Understanding God’s role and ours in evangelism – Get it wrong and you're setting yourself up for unnecessary grief

The prospect of evangelism causes many Christians to break out in a cold sweat.

To maintain our sanity we need to understand clearly who is responsible for what in sharing the Good News.

In particular we need to address the questions, 'What is God's part and what does he expect of me?' 

Get the answers to those questions wrong and you will find that your experience of evangelism is an unhappy one because you have fallen into one of the following traps:

1. 'If God is in control there is no point in me doing anything.'
2. 'I feel so guilty that I don't share my faith with everyone I meet.'
3. 'I must find a better technique to make people come to Christ.'
4. 'I give up! None of those I talk to has followed Christ.'

So what's the answer?

We need first to see the big picture - it is God who is in control of history and the universe itself. He is its Creator (Gn 1:1-2; Ps 8:3; 2 Pet 3:5), Owner (Ps 24:1; Jb 41:11), Sustainer (Heb 1:3; Ps 147:8-9,15-18), Director (Dn 2:21, 4:17; Is 40:15,22-24) and Redeemer (Rm 8:20-22; 2 Cor 4:16-5:5)

It is he who will bring history to an end (Rev 5:9-6:1). His ultimate plan is a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1; Is 65:17, 66:22) where there will be no more death, crying or pain (Rev 21:4), populated by a people drawn from every nation (Gn 12:3, Rev 7:9) who have been set apart to do his will (Titus 2:11-14; 1 Pet 2:9). He is now in the process of gathering this people (Mt 24:31) before the world as we know it is destroyed (Zeph 1:2-3; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 21:1). This is achieved through evangelism, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:15-17; Rm 10:14-17).

God's Sovereignty in Evangelism

The proclamation of the Gospel requires human instruments (us), but it is God's work. It is he who:

• Gives us the Word to proclaim (Rom 1:1,16)
• Opens doors of opportunity to proclaim it (Acts 14:27; Col 4:3)
• Gives us the courage to speak (2 Tim 4:17; Acts 4:29; Eph 6:19-20)
• Enables hearers to understand the message (Acts 16:14)
• Convicts people of sin (John 16:8)
• Enables sinners to repent (Acts 5:31,11:18; Eph 2:8)
• Brings about rebirth (Acts 2:38; Rom 8:9; John 3:3-8)

God does all these things! The fact that God is sovereign in evangelism takes an enormous burden off our shoulders. 

But it doesn't mean that we can sit back and let him do all the work. William Carey, the father of the modern missionary movement was told by the hyper-Calvinists of his day that if God wanted to save the lost, he would do it without his help. Carey's refusal to believe this led to the massive spread of the Gospel around the world in the 19th Century. God has chosen to use us. It is certainly his work to open blind eyes and unstop deaf ears, so that people will recognize Jesus as Lord - but it is our work (in his strength) faithfully to proclaim and defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is God's means to bring men and women to faith.

What are the Implications for Us?

1. The biggest obstacle to evangelism is not technique but opposition. Our enemy the devil's opposition will take many forms...often our indifference means he hardly need bother doing anything else. But in reality he is a defeated enemy because Christ who lives in us has conquered him (Eph 1:19-21) and we share his victory (Eph 2:4-7; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 Jn 4:4).

2. Our response needs to be spiritual and practical. Paul's response was to pray and encourage others to pray also (Eph 6:18-20). Prayer is central because it is a recognition of our humble dependence on God. If he does not inspire and empower our efforts, our work will be in vain (Ps 127:1). We must pray for opportunities and courage.

3. But it does not stop with prayer. We must also obey. We are commanded to ...'go and make disciples...' (Mt 28:19). We have actively to step out in faith and take the opportunities he gives us.

God is in control of the universe and our own lives. Evangelism, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is his work, but we are his instruments. We need first to pray for opportunities, and the courage to use them to step out in faith.

This article is adapted from CMF’s Confident Christianity course

GMC plans to hold secret proceedings against Christian doctor for sharing his beliefs

According to a new report from Christian Concern, the General Medical Council (GMC) has today decided to continue disciplinary proceedings against a Christian GP, despite the fact that the patient who made the complaint has refused for two years to give evidence face to face. The BBC has also reported on the case.

