My paper on Evangelism and Social Action, which I presented at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Providence, RI, has been published in the Africanus Journal’s recent edition. I am honored and humbled by their kindness in asking for and publishing this paper as an article. You can obtain both the article and the Journal online through the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary website, the Boston Campus.
“Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4):
The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes
Chip M Anderson
A number of years ago my pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. One Sunday morning he asked us to list on the 3 x 5 card in our bulletin topics that our friends would like to hear. He was planning a “relevant and practical” sermon series during the evening services. The pastor hoped the topics would interest our non-churched friends if there were some “practical” value to them. This was a no-brainer for me, so, without hesitation, I wrote down “workforce development” and “poverty,” topics that would interest my friends. Some weeks later, I asked the pastor if he had seen my 3 x 5 card. He acknowledged he saw my topics and then made this comment, “That’s your area.” For sure, these areas are mine in the sense that I work within the social service world, and, in particular, a Community Action Agency, whose mission is to alleviate the causes of poverty and move families toward self-sufficiency. At that moment, I realized I needed to develop my own “theory of evangelism” as it relates to the Christian faith and issues like “workforce development” and “poverty.”
The pastor’s comment was in line with a history of dissonance over the Church’s social responsibilities and how the Bible speaks to issues of poverty…click here for the full article...and scroll down…
This past Wednesday morning I had the privilege of presenting my paper on ”Wasted Evangelism” at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I consider that 17 people who ventured into my session at 9:20 am Wednesday morning was a great showing of interest. In a conference where there are at each session time many more possible choices and topics and way more famous writers and speakers than I, having 17 people, including my wife, join me was encouraging. Over the next few days, I will post a few observations from the sessions I joined, but for now, here are a few of my favorite lines from my paper, “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of evaneglism and Social Action Outcomes” —which you can read backwards on this blog from this point --> Wasted Evangelism.
It was an honor and privilege that my paper was accepted to be read. Special thanks go out to Dr. Aída Besançon Spencer of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminiary (So. Hamilton, MA) for letting the one in charge of accepting paper proposals know that I can do the right stuff. Also thanks to Yale Divinity School’s library and staff for helping me out during my research for this paper. The people who joined my session were so grasious for listening patiently--some even asking a few questions. I walked away unharmed...and hopefully my material encouraged some to consider the poor and vulnerable just a little bit more. Over the next few weeks I will finalize my paper—clean up a few odds and ends—and post a pdf file for those interested in downloading the whole paper. I hope to, someday, turn this paper into a book on Mark, evangelism, and social action. Anyway, enjoy the quotes, read the blogged portions of the paper, and enjoy—and let me know what you think! Really, I can handle it.
“Any attempt to develop a coherent theory of evangelism must begin with the eschatological implications of the presence of the Kingdom, which is wholly constitutive of the gospel.”
_________________
“We accept that Mark has drawn into his Gospel the motifs of God’s dominion, exodus, exile, the Spirit, and idolatry. What is undervalued, overlooked, or even ignored is the same context that contains these obvious correspondences, likewise, includes direct references regarding socio-economic relationships and community responsibilities toward the poor and vulnerable.”
_________________
“The parable of the Sower who sows assists the readers/listeners to understand the nature of the Gospel and how they are to imagine what it means for the Gospel of the Kingdom to be present (1:14-15).”
_________________
“The lavished seed of the Kingdom (word and deed) sown by the Master Sower is wasted on some, yet still produces a good crop among the crowds and “outsiders,” a harvest of 30-, 60-, and 100-fold.”
_________________
“The parable presents the realities of the inaugurated Gospel of the Kingdom, not how hearts need to change.”
_________________
“Idolatry is associated with the dissonance between the function of worship and the nation’s community life and their social responsibilities (1:12ff; 1:17; cf. 1:21). Their idolatry created attitudes, as well as, religious and socio-economic structures (2:6-8; 2:20) and habits that discouraged or hindered them from their responsibilities toward the poor.”
_________________
“We are, however, to imagine that the seed is sown without regard to where it lands; nothing else is done. We are moved away from human intervention to manipulate a harvest to a picture of a Sower who sows despite the outward realities of the conditions where the seed lands. He sows indiscriminately, lavishly, almost carelessly. All the while, the listeners/readers become aware that some seed will be wasted and yet there will be a good harvest.”
_________________
“It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately links the rule of God to a weed” (D. Oakman).
_________________
“The Parable of the Mustard Bush expands our understanding of evangelism to include issues regarding the dominions of mankind (i.e., socio-economic and power structures) and the poor.”
_________________
“The field where Jesus immediately sows the Kingdom is beyond the borders of the sacred. The garden where the domesticated bush of God’s Kingdom extends its branches, immediately attracts the unwanted—the unholy, unclean, the sick, and the dead—to find the protection and sustenance of its shade. The Master-Sower wastes his seed, yet, there is harvest.”
_________________
“Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor.”
Tomorrow, I will post some thoughts on “what social action is” for those wondering what I mean by the tern and concept.
An etymologically based proclamation-centered evangelism is insufficient to reflect the reality of the presence of the Kingdom of God, and as well, disconnects evangelism, not only from the full life of the Church, but also from the public and social implications of the Kingdom. True, it might be anachronistically incorrect to completely jump from Jesus’ deeds straight to social action, but it is equally wrong to turn Jesus’ parables into mythic stories that affirm “traditional” American values, limited government, and a political and legal agenda that seeks to promote “our way of life.” Although leaping from the text to “Christian humanitarianism” is an over-simplification, we cannot ignore that Jesus engaged social institutions, nor overlook that Jesus had immense theological conflicts with Temple leadership that reached back to Exodus stipulations and their social implications regarding the vulnerable.
