Wasted Evangelism SamplesThe six studies in Wasted Evangelism demonstrate that a mere verbal and cognitive-based understanding of evangelism solely related to the etymology of the word “evangelize” is too narrow and is devoid of the rich biblical content that Mark gives his Gospel narrative. Each chapter is an extensive, in-depth, and exegetically-based argument that seeks to demonstrate that the programmatic content of Mark’s Gospel narrative links together the gospel, evangelism, and social action. The end of the six exegetical studies is not simply to win an argument and certainly not to present a political position. They are to dissuade us—particularly non-poor, suburban and exurban evangelicals—from settling for a one-dimensional understanding of the gospel that tends to endorse our own personal security and happiness and promotes the sustainability of our local church communities instead of advocating on behalf of those affected by the issues of poverty.
The following are samples from each of the book's six chapters. |
Chapter 1 Samples
|
The woman in the story is not just a widow; she is a poor widow. This strengthens her identification with a group of economically vulnerable people that were to have special protection and provision by those who rule, serve as priests, and own property as prescribed in the Torah and reinforced through prophetic voice. Geoffrey Smith reminds us that in the OT “widows, along with the fatherless and aliens, were the most vulnerable and dependent class of people in the land.” The poor widow is also in the temple and placed in a scene amid individuals that, as a group, have been opposing Jesus from the very start (1:22; 2:1—3:6; note 11:1—12:37); yet, they should have been her chief advocates. As a minor character in Mark’s Gospel story, the poor widow is strategically placed in the narrative’s plot and, as well, is pregnant with OT Torah and prophetic significance.
There are two general interpretations posited for this story: 1) It is a paradigm of Christian commitment that focuses on the widow’s action as an example of devotion and sacrificial giving; 2) it represents “the last straw” of Torah disobedience before judgment falls on the temple (Mark 13:2), with the focus, then, on Jesus’ conflict with temple authorities. Though this episode does appear to offer a paradigm for Christian discipleship, it is the latter interpretation that seems most appropriate to the text and its context. The purpose here is to demonstrate a reading of this familiar Bible story that posits a negative interpretation rather than the more positive one that is typically put forward (i.e., sacrificial giving), thereby affecting how this text ought to inform and form Christian discipleship. --------------- In Mark 12 Jesus does not address the poor widow, nor does he comment on the poor widow’s faith; but, he does address his disciples. In fact, the people and activities to which Jesus calls attention (i.e., the appearance and actions of the scribes and the presence and activity of the poor widow) hinge on what he had commanded his disciples at the opening of the scene: Beware of the scribes (v. 38b; note earlier Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod, 8:15b). The poor widow is not the object of the lesson, but is a juxtaposed minor character to highlight the duplicitous scribes that are the lesson to be observed. In Mark 12:38–44 there is no dialog or words directed to the widow, only an observation made by Jesus and pointed out to his disciples. There is “no invitation in the text to imitate the widow, no statement that Jesus looked on her and loved her, no command to go and do in like manner, no remark that she is not far from the kingdom.” She is not the example. The duplicitous scribes and the situation exposed in this scene are the example. Our poor widow vs. duplicitous scribes episode is, indeed, for discipleship, but its lesson and example are not drawn from reading into the text some inner disposition of devotion in the widow. The appearance of the poor widow in the scene supports Jesus’ warning to the disciples in 12:38–40: Beware duplicitous scribes who parade around as if they are close to God, but are actually the very reason for this widow’s impoverishment in the first place [author’s paraphrased interpretation]. It seems more reasonable to understand that the paradigm for discipleship is related to why Jesus points out the duplicitous scribes and the poor widow to his disciples. The command is clearly marked: Beware of the scribes (12:38b). The warning to beware of the duplicitous scribes who are juxtaposed with a poor widow gives the reader/listener a direction to consider what it means to obey the command (Beware of the scribes, v. 38b) and for “applying” the episode as a whole (i.e., what discipleship includes). __________________________________________________________________ Purchase @ Publisher, Wipf & Stock Purchase @ Amazon Purchase @ Barnes & Noble |
Chapter 2 Samples
|
There is a tendency to define evangelism etymologically and stop there. Since the Greek noun euaggelion means “good news” and the Greek verb euaggelizō 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-centered 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 NT presents “a vision of evangelism merely from verbal consideration” related to the etymology of the word “evangelism.” The early church, especially reflected in the Gospels, seems more interested in creating a narrative so future church generations could 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 implications of the presence of the kingdom, which is wholly constitutive of the gospel. The remainder of this chapter 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. ----------- 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 Isaiah 1–6. The parable presents the realities of the inaugurated gospel of the kingdom, not simply 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 that give content to his Gospel, which include social righteousness that addresses the needs of the vulnerable and the poor. __________________________________________________________________ Purchase @ Publisher, Wipf & Stock Purchase @ Amazon Purchase @ Barnes & Noble |
Chapter 3 Samples
|
There is a grammatical and stylistic clue in Mark’s use of an overlooked, yet much used, often un-translated Greek word, ginomai, which is strategically embedded in the introduction of his Gospel narrative (Mark 1:4, 9, 11, 17). Each use of a ginomai text marks an introduction of a character that is important both for developing the narrative and for explaining the nature of the gospel. Each use helps to reinforce the significance of Mark’s programmatic summary (vv. 1–3) and presents or enhances an OT eschatological framework for understanding the gospel of Jesus-Messiah, the Son of God (1:1).
