I usually don’t start at the beginning when I write something seious—that is I leave the “intro” to last. But in this paper for this particular topic, I had to start at the start. I thought I’d share it with you all. Now mind you it is only a start and it is most certainly draft, very rough…but pretty close to where I want to go and how I feel the paper’ subject from my point of view needs to start. Sorry you don’t get the footnotes…you’ll just have to wait for the paper…Here’s my intro to “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes
A number of years ago my former 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 friends and the non-churched—perhaps they would come to church if the topics had some “practical” value to them. This was a no-brainer for me, so without hesitation I wrote down “workforce development” and “poverty” as topics my friends would be interested to hear. Some weeks later, I asked the pastor if he planned to preach on my suggested topics. He acknowledged he saw my 3 x 5 card and the topics I had written and then made this comment, “That’s your area.”
For sure, these areas are “mine” in the sense that I work professionally 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. The pastor never preached on the topics that would interest my non-churched friends, but I do mark that interchange as a decisive moment when I realized I needed to develop my own “theory of evangelism” as it related 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 the issues of poverty. It is an understatement to acknowledge that for the last century and a half there has been a rather impassioned debate and divide among evangelicals on these subjects. Mid-century, Carl Henry confronted this tension in his book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947). This dispute plays a major part in George Mardsen’s renowned Fundamentalism and American Culture, originally published in 1980. Perhaps as an outcome of the 1960’s Jesus movement, the 70’s and early 80’s reflected a renewed interest in the subject Christianity and social responsibility. Through “intellectual” associations and “convening” bodies, evangelicals wrestled with the church’s relationship to salvation, evangelism, social responsibilities, and in particular, the poor.
Christians, today, cannot avoid the renewed attention—inside and outside the institutional church—given to issues of poverty and the church’s relationship to the socio-economic structures. This interest is everywhere—in the political arena (both among conservatives and liberals), for younger college graduates who ask “how does your company serve the needs of the community?” when considering job opportunities, and, of course, within the emergent Church community and among emerging Christians. Again, it is time for the community of faith to wrestle with the relationship between evangelism and social action as it seeks to be both biblical and relevant to the social-cultural context surrounding it. Lacking, however, is a theory of evangelism that addresses the Church and its social responsibilities.
I start with two assumptions: (1) Evangelism is a biblical mandate for the Church and (2) the Church’s task of evangelism is to have a biblical foundation in order to determine valid outcomes and activities. Therefore, developing a theory of evangelism is an important step for determining valid evangelistic outcomes. In this paper I will argue for a narrative-based definition for evangelism, as a basis for a theory of evangelism (fn 1), through an examination of the Mark 4 parables and their surrounding narrative that will offer the plausibility that social action outcomes are a valid aim for the task of evangelism.
I will strongly advocate that social action can, indeed, be evangelism. I will build my case (I) by examining how definition can determine scope and outcomes, (II) by developing a narrative-based definition of evangelism from the parable of “wasted seed” (in Mark 4:3-20), (III) by understanding evangelism as subversive parable (the follow-up parables in Mark 4:26-32), (IV) by showing how Mark’s programmatic framework (Mark 1:1-3) and the deeds of Jesus (Mark 5) support social action outcomes as evangelism; and finally (V) by presenting how “high impact” social action strategies can produce biblical outcomes for evangelism.
I. Evangelism: Definition, Goals, Limits, and Outcomes
In the field of social services, of which I am vocationally related, outcomes are an important element in determining what programs, services, and actions are needed to bring about the outcomes being sought. So, likewise with evangelism—if the outcome of evangelism is “personal decisions for Christ,” then activities such as soul-winning, witnessing, crusades, and salvation-centered preaching are reasonable; if church-growth (i.e., increase in church-attendance, numbers of members, etc.) is the outcome, then activities that promote such “growth” are justifiable as activities of evangelism (fn 2); and, as I will posit here, if addressing the issues of poverty and social-righteousness are valid outcomes for evangelism, then social action is a legitimate avenue for the evangelistic task of the Church.
Two notes are important here:
1. In order to develop a “theory of evangelism,” the start must be at the simplest level, i.e., the basis, the foundation. Informed by the text, a narrative-based definition offers such a foundation.
