Discipleship
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 50, No. 2 - Spring 2008
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Mike Bechtle. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. 156 pages. Paperback, $12.99.
Mike Bechtle makes use of personality theory and offers his view of biblical evangelism to make introverts feel comfortable with evangelism. He offers his new work on the assumption that extroverts write the books on evangelism, and that these books do not offer introverts much help. Bechtle provides personal illustrations and suggestions he has found helpful in witnessing as an introvert. He even gives readers a personality inventory to help them determine whether they are introverts or extroverts (36–37).
Essentially, Mike Bechtle’s book is one of the best and worst books I have read on evangelism. The weaknesses of Bechtle’s book are serious. To begin with, Bechtle uses personality theory as a foundation for personal evangelism. Confusion exists among theoreticians of personality theory, and by using it, Bechtle may intensify the confusion many suffer in evangelism.
Additionally, Bechtle demonstrates an inappropriate use of Scripture. First, as harsh as it sounds, Bechtle distorts biblical texts. For example, he explains 1 Corinthians 12:17–18 in terms of personality theory instead of spiritual gifts. In that text, Paul argues for appreciation of all spiritual gifts, but Bechtle revises the text to argue for appreciation of all personality types (24).
Second, Bechtle’s use of 2 Kings 7:9 is equally troubling. The full verse states the four lepers said, “We are not doing right. This is a day of good news and we are keeping it to ourselves. If we wait until daylight, punishment will overtake us. Let’s go at once and report this to the royal palace” (2 Kings 7:9, emphasis added). When Bechtle quotes it, he removes the words about God’s judgment. In their place, he inserts ellipsis points. When used appropriately, ellipsis points improve the author’s style. By inserting the ellipsis points where he does, Bechtle leaves out a signifi- cant motivation for evangelism that emphasizes the theology of 1 and 2 Kings—judgment according to God’s word. That Bechtle has distorted 2 Kings 7:9 becomes manifest in his comments after the verse quotation: “If the four lepers hadn’t reported what they had seen, they would have lived while the city perished” (emphasis added). Bechtle asserts the opposite of the biblical record. He offers assurances for the lepers that the Scripture does not offer. In fact, the Scripture offered no assurance of life had they remained silent; contra Bechtle’s view, it offered judgment.
Next, Bechtle betrays unawareness about extroverts. He leaves read- ers with the mistaken notion that extroverts find it easier to witness than introverts do. How I wish that were the case! Not only do introverts fail to witness, but extroverts fail, too. Both struggle with evangelism. Evangelism is tough for all of us, but we should all do it because others going to hell is far worse.
Finally, Bechtle’s book includes other weaknesses. It includes the standard caricatures and straw men found in many evangelism books, and this will annoy sensitive readers. Accumulating annoyances, Bechtle labels as myths that make introverts uncomfortable with evangelism. Among these are truths that have helped Christians of all types become faithful and fruitful witnesses (52–59).
Finally, Bechtle’s book includes other weaknesses. It includes the standard caricatures and straw men found in many evangelism books, and this will annoy sensitive readers. Accumulating annoyances, Bechtle labels as myths that make introverts uncomfortable with evangelism. Among these are truths that have helped Christians of all types become faithful and fruitful witnesses (52–59).
I fear the cumulative effect of these weaknesses upon introverted readers. They may lead introverts to think more of themselves and less of lost people. Specifically, Bechtle’s work may encourage introverts to be more sensitive to their introversion without considering the introversion of lost people. Bechtle admits that he has yet to witness to an employee at a hotel where he frequently stays (94). Someone has to say something about salvation, and the introverted lost person is not likely to start the conversation. I fear that Bechtle’s work does not offer much help in win- ning introverted lost people to Christ.
The weaknesses of Bechtle’s work are serious, but there are also significant strengths. First, Bechtle’s view of God and evangelism deserves credit. For the most part, he has perceived God’s passion for getting people into the kingdom. According to Bechtle, this requires Christians to influ- ence intentionally unbelievers with the gospel (50, 117).
Second, Bechtle’s emphasis on building relationships with unbe- lievers will help any Christian who has a sincere love for them. Bechtle instructs and illustrates the sacrifice necessary to immerse ourselves into the lives of lost people. Following his instruction at this point could revo- lutionize the evangelistic ministry of many churches.
Third, Bechtle encourages readers to open themselves to a variety of tools in presenting the gospel. He suggests that developing relationships with unbelievers, handing out tracts, organizing crusades, and standard approaches to personal evangelism training (e.g., Evangelism Explosion) can effectively deliver the gospel to unbelievers. This is not to say that every use of these methods is appropriate, or that these methods have not suffered some abuse. He does not trash other methods, however, because they are not his preferred method (70–71, 147).
Finally, Bechtle provides tools to aid witnesses with an evangelism skill that has proven to be one of the most elusive—starting a conversation. Bechtle provides specific instruction on this topic that will help witnesses amass conversation starters (139–41). Most of these suggestions will aid extroverts and introverts alike.
Bechtle’s strengths are such that he could have left out the personality theory and written an excellent book on personal evangelism. The weaknesses notwithstanding, I suggest readers study his work, but that they study it as they eat fish—eat the meat and throw away the bones. They should be careful not to allow the weaknesses of Bechtle’s work to keep them from his admirable strengths.
