A Review Article

Evangelism is confronting the Church with a renewed and stirring challenge. Both its nature and its methods of promotion are receiving increased attention. There is a deepening conviction that responsibility for evangelism is really the task of the Church rather than of itinerant and independent evangelists. There is present dissatisfaction over both content and methods. Some feel strongly that present-day evangelism presents a truncated Gospel that is unrelated to pressing social problems.

Indicative of the critical mood is a recent book by Charles B. Templeton, Evangelism for Tomorrow (Harper, 1957, $3.00). Its author has had wide experience in the field of evangelism and writes from firsthand experience.

Fosdick Versus Graham

Most evangelicals will be quite appalled by Dr. Templeton’s evaluation of the relative significance of Harry Emerson Fosdick and Billy Graham. He writes of Dr. Fosdick, “A strong case could be made for the assertion that the greatest evangelist of the past generation was Harry Emerson Fosdick.… There was an unmistakable evangelistic note at the heart of Fosdick’s sermons and real evangelistic passion. It may be that, though anything but typical of his predecessors, he will be seen to have been the outstanding evangelist of his day” (pp. 84–85). He “damns” Billy Graham with faint praise, adding that “Graham has a deficient understanding of the nature of sin, a strong tendency to present conversion as a transaction, a tendency to ally God with America in a common opposition to Communism, and a rather naive conviction that revival will resolve the world’s great issues. On the whole, his message typifies the strongly conservative, evangelical Protestant view, and though the majority of the clergy in the major denominations would not entirely concur with Graham’s theology or his methods, they are impressed with his earnestness and usually co-operate in his campaigns” (p. 87).

More appalling than this evaluation of Fosdick and Graham, however, is the insipid evangelism that Templeton presents as the “evangelism for tomorrow.” Templeton does not come to grips with the moral law, with sin, with guilt, with judgment. One must search diligently for even a hint of atonement. Yet he writes, “An adequate evangelism is impossible apart from an adequate theology” (p. 64). The discerning reader will detect here the book’s unwitting self-condemnation, inadequate is the descriptive adjective in evaluating the theology of Evangelism for Tomorrow. While the author does provide sharp, and sometimes justified, criticism of nineteenth-century evangelism and of formalism within the instituted church, no positive, constructive evangelism is advanced. One may find religious sentiments and pious utterances scattered here and there, but no vital message addressed to the needs of modern man.

Article continues below

The closest allusion which he makes to the Atonement comes under a concept of reconciliation. He writes, “What is Evangelism? Essentially, evangelism is ‘the proclamation of the evangel’—the bearing of a witness in any way and by any means to the good news that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ ” (p. 42). “The Church’s good news in the turmoil of time is Christ. At the heart of a world under judgment stands a cross. On that cross is to be seen the love of God in full and perfect expression.… This is the good news—that God has taken the initiative: that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (p. 126). The distressing factor about this presentation is that Templeton nowhere explains how Christ effects the reconciliation. What actually constitutes the “good news” is missing from the pages of his book. If an evangelist cannot explain to a troubled and convicted conscience how Christ has atoned for sin, he has no vital message.

The person of Christ receives emphasis, and rightly so. Templeton stresses the deity of Christ and maintains that the evangelism of tomorrow must be Christo-centric (pp. 122 f.). He writes, “Two thousand years ago the world turned a corner and came upon Jesus Christ. He is the message of the Church; not his teaching or his example alone, but he, himself” (p. 26). But how can one preach the person of Christ without giving Christ’s witness of himself or the witness of the apostles? Supposing that the world is confronted with the person of the God-man, would not the people say, “So what?” Why did God come to earth and assume human nature? What was the purpose of the Incarnation? Must not the evangelist firmly reply in the words of Christ that “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28)? To preach the person of Christ indifferently to the Atonement is essentially wrong. Paul determined to proclaim not only the person of Jesus Christ, but him crucified. The absence of biblical definition of atonement vitiates the evangelism advocated by Templeton.

Scorns ‘Transaction’

We have already noted the criticism of Billy Graham for having “a deficient understanding of the nature of sin, a strong tendency to present conversion as a transaction” (p. 87). Graham, however, has sufficient understanding of the nature of sin to know that its evil affronts the holy God, needs the blood of Christ to remove its guilt, and supernatural power to eradicate its power. Templeton does not see, apparently, the heinousness of sin and its offensiveness to God. His quarrel about the concept of conversion as a transaction is not only with Graham but with Christ who said, “Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” and with Paul, who stated this proposition to the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” A transaction is an action involving two parties mutually affecting one another. God has promised salvation to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Article continues below

A greater service would have been rendered by Templeton had he pointed out the tendency of many evangelists to confuse conversion with regeneration. Often evangelists urge people to be born again as though that were within their power. As our Lord reveals in the third chapter of John’s Gospel, one is reborn from above through the power of the Holy Spirit. Through the operation of the Spirit the soul is resurrected from the dead and becomes a new creature. To urge people to resurrect themselves and become new creatures is like demanding the dead to become alive. Jesus gave life to Lazarus before he came forth from the tomb. Regeneration precedes conversion. Genuine repentance and a turning to Christ for salvation mark a true conversion. Conversion may be either a sharply marked moment in life, or a very gradual change.

