See a video version of this article here.
I have a series of commentaries to offer on the process of modern evangelism and its relation (or rather, in practice, lack thereof) to apologetics. We’ll begin with a thesis that I want to not only rock the boat with, but perhaps sink it as well:
Personal testimony is a damaging, destructive, and undesirable form of evangelism that ought to be abandoned.
This is a hard thesis to swallow, I know. Every evangelistic program makes personal testimony the centerpiece of evangelism. “Jesus can change your life, like he did mine” is the theme of every evangelist from Billy Graham on down the line. But let’s face it, for all the respect Graham and others may have accrued, it is clear that their practices have in the long run produced a raft of shallow converts (who sometimes “walk the aisle” and “make a decision” multiple times in their lives) and a church that is slowly dying in the West, and may well disappear in the next 30 years. As the saying goes, it is not so much foolish to do something that does not work, but to do it again and again expecting different and better results.
Here I’d like to start by explaining why personal testimony has been, and always will be, such a regrettable and ultimately useless (in the long run) evangelistic practice. I’ll present five reasons why personal testimony needs to be abandoned as a practice in evangelism. Then I’ll move to describing what I think needs to be put in its place.
Background to start: Some years back I wrote an article for the Christian Research Journal titled “When Apologetics Was Evangelism” which you can read at this location.
I’ll be referring to it frequently in these next few essays; in part what I say here is an update to, and continuation of, what I wrote there, after some years of reflection. I’ll still allow that personal testimony can have a certain limited use -- inasmuch as it is a form of evidence, albeit of the weakest, most questionable sort – but I’ll further develop in later essays some points about how I think evangelism should be conducted (obviously – no secret here – with a far more apologetic slant).
Reason One: It has enabled the illogical, absurd argument that Christianity’s truth claims can be gauged by the behavior of confessed Christians.
We’ve seen it time and time again from all the doubting sources - one of the most recent ones is William Lobdell, author of Losing My Religion.
Here’s how it goes, simply put: Benny Hinn or Jim Bakker or my Christian Aunt Fannie did this or that or other nasty thing, and how can we believe in a religion where the people do that? It’s an absurd argument, for it is patent that just because Bakker ripped off millions, or Aunt Fannie kicked her cat, has no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead in first century Palestine. It may tell us how sincerely such Christians believe in and adhere to their system, or apply it to their lives, but it has zero effect on determining the factual basis for that belief.
And of course, no atheist seems to gauge the truth of their belief based on the actions of Stalin; contrarily, they may raise the specter of Bakker or Aunt Fannie, but if they do, why aren’t St. Francis or William Wilberforce or my nice Aunt Susie an argument for Christianity? Are they going to convert if we count the noses and find more good than bad? Then switch back if "bad" gains numbers, and back again when "good" is more numerous, and on and on? Somehow, I don’t think so.
We can go on about the obvious illogic of the argument for a while – it also runs into the matter of some who try to use the likes of Jim Jones as disconfirming evidence! -- but the main point here, today, is that this sort of argument has been enabled by the use of personal testimony as an evangelistic tool. When, “Jesus changed my life” becomes one’s argument for someone to convert, “well, he obviously didn’t change so and so very well” becomes a legitimate counter. It isn’t sound as a response, for the reasons noted above. And obviously, I am not saying people would not make this sort of absurd argument anyway, even without personal testimony playing such an important role: These critics don’t need our help to make illogical arguments and do quite well on their own with them. But the point carries a lot more force when it is assumed that changing of life and behavior is the basis for conversion – and the primary basis at that, as is presented in modern evangelism.
If I am right here, it may be justly asked why it is that some people have had their lives changed as a result of becoming Christians. There’s an answer for that, and it has little to do with whether personal testimony is a valid means of evangelism: It is inevitable that giving someone a purpose for living – as inevitably, even a watered-down form of Christianity can do – will give them new direction, new purpose, and a new lease on life. With that of course will come something that can be made into what we call a personal testimony. But this doesn’t really give personal testimony a leg up as a tool for evangelism, because what people are “converting” to in these situations is more like an emotional experience and a guarantee of a changed life than a contractual or covenantal commitment to Christ as Lord.
