Speaking of God: A new model for evangelism

[Amazing Rando]

I just read Ben Cambell Johnson's book, Speaking of God: Evangelism as Initial Spiritual Guidance, and it's a really remarkable read!

Speaking of God presents an absolutely fascinating new paradigm for evangelism that for me, totally sheds any of the negative stigma the word may have had before. Johnson’s book contrasts the modernist “hit and run” type of evangelism, such as Evangelism Explosion, The Four Spiritual Laws, and the Roman Road methods with evangelism in the mold of spiritual direction. I think he’s quite right in pointing out that while some people may respond positively to the neatly-packaged gospel message presented in five minutes or less, others loathe this approach. This method usually involves, as Johnson describes, bludgeoning anyone who does not answer the question “If you were to die to night, would you make it into heaven and why?” with the correct answer with a slick, prepackaged gospel message in less than five minutes and then pressing the subject for a decision for Christ now.

Johnson’s method involves far more listening on the evangelist’s part than it does talking. The assumption is that God is already at work in the person’s life, and the goal is to help the person recognize this fact. One should not assume that the evangelist is the bearer of God and Jesus Christ to a person or area in which he is not. To many, the “traditional” style of evangelism is repulsive because it compresses the vast richness of the gospel into a shallow, superficial, salesmanship pitch. Evangelists in this mode are perceived to be as friendly as used-car salesmen (and about as trustworthy too!). I think that Johnson’s approach is sorely needed in the church today, because of the way in which “traditional” evangelists are turning people off to the gospel and making Christians reluctant to share the joy of Jesus with their neighbors.

What do you think? Need some clarification? I have the book with me I could dig some quotes out to clarify any questions you might have.

[Solly]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48812 *sahm

[Amazing Rando]

Funny, I was just about to link you to my thread! :noid:

I'm not quite clear on what Kung was trying to say in that essay you posted- was kind of hard to follow.

[Solly]

Same as your man, basically. Drawing alongside where people are, going on the journey with them, listening to them. If God made us the same, then we are, in a certain way, going the same way, but, and here I give another quote just sent me:

Review of The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends
by Mark S. Heim:

Perhaps other religions are not false as much as they are the truest way to the respective end they advocate. This is the thesis S. Mark Heim proposes. Heim advocates two truths: (1) Other religions may be true and valid paths to the religious fulfillment they seek, and (2) “There is a relation with God and other creatures made possible in Christ that can only be realized in communion with Christ” (p. 32). By considering the possibility of the truth of both propositions, interreligious dialogue can be more focused. The truly crucial questions become not “Which religion is true?” but “What end is most ultimate, even if many are real?” or “Which religious end constitutes the fullest human destiny?” (pp. 4, 31).

Christ is the only way, but the only way to what? This is a question that Christians need to better answer in order to converse more intelligently with advocates of other religions. The Christian end is not independent happiness (folk religion), pure consciousness (new age religions), unity of one absolute Self, emptiness (Buddhism), loss of consciousness of being (atheism), eternal submission to God (Islam) or personal enlightenment (Hinduism). Christianity offers a fuller view of the end – an end that involves personal relationship with the God whose very essence is relationship. No other religion proposes such an intimately personal end. This is a coherent and consistent view of ultimate reality. This is Christianity’s “religious end.” Relations are the “ends as well as means. There is nothing more real on the other side of them” (p.58). Most other religious ends are relationless ends. Thus, the religions themselves may very well be the best means to the end they respectively propose. Heims suggests that insofar as they are true, they result in a limited relationship with God. However, one doesn’t have to embrace all of Heims’ proposal to benefit from his profound insights on the Trinity and the glorious “religious end” of personal communion with the living God that is the hallmark of Christianity.

[Amazing Rando]

Heck yeah! Now that is an evangelism I can do and make my own!

The basic idea of what Johnson is saying is that as "initial spiritual guides," we seek to make people aware of how God is already actively working in their lives and nudge them in the direction of Jesus. Obviously the ultimate goal is to get them to confess Jesus as Lord, but in Johnson's view, it needs to be a self-discovery. Nobody can force-feed Jesus down your throat!

[tiffanyh]

What do you think? Need some clarification? I have the book with me I could dig some quotes out to clarify any questions you might have.

Hi Rando,
I'd be interested in some more from this book (heck, I should go find it and read it for myself...)

