evangelism-may-june-1995 by Modern Reformation

For a FREE poster-size copy 01 this ad, contact the Seminary.

, Edit~r;'in ..Cbiet ' Michael: Hoxton

. Managjilg, E~ilor

:- .,'"

, ' Safa~ McR-eynolcts : ~~y6ijVI?¢sig"- ...'..' 'Sha'riE<Rosenthal .. , ,

-.,,¥

',coritrl~uiing, Scholars,

; '.,pr.John,Armstroll.g, ~. ',' Dr. Steve M. Baugh

' , . ' JJr~~[;}. ,~,"Ca;sQn , ·' The,Rev, Knox Chambl'in ' ~ O:r:' Brya~ ' Cha p~1I ' . ~t)r;naniel DOriani ' ' . fheRev:T'LigOrl.Buncan " ' .. .0';:.Tirriotn.. Y Georg~ ", " , 'Pr.W: R..6berfC:;odfrey, ,Dr.·James Boice '

,", Dr;}ohnHannah ",

~. ','. j5~. 'D,q'rryl ctHart ', '. , , .D r~ Cart f ..'ft .H¢nry The .Rev. 'MiGRael Hortoti

":D;~ Ro6~~fK6fb .'

'P' •

" Dr.'·Allen'MC\Whinney Dr. 'Jo~r Nederhood "_~' Dr. , R;ger, Ni~ole ' The Rev, Kim Riddlebarger Dr: Rod ,Rosen,bladt: ' , Dr'. Robert Preus'" .. Dr. ·R:: ~;" Sp:rQ;Wl · "','; ·' pr,(J~ob~lfStrim:pJe ... ' , Dr. WHfem A., VanGemeren, , 'Dr: Ce,ne E. Veith 'pr.DavJd \yells

,C,URE. B~a~d

IS THERE GOOD NEWS IN YOUR GOSPEL?

Rick Ritchie

SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU

Russell Matthews

WHEN THE METHOD OBSCURES THE MESSAGE

Shane Rosenthal

of Directors

~<?Uglas;\b.endroth

WAS THE REFORMATION MISSIONS MINDED?

Michael Horton

" "' N,1ichaelE:, Alari~~ ', "" John'G, BealJman ,,' "",Ole!:}" Bieh l ' " " The, Rev:'E;idBlackbum " ', 6~. ,W. ;, Rober( Codfrey '· . "Richard, Hermes , , ' , The Rev. MichaeJ Horton

Dc Rob'etfPreus '_

WHY EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE IN CHRIST

Michael Horton

FACING A CULTURE IN TROUBLE

Carl Henry

Interview: A Discussion with Ravi Zacharias

Page 11

D~: Luder,.W"hitlocJ

' CHRISTIANi 'UN11W

In this Issue

fdr REFORMATiON :""

Page 2 Page 2 Page 32

Letters To The Editor

Book Excerpt: Witnessing Made Easy!

CURE is a non ~p rofit e'c;lucationjil .. f;und~~i6f1 : ' ,c()mmitted tq communicatin.g theins~gh;ts:ofthe '. .. " ,l ,6 thcentury Reformation'tothe 2Qih' centyty ' . ~hun:::h.F~r r,noreinfbrmation, caiJo~;vrit~us, at: '

CHR1ST1A,~S' U NITED ,for

REF q 'RMATION.

2221 East,WinstOh RoadSu).ie 'K ·: , .~Anaheimt CA 92806

714-956-CtJ'RE SUBSCRJBE T.O

" ".

modernRt.FORMAJ':ION' ' 11 year $22 1'12 y~~rs $~O I:'

24 Cover Piloto by Weege c. (1 940)

MAY/jUNE1995

I'n This Issue

by Michael HortQh .

"-'":"",

MISSIONS. EVANGELISM.; The gre~lest ptivileg~ ::>?f any >_,

,i;:Chri,stiari is to sh~re the, 9ospel:'~,-,' :wiH~an unbeliever, butth?se two ; words eas:ily hauht mal1;y:church;;~ go,~rs.~y is tllat? " >0

'Part',of th{ reasQn is prpbably that the . ~pties andpe minds o:f,thista~k aresometi es emphasized~ore thanthe t1l GO~p'el itself. B~t th~r~ is alwa.ys the" ~~?Ue': If:we giveOl:lr •,.•... mon~yto rwssio9~~riesC}pd eva~gelists, ~~ don't~~ye to do it-,;, ,' ourselves. We ~af1: "hir~,out" o~'r responsibility. . '. '. >'" , . the G~eat C9mmiS'$ion is~privileg~'for all beti~vers, no.! a sp~cial . d~gree,;.of spiritual.. ,~ttainmel1't for . al1 ,dite ban,d. Wh,en JesiIs told his"discipLes thatJre GosI?:~l wouldJ?e preachesL<firstin "Jer~'$alem"then inl,udea, Safparia and,the uttermost part¥ of th~ 'earth/ ' he w~'~t~lking::about us. . . . < " Oft~n-especiaUy dur~Qg missio~s confe~~nces~weare

toldthailrrusa!;em is 'fhere'Y~ livean:d the uttermost part*of

the 'earth,(),re foreign fields. But nOL§p. Whe.n Jesus salp

Jen~~alel11"he meant Jerusalem.. Jesu~was not t~lling us t~at

weneed:~ leav~ourh~mes ~nd gota 'the fa~th,~st reaches of

thy,earth, butwas proJnisingbis peoRfe that t~GospelW()Uld

evt~ntua.ljy be taken to th~farthes~ reache~:' :' By anrcasual

gl~nceit a gl~be, Aiheri~~js one those ".uttermost~parts."

", We stilI need~issiQfiaries~and more of them; Their ~edicitjon to;the ~9vance:ofCh~1~t's kingq.o is aI}:>e~ample lTI our di¥inely tQ.ther:est of~s. But we not h~ve to l~aye .o·rdain~d secylar . ¢~lling$; in ;iq~r to b'5:come fb t eign m~ssiofl:~ries, for G~d has c~lled mapyof ust~l)e missi~l}iries .,r&ght here athome..:We ar~ to look for oPBDrtunitiesf6'lead 09ur frj~nds and relativest~ a saving knowledge ofCl1rist. But "(how w~ ,do this? Don't "~eformati:~n folks:' just leav~ evall;gelism,and missions to ev~rybodyetse? Is there a Biblical, Ref6:tmatipnalway of bringing the Qospelt6d;t he worlq} Weir~,you'l~just have to read this issue to find oJt;~ ~

A Set of 8 Tapes for Just $30

What Still Divides Us?

A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate CURE'S very successful Protestant & Roman Catholic debate is now available on audio cassette, featuring alively discussion of sola scriptura & sola fide. NOW AVAILABLE!

MAYljUNE1995

CALL 714-956-CURE

If you are going to include letters to the editor in future issues, please print only letters which are in keeping with the overall intellectual weight of your articles-not little self congratulatory blurbs. If you do not receive any heavier weight letters, then please discontinue printing "lite" ones. Don't bring your publication down a notch, or two, by including "chatty" letters to the editor page.

J. B.

Arnold, MO

Editor's Note: Sorry! It was kind of a "Catch 22" situation. In orc/erto start receivi ng letters, we had to show that we had a "Letters To The Editor" section. But the only letters we had to start with were the kind described above . Thank you so much for the fine work you are doing on your radio broadcast and in your magazine. Your "Family Values" issue (March/April '95) has done much to reinforce my belief that, as men, we have often fallen shortofwhatGod has demanded we be as fathers and husbands. Thank you for challenging me further-I know that, with the awe and respect you apparently hold for God, you will continue to remind us all that Christianity begins with each of us in our homes. Jerry Burris San Francisco, CA

Thank you for modern REFORMATION magazine. It's re freshing and forthright, thought-provoking and edifying, and the articles are written in language I can understand. I particularly appreciated Leonard Payton's article "Is it a Prelude or a Quaalude?" in the Jan/Feb issue. It was heartening to know that the vague dissatisfaction I've felt for years with much of what the church calls "worship" music is shared by someone else-Ithought it was just my own critical spirit! When I relayed a portion of the article at our small Sunday night fellowship (in regards to John Wimber's "Spirit Song"), it wasn't very well received. Most of the group seemed to feel that the songwriter's motive (where his "heart" was) superseded any trifling concerns overcorrecttheology in his lyrics. Ialso enjoyed your article on the Biblical basis for infant baptism. Having been raised in what I supposed you could loosely call a Baptist tradition, I too was put off by the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism (to tell the truth, I still am). Your article helped me to begin to understand the Reformed position, and to see that there might even be some Biblical basis for it (!), whether I like it or not. How we cling to our cherished traditions, whether good or bad, right or wrong. Now Ihave a complaintto make. Bryan Chapell's article "The Submissive Wife" in the March/April issue was weir written and on target. But what were you thinking of in using a nude female figure as illustration? To put it bluntly, this

modern REFORMATION

illustration struck me as tasteless and offensive. Perhaps, in your "tru Iy Reformed " appreciation for the arts, you feel that th is statue is a good example of someone's God-given sculpting talent and is therefore glorifying to God. But in my opinion, it does not glorify God, and it does not "confirm the dignity of a Christian wife." Anonymous Editor's Note : Our use of the fe male nude in Brya n Cha pell's article last issue was in no way inten ded to be offensive or demeaning. It was our thought that th is classica l statue ill ustrated the dign ity ofthe subject. I have recently subscribed to modern REFORMATION and your articles are a comfort to me. The things that are taught in Christian circles today certainly are not Christ centered. It is comforting to know there are other Christians out there with spiritual discern ment. j. R.

Florence, CO

After reading the jan/Feb '95 issue of modern REFORMATION (the one with Billy Sunday on the cover) I felt compelled to write . While agreeing with you doctrinally, I believe you are doing a great disservice to your cause by writing the way you do. It seems like every issue of your magazine in places resorts to sarcasm, ridicule, and scorn towards fellow brothers in Christ.

K. M. Altamonte, FL

Wonderful things are happening as a result of your work. Several of my friends who over the years have steered clear of anything with a "Christian" label are being challenged by your articles and intrigued byyour events. They are no longer turned off to Christianity but excited by it. Not only are they discovering the richness of their Christian heritage, but faith is being restored as they return to the truth that was once given to them, before it was obscured by various movements within Christendom. It thrills me to see how God is using your work to grab the attention of some very stubborn people. Thank you. j. T. Los Angeles, CA I wanted to let you know how much my wife and I enjoy reading modernREFORMATION. We first saw it displayed at a joshua's Christian Bookstore and were intrigued by its contents. The issue on the evangelical movement leaving the evangel behind was excellent, as they all are. Keep up the good work (but buy a spelling and grammar checker! I). Donald P. Harris Via Genie

to disagree. Well, the day finally arrived when I read Michael Horton's "God's Grandchildren: The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism ." As a Reformed Baptist, I appreciate CURE 'Semphasis upon and exposition of the doctrines of grace. As a Reformed Baptist, I feel Mr. Horton is "all wet" on this issue of infant baptism. Pastor Steve Stohler Freehold, NJ In the March/April issue of modernREFoRMATION t in an article entitled "God's Grandchildren" by M. S. Horton, I was confused about the language which seemed to suggest that all baptized covenant children would eventually come to faith. There was a quote from Calvi n's Institutes IV .15 & 16 regard i ng which Horton states explicitly that "the seed of faith is planted in the heart of the covenant child. " Later in the article Horton suggests that this seed will eventually sprout in their lives. I am confused by this language. He does not talk about elect versus non-elect infants. He seems to suggest that all baptized infants will eventually come to faith. Is this what he meant to say? Did I misunderstand Calvin and Horton? What is the orthodox position on baptized covenant children? Do we believe in a kind of baptismal regeneration? Daron Lawing Via Compuserve Editor's Note: Many of our Baptist brothers and sisters found t he "God's Grandchi ldren " article trou bling. However, it is a classic mark of the Reformed and Lutheran chu rches to rega rd baptism as a means of grace . Whil e Lutherans woul d insist th at baptism is always efficacious, the Refo rmed argue t hat it is a means of grace only for the elect. Th e assumption thro ughout t he "God's Grandchildren " article was that we we retal kingaboute lect ch ildren. In the Reformed interpre tation of Scripture, bel ievers are to assu me that t hei r chil dre n are elect and belong to the Lord even in the wo mb. Besi des the Reformed and Luth eran confessions and cat ech isms, one can t urn to the following cl assic studies for some hel p: Geoffrey Brom iley's cl assic little book The Children of Promise, and Pi erre M arcel !s work, The Biblica l Doctrine of Infant Baptism are two solid defenses of the Reformed view. The Lutheran posi ti on is set forth clearly in U uras Saarnivaara's book, Scriptura l Baptism, and the Bap tist view is defended in j ames P. Boyce's Systematic Theol ogy. For further debate on th is issue look for Th e Wa ter That Divides, by Donald Bridge & David Phypers. We hope this "sprinkli ng" of mate rial w ill be of use. O ur Baptist brethren may prefer to "fully immerse" themselves in the subject. M ichael Horton

Please send us letters! Send to:

Congratulations on another job well done in your March/ April issue. Thankyou for exposingthe spiritual bankruptcy of the gospel of traditional family values. Since receiving your journal in the beginning of '92 , I have been wonderingifl 'd ever read an article with which I would have

modern REFORMATION (Attn. letters to the Editor)

2221 E. Winston Rd. Ste. #K

Anaheim, CA 92806

Or you can contact us bye-mail at:

CURElnc@netcom.com, or CURElnc@aol.com

M AY/jUN E 1 995

Why · 6;'\Teryb.ody mus"t~.

believe .in Gh'r is t

" ~.

Evangelism In A Pluralistic Ag~ BY MICHAEL HORTON

MAY/JU NE I995

fthe reasons that I find the N ewTestament accounts so inently reliable from a subjective point of view is the Impression one has ofits central figures. Unlike the Zealots, who were interested in politicizing Jesus, or the Pharisees who would have welcomed a rigorous defender ofrabbini cal ethics, or the Sadducees who were looking for a more liberal moral sage, Jesus was not all that interested in "spiri tuality" as that word is used today. The most untutored novice immediately notices in the Gospels a certain ruggedness, a transcendence to be sure, but a transcendence that is bridged by the incarnate Lord, the record ofwhose life was entrusted to earthy fishermen, tax-collectors, doctors and who-knows-what-else. The Gospel writers do not ask us to appreciate their piety or praise them fortheir sensitivity to "the spiritual dimension" oflife, nor do they offer clever speculations on the nature of existence and the inner life ofJesus. Theirs is a record of a certain person's doing, dying, and rising. It is with Jesus Christ's observable acts, sayings, warnings and promises that these writers are concerned, not with moralistic apho risms or religious sentiments that form the core ofhuman existence and that, therefore, merely elucidate the spiritual side oflife that unites all religions. These biblical writers surely had in mind to report something extraordinary, something far beyond the in sipid spirituality of religious gurus. Events of immense proportions were given a significance that went beyond religion, in fact: All of creation, in all of its' depths and dimensions, was forever altered by the visitation of God incarnate and his redemptive work. N othingwould ever be the same, although much would seem the same until he returned at the end ofhistory. Nor did the biblical writers express themselves as if they had the slightest interest in conveying their personal reflections, experiences, or opinions. They did not view

modern REFORMATION

themselves as religious experts in the least, but they were experts on the life and times 00esus ofNazareth, who was none other than the Christ of both faith and history. One does not even find them portraying themselves as pious. Occasionally, Peter gets a correct answer On 6:44-6SY, but even the chief ofthe apostles misunderstands the purpose of Christ's earthly ministry, falters in faith, and denies Christ three times. Ifone looks to the Gos pels primarily for models to imitate, the writers appear to have not even the slightest interest in offering themselves up as paragons ofvirtue. They slept while Jesus wept and fled when he was ar rested, hopeless and despondent during Holy Week-in spite of the many lessons Jesus had given them in the necessity ofhis death and resur rection. The Resurrectio~ itself was the furthest event from the apostles' minds when the news came to them and its implausibility was measured by the impudence ofThomas. Thank God for Thomas's weak ness: it serves our own weakness. In spite ofthis rather unlikely band ofreligious proph ets, something happened-and that is responsible for the Christian faith. Christianity is not primarily concerned with something imitated, experienced, or inculcated within the spiritual life of the individual, but is chiefly the result ofsomething that happened. If the slightest histori cal events leave vast effects in their wake, this seismic historical event which we call the Resurrection was the most revolutionary "happening" in human history. The rise of pluralism in our century is as much the result ofthe devolution of Christianity as the effect of our awareness ofother religions in the"global village." Byshift ing its foundation from the rock of history to the sand of sentimentality, liberal religion opened the way to under standing religion as a purely subjective affair. The Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, reared in evangelical pietism, sought to protect Christianity (which he saw primarily as morality) from the attacks ofreason by sealing it offin a vault that was inaccessible to the inquiring mind. The "noumenal" referred to this category of reli gious and spiritual beliefs, while he called the "facts" of science and history "phenomenal." Kant thought he had safely planted the church on a point above the rising tide of secularism, but in actual fact he had merely taken away access to the one event that could drain the flood-waters. If the Word had never become flesh "in the time of Herod king 00udea," and had never been crucified for us "under Pontius Pilate," Kant would have, of course, been right on target. The problem is, neither Kant nor we were eyewitnesses. How do we bridge this historical gap? Were Kant and his successors correct? Had we lived during the days ofthe Pillar and Cloud, with the Holy Spirit leading to victory on the battlefield in his chariot, surely the wall between heaven and earth, the sacred and the secular, God and man, would have been less evident. There is a sense throughout those great

archetypical events ofredemptive history that God is active in this world and that history is truly his story. Nevertheless, in between these redemptive-historical events there are vast periods in which it appears that God is silent and aloof. We live right now during one of those periods, and have been ever since our Lord's ascension. While his king

