Review Essay: Evangelism after Pluralism, by Bryan Stone

Bryan Stone, Evangelism after Pluralism: The Ethics of Christian Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018)

Reading Bryan Stone’s Evangelism after Pluralism left me very much in two minds. I found myself agreeing with much of what he says. And yet, I also found myself in profound disagreement with much of the book. Indeed, Stone himself devotes a chapter to critiquing my earlier book, The Ethics of Evangelism: A Philosophical Defence of Proselytizing and Persuasion (Paternoster Press and IVP Academic, 2011). I was of course also reading Stone’s book in the light of my most recent book, The Scandal of Evangelism: A Biblical Study of the Ethics of Evangelism (Cascade Books, 2018), which came out the same year as Stone’s book under review here. Stone has also written an earlier book, Evangelism After Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness (Brazos Press, 2007). This review essay attempts to understand where and how I can agree and disagree with Stone at the same time.

Much of Stone’s book involves an exploration of three dominant characteristics of our contemporary world, misleadingly labelled “pluralisms” – empire (chs. 3 & 4), the nation-state and its military (chs. 5 & 6), and a consumer culture (ch. 7). I describe the label “pluralisms” as misleading because Stone argues that these pluralisms are at the same time powerful unities that shape our world and the church today. I found Stone’s combining the notions of pluralisms and unities confusing. But for Stone a careful analysis of these pluralisms/unities is important because they have shaped and distorted the ways in which Christians understand and practice evangelism. Here it is important to note that in these chapters Stone is primarily dealing with and critiquing evangelism as understood in the traditional sense of the verbal proclamation of the gospel.

In his introductory chapter Stone identifies three ways in which these pluralisms/unities have constricted the Christian evangelistic imagination. His third point is really a summary statement: “[T]he powerful unities of empire, nation, and market capture our allegiances, captivate our imaginations, and cultivate vices that undercut and erode the Christian life, not to mention our capacity for bearing faithful witness to the good news” (p. 12). The first two points are more specific. First, these pluralisms/unities “eclipse difference and diminish the importance of and respect for those who have been rendered ‘other’” (p. 12). Secondly, they “force us into competitive modes of comparison and judgment, leading Christians to think we must secure a space in the world for the good news, which largely ends up distorting the good news” (p. 12).

Stone gives us another summary statement in his Epilogue. Evangelism, traditionally understood as proclamation, has become distorted when “the good news is imposed imperially, defended with intellectually airtight arguments, or subjected to the logic of marketplace exchanges” (p. 140). For Stone the ethics of evangelism should be rooted in “an ethics that is fundamentally self-emptying, gratuitous, and pacifist,” but sadly given the cultural ethos of empire, militarism, and consumption, the traditional approach to evangelism as proclamation is grounded in “an ethics of conquering, defending, securing, and grasping” (p. 140).

Now I happen to agree with Stone that these pluralisms/unities can and indeed have at times distorted the way in which the gospel has traditionally been proclaimed. Historically, missionary efforts have been hitched to the “the expansionist logic of empire” (p. 32). All too often Christianity has been “domesticated” by empire, even to the point of “playing chaplain to the empire” (pp.80, 27-32). But how often has this happened? Missionaries have also often stood over against colonialists as has been documented in anthropological studies (see my Ethics of Evangelism, pp. 96-103). Indeed, Stone is forced to concede that evangelism hasn’t been completely overtaken by empire. There have always been Christians who have understood the church’s mission in terms of “counterimperial witness to the nonviolence of God’s reign” (p. 32). So it is possible to proclaim the good news without being subject to the corrupting influences of empire. Unfortunately, Stone tends to treat this subject in all-or-nothing categories. Stone needs to do more by way of engaging in the hard work of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influences of empire on evangelism.