2. Some consider certain activities “pre-evangelism” or “bridges.” Although I will briefly mention such types of activities further in the paper, the attempt here is not to make too much of a delineation between evangelism and pre-evangelism activities.
I have learned more than I bargained for while studying, researching, and pondering on the issue of social action and evangelism, especially as I have made strides to learn from Mark’s parables in chapter four of his gospel. One important thing I have learned is the value and function of the action-parables that come in the form of healings, exorcisms, and other miracles. Miracles function similar to parables in that they reveal the presence of the kingdom of God and at the same time indicate, teach, or show some level of subversion (as do the parables) to the surrounding status quo. I have also learned something about the contemporary need to see miracles, believe in miracles, and to proclaim that miracles are possible and do happen—on command, and usually by select individuals. I find that this contemporary use of miracles is radically different than their use and function through Jesus and in the hands of the Gospel writers. As one writer, Chet Myers, has pointed out, the healings and exorcisms pre-Mark 4 (and the parables of sowing) and the following (especially in Mark 5) are central to this section of Mark. As Myers continues on with this point, he refers to G. Theissen’s work on the The Miracles Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, where the study of the social function of early Christian miracle stories are somewhat—really radically different—than the miracles stories of the contemporary Hellenistic world. In the Hellenistic world miracle stories “originated from the aristocracy, and through the highly institutionalized practice of divination and technique-magic,” the primary concern was with the continued “maintenance of the accepted order and way of life.” Obviously this was to the advantage of the elite of the day. As it is for those in places of power, status, and position today. Other ancient pagan traditions also show miracles were used in order to dissuade “growing social disintegration.” Myers continues:
“In contrast, the gospel miracles assert the promise and possibility of radical socio-political change in behalf of the disenfranchised. They function to subvert, not legitimate, the dominate order” (Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, p 264).
I find, in our contemporary social and Christian setting, that the promotion of the miraculous is not for teaching or disclosing God’s action in this world as in Mark’s Gospel, but provides the sensational to give power, in particular to those proclaiming miracles or (trying) to perform them (in the guise of calling on Jesus to provide them). As in the older Hellenistic world, a miracle (even just the appearance of claiming them, calling them to appear and be manifest) is actually more about the desire of the “performer” to exercise power over people or to build a constituency dependent on such performance. Of course, the performance needs to continue to maintain the power over that constituency. In some since to maintain and perserve the status quote--of the power structure in place, one particularly promoted by “the preformer.” Miracles, however in the hands of Jesus indicate the presence of the kingdom and of the king who does not care to share power with others. An elite group is not so privileged in light of Gospel teaching. Furthermore, the miracles done by Jesus and placed in their literacy settings in the Gospels by the writers (such as Mark) are subversive in function. Like their cousin, the story-parables, miracle-parables challenge the power structures of the status quo. They confront power and those who in the guise of piety who claim such power are false-miracle-workers.
In the next post to this thread, I will highlight how the action-parable, i.e., miracles in chapter 5 of Mark’s Gospel teach us, as do the story-parables, lessons of subversion. Then I will follow with a post on why I think social action can function similar to miracles. For my post on the subverstive nature of parable, take a look at ”
Parables ought to subvert our world.” (Read all the posts on this thread,
1,
2,
3,
4.)
“But finally Daniel came in before me, whose name is Belteshazzar according to the name of my god, and in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream to him, saying, ‘O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, since I know that a spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery baffles you, tell me the visions of my dream which I have seen, along with its interpretation. Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
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.’”
_______________________________
“[T]his is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: that you be driven away from mankind and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes. And in that it was commanded to leave the stump with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules. 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” (Daniel 4:8-12, 24-27).
I find it fascinating that Jesus utilizes the Old Testament story in Daniel 4 to describe the arrival of the Kingdom of God and the nature of its presence. In Mark we hear Jesus ask, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God…?” and then utilizes a parable to answer the question (as He has in throughout Mark 4).