The Gospel writers do not ask us to appreciate their piety or praise them for their sensitivity to "the spiritual dimension" of life...Theirs is arecord of acertain person's doing, dying, and rising. dom advances through the Word and Spirit, the consum mation ofall things awaits his triumphant return in glory. But with the best of motives, Kant and others of the Enlightenment (many reared in evangelical pietism), sought to separate religion and reason in order to save each from destroying the other. Ever since, religion has been engaged in a rear-guard action, trying to prove to its more clever sibling that it is not so irrational. At last, weary ofthe nagging rivalry, the Cain ofreason slew the Abel offaith. At the hands ofGerman liberalism, more than Jesus' cloak was divided, as the Jesus ofHistory was seen as something other than the Christ ofFaith, the latter simply the product ofthe early church's attributions ofdeity to a basically nice Jewish boy who brought out the best in all of us. "Don't you see, we're not bound to all ofthat supernatural nonsense about loaves and fishes and resurrections. We're enlightened now, having separated faith and reason, belief and history. Having lightened our load, we are free now to be both scientific and pious." But this was only because Christian theologians blinked too soon, when Hobbes argued quite irrationally that miracles simply cannot happen. Without the slightest proof, this became a presupposition of the Western world and religion retreated into the private world of personal feelings, experience, and morality. Today's "Christian" theologians, therefore, can take the most straight-forward statements concerning Christ's uniqueness and relativize them before one's very eyes. Take, for instance, Krister Stendahl's exegesis ofActs 4: 12 ("Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"): "Thus there is no way of knowing whether Luke, who wrote this, would consider this saying relevant to a discussion on Buddhism-if he knew anything about Buddhism, which is most doubtful." Furthermore, Paul informed the Roman Gentiles (Rom 11: 13) "that they have no business trying to convert the Jews." What these writers fail to recognize, it seems, is that Christianity rests upon the historicity of certain events. Stendahl simply cannot appeal to the biblical text for the MAYljUN E 1 99 5

nice bits with which he agrees (the Sermon on the Mount, etc.) and reject the classic statements of our Lord himself concerning his exclusive claims. If Christianity is Christ, then the uniqueness of Christ equals the uniqueness of Christianity. Ifthe same one who said rather boldly; "I am theWay, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me," actually rose from the dead, then everything he said and everything to which he lent his authority is true. Chris tianity can be true, or it can be false, but it cannot be something other than Christianity. Jesus did not claim to bring a new moral code (he backed up Moses); he did not claim to bring a new era of peace and harmony (he said he came to bring division). He said ofhimself, "I am the Res urrection apd the Life," promising eternal life to everyone who trusted in him and eternal condemnation to those who do not. "I told you before that ifyou do not believe that I am who I said I am, you will perish in your sins" On 8:24). Jesus may have been a fraud or a self-deluded man, but of one thingwecan be certain: Hedidnotviewhimselfasanything less than God incarnate, the only name by which anyone can be saved. IfJesus did not rise from the dead, not only is our faith futile (1 Cor 15), but Jesus is not the sort ofman whom one should like one's children to imitate, for his claims were audacious and preposterous if they were not actually ful-

filled in time-and-space history. After all, it was precisely that fulfillment that Jesus claimed for himself. And it is what his apostles claimed for him after they were con vinced ofhis Resurrection. The chiefissue ofour day, as in any other period, is whether that event upon which those otherwise unspiritual eyewitnesses staked their very lives actually occurred. Ifit did, it is a public event, not a private experience. If it did not, the so-called "events" reported actually possess no more relevance for believers than Aesop's Fables for the moral development of children. Thisbringsustoourtext: Acts 17. First, we notice that St. Paul was preaching in the synagogue, "as was his cus tom," where "he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." Paul, for one, did not have much use for a Kantian wall between faith and reason, since "reason ing," "explaining," and "proving" the Resurrection was within the boundaries oflegitimate inquiry. Furthermore, a "Jesus of history" who was someone other than the el evated "Christ of faith" was far from the apostle's mind: ("This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,' he said." A few Greeks "and not a few prominent women" accepted the Gospel, but Paul moved on to Berea, ending up finally in the citadel ofGraeco-Roman culture: Athens. Paul's first response in Athens was disappointment with the idols. Pluralism is hardly a new phenomenon. It is rather intriguing to listen to lectures in which very learned men and women will describe plu Cd A s sfc Q U\ 0r;;1 . E s ralism as if it were the result of a sophisticated achievement ofprogress on the road to enlight enment. History is evolving out ofsuperstition, ,When di?'people'b~gin toab~ndon the w9r.snip of idols,!)Jnles~it weresi,n'ce th.~' we have believed ever since the Enlightenment, very Word i~l' God ca,me amo~&tnen? Wheflhave oradescea~ed and become vqid and yet religious pIuralism has actually been the ofr#eaningtamongtQ~ Greek~:,~nd everywhere; except~inye: me Savior has~evealed most persistent form of religiosity throughout Hirpselfonearth? When did those whom the poets cal Lgods and heroes begin to ,be human history, but especially in its most silly ,ad)iidged 'as :r:nere 'll1ortals, except when '~he Lord took.thwspoils of depth a'nd

and superstitious moments. It is the essence of preS~rved jnQ9fruptibl:e '~he bod~He had taken"raising itfrom~fl1§ngthe de~~? .. In

paganism in the ancient world. Who among a w.ord, whef'l ,did the;'\ivisdomQf.:the Greeks :become foolish, sav~ when .the true,;

those of us raised in Sunday school can forget Wisd,om ofGpd revedl~d Himself(m earth? ,,:.' . . . \:, ,','

~;:',.As to:9~~ek wi$dom, how.~v~r, and t~ep'hilosoph~rs'?()'i :~ytalk, Ireally think the many stories of Hebrew kings who were no.one reql1ir-es argument from,us; for theama~:'ing fact is p'~tent.to all that, f?i all th~'t judged according to their banishment ofidola tQ~Y had\Aititten so Ojluch, the :~reeks failed to convin~eev.en ·a few from .~neir o~n try (religious pluralism). Indeed, the Shema, n~ighborhobd in regard to irnmortalitY~l'ldthe virtuo~s?rdering of life. c=h~ist aJone, and with it, the First Commandment, required " ti~ing cOfl1mon speech andthr,ough the~g~pcy of me~n n9tdever widrt~~irtong~es, Israel to worship only one God, Yahweh, Israel's ::;: Pfs conyinced whol-e asse0l91ies of peopl~ all the w6fl(t:;over to despise,: oeathJ ~and Savior and Lord. There are to be no other gods, c:-'te:take heed to tnQt~ings thatdo not die);~p'look pastt~~:~;Qings of timeandgaz~:'on no idols or physical representations ofYahweh; .things et~~~,~I, to think nothing"of earthly;gl~ry and to aspirf20nly to immQxtality.'

nor is the LORD's name to be in any way mis . ... In shprt, the?reek phj{Q~ophers havecompiledmanyworks withpersuasiye. used or confused with the idols. And there was a n~~s and .nyuch skillin,wordsj:but whatfrulthave they tQsh~», for th is such~s hasthe very good reason for this: Even if one were to 'i~roSS ofqHist? .. ,.yvhat oth¢rthings hay~given men Sljf.:n,,'certain faith in immortailty make a physical representation ofGod, itwould .i es havetni= cross 'ofChristand the res~r(ection ofHjs:R.ody? The Gr~~ks told alL~orts represent the wrong god-the projections of ,,' of false'ta,les,butthey cO!-lld neverD~etend thattheiridols rose ~gairdrom~eath: one's own wishes and yearnings (in other indeedit neverenteredtheir hea?sJb~ta body cq\lld 'existagainaft~r;death atalL And ~·.k' words, the projections of one's "felt needs"). onew~uld be 'particulady readitolisten to thernon this point"because b}t'these', opinions theyhave exp~ed the weakness of their own idolatrYi. ,~tthe sam~ time: Only in Christ is God made visible, since "he is yieldingto ChrisVhe pOSS,ibility ofboHily resurrection, so that bythctfrn~ans Helillight ' '. the image of the invisible God... For by him all things were created ... For God was pleased to ,· be recognized by' all as Stinof God. . have all his fullness dwell in him" (ColI: 15-18).

. ~thall~siu§ :(298·313), On/f/Je lncamiitio~:

MAY/jUNE1995

modern REFORMATION

The modern apostle ofreligion would be more likely to have been encouraged rather than discouraged by the reli giosity ofAthens. But Paul was deeply disappointed by the "spirituality" of this pluralistic center of high culture. At this point, Paul was faced with two options: either to turn his back on Athens and hope for a more congenial opening for the Gospel

sometime in the future, or to confront Ath

ens at precisely the points where the Gospel

contradicted the "felt needs" of these "cul

tured despisers" of mono,theism. As G. K.

Chesterton observed, "When men stop be

lieving in God, it is not that they stop believing in anything, but that they believe in everything and anything." It seems that we share with the ~rst century a historical context in which the incredulous is plausible and the credible is regarded with contempt. As the Gospel was first sent to the Jews, Paul went directly to the synagogue and we read that here again he was "reasoning" with the Jews as well as Greeks in the market place. Paul did not have the luxury of finding a group of Christians with similar life-experiences, a familiar vocabu lary ofreligious cliches, and interests in "the spiritual side of life." There was no Christian ghetto, and ifthere had been, Paul would not have been terribly interested in inhabiting that strange world. His theater was the marketplace, the center of public discourse, and this took him eventually to the center ofAthenian debate, the Areopagus. The early Christians, you must remember, were not thrown to lions because they wanted to worship Jesus Christ. With Dwight Eisenhower, the Roman authorities may well have said, "Every nation needs religion, and I don't care which one it is." Pluralism is valuable as social glue, because it helps keep the tribes involved in "the spiri tual side oflife" in service to the nation. No, the reason that Christians were thrown to lions was on the charge that they were subversive. They undermined the divine status ofthe nation and threatened its powerful myths by claiming that Jesus Christ was the Lord-the Way, the Truth, the Life. This upset the religious pluralists and, since the Christians were in the minority, the diverse religions and philosophi cal schools could at least unite in condemnation of such a narrow-minded, bigoted sect. "A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him," we read. First, a greater antithesis one could not have found in Athens than between the Epicure ans and the Stoics. Epicureans believed that the chief end of man was happiness and by Paul's day this meant instant gratification, while the Stoics insisted on denying their own happiness by living disciplined, independent, self-suffi cientlives. Butthey could unite against a common concern. "Some of them asked, 'What is this babbler trying to say?' Others remarked, 'He seems to be advocating foreign gods.'" This latter remark must not be lightly dismissed as a purely negative comment on Paul's teaching. After all, "All

the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas." Advocating foreign gods might actually have been in Paul's favor. Nevertheless, "the latest ideas"

The modern apostle of religion would be more likely to have been encouraged rather than discouragedby the religiosity of Athens. But Paul was deeply disappointed by the "spirituality" of this pluralistic center of high culture. did have to fall within a certain rule of prescribed ortho doxy. One could advance ideas of reincarnation, resurrection, materialism, or whatever-but Paul's mes sage sounded very strange to Athenian ears. And it sounded strange for precisely the same reasons that moderns are puzzled by it today. First, Greek philosophy was obsessed with metaphysi cal speculation. That is, it was primarily concerned with "the spiritual," which it perceived as superior to the mate rial, physical aspects of human existence. Paul was not advocating a philosophical system ofspiritual powers and principles, but was talking about a Jewish rabbi in Palestine who was crucified for our sill'S and raised for our justifica tion. While Greek philosophers were busy with questions over the nature ofexistence, the relations ofspirit to reality, and the principles for ethical conduct (matters that also preoccupied Enlightenment-especially German-phi losophers and theologians to the present day), Paul was obsessed with this man and his physical, earthly, history. For the Greeks, to bind "spirit" to "matter" was equivalent to linking "good" to "evil," respectively, so the notion of God becoming flesh was particularly offensive. But it was new; it did have that going for it. So Paul was escorted tothe "talk show" ofthe ancient world. "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." Weare in precisely the same situation today in the postmodern world. While modernity, under the influence ofthe Enlightenment, replaced Christian orthodoxy with secular orthodoxies, postmodernism is in reaction to the blind faith in progress, rationality, and the rejection ofthe supernatural. Like Athens, our centers of high culture are open to the supernatural; they do not rule out the miracu lous simply because "things like that don't happen in a cause-and-effect universe." Our contemporaries no longer view the universe as a machine, with its absolute, unchanging physical laws. And, like the Athenians, they are open to nearly everything and will even mix -and match, selecting bits and bobs from whatever they find attractive, no matter how eclectic and apparently contraMAY /JUNE 1995

dictory. There is another great opportunity for proclaiming Christ in this context, especially as we will find that our audience will once again find the message ofChrist's doing and dying "strange ideas to [their] ears." They will "want to know what they mean." Paul's message, therefore, was directed first to the plu ralistic assumptions ofhis audience. Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects ofworship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." I find this opening at once apologetically positive and negative. First, he uses a two-toned term in Greek for "reli gious" that also means"superstitious." It is a rather striking irony when the sophisticated cultural elite are accused of being" su persti ti 0 us," but that is how Christi ani tyviews too much religion. A modern equivalent might be for an evan gelist to address a gathering at Harvard: "I was reading the posters on the kiosks: 'Tap the god within,' a seminar on Yoga, feminist spirituality, etc. You are quite superstitious, aren't you?" It is a bad thing to be too religious. "The spiri-

The religious pluralism of our age, and Paul's, leads our neighbors to conclude that religion is in the same category as socks-a matter of private preference. tual" is as idolatrous as the worship ofmoney, cars, success, or fame. If it is not the story of how a particular God (Yahweh) became flesh, died for sins and rose again to liberate captives, Paul is not impressed. Various religions may produce ornate architecture, impressive ceremonies that celebrate "the spiritual" and enshrine universally-ac cepted virtues, but these do not justify their claims to truth. The religious pluralism of our age, and Paul's, leads our neighbors to conclude that religion is in the same category as socks-a matter of private preference. Leslie Newbigin writes, No one, in our culture, suggests that each ofus should have a physics of his own or a biology ofher own. We know, of course, that there are arguments among physicists and biologists, just as there have always been arguments among biblical scholars and church theologians ...But there is no significant proportion of our society which simply dis misses the findings of the physicists as merely private, subjective preferences. But Paul's opening is also positive in its apologetic. He does not simply write the Athenians off, attacking their traditions and pluralistic convictions. With his other hand, 8

MAY/JUNE1995

he begins to build a bridge to his audience. He was able to move from pluralism (the many idols) to monotheism (the altar to an Unknown God). This will be his way into the discussion, buthewasonlyableto employ it because he had done his homework first. Paul had visited the landmarks, the museums, the cultural centers. Furthermore, he dem onstrated a command of their Greek poetry and philosophy, by quoting (from memory) Epimenides, Aratus, and Cleanthes. He did not demand that his audi ence simply adopt his position; he argued it persuasively, as he interacted with their own sources. IfI may offer a parenthetical application here, this is a point ofreal weakness in contemporary apologetics. When faced with deep-seated pluralism, Paul was anxious to build bridges ofcommunication, but when we are faced with it in our day, we are inclined to either capitulate or merely at tack. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," was not Paul's approach, and it should not be ours. One cannot challenge the idols unless one appreciates their strength, the spell which they cast across their worshippers. Why is Epi curean sensuality and relativism so attractive? Why does Stoic resolve find so many adherents? Only after serious reflection on these questions does Paul then confront his audience. We cannot simply prepackage evangelistic pitches and expect people to give the slightest attention to our propaganda. We mustdo the difficultworkoflistening, reading, and observing first. Paul was not caving in to his audience in the effort to gain a hearing, for "the Unknown God" was Yahweh! That which was in the "miscellaneous" category ofGreek plural ism Paul now brings into the open as not only the "whatever" god (who will do nicely for school prayer), but the one true God of history. "Now what you worship as unknown I am going to proclaim to you." The Apostle then begins the body of his address, be ginning with the doctrine of God. Here is where the first clash occurs. All of the Graeco-Roman deities were glori fied human beings-generals, caesars, Olympi,an athletes, beauty queens, or other successful people. But Paul de scribes this "unknown God" as the sole cause of both the material and spiritual creation. He is not merely "man writ large," but a completely different Being. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as ifhe needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and every thing else." Again, Greek philosophy was fairly united in its opposition to matter. The purpose ofreligion and philoso phy is to strive to transcend material, physical existence. But here we learn, first ofall, that God created matter. He is the source not only ofspirit, but ofeverything in creation. Furthermore, he is not a pet or a mascot. He does not sit on the sidelines, as a sort offettish for the nation or a particular philosophical school. He is the source oflife; therefore, as Paul writes in Romans, "Who has ever given him anything that he must repay him?"