The common Greek word ginomai is used throughout Mark’s gospel (42x) and typically carries its casual meaning of be and/or simply a “happening” in the narrative world. The word, for the most part, helps move the story forward, giving the reader/listener a sense of being in the present, pulling the reader/listener along. The common translative significance is along the lines of time, arrival (i.e., came), or simply the nuance of narrative movement. Some translations (and commentaries), however, leave out the implications of ginomai altogether. Perhaps, this is why the first four times Mark uses ginomai very little, if anything, is made of its significance by translators or, even, commentators on the texts. In fact, most translations of Mark 1:4, 9, 11, and 17 gloss over the possibility that there is some intentional significance to be drawn from Mark’s use of ginomai and, particularly, the significance of verses that set-up the nature of the gospel of Jesus-Messiah, the Son of God (1:1). ----------- To narrow the fisher-promise to just verbal witnessing truncates it and misses the broader implications of the inauguration of the rule and reign of God. The OT explains the content of God’s rule is both salvific (as in bringing people to Christ) and in calling the realms of humankind to reflect the justice of God’s kingdom. The fisher-promise is not to draw followers to a narrow activity of simply “witnessing,” but defines them and gives them eschatological significance for activities that are consistent with Mark’s thematic and programmatic understanding of the nature and content of the gospel-kingdom that is inaugurated with the appearance of Jesus, the Messiah-Son of God, and the coming of the Spirit . . . Becoming fishers is not the call, but the outcome of the call to be followers. The significance of the fisher text in Mark is suited for making application relevant to the implications of the OT judgment texts, which include promise of exile and societal destruction (i.e., curse) and promise of remnant and social restoration in the likeness of God’s design (i.e., blessing and salvation). The fisher metaphor is appropriate, not just narrowly for individual, private salvation, but more broadly for applications, activities, and outcomes of social action and justice, as well. __________________________________________________________________ Purchase @ Publisher, Wipf & Stock Purchase @ Amazon Purchase @ Barnes & Noble |
Chapter 4 Samples
|
Commentators have noted a social convention of shame/honor has been integrated into Mark’s Beelzebul episode and its wider context. In the first century, a person’s honor rating was everything, allowing a person a higher public trust, more righteous status, and more powerful social standing. What is at stake was the honor of the Jerusalem scribes (3:22), of Jesus’ family (v. 31), of Jesus’ associates (v. 21), and of Jesus. The scribes sought to devalue Jesus’ honor through shaming him publically. The question is, however, what is Mark attempting to do to his readers/listeners? The social convention of shame/honor fits Mark’s narrative elsewhere, being implied or claimed in numerous texts and episodes throughout his Gospel. However, it is the reader/listener who is being addressed. Mark seems to harness the same cultural convention, directing it toward his audience, since hearers are also being shamed into obedience, for they, too, are warned that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable (whoever blasphemes, 3:29a). This was not simply a problem for the scribes who will “destroy” Jesus (Mark 3:6; 11:18). Ultimately, it is the Christian community’s problem, as well, for they, as well, must determine Jesus’ honor rating and demonstrate loyalty by doing the will of God as his true family (Mark 3:35).
