We’ve seen them in all manner of places—on street corners, in parking lots, at craft fairs, outside stadiums. Sometimes they’re on wearing placards, admonishing hearers to “turn or burn.” Or perhaps they’re warning America of coming judgment and doom. Others may prefer challenging individual “sinners” on the street, exposing them to their failure to live up to the Ten Commandments.  A common justification from those “witnessing” is: “You need to tell people the bad news before they can listen to the good news.” After all, isn’t the Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)? Isn’t this the reality of Romans 1-3?

My friend Robertson McQuilkin has frequently said, “It is easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical tension.”  I think that the “bad-news-first bears” (J) may serve as an example of this extreme.  The point is that we should be careful about making hard-and-fast formulas (or, if you like, formulae) about communicating Christ to others. A wider read of Scripture presents a mixed bag; it isn’t a formula—indeed, a “uniformula”—announcing first, “you’re a sinner” and only then “there is a Savior.” I’m not denying hell, judgment, sin, or the need for repentance. Jesus saved his harshest message of judgment for the hard-hearted religious leaders of his day (e.g., Matthew 23), and he called on his hearers to turn/repent and align themselves with God’s kingdom agenda.  

That said, Jesus had the strong reputation of being a “friend of sinners.” He reached out to the “unlikelies” of his day—those who, according to the religious authorities, were unlikely recipients of God’s kingdom blessings:  tax gatherers, prostitutes, Gentiles, lepers, the ceremonially unclean, the demonized.  Jesus let them know that God hadn’t forgotten them, that God was interested in them. Jesus illustrated the point that people need to know you genuinely like them and take an interest in them if your message is to get through to them. 

How many of those preaching divine judgment in our day do so with tears in their eyes (Philippians 3:18)?  How many of them have the reputation of being “friends of sinners”?  How many of them truly follow in the way of the Master?  It’s a lot easier to preach a message of judgment than to exemplify Jesus, who actually got involved in the lives of others. As David Kinnaman shows in his book unChristian (Baker), the unchurched are under the general impression that they are the “project” of the professing Christian.  Most of them come away from “witnessing” encounters with the impression that Christians—however well-meaning— are also legalistic and arrogant or superior-minded.  By contrast, the incarnate Christ had earned a right to be heard by paying the price of friendship with “outsiders.” Unfortunately, many of the law-first-grace-later messengers don’t exude a friend-of-sinners demeanor.

It seems that we should be careful about a formulaic method of communicating the good news.  After all, helping people connect with Christ is more a process than it is an event. This process includes friendship, the integrity of Christian character, a loving community, and time process the implications of Christ’s Lordship. (See Greg Boyd’s Letters from a Skeptic [Victor] that nicely illustrates the process—even if you or I may not agree with all of Boyd’s arguments.)

So let’s explore whether we must follow the bad-news-first method—or if there’s more to consider. This is one of my longer pieces; so hang in there with me! Continue Reading »

Added to the “. . . And Other Stupid Statements” series

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is illegitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they will see your faith as shallow and fake. By essentially saying, “I have never thought of that,” you have just lost your representation. Continue Reading »

Unless you have lived in a cave or otherwise have no access to any type of media, you are aware of Brit Hume’s comments to Tiger Woods that he ought to turn to Christianity since it offers the the forgiveness and redemption he needs for his transgressions.  Naturally, the comment sparked a firestorm, particularly from non-Christians who deemed the comment offensive to other religions and came across as arrogant, superior and narrow minded.  As a follower of Christ, the backlash should not surprise me, although I was reluctant to write this for that reason.

However, the more I think about what Hume stated, the more I objectively have to avow his statement concerning what Christianity offers.  I am not taking a position on the appropriateness of the comment on secular television, although I do applaud his courage.  But the fact is that there are unique claims to Christianity that no other belief system offers and to state those claims is simply demonstrating truth in advertising.  It is not superior, just factual.

The fact of Christianity is that God the Son, who always existed as God, became human but was fully God and fully man.  He came specifically to make reparations through death by taking upon himself the guilt and condemnation that is imposed upon each individual.  His resurrection seals that transaction and provides eternal life for those who would place their faith in what he has done.   His payment for sin relieves the believer of their requirement to be judged before God for it.  It is a free gift, offered to those who would accept it.   It’s not something we work for, our attain to higher levels or empty ourselves to get.  That is the claim of Christianity with features that are unique to it.  So to say, there is something that is not offered in another belief system is truthful.  What other belief system offers forgiveness of sin based on God himself coming down from heaven to take the payment upon himself so that the one who believes will be absolved of the guilt, without any work on their part?  There isn’t.