Right now I'm involved in the Evangelism Explosion program at my church, about halfway through the first semester of training. I can see how the comments you make above about EE apply, but in practice it just doesn't feel that way. I've really enjoyed, and feel like I've grown immensely, through participation in the program. Most of all, I wanted to learn "a" presentation of the Gospel, and above all I wanted to break my cycle of fear such that I felt prepared and able to share about Christ with my friends and family. I haven't seen, nor felt, like we were doing "hit and run" evangelism. Maybe it is the way we are taught in our program, I'm not sure ...

As to the second HK essay that 99 Red Balloons posted, I wasn't so sure what the main point was, it almost seemed like a statement that all religions are right or something along those lines. I guess I'll have to go look again to see what he was getting at?

[Solly]

To forestall another debate, we have previously decided that EE doesn't fall into this category under criticism.

Other religions not as 'right' but as ways to the right way. Seeing other religions not as huge deceptions to be knocked down, but culturally adequate, but ultimately inadequate methods of attaining the goals mentioned in the excerpt above from Heim. Küng holds to the uniqueness of Christ, despite his inter-faith ecumenical credentials

[Alien]

Interesting, Rando! As the "world's worst" evangelist, this is a subject that I think about a lot.


Speaking of God presents an absolutely fascinating new paradigm for evangelism that for me, totally sheds any of the negative stigma the word may have had before. Johnson’s book contrasts the modernist “hit and run” type of evangelism, such as Evangelism Explosion, The Four Spiritual Laws, and the Roman Road methods with evangelism in the mold of spiritual direction. I think he’s quite right in pointing out that while some people may respond positively to the neatly-packaged gospel message presented in five minutes or less, others loathe this approach. This method usually involves, as Johnson describes, bludgeoning anyone who does not answer the question “If you were to die to night, would you make it into heaven and why?” with the correct answer with a slick, prepackaged gospel message in less than five minutes and then pressing the subject for a decision for Christ now.

Someone asked me that question years ago (I was a very committed atheist) and I replied something like "If you saw a flying pig, would it let you ride it through the air and why?" In other words, the question assumes so many things that it is meaningless to someone who doesn't share those assumptions.

Also, the "pre-packaged" approach is only attractive to someone who wants simple answers to everything. Many people distrust simple answers, having learned from bitter experience in their own lives that correct answers are rarely simple.


Johnson’s method involves far more listening on the evangelist’s part than it does talking. The assumption is that God is already at work in the person’s life, and the goal is to help the person recognize this fact. One should not assume that the evangelist is the bearer of God and Jesus Christ to a person or area in which he is not.

Wow, that's really insightful. It is my feeling that God is at work everywhere (that's what Mr Balloons' ... that you Solly? ... author is saying I think) and we can choose to work with that or against it. The image of the evangelist carrying a kind of "Gospel flashlight" into dark areas of the world is certainly wrong ... the light is already there, and people are often aware of it already, though they may not be using the same language to describe it as the evangelist.


To many, the “traditional” style of evangelism is repulsive because it compresses the vast richness of the gospel into a shallow, superficial, salesmanship pitch. Evangelists in this mode are perceived to be as friendly as used-car salesmen (and about as trustworthy too!). I think that Johnson’s approach is sorely needed in the church today, because of the way in which “traditional” evangelists are turning people off to the gospel and making Christians reluctant to share the joy of Jesus with their neighbors.

This is what I mean by "working against" what God is already doing. In all cases, we must start where the person is. If we don't do that, we won't get anywhere (or are not likely to) because we are asking the person to make the leap from where he is to where we are on his own, and that first step is the most difficult.


What do you think? Need some clarification? I have the book with me I could dig some quotes out to clarify any questions you might have.

Have I understood Johnson correctly? In any case, I would be interested in hearing more, and maybe discussing it further.

[Amazing Rando]

Hi Rando,
I'd be interested in some more from this book (heck, I should go find it and read it for myself...)

Right now I'm involved in the Evangelism Explosion program at my church, about halfway through the first semester of training. I can see how the comments you make above about EE apply, but in practice it just doesn't feel that way. I've really enjoyed, and feel like I've grown immensely, through participation in the program. Most of all, I wanted to learn "a" presentation of the Gospel, and above all I wanted to break my cycle of fear such that I felt prepared and able to share about Christ with my friends and family. I haven't seen, nor felt, like we were doing "hit and run" evangelism. Maybe it is the way we are taught in our program, I'm not sure ...