Dr Richard Scott, who works at Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent, was first reported to the GMC in September 2010 for discussing his Christian faith with a patient at the end of a private consultation.

Following the complaint, Dr Scott, was threatened with an Official Warning by the GMC, which he refused to accept.

As well as deciding to continue with the proceedings, the GMC has today also made the extraordinary decision that part of the case will be held in secret. The press and the public will be barred from attending, and Andrea Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre, has been specifically excluded from attending the hearings to support Dr Scott.

In May last year I blogged at length on the case arguing that the GMC had overreacted in its reprimand and also reported on Dr Scott’s later hearing in September.

The complainant, an adult, was originally encouraged to bring the charge by his mother, and has persistently refused to have his evidence challenged.

Dr Scott, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, had argued that his case should be ‘struck out’ on grounds that a fair hearing could not take place with no cross-examination of the complainant face to face.

Yet the GMC has decided to persist with the case with the complainant giving evidence by phone, without any cross-examination.

You can read more detailed reaction from Dr Scott in the article from Christian Concern. He concludes:

‘I am being denied a proper hearing and unless this case is finally decided in my favour, I will be seeking further legal advice as to a Judicial review of the GMC’s handling of its Disciplinary procedures, as the amateur and unjust way this trial is being conducted is an insult to me and to every member of the medical profession.’

Essentially the GMC is arguing that Dr Scott is in breach of its controversial guidance, ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ (2008), which it is currently trying to tighten even further to clamp down on faith discussions.

The original (2008) guidance states:

‘You must not express to your patients your personal beliefs, including political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.’

In other words, there is no blanket prohibition on expressing personal beliefs, as long as it is done in a way that is sensitive and appropriate.

However the new draft (see my commentary) has been revised to read as follows:

(You) ‘may talk about your own personal beliefs only if a patient asks you directly about them or if you have reason to believe the patient would welcome such a discussion (eg. The patient has a Bible or Quran with them or some outward sign or symbol of their belief)’

Now what patient walks into a consultation carrying a Bible or Qur’an, or for that matter, a copy of the Communist Manifesto, or Darwin’s Origin of Species? I have never seen it. The implication seems to be that doctors cannot rely on verbal forms of information gathering to determine what might be important to a patient but must now rely only on non-verbal cues!

And yet the guidance elsewhere gives lip-service to the importance of taking a ‘spiritual history’, which usually would include such questions as ‘where do you find support?’ or ‘Do you have faith that helps you at times like this?’ which are actually an essential component of whole-person care.

Advice published by the Medical Defence Union last year appeared to follow a more balanced line and interestingly quotes from a GMC letter written seemingly in more reasonable and conciliatory times.

Jane O’Brien, the Assistant Director of Standards and Fitness to Practice with the GMC wrote to the Daily Telegraph in February 2009 and made the following points:

‘Nothing in the GMC’s guidance precludes doctors from praying with their patients. It says that the focus must be on the patients’ needs and wishes. Any offer to pray should follow on from a discussion which established that the patient might be receptive. It must be tactful so that the patient can decline without embarrassment because whilst some may welcome the suggestion others may regard it as inappropriate’.

This apparent shift by the GMC, which seems to have been fuelled in part by Dr Scott’s case, is consistent with the growing marginalisation of Christian professionals and the rise of militant secularism in Britain’s institutions.

Earlier this year a parliamentary enquiry, ‘Clearing the Ground’, concluded that ‘Christians in the UK face problems in living out their faith and these problems have been mostly caused and exacerbated by social, cultural and legal changes over the past decade.’

I wish Dr Scott all the very best in his endeavours.

Further new reports

Margate GP Dr Richard Scott attacks GMC 'faith probe' (BBC, 11 June)

Margate GP told patient 'his only hope was Jesus' (BBC, 12 June)

Accused GP Richard Scott says GMC persecutes Christians (BBC, 13 June)

Christian GP found guilty of malpractice for sharing his faith (Christian Concern, 14 June)

The GMC has overreacted in reprimanding Dr Richard Scott

A Christian GP has been reprimanded by the General Medical Council for talking about his faith to a patient.

