A review of Mark Dever's "The Gospel & Personal Evangelism"

It has been a few years since I read a decent book on the subject of evangelism. The last book I read on the subject was "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J.I. Packer. I had not found a basic introduction to the subject of evangelism that is accessible to the average church goer, and that examines the subject from multiple points of view. That is, until I read Mark Dever's "The Gospel & Personal Evangelism," which I would recommend as a must read for any Reformed Christian seeking to pursue evangelism in the context of the local church. The chapters mainly deal with questions that the average Christian has about evangelism, such as; Why don't we evangelize, what is the Gospel, who should evangelize, how should we evangelize and what isn't evangelism. What I found to be one of the most powerful aspects of the book was the many stories about evangelists in church history that were scattered throughout the chapters. In fact, the book opens up with a very engaging story about an evangelist aboard the Titanic which is so interesting and encouraging to the aspiring evangelist, that I will not give any details beyond that in order to spur on your interest to pick the book up yourself. Dever then answers the question of why we don't evangelize and then continues on to define what the Gospel is. Most of this will be review for the average Christian, but it is always helpful to be reminded of the basics. We need to eat, sleep, and breath the basics because evangelism is the act of taking 'the basics' out to those who presumably have never heard them before.
Of particular interest to those of us from a more traditional Reformed background is his chapter on who should evangelize. Many Christians in Reformed churches seem to think that evangelism is only the activity of a select few at the very least, and others seem to implicitly think that it is a task only for ordained ministers. Unfortunately in a large number of Reformed churches not only do little, if any evangelize, but often even the ministers do not actively engage in evangelism. Through many Scriptures and comments of respected Bible scholars, Dever demonstrates that evangelism, while a gift to a select few, ought to be pursued in some avenue by all Christians. His main texts for this are Acts 8:1-4, and 1 Peter 3:15,16, which read as follows:

And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Philip Proclaims Christ in Samaria Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. (Acts 8:1-4)

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:15,16)

Clearly 1 Peter 3 is aimed at all Christians addressed in Peter's letter, and Acts 8 seems to insinuate that all the Christians who were scattered preached the word as they went. Dever also give several examples of people evangelizing who were not ordained ministers of the Word.

While I found these chapters refreshing and revitalizing to my own pursuits of evangelism, the chapters on how to evangelize and what isn't evangelism were the most convicting and applicable. Dever seems to be open to various forms of making contact in evangelism. Often direct street evangelism is called 'contact evangelism,' but all evangelism is going to involve a contact between individuals even if it is in the context of a progressing relationship with a non-Christian. Often 'friendship evangelism' is labeled 'relational evangelism,' but all evangelism is relational, even if it is with a complete stranger on a street corner. Rather than focusing on methods of contacting unbelievers, Dever focuses more on defining for us what evangelism is in context of communicating the Gospel to an unbeliever. He writes in several sub-points that there needs to be a balance in our approach between honesty, urgency, and joy. His reasoning for this is as follows:

Honesty and urgency with no joy gives us a grim determination (read Philippians). Honesty and joy with no urgency gives us a carelessness about time (read 2 Peter). And urgency and joy with no honesty leads us into distorted claims about immediate benefits of the gospel (read 1 Peter). (Dever, pg 60)

His specific suggestions for the task include; prayer, using the Bible and using the church. What particularly struck me and resonated with my previous thoughts on evangelism, was his recommendation that we try and provoke self-reflection in the unbeliever. In some of the best evangelism encounters that I have engaged in or observed others engage in, self-reflection on the part of the unbeliever was a cornerstone of the conversation. Even the Way of the Master, while being a more rigid form of evangelism, uses this principle in trying to use the Law, coupled with questions, to help the non-Christian see their own sin. Dever writes these encouraging words:

Ask good questions and listen to their answers. Explore them. You may be helping them to enunciate and articulate their own thinking for the first time ever. And you don't even need to try to pretend that this is easy for you. (Dever 66)