Confused View Of Conversion

Templeton’s misunderstanding of the biblical conception of conversion is revealed in several statements. For instance, he confuses sanctification with conversion. He writes, “There is seldom any mention of corporate sins or any awareness of the individual’s involvement in the great social ills of our time. Consequently, the converts tend to be converted only in certain areas of their lives” (p. 119); “Every Christian has areas in his life in which he needs to be converted. One of the major weaknesses of the Church is that much of its membership is only half-converted.… The verdict sought through preaching is not necessarily a first decision. Christianity is not a matter of making a single ‘decision for Christ’; it is a whole life of decision” (p. 140). Actually there is no such thing as being half-converted or partially converted. The Bible speaks of temporary conversion but not of partial conversion. Conversion that is the fruit of regeneration causes a radical change of mind, will and desires. A new and holy principle of life enters into the soul. This does not mean that one becomes perfect in a moment, but it does mean the beginning of his struggle against sin. If the decision be genuine one does not call for its repetition.

Article continues below

The responsibility of causing the convert to become aware of social ills cannot be placed upon an evangelist whose assignment is to reach the unchurched and the unconverted within the churches. Because the churches have failed on such matters of racial discrimination, economic injustice and commercial exploitation is no reason for making the evangelist the scapegoat.

Misconception Of Task

Yet Templeton maintains that “The goal of evangelism is not to make converts; it is to produce mature Christians” (p. 45). But how can one bring an infant to maturity with several feedings? The Scriptures recognize the necessity of feeding the new convert with the milk of the Gospel. Paul wrote to the Corinthian converts, “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it” (1 Cor. 3:2). The Apostle Peter declared, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2). The growth and maturity of the convert is a continual responsibility of the Church and quite outside the specialized work and limited time of the evangelist. The task of the evangelist is to call for decision—to urge conversion. The task of the pastor is to nourish and strengthen new life. Of course, the minister should do both and call in the evangelist only for special concentrated effort.

Role Of The Church

That evangelism should be church-related is without question. In calling attention to this, Templeton describes the Church as “the redeeming fellowship.” He writes, “It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the Church in evangelism. The Church is not only the fellowship of the redeemed, it is a redeeming fellowship. The Church is at one and the same time the saved and the saving society.… When the Church speaks with uncertainty or fails to be a redemptive force at the heart of a society there is an inevitable moral decline” (pp. 111–112).

In the biblical sense of the word, however, the Church does not redeem. Christ has paid the full price of redemption once and for all, and it is the Church’s business to witness to the fact of completed redemption, to point to the Redeemer himself. With Zacharias the Church rejoices, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68). This is the heart of the Gospel. Evangelism that ignores this accomplished redemption is surely not biblical evangelism.

Article continues below
‘Paper Pope’ Doctrine?

Disturbing also in Evangelism For Tomorrow is the denial that Scripture is the infallible rule for faith and practice. The statement is made, “Papal infallibility finds its counterpart in a view of biblical inspiration implicitly denying the real presence of the living God at the heart of the Church and substituting, in Luther’s words, a ‘paper Pope.’ The Fundamentalist, like the Romanist, tends to become the patron of Deity and presumes to state under what circumstances God is bound to act” (p. 67). One must ask, does not the author see that the fundamentalist does not formulate the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, but reflects the teachings of Christ and the apostles? And does the author ignore the fact that high views of inspiration are found in almost all of the creeds of the historic denominations?

Templeton also speaks in this connection of the historical method of criticism which he claims provides a better understanding of the Bible and a faith more firmly rooted in history (p. 33). It might be asked again, of course, why then has biblical preaching disappeared to so great an extent from the modern pulpit? The contribution of many higher critics has been to leave the minister puzzled as to how much is left of the Bible to preach. No one can deny that all successful evangelists in the history of the Church have been those who believed in the infallibility of Scripture. This is not the doctrine of a “paper pope,” but the doctrine of a reliable revelation made by the loving God.

The resurgence of interest in evangelism nevertheless constitutes a hopeful sign in this generation. But if the evangelism of tomorrow is that advocated by Templeton, then it will sound forth as a truncated gospel, a bloodless atonement, an unfinished redemption and an unauthoritative message—all adding up to a warmed-over, bankrupt liberalism.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: