The best method of evangelism is the one
which serves the gospel most completely. It is the one which bears the clearest
witness to the divine origin of the message, and the life-and-death character
of the issues which it raises. It is the one which makes possible the most full
and thorough explanation of the good news of Christ and His cross, and the most
exacting and searching application of it. It is the one which most effectively
engages the minds of those to whom witness is born, and makes them most vividly
aware that the gospel is God’s word, addressed personally to them in their own situation
Is this way of presenting Christ
calculated to impress on people that the gospel is a word from God? Is it
calculated to divert their attention from man and all things merely human to
God and His truth? Or is its tendency rather to distract attention from the
Author and authority of the message to the person and performance of the
messenger? Does it make the gospel sound like a human idea, a preacher’s
plaything, or like a divine revelation, before which the human messenger
himself stands in awe? Does this way of presenting Christ savour of human cleverness
and showmanship? Does it tend thereby to exalt man? Or does it embody rather
the straight forward, unaffected simplicity of the messenger whose sole concern
is to deliver his message, and who has no wish to call attention to himself,
and who desires so far as he can to blot himself out and hide, as it were,
behind his message, fearing nothing so much as that men should admire and
applaud him when they ought to be bowing down and humbling themselves before
the mighty Lord whom he represents?
Is this way of presenting Christ [in our
evangelism] calculated to promote, or impede, the work of the word in the man’s
minds? Is it going to clarify the meaning of the message, or to leave it
enigmatic and obscure, locked up in pious jargon and oracular formulae? Is it
going to make people think, and think hard, and think hard about God, and about
themselves in relation to God? Or will it tend to stifle thought by playing
exclusively on the emotions? Is it calculated to stir the mind, or put it to
sleep? Is this way of presenting Christ an attempt to move men by the force of
feeling, or of truth?
We have to ask, is this way of
presenting Christ calculated to convey to people the doctrine of the gospel,
and not just part of it, but the whole of it—the truth about our Creator and
His claims, and about ourselves as guilty, lost, and helpless sinners, needing
to be born again, and about the Son of God who became man, and died for sins,
and lives to forgive sins and bring them to God?
We have to ask, is this way of
presenting Christ calculated to convey gospel truth in a manner that is
appropriately serious? Is it calculated to make people feel that they are
indeed facing a matter of life and death? Is it calculated to make them see and
feel the greatness of God, and the greatness of their sin and need, and the
greatness of the grace of Christ? Is it calculated to make them aware of the
awful majesty and holiness of God? Will it help them to realize that it is a
fearful thing to fall into His hands?
In the last analysis, there is only one
method of evangelism: namely, the faithful explanation and application of the
gospel message. From which it follows—and this is the key principle which we
are seeking—that the test for any proposed strategy, or technique, or style, of
evangelistic action must be this: will it in fact serve the word? Is it
calculated to be a means of explaining the gospel truly and fully and applying
it deeply and exactly? To the extent to which it is so calculated, it is lawful
and right; to the extent to which it tends to overlay and obscure the realities
of the message, and to blunt the edge of their application, it is ungodly and
wrong.
(J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 88)