreed with Dulles (1974:17) who said, “Evangelism should not be seen primarily as the communication of doctrine. The important thing is introducing people to a blessed union with the Lord Jesus.”

Secondly, it must be noted that using My Story to tell The Story reaped benefits beyond any that were anticipated. As group members from diverse backgrounds told their stories—some of which were revolutionary and some evolutionary, members of the group grew in their appreciation for the varieties of religious experience. At the same time the person telling his or her story enjoyed both the support and affirmation of a caring community and a challenge which they felt came directly from God. One participant who reluctantly joined the group at the insistence of his wife writes about his experience of telling his faith-story:

I began by saying that my story was a confessional, since I had never shared it before. It was a story of obedience and disobedience to God, without much drama (or as much forethought as it deserved).

I rambled through my story, concluding with our 1985 arrival in this church—one with which we had found many faults while looking for a spirituality and intimacy that we had known in our Texas church. I felt God had pushed me out of a secure place and into one where I must expose myself in order to grow.

Afterwards, I was relieved to know that some of the participants knew someone in their lives to whom I might relate. Disappointed in my lack of preparation, however, I felt I had failed to make my final point: God prepared me in a very different way to draw me into obedience.

The following day, while concluding my portion of the 24-hour Unity prayer watch, my Bible fell open to an wholly unfamiliar scripture that said it better: “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (II Timothy 2:1-2)

As to my disobedience: even in telling the story God was pushing me over yet another stumbling block. Had I done it his way, with proper preparation, it would have had greater impact on the others. But in allowing me to do it my own way, he again opened my eyes to the arrogance and shortcoming of doing things on my own terms.

My conclusion? God recognizes that a journey of three steps forward and two back is still a journey. He does not require me to be like my wife, or anyone else. Some of us follow willingly, others come kicking and screaming. What God does require is that I accept his grace as the proof of the journey, using the tools which he provides (often through other, very different people) to bear witness to those along the way who can learn to do the same.

As I listen to more testimonies this week (intentional or otherwise), I pray that I’ll be obedient enough to recognize the tools when they are delivered.4

Another member of the group describes her experience in more poetic, though no more positive language when she writes:

When I started coming to the task force, I felt that I needed “tools” for sharing my faith. What I received instead was an affirmation of the living presence of Jesus Christ. Each week I have felt “washed in rainbows” as our journeys in faith have been shared. I have been more conscious of walking in his light and have done more naturally those things he would have me to do. This revitalization of faith seems to have been shared by everyone in the group. Any confidence I have gained in evangelism comes not so much from the tools as from a greater awareness of their source. I pray that people will see Jesus’ love reflected in me.

This group was more than a class in faith-sharing. As members told their faith-stories, it became the most dynamic discipleship and growth group with which this author had ever participated! At this juncture, he cannot help but think of the way that a half-dozen or more discipleship groups that he has led fizzled as they concentrated on “discipleship.” This author cannot help but wonder if the way to make disciples is to concentrate upon being responsive to some facet of the church’s mission.

Thirdly, it must be noted that the members of the group became specially attuned to the stories of the people with whom they lived, worked, and came in contact. A profound respect for the rights and decisions of others was basic to every meeting.

Though, like the statement issued by the National Council of Churches (Armstrong, 1984:22), the task force saw even the church as a field of evangelism, they did not become crazed zealots. They were not concerned with judging between true believers and false believers in the church, leaving that as a matter for God. And they were consistently less concerned with proselytizing than with obedience to Christ and service to others. One task force member writes of the group, “Rather than searing conviction and unbridled energy for proselytizing, the group (has) actually had a calming effect on me.”

As the members of the task force listened to one another tell their stories, they learned the sacramental value of the open ear and the sympathizing word or tear. Even before her training was complete, one member of the task force had the awesome responsibility of hearing the faith profession of a close personal friend. In this case she had not even engaged her friend in faith-sharing. The friend simply recognized the task force member as a Christian listener with whom she could share her deepest thoughts about herself and God. Having observed their respect for one another’s diversity, this author thinks that every member of the task force is worthy of that same kind of confidence.

Fourthly, it must be noted that the life of the task force produced a new chapter for Our Story at Fries Memorial. Though this intervention was not begun primarily as an exercise in community building, the Evangelism Task Force achieved intimacy and true community (Peck, 1987:86-103) more quickly than any small group in this author’s experience. Several group members familiar with the Stages of Community advocated by Peck (1987:86-103), observed that the group skipped the stages of pseudocommunity, chaos and emptiness before achieving true community. More likely, the group simply passed through the stages so quickly that they were difficult to observe. Perhaps this was possible because, except for the elements of The Story, group members began to empty themselves of their expectations, preconceptions, prejudices, theologies, and their need to convert one another to their personal truth from the very first session. As Peck has observed, the only way out of chaos into true community is through emptiness (1987:95-97).

It was not until the group sat down to decide its own fate that this community was threatened. The task force asked, “What do we do now that we have finished our training?” Unanimously, its members decided that the task force must continue together as a group. Though this author anticipated a series of follow-up meetings being held once each month, the consensus was that task force meetings should continue to be held on a weekly basis for the foreseeable future. As a second order of business, each member put his or her dream for the group on the table. The dreams differed. The possibility of chaos and conflict became real. There was a temptation to escape chaos through “organization” (Peck, 1987:95-97). At this juncture, strong leadership by any group member could have swayed the group down a fixed path in the model of the church before wise rule. The group resisted, again choosing “emptiness” (95-97) as the path of preference, thus preserving the community it had achieved.