Dr Richard Scott (pictured) was accused of ‘harassment’ and told by the medical regulator that he risked bringing the profession into disrepute by discussing his religious beliefs.

He has refused to accept a formal warning on his record, and is instead taking legal action to fight the censure with the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre and leading human rights lawyer Paul Diamond.

Dr Scott, who says he has shared his faith with thousands of patients in the past, saw the patient who is at centre of the complaint in 2010. Following the consultation, the patient’s mother complained that the doctor had abused his position by ‘pushing religion’ on her son.

However, Dr Scott argues that he acted within official guidelines, having asked if he could talk about his Christian beliefs to the patient, who is of a different faith, and having ended the conversation as soon as he was asked to. The conversation only turned to faith issues after they had fully explored the medical options.

This is Dr Scott’s version of what happened. “The GMC said I had exploited a vulnerable patient. I say I was trying to help a needy patient,” Dr Scott told the British Medical Journal.

'It’s actually one of the longest consultations I’ve had, 20 minutes, trying to establish the details of his very detailed problem. And then in the last five minutes I said to him, "Look, there’s something here that I’ve found over the years has been very helpful to me and many of the patients sat in your chair. It’s about the Christian faith; you probably realise I’m a Christian doctor."'

He asked the patient whether he could discuss this, and he had replied, 'Go for it.'

'Towards the end he actually did become a little bit heated and I could see it wasn’t going anywhere, so we stopped. I finally said, "I will do the things obviously your mother has rung up about in the first place, the standard medical stuff, we’ll do that." In her complaint against me she said that I’d been highly unprofessional and not done anything medical at all in the conversation, which is totally wrong and can be proved on the computer.'

After receiving the complaint, the GMC apparently sent Dr Scott a letter warning him over his conduct and told him that the way he expressed his religious beliefs had ‘distressed’ the patient and did ‘not meet with the standards required of a doctor’.

Dr Scott, a doctor for 28 years, works at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent. Its six partners are all Christians and state on the official NHS Choices website that they are likely to discuss spiritual matters with patients during consultations.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, is reported by the Telegraph as saying: ‘Our guidance, which all doctors must follow, is clear. Doctors should not normally discuss their personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient’s care. They also must not impose their beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or views.’

However Dickson has been quite selective in his quotation of the guidance which actually gives doctors a lot of freedom in expressing their faith, provided they do it in an appropriate and sensitive way.

The GMC guidance in question, Personal beliefs and medical practice, was published on 17 March, 2008.

Christian Medical Fellowship contributed to the consultation leading to its publication and published a review of the guidance at the time.

At the time of the publication of the guidance Dr John Jenkins, Chair of the GMC Standards and Ethics Committee said: ‘The GMC recognises that personal beliefs, values, and cultural and religious practises are central to the lives of doctors and patients. The guidance balances a doctors' right to practise in accordance with their views and beliefs, and patients' right to receive timely and appropriate medical care.’

The guidance states specifically (para 7) that it ‘attempts to balance doctors' and patients' rights - including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the entitlement to care and treatment to meet clinical needs - and advises on what to do when those rights conflict.’ It is not intended to ‘impose unnecessary restrictions on doctors’ (p8) but does point out that doctors have an obligation not to impose their beliefs on patients:

‘You must not express to your patients your personal beliefs, including political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.’ (p1)

So there is no blanket prohibition on expressing personal beliefs, as long as it is done in a way that is sensitive and appropriate.

The guidance also underlines the principle that doctors must ‘make the care of (their) patient (their) first concern’ and must treat them ‘with respect, whatever their life choices and beliefs’.

These are all good principles that I personally have no problem with. No doctor, Christian or otherwise, should impose his views on his patient or seek to exploit his or her position.

However, the guidance goes on to stress that all patients and doctors have personal beliefs implying that these principles apply not just to those who subscribe to a particular faith, but to everyone.