We do this all the time with consumer products.  We would not hesitate to advertise a unique deal.  It would be like Consumer A saying they know of a market where you can get product X for $10 and Consumer B indicating that the same product can be purchased for $5.  But if Consumer C says, they know of a place that is giving the product away and all one has to do is got there to get it.  Would not the Consumer C offer something, the others don’t?  That is truth in advertising.  Now Consumers A and B may not believe Consumer C, but that does not diminish the fact that Consumer C claims to offer something the others don’t.

So were Hume’s comments denigrating to Buddhism?  Or was he simply just stating the factual and unique claim of Christianity?  Moreover, perhaps it should give the believers in Christ incentive to readily and willingly advertise Christianity’s unique claim.

For my church history class, I had to read Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition for a group discussion and report.  Andrew Purves examines texts considered classical to the pastoral tradition from five pastoral leaders through the church’s history and how they have understood and addressed their pastoral role.  One of the biographies was that of Martin Bucer.

Martin Bucer was a dominican theologian studying on the heels of the protestant reformation.  He was impressed with the earlier works of Martin Luther, which began making an impact on his theology.  His meeting with Luther in 1518 at Heidelberg, served as the catalyst that would change his life and solidify his position in the reformed camp.  He left the monastary in 1521 to become a parish priest and later would serve as pastor parish starting in 1524.  As the reformation fully blossomed, he would become of the leading pastors and theologians of the movement.  For twenty-five years until his exile to England, he made a significant impact on the theological colloquies and politics of reform in Germany.  Purves indicates that Calvin was very much influenced by the work of Martin Bucer.

According to Purves and not surprisingly, election and justification shaped the whole of Bucer’s theology and especially the doctrine of election.  Bucer embraced and espoused unconditional election, believing that salvation is completely the work of God choosing whom He will and has done so before the foundation of the worlds (Ephesians 1:4).  Election is God’s sovereign choice.  God is the one who calls, justifies, sanctifies and glorifies (Romans 8:29).  Sound familiar?

Bucer was also an evangelist and believed strongly that those who take the pastoral office should have as their chief concern salvation of the lost.  Not only pastors, but Bucer believed that all Christians were to be pastoral evangelists.  Purves notes:

“The evangelical heart of Bucer’s theology leads him to see evangelism as a primary feature of pastoral care, an evangelism directed both to those who have not yet heard and responded to the word of Christ the Lord, as well as those who have been part of the body of Christ but who have fallen away.  Not only are the lost sheep to be sought, but also the stayed sheep are to be restored.  In such a way, according to Bucer, pastoral care must have as a primary responsibility a concern for salvation of the sinners lost and strayed who are still God’s elect…Bucer insists that pastoral evangelism is to be pursued with the highest diligence and unremitted effort” (Purves, pp 88-89)

I think this is interesting.  Many non-Calvinist equate belief in unconditional election with apathy towards evangelism.  I think Bucer points to the fact, that belief in unconditional election should in no way deter evangelistic efforts.  According to Purves, he recognizes that election then is of no consequence and citing that the ones who are not elect will not respond.  But that should not be our concern because he believes that Christians should have such a compulsion in pressing the gospel, that the elect have no choice to respond.

Bucer’s position teaches everybody a lesson.  It should motivate the Calvinist to not rest on the laurels of unconditional election for an excuse not to evangelize.  It should motivate non-Calvinist to cease from mis-identifying Calvinism with apathetic or non-existent evangelism that rests on unconditional election.   He definitely serves as a model for all concerning evangelism.

PS:  I personally believe that every pastor should read that book.

The horse and water illustration that follows is taken from Millard Erickson’s book Postmodernizing the Faith. I use this and expland.

How should Christians engage a postmodern, post-Christian, post-evangelical world?

Horse=postmodern
Water=the Gospel
Rope=method of delivery

Question: How do we lead a postmodern horse to water?

Option 1: Deny the horse is really postmodern. No one can be a consistent postmodern. We simply need to convince them of the untenability of their professing worldview and show them how they don’t hold to it in reality.

Option 2: Convert the horse from being postmodern. Create common ground in epistemology (the way we come to know truth), then they will be able to drink the water.

Option 3: Change the rope. Christians need to change the communication method and style for a postmodern audience, being sensitive to the ethos of our culture.