modern REFORMATION

, '~

At the heart of idolatry and superstition is the belief from arguing the case for Christianity (monotheism, the that somehow we obligate God into doing something for Incarnation, the Resurrection), to a passionate proclama us or giving something to us. Ifwe are good, ifwe "do the tion ofthe Law and the Gospel, judgment and justification, right thing," if we say the right prayer or follow the right threat and promise. "When they heard about the resurrection ofthe dead, steps or principles, we will get what we want. But Paul challenges this pagan concept of God. He is not a cosmic some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.' At that, Paul left the Council. A bell-hop, but the Sovereign God ofheaven and earth. "From one man he made every nation of men, that few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a times set for them and the exact places where they should woman named Damaris, and a number ofothers." live." Again, God's sovereig!lty is asserted over Epicurean relativism and Stoic fatalism. Theology does matter in Conclusion In our day, the Christianity that Paul proclaimed and for apologetics after all! But Paul does not simply give the Athenians a history which early Christians were martyred goes by the shibbo lesson. He explains the meaning ofthese events: "God did leth "orthodoxy." Like ancient Epicureans and Stoics, this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for many modern Christians are quite at home in an Athenian him and find him, though he is not far from each (1 A s S i'ht L QUO T E S one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have

our being.' 0-s some ofyour own poets have said,

'Weare his\pffspring.'" Contrary to the charge ,.,\,~:·:tf.:··:~· . ~, ~, ',' often made by liberal critics, Paul had a high doc The preacher says{};Believeo.gthl lord Jesus Christ/a,~~; th()u shalt be trine of creation. He did not believe that grace saved. II But how can a ':l!pn posslqly a~~ on that suggestioniUXIJ~ss'he knows what obliterated nature. Although the Fall rendered hu it is to believe? It was' at that p0i~tthat the "doctrinal" p r:~l~hing of a former manity impotent and helpless to seek after God generation wasfarm9:~e practi~~~t'than the "prac:tica1'("Pf:e'aching of the present (Rom 3:12; 1 Cor 1:12-14, etc.), Paul also believes day...The preachers6f the pres~'~~time allude toth~jmp~'ftance of becoming ,a .' that all humans bear the divine image and this Ch ristian, but they s~l90m seen1~'!tp make them~tt~r the:~~subject of express spiritual relation to God is preciselywhat causes us exposition; they leavet~~ people,\'VIt~a vague impressiontoth:e~ffect that being ' to create idols. Ifwe do not worship the true God, "Yi~ Christian is a good thin~~, but thi:s 'in1Pf~ssion is difficult totranslate into action ' ,~because'definite directions are absent~\, }:l)ese preachers spe?~i, pb6ut faith, but we will worship false ones. We must worship; it is they do not tell us whaufgith is.. Jt.tr~wky of salvation is.faith,it'does seem to be our very nature as homo religionis. highly important to teIl p~opJ e whQwant to be saved -il)Sf wffat faith means. If Ifwe are created in God's image, Paul says, we

J. Gresham Ma~J~(1881.1937} ,;"r~'."

preacher cannot do t2~t, he ca:r1 " h~fdly be a true ;eyang~tist.

should not worship him "as ifhe were gold or silver What is Faith/ p. 43, ' ," ,<:; '~', ';:;:/; ',,' or stone-an image made by man's design and .' skill." After all, this is creating God in our image 'Christ.i~;~}~~ang~lismdoe~ not consist~m;~rely in a man's going ~pout the rather than recognizing that we are created in his. w6rldsayingi !1L.ook~t me, w?::~t awonderfur exp.~riencel have, how ha~p:y!. ~rn, But then Paul comes to the "Law" part of the what wonderfuIChri ~~jan virtu~~:J ~xhibit; you canaIIQ,~<9:?good and asha!C>iP:Y~S ; address, where he sets before them the imminent Iam if you will justmake a coni [fre!~ surrenderof yo (Jr;yvf'ns in obedience to 'w~~t Isay." That is whatrn<my religio9s)Vorkers seemtQthi h~;t~at evangelism is:.. But ....•. judgment of God: "In the past God overlooked they are wrong. Men ;are not s~v~d by the exhibiti?,~ <?t-Y Qur glorious Chri~t~(.\D1 . •:; such ignorance, but now he commands all people virtues; they ar~notsaved by the ,contagion ofQu,reX periences. We cannot:b;g' everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he the ins~rumTnts '(}f.Gbd in savIng them if wep~~~ch to them thus onlyours E3 l.ves. will judge the world with justice by the man he has NaYJ<,~e.D}lJsr:r;>{e~G1rto t~eIV the Lord Jesy,s ~~ti'st; for it is onlythroughtnegos'pel appointed. He has given proofofthis to all men by ' wHic~sets :himforth thaltHey can be~a\(~<:l : ",.,> raising him from the dead. " Charging his auditors · {,:}. Ifyouwant health fQf your souls, c,tt'ld if you want to be th~finstruments of with ignorance was, no doubt, a risky proposition, . ~ringin?,hf~lthtoothers"ct9 notturriyqu~:g~~Joreverwithin,as tt1i~lJghyoucould but it followed a well-reasoned argument. In spite Jind'C~rts'~th~te.Nay, tum"'your gaze awaylr~tn your own miserable;~xperiences, oftheir great learning, they were really quite igno awayfro'rT)\fQ,u,;PQwnsin, to.t?e Lord Jesusc.:h.ti~<as he is offered tou:$:lnJ Regospel. .• .:;.,ltisJti,e s.aJlleold stmYJ my friends ,',t!i'e stlme old story of'~h~natQral man. rant and superstitious. God will not put up with Menaretryl~gt.0ClaYI as they have always be~ntJying, to savetherTlselyes~to save such nonsense as pluralistic relativism in matters th~Qi1.sely~s by their own aFt of surrender,<p¥~tne excellence oft~,~irown faith, by so great, having set a day ofj udgment. Theproofof ":',8wst,cexperiences of tb~;i r own lives. Blit' it is all in vain..NQu hat way is peace this is Christ's resurrection from the dead. w'rthGod to be obtained~'.il is to be:bbtained only in the qld, ordway-by attention . Butthe Resurrection stands not only as Law to someth ingthat wa~,8:one on~e;fQ.ralilong ago, ari;~):>'Y;,?tceptance ofthe.living that is, a threat of divine judgment, but as Savior who there, onc~ for all,<~r0t:lght redemptionJor:our sin. Oh,that men Gospel-that is, a promise ofreconciliation for all would turn for salvati~dfrom thekQ'Nn experiencet8th~r.,cross of Christ; oh,that who will accept Christ's righteousness as sufficient they would turn from't~~ phenom~Ba of religiontoth'e :liying God!

for justification before a holy God. From Education, Christianity~ The Sfate,~p. 21-22 .

apologetics, Paul moves directly to evangelism;

· i)

(

MAY /JU NE 19 9 5

world of pluralistic relativism and will happily join their pagan counterparts in seizing upon the orthodox. "What is this babbler trying to say?" And yet, pluralism has not achieved the golden age for which it hoped. While himself not an orthodox evangelical, theologian Shirley Guthrie explains, What most threatens the order and cohesion ofmany modern societies, including our own, is no longer the conflict between various versions of orthodoxy. It is the tendency to believe thatthere is no truth but only personal preferences and private opinions, each of which is just as good as any other so long as it is sincerely believed ...The rootlessness, chaos, and narcis sism that come when 'tolerant' people believe that there is no truth applicable to all are just as personally and socially de structive as the authoritarianism and intolerance of the old competing orthodoxies, with their claim to have the truth that should be imposed on all. Yale's George Lindbeck opines that in the age in which orthodoxywas taken seriously, there was actually a founda tion for public discourse that provided unity where divisions of class, race, and nation threatened to pull us apart. Buttoday, that belief that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life is itself considered divisive-not only in soci ety, but in the church. "Orthodoxy" has become a term of derision, as mainline Protestants are more likely than any other group in society to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But the vast majority of evangelical Protes

historical events as certain as the Civil War. And because it is real history, and not just a private experience, it is true not only for you or for me, but for everyone. N ewbigin again hits the mark here: The truths which Buddhism teaches would (as Buddhists understand them) be true whether or not Gautama had discovered or promulgated them. But the whole Christian teaching would fall to the ground ifit were the case that the life, death, and resurrection 00esus were not events in real history but stories told to illustrate truths which are valid apart from these happenings. Bishop Newbigin then adds, "Is factuality a trivial matter compared to faith-as the Pietist rhyme suggests? 'Though Christ ten thousand times in Bethlehem were born, ifhe's not born in thee, thy soul's forlorn.»' Ifthe Resurrection is true, itis not only true for everyone; itistrueforeveryaspect of our own lives. The Christian-that is, one who is con vinced that Jesus Christ "was crucified for our sins and raised for our justification," can no longer separate his religion from his everyday existence in the world. Since the Resurrection was a public event, along with the other events of] esus' life, it becomes the new lens through which we view the universe, not just religion. Until we recover the unity of spirit and matter, faith and reason, belief and history, in the unity ofChrist as God and Man, who became flesh for us and for our salvation, Kant's dualism will continue to incul cate this illusion that the truth about the Resurrection-and therefore, the truth about all truth, lies somewhere hidden behind the vale of human in quiry. We will prattle on about "what Jesus means to me," "what a difference he made in my life," and so on, placing the one true God nextto all ofthe other idols of our pluralistic age. We will go on singing, "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." Such an idea, although satisfactory to a Greek and charming to a Romantic individualist, could not have been more foreign to the apostles. ~

It is only the Resurrection that finally gives us our way into the truth about everything. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then everything else he promised will come to pass. That is Paul's argument for the coming judgment. If Christ rose from the dead, then everything else he said is true.

tants-670/0 also agreed that there was no such thing as absolute truth. It is only the Resurrection that finally gives us our way into the truth about everything. IfJesus Christ rose from the dead, then everything else he promised will come to pass. That is Paul's argument for the coming judgment. IfChrist rose from the dead, then everything else he said is true. "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus himself is "the unknown God," "the exact image ofthe invisible God," the Son ofGod and Son ofMan, andhis altar was Calvary. John writes, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" On 1: 18). In Christ, God, who is Spirit, is made flesh and mat ter. In this "Word," reason and faith are brought together, as that upon which our faith rests is nothing less than real,

MA Y /JUNE 1995

Michael S. Horton is the president of CHRISTIANS UNITED for REFORMATION (CURE). Educated at Biola University and Westminster Theological Seminary, Michael is a Ph. D. candidate at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry and is the author/editor of eight books, including The Agony of Deceit, Made in America: The Shaping of American Evangelicalism, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, and Beyond Culture Wars. Mike recently finished writing his latest book, Where In The World Is The Church?, which is due to be released this fall by Moody Press.

modern REFORMATION

ADiscussion with Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias is a graduate of T rinity Evangelical Divinity School and has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University. He is the author of A Shattered Visage: 'The Real Face of Atheism, and is the fou nder anel president of Ravi Zacharias International :NIlnistri es. Ravi lectures at un iversities vvorldwide, primarily focLlsing on defending the Christian fai th th rough apologeti cs. He recently received ·widespread acclaim for his series oflectures presented to the Veritas Forum at IIarvard U niversity.

MR: Dr. Zacharias, we've appreciated your ministry. You are doing some terrific work and we are hearing from all kinds of quarters the inroads you are making at institutions where one wouldn't necessarily expect that kind of impact. Zacharias: Thank you. I'm also encouraged by what you guys are doing, especially all the books you are turning out at such a furious pace. We are grateful to the Lord for what is happening. The turning point I would say came after the Harvard University forums. We were just inundated with university invitations from all over the world, really. It's difficult work and I'm sure you are well aware of how intimidating settings like that can be. You are in front of an audience where there are experts in a variety of fields and you have to measure up at their level. But I always claim the promise from Deuteronomy not to be afraid, but to take courage for "I will be with you and not forsake you."

MR: What do you think was so effective about the Harvard forum? Zacharias: The effectiveness ofthe Harvard forum, I think, was the fact that I started on a note of common ground so that they would not feel that I was coming there to tear down any strongholds. I just began by saying let's agree on the fact that we have to deal with this intelligently and not in any form of antagonism, otherwise there will be more heat than light. And also, I really believe, as tense as those settings are, ultimately there is no answer out there. Secularism is bankrupt. There is no meeting ofthe deepest hunger. So my attempt was to start with the mind and make a way to the heart. With all the work that went into the forum though, I guess I would ultimately have to attribute the effectiveness to the sovereignty of God.

MR: In your book, A Shattered Visage, you go into greater depth with this subject ofthe bankruptcy ofsecularism. Do you think that this presents an opportunity for Christians in everyday walks oflife to interact with their friends, family members and neighbors, perhaps at a deeper, more sophisti cated level than they have in recent decades? Zacharias: Yes. In fact, all one needs to do is look at the

newspaper everyday and somebody wants to talk about something that is ultimately going to lead to the question of who we are and why we are here? A week doesn't go by when there is not that type of opportunity. I am absolutely con vinced that if we wait for the successful "happy Pagan"--the type of person who likes to think things through--ifwe wait for them to come into our churches, then we are simply not going to make it. We've got to be on their territory and be willing to be vulnerable and open to dialogue with them. And also I believe that ifwe start equipping our young people with this kind of mentality, then we will really be preparing for the future.

MR: What do you think about the response many Christians have had toward the collapse ofmeaning and value that we see so evident in the clash between Christianity and culture these days? Do you think that sometimes we as Christians view things too politically, focusing on getting back our piece ofthe pie, or gaining power over the institutions, etc., instead ofhaving better ideas than the opposing forces? Do we Evangelicals believe more in the power of people than the power of ideas? Zacharias: Yes. You know, ifwe'd only understand history we would realize that wherever the message has become politicized, it has never worked. Politics by nature is a power game, it is a self-propagated domination game. But Jesus tried to change societies from the inside out. I think we have lived in such an insulated setting in the United States for so long with things generally going our way, and now that the battle lines are being re-drawn they think this is a tremen dous defeat. But we must stop whining about it and simply realize that most countries have had to deal with this type of environment for so long. Another point that is important to make here is a distinction made by Peter Kreeft. He said that in the Christian scheme ofthings there is an egalitarianism among the people, but an elitism of ideas, whereas in secular ism what has happened is that they have made ideas egalitarian and the people elitist. We must simply point out that the ideas must come into the forefront oftoday' s battles.

Co.r1tinued on Page 32

M A Ylj UNE 1 995

BY RICK RITCHIE

ask this one thing of my readers. Was the message of salvation which you were presented good news? Was it a message you could receive with joy? In Scripture, the message ofsalvation is called "the good news." It follows that if the message of salvation which we heard was not good news, then we did not hear the Scriptural message ofsalvation. For some, the very idea of examining their grounds of assurance is a threatening idea. For others, they are used to asking such questions, but put in this manner, it is a hard thing to judge. Sometimes even in everyday life it is hard to know whether something we have heard is good news or not. I intend to help my readers answer the question. Then I wish to examine some evangelistic literature to see whether it is successful in presenting good news, and where it isn't, make it easier for my readers to do so. Finally, I want to provide some good news if they discover that the message they originally heard was bad news.

Messengers, Salesmen, and Other Evangelists In the New Testament, evangelism was the announce ment of news. A true evangelist announces that something has happened. In our day, however, it is not '" C LAS -'S J C

)

Q.U , o- T E S

M~in' tqJher'(1~~3·153i) .,"\ .:~;,~, If yOLJ ~Want t~preach.~6 a persoh~j:~ a comfdrti qg\ ,vay, then do it~b tha~h¢ who~ears yo~ 'i~:;g ~rtain thathe'iis in God's favor} or he §:i lent ~lt,pgether~ . ~ G'or all preachers whofTlq~~,:\, theft'rearers,~ou bt~ie good fg/Cl}oth ing: .FO:f:,k~the Ki ngdOJ)l ..., of G()d we: mustbe; sure ' Fha(~we have .a ~g'racious God, "';' forgi\1;~ness ofsins, eternal. lif~. "~

an:p

MAY/JUNEI995

uncommon for evangelism to degenerate into sales. The Gospel is a product for sale and the evangelist's job is to tell you what the product will cost you and persuade you that it is worth the price. Some evangelists will even «cut deals" in order to sell more product. But it is not the evangelist as salesman that I wish to critique here. There are other more subtle ways for an evangelistto miss his or her primary calling. I would like to examine two popular books on evangelism to show what happens when our more responsible Christian writers are not clear about their task. I have chosen two relatively good books on evange lism for this purpose. These books are written in clear, understandable language by intelligent authors whom I take to be committed Christians. One is written to present the Gospel message to the non-Christian. The other is meant to be read by the Christian who seeks to be a more effective communicator ofthe Gospel. To a great extent, both fulfill their tasks. I do not want my readers to go running down these authors, for they are better than the going rate in evan gelical publishing. I do not even want these individual books to be rejected. But I do think that an analysis of their shortcomings is vitally necessary. Because they are written so well, these books are influential, and thou sands of readers have had their own grasp ofthe Gospel message shaped by these books. The first book I would like to look at is John Stott's Basic Christianity. It is an admirable book. First off, it is a short book-not so long that a non-Christian will reject it as a burdensome time commitment. Secondly, along with a presentation of the gospel, there is a rea soned defense ofthe Christian faith, an important part of any Gospel presentation which is directed at a wide audi ence. In spite of my reservations about the book, I have sometimes recommended it to people because it might

modern REFORMATION

be the only book the person in question will be willing to read. The difficulty with this book lies in its presentation ofthe Gospel. The Gospel can be found stated clearly in this book in Stott's explanation ofthe Person and work of Christ. The problem lies in what the reader is toldto do in order to receive the benefit of that work. Stott's treatment of the human response to the Gospel involves progressively escalating the demands on the would-be convert, and yet making the demands seem attainable by either softening them or

explaining that it is not we who fulfill the

demands, but Christ in us. After having a

"decision for Christ," "commitment to

Christ," the "Lordship of Christ," "repen tance," and "restitution" defined, the reader

must be convinced that salvation is both

impossible and effortless.

worthier of Christ's entry; or until you have solved all

your problems. "9 So we should open the door now, even

if we cannot set things straight ourselves.

