Biblical Foundations for the Gospel Persuasion

In the first case all three elements—power, obedience, and truth—are entwined, and the result is the conversion of hundreds. In the third case, power and truth are manifested but no obedience, and the experience does not end well for the unfortunate exorcists.

As for the second case, although the healed one has faith (which was not even mentioned in the first case), the witnesses of the power manifestation did not encounter the truth yet, and the procedure turns into a pagan sacrifice while the miracle-maker himself gets stoned eventually (Golovin, Ââåäåíèå 151).

“The Spirit is none other than the fulfillment of the promise that God himself would once again be present with his people” (Fee 22). The very work of the Holy Spirit involves persuasion of truth.

Logical Persuasion as a Work of the Holy Spirit

If one would look for the best example for the case, no doubt that Pentecost was the greatest pneumatic event in the history of the Church. Everyone acknowledges that the Holy Spirit revealed God’s power there in signs, miracles, and gifts; however, the work of the Holy Spirit on the intellectual persuasiveness level is underestimated most of time (Karpunin 293). Nevertheless Peter’s Spirit-led address (Acts 2:14-36) is an obvious example of the worldview persuasion. Below is the logical structure of its content (Golovin, Ëîãèêà 5):

1. The observed nature of the phenomena can have either a natural or a supernatural explanation.

2. The meaning of the phenomena should be explained.

3. The application of the conclusion should be found.

One can imagine the excitement of the audience as they are led by the speaker to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, Peter invites the audience to be sure he proclaims the coming of the right Messiah, not a fake one.

4. The indications of the Messiah should be clarified

5.1. The Messiah is going to fulfill the following:

5.2. Jesus from Nazareth is described as the following:

“It is as Lord that he has ascended into heaven, and now sits in the place of power. Such was Peter’s argument on the day of Pentecost” (Green 131). Peter builds his argument only on facts either well-known by the audience or based on proven eyewitness testimonies leading the audience to the following incontestable conclusion:

6. “Therefore [emphasis mine] let all Israel be assured [emphasis mine] of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). The long-awaited Messiah of the Lord has surely come, but Israel has killed the Lord’s anointed (cf. 1 Sam. 24:11; 26:9-10, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14—the audience definitely associated these verses with the claim above ).

Everyone was aware of the effect Peter’s address had; it was extremely persuasive. Their immediate response was to ask themselves what they should do. This example could be used as a perfect dialogical logics textbook lesson, and it alone is a sufficient counterargument for any theory that excludes reasoning and persuasion from the realm of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Persuasion Strategy of Jesus

Unlike most modern manipulative approaches to evangelism, the persuasive strategy of Jesus had the goal of winning the opponent, not the argument (Golovin, Ëîãèêà 21). Non-manipulative love is at the heart of Christian teaching (Thiselton 16-17). This approach can be clearly seen in the detailed record of Jesus’ discourse with the Sadducees (Matt. 22:23-28).

The opponents wanted Jesus to refuse his belief in resurrection by offering him an enthymeme (an indirectly formulated syllogism) to ground their thesis by the way of proof by contradiction:

The conclusion is obviously false. The first premise is true as a statement of the problem; therefore, the second premise must be false.

The manipulative approach of the Sadducees had the goal of forcing Jesus to accept their side. Instead of pressing them to accept his opinion instead, Jesus led them to freedom from their delusion in three steps.

Finding the cause of the error. Instead of defending his own point right away, Jesus first showed the reason his opponents made the mistake: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matt. 22:29).

Demonstrating the error. Jesus displayed the error by showing his opponents that the problem they offered to him as an enthymeme actually had three premises, not two:

The third premise is false, which is a sufficient explanation for the false conclusion.

Proclaiming the truth. These statements are ample for winning the argument but not for winning the opponent. Nevertheless, the falsity of  premise (c) does not prove the veracity of premise (b). Jesus went further in his kenosis by descending to the opponents’ level of understanding. Because the Sadducees did not accept any authority but Moses’, Jesus accepted their rules and refused to use any theological foundation but the Torah in the discourse. He even limited his source of the argument more—to the authority of the words not of Moses but of God himself. In this way he gained common ground with his opponents. Instead of confronting their opinions, which they considered right, with his own opinions, which they considered wrong, Jesus demolished their wrong beliefs with their own right beliefs.

Tests for Truth in the Ministry of Jesus

The expectations to find logical persuasion in the ministry of Jesus—the Logos incarnated (John 1:1; cf. 1:14), who himself is the Truth (John 14:6) and whose words are trustworthy and true (Rev. 21:5)—would be logical (Sarfati). The logical tests for truth are the effective method Jesus uses to, in Paul’s words, “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). The following are obvious examples of these basic tests for truth (Golovin, Ââåäåíèå 108-13).