Another way of putting this is that Stone tends to foist an interpretive grid on evangelism which makes evangelism as proclamation look bad. He joins other theologians today who are preoccupied with the notion of empire and who define “empire” as a “totalizing and colonizing project” (p. 75). Of course evangelism that is then associated with empire will of necessity also be seen as totalizing and evil. But we must beware of arbitrary interpretive grids. Let’s engage in the hard work of critically evaluating our interpretive frameworks. Is empire really all bad? And what about the empire within the church? Within each of us?

Similar problems arise with Stone’s other pluralisms/unities. In Chapter 5 we are given a lengthy treatment of the U.S. military and evangelism within the U.S. military – a diversion, I felt. Then in Chapter 6 Stone argues that the church has been shaped “by a pervasive culture of violence, war-making, and coercion” (p. 76). By implication, evangelism as proclamation is also seen as violent and coercive, by its very nature. But surely this is again an arbitrary definition, resting on an interpretive grid (“critical theory”)which sees all persuasion as violent. Again we need to ask the hard question as to exactly what we mean by coercion and violence. Are there not degrees of coercion and violence? Can we separate pacifism and violence as sharply as Stone assumes?

Finally, Stone argues that evangelism has also been shaped by our consumer culture which then leads to competition and a “marketplace rationality” (p. 85). Individual choice is of course at the heart of a consumer culture (p. 86). As a result religious traditions become commodities which therefore need to be promoted (p. 91). While I believe our consumer culture has tainted our thinking and practice in much of our lives, I’m not sure this is the primary cause of what seems to be a competitive approach in evangelism. Surely the fact of a plurality of religions and worldviews is a major contributing factor. Competition is inescapable within a context of a plurality of belief systems. I will have more to say about pluralism later. I would argue further that consumption is simply part of human nature. So again what is needed is a careful delineation between ethical and unethical consumption and competition.

Stone argues that consumer culture and a marketplace rationality also has a distorting influence on the aim of evangelism where there is now a preoccupation with results and church growth (pp. 13, 29, 94). Interestingly, Stone argues that this distortion is also a result of the culture of violence and coercion that is part of the nation-state (pp. 79-80). Again there is a problem of either-or thinking here – a pacifist ethics of evangelism claims “that a Christian ethics is an ethics of witness rather than an ethics of results” (p. 79 – my emphasis). But surely some consideration of results is inescapable when doing evangelism. Indeed, Stone himself is forced to admit that his approach to embodied witness “hopes for the begetting, passing along, or reproduction of faith” (p. 119). I will have more to say about Stone’s resistance to results-oriented evangelism later in this review.

I now want to shift focus and consider our differing conceptions of evangelism. I have already referred to evangelism understood in the traditional sense of the verbal proclamation of the good news. I believe this is the New Testament concept of evangelism (see chap. 1 of my Scandal of Evangelism). Stone has a very different notion of evangelism. Already in chapter 1 we are told that “the practice of evangelism as the faithful and embodied offer of good news is first and foremost grounded in the habits, disciplines, stories, practices, gestures, and social patterns by which our lives are lived and ordered together as the body of Christ before a watching world” (p. 9). We are then told that the good news is “a new way of life” and what is needed is a church that embodies this new way of life (p. 9). Salvation is not “an experience to be passively received or a set of propositions to be assented to,” but “a way to be embarked upon, a way we forgive each other’s sins, a way we love and include those who are different from us, a way we welcome the poor, a way we love our enemies … and a way the world’s hierarchies are turned upside down in Christlike patterns of fellowship” (p. 9). Or, to put it another way, “Ethics is evangelism,” a point which Stone repeats over and over again in the book (pp. 9, 17, 28, 97, 100). In other words, evangelism for Stone is reduced to embodied “witness” – a term that Stone prefers to “evangelism.” “For all that a Christian is and does is a witness to the gospel and may thus be properly taken as evangelistic” (p. 79).

Now I quite agree that embodied witness is very important. Indeed, in my later book I identify “incarnational witness” as a foundational guideline for ethical evangelism. “Ethical evangelism embodies the good news being proclaimed. Ethical evangelists are people of good character, living exemplary lives and doing good deeds. They speak and act with a clear conscience before God and man” (Scandal of Evangelism, p. 113). But note the difference here. I do not say incarnational witness is evangelism. Instead, I describe embodied witness as an essential ingredient of ethical evangelism where evangelism is understood as proclamation of the gospel. Stone tends to deemphasize evangelism as proclamation. Of course he can’t completely eliminate proclamation, and hence his occasional concession to speaking words, telling “stories,” and “sharing” the faith” (pp. 9, 112, 120). But in the main, the traditional understanding of evangelism as the verbal proclamation of good news is treated dismissively and is described in derogatory terms.

I want to suggest that Stone’s concept of evangelism is not in keeping with a New Testament definition of evangelism. I am well aware that there are what one missiologist has described as a “bewildering variety of interpretations of evangelism” (quoted in my Scandal of Evangelism, p. 7). But I believe the dominant meaning given to evangelism in the New Testament has to do with the verbal proclamation of the gospel. There are three main word groups used to capture the core meaning of evangelism – euaggelizesthai (to “tell good news”), marturein (to “bear witness”), and kērussein (to “proclaim”). Jesus began his ministry by preaching the good news(Luke 4:18). Jesus himself gave his disciples and us the mandate for evangelism in what is often referred to as the Great Commission. In Luke 24:48, Jesus commissions the disciples to be his “witnesses of these things.” The book of Acts gives us another version of this commissioning. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The word “witness” used in Luke and Acts is primarily a legal term which was frequently used in Greek to denote witness to facts and events, or to truths vouched for. This meaning of “witness” continues to this day within the legal context, where witnesses, and sometimes “expert witnesses,” are called to give testimony in court cases.

The early disciples clearly acted in obedience to this mandate. Thus, we find Peter, in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah to an audience representing many nations (Acts 2:14-42). Later Paul, after his own dramatic conversion, tirelessly traveled the then known world pleading with Jews and Gentiles to find salvation in Jesus Christ. Near the end of his life he explains his motive and mission in his letter to the church at Rome: “I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Rom 1:14-16). If our concept of evangelism doesn’t include verbal proclamation of the good news, then we are no longer being true to the witness of the New Testament.

I would argue further that the New Testament makes a clear distinction between evangelism as proclamation and what Stone refers to as incarnational witness. Jesus defined his mission in terms of preaching the gospel and releasing the captives, healing the blind and freeing the oppressed (Luke 4:18–19 – my emphasis). Jesus also called his disciples both to preach the good news and to heal the sick (Luke 9 & 10). The early believers prayed fervently for boldness in proclaiming the gospel, and also that God would give them the power to heal and to perform miraculous signs and wonders (Acts 4:29–30). Paul in his description of the “cosmic Christ” talks both about “reconciling” to himself “all things,” and about reconciling individuals to Jesus Christ (Col 1:19, 22). I therefore suggest that if we want to follow Jesus’ way, we must distinguish between incarnational witness and evangelism/proclamation, both at a conceptual and at a practical level.

Stone objects to this position, also held by Ronald Sider, who maintains that “it is confusing and misleading” to identify social action with evangelism (quoted in Stone, p. 97). Stone argues that Sider’s and my position “buys into a bifurcation of the personal and the social, logically prioritizes the former (even if it does not want to denigrate the latter), and thereby inherits all of the impossible wrangling over what to do with the social once one accepts that dualism” (p. 98). My response is simply that if Jesus and the early church distinguished between proclamation and incarnational witness, then so should we.

Now I agree with Stone that when one accepts this dualism there are some additional problems that need to be addressed in defining the relationship between evangelism and social action. But I don’t think these problems are insurmountable (see my Scandal of Evangelism, chap. 10). What is quite clear from the New Testament is that Christians and the church must both proclaim the good news and be engaged in social action. Sometimes we will do both at the same time, and sometimes we will do them separately. But we must never equate the two. Nor must we think that the church’s mission is completed if we limit ourselves to social action.

