Four types of Christians to be or not to be

Every day (well, nearly every day anyway) I read My Utmost for His Highest. This is an awesome daily devotional, and I highly recommend it for every Christian. As I read the devotional for January 31st, I had a thought go through my mind. I got to thinking about this theme:

"Our calling is not primarily to be holy men and women, but to be proclaimers of the Gospel of God... Paul had not a hypersensitive interest in his own character. As long as our eyes are upon our own personal whiteness we shall never get near the reality of Redemption."

As I thought about it, I had to admit that there are indeed those who are more concerned about their personal holiness than about the salvation of others. I myself have been subject to this temptation from time to time in my walk as a Christian. However, as I reflected further, this is far from the only (or perhaps even biggest) problem in the church today.

So much ink (and so many electrons) have been spilled in condemning those who, like Chambers's targets, are more concerned about their own self-righteousness than the salvation of their neighbors. We should certainly strive not to be like this. However, that made me think about two other kinds of Christians that we should strive not to be like, and the kind that we should.

The first kind we should strive not to be is the polar opposite (who we'll call the "emergents"), those who say they are concerned about the salvation of others at the expense of their own personal righteousness. These blind guides, which I have elsewhere called "Cursing Christians," are lauded by Dallas Willard and in books like "Blue Like Jazz." They seem to believe that only by forsaking personal righteousness, by (misapplying Paul) being like all the sinful things done by all people, they are somehow making the Gospel more acceptable to them. I have at least two problems with these emergents. First, the absolute best I can say about these people (as a fairly recently reformed sinner myself) is that this is totally naïve. If somebody had come up to me cursing up a blue streak and then attempted to tell me about the love of Jesus, I would have laughed in his face. I would have said "oh yeah, you talk a good game, but when it comes down to it you are just as bad as I am." It was men who didn't judge me but still showed me great personal holiness who made me consider Christianity and the love of God, not men who made me feel comfortable in my sin. And second, anybody who thinks that once God saves us from our sins He is totally content with leaving us wallowing in their presence (that He takes away the penalty but does not expect us to change our voluntary indulgence in them) has not read the Bible very carefully. When God saves us, it's for a purpose, and that purpose should include personal holiness.

The second kind of person we should try to avoid being are those who change the "Gospel of God" to make it supposedly more palatable to non-Christians (these we'll call "the seeker sensitives"). The SS's do (in my experience) exhibit personal holiness, but present only part of the true Gospel of God. I heard a church service awhile back where the speaker steadfastly refused to call a sin a sin; any bad things the hearer may have done were passed off as mistakes, as "dumb stuff." This kind of presentation of the Gospel does not convict anybody of sin, and if anything is abundantly clear in the Bible as regards soteriology, it should be that true repentance is needed to be saved.

Given a total of three types of Christians we should not be, what kind should we be? First, God wants us to be very concerned about the salvation of others. But let's not imagine that God is like us, that He can only do one thing at a time ("ok, he's witnessing to somebody now; I can't manage to make him holy too, so I guess that'll have to slide"). No, if God wants us to share the Gospel with people, He can figure out a way to do it while we're exhibiting personal holiness. And second, if God wants to save somebody (since all Christians should agree it's God who saves), He will do it through a full presentation of the Gospel; He doesn't need some watered-down, "user-friendly" Gospel-lite to do it for Him.

I think it's obvious. God wants us to follow what we know is right as regards holiness, and present the full Gospel to people at the same time. As long as we strive not to be personally condemning but to preach the truth, God will use that to save some. For others - for what Christian can doubt there are multitudes who will not be saved, though it pains us? - the proclamation of the full Gospel will merely add to their wrath.

One of the most personally haunting things I can think of is a person who can honestly go to God and say "Sure, You sent Gary to me to preach the Gospel; but he never gave it to me." Heaven help me if I do not preach the full Gospel.

Hey, now I'm a "Bible Corrector" (part I)

[Note: Edited slightly to clarify the second bullet point]

What is it about the week after you get back from vacation? Not only do I have a pile of stuff to do at work, but in the same week I meet up with a couple of Mormon missionaries and now get into an discussion with a King James onlyist. My posting about the Mormon experience somehow brought on a flood - for me, anyway - of Mormon responders. My experience with the Mormons was positive. The responses were all kind; one responder in particular was extremely enlightening. I hope - although I don't expect - my interactions with responders to this posting will be as pleasant.

It all started when I somehow stumbled onto this video on youtube. I made a comment about 1 John 5:7. Little did I guess the floodgates that would open up. The person who put up the video has many well-entrenched - though poorly-informed - opinions on why the King James is the Only Bible that English speakers should use. The discussion (read it yourself) included such luminary points as:

• The KJV translators did not italicize 1 John 5:7, so it must be original.
• "The TR was the authorized body of text in Hebrew and Greek," so "ultimately, you are going to have that TR text translated into English for any English party to understand what was written in Greek, and Hebrew." (This point says a lot about the level of understanding we're dealing with here. If you are not familiar with the manuscripts, the TR only covers the Greek source of the New Testament, and contains no Hebrew. Besides, there are at least five different versions of the TR, as even KJV onlyist Peter Ruckman admits.)
  
• Any Bible version that does not have every verse in the KJV is guilty of a transgression of Revelation 22:19. (Never dealt with is the question of how we know that it's not the KJV translators themselves or compiler of the TR and various Byzantine manuscripts that preceeded it who transgressed Revelation 22:18b.)
  
• "Somewhere, to the English speaking public, which is the world language of commerce, God will have to come good on his expectations, and produce an authoritative book to hold his subjects to account in areas concerning Gods word." (A not totally unreasonable point, but not a reason why the KJV is it.)
• Every book in the Bible testifies of Christ. (This is true, but what does it have to do with the question of whether the KJV is the single authoritative Bible version for English speakers?)
• God apparently authorized the KJV as the first version in English. (Later, we discover that not only was the KJV not the first English version, it was not even the first authorized by an English king.)
• "The [verse] number system was imposed by God under the Old Testament [quotes Acts:13:33]... and then reinstated as a security tool by the King James translators." (Actually it wasn't: the Bible was long divided into chapters but not verses. And it wasn't the KJV that first did versification in English, it was the Geneva Bible, as this image from the 1581 Geneva Bible clearly shows.)
• "King James, was the ONLY English King, who AUTHORIZED the translation from the Hebrew and Greek into Shakespearean English during the time of the Renaissance. The scriptures correlated a profound connection to Kings relative to the inspiration, and preservation of Scriptures." (Actually, the Great Bible of Coverdale was authorized by both Henry VIII and Edward VI before the KJV. The KJV was commissioned by King James, as I understand it in response to philosophical objections against Calvinism.)
• "King Saul proceeded David. The first Adam failed, then second Adam did not.
  God hated Esau (the first born) but loved Jacob." (Apparently the argument is now being made that the first Bible version authorized by a king no longer is authoritative, but the second one.)

It should be fairly obvious from reading the exchange that he has his mind made up: the King James is the one and only authoritative Bible version for English speakers of all time. Any "facts" that can be brought in and marshalled to the defense of that belief are brought forward, regardless of truth. When required, they will be dropped or changed to support the main "fact" that the King James is the only authoritative version. It's like some defenders of evolution, who will accept no evidence that we might have been designed: if you ask how we know that evolution is true, they offer "well, we're here, aren't we? It must be true."

His parting shots to me are that I "don't have any faith, because you still have not offered us an infallible English document, and faith comes from the book brother" and that I am a "Bible corrector" because I refuse to continue this ridiculous argument with him. Actually, my faith is not in a man-made object, no matter how wonderful or majestic. My faith is in God Himself and His eternal word. The KJV is an excellent achievement (although many honest observers note that even at the time it was written, it was not the best or easiest to understand version). But it is man-made. Note that I do not say (I can feel the comments coming now) that Scripture itself is man-made. Every word of Scripture is God-breathed. But that does not mean every word in every language in every translation. If it did, then one would be forced to accept very poor translations (such as the new "inclusive ones" or the Jehovah's Witness "New World Translation").

In my second part, I would like to consider the reasons the King James onlyists respond as strongly and viscerally as they often do to questions about their preferred Bible version.

Witnessing to Mormon elders

I just got finished talking to a pair of Mormon elders coming to my front door. Honestly, I was tempted to not even talk to them: to quote 2 John 10, and ignore them. However, since I have been studying evangelism through Way of the Master and other sources, I decided to talk to them.

They were, as usual for Mormons, very nice young men. They were respectful, and seemed honestly appreciative that I knew a fair bit about the Bible. I also admitted to them that I had not made an extensive study of their religion. Besides, as I noted, even if I came up with a bunch of places where the Book of Mormon contradicted the Bible or where their prophets have issued false prophecies, they'd no doubt have a list of responses to each objection.