Test for consistency. According to the test for consistence, a true statement should not be self-contradictory:

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.” (Matt. 12:24-29)

In the discourse above the Pharisees falsely accuse Jesus in using wrong source of the power for driving demons out. Jesus does not waste time for defense or accusations in respond, but demonstrates triple inconsistence of their accusations. First of all, their accusations suppose a division of the essence of Satan; but Satan is not dangerous then anymore and the accusations are meaningless. Next, Jesus points, that the sons of Pharisees got the same power from him and the accusers should extend their accusations toward their own sons, i.e. toward themselves. Finally, Jesus states that for overcoming Satan one should has power that surpasses the power of Satan, therefore the Pharisees aware of the real source of the power Jesus uses.   

Test for coherency. According to the test for coherency a true statement should correspond to reality:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me” (John 10:24-25)

Here Jews insist that Messianic claims of Jesus are insufficient. Jesus in response invites them to apply the test for coherency to his statements. The correspondence of his works with his words is sufficient evidence for accepting them as truthful statements.

Pragmatic test. According to the pragmatic test a true statement should work:

Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,… [t]hen he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. (Matt. 9:2-7)

When the teachers of the law doubted the divine right of Jeusus to forgive sins, Jesus offered them a testing experiment. Since the forgiveness of sins can not be observed physically, it is not falsifiable experimentally and any impostor may claim it. Jesus offers an observable testing experiment in exchange that noone can perfom without having access to the power of the Creator. 

In the context of the first century Roman Empire, where epistemological relativism was as common as it is in the postmodern world (Thiselton 33), Jesus did not hesitate to demolish the strongholds of false ideas by exposing them as false.

Limits and Dangers of Biblical Worldview Persuasion

Practicing the biblical model of evangelism, the Church should remember the need for the element of proper persuasion in evangelism. Nevertheless evangelists should remember certain dangers and limits the persuasion involves. Following are the most typical ones, according to William Reitkerk.

Defending God. The idea  of defending the faith or even defending God comes out of the superficial interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 because the word apologia actually has more offensive then defensive meaning. Only one who is stronger can defend one who is weaker.

The first and biggest error of Eve in Genesis 3 was when she accepted the Satan’s presuppositions and started to defend God within the context Satan set. By that very silent agreement to the terms of the discussion she put herself in a higher position than the Creator; she chose to be like God, knowing good and evil (Golovin, Ââåäåíèå 157).

On another occasion in the Scripture, the friends of Job were doing their best to defend God as well, and as a result they did not speak rightly of him, as Job did (Job 42:8). The role of a Christian is not to defend God but to be his witnesses (John 3:11; Acts 1:8; 4:20; 1 John 1:1).

Proving God. Witnesses should provide evidence for God’s existence and his nature; Nevertheless, impossible to prove him by pure reasoning. “In your light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). God gives understanding to human reason, not vice versa. “The claims to truth put forward in Christian theology, therefore, call for love where there is conflict, for service where there are power-interests, and for trust where there is suspicion” (Thiselton 43). Even the best reasoning does not provide the proper basis for belief: “[I]n today’s world, as in the first two centuries, people are unimpressed by pure talk. They need to see lives that are different” (Green 19).

Promoting God. The new global culture based on consumerism forces the Church to be focused on the benefits the promoted way of life provides. The danger the Church faces is to promote the gospel in the same way Screwtape instructed Wormwood to promote materialism (i.e., atheism) to his client: “Don’t waste your time trying to make him think that materialism is true [original emphasis]! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous” (Lewis, Screwtape Letters 8).

However the gospel is good not because it is strong or stark or courageous or useful or comfortable, but because it is “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68), “true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25).

Imposing God. Most of all the Church should remember that the goal of the Christian persuasion is not to win the argument but to win the opponent:

It is possible to overstep the bounds of propriety and bring undue pressure to bear until the person accepts the gospel under duress. It should be categorically stated that this approach is both wrong and harmful. The results of such method could be disastrous. It has no sanction in Scripture and should be studiously avoided. (Kane 567)

While polemic epistles are directly offensive sometimes to the believers who are not faithful to the lordship of Jesus, the early Church is very sensitive to values and feelings of outsiders:

To launch a full-scale and at times bitter assault on someone’s cherished beliefs is not the best way of inducing him to change them. … [Neither Jesus, nor] Paul or anyone else in the early Christian mission thought that argument alone could bring anyone into the Kingdom of God. But they knew that it could break down barriers which obstructed men’s vision of the moral and existential choice which faced them, of whether to respond to Christ or not. (Green 315)

Paul was very purposeful in this approach: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Cor. 9:22, 23). The incarnational model of non-manipulative persuasion is the only one that works for the kingdom.