The Kingdom context places evangelism dead smack in the midst of the public realm where the Christian community is obligated to deal with structural sin and be an advocate for the vulnerable and the poor. Also, to not include social action as evangelism limits the possible outcomes where God’s rule and reign can be expressed, realized, and experienced. Such limiting is the result of a privatized and dualistic understanding of the Gospel. Rather, a Kingdom-centered evangelism allows for the fullness of the Gospel to be realized in individuals, groups, structures, systems, and even culture. Evangelistic strategies and actions ought to enact, demonstrate, fulfill, and advocate for outcomes consistent with God’s reign over all the realms of mankind. Evangelistic outcomes ought to include both personal decisions for Christ and actions that promote God’s righteousness and, in particular, social action that engages the needs and welfare of the vulnerable and the poor.
Almost four decades ago, David O. Moberg, in his The Great Reversal: Reconciling Evangelism and Social Concern
, asked how Christians were to deal with the issues of poverty. This continues to be a pertinent question for the Christian community, today—let the debate be lively! However, the topic should not be shrunk to public vs. private, government vs. church, or red vs. blue politics. The Gospel of the Kingdom is “multidimensional and all-encompassing” and is concerned with both the individual and society. Of course, the Gospel calls individuals to a right relationship with God, but it goes beyond private piety, calling Christians, especially Christian leadership, to engage social and institutional structures that work against fulfilling our obligations to the poor. The exodus land-laws, operating behind Mark’s programmatic theme, were given to ensure that the vulnerable (i.e., the land-less) were full participants in the benefits of living in the land. Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor. The parable of the Sower who sows encourages the Christian community to waste its seed, sowing every realm and every corner of society “in hopes that good soil might somewhere be found.”
Poor soil and the Deeds that following (Mark 5)
The reader leaves the sowing parables and encounters Jesus in a series of miracle events (5:1ff) with noticeably very little “proclamation.” A structural clue in Mark’s Gospel story-line indicates that Jesus’ actions themselves are “sowing” of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Note the chiastic structure suggested by the apostle-commission texts that form the obvious bookends:
A. The twelve and their Kingdom task (3:13-19)
B. Hometown skepticism and the Beelzebul story (3:20-35)
C. Word parables (4:1-34)
D. The authoritative, mysterious One (4:35-41)
C. Action parables (5:1-43)
B. Hometown rejection (6:1-6)
A. The twelve and their Kingdom task (6:7-13)
The bookends (A) indicate that the commissioning of the twelve includes proclaiming and doing, word and deeds.
(A) And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with
Him and that He could send them out to preach,
and to have authority to cast out the
demons (3:14-15).
(A) They went out and preached that men should repent.
And they were casting out many demons and
were anointing with oil many sick people and
healing them (6:12-13; cf. 7b).
Along with the noticeable chiastic structure, this suggests that the deeds that follow are parable-deeds, demonstrating that evangelism, that is the sowing of the Kingdom, includes both proclamation and action (deeds).
Furthermore, some have also noted that the miracles function in a similar way as does the spoken word (i.e., Jesus’ teaching). The “the kind of amazement and awe that result from Jesus’ miracles (2:12; 7:37) also result from his teaching (9:32; 11:18). The nature of the parables is noticeably parallel to the miracles in “their overall function” and “in many specific details of their contents.” The results are similar: both conceal and reveal, both are received and rejected, both reveal the in-breaking of God’s reign. The miracles are “another mode of language (more dramatic certainly, but in its own way more ambivalent), communicating like parabolic teaching the mystery of God’s action in the world.”
The stories in Mark 5 also portray the Master-Sower sowing the Gospel in what appears to be unpromising soil. Everything about the three miracle vignettes hints at wasted seed that ought not to yield a crop. Immediately, Jesus is confronted by a man with an unclean spirit, in Gentile territory, and who dwells among the dead (i.e., among the tombs, v 3). Afterward on the return trip, Jesus is touched by a woman who has a hemorrhage and touches a dead child. The field where Jesus immediately sows the Kingdom is beyond the borders of the sacred. The garden where the domesticated bush of God’s Kingdom extends its branches, immediately attracts the unwanted—the unholy, unclean, the sick, and the dead—to find the protection and sustenance of its shade. The Master-Sower wastes his seed, yet, there is harvest.
Sowing and the mustard bush
In the second follow-up parable, The Parable of the Mustard Bush, the imagery is consistent with Mark’s programmatic themes and reinforces a public dimension to evangelism.
And He said, “How shall we picture the Kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; SO THAT THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE” (vv 30-32).
The picture of the proverbial small mustard seed producing a comparably large bush for the size of the seed is suggestive of small beginnings vs. large results. However, this, too, can obscure the subversive nature of this Kingdom-parable. First, the mustard plant is not a tree; it is a large bush. Second, this bush is an uncontrollable plant that tends to take over the garden. Finally, what farmer in his right mind wants birds in his garden?
Like Mark’s opening verses, the Parable of the Mustard Bush “mingles” three OT texts: Ezekiel 17:23, Ezekiel 31:6, Daniel 4:12.
On the high mountain of Israel I will plant it, that it may bring forth boughs and bear fruit and become a stately cedar. And birds of every kind will nest under it; they will nest in the shade of its branches (Ez 17:23).