Rather, I tried to focus on two ideas. First off, that I had no particular reason to believe the Book of Mormon. When they brought up the fact that we needed help to understand the Bible and apply it to our lives, I agreed to a certain extent. However, I continued, I have many other good books by good, God-fearing men like John MacArthur and Charles Stanley - why should I listen to this Book of Mormon? They did not attempt to convince me of the supernatural source of the Book of Mormon - which is not supportable on objective grounds anyway - but rather said to look at the fruit. I then responded that it seems to me that these men have powerful ministries, helping thousands of people to become Christians or become strengthened in their faith and holiness. That's the kind of fruit I can believe in.

I then mentioned that, I simply cannot believe that there was no true church or religion on earth until Joseph Smith came along in the early 19th century to rediscover it. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not defeat His church, and I was being asked to believe that - at least for awhile - the gates of hell did in fact defeat the church. So they asked whether I thought that we needed continuing authority for functions like baptizing and prophesying. I responded no, that Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus Christ is the chief Cornerstone, that He built His church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, who wrote the Bible.

They started talking about the "burning in the bosom" to authenticate the truths in the Book of Mormon, to which I said that I did not see any Biblical authority for this. They said that the Scriptures say that we should ask of God, who will lead us into truth. In response, I pointed out that it seems to me that God gave us many ways to "ask" of Him and be lead into truth - talking to Godly friends, reading the Bible, reading good books, etc. - and to their credit one of them agreed. He said he just meant that for some people the burning in the bosom applied, including for him.

The second idea I tried to focus on throughout the entire encounter is the basic truth of the Gospel: that every one of us is a sinner, and we are deserving of hell. When I spoke to them, I didn't realize that Mormons don't really believe in hell as a destination for any of us. I have since read about that and will bring it up in my next Mormon encounter. To that end, I led them through the Way of the Master "how many lies have you told in your life ... what does that make you?" stages. They admitted that they were liars and thieves and adulterers-at-heart, and said they needed Jesus to save them.

But it was a pretty easy admission. At one point they talked about God will give us faith after we make the effort to know Him and follow Him. That strikes me as the core of every man-made religion: that we make the effort first, and God saves us afterward. It seems to me it's at home just as much in Mormonism as it is in Arminianism or Catholicism. Now, I hasten to say: it's taken to a more logical extreme in Mormonism; that's why I would call Mormonism a heresy and the Mormon church a cult but not Arminian/Catholic ones. But that old desire to do it ourselves, to take some credit for our own salvation, is in every one of us. Only an honest reading of the Bible - and having our eyes opened by God - shows us that all our good deeds are truly like filthy rags.

It was quite a long conversation - and I have not done a very good job relating it all - and they wanted to follow up at a later date. Not wanting to enter a long-term discussion, I demurred, but ended by saying that I believe that we are not where we are by accident, that God appoints our times and places. I said I believed that God had brought them here for a purpose. And it was God's purpose that we examine ourselves, "make our election sure." The one who seemed the more experienced agreed, and promised that he'd honestly ask God to show him the truth if I would do the same. I agreed. I have no problem with that. They also gave me a Book of Mormon and pointed out some passages to read.

I just pray that, in addition to God showing me more and more of His truth (which I truly do pray for!), that He opens up the eyes of these two precious young men to their own true state, to the own desperate wickedness, and their need for the Savior as He opened mine. And not the son of Jehovah god who had advanced, through eternal progression, into a state of godhood and of the celestial mother, not the spirit brother of Lucifer; but the one and only begotten Son of the only and living God, Jesus Christ.

Is the Calvinist God a cosmic rapist?

I have mentioned before that Yahoo! Answers is one of my personal mission fields. I go over there to defend the faith as best I can, to hear some new criticisms of Christianity from non-Christians (this does not happen very often), and generally to witness to people. I have met a number of interesting people over there, including atheists, Muslims, and Wiccans. I had the honor of speaking to a very intelligent and sensitive Wiccan in an extended email conversation a few months back. As a defense again my monergistic ideas of God's election and, indirectly, against the idea of any kind of sovereign God at all, she mentioned that Hank Hanegraaff said that the God of Calvinism would be equivalent to a cosmic rapist. I had never heard this ridiculous quote before, so I had to find whether he had really said this.

A little searching led to an article by Hank titled "Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People?", where he said:

Furthermore, without choice, love is meaningless. God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces His love on people nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love Him. Instead, God, the personification of love, grants us freedom of choice. Without such freedom, we would be little more than preprogrammed robots.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by this, but sadly I am not. This is the kind of stuff that Hank comes out with too often today. This kind of thing can only have the effect of turning people off from the Biblical God to a god of their own making. It gives them one more arrow they can use to not to believe in the God of the Bible, a quiver which is tragically quite full already. In the case of the Wiccan above, it was another reason why she did not accept God's claims on her. And from her point of view it makes sense: why should she accept the claims of a cosmic rapist?

In addition, it shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of Calvinist theology which is common from people with less theological sophistication, but which I had hoped better for from Hank. Specifically, these comparisons are ludicrous for several reasons:

• What is a rapist? A person who does something against the person's will that will harm them. Even with any greater understanding of Calvinist theology, the comparison is terrible because God is doing something indescribably wonderful for the person.
• What is a puppeteer? A person who animates a dead body to give it the illusion of life. This one actually does have a bit of Biblical support: for what can a dead man do for himself? However, the Bible does not say God gives us the illusion of life. It says He gives us life, and that more abundantly, eternal life with Him ruling in the heavens. What's more, our fallen will is not neutral: it is actively fighting against God, hating Him.

No, God does not cosmically rape us. He, who created us to love Him, sees us in our pitiful fallen state and, despite the fact that we hate Him, made way for us to be reconciled to Him. None of us deserve to be saved, we all deserve the hell we desire. Due to our fallen will, nobody wants to be saved; the dog returns to its vomit. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

However, God's justice would be a travesty if everybody were saved. Thus, God, with an intelligence and wisdom not only infinite but untainted by sin, wisely decides which of us to graciously save. I cannot imagine on what basis He makes that decision; but then I am not God. I can't figure out most things He does; His thoughts are not our thoughts. Because none of us wants to be saved, He must regenerate our wills, at which point we can accept His offer of salvation.

The Calvinist's God is not a Cosmic Rapist or puppeteer. The comparison is crass. Even if you're not a Calvinist, you must understand this. Hank, I expected better from you.

An interesting comment by Ray Comfort

I wanted to quickly note something that Ray Comfort said on the air a couple of weeks ago. I should start by noting that they are very non-committal when it comes to the subject of the basis of soteriology. Todd regularly skirts Calvinist/Arminian issues on his radio show. For their purposes, I think that is totally appropriate. It is far more important that people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ than that they accept Biblical theology as a whole. Theology is important, but one can become a Christian even with a rather poor knowledge of theology. There's time for them to grow in their new faith, and God will see that they understand what they need to.

Besides, until recently, every preacher of the Gospel agreed that the word of God and the consequent convicting knowledge of sin and repentance is what saves people, not cool music and "relevant" videos and stories. This was as true for John Wesley as for Charles Spurgeon. I note that they have recently added the book "Wesley Gold" to their "Spurgeon Gold." That is a good thing: I'd hate for Arminians to reject the greatest tool to evangelize the lost simply because their theology does not allow them to listen.

Anyway, they were preparing to talk to a Muslim on the air. For those who have not heard the show much, there is quite a bit of "peanut gallery" conversation - back and forth, just for fun. So, during this period when the Muslim was coming on the line, Todd mentioned something about the five pillars of Islam. Ray then said:

"He wants five pillars? I'll give him five pillars: T-U-L-I-P."

Made my day. :-)

I'm sorry Christians do things in church that annoy you ...

But frankly, church is primarily for believers, and not primarily for unbelievers. That's the tough truth. This all started with a posting by a fellow who calls himself the Friendly Atheist. Mr. FA really seems quite a reasonable fellow, and probably a nicer guy in person than I am myself. Truthfully, I know where he's coming from: I can understand some of these things annoying him. Some of them annoy me, too. But emotions and thinking are two different things, and I think it's important to rationally separate things that annoy one about church (or anything, for that matter) into several categories:

• Things that annoy for purely emotional reasons
  
• Things that annoy because they are unbiblical
• Things that annoy because they are biblical, and the annoyee is unwilling to accept Biblical authority

I submit that items in the three categories are completely different. In a spirit of "friendliness" myself (hopefully), I'd like to examine each of the items on his list of things that annoy him about church, trying to use the above categories as a filter.