Option 4: Change the water. The water we are calling “Gospel” today may not represent the true Gospel due to traditional folk theology and misinformation. Therefore, the water needs to be “purified.” Continue Reading »

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #3 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

#3 If I become a Christian, it will make me happy.

Is this true? Listen to what they we have to say. (Forget Lindsey’s comments at the end )

 

 Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because it will make me happy [26:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Earlier this summer, Brian Burgess, our Minister of Outreach, taught a two-part series on “Things God Never Said About Evangelism.” He did an outstanding job and I encourage you to listen to his remarks from both messages. In last night’s Equipping University, we learned that one of the things God never said is “Since I am sovereign, I don’t need your help in evangelism.” Of course, this raised a few issues and probably not a few hackles. One question was asked early and any reformed theologian worth his salt knows exactly which question it was:  “Well, if God is sovereign and He has already chosen who will be saved, then why should I bother to witness?”

When Brian and I discussed this over lunch prior to the class, I told him that no orthodox believer is really going to think God ever said such a thing. Now, a hyper-Calvinist will believe that ridiculous statement but Hyper-calvinism is not Christian. By the way, a hyper-Calvinist is not a Calvinist who really believes the doctrines of Calvinism. With that in mind, we must note that believers will fall into different categories as to WHY they think God would never utter that sentence. Some would say that God is sovereign but has freely “given up” (not the best choice of words) part of that sovereignty to ensure that man engages Him of man’s own libertarian free will. I, on the other hand, would reject that sentence because while God is sovereign He gives up none of it. Yet that same extensive sovereignty in no way interferes with that fact that man is responsible for his sins. Let these three statements be true: God is sovereign in all of salvation, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray. Continue Reading »

Last week we looked at the Greek construction of the Great Commission (Matt 28.19-20) and concluded that the typical English translation, Go and make disciples,was pretty accurate. The participle translated Go is really dependent on the mood of the main verb (the imperative, make disciples ) for its force. However, in such constructions (known as attendant circumstance), the main idea is not shared by both verbal forms; rather, it falls on the main verb. The participle is the prerequisite needed for the fulfillment of the imperative. Thus, going is commanded rather than assumed, but the going is not the main idea, for if someone were to go without making disciples he would miss the point. But making disciples “of all the nations†cannot be accomplished apart from going. So much for the grammar.

This blog will look at the historical context. Both with reference to grammar and history, many a pastor has put the applicational horse before the interpretive cart. It is crucial that we distinguish these two, and deal with interpretation apart from application. Obviously, there is a huge intersection between the two, but we confuse them only to our peril. Too many Christians are impatient with interpretation and simply want to get to the application. Sadly, too many pastors accommodate them and the result is often eisegetical anarchy. One of the question that must be asked before one gets into application of a text is whether such a passage has direct validity, indirect validity, or merely illustrative, historical, or negative value for believers today. The Great Commission is a classic text that has been applied before it has been interpreted, or has been applied with the interpretation, making a hopeless mess of things, and the result is that both the interpretation and application often miss the point.

This blog will deal with the historical setting; next week’s blog will deal with the application of this passage to our lives today.

Now for the history lesson. The scene of the Great Commission is an unspecified mountain in Galilee (28.16). Jesus gives his command here, then the gospel concludes. No ascension to heaven is mentioned. However, by comparing the data in Luke 24 and Acts 1, we see that Jesus’ ascension took place on the Mount of Olives (where the village of Bethany was located), in Judea just across from Jerusalem. And the final instructions he gave the disciples were to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came upon them. Then they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth (Acts 1.8). Why does Matthew seem to ignore the ascension right outside of Jerusalem? He is in the habit of telescoping events in his narrative (compare Matt 9.18-26 with Mark 5.21-43). And since the resurrection account has the women being instructed to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, that’s what they do. And there they get their commission, and the gospel ends. (One of the things that is quite amazing about the resurrection appearances is how understated they are compared to later apocryphal gospels; this at least hints at being a mark of authenticity.) But it’s important for us to recognize that the place where the commission is to start is in Jerusalem, not Galilee.

The disciples then are waiting in Jerusalem until the Spirit comes upon them, which will occur some ten days after the ascension of the Lord. We may be puzzled as to why Jesus wanted the apostles’ evangelistic ministry to begin in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee. It could be that this was where Jesus was executed and where the apostles abandoned the Lord in the moment of his sacrifice. The apostles needed to stand up here, and demonstrate that they were no longer afraid of the enemies of the gospel or of the consequences to their own lives. It may be that Jesus wanted to have the apostles witness to the Jews in the heart of Judaism, so that the announcement of God’s coming kingdom would be directly relevant to these folks since the kingdom would begin here. It may be that the Lord recognized that the Day of Pentecost was strategic for the quick spread of the gospel throughout the Mediterranean world. Whatever the reason, the main point for our purposes is that the apostles begin their testimony within Israel, within Judaism, and to the Jews.

