Tim Keller on Network Evangelism
17 years ago, Tim Keller wrote about a form of evangelism that effectively engaged “an increasingly privatized, secular society.” Those of you who know the recent discussion about door-to-door evangelism and disagree with its use will agree with Keller’s assessment and method. Keller intends to explain how evangelism through networking is intended to create “a whole philosophy of ministry based on friendship evangelism.”
Predominant evangelistic methods have changed over the last century, as Keller observes how the 1930′s-1960′s = crusade evangelism, 1960′s-1990′s = visitation evangelism, and 1990′s-present = network evangelism. Visitation evangelism, as I explained in my last article, focuses on first places and practiced by the older, more traditional evangelicals while network evangelism focuses on third places and is practiced by many in the younger, more missional generation. Keller argues that “the more modern, the more secular, the more urbanized, and the newer cities and communities, the more these traditional programs do not seem to bear fruit.”
Let me make an observation here about the SBC–the context in which I serve. Most Southern Baptist churches are in the South and in rural/suburban areas where visitation evangelism is still the leading method. Visitation programs and outreach strategies such as F.A.I.T.H. appeal to a graying denomination in rural America where the front porch is about as “third place” as it gets. On the other hand, the new urban church planting movement in more secular cities recognize the unlikely profitability of methods of the 1960′s and instead are networking through relationships in third places. The former is crisis-driven, and the latter is process-driven; the former calls for decision; the latter calls for investment. Therefore, the difference in methodology is generational (1960′s vs. 2000′s), geographical (first vs. third), philosophical (visitation vs. network), and practical (crisis vs. process).
The four basic networks Keller brings out are (1) familial, (2) geographical (neighborhoods), (3) vocational (career/school associates), and (4) relational (friends not necessarily in the other networks). I find these categories helpful because it coincides with developing an evangelistic plan or strategy in the same way of using all there places. For instance, first place evangelism would include the familial and geographical networks (you could host neighborhood evangelistic studies or community groups in your home), second place evangelism coincides with vocational (work or school), and third place evangelism would be relational.
In a network-focused church, Keller says that “you will either be a seeker, a bringer, or a cell leader (follow-up) . . . or you are dead weight!” Unbelievers (seekers) are welcomed because every believer is expected to not only befriend them but bring them. Cell leaders are more mature believers who can assist the bringers in answering questions and assimilating them as they come to faith in Jesus. According to his network philosophy, Keller points out that there is an expectation “that the non-Christian will be exposed to the gospel at least several times on the way to commitment” and that “there are lots of opportunities for the seeker to list his/her questions and concerns, and for those issues to be addressed honestly.”
When I examine my evangelistic methods, I have to say that network evangelism and third places have been the majority practice, although I still do (unprogrammed) visitation evangelism on occasion. In network evangelism, not one relationship is to go untouched by the gospel, and therefore there is never a moment where we are not conscious of both our need for the gospel ourselves and the urgency to share it with others. This morning when I picked up my breakfast at Chick-fil-a with Camille and now talk with Audrey, Tom, and Alyssa at Panera, I am working to show the love of Christ, replace my agenda with seeking first the kingdom of God, and open my far-too-silent mouth to tell of the infinite value of knowing Jesus. Life is too short and Jesus is too glorious to leverage each moment with each person I meet for the advancement of the gospel in their heart and mine. God knows we need it. I just hope I show it.
Tags: Friendship Evangelism, Gospel, Networking, Tim Keller
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
September 24, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I am fine with friendship evangelism if it truely does both: cultivates friendships and shares the gospel (evangelism). Many times people use this type of “evangelism” as a method to actually not share.
September 24, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Network evangelism is an interesting concept. I do tend to shudder at all of the new terminology that seems to accompany an evangelical movement desperate for relevance (or at least it often seems that way to me).
I have just stumbled upon your site today and am happy to have found it.
I’ve just jumped into the blogosphere myself in recent weeks, launching http://FireBreathingChristian.com , where the most recent post is entitled “Candy Christianity: The Counterfeit Gospel of the American Church”, so this is the sort of subject that has been on my mind.
It is always encouraging to connect with brothers and sisters in Christ. It is instances such as this that I am very grateful to Al Gore for inventing the Internet.
Soli Deo gloria!
Scott
September 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm
firebreathingchristian,
I’m glad that you’re glad you stumbled upon my site and the fact that you felt liberty to give your blog free advertisement on my blog with surprising condescension to those who disagree with you on how to evangelize unbelievers.
Should you choose to comment in the future, let me encourage you to refrain from shameless blog commercials and engage the topic at hand with the kind of humility and grace found in the example of our Savior. Grace and peace.
September 24, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I agree on this Timmy, but the sarcasm was a bit harsh. Maybe an private email or polite comment to explain to the newbie blog etiquette.
September 25, 2009 at 9:02 am
Justin,
I respectfully disagree. Someone who publicly spreads this kind of “Christianity” needs a public rebuke. I felt that I was quite reserved in my response. In the five years that I’ve been doing this blog thing, stuff like this pops up on occasion, and I don’t want my name or anything related to my internet presence connected to this. The firebreathing Christian is just as dangerous to the cause of Christ of the the liberals who want us all to just get along.
Furthermore, the sarcasm was fitting for someone who sarcastically mentioned Al Gore as inventing the internet and insulting others as well.
September 25, 2009 at 3:35 pm
1 Peter 3:9 – Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
September 25, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Justin,
I am not going to got tit-for-tat proof-texting the Bible with you. I address religious zealots who miss the gospel with stronger rebuke than I do the unbeliever in ignorance. Would you use that same proof text with Jesus when he has such strong words for Pharisees?
September 26, 2009 at 3:38 am
Well I’m not perfect like Jesus. But I also don’t want to fight over a small detail with a believer. I’m sorry.
September 24, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I think “first place” or door to door evangelism still has its place, and you note the appeal of FAITH, etc. Also, I don’t think that door to door evangelism is necessarily “crisis driven” although it has often tended to be employed that way. I wouldn’t consider going door to door to invite people to a Bible study or church in the area to be necessarily “crisis driven” (in the sense that an immediate decision is being called for) although as I note below anyone who comes knocking for any reason is practically viewed as a crisis by many today.
Socio-economic background and the attitudes that come along with it are also a factor, along with generational differences. Door to door activity is typically viewed negatively by more affluent people living in newer suburbs and urban areas, whereas in less affluent areas (whether rural or urban) it can sometimes still be quite effective. In some neighborhoods and communities going door to door is prohibited.
A typical attitude with many today is that the home is kind of a “castle” and people don’t want to be bothered or interrupted, and would just as soon communicate online with someone halfway across the country or world as get to know their neighbors. I haven’t read the article, but no doubt this is the kind of privatized life to which Keller refers, and the degree of privatization (especially) and secularization has grown exponentially over the last 17 years, especially with the internet, which was still in its infancy 17 years ago. In earlier decades, television and air conditioning also played a role with people spending much more time inside than in the past. So “third place” and network evangelism would be an excellent way to attempt to reach these folks.
This article by Jim Elliff on “hanging out” promotes the same idea: http://www.ccwonline.org/hang.html Of course, it’s really not new at all, as Bro. Elliff’s biblical examples demonstrate. It’s so old that it just seems new to those who have been conditioned to think that evangelism can only be done in a certain way.