1. Wave their hands in front of my face making it impossible to see the stage.
   
   Many Christians would agree with you on this one. Of course, for Bible believers, there is 1 Timothy 2:8 to deal with. I've heard this exegeted as referring to how Christians live their lives in general and having nothing to do with actually raising one's hands. Yeah, but ... the rest of the passage is not only about general behaviors but also about specific ones. Certainly, you can interpret "holy hands" as meaning "general works"; on the other hand, I am not familiar with a lot of uses of the word "hands" alone to mean "works." In all the passages this site quotes, the Scripture does not use "hands" as a synonym for works; in fact, each of them specifically says "the works of [one's] hands." This relates "hands" to "work" but at the same time contrasts them.
   
   Now, I do understand that "hands" may be used metonymically, and "holy hands" mean "undefiled actions"; thus I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that God does want our actions to be undefiled. However, I'd want a little stronger support for the thesis that the believer's works are all Paul had in mind when he mentions "hands" here. What I'm saying is that it seems to me at least as plausible to interpret this use of hands literally as metonymically, especially given the existence of similar prayer positions in the Old Testament.
   
   On the other hand, actually waving one's hands in somebody else's face is just plain rude. "All things are permissible but not all edify."
   
   
2. Yell out random words (“Praise Jesus,” “Hallelujah!”) while I’m trying to listen to the sermon.
   
   This one I agree with. I don't see any Biblical precedent for doing such a thing.
   
   
3. Walk in after the music— or worse yet, the sermon— has started.
   
   I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. Everybody knows Sunday morning is the most hectic time of the week. I would suggest a bit of grace in dealing with people, a little less judgmentalism - "Judge not, etc."
   
   
4. Look at me with anxiety because I’m brown.
   
5. Look at me with excitement because I’m not white.
   
   I haven't seen such things personally, but I agree that they have no place in church. The only thing I'd say about point number 5 is that many believers want less self-segregation on Sunday mornings, more worshiping the Lord together regardless of race, and that leads to that reaction. Again, I would urge some tolerance here of #5; for #4 there is no excuse.
   
   
6. Assume that because I know about the Bible, I must believe in the Bible.
   
   Well, as a first cut, is this an unreasonable assumption to make? After all, if you were to walk into an atheist's meeting a good first guess would be that you were there because ... wait for it ... you were an atheist? If you go to a meeting of Spanish speakers, wouldn't a good initial assumption be ... that you speak Spanish? Now, if they persist in thinking you a believer after you make your position known (gently and thoughtfully, one would hope), they should change their opinion. But as a first guess, this seems perfectly reasonable to me.
   
   Additionally, you have to understand where some of these thoughts come from: churches that have fallen into the abyss of seeker-sensitivity. I have to say, it's obvious from many of your comments the kind of churches you've been visiting. In those churches, the assumption is that there's a small set of people who are serious believers, a certain set of people who are unbelievers, and a great mass of people who are what one might call semi-believers (see next point). In reality, of course, there is no such thing: either you is, or you ain't. They naturally therefore assume that if you know the Bible you fall into the first category.
   
   
7. Perform a skit that is supposed to tell the day’s message.
   
   All I can say to this one is "Amen, preach it brother!"
   
   
8. Tell me I’m on the “right path” by being there.
   
   It depends on what they mean by this. If they are following the typical seeker-sensitive semi-Pelagian idea that you're moving yourself ever closer to Christ, then I totally disagree with them. But if they mean that by being there you may hear something that may change your life and they're glad for that, then I totally agree with them. (See #13.)
   
   Now, I should say that I don't think this is a good thing to say something like this to somebody, and likely would not say it myself. However, the reality is that most people who you might have heard say this are probably just opening their mouth before engaging their brains. I mean, think about it from their point of view: they meet you, and based on your apparent knowledge of some of the Scripture, assume you're a believer. Then you rock their world by telling them (gently, I hope) that you're an atheist. Many people would be slightly flummoxed in this kind of situation, especially for those who have not encountered many atheists before. An awkward silence ensues, and they want to say something, anything. So, to fill the silence, they (unwisely) say the first thing that pops into their minds.
   
   I don't know about you, but I've later kicked myself for saying many of the things I have said in such situations in my life. Perhaps you are better composed than the rest of us; but have a little tolerance for those who without as strong a constitution.
   