There is one further problem with Stone’s equation of evangelism with corporate witness and social action. Again I want to stress that I agree with Stone that corporate witness and social action are important. There is obviously something right about an emphasis on preaching the gospel without words. Jesus describes his disciples as the salt of the earth and the light of the world in the Sermon on the Mount. The apostle Peter seems to be reflecting his Master’s words when he encourages us to do good and to live such good lives among the pagans that they will be forced to glorify God on the day of judgment (1 Pet 2:12). Peter even gives a specific example of the importance of nonverbal witness when he encourages believing wives who have an unbelieving husband to behave in such an exemplary way that “they may be won over without talk” (1 Pet 3:1).

What is misleading here is the failure to understand the nature of nonverbal witness. The silent witness of the early Christians was never really completely silent. Peter’ advice assumes that the Christian identity of the wife will have been known to the unbelieving husband. Some words will have been spoken at some earlier point in time. No further talk is needed. Given what has preceded, the wife can rely on the fact that her actions can speak louder than further words. Similarly, the corporate witness of a church is always done within a particular context. The Christian identity of the church will surely be known by most people in the surrounding area. So words have already been spoken.

I agree that actions can convey a message. The problem is that actions alone cannot speak unambiguously. Giving aid to a foreigner, for example, can be interpreted as an act of Christian love, but such an action can equally well be the work of a terrorist organization seeking to win your allegiance. So, actions by themselves can be variously interpreted. It is only if they are put into a particular context, only if they are interpreted using words, that they can begin to speak in a less ambiguous manner.

We also need to keep in mind that the gospel is finally a story, a wonderful story of God’s actions to redeem a world that has been badly distorted by sin. This biblical story cannot be told by mere actions. It needs to be expressed in words. That is why Paul asks a number of rhetorical questions after making the claim, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How can those who do not believe call on the name of the Lord? How can people come to believe if they have not heard the gospel? And how can they hear the gospel unless someone preaches it to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? Conclusion: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Rom 10:13–15). The church must never forget the importance of telling the story of Jesus in words, even while being engaged in social action. Interestingly, Stone refers to this specific passage in Chapter 9 where he highlights the beauty of the gospel and the importance of living “beautifully before a watching world” (p. 133). But Paul is talking about verbal proclamation of the gospel in this passage. I would remind Stone that exegesis requires faithfulness to the text.

I turn now to Stone’s specific critique of my position in Chapter 2. As should already be apparent, Stone will disagree with my definition of evangelism as “seeking to bring about a religious conversion in another” (p. 15). He repeatedly reminds us that he does not like the idea of converting someone else. He maintains that the ethics of evangelism “has nothing to do with whether our attempts to produce conversions are carried out ethically or unethically, since evangelism is not an attempt to produce conversions in the first place” (p. 17; cf. pp. 92, 122). A focus on conversion lends itself to “the logic of production, competition, or winning” (p. 17). He contrasts his own “witness-oriented evangelism” with my “results-oriented evangelism” (p. 24).

There are many problems here. I worry about the positing of artificial either-or statements. I am just as concerned about an ethics of faithful witness as is Stone. And it is simply disingenuous to claim that embodied witness has no relation to converting someone else. Surely Stone is hoping that the faithful witness of the church will lead others to follow Jesus’ way. Indeed, Stone concludes Chapter 2 by quoting Jesus’ great commission to his disciples at the end of Matthew where he tells them to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything that he has commanded (p. 24). Surely this is all about conversion. Elsewhere too, Stone cannot help but appeal to the notion of conversion (pp. 39, 112, 119).

I would further remind Stone that I am just as concerned about an overemphasis on results and church growth as he is. In my later book I specifically identify the following as one guideline for ethical evangelism: “Ethical evangelism is not pre-occupied with results, success, numbers of converts, or church growth. These should be seen as a by-product of ethical evangelism, not a motivating force. Ethical evangelism is even content with failure. It also does not compete with others” (Scandal of Evangelism, p. 132).