‘Personal beliefs and values, and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of doctors and patients.’ (p4) ‘All doctors have personal beliefs which affect their day-to-day practice.’ (p6)

It also emphasises that taking account of patients’ beliefs is part of good medical care.

‘Patients' personal beliefs may be fundamental to their sense of well-being and could help them to cope with pain or other negative aspects of illness or treatment.’ (p5) ‘For some patients, acknowledging their beliefs or religious practices may be an important aspect of a holistic approach to their care. Discussing personal beliefs may, when approached sensitively, help you to work in partnership with patients to address their particular treatment needs.’ (p9)

I recently blogged about a new report from CMF, which has had wide international news coverage which reviews the positive health benefits of Christian faith.

Good doctors do not treat their patients solely as biological or biochemical machines. Rather they practise ‘whole person’ medicine that is not concerned solely with physical needs, but also addresses social, psychological, behavioural and spiritual factors that may be contributing to a person’s illness.

Here we have the case of a doctor who has talked to many patients about faith matters and who has had only a very small handful of complaints. He seems genuinely to make his patients welfare his main concern, and when he feels it appropriate to raise spiritual issues does so with sensitivity and respect.

From the facts of the case, as reported, it appears that the General Medical Council has acted with inappropriate and disproportionate force and appears to have applied its (very reasonable guidance) in a selective and unbalanced way.

The Telegraph, in today’s editorial, ‘Doctors can be Christians too’, quite rightly says that ‘this case of a doctor reprimanded for discussing his religion is a worrying one’ and accuses the GMC of an ‘excessive reaction’. It concludes that ‘we appear to be heading towards an alarming situation in which the profession of faith becomes an active disqualification’.

The GMC has clearly overreacted and I am on record in the Telegraph today saying just this.

Let’s hope that it reassesses its position and applies its own guidance in an even-handed way by balancing more carefully what it calls ‘the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ with ‘the entitlement to care and treatment to meet clinical needs’.

If it fails to do so it may find itself losing more than its credibility.

Personal Reflections on the Lausanne Congress, Cape Town 2010

It was a wonderful privilege to be able to take part in the Lausanne III World Congress, Cape Town 2010, from 16-25 October.

The gathering brought together over 4,000 evangelical leaders from 198 countries for a week of teaching, fellowship, worship and dialogue around the theme ‘The whole church taking the whole Gospel to the whole world’.

A busy programme (all main sessions still available on line) included morning Bible readings on Ephesians from leading international expositors, plenaries on issues relating to world mission and a whole variety of ‘multiplex’ sessions and dialogues (seminars) on a myriad of topics relevant to Christian mission today.

This was the third such conference on world evangelisation, following on from similar events in Lausanne Switzerland in 1973 and Manila, Philippines in 1989.

The ‘Cape Town Commitment’, currently being finalised, will be issued in the New Year outlining the challenges for world mission in the next decade.

There were so many encouragements from this event, and every delegate will have taken away their own precious memories, have made their own special friendships and their own specific challenges, but particular highlights and perceptions for me included the following:

•The explosive growth of the church in the ‘global south’. Those countries with the largest number of evangelical Christians, after the US, are now in order: China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, South Korea. The UK barely makes the top ten.

•The challenge from Chris Wright, Director of the Langham Partnership and Chief Editor of the Cape Town Commitment, that the greatest barrier facing mission today was not persecution, ‘other faiths’, or resistant people groups, but rather moral compromise of the Christian community. He challenged us to be HIS people (people of humility, integrity and simplicity).

•There were wonderful testimonies from Christians facing intense persecution in the hard places – particularly the Muslim world, North Korea and Northern Nigeria. A testimony from an 18 year old North Korean girl who had lost both of her parents but was wanting to return to her country to serve Christ was a turning point in the conference. Not a dry eye in the house.

•Richard Stearns’ powerful challenge to the western church to live simply and give generously (Richard Stearns is the US President of World Vision). US Christians give on average 2.5% of their incomes to church and charitable work and 98% of this is spent in the US. ‘Imagine’, he said, ‘if they gave 10% and half was spent in the global south what impact it would have.’