   
9. Pass out Christian business directories.
   
   Well, there are various schools of thought on these directories. I don't think they're appropriate to "pass out" in church, and I haven't seen that literally happen anyway. But, while I don't use them myself that often, I don't see a problem with having them. There are two valid ways of looking at them, and your purely utilitarian examples are not either of them. First, some people interpret 2 Cor. 6:14 specifically as applying not only to marriages and close friendships but also to business relationships. For them, a natural outworking of their faith in their life requires them to work with Christians wherever possible. So can't you be tolerant of their sincerely-held convictions even if they differ from your own? Second, we are called to be good stewards of our money. Some people feel that wherever possible, it should be kept in the Christian community. I am not sure whether I feel the same way; but let's turn it around. I do wonder what your take would be on things like the Black Business Directory? Is that a valid discrimination to make? If that kind, why not this? Even if we conclude that neither is a valid discrimination, it seems a "live and let live" attitude is probably appropriate here.
   
   On the other hand, I don't know whether to react to your strawman example of "brown lawyers" with laughter or pity. I don't know where you have been, but I have been in a large number of churches since my conversion from Buddhism/agnosticism/Unitarianism 13 years ago; and I cannot think of a single one of them where "brown" people have been looked down on.
   
   
10. Ask me if they can pray for me.
    
    All I can go by here is my experience, and my experience in the responses of people (both believers and unbelievers) when I ask this question is an unbroken string of positive responses. Everybody I have said this to has responded with thanks for my thoughtfulness, even if they do not share in my belief; this is true whether they are Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Wiccan. Where I come from, it's customary to thank people for thoughtfulness. Maybe that's just me though.
    
    
11. Ask me if they can pray for me, then put their hands on my shoulders and begin praying.
    
    There is clearly Biblical precedent for this, whether for the purposes of blessing or invoking the Holy Spirit. As with item #1, not all will take such Biblical uses of "hands" so literally, although the New Testament is pretty clear that it was a normative practice at one time at least. Certainly, the Bible does not support performing this action when the other person is clearly uncomfortable or annoyed by it, so it would probably be best to not practice it in encounters with you specifically. Again, though, I urge you to have tolerance of those who take this as a natural practice, and appreciate their thoughtfulness and intentions even if you disagree with them. A friend who is of uncertain-to-me faith (as far as I can tell, sort of a roll-your-own Buddhist/Wiccan) recently told me that she was going to send prayers for my healing to an uncertain destination and I believe do some ritual involving candles. I don't accept her belief or practice, but I am sincerely appreciative of her intentions, and thanked her that she would think enough of me to offer prayers for me, even if I think she's offering them to the wrong place.
    
    
12. Mischaracterize people of other faiths or no faiths.
    
    I have never heard anybody say that Muslims really want to become Christians; I think the Bible is clear that unbelievers are perfectly happy in their state until God regenerates their hearts. As for the atheists comment, there is both Scriptural authority and experience to back such a comment up. I hang around on Yahoo! Answers a lot, and I can tell you that the vast majority of atheists I meet up with there are totally ignorant about what Christianity and the Bible really teach (irrespective of how many years they "served" in Christian ministries, or how many out-of-context factoids from the Bible they know) yet hate it with a passion. (Please understand that I am not putting you in the same category with these neo-atheist fundies.) Now, do they know God is there? Obviously, I don't know for sure, but that explanation is the best one I can think of for their irrational blind hatred of Christianity.
    
    
13. Assume that everyone who is not Christian must be “saved.”
    
    You answered "I’m quite alright." Actually, friend, you're not. I know you think you are alright. But you, being an intelligent and thoughtful person, should understand something that, in my experience, so few atheists have a grasp on. That's a shame, because it is at the crux of this whole discussion. And that is this: You believe that you're alright the way you are; but any Christian cannot possibly believe that. There's a clash of fundamental worldviews going on here. You believe that Christianity is nothing real and objective; it's a man-made practice that some people may choose to follow, and others may not, and good luck to them all. (After the tiring tirades of people like Richard Dawkins, this is a welcome change, believe me.)
    
    But please understand that a Christian cannot believe that. We believe in Christianity not because we like it, or because it makes us feel good, but because we believe that it's true. The founder of our faith said that nobody comes to the Father except through Him. We must believe, if we are Christians, that the fate of those who are not reconciled to God through Him are destined for the lake of fire. Which, I hasten to add, is where every single one of us deserves to go, Christian or non-Christian. It's only by being saved by the grace of God, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that I myself was literally saved from the hell I most richly deserve.
    
    I must ask you: once I believe that this is all true, how can I not believe everybody needs to be saved?
    
    Now, I'm not asking you to accept this worldview and make it your own. I understand that you don't and won't. But I am asking you to not assume, without argument, that Christians should accept your worldview. We don't expect you to accept ours; grant us the same luxury.
    