Biblically, shame is not psychology; it hints at a state of affairs or politics, indicating the status of one’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, the Creator-God of the Bible. Shame is the way back to creation as it should be under God’s rule, a restoration of life and community under God’s covenant. The use of shame in the OT can be seen through texts such as penitential prayers that indicate repentance, creating a personal, group, or national “narrative repair” of a sad state of affairs or of an open rebellion against God, indicating that the ones shamed have discovered that they are too closely identified with the destructive patterns of those opposed to God’s reign and covenant. This shame is intended to provoke a return to creation as it should be, or to covenantal obedience that honors God and his rulership (i.e., his kingdom). We assume the scribes actually believed Jesus to be demon-possessed and in league with Satan and not simply using a public relations ploy (which actually seems as likely) to guarantee a malevolent outcome. The text only tells us they accused Jesus of such (and people never make false allegations to malign others in order to lower their public honor and status—right?). We are left to determine motive from the context. Mark gives us hints that the Jewish leadership were afraid of Jesus because the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching (11:18) and through Pilate’s assertion that religious leaders had brought Jesus to trial out of envy (15:10). Mark’s Beelzebul episode is a culmination of several public, confrontational interactions between Jesus and Jewish leadership (2:1—3:6). The shame/honor significance is then further sustained through the interaction Jesus has with his own disciples and followers, specifically at those points in the narrative where they are perilously close to falling under the same judgment as the Jewish leadership (Mark 6:51–52; 8:16–21; also note 8:34–38; 16:14). ----------- The social setting implied by the sandwich invites us to consider the confrontations between Jesus and Jewish leadership, that is, the thread of accusation and eventual plotting that precedes our text. Mark 2:1—3:6 is wholly built on a thread of five uninterrupted confrontation stories (2:1–12; 2:13–17; 2:18–22; 2:23–28; 3:1–6) and concludes with the religious and political leaders plotting how they might destroy Jesus (3:6). Thus, both the particulars of 3:20–35 and the larger narrative thread offer clues for understanding the outsider-insider—strongman vs. Stronger Man sandwich. ----------- The Beelzebul confrontation strategically follows the five conflict stories in Mark 2–3 and is set just prior to the Mark 4 parables. The Mark 3 sandwich amplifies the conflict between Jesus and Jewish leadership (v. 22), who are the keepers of the Israelite world (the religious and social order) and guardians of the temple system. Jesus’ parables of judgment (3:23–27) are directed at the opposition’s rejection of his authority and their erroneous description of his kingdom activity. The Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt (vv. 9–10) is used in a similar manner in the parable rationale (Mark 4:10–12) and is “exactly in keeping with the original Isaianic context of a Jerusalem leadership” that had rejected the wisdom, covenant stipulations, and authority of Yahweh in favor of “its own idolatrous categories.” In the prelude to the original idolatry-taunt, Isaiah uses a parable of judgment (the parable of the vineyard, Isa 5:1–2), directing the judicial threat (Isa 6:9–10) toward Jerusalem leadership. There is also an “authority” issue in the Isaiah context, namely against Yahweh’s kingship and covenant expectations. Meanwhile in Mark’s Beelzebul episode, the scribes are depicted as those who came down from Jerusalem (3:22), which, as Watts points out, implicates “the national centre.” Most likely the judgment announced in Mark 4:10–12 is directed at the Jewish leadership that had rejected Jesus and had begun plotting his destruction (Mark 3:6)—foreshadowed and “parabled” in the Mark 3 sandwich. Mark’s Beelzebul controversy links the rebellious Jewish leadership to its continued judgment of exile as the use of the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt in chapter 4 makes clear. The Mark 3 Beelzebul false accusations eventually find their climax at the trial scene (14:53–65) where Jesus is ultimately condemned for blasphemy and handed over for destruction (i.e., death). Although all need to heed the warning, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit finds its significance, not in a general sense as the ultimate rejection of Jesus as Savior (as is popularly interpreted), but specifically toward the Jerusalem leadership for their rejection of God’s kingdom, through which Jesus-the Stronger Man has come to plunder the kingdoms of Satan-the strongman, the prince of demons (Mark 3:22–27; John 12:31; Eph 2:2; 6:12; Col 1:13; Rev 11:15; 12:10–12). __________________________________________________________________ Purchase @ Publisher, Wipf & Stock Purchase @ Amazon Purchase @ Barnes & Noble |
Chapter 5 Samples
Idolatry and Poverty Social Action as Christian Apologetics |
Christian responses to poverty often draw from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7; Luke 6), further substantiated by other NT teaching (e.g., Acts 2–4; Jas 1–2). Although important, this tends to be applied more to church-life and to the private sphere rather than developing a response to those living with the effects of poverty. Others turn to the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and, rightly so, for such biblical material is rich in addressing the issues of poverty. The results, however, can tend toward justification for political alignment and socio-economic policies (right/left, conservative/liberal). Christians across the spectrum wrestle with how the Pentateuch and the prophets apply in the (post)modern world. Many question the contemporary relevance of such documents of antiquity addressed to an ancient nation whose social-political location is the Ancient Near East. Nonetheless, there is a way to decipher the significance of OT ethical texts, namely to draw significance from their incorporation into the gospel itself.