All the birds of the heavens nested in its boughs,
And under its branches all the beasts of the field
gave birth,
And all great nations lived under its shade (Ez 31:6).
The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,
And all living creatures fed themselves
from it (Dan 4:11-12).
What is of interest is the contrast between the trees in the OT referents and the bush in the Marken parable, and, as well an overlooked reference to the poor in the Daniel 4 context.
The two Ezekiel referents are judgment parables, while in Daniel the context is a parabolic vision of judgment on the king of Babylon. All three references utilize the tree motif, which is OT imagery for kings and their Kingdoms, and the branch imagery represents how a Kingdom offers protection and sustenance to its subjects. Mark, on the other hand, alters the OT imagery, ever so slightly, replacing the noble Cedars of Lebanon and the large and strong tree of Babylon with a domesticated mustard bush. “It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately links the rule of God to a weed.”
Daniel’s interpretation (4:19-26) indicates that Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion would be taken away until he recognizes that the Most High is ruler over the realms of mankind (i.e., the true Ruler of all the trees! v 25). Then, in light of the branch imagery, there is an interesting juxtaposition between the pending judgment and Daniel’s advice to the king of Babylon:
Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity (Dan 4:27).
This reflects the Exodus land stipulations concerning righteousness and the poor. Ironically, the warning is to a non-Israelite, anti-Yahweh king, ruling a Gentile empire.
The OT trees vs. the Marken mustard bush, along with Daniel’s reference to showing mercy to the poor infuse the concept of the “in-breaking of the Kingdom” with a broader sense than simply individual conversion. The Kingdom of God, having taken root and growing mysteriously, subverts “existing Kingdom visions and power structures.” The Parable of the Mustard Bush expands our understanding of evangelism to include issues regarding the dominions of mankind (i.e., socio-economic and power structures) and the poor.
Often referred to as the Parable of the Soils, this story is frequently turned into a metaphor for human psychological attitudes, exploiting the text to get people to change. This is somewhat understandable, for the word-count favors the soils, so getting soils to change is a reasonable outcome. Most critical commentary review ancient Palestine plowing methods, usually to show plowing was done after sowing. Making correspondences to farming can be useful, but it can also obscure the subversive nature of the parable. Plowing is noticeably absent in the parable. The soil is passive—it is what it is: shallow, rocky, weed/thorn infested, or good. Like the first follow-up parable (vv 26-29) where the man does nothing but cast seed upon the soil, growth happens without the aid of the Sower. The parable does not rhetorically ask, “What kind of soil are you?” nor is there an implied command, “Soil, be more receptive—change!” In fact, the Isaiah referent implies the soil cannot change (Mk 4:11-12). We are, however, to imagine that the seed is sown without regard to where it lands; nothing else is done. We are moved away from human intervention to manipulate a harvest to a picture of a Sower who sows despite the outward realities of the conditions where the seed lands. He sows indiscriminately, lavishly, almost carelessly. All the while, the listeners/readers become aware that some seed will be wasted and yet there will be a good harvest. In a retelling of the parable a century after Mark’s Gospel, Justin Martyr exhorts Christians to sow every corner “in hopes that good soil might somewhere be found.”
The imagery of increasing harvest
Among the prophets, harvest imagery is stock language for God restoring His remnant, as a metaphor for the in-breaking of His dominion, and in texts of judgment and eschatological promise.[1] The imagery links the parable to the inauguration of the Kingdom of God and provides an image of continuous growth. There are not six fields (three poor; three good), but four areas where seed falls with six different results—“a crescendo of momentum,” an obvious progression: No germination (v 4; v 15), some growth, but lacking root quickly withers (vv 5-6; vv 16-17), growth, but no fruit (v 7; vv 18-19), and then three escalating harvests of 30-, 60-, and 100-fold (v 8; v 20). The unsuccessful seed are described with the aorist as to what is done to them (eaten by birds, scorched by the sun, choked by weeds) or what they failed to do (gave no fruit). Whereas, the seed that falls in good soil are the subject of an active sentence, with imperfect verbs (ἐδίδου, yielded; ἔφερεν, produced) and present participles denoting continuous growth (ἀναβαίνοντα and αὐξανόμενα). The harvest imagery supports a realized eschatology, giving the sense of the reality of the Kingdom as it rolls out and increases.
The harvest motif is continued by New Testament authors writing about the Church’s growth. In Acts, Luke pairs up λόγος (word) and αὐξάνω (increase) to indicate the Gospel’s geo-demographic expansion from Jerusalem to the Gentile world (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ηὔξανεν, the increase of the word, Ac 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Paul utilizes αὐξάνω (increase) in the context of Church-growth (Ep 2:21; 4:15; Col 1:10; 2:19).[2] Paul also picks up the Mark 4 imagery to explain his own ministry where God causes the growth (αὐξάνω, 1 Co 3:6-7).
[1] Cf. Ps 126:6; Isa 9:3; 17:5; 27; 55:10-13; 60:21; 65:21-22; 66:20; Jer 2:3; 31:27-28; Hos 2:9; 6:11; Isa 16:9; 17:11; 18:5-6; 24:13; Jer 5:17, 24; 8:20; 12:13; 48:32; 50:16; 51:32-34; Joel 1:11; 3:13 (cf. 4:29); Amos 4:7. A number of these texts reflect the language of the Exodus stipulations; e.g., the language in Jer 5 is very similar to Isa 1-5, where God’s indictment of His people/rulers reflects social neglect of the poor.