Hi tiffany! Sorry if I came off as insulting or anything. I've no personal experience with EE, besides what I've encountered in Johnson's book. But I am aware of some negative feelings that I personally share with other Christians regarding the confrontational style of evangelism. Here's what Johnson's got to say in a section immediately after he's described and quoted from Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion:

If this style of presenting the gospel demonstrates the positive attributes that have been indicated, why has it been looked upon with suspicion and been rejected by so many clergy and laypersons? First, it feels like a "canned" presentation, which serves the same diet to everyone regardless of taste or condition. It lacks the personal application of the gospel to different needs.

Then, to some, this direct confrontive approach has a brashness about it that intrudes into the privacy of the subject's personal life. "If you died tonight would you go to heaven?" That question is as personal as saying to a stranger after a few minutes of conversation, "By the way, how is your sex life?"

For others, this method of presenting the gospel focuses on a cognitive, volitional committment rather than the soverign initiative of the gracious God. True faith is born out of an encounter with the living God.

Finally, this style meets rejection because of its manipulative practices. The closure employs the technique of a seller of insurance or used cars. The style seems to limit the freedom of the individual while it presumes to control the grace of God.

Certainly, these criticisms of confrontational models like that of Evangelism Explosion would be met with explanations and justifications by its advocates, and yet I am convinced that their justifications will not win over the majority of mainline Protestants. The model of spiritual direction for the personal evangelist presented here is offered as an alternative to approaches like Evangelism Explosion, the Four Spiritual Laws, and the Roman Road to Salvation. Our model of a spiritual guide overcomes the confrontational intrusive witness, it presents the gospel in a variety of ways, it does not violate the theological commitments of a postmodern theologian, and it honors the sovereignty of God and the freedom of persons.

That's pages 68-69.

I'd be interested to hear how you understand EE to work, and what your experiences of it have been. :smile:


As to the second HK essay that 99 Red Balloons posted, I wasn't so sure what the main point was, it almost seemed like a statement that all religions are right or something along those lines. I guess I'll have to go look again to see what he was getting at?

I don't fully understand what it's trying to say either. The first premise it offers gives me pause to raise my eyebrows too.

[Amazing Rando]

To forestall another debate, we have previously decided that EE doesn't fall into this category under criticism.

Other religions not as 'right' but as ways to the right way. Seeing other religions not as huge deceptions to be knocked down, but culturally adequate, but ultimately inadequate methods of attaining the goals mentioned in the excerpt above from Heim. Küng holds to the uniqueness of Christ, despite his inter-faith ecumenical credentials

AAAAAAA! Stop changing your name! :rant: Wanderer of the Ilm? :huh:

[tiffanyh]

To forestall another debate, we have previously decided that EE doesn't fall into this category under criticism.

Other religions not as 'right' but as ways to the right way. Seeing other religions not as huge deceptions to be knocked down, but culturally adequate, but ultimately inadequate methods of attaining the goals mentioned in the excerpt above from Heim. Küng holds to the uniqueness of Christ, despite his inter-faith ecumenical credentials

Thanks for the comment -- I'm glad to see a debate forestalled, but I do want to know what the perceptions people have are ... Like I said (I hope), I have felt like EE (we call it Evangelism Equipping though, not sure why the name change...) has been an extraordinary learning experience, and I've really had an opportunity to see how God is at work all over.

The comments by HK, and what I think I'm understanding Johnson to basically be saying, seem to be to be right on and well worth exploring.

-Tiffany (learning as I go!)

[tiffanyh]

Hi tiffany! Sorry if I came off as insulting or anything. I've no personal experience with EE, besides what I've encountered in Johnson's book....
No, you did not come across as insulting at all. I understood that you were discussing what Johnson wrote in his book. I've just come to respect your opinions a bit from all of my lurking here at Tweb, so I wanted to explore a little bit more what you might know and like/dislike about the EE approach.


I'd be interested to hear how you understand EE to work, and what your experiences of it have been. :smile:

So some of the objections I see Johnson posting are:
-canned approach
-confrontational
-manipulative
-cognitive decision vs true faith born out of initiative of the living God

Like I said, I'm in my first semester in EE - which is a very structured program in which you progress through three levels: trainee (me), associate trainer (a 2nd semester person), and a trainer (3rd semester & beyond). As a trainee, I most definitely am learning a canned presentation, bit by bit, and participate in any discussions we have with people in predefined "bits" that are decided ahead of time so I can be ready. One thing they stress with us during class time, every week, is that during training we learn the canned presentation - but that the point is to have the outline, relevant verses, some good examples so well ingrained that we can flow through a meaningful conversation with people - which, in practice, is never to be canned but is to be based on partnering with the person, listening to them, and trying to address their needs. EE is preparing the 'average joe' layman to be an effective evangelist, rather than leaving it to the pastors. As I understand it, the point is more to prepare the EE participants to be more effective witnesses - than to barrel through and get as many new Christians as possible.

