The Place of Personal Testimony in Evangelism - 2

     On a recent White Horse Inn episode they once again discussed the modern Evangelical tendency to prefer telling an unbeliever/skeptic about one's personal testimony and experience over "gospel doctrine".  This is a continuation of sorts of an article I posted on October 25th 2008.  In a series of interviews at a recent convention of Christian communicators, the persons interviewed all said that, when they witnessed to the unbeliever/skeptic, they believed they personal testimony of transformation was better proof, more effective, and easier to relate to than "gospel doctrine".  Many of them said that both were equally important, but even that is not true—one's own sanctification narrative isn't as important as what God did one day in history to reconcile the world unto Himself—and that personal story definitely isn't part of the good news of Jesus Christ.

     As I listened to their discussion, I saw a possible parallel.  In the last 100-150 years or so, the face of visual art (especially that of painting) has changed dramatically.  We have seen an abundance of new sorts of philosophies which work themselves out in not-so-traditional methodologies.  For instance, the paintings of Jackson Pollock (Abstract Expressionism) or Pablo Picasso (Cubism); I believe we can condense the difference between "Modern" painting and Classic painting to two categories: Modern—guileless/candid methodology with a sophisticated/complex philosophy, and Classic—technically complex methodology with a sophisticated/complex philosophy.  Granted, not all forms of painting or artist's philosophies fit into these two categories, however, the distilled distinction between Modern and Classical approaches can be simple described in this manner.

     So how does this parallel the gospel presentation to unbelievers you ask?  Let's look at the similar two categories in that realm: Personal Narrative—grounded only in the utter subjectivity of personal experience, and the Meta-Narrative of Redemption—grounded in the objective, historical truth of Incarnate Deity satisfying the wrath of God against sinners, which is an observable fact.  Again, before I say what I'm about to say I want to admit the generalization of these categories makes for a very narrow understanding of both, artist and the world of human creation and the witness of Christ and the Kingdom of God and its various practices.  Many observers of the fine art world, and artists alike, criticize much of what has been produced under the category of "Modern" art as being too simplistic and motivated by a lack of technical understanding and raw talent, thus supplying the sort of art that drifts further and further away from realism.

     Much like the criticism leveled at the non-traditional painters and other artists of the 20th century, one could speculate that the lack of presentation of "gospel doctrine" when American Evangelicals bare "witness to Christ", is in part due to a lack of factual knowledge of that doctrine—a lack of technical apologetic skill.  Of course, this may not be true in every case.  Much of this slackness, as some may call it, could also be in part due to the post-modern idea of relativism, where individual subjectivity is validated as an individual reality, even if it opposes another so called reality.