(Ir)religiosity

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

I’m really liking Ron Martoia’s new book Transformational Architecture: Reshaping Our Lives as Narrative. Most books of this genre, at least most of the ones I’ve been exposed to, concede that we have essentially gotten the Christian message right from the beginning and simply need to change our method — so it is cooler, more attractive, and most of the time, more enculturated in the American ethos of consumption and individualism –  to “reach” more people. Ron’s book challenges that assumption.  He questions the institutional church’s interpretation of the Christian story suggesting that, “Our problem isn’t just one of method, but of message as well.” I like that.  And I think that part of it means to follow the way of Jesus is the humble willingness to question everything, even our appropriation of the story itself.

One of the sub-sections of our assumed story that I struggle and wrestle with is evangelism.  Without going into too much of a diatribe, it has always bothered me that a lot of what passes as “evangelistic outreach,” when you really look at it, has amounted to nothing more than coercion aimed at creating cookie-cutter Christians.  Of course the fear of hell is usually incited and contrasted with the eternal bliss of heaven, somewhere, someday.  Rarely is actual transformation spoken of and there is usually no follow-up or attempt at discipleship.  The number of “converts” almost always trumps any suggestion of radical lifestyle alteration, because we are all just waiting for Jesus to come back right?

Now, that may be a bit overstated.  But I think there is some truth to it.

I think evangelism is part of the message that we have gotten wrong.  And I think we should reevaluate our approach, our definition, and maybe even our use of the word itself.

In the book’s introduction Ron offers an interesting alternate definition of evangelism that I think bears some reflection.

God’s original architectural plans for human “heart space” designed us with cravings, longings, yearnings, that sit at the intuitive level of our lives.  These primal elements, architected deep in the core of our being, drive our desire for transformation.  In other words, “evangelism” is really about helping people along in a journey for which they have desire already built into them at the center of their hearts.

I like that.  I think it is a good new working definition of evangelism.

Here’s why:

• It’s about finding a personal story, an extended narrative, not just a conversion — and sometimes coercive! — experience that will later lose its luster.
• It’s about finding community, a place where the personal narrative can be sustained and nurtured, not restricted and truncated.
• It’s about God’s ongoing story of redemption, restoration, and renewal, not a one-time event, but a process of holistic transformation.

So instead of dominating others with rigid dogmatism, instead of insisting that persons essentially assume the same script and the same story, freedom of creativity and imagination is allowed as persons are encouraged to find their voice and then within a particular local, and contextual community, live that story out in their own peculiar way within the larger framework of God’s narrative of restoration and renewal.

With this approach tangible transformation and actual response to grace are demanded and expected as individuals and communities continually participate in the life of God and partner in the work of realizing the divine commonwealth.

To me, that looks more like the way of Jesus than what has passed as evangelism in the past.

What do you think of Martoia’s definition?  Do you think this more narrative-centered, conversational approach might be more effective than the modern approach of the past?  And, do you think there might be a better word or phrase besides “evangelism” that could be used, something with less baggage that might better communicate the invitation to participate?