But then again, perhaps we had better wait. Stott

tells us that "Jesus Christ will also enter as our Lord and

Master. The house of our lives will come under his

management, and there is no sense in opening the door

unless we are willing for this."lo

The embellishment of the Revelation passage con

tinues. What was the door ofa church, and became the

It is not uncommon for evangelism to degenerate into sales. The Gospel is aproduct for sale and the evangelist'sjob is to tell you what the product will cost you and persuade you that it is worth the price.

D ecisions, Decisions John Stott doesn't just casually use the word "decision." He devotes a whole chapter to the idea of "Reaching a Decision." Stott presents salvation as something in the power ofthe sinner to decide. After claiming that Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts wanting to come in (basedon Rv3:20), Stotttells the potential convert "your hand and only yours can draw back the bolts and turn the handle."6 He embellishes the Revelation passage to emphasize the individual's responsibility to respond to God. He then sets a pattern which can be seen through out the chapter. After impressing his reader with the weightiness ofthe task before him or her, he softens it to make it bearable:

door ofour hearts, is as well the door to the house ofour

lives. Jesus the meek knocker-at-doors who cannot so

much as lift the latch is also Jesus the household man

ager. This is quite a conflict in imagery.

Our response to Christ is not confined to lifting the

latch for him. It "involves repentance, turning resolutely

from everything we know to be displeasing to him."ll

This is a good definition ofrepentance, but we might be

confused about its relation to salvation. Stott realizes

this and softens things again by stating: "Not that we

make ourselves better before we invite him in. On the

contrary, it is because we cannot forgive or improve

ourselves that we need him to come to us." 12 Apparently

we are called upon to turn resolutely from all sin, but we

It is a unique act. You can take this step only once. When don't have to do it beforeChristcomesin. Stott explains

Christ has entered, he will bolt and bar the door on the that what is necessary at the point ofdecision is that "we

inside. Sin may drive him into the cellar or the attic, but he must be willing for him to do whatever rearranging he

will never altogether abandon the house he has entered. 'I likes when he has come in."13

will never fail you nor forsake you,' he says?

It appears that at the point of salvation, repentance has been softened into a mere willingness to obey, or a Weare the ones responsible to make an act ofwill in the willingness for Christ to do rearranging. But Stott beginning, but need not worry that our waywardness doesn't leave it there. Elsewhere he had said that" Some will foil our ultimate salvation oncewe choose Christ. At times, true repentance has to include 'restitution'."14 In this point, it seems that the human will is only decisive at light ofthat statement, commitment would again sound the moment of conversion. After that, all is sealed. impossible. The timid reader shrinks, and again Stott Stott's initial description ofthe decision isnotcom softens the demands. Knowing that the prospect of plete, however. He escalates the demand upon the putting right all past sins would be daunting to his more would-be convert when he says that our decision in sensitive readers, Stott says: volves a commitmentto obey, and that "when we receive

Christ, a moment ofcommitment will lead to a lifetime

We must not be excessively over-scrupulous in this mat

of adjustment. "8 Knowing that this might frighten off

ter, however. ltwould be foolish to rummage through past

timid readers, Stott cautions against postponing a deci

years and make an issue of insignificant words and deeds

sion "until you have tried to make yourself better or long ago forgotten by the offended person. Nevertheless,

MAY/jUNEI995

we must be realistic about this duty. IS

Apparently it is good to be overly scrupulous, but not excessivelyso! Stott's confusion in language is a symptom ofa confused theology which cannot figure out whether its purpose is to impose demands or to remove them. The problem is that Stott presents the human re sponse to the Gospel in terms ofa decision. Some readers think that we Reformation folk are too sensitive on this point. They argue that we should be pleased ifpeople are coming to Christ, and not be so picky about the language used to get them there. It is hard enough to get shy laymen onto the streets where they must endure the taunts ofpagans. Must we also add the heckling oftheo logians? Stated like this, I have some sympathy for the posi tion. Myintention is notto heckle those who accidentally use the word "decision" because they didn't know of another suitable word. Everyone seems to know that the Bible speaks ofdecisive moments when people come to a knowledge ofsalvation. In some ofthese cases, the indi vidualisputon the spot with the question, "What do you think ofChrist?". Jesus himself asks Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" (Mt 16:15). Peter responds in faith, but his response could hardly-be called a decision. Jesus tells Peter that his answer came to him from heaven (see vs. 17). Peter's confession ofChrist was decisive. It actively involved Peter. But it was very different from the type of decision evangelists speak oftoday. Stott's devotion of a whole chapter to reaching a decision is already far from Peter's experience. Jesus did not say "Who do you say that I am? Here are some tips on howyou can decide for yourself." In Scripture, the Gos pel message creates faith in the sinner's heart. In modern evangelism, the sinner is given a recipe to create faith in his own heart. Not only does Stott make the sinner the cause ofhis own conversion, but he broadens faith to include more than trust in Christ. The Reformers spoke offaith as an

In Scripture, the Gosrel message creates

faith in the sinner sheart. In modern

evangelism, the sinner is given arecipe

to create faith in his own heart. empty hand which receives the free gift of forgiveness. Stott makes faith include a commitment to obey. The hand now brings something to trade for the no-Ionger free gift. Stott's presentation ofthe Lordship ofChrist is con fused as well. Stott presents Christ's Lordship as a reality 14

MAY !jUNE 1995

which begins with our decision. This places Law after Gospel. The old Protestants would have stressed that Jesus Christ is Lord and Masterwhether invited in or not, and that the potential convert is a guilty rebel for not .~'" having been subject to him from birth. That is Law. The , truth of the Law stands even before the good news is announced. Then follows the free proclamation offor giveness. That is Gospel. No need tell the convert that he or she must swallow a bitter pill after tasting the sweet medicine. That pill has already been downed. Stott doesn't manage to salvage God's graciousness by reducing the Law's command to obey fully (Ex 24:5) to a "willingness" to obey. According to Stott, we don't have to improve ourselves before Christ comes in. We just need to be "willing" for him to change us. So lack of strengthisno barrier to salvation initially. Without wait ing an instant, we can ask, and Christ will immediately come in. But what is entailed by being willing for Christ to make changes? The implication is that I do not have to change my self. If I am a thief, I do not have to stop myself from stealing. But I must bewillingforChristto stop me from stealing. How does he do this? By commanding me to stop stealing? Ifthis is the method, Christ is no different from Moses. Moses could do that. But perhaps there is another way. Maybe Christ provides a power to stop stealing. Perhaps the key verse is "I can do all things through Christ who strenghthens me" (PhiI4: 13). But if I find that I continue to steal, does that mean that I was not given the power, orthatI failed to use it? WhatifIstill feel like I cannot help myself? Perhaps what I need is a power to enable me to use the power, and so on. This confusion could have been avoided ifLaw and Gospel had been kept separate. The Law says don't steal. If! steal (or want to steal, or covet), I stand condemned. Christ died as a thief in my place. The Gospel is an announcement ofthis fact. The Law was given to show me that I am a sinner. Stott's presentation tries to ob scurethis fact by suggesting that I don't really want to sin, and ifa power to stop sinning were offered to me, I would use it rightly. But how come I don't? The same confusion is engendered by Stott's talk of repentance. Does repentance (which is part of making Jesus Lord) require us to make restitution before Jesus comes in? To be consistent, Stott would probably say that we only need to be willing to do this. Orperhapswe must be willing for Christ to "rearrange our house" so we would be willing to do this. But what ifafter asking Christ in we find that we now lack the strength to make up for past mistakes? Does that mean that we never were willing in the first place, so our commitment was a sham? Or should we ask him in again so that he can give us the power to do it? Or, since we '

modern REFORMATION

didn't have to do these things before asking Jesus in, did he already come it, bolting and barring the door, so that we will be saved whether or not we succeed in making '- restitution? t} Some readers think I am purposely twisting things. Butthesequestionsarereal. When I read that something is necessary for salvation, questions arise. Many readers who have assumed that they were Christians will read of the necessity ofrestitution and call their salva tion into question. Is my spiritual state on hold until restitution is'made? Or is willing ness enough? Am I saved if I promise myself to get around to it someday? These may appear evasive questions, but for many readers they are all too real. I re member as a small child thinking that in order to go to heaven I had to undo every lie I told. Someday I would have to go back to each person I had ever lied to, and tell them the truth. But someday never came. There are cases, like family secrets, where unveiling a lie brings healing. But we must be clear that even in these cases we do not undo lies by telling the truth. Restitution is a way of trying to make the past right. But we can no more perfect our past than our present. A few readers might notice that along with restitu ~ tion, repentance requires turning from all sin. None of ~ us turns from sin perfectly, so perhaps we are not ex pected to do restitution perfectly. It would have been nice for Stott to have said this explicitly. Instead of underlining the lavishness ofGod's grace which forgives even those who don't repent very well, Stott tried to comfort his readers by making repentance less demand ing, so that they don't have to retract "insignificant words." Scripture doesn't speak in such muddled terms. Eitherwe hearofa Lawwhich demands us to account for "every careless word," which I am sure would include the insignificant words Stott mentioned; orwe hear ofa Gospel which takes away the guilt ofthose ofunclean lips (Is 6:5-7). There is no one so righteous that the Law cannot condemn, no one so sinful that the Gospel can not justify. Perhaps my reader thinks that all of this criticism makes evangelism an impossibly hard task. If a great evangelical writer like John Stott cannot get it right, then how is a simple layman to do it? Simple. This is even easier than the "Four Spiritual Laws." You have two points to get across to the person: the Law which con demns him, and the Gospel which pardons him. Preach r, Law, then Gospel. When you have preached the Law to where he knows he is condemned by God, stop making demands and announce the free gift of Christ. Believe

me, evangelism is easier when you aren't constantly hav ing to switch back and forth between escalating and softening demands.

Salt and Pippert While some books like Stott's are written to evangelize, others are written to teach Christians how to do so. In her book Outofthe Saltshaker and into the World, author

Either we hear of aLaw which demands us to account for "every careless word," or we hear of aGospel which takes away the guilt of those of unclean lips. There is no one so righteous that the Law cannot condemn, no one so sinful that the Gospel cannot justify. Becky Pippert defined relational evangelism for a gen eration of university students. Written at a time when many campus ministries were training their students to look down upon any work that wasn't evangelistic (including their university studies!), Out of the Salt shaker was a breath offresh air. It told its readers how to successfully interweave the task of evangelism with the lives to which they had been called. It affirmed the dig nity of the Christian's vocation, and the dignity of the non-Christian. One of the things which makes Ms. Pippert's book so readable is its conversational style. She used real-life experiences to illustrate evangelistic principles. The dia logues in the book actually took place, so we cannot expect the precision wewouldfind in a carefully-worded theological treatise. One of the things she successfully avoided was a "canned" approach. The problem is that few readers nowadays read carefully worded theological treatises. They derive their doctrine from popular books. The doctrine in this book is imprecise, and I fear the conclusions readers could walk away with. The doc trine of salvation is not an area where we can afford imprecision. In a chapter titled "Jesus the Lord," Pippert recounts a series ofconversations which led to the conversion ofa student. The student was unmarried, butsexually active, and Pippert saw this as an obstacle to conversion: The next day Lois and I talked again. "Is there any reason why you couldn't become a Christian?" I asked. "No," she said. "Well, I can thinkofone," I said. "Whatwill you do about Phil?" Then we talked directly about how becoming a

MAY/JUNE 1995

Christian isn't merely fire insuran ce; it's a rela tio nshi p that affects every aspect of our lives: values, lifestyle, sexuality. As we talked, it became clear that God had been pursuing her for a long time. There were tears and struggles followed by an utterly sincere prayer asking Christ to come into her life as Lord. 16

At this point, we have witnessed an evangelist who is willing to say what she feels must be said without worry ing about offending the potential convert. Pippert certainly d~monstrates a great deal ofintegrity. But aside from modeling integrity, she tries to model an accurate presentation ofthe Gospel. How is it presented? My concern is that God's demands are presented in full rigor] so that Lois knows she is a sinner. Then I want tosee God's promises presented freely so that Lois knows that her salvation was taken care oflong ago. The gift is to be received with the empty hands of faith. Is this what took place? It is hard to say. We weren't told enough about Lois. Perhaps Lois was "secure in her sins" before the above discussion. Maybe she felt that her life was her own and God owed her his goodwill. Pippert then turned the conversation to her relationship to Phil to point out her rebellion, showing Lois her desperate need ofChrist. In this case, the above exchange was a good use ofLaw and Gospel. But then again, what ifLois was a "terrified sinner"? What if she had always felt distant from God, and Pippert's presentation ofthe Lordship of Christ made it look as ifby setting her moral house in order, Lois could make herself acceptable to God. In this case Law and Gospel would have been hopelessly mixed and Lois was converted to Phariseeism!

We aren't told enough to know what really hap pened. It might be that even ifPippert had filled in all the details she knew, we still wouldn't know what happened. That isthe nature o flaw and Gospel. The true state ofthe heart of the person we evangelize often remains hidden ~ from us. We do the best we can, preaching the message of Law or Gospel as it seems appropriate. Out of charity, I would like to assume that Ms. Pippert said the right thing at the right time. Perhaps the Holy Spirit inspired a sensitivity to Lois's condition that made what was said perfect to the occasion. My fear is not for Lois. She was probably well cared-for. My fear is for the evangelical reader who reads the above account and constructs a doctrine ofsalvation out of it. Lois's conversion becomes a how-to manual in reaching assurance ofsalvation. What is the result? Un certainty and doubt. If this sounds harsh, look at what Pippert says followed upon Lois's conversion: That one decision had far-reaching effects. That same night three girls on the floor decided to get right with Christ. Another girl who had assumed she was a Christian realized she wanted no part ofit ifit demanded total com mitment. 17

Some readers will read the above as an account ofa huge success. Again, my response is not to condemn, but to point out the fact that we haven't been told enough to know the real story. What took place? What does Pippert mean when she says that three girls "got right with Christ"? Thinking pictorially, I imagine three just-shampooed girls in flannel night gowns sitting in a circle praying. Perhaps some tears are shed. But the theologian in me has questions to ask. Were these Christian girls who were living in sin, LAS SIC QUO ' 1:,E"$ or non-Christians? Ifthey were non-Christians, what did they do to get right with Christ? Prom ise to stop sinning? Promise to try to stop sinning? Promise to try to stop sinning if God helped? Promise to be willing to stop sinning if Do:not aimClt sensatton and "effect: It veryoftel1h Ppens that God made them willing? My readers might find this line of question.c theconverts thatare born in ex£iiement die'whenthe excite ing a little persnickety, but it is not. When is OYTf. Th~¥ are like~~~ain insects ~hlCl1are the obedience gets thrown into the question ofsalva progyct ofan:exce:dingly warm .day, and die whe9>the sun tion' there is always the difficult matter ofdegree. It is always admitted that nobody is perfect, but goes: down" ~ kdelightnot in the reli~ionwhich needs .gr~~:reaies then again, surrender is to be total. The upshot is a.n~t head. .Give,m:ethe Godlinesswh ich flouri?he~;pn:talvary rather thaD upon.c Vesuvius~ ::;~Ihe utmost?e9l?for Christ is that the Christian world is theoretically popu lated with totally-surrendered people who still GQ:hsistentwitho~mmoq;sehse and re~soD;: 'tkving, ranting, manage to sin a lot. How is this possible? This :~Bd fah9ticism ;~re pro~g~ts of anQtnerteal which is not ,· state-of-affairs is the cause ofimmeasurable anxi ascordih~ to knowledge.y:41Ve would: prepare men fat: the ety for Christians. But instead of questioning their teaching, the questions are turned inward, th~mber;Qf comn~tunion~rt~.,.pot for the p~d~~d room .. ~ ~ and eat away at their confidence.