Mark draws upon a fascinating range of OT contexts throughout his narrative that juxtapose idolatry and the economically vulnerable. Although Mark’s use of the OT is extensive beyond these particular texts, he embeds his Gospel with OT contexts related to the economically vulnerable, whether Law, land-stipulation, or prophetic announcement, which also contain, within the context or flow of thought, mention of idolatry. ----------- The juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty in Exodus and the memory-judgment context in Malachi bear out the apologetic framework discussed above. Additionally, Mark’s constant use of Isaiah also reinforces this framework, which is particularly vivid in Isaiah 40, a component of Mark’s programmatic summary. Mark’s Isaiah referent itself--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; Mark 1:3)—carries imagery common to Isaiah’s world, reflecting the procession of ANE monarchs. Here, Yahweh comes as Victor-king, announcing the Good News (v. 9), where all flesh will see the glory of the Lord (v. 5). Isaiah 40 then compares Yahweh to surrounding idolatrous nations, which are like a drop from a bucket (v. 15) and are as nothing before Him . . . less than nothing and meaningless (v. 17; note v. 23). Mark’s introduction contrasts the gospel to the concept of the imperial cult of Caesar linking it with the apologetic of Isaiah, emphasizing the incomparability of Yahweh, whose sovereign power over creation is boasted of (v. 12) and affirmed to be in need of no-one’s counsel regarding justice (vv. 13–14). Yahweh is distinct from the image-bearers made of gold and silver who need to be fashioned by human-hands (vv. 19–20), for he sits above the circle of the earth and stretches out the heavens like a curtain (v. 22). The Holy One takes on all-comers: To whom then will you liken Me that I would be his equal? (v. 25). Isaiah notes the starry hosts (v. 26), each representing idolatrous pagan powers, yet it is Yahweh who created them and calls them by name, indicating his might and strength over the idols of the nations. ----------- Mark’s consistent references to OT material that juxtaposes idolatry and the poor is certainly embedded into the very nature of the gospel, suggesting that the gospel is formative for social arrangements. Mark’s highlighting of these OT texts that juxtapose idolatry and expectations regarding the poor, as well, points to an apologetic and evangelistic potential for social action. Still, moving from ancient text to significance to application can be very difficult, especially as we consider how the application of such texts can include social action outcomes. At the risk of over-generalization, even Christian approaches to poverty tend to align with political views, party affiliations, and social-locations: Politically conservative Christians tend to read capitalism, free markets, and individual charity as biblical solutions to poverty; the politically liberal tend to read more public, state-centered solutions. Although both find some textual support, neither consider the biblical juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty, nor our own human capacity for idolatrous alignments in our own social-locations. L. T. Johnson reminds us that “idolatry comes naturally to us, not only because of the societal symbols and structures we ingest from them, but also because it is the easiest way for our freedom to dispose itself.” Shifting the issue of poverty to the realm of discipleship and apologetics focuses our attention on the social-location of non-poor Christians and their relationship to the poor. In light of the gospel framed by Mark, non-poor Christians should be mindful of the idolatries that can form their own social reality, particularly those experiencing everyday life in places where poverty is not concentrated (i.e., non-urban life). It is not necessarily how OT ethical texts apply to our modern social-location (although important) that is significant, but how the apologetic nature of the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition relates to those who are to be formed by the gospel, then, how that significance dissuades Christians from conforming to any private vs. public dichotomous response to poverty. __________________________________________________________________ Purchase @ Publisher, Wipf & Stock Purchase @ Amazon Purchase @ Barnes & Noble |
Chapter 6 Samples
Significance Before Application (Mark 3:14–15): The Mark 3 Commission and Its Implications for Social Action |
In their book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart point out that many Christians start with “the here and now” and “read into texts meanings that were not originally there.” They rightly affirm that Christians “want to know what the Bible means for us,” and “legitimately so.” However, we cannot make the Bible or the gospel or any text for that matter “mean anything that pleases us and then give the Holy Spirit ‘credit’ for it.” Fee and Stuart hit the mark as it relates to the problem of interpretation: the step of good study and exegesis to decipher the original author’s intention is too often skipped or undertaken lightly, with readers/listeners jumping straight-away to “the here and now.” This actually confuses interpretation with application.