One last subject which he covered that I found very comforting and helpful to the task of evangelism, was his chapter on what isn't evangelism. The last false idea of evangelism that he addressed in the chapter was the tendency that we have to view evangelism as the act of winning converts. How often have we been discouraged in evangelism, sought out non-Biblical means, or felt that we needed to be overbearing in the lives of unbelievers because we thought that the fruit of evangelism was the same as evangelism. Of course we should hope for conversion, but every good Calvinist knows that evangelism is what we do with God's help, while conversion is the monergistic work of the Triune God. Of course we should seek to follow up with those whom we evangelize, and we definitely want to disciple those who are willing. But we ought not look at the few instances which produce such results as 'success,' and the rest as failure. We fail at evangelism when we do not accurately present the Gospel, or neglect to present it at all, not when we ourselves fail to see fruit. In many ways our 'success' and 'results' driven culture probably influences our attitudes here. But I also think this tendency of ours is more universal, as we see men in their sensuality throughout the Bible desiring to make images of God, making idols with their own hands, and desiring to walk by sight rather than faith. Dever rightly observes that this mentality can lead to feelings of failure, aversion, and guilt when evangelism doesn't go a smoothly as it is 'supposed' to. In quoting another book he writes:

To evangelize is to declare on the authority of God what he has done to save sinners, to warn men of their lost condition, to direct them to repent, and to believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Dever 80)

There is much more that is covered in this book, and everyone will probably find different parts significant, enlightening, and encouraging. If I were to summarize what I found most significant and the overall message of "The Gospel and Personal Evangelism," I can only quote the conclusion of the book.

We do not fail in our evangelism if we faithfully tell the gospel to someone who is not subsequently converted; we fail only if we do not faithfully tell the gospel at all.

George Carlin, the Law of God, and the Gospel of Christ

In my pre-Christian days, in what could be termed my 'hippie phase,' I enjoyed studying religion, philosophy, and the 'big questions' of life. I remember once during this time, I had been watching one of George Carlin's HBO gigs in which he went on one of his typical social critiques in the realm of religion. Most of what he had to say was aimed at the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, but in many non-Christian's eyes, those people and institutions are a good representation of religion and Christianity in particular. After comically ranting for a bit, he moved immediately into criticizing the Christian Theistic perspective in its entirety by saying something along these lines:

There's an all-powerful God, whose all-knowing, and all-wise and he has 10 things he DOES NOT want you to do, and if you do them, then he will condemn you to an eternity of suffering and torment in a place called hell... (raising his eyebrows while putting on a cheesy smile) ... but he LOVES you!


The crowd erupted in laughter and so did I, as I further hardened by heart to the Gospel in favor of the 'new age' spirituality which I was pursuing, until the Holy Spirit regenerated me and drew me to Gospel years later. As much as I get frustrated by the sophomoric arguments of George Carlin and those who have labeled themselves as the 'New Atheist' (still trying to figure out what's new), the reception to such arguments by members of our society are quite revealing as to how the public perceives the Christian faith. Honestly, if that is what the substance of the Christian faith was via creedal formula, then indeed it would seem quite arbitrary and nonsensical. As a Calvinist reflecting upon such matters, it becomes quite clear that centuries of faulty preaching have taken their tole. Whether it be Arminians preaching about how God loves everybody equally, or theological liberalism's concept of the 'universal fatherhood of God' in which He is merely a grandfather figure wearing a Cosby sweater up above, many of the errors and heresies propagated in church can be observed in people’s misapprehension and confusion about the Christian faith. If 'the man upstairs' just wants us to be nice and somehow 'needs us' because 'he needs something to love' and cannot in anyway be said to have a holy hatred for sinners but just despises their sins, then how can any kind of judgment make sense? The applause given to the flimsy arguments of angry atheists also sheds light on the church’s failure to properly expound upon the Law of God, making it easy for the idea that the 10 commandments are some sort of arbitrary legislation instituted by God for no good reason to be commonly accepted. This means that if we are going to take the task of evangelism in our post-Christian society seriously, we are going to have to communicate clearly concerning the Law of God in order that, Lord willing, people may be awakened to a sense of sin.