Charles SpDtgeon (1834';1892),

How To WinA 'Soi,{

meQt

MAY/jUNEI995

modern REFORMATION

Ms. Pippert recognizes that she has two separate elements in her model ofconversion. She explains how these two elemen ts came together fo r Lois: "She came to see that if Jesus is Lord then the only right response to him is surrender and obedience. He is Savior and he is Lord. We cannot separate his demands from his love."18 What is de manded of Lois is a dual response to Christ. Christ here has two roles: Savior and Lord. Since we find these roles in the one Christ, we cannot separate them. The Reformers saw this differently. They would present Christ's Lordship first. He is Lord over all areas oflife. God described this overarchihg Lordship in the Ten Com mandments. Christ as divine teacher reestablished the rigor ofthis rule in the Sermon on the Mount (an expe rience which C.S. Lewis compared to being knocked in the face with a sledge hammer 19 ). This Law is presented not to convince its hearers to submit on this or that point, but to make us "conscious of sin" (Rom 3:29). Once this is accomplished, we understand our need of Christ as Savior. In onesenseitis right to saythatwemustacceptboth Christ's Lordship and his role as Savior, but we must be clear as to what this does and does not entail. Accepting Christ's Lordship means that we accept his right to judge. When we read the Law we recognize ourselves as sinners. We do not at this point begin making New Years resolutions. The purpose ofthe Law was to con vince us of our character as lawbreakers. Christ is then presented as the one who came to save lawbreakers. Ms. Pippert says that we cannot separate God's de mands from his love. But that is what the distinction between Law and Gospel is all about. Ms. Pippert was right. Lois's immorality did separate her from God. But that was why Christ came. Mark this well. Christ's demands require more than that Lois stop being sexu ally immoral. They require her to be perfect. IfChrist's demands must be met to receive his love, and he de mands perfection, then there is no hope.

without obscuring the message ofsalvation. Perhaps in your life you never heard the Gospel as good news. Or maybe at conversion you did have good news preached to you, but later someone convinced you

It is always admitted that nobody is perfect, but then again, surrender is to be total. The upshot is that the Christian world is theoretically populated with totally·surrendered people who still manage to sin alot. How is this possible?

The "Two Spiritual Laws" Scripture teaches us to distinguish God's commands from his promises. It tells us that while the Law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (J n 1: 17). The Law can be summarized as a com mandmentto love Godand our neighbor (Mt22:40). If wedoit, we are promised life (Lv 18:5, Rom2:7,10). But the Gospel is a righteousness from God apart from Law (Rom 3:21), that is, apart from doing. While both mes sages are scriptural, and we need the Law to show us our need ofthe Gospel, these messages cannot be confused

that unless you had submitted to Christ's Lordship enough, or felt enough anguish over sin, or made restitu tion for past mistakes, you could not be saved. I have some bad news for you. To be saved, you must be submitted to Christ's Lordship-starting at birth. And you must be born without original sin. But you shouldn't merely feel anguish overyour sins, you are not allowed to commit any. And as for restitution, ifyou need to make it, then it is too late. The good news is that Christ submitted to the Law for us, starting from birth. "Conceived by the Holy Ghost" and "born ofthe Virgin Mary," he had no origi nalsin. Nordidhe anguish over any sins ofhis own. But he did feel the anguish of our sins in our place on the cross. As for restitution, he had none to make for him self. He will, however, make a place for us where his people are no longer condemned for their sins. ~ Rick Ritchie is a graduate of Christ College in Irvine, California and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. He is a CURE staff writer and a contributor to Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, published by Baker Books. 1. Mt7:14. 2. Mt 5:20. 3. Mt 13:27. 4. 1 Cor 6:9 . 5. See Rom 10:5. 6. John Stott, Basic Christianity (London, Inter-Varsity Press, 1971), p. 126. 7. Ibid. 8. Basic Christianity, p. 127. 9. Ibid. 10. Basic Christianity, pp. 124-125 11. Basic Christianity, p. 125. 12. Ibid 13. Ibid . 14. Basic Christianity, p. 110. 15. Ibid. 16. Rebecca Pippert, Out of the Saltshaker and into the World(Downers Grove; II: InterVarsity Press, 1979), p. 46. 17. Out of the Saltshaker, p. 47. 18. Ibid . 19. C.S. Lewis "A Rejoinderto Dr. Pittinger" in God in the Dock(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 182.

MAY/JUNE1995

A Personal Account ofthe

Power ofthe Gospel BY RUSSELL MATTHEWS

MAY/JUNE 1995

omosexuality. The topic is at least uncomfortable for many. While a growing number of denominations consider the possibility of ordaining homosexuals, and while government and media continue to catechize the public in the articles of tolerance, many evangelical and other leaders have encouraged strong political reaction. While I do not think that everyone's politics is my busi ness, I do think this type of reaction from a publicly Christian group often only alienates sinners from the one divinely appointed agency of reconciliation to God, Christ's Church. It should not surprise us too much to see seminars "re-imagining God", and to watch the world "re-imag ine" morality, when Christians in America have been re- imagining their theology for decades. Many may have by now forgotten that the Christian Church, with the Gospel, does not offer condemnation and hatred for sin ners' but freedom and peace. From us sinners, saved by grace, men and women who struggle with or practice homosexuality deserve only compassion and respect. They deserve our compassion because we, too, are sin ners and oughtto be aware ofthe burden ofsin and shame that would be ours without Christ. They deserve our respect because they, like us, are creatures who have been granted dignity, bearing the imago Dei-the image of God. Even Christians and churches whose hearts are full ofcompassion, and who offer special programs and out reaches to the homosexual community would do well to consider what kind of freedom and peace is offered, be cause not all kinds of freedom and peace have been promised. I believe, with Augustine, that there is nothing a man seeks more than his own happiness, and further, that it is good and right to seek the best happiness, namely God, in the best way, by faith in Jesus Christ. Supreme and eternal happiness is no cheap thing, yet it is bestowed upon be lievers as a free gift of God, or at least, for now, the sure hope and promise of it. Such sure hope is cause for great comfort and no unwarranted joy. But that does not seem to be the happiness with which most of us are concerned these days. This presents a great problem in modern evangelical Christianity. Those who have expected and waited for happiness have found despair and those who sought lib eration have found themselves in oppressive bondage. There is a huge number of people trying to act happily and avoiding the reality that they are in pain. There is an even larger mass who, realizing that they are in pain, spend millions of dollars on supposedly Christian self help and psychology books and counseling services to fIx their apparently surprising problem of depression, or

modern REFORMATION

rage, or dependency... pick a dysfunction. There are a number of people who just leave the church because it can't deliver the goods. And there are some who, by God's grace, come back. Let me tell you about one of those. I remember pain even in my childhood, and I re member myidea ofChristianity in my childhood; that is, that Jesus ought to make you happy. When I was a boy, I loved Jesus as far as I understood him. He seemed quite lovable. He did miracles and healed people. He even loved us so much that he died in our place that we might live. But for some reason, Jesus did not make me happy. Of course there were times when I was happy, with my family, with friends, and I have been showered with good blessings from God throughout all of my life. My pre dominant disposition, however, was one of sad and lonely insecurity. This did not seem to square with my religion, and as I grew in knowledge and wisdom, how ever feebly, this discrepancy began to concern me. The concern was evident at retreats and summer camps where I rededicated my life to Christ innumerable times, hoping that this time Jesus would come through, or that I would maintain enough virtue to finally gain his favor. I was always disappointed. While I did not ever renounce my faith in the Lord, my quiet rebellion would reveal my sad and disenchanted unbelief, and I would begin my search for happiness from other hands. I maintained a presence at church throughout jun ior high and high school. It was a good social outlet and the source ofmany good friendships. I was the president of my junior high youth group and later, of the senior high group. I wasagoodstudent, too, and found satisfac tion and approval in my academic work. But, like most young men, things really got complicated when puberty hit and all kinds of new things began to interest me, because then, all kinds of new things began to bring me pam. Early in high school, I began to be more concerned about that which worried me a bit in junior high. I thought that there was something about my develop ment that was not like the other boys, in terms of my interest. As my hopes with my first and unrequited love were dashed, my hopes with all ofher kind were dashed and the alternate door was opened wide. I began to ex plore' only in my mind, a sexual interest in my same sex peers. I cannot describe to you the sense of shame that accompanied every homoerotic thought and fantasy. I cannot put into words the very real feelings of isolation and absolute aloneness that were mine. In spite of my shame, it was I who continued to think and fantasize to my own peril. It was I who was seeking happiness and delight in created things rather than the Creator, how ever restrained in action. The temptation, wherever

from, did not bring my shame, but my own desire to yield. In the midst of my shame, I wished and prayed to be delivered from such unspeakable perversion. My years at college brought more freedom than I handled well and all I remember clearly is being drunk. For the first two years, my solace was alcohol. There is little else short ofsuicide that can so ease emotional pain, hide shame, andbring a kind ofhappiness and reliefto a person than to be drunk, and I was too much afraid of what death held for me to try the other, though I thought of it often. For the remainder of my college career, I became intoxicated with this world and with myself. After alcohol had nearly cost me more than I cared to pay (in terms ofUniversity privileges, etc.) I joined Alcohol ics Anonymous (which has become a place where you go tell everyone about your incontinence and all agree it's a disease). I was on the wagon, hitting the books, making the grade, earning respect, and hoping for happiness. In my fraternity, I was one ofthose running the show, try ing to keep our charter on the cam pus while still allowing for a good time to be had by all. I attended church nearly every Sunday, and while the sermons and Bible stories did grip my emotions, I was not yet so grateful as to be obedient because what little obedience I had displayed seemed to avail little. After all, God had yet to deliver to me the happiness everyone at church seemed to possess, and my prayers ofdeliverance, my prayers to be normal, seemed to fall on deaf ears.

"The Prodigal Son" by Albrecht Durer

MA Y /JUNE 1995

I still considered the few rules of Christianity I had kept in order to muster some assurance of salvation namely, my very technical virginity, and the fact that I had yet to give in to my homosexual desires. All thewhile, I prayed that I might not be given an opportunity to sin in that way because I knew that I was incapable ofresisting, so ready I had become forthe reality from years offantasy and uninhibited desire. Also fearing the true state of my soul, I pleaded to God to show me mercy on rare occa sions in which I realized my sinfulness. In exchange, I promised that I would"do better." I was confused, disil lusioned, and proud. I was as lost as any sheep ofChrist' s has ever been. But, happily, I have a very good Shepherd. During the last semester of my undergraduate cur riculum, I finally talked about it-first with my psychologist whom I was seeing for my depression, and later with a friend in my fraternity. My psychologist was a member ofmy family' s church, though not in a "Chris tian" counseling practice. I trusted him, as a Christian, to counsel me applying the best ofpsychology and biblical morality. (I was afraid to go to a non-Christian psycholo gist for fear that they would encourage me to act on my homosexual desires.) He was a tremendous help to me, at first. We worked through my "irrational" depression, some bad relationships, and some hurtful experiences. After about a year of therapy, I finally felt comfortable enough to share with him my greatest source of shame, my deepest darkest secret, my greatest fear, and mystron gestdesire. I remember with what great fear I toldhim, "I think I might be a homosexual." I don't remember his initial reaction. I do recall that within a few months it had become a very comfortable and enjoyable topic of our conversation. M ytherapist never told me it was wrong or that I was bad. I just had some experiences that led me to certain attractions and the morality of acting on those attractions and desires was left for me to decide. There was a conspicuous and isolated vacuum in which my struggle took place. I had long ago ruled outthepossibilityofspeakingto anyone at my church about my problem. Their sensitiv ity and understanding had been made manifest with a sermon on the great evils ofthe homosexual community, the great crisis in our denomination's policy on homo sexuality, and the story ofone man who was healed ofhis homosexuality, got married and lived happily ever after, the end. Surely, I thought, it cannot be that simple. Surely you cannot know what you're talking about up there, "Mr. Straight Preacher." Besides, God had already had his chance. He had seen my tears, my shame, and my broken heart. He had heard my cries for deliverance. And he had done nothing. After hundreds of agonized prayers, he had not taken away my desires and removed my temptations. 2G

MAY /J U N E 1 99 5

I had not yet fully resolved to live a homosexual lifestyle, but I could think of no greater thing on earth than to have a boyfriend. IfI could make thatj ive with my Christianity, that would be icing on the cake. I found a gay and lesbian organization in the yellow pages and called to find out where to meet people. As it happened, there was agaymen's discussion group which met weekly to discuss issues and offer support to one another. There was also a Metropolitan Community church (MCC) which welcomed gay and lesbian members. I thought this would be a great opportunity to meet some real gay men and women and find out how they reconciled their Christianity with their homosexuality. It turned out to be where I met a very special young man to whom I was instantly attracted. After a few group outings and a few phone calls, I discovered that the feel ing was mutual. I was a little surprised and not a little more delighted. We started dating and it seemed to be the most wonderful and happy time of my entire life. I was on cloud nine. Here was someone I loved who loved mein the same way, atthesametime. The very thought of giving him up brought tears to my eyes and a great sor row to my soul. As a result, I did not think of it often. Instead, I set about the task of proving to myself that mine was no sin and that the church had held a wrong and near-sighted view for millennia. Of course, there is a great deal of pride in such an endeavor, but pride is a very good dissipater of shame. The shame that was minewas not bearable without avery great dose of disillusioned self-love. "Gay pride" is an existential necessity for the homosexual, and it crept upon me, unaware. I felt free. I felt happy. I felt satisfied. How? By contradicting and disobeying my parents, my Church, and their God.These were my tyrants and tor mentors, pressing me into a mold I was not made to fit because it had been manufactured by fools. But I had opened my eyes and seen their pitiful blindness. I, the wise and finally happy, would hear their impious ravings no longer. I would not submit to their closed-minded and hurtful authority. Furthermore, I was on my way to . discover a god who did not damn me and my life's only delight. Parents and churches (who seem wrong) can be written off relatively easily. God, however, requires a bit more care, because suddenly matters of eternity arise which cannot be ignored with impunity. Regardless of what I wanted to be true, the sinfulness ofhomosexuality remained a possibility in my mind and it caused me some concern. I sought counsel from many books. By the grace of God, I was temporarily unemployed and was able to spend my days reading voraciously. I found sev eral Christian authors who brought their several "cures" and sin management schemes to bear on the issue. I also

modern R EFORMATION

found theologians and biblical scholars who advocated homosexuality and attempted to show that biblical pro hibitions did not exist. Sadly, the Christian authors offered nothing to refute their claims. What they had assumed, I needed proven. The M CC was offering a Bible study entitled "What they didn't teach you in Sun ~ day school" which was intended to assist gay and lesbian people in reconciling their present lifestyles with their prior and apparently misguided instruction. These were sometimes encouraging, but I felt very uneasy about a number of things. First, in the theological books and biblical studies which advocated homosexuality, even though I am no philosopher or logician, all their proofs seemed very laborious and weak. I was not strongly persuaded, even though I longed to be. Second, was that the Law of God was mocked in the "church." In the class at M CC, the ceremonial codes were not appreciated for their symbolism, nor recognized con textually as good commands from a holy God. The preacher .(a lesbian woman who I tried in

vain to accept as a legitimate ecclesiastical

authority) led the class in reading a list of laws and laughing out loud at their absur dity. I was not amused and did not return to that class. Finally, although my conscience was severely seared, it was not yet dead (soli - Deo gloria) and, though my sin was great, my God had not "given me over" forever (sola gratia). I tried to convince myself that

God wanted me to be happy, that having a boyfriend made me happy, and therefore, God wanted me to have a boyfriend. My prayers and worship of God were greatly strained and artificial. I am amazed at his great patience and grace bywhich he heard my prayers. I tried to picture a Jesus who encouraged me to be gay and my heart was made to recognize the blasphemy and idolatry my blind mind would not yet admit. All the while, the true Jesus continued to make intercession to the Father on my behalf. I was plagued with a guilty conscience which I tried to chase away with sociological and psy chological rationalizations to no avail. I went to the pastor of a local non-denominational Christian church I had attended occasionally to discuss the matter. I needed another perspective and I wanted to hear if there was a reasonable argument against the ad vocates ofbiblically-endorsed homosexuality. I told the pastor that I was searching for the truth and was having trouble finding it at the MCC. I told him that I was a Christian. I told him that I was homosexual and that I was in a relationship which I enjoyed very much. I ex plained arguments to him regarding the meaning of several apparent prohibitions in scripture, expecting to hear a rational attempt at refuting them. Instead, I was

accused (perhaps not wrongly, but definitely prema

turely). He claimed I was guilty oftwisting the scriptures

in such a way that adultery and bestiality could be

deemed acceptable with the same logic. My Christianity

was questioned and I was judged. I was informed that

homosexuality is found at the end ofa personal journey

on a long downward spiral of sinfulness. It was made

known to me that my membership in that church would

be neither welcomed nor allowed. Thesewere not merely

impressions I gathered from the meeting, these were

explicitly stated by this pastor.