Stone also distorts the biblical notion of “witness.” In Chapter 2 he refers to Acts 1:8, but he interprets Jesus’ words in terms of the church “being made witnesses” (p. 24). However, Jesus’ actual words are that “you will be my witnesses” (my emphasis). As I have already argued, the Greek term used for “witness” here is a legal term used for giving verbal testimony in court. So once again we see that Stone’s definition of evangelism as embodied witness is not faithful to the biblical text.

Stone also has concerns about my appeal to a universal moral foundation that is shared by all people (pp. 21-24). He prefers instead an “ecclesial ethics” which begins with “the distinctiveness of Jesus Christ and his way and the particularity of a people,” called by God, namely, the church (p. 22). There are some huge theological issues at stake here which I cannot do justice to in a short essay. But I would remind Stone that a stress on the distinctiveness of a churchly ethics will in the end entail that the church has nothing to offer the world. Indeed, a robust Christology sees Jesus as creator of the entire universe including the norms that govern all creation and all people. Hence, the beautiful image of Isaiah where people from all nations come to the mountain of the LORD to be taught the laws of the kingdom (Isa 2:2-3). God has built laws into creation, and hence the notion of “natural law” appealed to by many theologians. It is natural law that allows us to communicate about ethics with people outside of the church. So there is a basis for commonality in ethics between Christians and people adhering to other religions and worldviews.

Indeed, Stone’s emphasis on corporate witness of the church assumes an isolationism that is simply not biblical. His ideal seems to be monastic communities that exemplify Christ in this world (pp. 101-5). Now I agree that this is one way in which the church can be present in the world. But it is not the only way, and it may in fact not be the ideal way. Jesus was clearly very much present in the midst of a messy world. In his high priestly prayer Jesus specifically prays that his disciples will be protected from evil even as they are sent into the world (John 17). Though the church is certainly meant to be a distinctive community, a holy priesthood, its purpose is to “proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9). Note the word “proclaim” once again, a derivative of the Greek euaggelizesthai, which means to tell the good news. To reject this as part of the function of the church is to betray the New Testament concept of the church. ??

There is another issue at stake with Stone’s emphasis on ecclesial witness. He frequently objects to an understanding of salvation as individual and interior. For example, despite Sider’s obvious concern about social ethics, Stone chastises Sider for bowing to the “consensus within evangelicalism that salvation is primarily about the individual, is other-worldly in orientation (focused on determining one’s afterlife status), and is therefore ‘spiritual’ in the narrow sense of being private and interior. What is missing is a robust sense that salvation is inherently social from the outset, precisely because it is an incorporation into the body of Christ” (p. 98; cf. pp. 33, 35, 43, 46 , 66, 119, 123, 139). Now I agree that salvation involves incorporation into the body of Christ, but it is as individuals that we are incorporated into the church. Again, it is not a question of either-or. We are both saved as individuals and incorporated into the body of Christ. Jesus was repeatedly calling for an individual response to his message. In his revealing dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus specifically says “no one (no individual) can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). Then comes the oft-quoted verse in John 3:6: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone (every single individual) who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” It is rather clear that we are talking here about individual salvation.

Now I quite agree that all too often evangelicals have focused too much on personal salvation as determining one’s afterlife status, but this certainly can’t be said of Sider, nor me, nor many evangelicals who have a robust sense of the social implications of salvation for the present life. Sider and I both view salvation as having both individual and social implications here on earth. Evangelism, as I define it includes a call to individual repentance and a turning away from sin. But sin is both personal and structural. Zacchaeus conversion surely included both a turning away from personal sin and a declaration of compensation to those he had exploited within the structural evil of a system of tax collection that he had been a part of (Luke 19:1–6). Jesus declared, “Today, salvation has come to this house.” Evangelism had both individual and social implications here. So there are connections between evangelism and social action. What I am objecting to is Stone’s reduction of salvation to a public way of life in the here and now.