I venture to say that some such people may not even have crossed the line into salvation; but such would be beyond what can be rightly judged, in general, and it is safest to say what is in evidence, in the very least, which is that we get from these conversions mostly shallow converts with no epistemic basis for their life in Christ.
Reason Two: Evangelism based on personal testimony ties the validity of our conversion to our subjective experience.
I rounded off an article on Tony Campolo that sums it up:
Campolo admits that his own conversion resulted in a temporary zeal that lasted but a month, and that others have told him the same. [GOI 26-7] He also notes – but seems unconcerned – that converts who used to be addicts compare their conversion experience to “a psychedelic high, but without the drugs” [GOI 24]. Such comparisons should warn Campolo that what he is seeing in such experiences is likely to simply be manufactured, merely emotional reactions to a momentous life decision – but it does not.
I think most of us have met Christian friends who are “down” for one reason or another – whether it be personal tragedy, or sin, or just ho-hum daily depression of the non-clinical sort. We have also found that it is as such low points that people frequently question their salvation. “I don’t feel saved” is a line we may have heard. Or, “I just don’t feel close to God right now.”
Personal testimony, as a means of evangelism, is at the root of this disconnect. It tells us that when we become Christians, we will “feel” cleansed of our sins, and have a “personal relationship” with Jesus as though he were a friend. Certain Skeptics, like Robert Price in particular, have framed this in terms of Christians having Jesus as an “imaginary friend.” They are not often right – but in this case, the truth hits close to home.
In contrast, our faith should be rooted not in subjective experience, but objective history. If Jesus rose from the dead, and that is historically sure, then personal tragedy and the like must be interpreted in light of that history.
To use an example we’ve used before, let us suppose that the freedom of America, and our freedom as Americans, was dependent on the historic fact of Washington crossing the Delaware River. How absurd would it be for an American citizen to say they “don’t feel like an American” because of some personal tragedy they have experienced, or because they may have broken a law or committed some misdemeanor? Although the latter may result in a restriction on freedoms within our rights and identities as Americans (just as sin causes us to lose rewards in heaven, or perhaps here on earth), it does not make us non-Americans, or does not mean America is obliged to be returned to England. Such a view would be nonsensical.
Of course, a person who is committed to irrationality could easily deny a historical event or its significance anyway, but the key here is “committed to irrationality.” The point is that subjective experience as a basis for salvation enables a far easier road to denial and doubt.
Note as well: I am not saying that the “historical model” is a 100% ironclad guarantee that faith will not be jettisoned or weakened in the face of tragedy, sin, etc. There is no such thing as a 100% ironclad guarantee in this framework, because free will never leaves the equation. But I do say it will provide far better grounding that the subjective experience model which personal testimony engenders.
Reason Three: The use of personal testimony turns the Christian life into a spectacle and encourages legalistic behavior.
If, as we have said in prior points, personal testimony allows non-believers to argue against the truth of Christianity based on my nasty Aunt Sally’s kicking her cat, then it only follows that we will be under a microscope (as indeed we are), and those of us with a keen awareness of this will end up falling prey to a sort of legalism.
This is not merely an idle threat. Professed former Christians, such as John Loftus, have made remarks like these many times:
As a Christian I remember wanting people to see Christ in me. I wanted to be like Christ as an advertisement like a billboard for Christ. I was conscious that people were watching me. Of course as a preacher I did live in a so-called glass house.
Such sentiments are misguided. When Jesus spoke of Christians as examples, the metaphor he used was that of a city on a hill. A city on a hill does not strive for attention; it passively draws attention, with no concern for who is watching. It is not a “moving target” but a static one.