•The strong emphasis on ‘integral mission’, - Christ’s ‘Nazareth Manifesto’ call (Luke 4:18, 19) to the ministry of ‘preaching, mercy and justice’ with the aim of bringing God’s people to full maturity in Christ.

•A growing recognition of the importance of ‘workplace ministry’ equipping Christians to be witnesses in the workplace.

•New opening doors to world mission into previously closed countries through the roots of business, education, government, media and medicine (BEGMM). Doctors are perhaps unique in having an open door to every country on earth, many where traditional avenues to missionary work are closed.

•‘Turning Points’: After a glimpse of the opening of the conference, this video traces in two segments the growth of the Church from Pentecost to the present in the face of many obstacles.

•‘Best practice’ models of whole person ministry of the church to local communities. An HIV/Aids project I visited in the Cape (Living Hope) is seeing many people converted and the community transformed through practical Christian love at all levels including hospice and clinic care, schools education, employment training and ministry to the homeless.

•The exponential progress in Bible translation and the rapidly diminishing number of ‘unreached people groups’ as para-church organisations in particular deliberately and intentionally fulfil the great commission in a systematic way.

•The wonderful experience of worshipping in a multi cultural environment - a real foretaste of Revelation 7:9, 10.

•The innovative ‘table groups’ enabling groups of four-six to have ongoing deep fellowship within the context of 4,000 strong plenary sessions.

I hope this gives you a glimpse of some of the highlights and encourages you as we move together to fulfil Christ’s great commission (Matthew 28:19, 20) and great commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) in this next decade.

Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization closes in Cape Town with a ringing call to the Church

The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization closed in 25 October in Cape Town with a ringing call to the Church. This Congress, perhaps the widest and most diverse gathering of Christians ever held in the history of the Church, drew 4,000 selected participants from 198 nations. Organizers extended its reach into over 650 GlobaLink sites in 91 countries and drew 100,000 unique visits to its web site from 185 countries during the week of the Congress.

‘Our vision and hope was firstly for a ringing affirmation of the uniqueness of Christ and the truth of the biblical gospel; and a clear statement on evangelism and the mission of the church - all rooted in Scripture,’ said Lindsay Brown, Lausanne Movement International Director, in his closing address. ‘The evangelical church has rightly put an emphasis on bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to every people group, but we have perhaps been a little weaker in our attempts to apply biblical principles to every area of society, and to public policy: to the media, to business, to government. We need to engage deeply with all human endeavour - and with the ideas which shape it.’ The Congress included an Executive Leadership Forum and a Think Tank for leaders in Government, Business and Academia. ‘There is a groundswell of conviction,' said Mr Brown, ‘that greater concerted effort is needed to apply biblical truth in these arenas.’

The Cape Town Commitment, a declaration of belief and a call to action, will stand in the historic tradition of The Lausanne Covenant, which issued from the 1974 Congress, held in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Lausanne Covenant became widely-regarded as one of the most significant documents in recent church history. The Lausanne Movement, since its founding by the US evangelist Billy Graham, has worked to strengthen evangelical belief, and to reawaken the evangelical church’s responsibility in God’s world. The Cape Town Commitment is therefore in two parts. The first part, a Trinitarian statement, fashioned in the language of love, is the fruit of discussion by senior evangelical theologians drawn from all continents. This is available now on the Lausanne website, www.lausanne.org. The consequent call to action, shaped from discussion at the Congress around critical issues facing the Church over the next ten years, will be completed by December. It is expected to engage in principle with such issues from all parts of the world. Chris Wright, International Director of Langham Partnership International (John Stott Ministries / USA) is chief architect.

‘We would like The Cape Town Commitment to be seen as “a gift to the local church from representatives of the global church,”' said the Revd Doug Birdsall, Chairman of The Lausanne Movement. He then outlined the Board’s plans for the movement’s future: ‘First: to stay light on its feet, remaining agile in its ability to respond to new challenges and opportunities. Second, to be strong theologically, firmly rooted in Scripture and nourished by the best reflection on how we take the Word to the world. Third, to provide a reliable and credible contribution to Christian discussion and mission. Fourth, to keep a focus on identifying and developing younger leaders. And fifth, to be strategic in gathering the right people at the right times in the right places.

