Jones refers to the initiation of persons into Christian discipleship in response to the reign of God, whereas Abraham refers to initiating them into the reign (kingdom) of God itself. They both include the kingdom theme in their theological vision for evangelism. Given the strong presence of the kingdom theme in the Synoptic Gospels, this is not surprising in the least, and to a certain extent this is helpful. Inclusion of the kingdom theme in evangelistic thought reminds us that the primary role of evangelism is to partner with the Holy Spirit in guiding, leading, and inviting people toward God’s intentions for them. For Abraham, God’s intentions for us revolve around God’s kingdom, whereas for Jones those intentions revolve around the love of God, self, and others that becomes possible through Christian discipleship.
It is not my purpose to engage in a point-by-point debate with Jones and Abraham concerning their evangelistic visions. Furthermore, there is much to value in each of their visions. There is no question that Jones is correct in insisting that evangelism must move persons toward discipleship, and that this discipleship must be grounded in the love of God, which is a foundational characteristic of God. Likewise, Abraham’s desire to honor the kingdom theme in the Bible and to avoid undue focus on introducing persons to the institutional church is an appropriate emphasis. There is, however, another theme that is prior to their themes of choice: life. God’s reign as both embodied and proclaimed by Jesus is vitally important to the biblical portrayal, and so too is a life of discipleship grounded in love; but each of these may be appropriately viewed in relation to the foundational theme of life. I do not suggest that the evangelistic visions of Jones and Abraham are incorrect or less valuable than a life-based one. A life-based evangelistic vision, however, is equally as valuable as theirs. Furthermore, a life-based evangelistic vision is biblically and theologically prior to those based in God’s reign or kingdom, for creation of life takes place in the biblical narrative far sooner than any mention of God’s kingdom or reign.27
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to discern the evangelistic implications that arise from a strong focus on the biblical theme of life in its God-intended fullness.
Four clusters of questions are of particular interest regarding the implications of a life-based evangelistic vision. The first cluster pertains to the gospel. What is the good news? What is good about the good news? In inviting others to Christ, what is it that we are inviting non-Christians toward? What are we asking them to embrace? To what extent does our full-life understanding influence our communication of the good news?28 If it is included in our gospel communication, is it also included in the invitation that is extended to non-Christians?
A second cluster of questions relates to the essential meaning of the biblical theme of life. What does life mean? What kind of life does God intend for men and women? What does God do to offer us full life? What do human beings need to do to appropriate or access full life? How might we lose this life? What perspectives do we gain from Old Testament scholars who value the life theme? What does the prevalence of the life theme in John’s Gospel mean?29
A third cluster of questions has to do with the relationship between the biblical themes of life, the kingdom of God (especially in the Synoptic Gospels), and eternal life (especially in John). Given the strong emphasis of Jesus on the kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels, would one say that the biblical theme of life is somehow subservient to the kingdom theme, vice versa, or is there another way to conceptualize that relationship? Since John’s Gospel virtually ignores kingdom language and strongly emphasizes the language of life, especially eternal life, might we conceive of the kingdom and eternal life as two ways to express the same truth(s), or are they separate yet related dimensions of the gospel; or something else?
A fourth cluster of questions deals with the relational dimensions of full life in Christ. What is the relationship between my experience of full life in Christ and your experience of it? Can a person experience this life outside of relationship? How predominantly does full life in Jesus flow along relational lines to reach those who do not yet follow him? How privatized can evangelism be? How communal should it be?
Philip Potter believes that the experience of full life cannot be privatized, but must include participation in extending that full life to others. According to his biographer, Potter believes that “the way of Christ (an open door) is always to welcome and enable others to share in a full life.”30 Rodney Stark underscores this issue as well, claiming that “the basis for successful conversionist movements is growth through social networks, through a structure of direct and intimate interpersonal attachments.”31 An important claim in this book, therefore, is that full life in Christ cannot be experienced, expressed, or shared outside the scope of relationships, nor at the expense of other persons.
The U.S. American Context of the Study
The scope of this project is limited to the U.S. American context. Given the complexity of U.S. American demographics and the presence of multiple ways of seeing the world, it is difficult (if not impossible) to describe the U.S. American context. There are a great many ethnic and linguistic expressions represented in the United States. Additionally, there are varying worldviews that shape how persons see and respond to the world. There is a vast array of literature, for example, concerning modern, postmodern, and post-postmodern worldview dynamics.32 Moreover, some scholars believe that generational differences can enlighten us concerning cultural and/or worldview variations, so that in recent years words such as Boomers, Millennials, and Xers have crept into our vocabulary.33 Additionally, we could point to the divergent political views that are represented in the United States, as well as the broad array of religious (or irreligious) perspectives. Any perceptive observer of the U.S. American context will understand that it includes a diverse representation of many viewpoints.
In spite of this divergent scene, however, there is a consistent coherence among certain key elements of how Americans in general think and act in their daily lives. Robert Bellah, for example, suggests that through the “institutions” of the state and the free enterprise market, by way of their “agencies” of television and education, “there is an enormously powerful common culture in America.”34 Gary Althen and Janet Bennett note that even though there is wide-ranging diversity in the U.S. American context, when one compares U.S. Americans with people from other nations (such as the Japanese, for example), “it becomes clear that certain attitudes and behaviors are much more characteristic of the Americans and others are far more typical of the Japanese.”35 Claude Fischer writes that in spite of the “changes, spikes, sideways moves, and reversals” that may be discerned in U.S. history, “continuity is a striking feature of American culture,” so that “what seemed socially distinctive about America in the eighteenth century still seems distinctive in the twenty-first.”36
This does not mean that all Americans think and act precisely