Thoughts on Evangelism, pt. 1: James Choung's "4 Circles"

One of the things for which I am grateful about conservative evangelicals is there really seems to be a general understanding that evangelism needs to remain foremost in our mission. I think that is a genuine, preserving work of grace the Spirit of God has done among us. So, I hope that what I write the next couple of days will not come across as a scathing, holier-than-thou condemnation of the evangelistic efforts of modern evangelicals. But I have made two discoveries in the last two weeks which I find to be more than a little disturbing.

1. We seem to forget that the Gospel first and foremost is about God

I know that seems like an obvious statement, but let me explain what I mean. Christianity Today's most recent issue (July 2008--an overall fantastic issue) has an intriguing story about a "new" Gospel presentation called "From Four Laws to Four Circles." The article details the approach authored by InterVarsity's James Choung. Rather than the standard "Four Spiritual Laws" (1. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life; 2. Sin has separated you from God; 3. Jesus died to forgive our sins; 4. We must personally accept Christ as Savior), Choung suggests 4 circles (you can see it here). They are:

• We were designed for good
• We are damaged by evil
• We are restored for better
• We are sent together to heal

I like the approach because it is a direct presentation of the 4 major Biblical themes: creation, fall, redemption, restoration. Thus, this Gospel presentation shows that the Gospel addresses society's problems and not just our personal feelings of dissatisfaction. This approach also demonstrates that our decision to follow Jesus is not simply a matter of returning to personal piety, but includes a call to be involved in the mission of God. It emphasizes discipleship, not just quick decision. This is not only a more fully biblical presentation of the Gospel, it is also, in my opinion, a more "relevant" presentation for Western culture, which is asking the question of what "earthly good" the "heavenly Gospel" can do. Community service is all the rage right now, after all.

The major omission in this presentation, however, is that it leaves the centrality of God out of the Gospel. You can see it in its first point: "We were designed for good." That is true. But even more importantly, we were designed for GOD. 

The result of our rebellion against God is that our world is marred by destruction and evil. The fruit of our living for God is that we lived in peace and harmony with each other and our world. The root of those problems, however, is that we have have rejected God's rightful rule and flouted His glory.

In other words, the "4 circles" starts with a man-centered view of the world. They present the Gospel as if our main problem was disharmony with creation and our primary need was to be restored to the good we were created. These are important aspects of the Gospel, but the main "problem" that the Gospel addresses is that we have offended a holy God by trampling on His rightful glory and before whose righteous wrath we stand in hopeless condemnation. The main "benefit" it offers is restoration to that God and the preservation of His justice.

It's not that anything in Choung's presentation of the 4 circles is wrong, per se, just that it presents the Gospel in a way that makes the creation the focus of the Gospel rather than the Creator. It fails to confront the idolatrous, man-centered worldview in which fallen man lives. Previous evangelical presentations of the Gospel simply presented Jesus as the great "need-meeter" without addressing our self-centeredness; this presentation simply morphs that into a "He'll meet your needs and then others' needs too" form--still without addressing our self-ward focus.

Most distressing to me is that in the presentation, when the question of "why Jesus is necessary to salvation" (i.e. why can't we just fix our problems ourselves?), the answer given has NOTHING to do with the righteous anger of a just and holy God. It just has to do with needing strength to perform the healing.

In short, it leaves the centrality of God out of the Gospel... and any presentation of the Gospel that does not make God the main point of the Gospel is a woefully deficient Gospel, don't you think? Paul said that the primary point of the Gospel was a demonstration of God's glory and that its primary motif was the satisfaction of God's just wrath at our failure to live for His glory: "to demonstrate God's justice at the present time, that He is both just and the justifier of the one who puts faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:25). This Gospel presentation would be greatly improved by leaving out a single "o": from "we were created for good" to "we were created for God."

What do you think? Am I being too hard on this?

Comments

[kim]

Here are some thoughts:
1. It is very broad and not harsh enough. We are not damaged by evil - we are dead in our trespasses and sin. He put one too many "o" in good - you are right, we are designed fod God and his glory. We aren't just restored for the better - we are restored for abundant life and the hope of glory - knowing Jesus Christ. The last one doesn't really fit. The others are pretty one-person focused, then it goes into a community effort. And we don't heal - God heals - we just offer the message, offer hope, point to Jesus, and serve others.
2. This "4 Circle" statement can apply to almost any world religion.
3. I guess this tends to affirm the recent studies that show Christians believe there are more avenues to heaven and salvation then Jesus alone.

Praying for H4D this week.

[Chris]

Why should we have to water-down the gospel message? I can't stand the thought that people think the Bible is not relevant, the gospel is not relevant, etc. If it was not relevant, then the 4 spiritual circles would not really be needed. Further, the 4 spiritual circles are just that: spiritual circles. Spiritually speaking, most people are spiritual. It is just the wrong kind of spiritual. Unfortunately, the 4 spiritual laws fit the bill, as kim said, of any religion.

[Russell]

JD

You nailed it. I read the CT article and thought that here is a well-intentioned presentation but omits the crucial prepositions necessary to make the gospel complete; We are designed for good by God and for God.