‘Lausanne gatherings will breathe oxygen into the fire that sparks more fires, and track progress made on the priorities established in Cape Town,’ he said. Mr Birdsall sketched out plans for a series of Davos-like gatherings, drawing thought leaders from the Church and from mission agencies, from government, business and academia. The first is planned for June 2012.

The Lausanne Movement is rooted globally under regional leadership around the world. The funding for the Congress had been raised from all regions, and from a ‘healthy combination’ of significant major gifts and many smaller gifts, often sacrificially-given.

The Congress extended to an estimated audience around the world of a further 100,000 people through its GlobaLink sites. It was also possible to participate virtually. Prior to the Congress, The Lausanne Movement launched a multi-lingual online Lausanne Global Conversation to begin the discussion process. This was complemented by a series of radio programmes in countries in the Global South. The Global Conversation, the first of its kind, has gained significant momentum and will continue. A round-the-clock team mined the data of all responses throughout the Congress. Malicious hacking of the Congress website brought the site down for the first two days.

‘The local church is God’s chosen locus of service and evangelism,’ said Doug Birdsall. The Congress closed with a celebration of Holy Communion, led by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda. For this, 100 communion sets had been borrowed, each from a local church. ‘These represent the remembering of Christ’s death across many nations,’ Mr Birdsall continued. ‘We are a global movement, committed to the local church.’

Cape Town 2010 was held in collaboration with The World Evangelical Alliance.

What can St Paul teach us about evangelism to Muslims?

Christians and Muslims agree… on the reality of God, revelation, scripture, angels and judgment. But they also disagree; about Christ’s identity, death and resurrection and the authority of the Bible. Given these similarities and differences, what evangelistic approach should we adopt? Should we ‘build bridges’ or attack false teaching? Should we contextualise or confront?

Contextualisers claim that confrontation alienates unbelievers. Muslims must be gently coaxed. A horse led unwillingly will not drink. Argument doesn’t convert.

On the other hand confronters reply that contextualisation dilutes the gospel. Strongholds must be demolished. False teaching must be exposed.

What were Paul’s methods? On one hand he was a contextualiser, using a different approach for each audience. In the synagogue he established common ground by appealing to Jewish history and Old Testament Scripture (Acts 13:13-51); with the farmers at Lystra he spoke of God’s control of the seasons (14:14-18); with the philosophers in Athens he quoted their own poetry (17:22-31). He took the truth they already knew to establish rapport.

On the other hand he ‘reasoned’ (17:17), ‘discussed’ (19:9), ‘argued persuasively’ (19:8) and confronted (13:46). He summed up his ministry by saying ‘...we try to persuade’, (2 Cor 5:11), ‘... we demolish arguments and every pretension’ (2 Cor 10:5).

Contextualisation lays a foundation for debate. But if we do not move on to challenge the wrong beliefs of our listeners we are not telling the whole truth. On the other hand if we merely confront Muslims without establishing common ground our arguments will fall on deaf ears. Just as contextualisation can become the refuge of the cowardly, so confrontation can be the defence of the uncaring.

However, Paul did more than just contextualise and confront. He preached the gospel: Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death, resurrection and coming in judgment. This resulted in one of two responses. Some ‘received the message with great eagerness’ (Acts 17:11), ‘were persuaded’ (17:4) and ‘believed’ (17:34). Others ‘sneered’ (17:32), ‘became abusive’ (18:6) and ‘stirred up persecution’ (13:49).

If we build bridges or attack false teaching without preaching the gospel, then we are failing in our witness. Paul’s primary concern was neither to build friendships nor win arguments. Rather, his heart’s desire and prayer was that people be saved (Rom 10:1) through hearing the gospel (1:16). His priority was to win people to Christ. His strategy involved both contextualisation and confrontation; but always with the aim of preaching Christ crucified.

We are wise to follow his example.