I haven't felt our visits to be confrontational, but maybe that's a result of how our church goes about it. We essentially visit people who have come to services - signed the friendship registry - and (presumably, I'm not positive here) indicated that a visit or call would be welcomed. I think over 50% of the visits I hear our teams report back on are with people who are new to the community, or are otherwise looking for a church home, and often are already saved. We present the gospel as a means of assurance, and to share what our church believes with them. We've really had some amazing visits!

The two diagnostic questions really do look, shocking I guess, out of context of the flow of the conversation, but in the outline the "are you at a place in your spiritual life where you know for sure that you are going to heaven..." question follows a conversation about the prospects secular life, church background (including here how did you come to visit our church?), church testimony and personal testimony (which ends with a statement of knowing for sure that I'll be in Heaven when I die), and then asking permission to ask a question. It really does flow pretty well, and the two questions are designed to get people to evaluate, for themselves, whether they think (or know!) they are heaven bound - whether it is important to them - and the second question helps them to evaluate what it is they are basing their trust upon for eternal life. Most people that we've met, even church "lifers" haven't seemed to think about it too terribly much - so the questions at the least get them evaluating themselves and thinking about spiritual things which maybe they haven't addressed.

The Gospel presentation that normally follows (unless the person responds that they would not like us to go on) is very tailored to the answers the person gave, the information we know about the person, and the flow of the conversation. I've never seen it go the same twice. The couple of times we did actually progress to a profession of faith, my trainer made it very clear that even if we did pray "the words", it wasn't the prayer that would save them, but it was a heart condition and between them and God. (there's a verse here, I can't recall it off the top of my head though). Anyhow, we set up a followup plan including a visit the following week - give them materials (a book of John, for example, if they don't own a Bible) - invite them to join one of us at church the following Sunday - etc.

It seems to me that when we do get a profession of faith, its not our salesmanship (eek!) but the fact that God has been working in this persons life already and we came at the right time to provide the opportunity. Most of the time I think we are just opening people's thought patterns up to spiritual matters that they may have been ignoring.

The other thing we spend a lot of time on is discussing witnessing with the people we meet in regular life - which is really what we are training for through the EE program. We discuss getting to know people and developing friendships, building upon friendships, and ways to turn the conversation towards spiritual matters in a non-threatening way. (I think they focus alot on that in the upper levels of training).

Sorry I wrote so much :) Hopefully this gives you a little to go on?

So, hey, now that i'm hopefully done hijacking the thread into a discussion of EE :blush: , how about sharing more about what Johnson has to say about evangelism? :smile:

[Amazing Rando]

:smile: I'll drop by tomorrow some more Alien and Tiffany! Have a great night!

[Amazing Rando]

Interesting, Rando! As the "world's worst" evangelist, this is a subject that I think about a lot.

Someone asked me that question years ago (I was a very committed atheist) and I replied something like "If you saw a flying pig, would it let you ride it through the air and why?" In other words, the question assumes so many things that it is meaningless to someone who doesn't share those assumptions.

Also, the "pre-packaged" approach is only attractive to someone who wants simple answers to everything. Many people distrust simple answers, having learned from bitter experience in their own lives that correct answers are rarely simple.

:rofl: You bet- to people who have no idea of who God is, they've no idea what meaning such a question might have.

Wow, that's really insightful. It is my feeling that God is at work everywhere (that's what Mr Balloons' ... that you Solly? ... author is saying I think) and we can choose to work with that or against it. The image of the evangelist carrying a kind of "Gospel flashlight" into dark areas of the world is certainly wrong ... the light is already there, and people are often aware of it already, though they may not be using the same language to describe it as the evangelist.

:smile: That's one of the most profound truths about our God- that he's exactly where we don't expect him to be. It reminds me of the stories of the early Jewish Christians in Acts coming to grips with the fact that yes, God loves those "unclean" Gentiles too!