[2] Paul uses both αὐξάνω and καρποφορέω to indicate that the word of truth, the Gospel had expanded into the Colossae region (Col 1:5b-6); also cf. 1 Pe 2:2; 2 Pe 3:18.
The agricultural imagery is also present
The imagery of the parable of the Sower who sows is also analogous to the agricultural imagery developed in Isaiah 1-5.
Your land is desolate,
Your cities are burned with fire,
Your fields--strangers are devouring them in your presence;
It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers.
The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard,
Like a watchman’s hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged
city (1:7-8).
Surely you will be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired,
And you will be embarrassed at the gardens which you
have chosen.
For you will be like an oak whose leaf fades away
Or as a garden that has no water.
The strong man will become tinder,
His work also a spark.
Thus they shall both burn together
And there will be none to quench them (1:29-31).
The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and princes
of His people,
“It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing My people
And grinding the face of the poor?
Declares the Lord GOD of hosts (3:14-15).
Additionally, the agricultural imagery of oaks (1:29-30; 2:13; cf. 6:13) and gardens (1:29-30) is associated with idolatry. Idolatry is associated with the dissonance between the function of worship and the nation’s community life and their social responsibilities (1:12ff; 1:17; cf. 1:21). Their idolatry created attitudes, as well as, religious and socio-economic structures (2:6-8; 2:20) and habits that discouraged or hindered them from their responsibilities toward the poor. God’s description of this failing and His judgment (e.g., the Lord will have a day of reckoning, 2:12) throughout Isaiah 1-5 are expressed in or followed by agricultural images (e.g., 2:13f).
The parable of God’s vineyard
There is also a connection, rarely noticed, between Mark 4 and Isaiah 5. In Isaiah, the parable of the vineyard is sandwiched between indictments (Isa 1-3) and the idolatry-taunt (Isa 6:9ff.). The owner of the vineyard is Yahweh and it represents His people (vv 1-2). The vineyard was expected to produce good grapes, but only produces worthless ones (v 2). As a result, God foretells judgment for His vineyard similar to the imagery in Mark’s parable:
I will lay it waste;
It will not be pruned or hoed,
But briars and thorns will come up
I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it (v 6)
Then, as with the parable of the Sower, after the parable of the vineyard an explanation is offered (vv 7ff). Amid the rebellion and idolatry is the continued charge that justice and righteousness is absent from God’s vineyard:
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel
And the men of Judah His delightful plant
Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress (5:7).
In summary, there is a corresponding pattern seen in both Isaiah 1-6 and Mark 3-4:
-Indictments against the leaders of Jerusalem / Isa 1-4 / Mk 3:22ff
-Agricultural parable of judgment / Isa 5:1-7 / Mk 4:1-8
-Explanation and
idolatry-taunt/judgment / Isa 5:8ff; 6:9ff / Mk 4:10-13; 4:13-30
The rhetorical function of the parable continues the programmatic themes established by Mark at the opening of his Gospel. The parable of the Sower who sows and its place in Mark’s Gospel narrative is analogous to the content of Isaiah 1-6. The parable presents the realities of the inaugurated Gospel of the Kingdom, not how hearts need to change. The spreading of the word, that is the Gospel of the Kingdom, is not limited to the religious realm or to individual salvation, but ought to include outcomes that Mark draws upon to give content to His Gospel, which include social righteousness that addresses the needs of the vulnerable and the poor.
Analogous to the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt
After the parable of the Sower who sows, the twelve asked Jesus “about the parables” (4:10). Affirming the association with the Kingdom of God (4:11), Jesus reaches back to the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt to explain: those who are outside get everything in parables, so that [ἵνα] WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY NOT HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN (4:11b-12). The ἵνα (so that, v 12) introducing the Isa 6:9 referent provides difficulty for many, however, the telic (expressing end or purpose) use should not be rejected or evaded, for “Jesus adopts a meaning for Isaiah 6:9-10 virtually identical to the original meaning in Isaiah.” The parable of the Sower is the reality of God’s judgment; the consequences are in play even now. Reviewing the context of Isaiah 1-5 will bear this out even further.
While recognizing the “difficult theology” and harshness of Isa 6:9-13, G. K. Beale points out that the text “functions as a pronouncement of judgment on Israel’s idolatry” and is a consequence “of the nation’s covenantal disobedience.” This is clear from the preceding where Israel’s leadership is indicted for idolatry (Isa 1:29-31; 2:6-9; 2:12-13; 2:8, 18, 20). The rulers had persistently rebelled against God; His patience reaching the limit. There is a match—a lex talionis—between their condition and the judgment, for Israel does not know … My people do not understand (Isa 1:3) and the taunt pronounces Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand (Isa 6:9; cf. Mk 4:12). In fact, the mark of exile is the lack of knowledge (Isa 5:13). Mark picks up the issue of knowledge and perception throughout his narrative (Mark 4:12, 13; 7:14, 18; 8:17; 9:32; 12:24; cf. 11:33; 12:33; 13:14).