Incarnational Nature of Jesus’ Way of Persuasion

The proper way of evangelism that Jesus demonstrated is not “making them like us” but “becoming like them” for the sake of them, of everyone. The goal of Jesus’ every discourse was not winning the argument but building connecting bridges (Storkey) and developing common ground with a person, which is essential to any relationship (Stanley and Jones 121). The model of playing on the opponent’s side of the field is crucial for the evangelism strategy of Jesus. “In the New Testament itself we find Paul and other missionaries making use of what is true and useful in paganism” (Green 37). The early apologists followed this pattern, using the methods of their own opponents to attack their wrong ideas (35). The Church “may feel safer and more comfortable playing defense on our part of the field; however, by doing so it may not lose but also never win” (Golovin, Ââåäåíèå 41).

The model of the incarnational ministry. The nature of Jesus’ way of evangelism was completely incarnational. It was not limited to the fact of the Word becoming flesh. His humanity was not a general universal humanity or an average type of Palestinian Jewish culture humanity. He kenow (emptied, made nothing, Phil. 2:7) himself to be like every person he encountered; he humbled himself to the very subculture of the interlocutor with whom he dealt. Unlike many modern traditional evangelists, Jesus did not have one universal message formula for everyone. His approach was always personal and focused on the core values, fears, and beliefs of the very person with whom he talked. The entire ministry of Jesus was incarnated surrender and self-giving (Seamands 78). Personal conversations with individuals were “at the top of the priorities list” for Jesus and, later, for the early Christians (Green 24).

One of the most obvious axiological discourses in the gospels is a conversation in Matthew 19:16-22 with a young man of great wealth. Luke also adds that he was a ruler (18:18), so his wealth probably secured his social status. The message of Jesus is clear: Any false treasure or anything someone appreciates more than the kingdom of God separates the person from eternal life.

The wealth of the young man itself does not make Jesus add the condition to “sell your possessions and give to the poor” to the call of “follow me,” which he offered the first disciples unconditionally (Coleman, Master’s Way 22). Nicodemus also was a ruler (John 3:1), and he was extremely rich (for instance, a hundred pounds of a mixture of myrrh and aloes was an affordable purchase for him). Nevertheless, Jesus did not require him to sell everything he had. The same kingdom message had a completely different application for Nicodemus as an individual (31) because his treasure was different. Nicodemus relied on his knowledge, skills, and experience, and Jesus called him to become like a newborn child. The treasure he relied on was different, so the manner in which the same message was expressed to him was different (Hesselgrave 401).

Likewise, in the encounter with the Samaritan woman, Jesus did not require her to sell everything she had or to be born again (the woman would definitely misinterpret that offer made by a stranger). He replaced her false sources of meaning, security, and self-worth with real and ultimate ones (Coleman, They Meet the Master 38). “Jesus began where she was, rather than where he wanted her to be.… In the conversation every word Jesus used was within her recognition vocabulary, he spoke her language” (Hunter, Radical Outreach 188-89).

Following the model of Jesus’ ministry approach. As Mark A. Noll states, “The activity of God in human history has been laden with conceptual meanings at every step along the way.… Christian world views are part of the gospel message from its earliest beginnings” (31). Spreading the same message of the kingdom, Jesus sets forth the kenotic model Paul will later follow:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor. 9:19-23)

The way early Christians expressed the gospel message “depended to a large extent on their own intellectual and spiritual background and on that of their hearers” (Green 96). “Evangelism is never proclaimed in a vacuum, but always to people, and the message must be given in terms that make sense to them” (165). Otherwise, nobody will hear the message evangelists spread.

Jesus as incarnate God, unlike humanity, “did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man” (John 2:25). Modern evangelists do not know exactly a person they are approaching. Nevertheless they can practice this model as well considering two essential aspects of the incarnational ministry.