    
14. Bring their children, then proceed to fall asleep during the sermon.
    
    Again, amen, preach it brother!
    
    
15. Say that those of other Christian denominations aren’t practicing “true” Christianity.
    
    This is another one that I don't know how to respond to. On the one hand, it is true, we ought to practice love and tolerance of people who interpret the Bible differently than we do. On the other hand, this is an old saw, and one that, in my experience, is brought up by unbelievers as a justification of why they are not believers themselves far more than it's actually said by Christians. On the other other hand, if you believe that something is real and objective, there is a "right" way to describe and practice it, and many "wrong" ways. Again, it comes down to worldview. If something is personal and subjective, there is no right and wrong; not so if it's something real and objective.
    
    Even this doesn't mean, of course, that everybody who has a different understanding of the Bible is totally wrong in every way. It doesn't even mean that everybody who practices other faiths (or no faith at all) is wrong in every way. Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense, if for no other reason that one cannot come to an understanding of the goodness of God without having the same basic standard of "goodness" to use. Still, there are right beliefs and practices, and wrong ones, and it's perfectly Biblical to be discerning in recognizing the difference. Just don't let it separate you from other believers.
    
    
16. Look at their watches mid-sermon.
    
    Heart attitude here, as with most things, is front and center. I agree that one should not be counting the minutes until the end of the sermon; but everybody is probably guilty of this once in a while. I, for one, am intensely interested in what the preacher has to say, following in my Bible and/or taking notes. However, I have probably glanced at the clock before, either purely out of habit or because some specific event is looming large in my mind. Chalk it up to human frailty.
    
    
17. Pray for things they can just as easily take care of themselves.
    
    Honestly, where did you get the idea that just because somebody is praying for a promotion, they're not working harder? That people pray for good grades on testing instead of actually studying? For a smart and apparently experienced guy, you don't know very much about actual Christians and their behavior. In every situation like this I've ever seen, the Christian will pray (because the Bible tells us to) and then work their hardest to make the desired situation a reality. I know you don't think the prayer will do any good, but we do. We don't see prayer as alternative to work, but an adjunct. Surely, if God is what Christians say He is (real, good, omnipotent, etc) it's a reasonable thing to ask for His help/protection/etc?
    
    I'm afraid the old saw "so heavenly minded they're no earthly good" is just that, an old saw. The most heavenly-minded people I know are also the ones working hardest for their and others' earthly good.
    
    
18. Pastors tell stories without giving citations.
    
    I generally agree with this one. In fact, I don't think "stories" of any kind should be a major part of what goes on in a sermon. Again, it appear that you have been visiting a lot of seeker-sensitive churches, so you've heard a lot of stories; but a large number of churches think Biblical exposition should be front and center instead of stories. Occasional stories can help illustrate a point; but they should not make up the bulk of the sermon.
    
    On the other hand, would you really expect any person making a speech or presentation to stop every time he referenced something to read the associated bibliographic entry for the point? Let's not go overboard here.
    
    
19. Pastors ask questions with obvious answers.
    
    I agree with you. But I'd most likely take the kind of example you cited (“Who here believes the Lord is going to save them today?!”) as an annoying but pardonable personal eccentricity on the part of the preacher. Charles Stanley says "Now listen" a lot; Guillermo Maldonado says "Vamos aca, iglesia" (loosely, "now stay with me, church"). One shouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, this is number 19; I don't take an example given to fill out the magic number of "20" as being the main argument. :-)
    
    
20. Pastors take an hour to analyze a simple, straight-forward Biblical verse.
    
    Some preachers can certainly over-discuss a single verse. I remember in a comparative religions class I took in college, the professor giving us an example of a preacher who made an entire sermon out of the King James expression "and it came to pass." He explained how this meant that everything passes away, nothing is constant. (I note that even the Mormons are getting into that act.) C'mon, it was just a common expression used at certain times. On the other hand, there are many verses that are difficult to understand without grasping the whole Sitz im Leben of the passage. Lacking this understanding, going "proof-texting," is behind many misunderstandings of Biblical verses. For example, only by ignoring the context in the entirety of Scripture can Tony Campolo reach some of his conclusions.
    
    So, a balance is necessary between too much and too little. Unfortunately, one person's "too much" may be another person's "too little"; and most tragically of all, one person's "too much" may actually be "exactly what that person needs, whether they want it or not."
    