Although the whole nation falls under judgment, it is specifically the leaders whom God holds accountable for provoking rebellion (Isa 1:10, 23), despising the word of the Holy One (Isa 5:2; cf. 1:4), and abandoning social responsibilities toward the poor (Isa 1:17, 23; 3:14-15). This is analogous to the incessant confrontations Jesus has with the Jerusalem temple-leadership throughout Mark’s narrative. Following on the heels of the Beelzubul confrontation, the judgment reflected in the parable and referred to with the Isa 6 referent is appropriate for Israel’s unprepared leadership. As with the temple leaders addressed by Isaiah, there will be no forgiveness for the temple-leadership who reject Jesus and His Kingdom-word (do not forgive them, Isa 2:9; cf. Mk 3:29; 4:12.) The allusion is strengthened in that Jerusalem had stumbled and rebelled against God’s presence (Isa 3:8) and had called evil good, and good evil, substituting darkness for light and light for darkness (5:20).
Along with the theme of justice and righteousness (1:17, 21, 26, 27; 3:10; 5:7, 16), there are also direct references to the poor:
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow (1:16-17).
Your rulers are rebels
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves a bribe
And chases after rewards
They do not defend the orphan,
Nor does the widow’s plea come before them (1:23).
The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and
princes of His people,
“It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing My people
And grinding the face of the poor?”
Declares the Lord GOD of hosts (3:14-15).
The mention of the vulnerable trio, the orphan, the widow, and the alien/stranger, is an obvious reflection of the covenant stipulations of Exodus 21-23. Their idolatrous behavior is not only apparent in the adopting of “foreign influences” (cf. 2:6ff) and reflected in the profanity of their worship (Isa 1:10-15), but also in not fulfilling their covenant social responsibilities to the poor.
The parable’s rhetorical function
The parable’s rhetorical function is to answer the question Why the opposition? The dynamic presence of God’s reign had arrived (1:14-15), displayed in Jesus’ preaching, exorcisms, and healings—so why the decline in positive response? Although the parable of the Sower offers an explanation, it is a faulty generalization to suggest the parable is about the toughness of the mission, or why people in general reject the Good News. Rather than focusing on individuals in general, as the narrative moves from baptism to the parable, the crowd’s attraction to Jesus is contrasted to the temple-leadership’s rejection of or stumbling over Jesus and His Kingdom-Gospel (both His proclamation and His deeds).
There is great response from the crowds (1:16-45), even contrasting Jesus’ authority (teaching and deeds) with the authority of the scribes (1:22). As Jesus continued to speak the word to them (ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον, 2:2), He is accused of blasphemy (only God can forgive sins, 2:7)—a set-up for the Beelzubul controversy (cf. 3:22ff). This marks a turning point in the opposition, not from the crowds, but from the leadership. There is distaste for the company Jesus keeps (eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners, 2:16). Apparently, they did not like the soil where Jesus was sowing His seed. Afterward, the Pharisees are offended that the disciples do not fast (2:18). To make matters even worse, Jesus and His disciples eat grain on the Sabbath (why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?, 2:24). Eventually Jesus is grieved at their hardness of heart (3:5). And soon, the Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him (3:6). Yet despite the antagonism, a great multitude (3:7) from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem continue to come to Jesus (vv 7-8a); even those from “outside” Jerusalem, that is Idumea, beyond the Jordon, and the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him (3:8b).
The parable is not a lesson about the general public (i.e., individual soils), but reflects the reality concerning those who are the maintainers of Israel’s religious and socio-economic structures. The parable affirms God’s judgment and ensures that God’s word will not return empty (i.e., the harvest among the crowds and, even, outsiders; cf. Isa 55:11). The lavished seed of the Kingdom (word and deed) sown by the Master Sower is wasted on some, yet still produces a good crop among the crowds and “outsiders,” a harvest of 30-, 60-, and 100-fold.
The word (λόγος)
Jesus’ use of λόγος (word, Mk 4:14, 33) to identify the seed sown is significant. “One might have expected Jesus to talk about sowing the good news of the coming dominion of God rather than the ‘Word’.” Some argue that λόγος (word) is a term for the Gospel later developed by the Church, and thus influenced its use in Mark’s interpretation, rather than originating from Jesus. However, there is no reason the reverse cannot be the case—that is, Jesus’ use led to the early Church’s association of λόγος with the Gospel. Already in Mark 2:2, Jesus spoke the word (τὸν λόγον), an obvious reference to the Gospel of the Kingdom (1:14-15).
Additionally, it is reasonable for Jesus to have used λόγος in light of his pending use of Isaiah 6, for λόγος is used throughout the preceding Isaiah 1-5 context. The rulers are commanded to hear the word (λόγον, 1:10). It is the word (λόγος, 2:1) that Isaiah sees concerning Yahweh’s reign among the nations and it is God’s word (λόγος, 2:3) that the nations long to hear and obey. Furthermore, following the Isaiah 5 vineyard parable and the threat of exile (My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge, 5:13), the prophet imagines judgment in agricultural terms similar to the parable of the Sower who sows:
Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble
And dry grass collapses into the flame,
So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away
as dust (5:24a).
Then, the stanza concludes with an ironic twist regarding the “poor soil,” for unlike the Gentiles, who come to listen to God’s law and obey His word (λόγον, 2:3), Israel has rejected the law of the LORD of hosts and despised the word [λόγον] of the Holy One of Israel (Isa 5:24c).
The use of λόγος to identify the seed, which is the Gospel of the Kingdom, is an appropriate word for Jesus to have used, especially for importing the Isaiah 1-5 context into the parable of the Sower.