Obviously, I am not making this point as a license for bad behavior. There are plenty of other reasons for not breaking God’s moral code without having this one in the mix. However, in allowing personal testimony to become the critical tool for conversion, we have put ourselves under a sort of legalistic pressure that turns us from cities on a hill into elephants on the run. Moreover, we thereby invite judgmentalism by non-believers, especially dishonest ones like Loftus who will try to twist anything we do into some sort of sin – even if it is not – in order to gain what they think is an argument against the truth of Christianity.
The result: A misplaced concern arises for “hurting our testimony” rather than defending the actual basis for Christianity – the historic Resurrection of Jesus. If this seems too far-fetched, we can find examples of this easily, such as from one website (which I will not link to) by a fundamentalist Baptist church:
The way you dress can hurt your testimony. I have sadly learned that often when the hems go up on unsaved women, they also go up on women in the church. Saved people should not dress like the unsaved, when the dress of the unsaved is immodest or unbecoming. You should try to be a Christian in the way you dress. I know that some of you will say, "Joe used to be a Holy Roller, and still has some of that in him"; but I will tell you that I hate to see women church members made up like the chorus line in a Las Vegas floor show. You should dress modestly and properly as to your clothes, your jewelry, and your make-up. You can hurt your testimony by the way you dress. I used to wonder how anyone could ever even imagine that Tammy Baker [sic] was a good Christian woman. Ladies, don't make up like a clown when you go to church.
We ought to note, of course, that this represents a misuse of the admonitions of the NT concerning modest dress (the main concern was seeking of honor, not sexiness), but it remains that such thinking is absurd. By what sort of reckless epistemology could it be decided that Christianity is less true because Aunt Gertie has her eyeliner on an inch too thick?
Mind you: I’m no fan of women using makeup of any sort; my beloved Mrs H first attracted me in part because of her distinct lack in that regard. But the reasoning remains reckless and absurd, as even this pastor was forced to admit in the end:
The unsaved man may use my poor testimony of a Christian he knows as his excuse for not being saved. Now, the Christian should be very careful that he does not give the unsaved man any real reason for doing this; but I want the unsaved to know that this is only a "copout". This is not the real reason any man remains unsaved. It is his cover up. It is his excuse; but the real reason is that he is in love with his sins and does not want to be saved.
Well, if it is a “copout,” then what is the logic behind the argument to begin with? There is none: This unfortunate pastor was caught in his own epistemic trainwreck and didn’t bother to resolve the contradiction – assuming he even saw it, which I doubt!
Again, none of this is license to do as we please. But by making personal testimony the plumb line for Christian truth, we have unwittingly placed ourselves at an unnecessary disadvantage in evangelism and turned ourselves into victims.
Reason Four: Personal testimony is not only unbiblical, it also creates a conflict in Biblical texts.
In the CRI article referenced, I explained why various texts used to support the idea of “personal testimony” in the Bible are wrong. To this I can add that personal testimony – which encourages the measuring of behavior as a criterion for conversion – creates an obvious conflict with many Biblical texts in which Biblical characters are (or seem to be) “behaving badly” – which in turn either compels us to defend these figures, or live with an epistemic inconsistency.
I don’t need to name too many of these Biblical examples: Whether it’s Abraham lying to Pharaoh about Sarah; whether it is Jesus or Paul using harsh language against their opponents, doesn’t matter: If we’ve encouraged nonbelievers to check behavior in order to validate the truth of Christianity, we’ve set ourselves up for the task of defending not only our behavior, but that of Biblical figures. (Of course, as noted, many such charges against Biblical figures are either blown out of proportion, or false; but that is beside the point. )
Relatedly, my ministry vice president made an excellent point in a phone conversation yesterday. Josh McDowell once said that “no one can argue” with your personal testimony. More specifically, he has said:
For example, let's say a student comes into the room and says, 'Guys, I have a stewed tomato in my right tennis shoe. This tomato has changed my life. It has given me a peace and love and joy that I never experienced before, not only that, but I can now run the 100-yard dash in 10 seconds flat.'