Review of the book "How to Talk About Jesus Without Freaking Out"

As I am involved in leading a group in the Way of the Master series and am very interested in getting better (and braver!) about sharing my faith, I recently picked up the book How to Talk About Jesus Without Freaking Out from my bookshelf in order to read it again. I bought it a few years ago after hearing the authors visit Janet Parshall's radio show while on their book tour. I found it an interesting comparison to the Way of the Master series. I thought it would be interesting to write a review here; I have also posted a slightly modified version of this review on Amazon.

I should start by saying that there's a number of things to like about this book. First off, any book that encourages believers to get out there and share their faith, personally (as in, one-on-one) is to be commended. Too many believers - myself included, too often - let "the church" do the hard work of bringing the Gospel to their unbelieving friends. That is, they invite their friends to the latest cool event at their church - the latest BBQ, pool party, Christian music event, etc. - and assume that somehow they are doing the person a spiritual favor by being their friend. In other words, the standard paradigm for most people taking part in "relationship" or "friendship" evangelism. Because, let's face it, a lot of us think we're sharing the Gospel when we're really just being friends with somebody and hoping that they'll bring up the question for us. I've had to face the fact that it's a lot easier to be friends with somebody than it is to actually share the Gospel with them.

So, this book offers a lot of encouragement to go out on that limb and share the Gospel. This is a very good thing. All the music events, outdoor parties, and skateboard exhibitions will not bring a person to Christ unless somebody steps out in faith and shares with them.

Another thing to like about the book is that it has some practical ways to approach somebody and have conversations with them that approach spiritual topics. As the transition between the natural and the spiritual can be difficult, I think we can use as much help in that area as possible. It even commends the use of tracts, which is a much-maligned area of Christian witnessing. Now, I'm not talking Jack Chick tracts here - there are actually good ones out there. That's a good reminder in a world that seems to think that tracts are a backwards-looking way of witnessing. (And they're certainly better than no witnessing at all, which is, let's be honest, what most of us do.)

Where the book really falls down, though, is when it gets to the actual presentation of the Gospel and, more importantly, what comes before it. In a word, the Good News of Romans chapter 3 makes absolutely no sense until you really understand the Bad News of Romans 1 and 2. And I am sad to say that here there is very little help provided. The authors might respond "of course not, there's lot of help available in that area." I strenuously disagree. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. There's plenty of help available about how to be friendly and non-threatening - in fact, that comes pretty natural to most of us - but precious little help available showing us how to really share the Biblical Gospel, something that causes people's hearts to be converted.

For example, the idea of sin is barely even mentioned. The authors briefly mention the Romans Road and the 4 Spiritual Laws, but leave it at that; as if the presentation of sin were the easiest and most natural thing in the world. Now, I am not saying that these techniques are not useful structures to use in witnessing. They can give you a useful framework to help peg in your memory. However, again I contend that the discussion of sin and showing the person's truly lost condition is the hard part of witnessing, and the most vital part: all the talks and friendship in the world are a piece of cake compared to that sticky work. And this book does virtually nothing to help you out in that area.

It also presents the unfortunate theology of "Decisional Regeneration" - that it's the person's decision that saves them; until they make that decision they're vulnerable, but once they do, they're good to go, heaven-wise. This may seem like abstract, worthless nitpicking; but I submit that a person's theology makes a huge difference. For what is belief in Jesus but (at one level) a theology? Now, true conversion is a lot more than merely theology; it is a complete regeneration of the heart by God's grace that comes through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. But it is no less than theology. What I am saying is that a certain amount of theology is necessary for even coming to faith in Christ; and the theology of Decisional Regeneration starts people out with the wrong understanding. Can a person who believes in Decisional Regeneration be saved? Of course they can; but I would argue that it's in spite of that belief, not because of it.

So, in conclusion, this book is a good book to read. But it is far from the complete story on how to share the complete Biblical Gospel with people. In fact, this book might be a good companion to the (lamentably) few books out there that really talk about the full presentation of the Gospel, the presentation of that Good News as the antidote to the Bad News that must come first in somebody's understanding. Much written by John MacArthur or John Piper would be useful; the most useful of all (though not perfect either) would be the Way of the Master series by Ray Comfort and friends.

If you take this book for what it's good for, I do recommend it; but don't take it as anything like the complete way to share the Gospel with your friends. If you do that, then it can be more dangerous than not doing it at all, since they will think they've heard the Gospel when they really have not.