Although Fee and Stuart’s point concerns interpretation of the text, the same problem occurs when the “here and now” of contemporary application is read back into the text. We cannot make any application we want from any text, give the Holy Spirit credit, and then call it obedience. Application can often be read into a text, again, confusing interpretation with application. A fixation on the practical does not inevitably lead to obedience of the biblical text. In view of these present set of studies, application, as evangelism is typically understood, might not necessarily indicate faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1). This can be a problem with application—that is, application is not always obedience. ----------- As displayed in the previous section, not only is it grammatically and syntactically allowable to view the authority to cast (3:15) as the content of the commission to preach (14c), this reading also makes contextual sense of Mark’s narrative. The Mark 3 commission is both preceded and followed by episodes and summaries describing Jesus casting out demons or unclean spirits (1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:11; 5:2–13; 6:13; 7:25–30; 9:25–29, 38; note 3:22–27). Jesus’ first public ministry, launched at the onset of the Galilean mission, depicts him teaching in a synagogue and opposing an unclean spirit that he rebukes and casts out (Mark 1:21–28)—a pattern foreshadowing the Mark 3 commission. Those who witnessed the event recognized the casting out of the unclean spirit (1:26) as a new teaching (v. 27); namely, Jesus, with authority, commands Satan’s minions and they obey (v. 27). The question that follows the casting (What is this?, 1:27) implies one reference (touto, this, is singular), signifying a seamless thought between “teaching” and the “casting.” Also, the closest referent for their amazement (v. 27) is Jesus’ rebuke and his casting out the unclean spirit (vv. 25–27). ----------- The problem of application is plainly evident in our attempts to apply or “make practical” the biblical texts that reference miracles. How do we apply and demonstrate obedience to the creation story (Gen 1), Moses’s rod turned into a snake (Exod 4:2–4), the parting of the sea at the Exodus (Exod 14), the stricken rock that gushed water (Exod 17:6), the talking donkey of Balaam (Numb 22:22–35), the fire called down from the sky by Elijah (1 Kgs 18), or the surviving of the fire-pit and the lion’s den in the Book of Daniel (Dan 3, 6)? As evangelicals, we tend to treasure the miraculous in the Bible, but we are not sure what to do with it. Although most evangelicals believe miracles actually happened as described in the Bible, many are, nonetheless, skeptical how they are supposed to work today in application. Some affirm that miracles take place today and that is how they are applied. Some affirm the “potential” of miracles and/or simply spiritualize them for their personal meaning to the individual. Miraculous events and stories are often too easily “applied” without much consideration for why the stories were told in first place, that is, their literary role in the narrative plot. On the other hand, rather than apply, many use the casting and other miracles in the gospels as apologetic “proof-texts” for Jesus’ deity and/or to affirm that the disciples had authority from God. Miracles, to some, are used as evidence that the gospel is true—even if that evidence took place long ago in the days of Jesus and the early church. Utilized in this way, miracles are merely turned into cognitive-based instruction, apologetic proofs, or evangelistic tools, rather than for their literary or narrative significance. The “casting” episodes in Mark’s Gospel fall prey to the same approaches and are often reduced to mere information about the gospel or about Jesus, rather than deciphering the meaning implied by their emplotted use in the narrative. The reader/listener should ask, What role does Mark intend the casting to play in his story? In other words, how does casting out demons contribute to “the sequence of events emplotted” [Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis, 72–75] in the narrative? What is the relationship between to have authority and to cast out demons in determining the significance of the Mark 3 commission for the church today? In order to apply more accurately the Mark 3 commission, the emplotted significance of to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15) must be deciphered. |
*All royalties from sales of Wasted Evangelism is given to support our church planting efforts and ministry in The Hill community of New Haven, CT.
|
Pages |
More Pages |
|