It is hard to argue with a student like that if his life backs up what he says (especially if he runs circles around you on the track). A personal testimony is often a subjective argument for the reality of something. Therefore, don't dismiss a subjective experience as being irrelevant.
Indeed? My ministry vice president ministers to inmates in his local jail, and he recently encountered an inmate who gave a glowing “personal testimony” of how his life had been changed – by converting to Islam. I met such inmates myself while I worked as a prison librarian. By McDowell’s logic, this inmate and his conversion to Islam suggests that Islam is a valid faith; we can’t dismiss his subjective experience as being irrelevant.
But in fact, we should – because following this line, any time any professing Christian feels depressed, or falls into sin, or even shows an uncritical nature, it is an argument against Christianity. Likewise, if anyone becomes a Scientologist, a Mormon, or even an atheist, and finds their lives positively “transformed” it is an argument “for” their belief system – and by default, against Christianity, since the implication of McDowell’s point is that Christianity does the best (if not the exclusive) job when it comes to transforming lives.
Reason Five: Personal testimony evangelism requires building a “ten ton bridge” to present the Gospel.
The presentation of personal testimony implies, as we have noted, an invitation to examine our lives to see if Christianity is true. That in turn implies that the person has to know us well in order to know, or be more sure, that Christianity is true.
And what’s that mean in turn? It means that any actual decision for the Gospel can be forestalled by someone on the pretense of getting to know us better (though they may not tell us that). Or, it can cause us to hedge in presentation, thinking that a person doesn't know us well enough to present the Gospel to them.
Of course, there are those who will make a decision, as it is said, based on knowing us for just a little while; just as people make snap decisions every day for every reason. But we don’t regard such decisions as well-informed or judicious in other contexts, so why here?
The Apostles didn’t have to play the “get to know you” game to evangelize. Yes, they did know their audiences, generally, as Jews or Greeks, but they certainly did not think they had to get to know them as friends – build that 10 ton bridge – before they started preaching.
When should I use personal testimony, if at all? I would restrict its use to times when a person asks us a question like, “What has Christianity done for you?” or “How has it changed you?” Or, when their own life is in disarray and they need a change. However, even at such times, we should present personal testimony within the frame of being a change in worldview and outlook as a result of the factual rising of Jesus from the dead. I’m not saying you need to give a drug addict all the standard arguments for the empty tomb – just make it clear that the historic Resurrection is what’s behind the worldview change, and indicate that this is a claim that will have to be considered, for it is what makes the worldview valid.
Now that I’ve "torn down" the current model of evangelism, I’d be rightly expected to put a new one up, and I will. Evangelism has both a public and a private component. I’ll preface by saying that I lay this out with little expectation that in will ever be adopted. Today’s leaders in evangelism are generally so misinformed, or self-glorifying, or so stuck in the old rut and fearful of anything new that threatens the status quo, that such suggestions as I have will be well beyond their abilities to either comprehend or adapt to. A new generation of evangelists will be needed to fix the mess they’ve put us into; a system based on personal testimony, with its dramatic stories and functions, will be very hard to uproot.
So what do I see in the new public model? We actually have some components out there already in place – they just need to be expanded and used more.
A greater effort to use media and public events to spread the Gospel. There are two models for this I have in mind. One was Lee Strobel’s TV show Faith Under Fire. That lasted around a year and I have no idea why it stopped. I never even know it existed until after it was gone. But it doesn’t matter: We need more programs like this, more public confrontations in the form of depth debates (even as much as I find those lacking, they’re a good place to get people started, at least), more public events.