This is what I mean by "working against" what God is already doing. In all cases, we must start where the person is. If we don't do that, we won't get anywhere (or are not likely to) because we are asking the person to make the leap from where he is to where we are on his own, and that first step is the most difficult.

:yes: "Starting where the person is"- I like that. I think of how Jesus didn't hesitate to eat and party with the worst of sinners in the gospel stories.

Have I understood Johnson correctly? In any case, I would be interested in hearing more, and maybe discussing it further.

In my next post to tiffany, I'll find a good quote where Johnson talks a bit more about exactly what he's proposing. You seen to have it down pretty well!

[Amazing Rando]

So some of the objections I see Johnson posting are:
-canned approach
-confrontational
-manipulative
-cognitive decision vs true faith born out of initiative of the living God

Yep, that about sums up his criticisms. He acknowledges that they may be somewhat overstated, but believes that that is how many people in the mainline Christian churches generally react to such an approach.

Like I said, I'm in my first semester in EE - which is a very structured program in which you progress through three levels: trainee (me), associate trainer (a 2nd semester person), and a trainer (3rd semester & beyond). As a trainee, I most definitely am learning a canned presentation, bit by bit, and participate in any discussions we have with people in predefined "bits" that are decided ahead of time so I can be ready. One thing they stress with us during class time, every week, is that during training we learn the canned presentation - but that the point is to have the outline, relevant verses, some good examples so well ingrained that we can flow through a meaningful conversation with people - which, in practice, is never to be canned but is to be based on partnering with the person, listening to them, and trying to address their needs.

That last sentence here is something Johnson would agree with wholeheartedly! Let me try to find a relevant quote here-

While our description of the reaction to the Evangelism Explosion model may have elements of overstatement, for the most part the evaluation characterizes pastors and laity in mainline protestantism. As an alternative, we seek in the image of the spiritual director a postive, compelling model that enables one person to share the faith with another in a creative, respectful manner.

Instead of the inquisitive intruder, the image of the spiritual guide suggests two persons on a journey, with one serving as a guide to enable the other to "see sights" that otherwise might go unnoticed. The role of a guide contrasts that of the researcher, who focuses on the data; a judge, who makes evaluations and pronouncements; and an officer, who enforces the law. Guides are participants on the journey; they walk with their companions and stay near them.
(Page 68)

EE is preparing the 'average joe' layman to be an effective evangelist, rather than leaving it to the pastors.

Yep! So's Johnson's approach. Perhaps they're not so far different after all?

As I understand it, the point is more to prepare the EE participants to be more effective witnesses - than to barrel through and get as many new Christians as possible.

I follow. :yes: Numbers of converts are meaningless if the converts know only the very rudiments of the faith. We want to help them encounter God, to know him, not just know about him. :teeth:

I haven't felt our visits to be confrontational, but maybe that's a result of how our church goes about it. We essentially visit people who have come to services - signed the friendship registry - and (presumably, I'm not positive here) indicated that a visit or call would be welcomed. I think over 50% of the visits I hear our teams report back on are with people who are new to the community, or are otherwise looking for a church home, and often are already saved. We present the gospel as a means of assurance, and to share what our church believes with them. We've really had some amazing visits!

Sounds like your church is following in the spirit of Jesus rather than one of self-aggrandizement. That's commendable!

The two diagnostic questions really do look, shocking I guess, out of context of the flow of the conversation, but in the outline the "are you at a place in your spiritual life where you know for sure that you are going to heaven..." question follows a conversation about the prospects secular life, church background (including here how did you come to visit our church?), church testimony and personal testimony (which ends with a statement of knowing for sure that I'll be in Heaven when I die), and then asking permission to ask a question.

You ask them to give their personal testimony after you've just met them? :huh: Or you mean your own?

The Gospel presentation that normally follows (unless the person responds that they would not like us to go on) is very tailored to the answers the person gave, the information we know about the person, and the flow of the conversation. I've never seen it go the same twice. The couple of times we did actually progress to a profession of faith, my trainer made it very clear that even if we did pray "the words", it wasn't the prayer that would save them, but it was a heart condition and between them and God. (there's a verse here, I can't recall it off the top of my head though). Anyhow, we set up a followup plan including a visit the following week - give them materials (a book of John, for example, if they don't own a Bible) - invite them to join one of us at church the following Sunday - etc.