The commission then is to begin with the nation of Israel. But it is not to end there. The command to make disciples of all the nations clearly indicates that more than Jewish evangelism is in view. When that command is juxtaposed with Acts 1.8, a hint of how the commandment would be implemented might be coming into view: although the apostles were commanded to go to the nations, Acts 1.8 only says that they will do this. It is thus here predicted, not commanded.

How do the disciples obey the Great Commission? What is the catalyst that gets them to move beyond the walls of the Holy City, and into Samaria and beyond? Persecution. Specifically, the persecution carried out by one Saul of Tarsus, a zealous Pharisee, a man who hated Christians and hated Jesus because he was an accursed criminal whom God judged by hanging him on a tree. The next several chapters in Acts show, in rapid literary succession, how the gospel spread outside of Judaism. Immediately after the stoning of Stephen, Saul (also known as Paul—this was not a name given to him later, unlike Simon Peter) goes on a witch-hunt for Christians, and he ends up looking for them in Syria (Acts 9). In chapter 8, Peter goes to Samaria to check on the responses of the half-Jews to the gospel that Philip had brought to them. And in chapter 10, Peter is sent to Caesarea Maritima, a largely gentile city on the coast of Palestine in northern Samaria. He is sent to preach the gospel to gentiles. And when they have the same experience of the Spirit that the apostles had had on the Day of Pentecost, Peter is convinced that the gospel was also meant for gentiles and, further, that they did not need to observe the dietary laws of the Jews to be saved. But it was persecution that got the apostles and other disciples out of Jerusalem.

In short, it almost seems as if Paul led more people to Christ as a Pharisee than as an apostle! The Lord was able to use persecution to get the eyewitnesses of the resurrection out the door. You will be my witnesses… in Samaria was indeed a prophetic word.

Seen in the light of history, the Great Commission altered the manner and contents of evangelism by God’s people. For the most part, Old Testament evangelism focused on pagans coming to Israel to get saved (the story of Jonah is an exception that proves the rule). But they could not remain uncircumcised gentiles and get saved. They had to follow dietary laws, get circumcised, and offer the sacrifices that marked the Jews out as a special people.

Now, with the Great Commission, we see in seed-plot form an evangelism that is no longer ethnocentric (i.e., focusing on and staying within Jerusalem as the ethnic, political, and religious center of Judaism) but rather was eccentric (i.e., moving away from this center). Further, with the removal of the food laws as a barrier to getting within the community of believers, the evangelists themselves were forced into an unfamiliar world. The vision that Peter had about killing and eating unclean animals underscored this to him. Just imagine what it would be like to be an apostle who, for the first time in his life, ate a ham sandwich or had bacon and eggs for breakfast! If these men had been taught all their lives of the repulsion of such cuisine, how would that first bite go down? Frankly, my guess is that it would come up just as fast! Obedience to the gospel certainly made them squirm. It got them way outside their comfort zone.

The apostles may have been acquainted with the story of Eleazar’s refusal to eat defiled meat before Antiochus Epiphanes and his subsequent torture and death by fire (4 Maccabees 5-6), or the more famous story of the murder of seven brothers before their monther’s eyes (4 Macc 8–12). In this text, the guards had placed before them wheels and joint-dislocators, rack and hooks and catapults and caldrons, braziers and thumbscrews and iron claws and wedges and bellows†(4 Macc 8.13 [NRSV]) to help persuade these seven brothers to eat pork. The next several chapters of 4 Maccabees (8-18) describe in an NC-17 manner the tortures that these young men suffered out of reverence for the Law. Each died without so much as taking a bite. Whether or not this story is true is not the point; rather, that it would have been used in Jewish circles to teach young Jewish children to be brave and obedient to the law is.

But through the paradoxical route of redemptive history, once the gospel was unleashed from its Mosaic fetters, eating defiled food was regarded as a courageous act and refusal to eat was considered cowardly (Gal 2.11-14)! I cannot stress enough how difficult this change in perspective must have been for these apostles. But for the sake of the gospel, they became evangelists on an eccentric mission with a Christocentric focus. In short, they went and then made disciples rather than making disciples along the way.