Let's get Christian scholars involved in this. Let’s clean all the crap off Christian TV (like we have all over TBN) and replace it with sound teaching and sound defense of the faith. Let’s get rid of the current ways of doing “crusades” and turn them into factual presentations of the Gospel and its evidence.
Let’s also eat up some space in secular venues. In my area at least, the Alpha Course has purchased billboards picturing Bear Grylls as a spokesman for questions like, “Is there more to life?” Let’s buy more ads like that in all sorts of venues. Let’s challenge people to look at the facts, and present some of them while we’re at it. Let's also make wiser use of Christian celebrities -- as the Alpha Course has done with Grylls here. Instead of some Christian baseball player presenting his "personal testimony" how about we teach him about how to defend the Resurrection's historicity? It may not be as dramatic as "I got off drugs praise Jesus" but it'll sure make for more solid converts.
None of this should be hard to do, theoretically. As it is, we’re all spending plenty of money on garbage/entertainment, supporting such things as Christian music radio stations, Joyce Meyer teaching crusades, and so on. To imitate the old bumper sticker, it will be a great day for Christianity when an apologetics conference draws tens of thousands of people in every city (not just people in one city from all over) and music groups like Philips, Craig and Dean or singers like Amy Grant have to hold a bake sale in order to get a concert going.
Bottom line is, the new public model requires a greater public presence. And that means getting off our duffs – all of us. Not just the tiny percentage who are now on Front Street. The failure of action is in some part a failure of leadership as well. I’ll close this entry with a side note. I have refused to include a comment from one of my “trollish” opponents, who in spite of all I have said here has had the audacity to ask me to offer my own personal testimony. Well, I don’t have one. Christianity didn’t change me at all, qualitatively speaking. I was raised to consider it to be a clownish, intolerant faith and nothing I knew of persuaded me it was otherwise. I cobbled together the truth on my own through various resources of more and more advanced nature, and that included Skeptical sources. I used to read The Humanist, for example, when I worked in the Orlando public library. It worked better than most Christian sources to convince me that there was some truth to Christianity.
Bottom line is, if you can’t swallow the notion that I came to my conclusions objectively and reasonably – too bad.
Finally, what should be our “person to person” method of evangelism under this new rubric I have proposed?
My private model takes for granted that the public model, described in the last entry, is in effect, so it isn’t something you can go out and do on your own right now. In essence, if we have enough public events going on, there will be, inevitably, a corresponding increase in questions to us from non-believers, and many more opportunities for us to start conversations (eg, “Did you see that show last night where Witherington debated Zindler? It was a massacre!”). That’s enough to get encounters started.
After that, there’s going to be a burden on us, since obviously, we’re not all equipped to answer any possible questions. We’ll need to assemble some sort of resource index, so that, for example, if someone asks us a question or raises some objection concerning the cosmological argument, and we’re not that good on that topic, we know who to go to who IS good with it.
So in one sense, my private model isn’t a lot different than the one we now have; it just starts from a different base, and requires a little more work on our part – which, given Matthew 28:18-20, is something we’d best not be shying away from. Making disciples of all nations isn’t done from your living room couch, after all.
Which raises another point, one somewhat beyond the scope of this article, but which deserves notice: Our current evangelistic methods are pretty darned poor when it comes to follow-up. When it comes to one prominent evangelist, once you walk the aisle you’re told to “find a good church home.” That’s a hard task these days anyway, but what kind of follow-up is that? None at all. There will need to be better connections made between conversion and discipleship as well – which will be a lot easier when evangelism relies on historic fact rather than “personal testimony,” since under my proposed system, discipleship has already started in the process of evangelism.
I am obviously not saying that personal testimony never “works” at converting people, for it has. But I do say that it is ultimately not the best way to evangelize, and in the long run, does more harm than good.
I also want to credit a few more good shows in the vein of what we need more of: The John Ankerberg Show, the Bible Answer Man, and David Barton's material on America's Christian Heritage. But that's just a drop in a bucket that badly needs to be filled.