We are quite familiar with Jesus’ parable of a small seed that grows to become “larger than all the other garden plants and forms large branches.” In some camps of evangelical Christianity this parable is quickly turned into (interpreted) an illustration about how many people will be converted to Christ. The “large branches” suggest to some the missionary endeavor that reaches (branches) out further and further to encompass more and more converts. I bought this rendering for many years. Although I do not disagree with the mission aspect, that is Christianity branching out to encompass more and more of the world, I find it more missional at this point in my life then simply about missions. I do believe in the importance (and imperative) of church planting and bringing people to Christ, however, this parable is not about such limited view of evangelism. This parable is answering a question regarding the nature of the Kingdom of God, not simply a truncated view or limited definition of evangelism.
We have already read in Mark (chapter 1) that “The time is fulfilled”—making Jesus’ arrival a fulfillment of Old Testament prophetic expectation)—and that “the Kingdom of God is at hand”—making Jesus’ appearance (ministry, death, and resurrection) centered on the arrival of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). And then in Mark 4 itself we are confronted with a parable about a Sower who sows “the Word,” which speaks to the “mystery of the Kingdom of God” (4:11) and its spread and its acceptance and rejection.
Perhaps a review of the Danielic background will help us to understand the reference and parable of the Kingdom of God and, thus, discover a better definition for evangelism.
In the history and context of Daniel, we have “Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language” (4:1) who is terrified of a vision, a dream that had awakened him during the night. The king summons the various court officials, querying them about the interpretation of the dream. Eventually it was apparent that his court ministers were not able to render an adequate interpretation that the king could accept. Finally, Daniel, of whom the king acknowledged that “a spirit of the holy gods” is in him and “no mystery baffles” him, offers an interpretation. But it is not, in the end, a good one for the king of all the nations on the earth. In the end, the vision was about the king’s undoing, his ruin. Although great and powerful, the king’s rule would come to an abrupt end. This seems never to fit into interpretations of Jesus’ parable of the muster seed in Mark 4.
At first, all looks good. The king’s power, prestige, and extent of his kingdom are acknowledged. The affirmation is described in the vision:
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.’”
This is all good. In fact the kingdom is described in “beautiful” terms, as if creation under its rule works as it should. But, it will come to an end, for we read in the following verses:
“I was looking in the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed, and behold, an angelic watcher, a holy one, descended from heaven.
’He shouted out and spoke as follows:
“Chop down the tree and cut off its branches,
Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit;
Let the beasts flee from under it
And the birds from its branches. (Daniel 4:13-14).
We are told that the king’s reign will come to an end because he does not acknowledge the right and rule of heaven. As Daniel tells the story, the seer picks up one particularly surprising point of reference, and maybe even seemingly a little incongruent, namely that the king can forestall the outcome of his demise if he shows “mercy to the poor.” Daniel tells the king,
“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” (4:27).
What I find very interesting, of all the things Daniel could have said to help the king identify what needs to be repented of, what needs to be done in order to heed the warning of the night vision, the prophet identifies the king’s relationship to the poor. The connection between the kingdom and the poor is made here and should have some force to inform us of the nature of God’s rule.
The picture of the branches in which the beasts of the field and birds of the air take refuge has the connotation of how a social-economic structure cares for, protects, and causes to prosper its citizens. In this case the reign of the king and its socio-economic dimension is to provide a safe and thriving structure for those within its sphere. Daniel in particular makes the connection to the weakest among the citizenry, namely the poor. In fact, in order for the king to keep his kingdom, showing mercy to the poor might prolong his prosperity. In order to hear the impact of the parable of the muster seed, one must take into consideration the connection to Daniel chapter 4, and thus a connection to the poor.
The first post of this thread,
Prolonging your prosperity: Evangelism is more than proclamation (1 of 3)
But finally Daniel came in before me, whose name is Belteshazzar according to the name of my god, and in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream to him, saying, ‘O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, since I know that a spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery baffles you, tell me the visions of my dream which I have seen, along with its interpretation. Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
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.’”
“[T]his is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: that you be driven away from mankind and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes. And in that it was commanded to leave the stump with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules. 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” (Daniel 4:8-12, 24-27).
____________________________
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” (Mark 4:30-32).
