"Random Evangelism" is a phrase I have heard often in my 30 plus years of ministry. I have heard it again a couple of times lately. But I wish it would go away. Why? Because there is no such thing of "random evangelism", at least for a Christ-centered, Spirit-filled witness.
The phrase "random evangelism" is used to describe the process of approaching strangers for the purpose of witness. But the word "random" means "lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance".
Since "evangelism is first and foremost a work of God" (a phrase I commonly use when teaching our Evangelism Model), it cannot be random unless God is not in it. The phrase "random evangelism" is a very man-centric view of evangelism and leaves one with an entirely wrong impression (or worse, the wrong mindset.)
I doubt this phrase is used broadly in Christian circles. But there is a certain ministry, of whom I am very fond, who has this ingrained in their language. My counsel is, (to quote Bob Newhart) "Stop it!"
I don't mean stop the practice of engaging strangers for the purpose of witness. The Sovereign God, Lord of the Harvest, still delights to work through such conversations when they are guided by his Spirit, motivated by love and practiced with genuine sensitivity and situational appropriateness. My counsel is to stop calling this "random".
10 comments:
hey keith agree that no evangelism is random.
at least in my circles w in ccc "random" is code for ineffective or non-strategic.
changing evangelism added another layer of insight for me--it's not that it's ineffective--it's also being confused w reaping.
http://www.changingevangelism.org/
I understand where you are coming from, but what term would you use for the specific mode of walking up to someone you have never met before with the intent of giving a complete gospel presentation?
Every word or phrase I run into isn't usually well received. I liked "random" not because I believe the entire thing is random but because it implies that there are a wide number of unknowns involved in the process, much higher than with most other situations where I will share the gospel.
Not to get too philosophical, but I don't believe anything is truly random, but rather that random just indicates that there are factors that aren't known and controlled.
Theologically, I agree. It's not random.
Yet I agree with JR, what is a more meaningful word to describe those significant conversational encounters with strangers?
It's not random in the sense of seed scattering that falls where it may and saying "God's word will not return void."
But in the flow of my day, while I'm out and about doing stuff, the chance conversational encounter seems random.
I've not found a better adjective, other than perhaps "spontaneous," though I'm not sure that fits either.
Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
Brian,
Yep, I agree. In some circles it is "code" for ineffective or non-strategic. That underscores a different issue. How do you do effective evangelism with strangers today? Obviously, there are ways to be offensive and ways to be effective. Either can be true in any given setting.
You second is pertinent, as well. The confusion of language isn't helpful.
Thanks for your thoughts.
J.R. & Chris,
Good question -- What is a better term?
I don't have a technical term for it. We used to always say, "We are going sharing on campus" rather than "We are going out to do randoms."
Chris, you speak of those "in the flow of my day, while I'm out and about doing stuff, the chance conversational encounters". In our sub-culture, those aren't what is meant by "randoms". "Randoms" are approaching strangers for the purpose of sharing (a ministry mode of witness), not the spontaneous encounters that arise throughout one's day (a natural mode of witness.) This are more often considered "divine appointments". But, of course, God can orchestrate divine appointments in either setting! (Think Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.)
Keith:
That's a helpful distinction. I used to do "Randoms" in that sense.
I still do something similar when I'm doing street ministry with drama teams, but we also invite people to talk with us, rather than us picking people to talk with.
"Randoms" as I think you describe is a style of ministry where the evangelist picks a person and initiates a conversation where the intent is to move the conversation to present Christ as quickly as possible.
My chance encounters are more like Phillip and the Eunuch. Phillip was "on his way" when the Holy Spirit prompted him, go stand next to that chariot.
I write about that encounter here:
"Phillip and the Eunuch
Chris
EvangelismCoach.org
Interestingly I read on Benson Hines blog a couple of weeks ago where he quoted Michael Frost as saying that as a general rule, “I don’t think we’re meant to evangelize strangers.”
Certainly it has been my experience on campus that while there are those from such encounters who do trust Christ, it is not usually a very effective way to share your faith.
I think that if we are going to share the gospel with strangers then we want to be strategic if at all possible.
And I know that it will not be an easy job changing the language. It has spread too widely. But there is a lot of confusion surrounding both the term and the practice so perhaps this conversation is timely.
at chico state you can literally walk up to a student, build rapport for a couple minutes, and ask to go through the KGP--and get about 70% of those "randoms" to say yes.
at chico "randoms" have been very strategic--we're a small campus, so the chances that we meet someone who has class w one of our students or lived w them in the dorms is high.
for a small campus i don't know of a better way to "advertise" effectively than through "random" evangelism--even if those being shared w disagree they get to see first hand that we care about them, and care about Jesus, and are willing to look slightly foolish to communicate that message.
also, "random" evangelism has been the best tool for aligning emerging leaders to CCC's mission, vision, and values.
if a student is not willing to participate in ministry mode, then they most likely won't like or be bought in at a deep level to anything else we do. --very much like mpd for staff members aligns them to the type of behavior needed on the field.
thanks for writing this post! glad to see a variety of comments. we need these things discussed!
Brian,
Appreciate your perspective and experience doing "randoms". Your response underscores a principle -- a method should not be judged apart from the context it is employed within.
Street preaching may be effective in certain third world contexts, but not in a western urban setting. The Jesus Film can be shown in a village but perhaps not as effectively on a US college campus. Engaging students in conversational witness at Chico State has proven to be effective. Some campuses it may not.
The audience is the "determining context". So to declare a form of evangelism as ineffective requires the follow-up question, "ineffective where and with whom?" Street preaching, the Jesus Film and "random" evangelism can all be effective--in certain contexts.
During my last full-time stint on a US Campus (between '86-97), we rarely approached strangers, but not because it wasn't effective. An adequate number would be open if we did. Instead we did 95% of our outreach through appointments within areas of intentional outreach. Why? Because in that context, it was more strategic. We could establish a presence and build a growing movement among different areas of campus. But that can't be done everyone.
Again, the key is effectiveness, not personal preference.
Karl,
You mention Michael Frost's quote “I don’t think we’re meant to evangelize strangers.” From here:
http://exploringcollegeministry.com/2010/05/18/michael-frost-on-college-ministry/
I'm not sure there is enough here to get behind his thinking. What context is he thinking of? Much of history of missions has included a practice of "evangelizing strangers." Granted, often a presence in a community was established. But there has often been a effective proclamation that has engaged "strangers". (Think of the many examples of the book of Acts.)
You use two critical words in your post -- "effective" and "strategic". I think it is most helpful to have a "full tool box" of methods available and choose to use only those that are "effective" and "strategic" in a particular setting or context. But let's let the context determine that.
Post a Comment