Series
1-Introduction
2-The Post-Colonial Era and The Church
3-Toward A Post-Colonial Worldview
4-Post-Colonial Theology and Missions
5-A Case Study – Evangelism Explosion International

EVANGELISM EXPLOSION: AN OVERVIEW

Evangelism Explosion International (EE) began in 1962 by Dr. D. James Kennedy as a response to his rapidly declining church plant in Fr. Lauderdale, FL, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. It is both an evangelism equipping program and evangelism technique that is similar to Romans Road or Four Spiritual Laws. After launching his evangelism equipping program, attendance soared from 246 to 3,134 in 1974, largely due to the intentional evangelism efforts of EE. During this time, Dr. Kennedy realized he also had the opportunity to train pastors in his techniques, resulting in 582 trained pastors and lay leaders in 6 clinics during this same period. By 1975, EE had gone global, holding clinics in Saskatchewan, England, South Africa, and Australia. On March 17, 1996, Coral Ridge Presbyterian church celebrated a milestone in the the history of this 34 year old ministry: Evangelism Explosion was now in every nation training its people in personal evangelism. In fact, by 2000 the EE material was in every territory and translated into 70 languages. The scope of EE and its global reach makes it an ideal case study for reflecting on a post-colonial worldview of mission. Obviously, God has used the Dr. Kennedy and this ministry for His glory, and He will continue to do so well after his death, so my critique comes after much appreciation.

Considering how drastically the world has change over the last 46 years since EE’s inception, how does Evangelism Explosion International fare when evaluated against a post-colonial worldview of global missions? If much of the Western world has shifted into a post-modern cultural condition and the global South and East embrace post-colonialism in their struggle for identity in the aftermath of the colonial experience, is this thoroughly Western evangelism model relevant and effective (or even appropriate) given much of the non-Western worlds post-colonial condition? While I could give lengthy critique on the theological and biblical problems with this method, I am using EE as a case study only to evaluate the program missiologically and ecclesiologically. Therefore, the next few pages will explore EE in light of our post-colonial world and evaluate this evangelism method through a post-colonial worldview.

EVANGELISM EXPLOSION AND A POST-COLONIAL WORLDVIEW OF MISSIONS

Given the post-colonial shift in the global South and East, in addition to the postmodern shift within Western culture, how does EE compare to a post-colonial worldview of missions? As a certified EE trainer who both (briefly) taught and used this evangelism model in the United States, there are aspects of the international component I affirm and others that are concerning as I consider this enterprise in light of a post-colonial worldview. First, I appreciate EE’s commitment to proclaim Jesus’ good news to the whole world and indigenize that proclamation. As Tom Stebbins explains in his book on EE, “Although adhering to non-negotiable, controlling principles, EE adapts to the culture of every nation, territory and people group…” As I said in my worldview statement, God is truly global and interested in saving all tribes and nations, which they affirm. Secondly, the model is centered upon training pastors to equip their own people with the tools to proclaim the good news of Jesus through the local church. In true multiplication form, EE representatives hold clinics for pastors in countries for pastors to train their own people to evangelize. Both the commitment to adapt to cultures and train pastors to equip their own people are good starting places in a post-colonial era.

I do wonder, however, how helpful it is to export a thoroughly Western model of evangelism to non-Western nations. By their own admission, the original EE material has been translated into 70 languages. My concern, then, is why they believe exporting a Western framing of the gospel and God’s Redemptive Story is proper, especially considering they have recently revised this same material for use in postmodern Western nations due to its changing cultural landscape. Post-colonialism calls the Western Church to dissect itself from Christian spirituality as it engages a world that seeks to operate beyond the categories and models of the West. If Evangelism Explosion has realized it needs to revise the way it communicates God’s Redemptive Story to postmodern Western nations, why does it think a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate for non-Western countries? As a Western model, the original EE was extremely propositional and logical to the core in its delivery. The “presenter” gave a 20-30 minute monologue to the “prospect” (their words, not mine) about why heaven was a free gift and how they could receive that free gift. At the end, the prospective gift receiver answered “yes” or “no” to whether he or she would like to receive the gift of eternal life. In the presentation (not conversation), there is no place for dialogue (it is discouraged all together, because it “distracts from the presentation of the gospel.”), assuming the prospect has nothing to offer to the conversation on their spirituality. If this method no longer works in the West, then why would they assume it is appropriate in non-Western nations. Paulo Freire provides a scathing indictment and convicting commentary on the need for dialogue: “Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world. Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming–between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them. Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression.” Frankly, EE denies the Other the right to speak in the spiritual conversation. By default it is monological, which does not bode well in a post-colonial era nor does it appreciate the diversity inherent within God’s Creation.

As a last point of evaluation, while I realize any ministry can only do so many things, I have always found it odd that EE emphasizes proclamation rather than discipleship. While it claims to be “friendship evangelism,” the entire emphasis of the EE method is on evangelism and proclamation, neither of which were emphasized by Jesus in His commission to His disciples. Instead, He called His followers to embed themselves in the lives of the Other and show (not simply tell) the Way of Jesus. And if, according to Paulo Freire, we are to become solidary with those who are presently spiritually oppressed and who have been ethnically oppressed in the past in order to bring liberation, we must stop regarding the oppressed as an abstract category, stop making pious, sentimental and individualistic gestures and risk acts of existential love; the Western EE (and Church) should move beyond simply proclaiming to incarnationally being Jesus, because true solidarity is found only in the plentitudes of acts of love, in its existentiality, in its praxis. The fourth stage of worldview is Recreation, both God’s future Recreative Act of the entire Creation and the small bits of Recreation accomplished through the Church. A proper, post-colonial worldview of mission must move beyond individual acts of pious proclamation and embrace solidarity centered in life discipleship and loving praxis as eschatological communities.

In the end, there are aspects of Evangelism Explosion International that are healthy and conform well to a post-colonial worldview of mission. Just like Christ’s Act of Rescue was indigenous and for all people, EE’s reach is entirely global and fairly indigenous, training local churches in every nation and adapting to the variety of tongues and tribes. I question, however, their insistence on exporting a Western version of Christianity to a world that doesn’t identify with the categories of the West nor any longer appreciates its superiority. Furthermore, the monological design of the model is neither contextually appropriate given the history of oppression by the West nor biblically sound since it is centered on proclamation rather than discipleship and solidarity. Instead of a Western model dressed in non-Western clothing, the global South and East need a narrative retelling of Jesus’ story of Rescue. Rather than detached monologues, the tribes and people of non-Western nations need dialogue and discipleship. Given the nature of EE and mass exportation of this methodology, I would conclude that it falls far short of a post-colonial worldview of global missions. Hopefully, just as EE has adapted its entire model for postmodern cultures, it will do the same for the post-colonial condition, too.