It seems to me that when we do get a profession of faith, its not our salesmanship (eek!) but the fact that God has been working in this persons life already and we came at the right time to provide the opportunity. Most of the time I think we are just opening people's thought patterns up to spiritual matters that they may have been ignoring.

The other thing we spend a lot of time on is discussing witnessing with the people we meet in regular life - which is really what we are training for through the EE program. We discuss getting to know people and developing friendships, building upon friendships, and ways to turn the conversation towards spiritual matters in a non-threatening way. (I think they focus alot on that in the upper levels of training).

Sorry I wrote so much :) Hopefully this gives you a little to go on?

Thank you for sharing that tiffany- that helps me understand it from the inside! I wonder if what Johnson's really reacting against is those Christians that mimic the evangelism techniques of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and do "cold calls," knocking on random strangers' doors, etc.

So, hey, now that i'm hopefully done hijacking the thread into a discussion of EE :blush: , how about sharing more about what Johnson has to say about evangelism? :smile:

Johnson is writing about how so many people, pastors included, in the church today are afraid or unwilling to speak about their faith to others.

Here's more of what he's reacting against:

Perhaps ministers as well as laity have veered away from speech about God because of the stereitypical images of those who engage in it. If they do not respond to street-corner preachers or Mormon missionaries, they surely reject the notion of rudely intruding into a stranger's life with a question like, "If you died tonight, would you go to heaven?" Have Christians given up on "God-speech" because of these corruptions of style?

Not only has the aggressive witness left a bad taste in our mouths, the kind of faith offered has sometimes alientated persons from normal life, resulting in a kind of compartmentalized religious faith. A typical example of this compartmentalization can be seen in the person who recites creeds and prays on Sunday but makes no connection between that experience and the homeless on the streets or the painful alienation from a spouse.
(page 16)

His suggestions are to model evangelism off of the "spiritual director" or "spiritual guide."

Henry Nouwen defines spiritual direction as an art: "It is helping a person to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in one's life, assisting in the difficult task of obedience to these movements, and offering support in the cricual life decisions that our faithfulness requires."...
(page 25)

What he's suggesting is that evangelists do far more listening to people than they do talking, that they pay attention to the life stories of people attempt to help them discover how God is already working in their lives. Certainly knowledge of the gospel is paramount, but he's cautioning against making a rational, intellectual decision the basis of salvation. He offers several examples of conversations he's had which are too long for me to type out. But here's a fun tool- Amazon.com's search inside the book feature!

Click here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664252001/qid=1109883066/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-3355852-0042457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to see his book on Amazon, then just click the book and use the search inside feature- you can practically read the whole book online! I'd particularly suggest chapters 1, 2, and 4. Hope that helps!

[tiffanyh]

You ask them to give their personal testimony after you've just met them? :huh: Or you mean your own?
Oh, one of our own. Typically like the 3 minute version, not our whole life story ...


Thank you for sharing that tiffany- that helps me understand it from the inside! I wonder if what Johnson's really reacting against is those Christians that mimic the evangelism techniques of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and do "cold calls," knocking on random strangers' doors, etc.

We do occasionally do "cold calls" like this, but it's a different format - there's a questionaire that we use that eases us into the conversation, and at the end we ask permission to continue on into sharing the Gospel message with the persons.


Johnson is writing about how so many people, pastors included, in the church today are afraid or unwilling to speak about their faith to others.

You just nailed the reason I signed up for the EE classes to begin with (fear). So far, it's really helping me to develop confidence and awareness to the opportunities to share my faith with my "everyday" friends and neighbors. I like one point from the excerpt of Johnsons book above that addresses taking on the role of a "guide", helping people to see sights that they may not normally have seen. However, without the confidence to even bring up spiritual matters in everyday conversation, that sort of guidance is unlikely to happen. I felt like there was so much to learn, and so much that I didn't know, that I might not have anything to offer others. I'm learning that I do, and that just as evangelism is not just for the pastors, it's also not just for the "lifers". :wink:

He offers several examples of conversations he's had which are too long for me to type out. But here's a fun tool- Amazon.com's search inside the book feature!

Click here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664252001/qid=1109883066/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-3355852-0042457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to see his book on Amazon, then just click the book and use the search inside feature- you can practically read the whole book online! I'd particularly suggest chapters 1, 2, and 4. Hope that helps!

Oh neat! I'm going to have to check it out :lol: From the examples that you are sharing here I am very intrigued by the book and by hearing what else Johnson has to say.

Thanks so much for your comments!