[Kyle Barrett]

JD...

I just finished reading Choung's book Sunday afternoon so this is a timely post for me. I think you're critique is spot on. I actually enjoyed the book. I think he does a good job of giving a more wholistic explanation of the gospel. The gospel is not just good news for me - although it is that. It's good news for all sinners and the entire creation as well. I also think Choung is moving in the right direction when he shapes a gospel "presentation" in terms of worldview. It helps people to put Jesus in a context they can understand.

That being said, I kept waiting for him to get to Jesus and his glory as the end and goal of all things. Those themes weren't absent but they were implicit rather than explicit. I don't want to come down too hard on the book because I think most of what he writes is a necessary corrective but the book was indeed deficient at that very significant point.

Kyle

[Kyle Barrett]

Another thought I had...

The book centers alot on justice and social issues and how to use those as bridges to the gospel, but I don't recall him making a strong connection to how Jesus' death rights every wrong and restores creation to it's original function of purely reflecting the glory of God. Like I said earlier, I like alot of what he has to say but it left me wishing he had gone a bit further.

Kyle

[Jeff]

I do NOT think you are being too hard on this. However, I think the 4 Spiritual Laws has the opposite problem. It does not speak to what we are supposed to do here and now, it does not provide a mission for us on this earth. It's theological statement centered Christianity, whereas the four circles are missional centered. I think there's a medium here somewhere.

[BK]

Thanks for this - I think your points are right on. I've actually thought the same thing, as I detail in a post here (http://justbk.blogspot.com/2008/01/gospel-outlines.html), but you've put it better than I have.

[ryan]

I think your critique is excellent and speaks of a key element missing so much in typical living the life of a child of God, Romans 3:23, the part about "the glory of God." The main thrust of this essential "Gospel-sharing verse" is not so much "all have sinned" but that our standard/measurement/goal/judgement base is not us & what we have done, do, will do, but our "sin" is defined/understood by & we are compared to the Creator, the One, the Holy God of Glory.
Having said this and affirmed your critique, I think Choung's work, as you've said, has a place for use in our "sharing" regarding its cultural relevancy. This is not to say that I would advise using his method as more than a supplemental technique for conveying the relevancy of the Gospel in the sharee's life as a good way of reiterating the Gospel message. We must know & live & share the wholistic Gospel: Holy God's desire is to affect all of Creation, the Author of salvation of our souls for eternity & life more abundant as we live obediently out of love. BUT also, we must know & live & share the "holistic" Gospel: Holy God is indeed holy, perfect, unique, One & the only One, alone God, alone to be Glorified. Many things/methods/books/etc being produced, especially nowadays, have a place to speak into our lives/a place of relevancy for us, and they may be used by us as "a learning spur," something that we use/incorporate but are not enough in themselves (usually because they are without something or someone to balance their innovation or reaction).

For now, for many, "It's all about the benjamins," but in reality, in the end of days & the beginning of the glorious eternity with the one true God, "It's all about the Glory"!

[Rick]

I read the CT article, not the book. I also watched a couple of versions of the presentation on Youtube (both of which left me wanting). But I appreciate the effort at a gospel message that is Kingdom focused.

JDs comment, "We are designed for good by God and for God" seems to bring it home for me.

What I most appreciate about the 'new' perspective is that it allows us to recognize that individuals are in different 'places' and may respond to different angles on the gospel message. "To the Father through Christ" is the only way to go says God. But the ways to Christ may be initially motivated by various drives - classically, fear of Hell/damnation; But also response to a loving God (4 Spiritual Laws); a yearning for heaven and its eternal rewards (enlightened self interest); a concern for creation (4 circles); or any number of motivators. If it moves folks toward Christ why should I have to convince them of a different motive before sharing good news? Paul’s approach to the Greeks with an “unknown God” was different from his approach to Jews who “knew their God.”

Ultimately Christianity is more about God than it is about us. And we would be wise to do everything we can to make that as clear as possible as early as possible, less someone spend a lifetime unlearning lesser things. But if a man is thirsty give him water. If he’s naked give him clothes. Don’t convince him his real problem is lack of water just because that’s all you are carrying.

I was blessed to use the four circles in an evangelistic conversation this past Sunday. The woman identified herself as being in a different circle than I had pictured. That self-identification made the conversation much more on target and fruitful. I hope to have many more opportunities to use a scrap of paper and some circles to help shape a conversation that points people toward the way, the truth and the life.

Rick

[sadie burch]

J.D.
im not here to comment on your blog but i couldnt find an email address that goes directly to you so this is the best i could do. Im from impact the church camp you just preached at (btw you were awesome)and you referred to me as "slippery girl" or whatever while we were playing basketball. hah. but um before you left you called me katie and i just wanted to let you know its sadie :) hah. but um my friend and I are going to come visit you soon. we dont know if we'll be there tomorrow or next sunday so hopefully you'll be there preaching. ill let you go but feel free to tell me if your not going to be there at sadiesoccer@aol.com. its simple. hah. but um hope to see you soon!