We turn our attention to the Mark 4 parable where the Sower sows seed with six different results. The parable of the Sower who sows begins Mark’s highest concentration of parables. This chapter of parables, although centering on the sowing of the word (cf. 4:14), rarely is utilized for developing a foundation or theory for evangelism. At best the parable is employed for its “practical” value to explain why individual “soils” (i.e., people) reject the Gospel or abandon the faith, and then to make some appeal for individuals “to be more receptive soil.” However, this seems like putting the cart before the horse—the application before significance. Before “applying” this parable, some attention must be given as to why Jesus gave the parable in the first place. Agreeing with Witherington, this parable ought not be dissected “into specific parts,” for it is a parable, not “a syllogistically driven speech.”
We seem to “use” parables to interpret the Christian life. Parables in the New Testament are often read and preached mythically, as if they explain our place in the world, to reinforce our “traditions” and help explain our relationship to the world around us. There is a tendency to use one’s own “plausibility structures” to form a paradigm for interpreting and “smuggle them into” our understanding of the parables. In Rabbinic literature and the writings of Qumran (i.e., Jewish extracanonical material) parables were used to clarify or interpret OT texts, as well as, to explain meanings, often hidden, in OT stories and how they apply to that day. But not so in the OT itself, where they usually are a form of judgment-speech—many times with a subversive twist. It is interesting that the context of Isaiah and Ezekiel, both used in Mark 4, have judgment-parables in their own context (cf. parables in Isaiah 5, Ezekiel 17, Ezekiel 31; cf. Ez 20:49; 24:1ff). Parables are spoken to the disobedient, rebellious, and idolaters. Mark’s parable chapter falls within this framework.
Often overlooked, the imagery of the parable of the Sower who sows “the word” continues the themes established at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel—covenantal faithfulness, warning of idolatry, social righteousness, and the vulnerable and the poor. The parable of the Sower who sows assists the readers/listeners to understand the nature of the Gospel and how they are to imagine what it means for the Gospel of the Kingdom to have been inaugurated (1:14-15).
Why Jesus came
There is little doubt that the Sower is Jesus. Before the parable begins (4:2), Jesus’ authority as a teacher is recognized. Mark’s use of ἐξῆλθεν (went out, 4:3) in the parable’s opening line draws the reader back to Mark 1:38-39 and the purpose for which Jesus came:
He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for [εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον].” And He went [ἦλθεν] into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons” (Mark 1:38-39). [1]
Later Mark tells us that Jesus went out [ἐξῆλθεν]…and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching [ἐδίδασκεν] them (2:13). Furthermore, Mark’s narrative depicts Jesus as the herald (1:14-15) and doer of the Kingdom (Mark 1:39ff—preaching, casting out demons, doing miracles). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the parable presents the reality of the in-breaking of God’s Kingdom in Jesus, who is the sower of the word of the Gospel.
[1] Cf. 1:35; also note ἀπέρχομαι in 3:13 at the first reference to the calling of the twelve and then at the close of the periscope, 6:12, ἐξέρχομαι, both indicating the purpose of Jesus’ and their mission.
The Wasted Evangelism thread 1, I1, II1, II2, II3, III1…
The poor, idolatry, and the threat of judgment continued
Mark’s Exodus reference is located in what “constitutes a final warning [just] prior to the sealing of the covenant (24:1-18).” They are to remember “Yahweh’s presence at the founding moment,” which includes (necessitates) ensuring that the poor are protected and full participants in the benefits of the land. Exodus 23:20 leads the subsequent context that encourages and warns that the land-stipulations are to be obeyed. Idolatry is the antithesis to obeying the “voice” of the angel (for God’s name is in him, v 21).
Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way [ἐν τὴν ὁδόν] and to bring you into the place [τὴν γην] which I have prepared [v 20]. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression [cf. Mk 3:29; 4:12], since My name is in him. But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars [reference to idols] in pieces. But you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst. There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days. I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you. I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you (vv 21-33).
The mixed Exodus 23:20/Malachi 3:1 element recalls God’s social ordinances, indicating a threat to those not obeying them. The Malachi referent (3:1) and its immediate context refers back to the Exodus land-laws and, as well, looks forward to the new exodus.
“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts (Mal 3:1).
The similarities to Isa 40:3 are obvious. The verbal similarities between Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20 are also apparent, marking a typos or fulfillment of judgment for breaking the requisite land-laws related to the vulnerable trio:
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:5).
A composite of idolatry and the disregard for the marginalized form the basis of the judgment. Mark prepares the reader/listener, first, for John the Baptist (1:4ff), and then, the eventual “sudden” appearing of Jesus in judgment at the temple in Jerusalem.
The programmatic summary
R.T. France concludes that “Mark has declared his hand” in the opening verses of his Gospel, setting the framework in which we are to understand his whole story. We accept that Mark has drawn into his Gospel the motifs of God’s dominion, exodus, exile, the Spirit, and idolatry. What is undervalued, overlooked, or even ignored is the same context that contains these obvious correspondences, likewise, includes direct references regarding socio-economic relationships and community responsibilities toward the poor and vulnerable.
The
Wasted Evangelism thread
1,
I1,
II1,
II2, II3,
III1…
The poor, idolatry, and the threat of judgment
Within the contexts of the blended OT citation, our attention is drawn to the presence of the poor and vulnerable. There are direct references to the poor in the fused Exodus 23:20/Malachi 3:1 component of citation. In fact preceding the Exodus 23:20 referent we are, for the first time, introduced to the vulnerable trio, the widow, orphan, and alien/stranger and their relationship to the fabric of society as part of the land-laws (e.g., social, economic).