This was a tragic meeting in several aspects. First of

all, I was personally hurt by the man's words for me. I

sought compassion and help in my desperate and tiring

struggle for truth and found none. The meeting only

further alienated me from the church and caused my

suspicion and animosity to increase. Second, my ques

tions were unanswered. I sought a reasonable argument

for the church's position, placing arguments against it

Itried to picture aJesus who encouraged me to be gay and my heart was made to recognize the blasphemy and idolatry my blind mind would not yet admit. All the while, the true Jesus continued to make intercession to the Father on my behalf. before the pastor, begging him to refute them soundly. I

feared that I was twisting the Scriptures, and I had hoped

that everything could be determined by honest and ra

tional investigation. Butthis pastor was in such ahurryto

negate my salvation that he forgot to refute myargu

ments. Third, I was prohibited from membership before

I had even asked about membership. The pastor was so

anxious to outwardly defend "family values" that he

neglected to consider my repentance as a possibility. I

knew that there was much amiss at MCC because their

"grassroots" theology had produced a number of

strange sermons and oddheterodoxical notions like "the

spark of God in our little finger." I had asked him if I

might attend services in order to hear the Word rightly

preached and, following his decree regarding my mem

bership, it was made clear that my attendance would be

only reluctantly allowed. I did not think it would benefit

me to return, so I did not.

Shortly after I had decided that the Church was not

reliable for my moral instruction and that she was, in

fact, my guilty oppressor, I dropped the bomb on Mom

and Dad. There was shock and silence in that first con

versation. That was followed by several other awkward

exchanges over the telephone. I spoke with them about

MAY/JUNE1995

my search for truth and what I had so far found. They were not perfect, but they handled it very well. I mourn the fact that I tried to persuade them to believe my lies, as

the notion of a God who intended his church to tran scend the city of man and be more than a combination country club/P AC. This new God I was confronted with was sovereign and powerful. He was the au thor of decrees and laws which were more significant than guidelines for happy living. This was a weighty and just God who also shows mercy. This was the God I believed in! The only question remaining for me was: how much mercy would he show me? Having heard the Gospel, the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16), with new clarity, I received by the same power ofGod a gratitude for his grace to replace my contempt for his demands. I was finally shown a God worthy of my obedience and, by comparison, I was shown my great unworthiness. I began to be resolved that I should obey him but by this time I had grown too foggy-eyed to even know the truth ofthe Law. I really did notknowifI was right or wrong. I read the Bible passages over and over. I wrote out somewhat cogent arguments from all that I had studied, both for and against my behavior. My mind was a throbbing pendulum and my heart was as constantly fluctuating. I knew I had to de cide. I set the arguments before me and I prayed for wisdom. Still, the Lord in his great mercy heard my prayer. My God removed scales from my eyes so that I saw what I did not want to see. I saw what would be required of me and I wept. To remember and write this brings back the agony, butthatismyoldman. I awaitthat old man's death with eagerness. For he has sinned so against mybeloved God as to require greatlengths for my salvation, even the death of Christ Jesus with whom he died and was vicariously punished. But that loss which I still sinfully mourn is, in truth, nothing butgain. Though I am guilty, it is good and right for God to show me my sinfulnessbymyownsin,andtoshowmemyfoolishness by my own idiocy, sothatl maybe driven from them and into his arms ofgrace. So I ended my relationship and turned from that sin. But can you see with what long-suffering patience my God brought me again to himself? It was not without a great deal ofpain and fear that I left that life behind. But this God ofours is full ofgrace and love for his children, for he ministered to me then in several beautiful ways. He did not stop my pain, nor did he stop opening my eyes, for I then saw much more evil in me than simply my sins ofcommission ofsodomy. My evil brought me nothing but grief, and so great is my evil that my grief was also great. There were friends ofmy family in California who had been praying for me with my parents, unbeknownst tome.ldonotknowhowmanyhourstheyspentwithme on the phone over the following weeks listening to me, encouraging me, telling me that God is good, giving me

The pastor was in such ahurryto negatemy salvation that he forgot to refutemy arguments. if it were possible. These folks had raised me. I was not their instructor. But with what great patience they lis tened to me. With great grace, my father wrote to me in his own hand what he had studied with his own mind. He affirmed the Church's traditional beliefand he could not rationalize a compromise, but he loved me still. They prayed for me and they wept for me. Ofcourse I wanted them to be happy for me, but that just was not going to happen. I pitied them, because they could not under stand, but I was resolved to love them and honor them still. I continued to struggle with the rightness of what I was doing. The mainstream Christian authors I read seemed only to assume the immorality ofhomosexuality withoutrefutingtheargumentsoftheadvocacyposition. I was begging for a reason to believe God, but refused to believe a silly, arbitrary, unloving, and capricious one. I thought I had reason to believe that the God ofthe Chris tian Church was arbitrary and unloving. Had he created me this way? Did he want me to be happy? Could I be happy any other way? I listened to Christian radio hop ing to hear the topic discussed without the unavoidable sensationalism, hatred, and fear-mongering. I wanted to hear the truth in love-not love devoid of reason and truth, nor truth in the absence of love or reason. I was hoping for either vindication or conviction. I got both, but neither was what I expected. In God's loving providence I began listening to The White Horse Inn (CURE'S radio program). The honesty and humanity of the hosts seemed like a breath of fresh air, and the sound reason and systematic approach to the Word was for me a new and wonderful thing. I never heard homosexuals bashed on their program. I also picked up a copy of Michael Horton's book, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace and began learning about a Gospel which actually sounded good. I was beginning to understand the real "amazingness" ofgrace for perhaps the first time. Shortly after this, I began to lose my con tempt for Christianity and the church because I had heard the Gospel. Could I have gone to church for so many years and missed the point? I was hearing some very good news, indeed. I learned that God doesn't just encourage people to save themselves, he saves people. I was intrigued with a God ofgrace, whose Law was good and whose character was impeccable. I was attracted to 22

MAY IJ U N E 1995

modern R EFORMATION

hope when I had none. My devastation was severe and my repentance was full of horror. But they comforted me with words oftruth and ofgrace from our Lord. I am thankful for them. My conclusion is not "happily ever after" -not yet. I can't say that I'm a happier man than I was. I can't say that I always feel like the hole in my heart has been filled. I can't say that all my felt needs are being met. I can't say that my desire for sin is gone. I can't say that I no longer experience homosexual attraction. I really want to be happy and filled and realized and satisfied and holy and straight. But I'm not. However, I can say that my happiness is different. It is rarer and its basis renders it more significant. My felt needs are not met and I thank God because I am often stupid and I think I need stupid things. As a Christian, my desire for sin is met now with a desire for holiness. I am a man divided, incapable ofenjoying sin as much as the unregenerate and, as far as my inherent righteousness is concerned, not capable ofbeing much better than one. I don't even pray to be "straight" anymore. Maybe it's a thorn like Paul's. Maybe it will go away someday. Maybe I'll have homosexual attractions and desires until the day this body dies. But when it does, it shall be such a thing in heaven to praise my Lord. It is true, I will be without blemish or wrinkle. I will be perfect and my eyes will be perfectly fixed on my perfect Jesus who will have rendered me thus. None shall accuse me any longer, not even I. For my God has placed my sin so far from me that it cannot be counted against me. He has even taken the punishment, so there is no injustice. In all justice and faithfulness, I am a son of God. Never again a rebel bastard. Today, the last thing I want to do is write a token "ex-homosexual testimony" for CURE. If you want a reallyimportanttestimony,lmustdefertoapostlesand eyewitnesses of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. But I would not have written so much about my expe rience if! did not think it was useful to illustrate some veryimportantthings. First o fall , it serves to emphasize the great danger of ignorance of the true and biblical Gospel. Second, it brings to light the transforming power of God as exercised in the learning and under standing oftruth. Sadly, ignorance of the true Gospel and disap pointment with false ones is all too common in today's church. My own misconception was twofold. I was first unsure of my salvation because of its dependence on my own acts of obedience and, secondly unable to reconcile my earthly suffering with my expectations for comfort. It is strange that I should have been born into

a Christian family, attended church all ofmy life, and yet not understand these things. Connecting my justifica tion with my own obedience is a tyranny which can be tolerated only with suppressing the truth ofmy own sin. Otherwise, every effort must be made to rebel against such tyranny. But, we Christians have hearts that are searched, known, and convicted by God the Holy Spirit even if our consciences alone may lie. So, what is a Chris tian to do with plaguing guilt ifhe cannot take it to the cross and find absolution? The character Wyatt Earp summed up the typical and not so unreasonable re sponse in the recent movie, Tombstone: "I already got a guilty conscience, I might as well have the money, too." I had a guilty conscience long before I got drunk all the time and before I ever had a boyfriend. But, when I had these things, an intermittently guilty conscience was the worst thing I thought I had. I didn't feel evil, just a little guilty. I was no longer concerned with salvation but with comfort, and I sought it where it was reliable. But the true Gospel removes guilt and abolishes the tyranny ofthe Law. Nevertheless, a son of God is not at home in

Could Ihave gone to church for so many years andmissed the point? Iwas hearing some very good news, indeed. I learnedthat God doesn't Just encourage people to savethemselves, he saves people. this world or in his or her current state. When I had earthly comfort, I didn't feel as dissatisfied and restless with this world as I often do now. When I gave myself to fleshly desires, I did not feel so intense and painful a division within myself. But these things are common to pilgrims and temporary. Neither is unbearable when we are sure of heaven because of Christ. When I've got a guilty conscience now, might I just as well have myoId, cherished consolations along with it? Ofcourse not! My guilty conscience is mistaken-I am redeemed. My accuser (whose attacks remain relentless) shall suffer loss. I can only gain. ~ Russell Matthews is a pen name for an anonymous writer. This writer chose to remain anonymous in orderto protect his identity as he studies to prepare himselfforthe ministry.

MAY f J U N E 1 9 9 5

Why a Recovery of Theology & Apologetics is Essential for Our Evangelism

BY SHANE R0SENTHAL

can still remember the failed evangelistic attempts my friends tried on me during my high school years. I was a non -practicing Jew, and theywere "born again" Christians. During a skiing trip, one friend in particular kept trying to get me to listen to his "Christian" rock music, arguing that the quality was just as good. Well, the quality wasn't as good, and I j ustwasn't interested in religious music anyway. When I refused to bite, he tried to show me the clear "Chris足 tian" lyrics in the U2 tape I was listening to. "Did you know that the song, 'Two Hearts Beat As One' is about a Christian view of marriage?" "No I didn't," I responded, "But who cares. It's just good music." Just for the record, that isn't exactly what U2's song is about. After I returned home from my trip, I dumped all my ski equipment in my closet, along with the copy of More Than A Carpenter which was forced upon me. I also re足 member working as a waiterto earn extra money during this period. I especially hated having to work on Sundays be足 cause Ihad to deal with all the "church people." Its notthat I was biased about religious folks, I just didn't like getting evangelistic tracts rather than tips (especially offensive were the tracts designed to look like dollar bills). But a funny thing happened a few years later. I had just started my first semester at a nearby community college and was reading sections of the Old Testament (I hadn't picked it up since before my Bar Mizpah at age 13). In my readings I came across a passage that literally floored me: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans 00udah, out ofyou will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are ofold, from ancient times" (Micah 5:2). I had seen all of the animated Christmas specials year after year, so I knew what the implications of "Bethlehem" were. In short, I was an over-night convert; in fact, the very next day I went out and purchased a copy of the New Testament and began 24

MAY /JUNE 1995

reading it with a believing heart. After this extraordinary event in my life, I hooked up with my Christian friends who were always trying to get me to come to their Bible studies. This time, however, I actually wanted to study the Bible. My friends were very excited over my conversion and invited me to their "Friday Night Bible Study." Unfortunately for me, it was not primarily a study of anything. There was a lot of guitar singing, and fellowship, but very little study. And wouldn't you know it, before I had a chance to dive into the punch and cookies, I was whisked off to go street witnessing with all the guys. They gave me a stack oftracts and told me to hand them out to folks on the pier. I felt quite awkward about this. I wondered to myself, "Have I become one ofthose religious weirdos you see in the airports?" But in my evangelistic zeal to share the transforming message about Jesus, I followed along. That was ten years ago. Looking back on those days often makes me cringe. There I was, brand new to the faith, and within a year I had street witnessed, gone door to door, answered phones for the Billy Graham Crusade hotline, helped out teaching Sunday School to children in juvenile hall, and even considered becoming an overseas mission足 ary with YWAM. The only problem was, I didn't really know what the Gospel was. My experience is not unique. I have met a number of folks with similar stories to tell, some who are no longer Christians. This problem occurs when we push evangelism from our pulpits rather than the Evangel. I can honestly say that I never once heard the doctrine ofjustification by grace alone through faith alone during the first two years of my Christian walk, but I sure had it drilled into my head that I needed to go out there and witness. The problem was, I knew I was to bea witness, but I didn 't quite have down what it was I was to witness about.

modern REFORMATION

The Pursuit ofthe Practical In just one of his epistles, Paul could have guided us all through the "Four Spiritual Steps Toward Effective Evan gelism," but he didn't. The apostles seemed to think that their time was best spent in defense ofthe Gospel message and in clarifying doctrinal questions. How boring! I want to know howto reach the busters, howto "grow" a church, how to plan a crusade, how to witness on a plane, how to, how to, how to .... But of these questions there is no end. The Bible, however, is simply not a "how-to" manual. But that's fine, because how-to manuals are outdated before any other kind ofbook (You have seen these types ofbooks on sale for a quarter each at your neighbor's garage sale). The Bible gives us information that will not be outdated through the passage oftime, and it does this by convincing arguments and by appealing to objective truth. Truth does not go out of style, and it does not become irrelevant. It may get ignored every once-in-a-while, butit does not lose its relevance. Unfortunately for me, most of the folks I met both before and after my conversion seemed to think that tech niques and practical matters were more relevant than the truth which they neglected to teach me. It is at this point that I find a sharp contrast between today's evangelistic appeals and the content ofapostolic preaching. Theological Training What good is a message without content? AsI related in the beginning ofthis article, I was sent out street witnessing the first day I went to a Bible study. But our Lord's admonition is not like the shampoo commercial where, "You tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on ... " Rather, our Lord's command was that we "go and make disciples ofall nations ... " Part ofthe problem in America is that we view evangelism as ifit were simply getting folks to make a decision. We have been so influenced by Arminianism and anti -intellectualism that we have almost completely ignored discipleship. But it does make sense that you would train a person in the basics of the faith before you send him out to the mission field, doesn't it? Unfortunately we don't do this. Therefore we must recover the lost art ofcatechism and theological training. If we did this, there would be less emphasis on the "stuff of evangelism" and more emphasis on the "stuff ofthe Evan gel." Folks would cease trying to sell their religion by manipulative techniques, and would begin sharing their faith in convincing, thoughtful, and articulate ways. Just look at the Apostles' prayers and instructions in regards to equipping the saints: And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight (Phil 1:9). Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16). i ,

Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:18).

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,

a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who

correctly handles the word oftruth (2 Tm 2: 15).

Oncea person has been thoroughly equipped so thathe can "correctly handle the word of truth," then he can do the work ofan evangelist. Butnotuntilthen. Untilapersoncan rightly distinguish the Law from the Gospel, he should not . consider evangelistic enterprises. For how can one preach effectively, unless he first shows a person the demands of God's Law? And how can one comfort those terrorized by the Law, unless he preaches the Gospel in all of its sweet ness? Another point that needs to be made here is the fact that witnessing to others about Christmustbetheologically based or it will wind up being testimonial. In other words, if! don't have a solid understanding ofthe doctrines ofthe Christianity, I will inevitably end up talking about the ef fects ofreligion on mylife, ratherthan the objective message of the Gospel itself. J. Gresham Machen is helpful at this point: From the beginning Christianity was a campaign of wit

nessing. And the witnessing did not concern merely what

Jesus was doing within the recesses of the individual life. To

take the words of Acts in that way is to do violence to the

context and to all the evidence. On the contrary, the Epistles

of Paul and all the sources make it abundantly plain that the

testimony was primarily not to inner spiritual facts but to

what Jesus had done once for all in his death and resurrection.

Christianity is based, then, upon an account ofsomething

that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a wit

ness. But if so, it is rather important that the Christian worker

should tell the truth. When a man takes his seat upon the

witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut ofhis coat

is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important

thing is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth.l

Effective, Christ-centered, evangelism must therefore be based on the "facts" ofChristianity, notthe "effects." When you think about this, it makes perfect sense. Just about any religion or ideology can make a difference in a person's life, and yet, all ofthese different beliefsystems cannot be simul taneously true. But if a religion is presented first of all as being true, then it has implications on everyone, not just those for whom it is helpful. This brings me to my next point.

Whatever Happened to Apologetics? Why was I so surprised to see the passage I found in Micah 5:2? Because no one ever showed it to me. In their zeal to convert me, my friends spent all their energy thinking of techniques by which I could be saved, rather than ap proaching me with sound arguments in support of Christianity. What they didn't realize is that I thought all religion was absurd, so all oftheir attempts to get me to read Christian books or to listen to Christian tapes were equally MAY

IJ UN E I 9 9 5

absurd. But in my case, a simple discussion of fulfilled messianic prophecy could have been an open door to shar ing the Gospel with me. All they had to do was to give me reasons for theirfaith. Apologetics is a crucial ingredient missing in much of contemporary evangelism. The Apostle Peter gives us the clear and familiar admonition to: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pt3:15). But we do the exact opposite. We don't give reasons for the hope that we have; we simply force our faith on others in the form of tracts, booklets, and cassettes. And very few ofus take the time to prepare ourselves for the tough questions of the faith that non-believer might ask us. But there is much wisdom in Peter's command. Just look at the example ofPeter himself in his famo~s Sermon at Pentecost: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know...Godhas raised this Jesus to life, and weare all witnesses ofthe fact" (Acts 2:22,32).

