Should evangelism resonate?

For Pagitt, the “guiding idea of evangelism is not change” or “conversion. It’s resonance” (Doug Pagitt, Evangelism in the Inventive Age, 9). In Matthew 18:3 (NIV 1984), Jesus says “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” In Mark 1:15 (NIV 1984), Jesus says, “The time has come, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” In Luke 5:32 (NIV 1984), Jesus says, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Change, repentance, and the presence of sin are frequent subjects throughout the Scriptures. The very presence and ugliness of sin (evidenced throughout the history of humanity) would seem to suggest the need for an evangelism that leads to change. Pagitt, however, wants an evangelism that leads to resonance. His preference for resonance seems to arise from his theology on the nature of humanity. Pagitt believes that humanity is inherently good, and therefore humanity will find points of commonality with God and His good news: “Resonance occurs when those vibrations meet up with other vibrations operating on the same frequency” (15).

Pagitt’s desire is to develop an evangelism that works for this present age, what he calls the Inventive Age: “If we want to practice evangelism in this age, we have to recognize that it doesn’t work to tell people to conform to some idea of faith. We have to proclaim a faith that resonates” (18). Is Pagitt correct? Should we proclaim a faith that is palatable with humanity? Was Paul proclaiming a faith that resonated with the culture of his day? If so, why was Paul so often persecuted and ultimately martyred? Even our Savior’s testimony about Himself was rejected and His life was taken. Whose message and whose faith is it that we are called to proclaim? Is it not God’s? Since it is God’s message about Himself and His Son and since God never changes Himself or His message, humanity should change and move toward God through repentance and faith so that they might resonate with Him, His Son, and His word.

While conservative evangelicals prefer to base their evangelistic message based on the authority of the Scriptures (sola scriptura), Pagitt exalts individual authority in the creation of the message: “Authority is found in the way our experiences come together and create reality. It is found in relationships. . . . Authority . . . is user generated.” If the evangelistic message is not wholly divine in origin and content, then what makes it special? What makes it real? How could one recognize God in it if the message is mixed with user-created content? Ultimately, every gospel presenter has a culture, and the gospel which is being presented is presented in a cultural context. Even so, the gospel itself must be established on the timeless truths presented clearly in God’s word.

These timeless truths found in God’s word have formed the Christian message and identity since the time of Christ. Pagitt, however, believes that foundational truths, or what he calls metaphors were a product of Enlightenment: “For a long time, the church has used an Industrial Age metaphor to explain how we come to believe what we believe. You’ve probably heard—or even used—the language of foundationalism, the idea that we have a handful of basic beliefs that serve as a foundation for all other belief” (35). Like many emergents, Pagitt seems to believe the whole idea of foundational truths was a product of Christianity that formed in the last several centuries. This, however, is patently false. The ancient creeds, the Didache, and even the NT epistles themselves demonstrate the presence of foundational truths within Christianity.