You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious (Ex 22:21-27).
We also learn the poor are not to be given deference in matters of law just because they are needy (v 3), but also You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute (v 6) or oppress a stranger (v 9). Then in 23:11, the basis for the seventh year rest is so that the needy of your people may eat.
Moving to the Malachi 3 referent we also see “the poor” as we are confronted with the harsh realities of God’s judgment on those who oppress the vulnerable trio: Then I will draw near to you for judgment…against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien… (Malachi 3:5).
Although there is no direct mention of “the poor” in the Isaiah 40 context, we should not overlook the concept of Yahweh’s kingship and the imagery of the coming Victor (vv 3, 9). This Victor-king who comes in might (v 10) is also likened to a Shepherd (v 11).
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might,
With His arm ruling for Him
Behold, His reward is with Him
And His recompense before Him.
Like a shepherd He will tend His flock,
In His arm He will gather the lambs
And carry them in His bosom;
He will gently lead the nursing ewes (Isa 40:10-11).
The beneficent shepherd-king described in ancient Near Eastern texts suggests some degree of correspondence between Yahweh as Shepherd and the care of the powerless, a task given by the gods to the king.
The issue of idolatry also makes a strong appearance in the OT contexts of Mark’s “foundational” citation:
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God (Ex 20:3-5b).
He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed (Ex 22:20).
Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth (Ex 23:13)
You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces (Ex 23:24).
You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you (23:32-33).
As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot;
He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter (Isa 40:19-20).
In Malachi there is only one direct reference to idolatry: Judah is rebuked for profaning the sanctuary of the Lord which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god (Mal 2:11). However, the segment on profane sacrifices and polluted offerings (1:7-12) consists of idolatrous attitudes and practices of temple priests. Meanwhile the Mal 3:1 element of the citation contains judgment language appropriate for the idolatrous practices of temple leadership (Mal 3:2-4). The references to “sorcerers” and “those who swear falsely” are also related to idolatry (Mal 3:5).
What is of interest and overlooked, is that the poor and the issue of idolatry are associated in the Exodus/Malachi contexts. In the Exodus context laws and stipulations are given to prepare Israel for living “in the land” (20ff). Interestingly, in the midst of a series land-requisites and social ordinances that culminates in a warning against idolatry (23:32-33), there is a caution against afflicting the stranger, widow, and orphan trio.
He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed. You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest (Ex 22:20-25).
The juxtaposition here is significant, for the issue of idolatry (You shall not have any gods before Me, 22:22) is intimately connected to how the world is to work relationally and socio-economically (cf. 21:1ff), with an emphasis on social responsibilities toward the vulnerable and the poor. The association suggests that a form of idolatry is the marginalization or disregard of the vulnerable and poor.
The
Wasted Evangelism thread
1,
I1,
II1, II2,
II3,
III1…
Mark does not begin his narrative as do the other synoptic Gospels: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Many recognize that Mark’s heading is similar to the Priene Calendar Inscription honoring Caesar Augustus (9 B.C.):
Because providence has ordered our life in a divine way…and since the Emperor through his epiphany has exceeded the hopes of former good news [εὐαγγελια], surpassing not only the benefactors who came before him, but also leaving no hope that anyone in the future will surpass him, and since the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of his good news…
In close historical proximity to Jesus’ own birth, Caesar Augustus’ birthday (in 9 B.C.) was declared as εὐαγγελια (Good News), and thus the political and social significance must have had some bearing on Mark’s Gospel heading. No doubt Mark harnesses the association with Caesar—his appearance, the celebration of his birth as a god, his epiphany was “good news” to the world, all appear extremely relevant. What is drowned out by the excitement of this association, with all its “implied” (and applied) anti-imperialism (i.e., Jesus vs. imperial Rome, Jesus vs. imperial America, etc.), is that by the time the small Church had became established throughout the Roman empire the rule of the Caesars had begun to deteriorate. Perhaps this explains, at least in part, the hostility between the political and religious powers and the new sect with a powerful new “Gospel” with a different Caesar.
While harnessing the political significance, Mark takes his narrative in a different direction to show how a better “Gospel” is invading the realms of man—i.e., Caesar’s domain. In Mark’s introduction, we are creatively drawn into an intriguing, and yet overlooked, thematic thread woven into his Gospel that should inform our concept of evangelism.
First things: the beginning and foundation
Mark starts his Gospel abruptly with àρχή, usually translated beginning, but it should not be taken temporally—that is, “this is the beginning of the history of the story of the gospel.” Here, àρχή suggests more the idea of foundation, essence, or first principle. It is not sequential or temporal, but descriptive of origin: The essence and foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, just as it is written... (1:1-2a).
Without much knowledge of the Old Testament, readers can sense the “essence” of this story is somehow connected to ancient promises. Mark’s Gospel header (v 1) is linked to vv 2-3, where καθὼς γέγραπται (as it is written, v 2a) does not begin a new thought, but connects the Gospel of Jesus Messiah (1:1) to a “tapestry” of three OT passages (vv 2b-3): Exodus 23:20, Isaiah 40:3, and Malachi 3:1. Καθὼς (as, just as) links what follows with what precedes, as is regularly the case with καθὼς γέγραπται (as it is written). Verses 2-3 draw on a programmatic OT foundation, setting-up themes Mark will harnesses and develop throughout his narrative: the exodus/exile, the issue of idolatry, and the threat of judgment for not keeping the land-laws.
