Does Carl Medearis really want people to stop evangelizing? In short, yes! Medearis enjoys playing the role of the provocateur. In fact don't stop with evangelism (125), go ahead and get rid of Christianity (47), Christian (121), along with church (123), and the Bible (124). Oh, let's not forget missionary, too (127). To be fair, Medearis is not advocating a denial of these ideals, but is challenging his readers to reconsider the use of `Christianese' and its potential impact in impeding people from coming to Jesus. Medearis's entire aim is to speak of Jesus, and the typical methods of evangelism simply get in the way. He pushes his thesis forward throughout the book, "If you don't feel like you have to evangelize someone away from their team and onto yours, you can speak of Jesus much more freely, and thus, more effectively" (103).
One appreciates Medearis's commitment to speaking of Jesus to just about everyone he comes into contact with. This book is replete with stories to illustrate his points, even if some are a bit confusing. The greatest strengths of speaking of Jesus are found in the constant focus on bringing people to Jesus as opposed to a particular theological system or evangelistic method. One also appreciates Medearis's model of asking penetrating questions and genuinely listening in his encounters with non-believers. This last point is clearly highlighted on pages 164-166, and within the Appendix.
Yet, with those commendations, Medearis's writing style is reactionary and his arguments are repeatedly against straw men. Often his statements are based on massive generalizations. For example, he states that everyone has been playing the wrong game when it comes to evangelism (18). It's not about us and them or different teams, it is about Jesus. Equating missionary service with a time of ignorance, and then defining a missionary as something wholly other than it is, is not less than insulting (25). On page 45, Medearis posits that the majority of modern evangelism is based upon insecurity. At this point, Medearis has successfully alienated many within the Christian circle by his use of generalization. Elsewhere his examples of `traditional' evangelism are often tainted with overstatement and negative interaction. The lack of precision Medearis uses in defining terms is also troubling. Although he gives working definitions to some terms later in the book, they are truncated and often contradictory within his own illustrations.
My primary concerns about this book center on the way he handles potential theological landmines and the confusion it may cause for future readers. To focus on Jesus does not equal a sole emphasis on the Gospels (chapter 6). The Gospels are a part of the Christian Scriptures which begin with Genesis and end with Revelation. From beginning to end, the story is about Jesus. John the Baptist's proclamation about Jesus in John 1:29, only makes sense in light of the Old Testament. Medearis's admonition to saturate yourself in the Gospels as the primary way to know and speak of Jesus is in contradiction to one who actually spent time with Jesus--Peter. In 2 Peter 1:19, Peter speaks of a more sure word--the Scriptures. How do we know Jesus? According to the scriptures--all of them (Luke 24:44-45). At one point Medearis seemingly pits Paul against Jesus, which is misguided and a misunderstanding of both. The trajectory Medearis is on could point to the red letter only road, and that is a misguided one.
Still, the most troublesome idea is found on pages 137-141. Medearis admonishes his reader to allow Jesus to be a man. While I understand the need to focus on the life of Jesus, and not merely his birth and death, it seems that Medearis, again, overstates his point in writing, "The Western church has made the mistake of deifying Jesus too quickly" (138). At no point was Jesus less than God while on earth. I am not accusing Medearis of advocating an unorthodox position at this point, but am concerned that some readers might. Much of the confusion over these issues seems to stem from Medearis's lack of clarity and provocative style.
Medearis employs a self-deprecating style throughout the text in order to guard himself from any responsibility or liability over potential confusion. He repeatedly highlights his lack of doctrinal knowledge, his own fallibility, and is quick to point out that he is certainly no theologian. While these are all true sentiments, they do not recuse Medearis from taking responsibility for the impact of his sloppy thinking and writing. Any good missionary is also a good theologian, and a worthwhile theologian will be an insightful missionary. Jesus demonstrated this par excellence.
In the end I would recommend this book to the following audiences: (1) one who has grown up in the church but has not spent much time among non-believers, and (2) mature followers of Jesus who can read with discernment. Although there are some positive points and some compelling thoughts in this book, they are obscured by the many issues pointed out already.
Carl Medearis is a person I would jump at the chance to spend time with over a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, in his writing, I would encourage him to write with much more precision and a greater degree of generosity to those `within the circle' of Christianity. After all, "we are [just] people trying to follow Jesus" (129).