Notice that Peter did not simply demand blind faith. Whereas in evangelical circles you might see a shirt or bumper stickerwith the slogan, "Godsaid it, I believe it, that settles it," Peter here appeals to commonly known evidence (as you yourselves know), and eyewitness accounts for the authority of his claims. Peter just didn't have time for evangelistic techniques. He was convinced that the mes sage he was preaching was true, and that is why he gave solid and convincing reasons for his faith, as he explained the meaning of the cross and resurrection. And we must not forget the success ofPeter' s sermon either, for Luke records that "about three thousand were added to their number that day." Stephen is another good example ofthe importance of apologetics in evangelism. In Acts 6:9-10, Luke records that as men were arguing with Stephen about the strange new teachings of Christianity, "they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke." We can take a few things from this passage. First of all, it is all right to argue. By this I am referring to the exchange of propositions, not hostile confrontation. Many American Christians think that arguing is a negative thing, but we are called to argue for the truth ofChristianity in the same way an attorney would argue for his client's innocence. Another thing we can take from Stephen's example isthe factthat no one could stand up to his wisdom, or the Spirit bywhom he spoke. The Holy Spirit likes sound arguments and sancti fies them for his own use. Is it any wonder that he is called the "Spirit ofTruth?" Then there is the example ofPaul. This apostle's mes sage was simple. In the words of Festus, Paul was obsessed with "a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive" (Acts 25:19). He was not like many ofthese religious mys

MAY I J U N E 1 99 5

tics who constantly speculate on spiritual and religious mat ters. This man was convinced that the whole issue of religionwaswrappedupinonething,andinonethingonly; "IfChrist has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Paul was comfortable with this type evan gelism because, as he explained to Festus and KingAgrippa, "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none ofthis has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). Apologetics then is a way to give credibility to the Gospel message. It prevents your listeners from thinking, "Oh, this is one ofthose religious messages." IfJesus really did rise again from the dead in time-and-space history, then his claims about himselfare vindicated. This is why for Paul it all hinges on the resurrection. But you know, in all my years as a non -Christian, I never once heard this type of message. Sure, I saw the bumper stickers that said, "Try God," or "Give Jesus a Chance." But those appeals only made me feel pity for the Christian deity. I had simply never heard ofa God who had "given proof [ofhis comingjudge ment] to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead" (Acts 17:31). Christianity is not afraid ofthe truth, itis upheld by the truth. Therefore we must make every effort to remove every obstacle from the eyes ofan unbelieving world.

Conclusion It doesn't take a geni us to figure out that the person who has done a little work in basic theology and apologetics will probably not have to spend much time with various evan gelistic techniques. Thosewho confidentlyknowwhat they believe, and why they believe it, are ready at all times to "give a reason for the hope that [they] have." They know both how to articulate the hope that they have (the Gospel), and to give convincing reasons for it (apologetics). This type of evangelism isn't done only on Friday nights down by the pier, and it isn't something that has to be scripted. Itsprings forth naturally from a confident heart standing firm in a reasonable faith, well-saturated in the Gospel ofgrace. There are a lot ofpeople in this world who are still at the place I was ten years ago. They think religion is an absurd, trivial and meaningless pursuit, and the fish on your car simply won't convince them otherwise. Please, for their sake, do the work ofa well seasoned evangelist, giving them reasons for the hope that is within you. New evangelistic ideas and techniques will come and go, but don't settle for them. Follow, rather, the Apostle's instructions when he encouraged Timothy to "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out ofseason; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction" (2 Tm 4:2). ~ Shane Rosenthal is a graduate of Cal-State Fullerton, and is presently working full-time for CURE as the producer of The White Horse Inn radio program. In addition to his production responsibilities , Shane is also in charge of editing all CURE tape masters, managing the layout/design of modern REFORMATION, and handling all of CURE'S e-mail correspondence. 1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), p.53.

modern REFORMATION

Was The Reformation

BY MICHAEL HORTON

Missions-Minded?

fifu Luther was so certain of the imminent return of st that he overlooked the necessity of foreign mis sions ... Calvinists generally used the same line of reasoning, adding the doctrine of election that made missions appear extraneous if God had already chosen thosehewouldsave." So writes Dr. Ruth Tucker, profes sor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and author of

From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions (Zondervan, 1983, p. 67). Well-meaning, but ill-informed, accounts such as these have been repeated so frequently that they have become cliches in discussions of missions. Tucker re peats the caricature: The Reformers were not terribly interested in evangelism and missions, but the Anabaptists and Pietists gave birth to the modern mis sionarymovement (p. 24). While I am not a missiologist, I do have an interest in this subject and ifthe Reformation had negative effects on the advance of the Great Com mission, we oughtto be the first to point it out. The facts, however, point in quite a different direction. First, there is the nature of the Reformation itself. Throughoutthe late middle ages, there was something of

nialism), that not only gave birth to Protestant missions, but revitalized Roman Catholic missions by reaction. But what was the Reformation? One's answer to this question will determine one's appraisal of its missiological significance. Ifthe Reformation was sim ply a period of internecine squabbling that interrupted the more important activity of the church, then it was indeed an appalling distraction. But if one maintains that it was the greatest recovery ofthe biblical faith since the first century, the Reformation constitutes the most remarkable missionary movement in post-apostolic church history. For those of us who agree with the Reformers that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because ofChrist alone is "the article by which the church stands or falls," and the Gos pel-- "the power ofGod unto salvation"--one can only interpret the Reformation as the re-evangelization of Europe. Is this not the point ofthe Great Commission? The Jews to whom the Gospel first came were certainly aware of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, but they did not properly understand them as referring to Christ. The Reformers believed that those who confused the Law and the Gospel, merit and grace, judgment and justification, were in precisely the same category as the unconverted, even ifthey were part oC'Christendom." This is why, as we read Luther, Calvin, and theother Reformers, we cannot help but come away with a deep sense of admiration for the pastoral, missionary, and evangelistic heart ofthis movement. Designating them selves the"evangelicals" because they were recovering the Gospel ("evangel"), these Protestants so indefatigably preached the Gospel through print, pulpit, and in everyday conversations that the Good News spread quickly throughout the Empire. Had the same movement occurred on another continent, with the same extensive effects, the Reformation would be con sidered the most significant missionary enterprise since

If one maintains that it was thegreatest recoveryof thebiblical faith sincethe first century, the Reformation constitutes the most remarkable missionary movement in post· apostolic church history, a lull in Roman Catholic missions. That is not to say that they did not exist, but it was nothing like the evangeliza tion of the Roman Empire or of the pagan European tribes that preceded it, nor like the missions ofthe Jesuits and other Counter-Reformation groups that followed it. It was, in fact, the Reformation itself, combined with other factors (such as exploration and the rise of colo

MA Y /JUNE 1995

the apostles. Therefore, the starting point is essential. Thosewho cannot see the Reforrriation as anything more than an in-house dispute over less than ultimate issues will not regard this as the re-evangelization of Christendom. Second, there is the matter of catego·rization. For instance, in Ruth Tucker's volume, such distinguished Calvinistic missionaries as John Eliot, David Brainerd, Eleazer Wheelock, Isaac McCoy, William Carey, the Judsons and Boardmans, David Livingstone and nlany others are treated as products ofPietism, when in actual fact these men and women had their roots in the Refor mation-Puritan tradition. In fact, the most prominent names of the modern missionary movement were Cal vinists! So much for the caricature that the "doctrine of election... made missions appear extraneous if God had already chosen those he would save." This is merely an inference ofTucker rather than an effect ofthis doctrine on the minds and hearts ofthose great missionary heroes who embraced it. They saw their theology as the engine behind their efforts, not as an embarrassing obstacle. Besides Carey, Eliot, Brainerd, and Livingstone,

.. Q U

0 T E

Luther- &: Cal~hI,>on Evangelism The:question is why God bids MQses:p.~€ach although he himselfsays: "Pharaoh will not listen to you." I~,)rnot foolish for someone to s~y~o a~Q;~er: "Fri'end,preach tci .Phdrao~,:but be advisedthathe~ill notHstciPl '!tto fo ri intend to hard~n hhn?" Iwould refuse such an, ~gsignmeni . from anyone and would say: "Preach yourself. If, Sut the'ansyver is: We are biddento,preach, but~eare notpidden tojus.t~fy people' and make "J hem pious. )F~iS thought should comfort all preachets:and Christians, ·" ~nd:everybodi~h.ould pursue his calling and faithfuJly~perfo~fn its duties. . Only the Word{)f God is entrusted to Moses, not the responsiblUty of

rpaking Phara~~; soft or hard ;by preaching. ; ~'

c·'

you;

,Martin lut~~r:, \ 'What Lqt*er Says

Nothi ng could be

morei~~onsistent with';tpe h~ture of faith than that

dead~esswhich would/ead any oLustQ"d1'stegard our brethren and to

keep t he light of kl;1owledge chQkedup,within our own breast. The greater~the eminence ,above other~;~yyhich we have received from .our calling,':s~Jnuch the r:Dore dil igentlyo~gh.~W~JP labor to enl ignten others.

John Gilvin: Commentary on Is 2:3 ":';:.} , Christ dedares that by r,h~, preachingofthe:q ?spel there is revealed on earththaL:which will,b:e:the heav~nIYJu.~gement of God, and that the certaiptyof life or d~ath cannot b~g~jned from any othersQiJrce. ' l't j~s Q • great honor that w~are God's me~se [lgers to assure the world .of ,it? , salv~tion. The ?ighest honor cqpferred on the GospeListhat tVs detJO;red~\;, to.Qy.ti,le messageof mutual,reconciliation betwee.QCod'and ,~4manity , (2 Cor:~ :20). In'a word, it is amar.velous consolatiorito dey?uiniindsto . know that the message of salvation brought to them by mere hlJman;; beiRgsis'[f tified befQre God. JOh1JCalvin: Commentary on Mt16::T:9. '

MA Y I J U N E I 9 9 5

there were the evangelists such as Whitefield, Edwards, the Tennents, Spurgeon, and on we could go. All of these disciples of the Great Commission credited their theological convictions with their energy and motiva tion, knowing that it was God alone who saves sinners whenever and wherever he will. While we carry the Good News to the poor, only God can grant repentance and faith, and this relieved missionaries and evangelists of either despair on the one hand, or proud triumphalism on the other. At last, however, we return to the Reformers them selves. While their followers may have been great evangelists and missionaries, were men such as Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Knox, and Melanchthon interested in such things? Interestingly, Tucker herself makes an observation that appears to contradict her previously-cited remark that even appears in the same paragraph:

Calvin himself, however, was at least outwardly the most missionary-minded of all the Reformers. Henotonlysent dozens of evangelists back into his homeland of France, but also commissioned four missionaries, along with a number of French Hugeunots, to establish a colony and evangelize the Indians of Brazil (p. 67) . These missionaries were killed by Jesuits, but another group was sent from Geneva. Not only were the New England Puritans busy building Harvard; they were simultaneously evangeliz ing the native Americans. (The first book published in the New World was the Bible in Algonquin, by John Eliot). In fact, the Reformed missionary enterprise was integrating the proclamation of the Gospel with the in terests of justice and cultural betterment long before it became popular. One thinks of David Livingstone (1813-73), the Scottish missionary who was also an ex plorer and in the words of one historian, "exercised a greater influence on the history ofcentral Africa than any other person, Christian or non-Christian, in the nine teenth century." But history records Livingstone as more than a missionary and explorer; hewas an indefati gable opponent ofthe slave trade. Livingstone knew that the same God who cared for the salvation ofthe lost also abhored the bondage of injustice, and sin had not only personal but institutional aspects. He sought to inter rupt the slave trade by building East African commercial trade and he pursued some extraordinarily brilliant ideas, but the British government ended his expedition in 1863. And yet, Brian Stanley concludes, "The Protes tantchurchesofsub-Saharan Africa, many ofthem born in the aftermath ofLivingstone' s explorations, are today among the strongest in the world." American Presbyterian missionary and educator

modern REFORMATION

SamuelM. Zwemer (1867-1952) is another example of this integration ofpreaching grace and doingjustice. As a missionary in the Middle East, he earned the title of "the modern apostle to the Moslem world" and he opened up doors to missions throughout the region, especially by building hospitals and schools--a tradi tional approach to pre-evangelism taken by Reformed and Lutheran missionaries alike. Because these institu tions are still among the most important to the locals, these missionaries and their spiritual descendents are among the only trusted Westerners. Zwemer himself argued that Calvinism could conquer the Moslem world because it was a system and the Moslems thought very systematically; they would not be won by mere pietistic sentimentality., Various cultural institutions bear his name in Cairo and in other cities in the Middle East. Far East missions were no less led by Reformed Christians. One thinks of the Scot Robert Morrison, who was the first Protestant missionary to go to China. Confident in God's sovereignty, he prayed for God to place him in a part of the world "where the difficulties are the greatest, and to all human appearance the most insurmountable." LikeZwemer, whosawonlyfewcon verts in the entire tenure of his missionary enterprise, Morrison saw fewer than a dozen converts and, as Tucker informs us, "at the time ofhis death there were only three known native Christians in the entire Chi nese empire. " Nevertheless, both missionaries translated the Scriptures for the first time into the native languages and left these few converts to plant the seeds that would eventually produce a harvest ofnew believ ers. They did not despair in spite of few "results," because all results are God's results and he will see to the success of his own mission. The story of Korean mis sions is full of amazing twists and turns and figuring prominently throughout it all is the Orthodox Presby terian Church. By American standards, a small but faithful church, the O. P. C. had an inordinately large hand in the evangelization ofthe region before and after the division of North and South. The greatest tragedy in modern missions, from this writer's point of view at least, is the sad reality that although Reformation Christians launched modern missions, the "pentecostalization" of the missionary movement has devastated almost overnight the regions where missionaries labored carefully for decades. Huge crusades with spectacular side-shows have replaced the careful exposition of Scripture in large parts of the world. The two-thirds world, where the earliest mis sions produced deep conversions and strong churches, is now dominated by successive waves of Pentecostal phenomena. The results are evident everywhere on the

mission field (even more so than in America): Hysteria and numerical growth, leading almost as quickly to de spair and disillusionment, until the cycle repeats itself. Just as British missions reflected worldwide mis sionary activity in the 19th century, American leadership in the 20th is obvious. "Evangelicalism" around the world is equivalent to American evangelicalism and the influence ofsuch institutions as the Fuller School of World Missions, along with the leading trends evident in Christianity Today, leading evangelical seminaries and popular movements rather quickly overpower indigenous distinctives, many ofthe latter derived from the period of earlier missionary ac tivity. Like so many other trappings of American popular commercial culture, when something gets started on the American evangelical scene, it eventually makes its way into the remotest regions. Speaking for my own tradition, while many Re formed Christians are interested in restoring a sense of vocation and calling, including the vision oftransform ing culture as "salt" and "light," there does not seem to be a parallel interest in spreading the Gospel, either in terms oflocal evangelism or missions. This is not to say that Reformed churches, whether local or at the de nominationallevel, are not interested in missions: many of them have proportionately large missions budgets. But it is to say that at least this writer is unaware ofvery much thoughtful discussion ofwhat a second Reforma tion might look like in, say, Thailand or Tanzania. Ifwe truly believe that many of the crowds turning out for a healing crusade in Uganda orTulsaare filled with people who have an erroneous understanding ofthe Gospel, we are in precisely the same position as the first Reformers, where "missions" and "evangelism" means first recov eringthe biblical Gospel. It is not enough for Reformed and Lutheran evangelicals to work side-by-side with mainstream evangelicals and attempt to infl uence them. The evangelicals are not simply "off a little" on this or that emphasis; there is quite often these days a funda mentally different message, leading to methods and a general agenda that is at cross-purposes with biblical, historic Christianity. There must be a distinctive Refor mational agenda--one that neither attempts to recreate a sixteenth-century European movement in Bombay, nor one that capitulates to American evangelical ten dencies on the other. May God set our hearts and minds to this urgent task, and then may he prepare our feet to bring Good News to the captives, whether down the street or around the world. ~

MA Y /JU N E 1995

Faci gaCulture in Trouble

Is evangelism the best route to a just society,

or does a just society hold the best prospect for personal evangelism?