The context of each element of the citation sets-up a framework for relistening to the parable of the Sower who sows and, as well, is also decisive for shaping a definition of evangelism and its and potential outcomes.
Yahweh’s Dominion
Alluding to Isaiah 40:3, Mark appears to be tying together “two disparate, potentially antagonistic theologies” intrinsic to his Gospel: The imperial cult of Caesar and OT expectations. Isaiah 40:1 foretells an era of comfort after exile (Isa 36-39), indicating, in eschatological promise, Yahweh was about to act in history. It is from this Mark makes a correspondence (i.e., a fulfillment and typos) to his Gospel: A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3; cf. Mk 1:3). The imagery is common to Isaiah’s world, reflecting the ceremonial procession of Babylonian and other Ancient Near Eastern victor-kings. Here, it is Yahweh who comes as Victor-king for His people. The event is Good News (v 9).
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!” (v 9).
The εὐαγγέλιον (good news) is associated with Yahweh, who comes with might (μετά ἰσχύς, v 10 LXX) to demonstrate His reign, dispensing His reward and recompense (Isa 40:10; cf. Mark 1:7). John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the ὁ ἰσχυρότερός (mighty one, 1:7), extending the connection also to the Beelzebul conflict, for Jesus is the “stronger man” who binds strongman Satan (τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ/τὸν ἰσχυρὸν, Mark 3:27). There is also mention of the Spirit (Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Isa 40:13), which in Isaiah is related to Yahweh and His actions. Isa 40:13 begins a series of texts associating the Spirit to the eschatological promises of Yahweh’s “coming.” In Isa 63:10 Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh is seen as grieving of the Holy Spirit (Isa 63:10)—a harbinger/typos of the Beelzebul confrontation (Mk 3:22ff). The presence of the Spirit in Mark signals the inauguration of the Isaianic promises associated with the in-breaking of God’s reign (Mk 1:8, 10). There are five Isaiah passages with reference to good news (εὐαγγέλιον) furthering the correspondence between Yahweh as the Victor-King and the Gospel of Kingdom of God.
Mark indicates the “time is fulfilled,” namely ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (the Kingdom of God is at hand, Mk 1:15). Although ἐγγίζω (it is near, Mark 1:15) is frequently used throughout the LXX, Isaiah links it to “the promise of the nearness of God’s righteousness.” The texts themselves are parallel to Isa 40 (cf. Isa 46:13) and offer further significance to God’s arrival.
Thus says the LORD,
“Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed” (Isa 56:1)
In light of the future “new exodus,” the mention of God’s righteousness (cf. Isa 46:13) and the call to Preserve justice and do righteousness (Isa 56:1) echo the covenant faithfulness expected for living in the land (Ex 23:1ff; cf. Dt 4:8; 32:4).
Mark is announcing the long awaited “new exodus.” Now Jesus’ words and deeds become the content of the εὐαγγέλιον (Gospel, Good News, Mk 1:1, 14, 15) as both the fulfillment of the expected Isaianic promises of the new exodus and the indicator that the presence of the Kingdom has been inaugurated.
The
Wasted Evangelism thread
1,
I1, II1,
II2,
II3,
III1…
In the field of social services, of which I am vocationally related, outcomes are an important element in determining what actions are needed. So, likewise with evangelism—if an outcome of evangelism is “personal decisions for Christ,” then activities of soul-winning, witnessing, crusades, and salvation-centered preaching are reasonable; if numerical church-growth is the outcome, then activities that promote such “growth” are acceptable; and, as I will posit here, if addressing the issues of poverty and social-righteousness are outcomes, then social action is a valid evangelistic activity.
Those who have the highest interest in evangelism are usually those least interested in “critical, theological reflection.” Since evangelism seems mostly self-evident, rarely is the subject examined or evaluated theologically, but consigned to matters of church praxis. This does not promote biblically relevant criteria to precede the discussion, and thus limits critical analysis, biblical evaluation, and creative thinking regarding evangelism.
There is a tendency to define evangelism etymologically and stop there. Since the Greek noun εὐαγγέλιον means “good news” and the Greek verb εὐαγγελίζω means “to proclaim the good news,” evangelism, then, is simply “proclaiming the good news.” With this definition, proclamation-centered activities are the valid forms of evangelism: Preaching, teaching, witnessing, or sharing a testimony. The hoped for outcomes of a proclamation-centered evangelism are individual- and number-oriented: confessions of faith, increased church attendance, etc. However, does the Gospel narrative itself allow this definition to go unchallenged?
The narrow, proclamation-centered definition only succeeds if solely based on word-studies and isolated proof-texts. It is not entirely clear that the New Testament presents “a vision of evangelism merely from verbal consideration related to the etymology of ‘evangelism.’” The early Church, especially in the Gospels, seem more interested in creating a narrative so future generations of the Church can imagine what it means for the Gospel of the Kingdom to have been inaugurated. Any attempt to develop a coherent theory of evangelism must begin with the eschatological implications of the presence of the Kingdom, which is wholly constitutive of the gospel. The remainder of this paper will explore how the parable of the Sower who sows, which fits within this framework, offers a narrative definition of evangelism that includes social action outcomes.
References and footnotes to citations and quotes will be available after the paper is finished and presented in a pfd version of the whole paper. I will post the link after Novemeber 19th sometime.
The Wasted Evangelism thread 1, I1, II1, II2, II3, III1…