As I begin my research for a paper, “Wasted Evangelism,” that I hope to present at this November’s Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, I am reviewing literature on “evangelism” and “social action.” My (preliminary) thesis is simply that we, too often, have defined
evangelism as solely a cognitive activity which involves proclamation with the hopeful result of converted souls. Seems narrow and only partially biblical to me.
Obviously, as a Christian, this activity, proclamation evangelism, I believe, is a good thing, and very much a biblical mandate. But it narrows evangelism to a verbal act, rather than seeing its etymological background in a fuller, more biblical sense, namely, the idea of “spreading the gospel” is more than conversion and has much to do about social structures as well. What I mean is, since evangelism comes from the word “gospel” and means “spreading the gospel,” I think we need to go beyond proclamation. The gospel is intimately linked to the arrival of the Kingdom of God through the appearance of the Son of God. In fact the gospel writers refer to the gospel as the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, it is not just the good news of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, but the good news that in the life, death, resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit, the reign of God has invaded planet earth. Thus, the “spread of the gospel” is indeed the spread of the reign of God. Therefore, one cannot ignore that the reign of God is also about changing, rearranging social structures, as well as converting people to Christ.
Thus far in my research, I have concluded that proclamation is not enough, however, and is only one part of the “spread” of the gospel—evangelism needs to have a social component as well as the verbal component. The gospel, as it spreads, must address the social relationships and socioeconomic structures that are webbed within communities and throughout the wider society—throughout the whole earth. Now of course, some will debate whether it is by “one converted soul at a time” that changes social structures, or whether the gospel is also to be equality applied to life itself and should confront ungodly social structures and seek necessary change (with or without individual conversions).
I am utilizing Mark 4, and in particular the parable of the Sower who sows, as the basis for my brief biblical theology on evangelism and social action. This text is often utilized to support “evangelism,” and thus I have some leg to stand on. However, I do believe the parable is misused and turned into something it is not. (Read my Rough Cut exegetical essay on the text, The parable of the Sower who sows: hearing more accurately (Mark 4).) Here, in part 1 of 3, I only make a few observations from the second of two follow-up parables in Mark 4. (Read above, vv 30-32 and the textual background in Daniel 4, verses8-12 and 24-27).
This insertion of two brief parables right after one of the two lengthiest teachings directly from Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 13 is the other) begs one to conclude that the follow-up parables (placed there by Mark) are epexegetical, or at least linked to the “parable of the Sower who sows” as a further explanation of the nature of the spreading of the seed = Word, which is the Gospel, which is the kingdom’s arrival and the ministry of the disciples. So, I find it interesting that we have these two parables to help us understand the nature of the kingdom and one of them—the second one—is directly connected to the nature of the rule and reign of God through the depiction of a large branchy plant/tree. Furthermore, there is the original Danielic background to consider as well (next post, 2 of 3).
It is interesting to note that the parable of sowing is related to the kingdom, which implies social structures. This is further highlighted and alluded to through the second of the two follow-up parables (in vv 30-32). In the second parable, the seed planted is related, not to “souls” or individuals who respond or not respond to the sown Word, but to a socio-economic entity, i.e., the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, the socio-economic nature illustrated through the “large branches” that are protection for “the birds of the air” implies that the nature of this kingdom is one of purposeful and intentional security, safety, and prosperity for taking refuge in to its shade.
This observation is enough for me to find that the “spreading of the Gospel” is to affect the socio-economic structures that surround us in order to reflect the rule and reign of God. The spread of the Gospel is the spread of the kingdom, which implies more than individuals choosing to be subjects of the kingdom. The arrival of the kingdom demands that all areas of life have been invaded (are to be invaded), and that the rule and reign of God has been unleashed upon both individual lives and, as well, the socio-economic structures that have been corrupted by sin’s reign and the powers of ungodliness.
The second follow-up parable seems to suggest that “sowing the Word” is more than just proclaiming the Gospel. The sowing is about the spread—seeding—of the Kingdom of God, the spread and increase of the rule and reign of God. There is both a declaration (i.e., verbal witness) and a socio-economic implication as well, if we understand Evangelism as the spread or advance of the Kingdom of God and not solely a passing on of knowledge through proclamation.
In the next post for this thread, I will discuss
the Danielic background of the quote in the second follow-up (
2 of 3) parable in Mark 4.