We have a problem with the idea of evangelism. No, I am not suggesting that evangelism in itself is a problem, rather I am suggesting that WE have a problem with the IDEA of evangelism. And when I say WE, I am referring to Christians and non-Christians in toto. Here is the quintessential example of what I am referring to, straight from an online dictionary:

e·van·ge·lize /əˈvanjəˌlīz/ verb convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.

Synonyms: convert, proselytize, save, preach to, recruit

Another dictionary puts it a bit differently:

e·van·gel·ize · 1. To preach the gospel to. · 2. To convert to Christianity. · 3. To promulgate or promote (a doctrine or idea, for example) enthusiastically. v. intr.

At least the second example gets to a proper definition, but not until the 3rd option. The problem is that most of the world is stuck on the first two.

Here are two angles of the problem at hand. First, it is my understanding (directly from scripture) that it is God who converts, not humans. Second, preaching is not the only way to effectively share the Gospel, at least not in the way that most people interpret the word “preach.”

Both of these misinterpretations lead to the failure of most Christians to engage in the act of evangelism, at least intentionally. Intentionally engaging in the act of evangelism is exactly what Scripture calls every Christian to do. In the first case, the implication is that if a person we are actively evangelizing doesn’t come to faith, then we have failed. That is absolutely not true. If a person we are actively evangelizing does not come to faith, it means that it is not God’s timing for them. It means that we need to go on actively evangelizing no matter what. But the problem is that most humans do not like to fail. Most humans will not engage in an activity if they feel that there is a reasonable chance that they will fail. If we feel like it is our job to convert someone, and that is the way we approach it, then we most likely will fail because our timing is not God’s timing. I firmly believe that this is a misconception of the concept of evangelism that keeps many Christians from engaging in the effort at all.

The second misinterpretation is even more powerful. It is this idea that evangelism necessarily involves preaching. At worst, this idea conjures up the image of a preacher standing on a busy city street corner, perched atop an empty apple crate, dressed in a black suit with a stiff-collared, heavily starched white shirt, a bible in one hand and a fist raised with the other, yelling at passersby of the fire and brimstone they face if they do not repent and accept Jesus right then and there. If this were truly the only way to evangelize, then even I would shun the idea of personally engaging in it. At best, this interpretation leaves one feeling that if they are not a gifted preacher – like their own pastor, then they are not equipped to engage in evangelism. Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe that preaching is one way to evangelize, but it is absolutely not the only way and certainly not one that is accessible for most people.

If we want to see Christians getting outside of their bubbles and embracing personal evangelism, then we need to break the spell that these first two definitions have cast. We need to teach everyone that third option in the second example cited above. “To promulgate or promote (a doctrine or idea, for example) enthusiastically”.