A final concern I have with Stone’s analysis of the ethics of evangelism has to do with his treatment of the implications of pluralism. Stone believes that evangelism must somehow be different given the phenomenon of pluralism. The main title of the book is suggestive, Evangelism after Pluralism. Stone is arguing that evangelism should look different given the fact of pluralism (see esp. ch.8 “Evangelism and Pluralistic Theologies of Religion,” and the “Epilogue: The Meaninglessness of Apologetics”). Although Stone does say that “a commitment to religious diversity does not mean we would need to be ashamed of the gospel,” it would seem that religious diversity does rule out “in-your-face evangelism (p. 136). Here we again find Stone expressing concerns about competition, persuasion, and apologetics (p. 138). He worries about the arrogance of those who claim to have the absolute truth when evangelizing (p. 110). And again there is concern about wanting to convert someone to your own version of the truth (p. 122).

So what are the implications of pluralism for evangelism, according to Stone? “Christian evangelism must ever remain uninterested in competing for space in the world or triumphing over other faiths in a crowded market of options” (p. 116). Stone also points to Jesus who “when put on trial before the world’s religious political, and intellectual authorities, was silent” (p. 140). And once again, Stone emphasizes the importance of embodied witness, living out the beauty of the gospel to a watching world (ch. 9).

 There are a number of problems here. Surely there is something very wrong about using the example of Jesus’ silence before the authorities at his trial to draw the general conclusion that we should be silent in the face of religious pluralism. Jesus spent a lot of time proclaiming the good news even while living in the context of a plurality of religions and worldviews. Paul was a bold evangelist in very metropolitan cities where religious pluralism was obvious. Religious diversity is not a new phenomenon of the 21^st. century, as Stone seems to assume. The gospel was proclaimed in the midst of pluralism right from the beginning. And if we are followers of Jesus we should do the same. I would also remind Stone that it is possible to proclaim and defend the gospel without being arrogant or intolerant (see my Ethics of Evangelism, Part II).

So, in the end, how do I understand my agreement and disagreement with Bryan Stone. I agree with his warnings about the dangers of the church accommodating to the pluralisms/unities of empire, nation/state militarism, and consumerism. I agree with his condemnation of any form of coercion in evangelism. I agree with his adoption of a pacifist approach to evangelism. I agree with his denunciation of result-oriented evangelism. I agree with his demand for respect for the other when evangelising. And I also agree that “embodied witness” is very important.

So where do we disagree We come from quite different theological starting points. Stone is a liberal Methodist and I am an evangelical Anabaptist. Stone identifies with “justice-seeking Christians” and sees people like Ron Sider and me as “adopting a form of Christianity allied with empire” because we believe in evangelism understood as proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ (p. 31). I categorically reject this association with empire. I would also remind Stone that Ron Sider and I are just as committed to seeking justice as he is. We just want to balance justice-seeking with evangelism understood as verbal proclamation. Stone assumes that evangelism understood as proclamation of the good news is necessarily corrupted by its association with his three pluralisms/unities – empire, nation/state militarism and consumerism. I believe this connection is not necessary. I believe evangelism as proclamation can be done in an ethical manner.

In effect, Stone’s reference to “evangelism” in the title of his book is quite misleading. He isn’t really talking about evangelism, but about the fruits of evangelism, about Christian discipleship, about being a faithful church in following Jesus’ way. As an Anabaptist I too am very concerned about following Jesus’ way. Let’s just remember that following Jesus also includes the verbal proclamation of the story of Jesus. Of course salvation is bigger than personal salvation, and it is here where Stone fails to see that those who believe in evangelism as proclamation can and often do acknowledge the importance of a broader notion of salvation and all its social implications. Unfortunately, Stone rules out the personal dimension of salvation and therewith also the need for evangelism understood as proclaiming the good news of forgiveness from personal sin. I am both a justice-seeking Christian and a Christian who seeks to follow Jesus in proclaiming the good news of salvation so that all can both hear the gospel of forgiveness from sin and see the beauty of the gospel in an embodied witness.

(See also my article that grew out of this review essay: “The Reconstruction of Evangelism by Liberal Protestants: An Evangelical Response,” in Evangelical Review of Theology (forthcoming, Nov., 2020).