First of all important to remember that evangelism is not the art of speaking but an art of listening (Golovin, Ââåäåíèå 40). Philip listened to the eunuch before he, literally, “opens his mouth” (anoixav de o filippov to stoma autou; Acts 8:35). Paul studied the life of the people of Athens. Peter paid attention to what exactly the Jews, who gathered for the Pentecost celebration, were blaming the apostles. This listening is where the access to people’s hearts begins. If Christians do not listen to them, they should not listen to Christians. When Christians do not care what troubles them, they would not believe that Christians care about them If Christians are not empathetic toward others, they will not know what help others really need. Only when Christians identify themselves with their listeners, and when the listeners start asking questions (either silently or out loud), only then will the time come to open the mouth (Golovin, Áèáëåéñêàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ 37):

Conversation in the gospel’s service involves listening to the person, listening for both meaning and feeling, and restating what the person means and reflecting what the person feels. Russell Hale used to say that people can’t hear until they have been heard. (Hunter, Radical Outreach 192-93)

Otherwise rich harvest could not be expected.

Secondly, the primary goal of listening should be finding where persons are in their spiritual journeys. Evangelists should start conversations not with what they want to tell but with what their interlocutors want to hear. In the biblical situations already mentioned, Philip begins with Isaiah’s prophecies; Paul with God, whom the people of Athens realize they do not know; Peter with the suggestion that the apostles are drunk. The evangelists of the New Testament were always looking at the situation through the eyes of their listeners (Golovin, Áèáëåéñêàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ 37-38).

These two aspects are the starting points of the way today’s “apostolic churches” communicate the gospel—“they often begin with ‘active listening’” and “they begin where the people are” (Hunter, Church 163). This approach is the way of the incarnated theology, the real one, because “the only worthwhile theology, after all, is one that is translated into life” (Fee 2). The new slogan of evangelism should be the old one: “He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame” (Prov. 18:13).

Following the model of Jesus’ ministry practice. Analyzing the early Church evangelism practices, Michael Green notes that evangelism today is “often associated with the great public meeting. It is a remarkable fact that the early Church seems to have made very little use of this method of communicating the gospel” (386), following the model of its Master.

Following the model Jesus set for his disciples, the early Church was not recruiting people to come to the evangelistic meeting on its terms, rules, and regulations. It was being a gospel delivery service:

[The] early Christians had no churches during the first two centuries, the time of their major expansion.… [T]hey did most of their evangelism on what we would call secular ground. You find them in laundries, at the street corners and in the wine bars talking about Jesus to all who would listen. (Green 23)

Faithful to the call to be “Christ’s ambassadors” (2 Cor. 5:20), they always practiced the incarnational kenotic model of evangelism

Biblical Mandate for Worldview Persuasion

Scripture both persuades its readers and calls them to persuade others in the areas of values, goals, priorities, and other aspects of their worldview

In the Lord believers are called to reason (Isa. 1:18) to distinguish truth from lie (1 John 4:6) and good from evil (Heb. 5:14). The Scripture calls Christians to give a logically grounded response (απολογια) to everyone who asks for the reason for the hope that they have (1 Pet. 3:15), “to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” and to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), to defend and confirm the gospel (Phil. 1:7,17), to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), to be merciful to those who doubt (Jude 1:22), and to refute those who oppose sound doctrine (Tit. 1:9). The concept of persuasion, if applied properly, “is not foreign for the New Testament” (Kane 567).

The accounts of Paul’s ministry recorded in Acts 17 show that he went to the Jewish synagogue weekly (v. 2) where “he reasoned [emphasis mine] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving [emphasis mine] that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead,” and “some of the Jews were persuaded [emphasis mine]” (vv. 2-4). Even for the Bereans, who “were of more noble character than the Thessalonians” and “received the message with great eagerness,” To examine “the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (v. 11) was noble and appropriate:

It is interesting to note the nuance of words like diamarturesthai [Acts 2:40, 8:25, 10:42, 18:5, 23:11, etc.] “to testify strenuously,” kataggellen [4:2, 13:5, 38, 15:36, etc.] “to proclaim forcefully,” dialegesthai [17:2, 17, 18:4, 19:8, 9, 24:25.] “to argue,” diakatelenchein [18:28] “to confute powerfully” when applied to the apostolic evangelistic preaching.… Primitive evangelism was by no means mere proclamation and exhortation; it included able intellectual argument, skilful study of Scriptures, careful, closely reasoned teaching and patient argument. (Green 224)

The ministry of Jesus and his first disciples provide a model for the role of worldview persuasion in ministry. Regretfully, “the whole subject of evangelism in the early Church had been unaccountably neglected in recent years” (Green 7). Restoration of the biblical model of a worldview persuasion guided by Jesus through the Holy Spirit is the only way to overcome the crisis of evangelism the church faced at the end of its second millennium (Golovin, “Worldview”).

Bibliography