BY CARL HENRY

ular elite today reduces distinctions of right from r ng to matters of cultural choice or simply personal erence. What is immoral in Missouri need not be immoral on Capitol Hill. The very concept of universally shared truth and good is now even viewed by ethical relativists as oppres sive. Human freedom is said to require autonomous moral decision. Anyone who insists that what was true in December must also be true in January is regarded as victimized by a mental block. Humans manufacture their own moral codes; every human self reigns as sover eign in the stipulation of right and wrong. The desire for ethico-cultural renewal understand ably fades away when moral and social distinctions are considered merely optional and are deprived of objective significance. There may indeed be changes of mores or of behavioral fashions, but no universally valid norm is admitted whereby the self or society can be evaluated as morally superior or inferior. Third-world dictatorships are considered "as good as" first-world democracies; if the category of "better" or "worse" retains any principled relevance, first-world nations are considered worse while the others are lauded for their distin ctiven ess. One can readily understand how in a time like ours the partisans of enduring truth and morality long fer vently for ethical and cultural recovery. For the consequences of personal and civic deterioration are costly: human life sooner or later loses any distinctive worth and meaning, in the absence of shared truth and morality civilization becomes impossible, and the his toryofhumanityisexposedtodreadfuldivinejudgment. Yet not every proposal for coping with the high tide ofimmoralityand violence, and for replacing it by a well ordered view oflife and culture, is as promising as it may at first appear. The problems run deeper than the debate over whether it is humanity that needs first to be changed in the effort to transform culture, or whether the renewal of 30

MAY

IJ U N E 1 995

culture will in turn regenerate man. That question, to be sure, is an important one. It is today often stated in terms ofthe respective roles ofsocial justice and evangelism. Is evangelism the best route to a just society? Or does a just society hold the best prospect for personal evangelism? Does Christian evangelism and theology legitimately expect the universal regeneration and sanctification of all humanity? Does the New Testament itself hold out the prospect of universal conversion? An even deeper concern confronts us, that is, the rival ways in which human nature itself and its perfec tion are to be understood. The classical Greek and the H eb rew -Christian 0 u tl 00 ks differ strikingly in this mat ter. The Greek philosophers spoke routinely of arete or human virtue. The Hebrews had no term correspond ing to arete and the New Testament virtually ignores it, so that it has no really significant role in Scripture. Itdoes occur in Phil 4:8 ("if there be any virtue") and in 2 Pt 1:5 ("add to your faith excellence"). If the early Church was aware that unconverted humans at times display qualities ofgoodness in view of conscience and reflections of the imago Dei that (albeit sullied) survived in fallen mankind, this is in undeniable ways distinguished nonetheless from speculative ethics. For Christian morality excluded the secular notion of autonomous virtue and it subsumed all such manifesta tions under the canopy oflove and faith. The New Testament catalogue of ethical excellen cies does not embrace the Platonic cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, prudence and justice, which track rather through Aristotle and the Stoics. Subsequently these so-called virtues were adopted by Catholic theolo gians, who superimposed upon these the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. But the attempt to unite these two streams ofethical exposition-speculative and revelatory-was unsuc cessful. Not only is autonomous virtue a conception unknown to the New Testament, but what the New Testament means by human goodness reflects a regen

modern REFORMATION

erate spirit and not an achievement ofthe sinful natural man. In the Graeco- Roman speculative tradition the moral life is thought to be realized by the gradual im - provement and the achievement of mankind's unregenerate nature. In the Christian view, the moral life is attained by the crucifixion ofthe old or unregenerate nature and the birth ofa new nature or character through the Holy Spirit. Greek philosophers taught, moreover, that if one knows the truth or the good, he or she will pursue it. The human predicament was es sentiallya lack of information. Christianity, on the other hand, holds that man's predica ment lies not simply in a lack of knowledge. Indeed, the Old Testament holds that hu mans are responsible for not performingwhat they know to be right, and not alone for areas ofignorance. Greek philosophy skirts around the fact of human sinfulness and the need of divine redemption; it ignores the reality of divine revelation and the absolute necessity of the new birth. Nothing in Plato or in the Stoics parallels the Pauline emphasis on the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22). The aggressive involvement ofAmerican conserva tive Christians in the present culture war has stimulated talk ofa new society and virtuous community that chal lenges the ongoing deterioration of contemporary culture. Enthusiasm for political engagement may be long overdue, yet there is a danger that evangelicals may duplicate the fallacy of the modernists a generation ago who soughtwhat they considered an ideal society mainly through legislative imposition. That is not to say that the political arena is unimpor tant, or that a theocracy is the ideal form ofgovernment, or that the role ofdemocracy in the preservation offree dom should be ignored. But in the long run, democracy detached from Christian principles unwittinglydeterio rates into chaos. The political arena deals with the enactment of laws, and these are indispensable to the preservation of society. But laws lose their power apart from the reality and revelation of God and man's moral character and good will. It is not fear ofthe magistrate's sword alone but especially faith, hope and love that will write God's law upon the heart ofhumanity. There is a notable revival of interest in the classic Greek virtues as indispensable for cultural cohesion. The reshaping ofa degenerate culture is thereby conditioned on the restoration of virtue. Catholic theology supple ments the philosophical virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice-which the classical ancient philosophers considered a human potential-by the New Testament moral excellencies of love, faith and

hope. The Bible does not deny the unregenerate selfs pos session of some knowledge of God. The general or universal revelation of God is given externally in nature and historyand internally in and through the mind (Rom 1) and conscience (Rom 2) ofhumanity. But the uncon verted person distorts and perverts that knowledge. A rebellious volition warps God's revelation. Fallen hu manity is responsible and inexcusable, enslaved to sin

Enthusiasm for political engagement may be long overdue, yet there is adanger that evangelicals mayduplicatethefallacyofthe modernists ageneration agowho sought what they considered an ideal society mainlythrough legislative imposition. and culpable. All of us lack the inherent capacity for spiritual and moral renewal. Only on the ground of the Redeemer's substitutionary life and death are we by faith mercifully forgiven and renewed. The evangelical political objective is not the devel opment ofa new society, much as the great commission and the cultural mandate must be grasped together. The new society is already here, and more than in embryo; it is here in the regenerate church. Its task is to call itself and the rebellious world to the standards for which human life was created and by which the returning King will judge humanity and the nations, and to apply the cre ation ethic-reinforced by Scripture-by way of example. It is to remind ourplanetthatwhatis really true in Washington and Moscow and Bosnia is true because it is true in heaven and hell. ~ Carl F. Henry is the founding editor of Christianity Today and is the author of some 35 books, including Twilight of A Great Civilization, and the six volume set God, Revelation & Authority. He received his Ph. D. from Boston University and lectures worldwide.

A Set of 4 Tapes for Just $19 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

ApOLOGETICS IN A POSTMODERN AGE

The Tower of Babel

!, ii,

By Michael Horton Modernism: The Tower Erected • Postmodernism: The Tower Collapsed

The Babylonian Captivity ofthe Church • Where Do We Go From Here?

NOW AVAILABLE!

CAL L 714-956-CURE

MAY/jUNEI995

BOOK

EXCERPT v,';

MR: Don't we see that in Paul on Mars Hill as he quotes Aratus, Cleanthes, and even "A Hymn To Zeus"? Here's a man who wasn't afraid to read secular literature and to understand the mind ofhis hearers and to try to build bridges to them. Zacharias: Again and again it is noted for us. Moses tried to do it the wrong way and God put him aside for forty years. He says, Moses ifyou are going to try to do this with your fist it's not going to work. And in the New Testament, of course, Paul is the classic example, as you mentioned, but there is also Apollos, and Stephen. But I'll tell you what I think our problem today is. It is a failure to recognize that God is still in control. We somehow think he needs a helping hand, and ifwe can just battle it out our way it will work out. So I believe you are right, but it is a hard lesson to learn. One ofthe reasons may be because it takes hard work to understand the idea-makers out there as Paul did, and Moses too was learned in all ofthe wisdom ofthe Egyptians. We have to go the long way around and find the bridges, and that is hard work. MR: Is it because ultimately it is the ideas that are going to run the show? Zacharias: Ultimately it is going to be the triumph of truth, and truth has a long reach. You can avoid it, you can evade it, you can run all your life from it, but sooner or later the truth is going to catch up with you. MR: Is there a danger in all ofthis, too, that truth gets lost in the search for pragmatism? For example, is it really "evangelism" to tell the world to try Christianity because it will personally enrich a person's life, or because it will help society run smoother? Zacharias: Yes, sheer pragmatism is probably the predominant North American philosophy: do whatever works. But what we find out in the long run is that sometimes what works isn't necessarily good or true. And we have to think these things through in order to determine the pitfalls ofevangelism. Jesus Christ is not only an answer to people's needs, but also must be seen to be true. That step is missing in evange lism. If you come to Christ through sheer pragmatism, there will always be somebody around the corner who can pragmatically give you something better. Jesus is the answer because he is the truth, and this is a very difficult concept for Americans to grasp. ~

MA Y !jU N E 1 99 5

E~itor~sN~te: CUREb.ff~;r1 the fOllOWiI1,~'ksan examJ21~~f' ~';,,/: .s~me ofthe pit(alls oftechniques:6yer truth: ./;'\'2';><, ~~ ,

c,'.'

•

,'.'

,",

, ,f~:'~

. '~~f;"-;';;'

«~~'(

Witne$s~ing Mylle Ea~i ' ~,,;~~,;

byC.§. Lovett (f~91)

\"'"

A list of five.commonsituations thati2 j an,p~ .turned into witri~~~il)g opportunities:

1. A cJinmong;;~ting bewee~jfl~nus: "Hi, how are you today.?';

'i.;;:("

"Oh, I'mbetterfh.."ulks:"

"Hav~y;otibeensi~W?"

.<.. ,'.

:!'C.'.

"N?, . buip.ownat:~ur church w~~!ng, 'Every day \V~!,h}esus is better than· ~~~(t.iy , ~~f{)J;,~/ So I'm:~etter today th~,ll~I was yesterday:" ',;, ' ..•·:>'h .. ,.' " (~B,$~iolya flust~ied response). ; . . ....,. . >' i!'~' "Itre~1yis won(J,e~ful to feelbet~~r,~veryday: I kri,oW:Y()QwouldJike it. H~~~ji~~dthis ,Cpas.s traet). Itte~you how!" '",,~~:,,:. . : ,,', ' \>'\C;::;·','.;<., ~.,. }~;,,,,

."';'

2. When someone:asks ifyoufi~;e"a match: '~i: "Hey buddy, got a match?" ",

"Not sinc~~e explo~~on!"

"What exploSion i~that?" ..., ",: .... . . . . . < "The;~~pJ9sion th~ti~ok place in lllyUfe when Ibecame ~.Ghristian..That cl}anged',;. aJ~tof:~ings fOJ;,;We. Here (pas~;tr,il~) this could caus~~: explosion in yourli!~~~j: V: , , ":X'e~~ri (He will f~d it. His <:ur~~ilo/ has been arous~<;l)~;' . ..' ',~;, 'i."

;.: 3~:;i' 'fjthe gqs itation att~nd.q~l~ smoking a cig4~~Urwhen you drive i~; : -';, ,: .y.~

:/.'. ~!Say, that coui~be dangerou~~smoking iU'ountI;g~~;'couldn't it?" . . ":;.'f!i}':.'(>vvedo it alffhe time." ." .•'': '. \~;, ,.J :s:u'p~9:,se there,ate dangers in:~py walk oflife, w<>Oldll' tyou say?" ii pr6p~tilr."

,··i"

. ,:;',

"DoYQij:knowwh*t the safestlifef,?"

j 'Tllbite/ !· " ·t>:~ , :'1'h'e;<=~ristian~it It's sosafe,}n fact, thatafter(me,b~comes a ChriSiiari~'fil~y' C~' " ~, SAVED! .Rere, readthi,s'(l1and tract). I(coul~:~ve'your life. Th~.t'ei$ a.tti-hger ::;" worse than ~ g~oline ftre!" :/ ..)' .;;: "~. '

<';;

4. When{hry ask yo~lqdrink at the''6!fipe: : ..

"I'm son-y~I' don'tdriJl'~that stuffa,I)Ymt,te. Not since I disc(i)yered something

stronger a~awithoutt~¢ side eff~cts.'; ';:' , .";,':'( ,

' , 'J .

"Oh, what'slhat? Tell ti.;~})outit." . : , . "It's pretty ~g,()d, I tellY9iL;I can drink a~~~~~h as I want andJ~e:m()re I drink the

". higher I get.A,itd stillno'hiUtgover!" "Well, where~o..You getii?""/ . •.." ." <~

"Right here .(:pFoduce your pocket Testamentl,'<§ince I staned drinki,n,g from the Fountain ofLife, I don't~apt any of that :w~~~r'stuff any morf' :It ygu want to try some, here' ~irsampl~ (p~s,ssalvation tract). B'nt! warn you, it' s'J:~l!1iy'got a kick to it. And if youVke this,YQ!l'Wproba1?ly giv~up ,t hat other stuff~t~gtther. £ ;>:~'" ,~ " ,,~.'~. .. . , , <;'

'+:,

,<'

.. '::i;

.'..

$ofii?one h6Js$piedyourChrj~iian pin on the lapel:q/.rour coat:

"I see thatpin you'rewearing, what'~ t~ for?" .•/>:;' .' , ' >,:,

·., "That? \yell, whmanyone noti~e~.j.t'and asks about it,'ft:reminds me toiiyeth¢W;'a

messag~~om theJ.>tesident." " .. " J :

"The Ptesl9.ent! " (1'J}~ reaction is i,!$uallya startled one) . '~;'''';'';'

"Yes, thePtesidentot~he People Corp~ration." , ~'

"The PeopIeCorpQrati6n?" . ':,}0,~

"Yes. Hav~»'t youev~t heard of,the ~eople Corporation?" .'' , ' , i , "I don't thi?k so. 'Vh; tis it?" . . .•. . . . '/: ." ". . " c',:,: ;

"We:Ll, it's0'a corp()ration thatis)~terested in jitstpeopie. In fact, p~opi~)~~rei~

p~ill'dpl~asset ,(rause while that soaks in). Not only is it the worl4~slargest

·•. corp~~ll{ion, ie~ :9ut of thisw?rld too." '" ' :i: ';qh:::I'thinkI kilow what you're.getting at " d .:' "You do? Wbatdo you thiI;tk the corporati'on is?" " '-" 'It has somethl)ig to do Wi~God or religiQJ;1,doesn't it?" < ' , "Yes, and it h~s something to do with you: You're a peopl¢; ,~:r~,n't you? This ,'

).corporationis interestedin you. In fact, hel'eisthat message from .t hePresident I am

,s upposed togiveyou." (Hand lract).

modern REFORMATION

DON'T MISS THIS SPECIAL OFFER

,~'

If you have enjoyed listening to Dr. James Boice on the radio and happened to miss a message or two, Or, if you can't tune in to the radio broadcast of

The Bible Study Hour,

Or, you want to review past messages Why not order the radio messages that come in written daily Bible study format

God's Word Today Magazine You will find: • easy to follow scripture lessons for the week and weekends • helpful study questions • information on coming seminars and events

• • • •

thought-provoking reflection ideas further study passages application suggestions prayer guidelines

1 Call today for your free sample copy of the May issue. It features the study of Psalm 78-81 and covers methods God uses to help us learn as Christians. M95-05

2 Order a yearly subscription for the low cost of only $20.00 n1ailed monthly to your home. M9505 a radio cassette subscription for only $88.00. 3 Order Includes: • 13 cassette shipments of radio messages • plus 12 issues of God's Word Today Magazine C-SUB The Bible Study Hour is a radio and conference ministry preparing Christians to think and act biblically. Method of Payment: 0 Check Acct.

0 Visa

0 MasterCard

0 Discover Card

0 American Express

Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Total Order $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ~ Street

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ State/ Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

1:t

Acq: SA07/ MOT: S-M55MR

Exp. _ _ _ __

CAll: 1-800-488-1888 CM-F 8:00) am-4:30 pm ET) • FAX: 215-735-5133

SHIPPING & IlANDUNG

REGULAR DEmERY

Up to $5.00...... .... .. .. ....$1.50 Regular delivery takes 2-4 weeks

$5.01 to $14.99 .............$2.00 from the time your order is shipped

$15 to $29.99 ................$3.00 FASf DEmERY

$30 to $44.99 ................$3.50 (add to base cost at left)

$45 to $74.99 ................$4.00 UPS 2-4 Day est. add $3.00

$75 to $99.99 ................$4.50 UPS Second Day add $6.00

$100 and up ....... .. ........$6.00 Overnight, add $14.00

Canada and foreign orders, please add 15% of total sale

All orders require up to three days handling time.

The Bible Study Hour

Box 2000, Philadelphia 19103

"This is a hopeful, helpful book. It is invalu able for those who are trying to chart a course for evangelicals in the next century."

"McGrath gives us a wide-ranging and well informed assessment. ... Evangelicals and nonevangelicals alike should read it; they will be struck, as I have, by its honesty, wisdom and confidence."

"A purified evangelical ism, McGrath suggests, could extend its mtellec tual and spiritual high ground throughout Western civilization."

"Bold, fresh, timely and practical. This superb book from a leading evangelical thinker captures both the promise and the peril of evangelicalism."

F$ "A ringing manifesto full of hope, sanity and biblical balance."

"Proposes strategies that will avert the collapse suffered by the mainline liberal Protestant denominations." '''Must' reading for any one who wants to under stand where we are and where we are going."

"Outstanding. Evangelicalism &the Future ofChristianity . .. is exemplary in its combination of buoyant faith and constructive critical assessment." 209 pages, cloth, 0-8308-1694-1, $16.99

Available at your local Christian bookstore or from

INTERVARSITYPRESS

DOW N ERS

GROVE,

ILLI N OIS