But this community was not finally seen as limited just to the present group. The willingness of group members to move beyond the particular experience of the task force to start a second group proves that the community which the group honors is not just the community they developed among themselves, but the community they developed as they sought to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Arguably, the thing group members wish to preserve is not just the group, but the experience of drawing closer to Christ through obedience of the church’s call to mission. Our Story is an evolving one—and one senses that new chapters are being added.

Finally, this author would affirm the whole process of this intervention. Pastors are not the only ones capable of evangelism. They are responsible as pastor-teachers charged by the church with equipping the laity for the work of ministry. Indeed, pastors in local churches have the opportunity of multiplying themselves and their efforts. To date, and he says this by way of sad confession (not boasting), this author has had the opportunity of multiplying the effect of his witness by a power of nine. At least a few of the persons identified, trained and encouraged as members of the Evangelism Task Force at Fries will soon be realizing and grappling with that same opportunity.

This intervention has changed the shape of ministry for this pastor just as surely as his exposure to the concept of wise rule. Indeed, this intervention is a natural extension of wise rule, admitting the sovereignty of Christ in what is arguably the very first area of congregational life which Christ would claim.

Bibliography

Adams, James Luther, 1976. On Being Human Religiously. Boston: Unitarian universalist Association.
Aland, Kurt and Black, Matthew, and Martini, Carlo M. and Metzger, Bruce M. and Wikgren, Allen, 1966. The Greek New Testament. New York: The United Bible Society.
Armstrong, Richard Stoll, 1984. The Pastor as Evangelist. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
————————, 1979. Service Evangelism. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 1953. Letters and Papers from Prison. New York: The Macmillan Company.
——————–, 1954, trans. John W. Doberstein. Life Together. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Brunner, Emil, 1949. The Christian Doctrine of God. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
————-, 1952. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Coleman, Robert E., 1963. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.
Crews, C. Daniel, 1983. “Resolutions and Elections of the Provincial Synod of the Southern Province of the Moravian Church in America.” Winston-Salem, N.C.: The Publications Office of the Moravian Church, South.
Dodd, C.H., 1962. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Dulles, Avery, 1974. Models of the Church. New York: Crossroad.
Fischer, Louis, 1983. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi. New York:Harper & Row.
Fowler, James W., 1981. Stages of Faith. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Groenfeldt, John, 1954. Becoming A Member of the Moravian Church. Bethlehem, Pa.: The Publications Office of the Moravian Church, North.
Goldberg, Michael, Theology & Narrative: A Critical Introduction. Nashville: Abingdon.
Green, M., 1980. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Haenchen, Ernst, 1965, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Holmes, U. T., 1981. Turning to Christ: A Theology of Renewal and Evangelism. New York: Seabury Press.
Hunter, George, G., III, 1981. The Contagious Congregation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Hutton, James E., 1922. A History of Moravian Missions. London: Moravian Publication Office.
—————-, 1909. A History of the Moravian Church. London: Moravian Publication Office.
———-, 1969. Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church. Bethlehem, Pa. and Winston-Salem, N.C.: The Moravian Church in America, Northern and Southern Provinces.
Jones, E. Stanley, 1968. A Song of Ascents: a Spiritual Autobiography. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Kelly, Dean M., 1972, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. New York: Harper & Row.
Kittle, Gerhard, ed., Bromiley, Geoffrey W., trans., 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Vol. II.
Krass, Alfred C., 1981, “What the Mainline Denominations Are Doing in Evangelism.” The Christian Century, Vol. XCVIII No. 7.
Kung, H., 1968. Truthfulness: The Future of the Church. New York: Sheed and Ward.
Marquart, Edward F., 1981. “Witnesses for Christ: Training for Intentional Witnessing.” Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House.
Maslow, Abraham H., 1968. Toward A Psychology of Being. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Moulten, W.F. and Geden, A.S. 1950. Concordance to the Greek Testament. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Niebuhr, H. Richard, 1963, 1978. The Responsible Self. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Peck, M. Scott, M.D., 1978. The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth. New York: Simon and Schuster.
——————–, 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Soper, Donald O., 1961. The Advocacy of the Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
—————-, 1962. “The Methodist Recorder”, May 24th 1962, as reported by Hunter, George, G., III, 1981. The Contagious Congregation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Stroup, George W., 1981. The Promise of Narrative Theology: Recovering the Gospel in the Church. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Sweazey George, E., 1953. Effective Evangelism: The Greatest Work in the World. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Vorkink, Peter, II, 1968. Bonhoeffer in a World Come of Age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Worley, Robert C., 1978. Dry Bones Breathe! Chicago: The Center for Church Organizational Behavior.

—————–, 1983. A Gathering of Strangers. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Finis

NPMC

This blog is intended for the use of members and friends of New Philadelphia Moravian Church in Winston-Salem, N.C. Visitors are always welcome!

EverydayCounselor

A daily dose of encouragement for everyday living