An issue which we need to recognize when we are sharing our faith, is that the world does not think about God the way we do. It is easy when you are surrounded by Christians all day, go to a Christian school and listen to Christian music, to forget that a fundamental truth which makes the Gospel 'click' is not a category of thought in most people's minds. That is, the fact that God is a holy God and can in no way clear the guilty (Ex. 34:7). This is not merely some abstract or esoteric truth, but is something very concrete and fundamental to human experience. In fact, this is so fundamental and terrifying to the human soul that, according to the Apostle Paul, the whole human race is in denial while also suppressing this truth. He writes:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:18-20)

Paul proceeds by elaborating on how man in this condition engages in idolatry in order to create a god that suites his own 'felt needs.' This behavior of sin and shameful suppression can be seen in the Genesis account, when Adam hid from God's theophanic presence. From Scripture then, we are aware that man in his fallen state knows God and the moral law. As Paul writes in Romans 2, even the Gentiles show through the activity of their conscience that the natural law is written on their hearts (Rom. 2:14,15). Which brings us back to those "10 things God DOES NOT want you to do." The Decalogue is God's written revelation of the natural law and has its foundation in the holiness of God. Francis Turretin defines it as being "founded in the perfectly just and holy nature of God" (Institutes Vol. 2, pg.2). As the creature's Creator and the source of all life and existence, the first four commandments illustrate man's duty towards God. The last six illustrate man's duty towards man on account of him being in God's image. For example, since God alone is the author of life, only He has the right to take a man's life, therefore, unlawful killing is man's rebellious attempt to become a god himself (Gen. 3:5). Because the institution of marriage is ordained by God and He draws men and women together (Mt. 19:6), it is necessary that we guard our neighbor's chastity in order that their sexual nature (and ours) be guarded for the ends that God has created them. The relationship of worship and the way we treat our neighbor is so intertwined that the Apostle Paul goes so far as to define covetousness as idolatry (Col. 3:5). How many times have we hurt others, or been injured ourselves by a friend who worshipped money, fame, or recognition and used the friendship as simply a means to attain that end? Far from being some arbitrary list that 'God came up with,' the 10 commandments are what God has given to define what morality and love truly are. This is why Jesus sums up the 10 commandments as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself" (Lk. 10:27). The 10 commandments then are a tool to awaken men from their hardness of heart and denial, to recognize that they have sinned against both God and their own nature by violating the natural law written on their own hearts. Francis Turretin affirmed this relationship between the natural law (written on the heart) and the moral law (written in the Decalogue):

The same duties (both toward God and toward our neighbor) prescribed by the moral law are also contained in the natural law. The difference is with regard to the mode of delivery. In the moral law, these duties are clearly, distinctly and fully declared; while in the natural law they are obscurely and imperfectly declared both because many intimations have been lost and obliterated by sin and because it has been variously corrupted by the vanity and wickedness of men (Institutes Vol. 2, pgs. 6-7)

Probably the best example of how to present the Law in relation to the Gospel in evangelism that I have seen are the methods of The Way of the Master. In fact, the Way of the Master is what the Lord used to convert me. A good overview of how they present the Law to unbelievers can be found at http://www.areyouagoodperson.org/ . The more I engage in evangelism the less I like “fixed” methods, as they often become a crutch to lean on, that leads to not really connecting with people and a loss of credibility. What I like about the Way of the Master is that it is focused upon placing the Law before someone and letting their own conscience accuse them. I hope in a future blog post to elaborate on the many ways in which that can be done rather than always saying some like: “Have you ever told a lie before? What does that make you?” The point is that we cannot share the good news without talking about sin and condemnation, which is the bad news the Gospel remedies. To drive that home I would like present a few texts that illustrate my point:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:19,20 ESV)

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul. (Ps. 19:7a NKJV)

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4 ESV)

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24 ESV)

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Gal. 3:4,5 ESV)

The fact that Jesus Christ is the second Adam, who obeyed the Law perfectly, resisted the temptations of the devil, and took upon the penalty that we deserve for being lawless makes sense in light of the Law and sin. Remember, people’s main issue is a moral problem not an intellectual one, the latter follows from the former. That is why apart from regeneration, even our best, most reasonable presentation of the Law to the likes of people such as Dawkins, Hitchens, or Carlin will be ignored or twisted in order to make God seem unreasonable or even evil. As even the Psalmist writes, "with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous" (Ps. 18:26 ESV). When we go around and just tell people “Jesus loves you,” or make other issues in the economy of redemption more important than sin, we are not ‘being nice’ to people, as we are helping them deflect from the issues at hand and adding fuel to the fire. We also are not honoring God or being faithful to the Gospel. Furthermore, by making Him seem trite and man centered while adapting the Gospel to magnify the aims of secularism's goal to merely improve the temporal realm, in the terminology of William Ockham, we are making God appear unnecessary. To that I will respond in similar words to a famous pastor from Grandville, MI, “soft-peddling, ‘love wins,’ nice-guy… I just don’t think it’s working…”