Gav's post on the “danger of living the gospel without speaking the gospel” has sparked off one of those debates that we evangelicals sometimes have—you know those ones which seem to become more hairsplitting and hard to follow the longer they go on. In this case, it's the old question of ‘whose job is it to evangelize?’.

Towards the end of the conversation Mikey Lynch makes this interesting point:

… the tone and the teaching of Promoting the Gospel may remove the “should” from this equation, but it doesn't remove the “would”. Over and again John [Dickson] shows and tells us how all Christians will be inspired to speak about their faith, even if they don't have to.

Mikey (and John, I think) are searching for an idea that is different from ‘should’—which doesn't carry the sense of ‘ought’ and obligation—but which nevertheless affirms that it still is great when this thing happens (that is, ordinary Christians sharing the gospel). It's desirable, it's good, it's to be celebrated, but it's not a duty or a responsibility.

I have to say that this is the aspect of this particular argument (which has been pottering along for years in our circles) that I continue to find curious and dissatisfying. Is living the Christian life to be divided up into things I really have to do (because the Big Guy says so), and things which would be good to do but are optional?

Or to put the question in its purest form: What is the relationship between what is ‘right’ and what is ‘good’—between what we are commanded to do, and what we aspire to do because it is excellent and worthwhile? (For the ethicists amongst us, we are talking about the difference between deontic and teleological ethics.)

The answer to this crucial question will depend on whether you think God's command is imposed arbitrarily on the world, or whether it conforms to the way God made the world to be. In other words, did God flip a coin to see whether stealing would be prohibited or not, or is there something about God and the world he has made, and the people who inhabit it, and his purposes for all of us, that makes stealing counter-productive, destructive and just plain ‘bad’?

If we say the latter (as I think we must), then we must also say that to do what is right is good, and to do what is good is right. ‘Ought’ and ‘good’ are, in the end, two different forms of moral language that are unified in directing us to live full, free, God-glorifying lives in God's world (as we await his new world). These two ways of speaking are not exactly the same, and they are often addressed to different circumstances and contexts. But the common instinct to give a higher place to the ‘ought’ over the ‘good’ is more Pharisaic than Christian.

In fact, when we think about the different ways that the Bible drives our moral action (or ‘good works’), there are not only two kinds of language; there are many. In the word of God there are stories and examples that carry a moral lesson and power; there are urgings, pleadings, encouragements and exhortations; there are passive commands (“be filled with the Spirit”); there are the wise observations of Proverbs; there are positive, attractive descriptions of good people and actions; and most strikingly there is Paul's characteristic indicative-creates-imperative move: since you are now this, live like that (Colossians 3:1-17 being a marvellous example).

God uses all of these kinds of language to call forth our action. Under the power of these words, we regard many different things as good, right, and worth encouraging each other to do, even though they are not so much as mentioned in the Bible. So here's a list, off the top of my head, of things that the New Testament neither directly commands us to do, nor even gives any clear positive example of someone doing:

• supporting international relief agencies
• everyday Christians reading the Bible personally and regularly
• speaking or writing publicly from a Christian viewpoint about the political, cultural or social issues of the day
• studying the Bible in small groups
• going to church every Sunday
• baptizing people in church
• having special evangelistic church services or meetings
• inviting non-Christian friends to such meetings
• writing or reading Christian books
• having family devotions
• providing meals for sick congregation members
• setting up organizations or societies to promote the Christian cause
• caring for or stewarding God's creation

Using different kinds of moral language, we urge, encourage, rebuke, stimulate, spur, exhort, push, persuade and generally egg one another on to get involved in these various good, right, useful and excellent things. The lack of deontic biblical language (‘must’, ‘ought’) would not hold us back from doing these things ourselves, nor from urging others to do them as well.

So why do we tie ourselves in knots trying to discover whether ‘all Christians are obliged to evangelize’ or whether there is a command for all Christians to evangelize? It's an ethically confused question that leads not only to more confusion, but to less Christians evangelizing. Could we perhaps agree to move on to a different question? Such as: How could we encourage, inspire and equip more Christians to talk about Jesus with their friends?

Then again, if all this is too hard or unconvincing, and you really just want a biblical command, try this: “As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good” (2 Thess 3:13).

7 Comments »