Guatemala 2010: Street preaching

Wow! What a 24 hours was Good Friday! It all started at 1:00 in the morning...

According to our schedule for Semana Santa, the celebrations started at 1:00 am and went all night long. So, we got to bed early to try and get a little sleep before going down there. I got about an hour and a half's sleep - unfortunately, Ja did not get any - before having to wake up to the alarm at the unholy hour of midnight. But, in for a penny, in for a pound: so down to La Merced we went for El Pregón de Sentencia, or the presentation of sentencing. The processions actually follow the Biblical time sequence fairly accurately, with Jesus going on trial in front of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night and moving on to Pilate after daybreak. The Kendalls told us we really should go down there to see the beautiful alfombras, so off we trudged. The sentencing consisted of Roman soldiers in full Roman dress uniforms on horseback, along with a soldier announcing Jesus' sentence of death. Unfortunately, totally out of character for Guatemala, the Pregón actually took place ahead of schedule, so we missed it. What are the odds of that! Thankfully, like all processions, it moved from place to place, with the soldier repeating the sentence periodically; so we were able to see one of the later presentations.

Having missed the pregón itself, we decided to drop by the café of the church where we had attended on Sunday. Earlier on Thursday night, we had gone in there before attending church and had been told they'd be open all night and that a group of them might go out and do some street preaching. There, we met up with Mark, a fine Christian gentlemen with a great passion for reaching the lost who was indeed going out to preach. Yes, street preaching: that Rob Bell-lambasted "Bullhorn Guy" activity where you go out and preach the gospel to unsuspecting passersby. I have long said that Rob Bell has no idea what he is talking about; that every person I know who has come to faith as an adult that I've discussed the question with has been positively influenced by a street preacher somewhere along the line. I vividly remember seeing street preachers on the quad at George Mason University back in the late 80s; though I didn't come to Christ right then and there, I definitely remember them as somebody who I respected for their faith and zeal even though I did not (at the time) share their religious convictions.

Note to Rob Bell: open your ears to what us real adult converts have to say. Be thankful for your sheltered Christian-from-birth bubble, but don't just stay in there and assume you know how everybody else thinks. Some of us who come in from the outside just might know better what non-Christians like we were need to hear. (Not to mention the way the Bible presents the gospel.)

Anyway, though I had long been in favor of street preaching, I had never done it: in fact, it scared me to death. But when we heard that Mark was going to go and do it, we decided to join in with him. So, out went our little rag-tag group of four: Mark, our fearless leader; Dave, Mark's assistant and straight man; Ja, who speaks little Spanish but the rest of us could translate, and myself. Ja and I had never street preached, but we still felt fairly well equipped from the Way of the Master basic training course we had gone through. Now was our chance to use it. Yikes!

By the way, let me get in a plug for Way of the Master: I strongly believe that every Christian should watch these videos and put them into practice. If you are uncomfortable with sharing your faith with people, Christian, go to the link above right now and order the course. Or, if you want to go down to Guatemala and experience the training along with evangelism opportunities just like I'm describing here, Mark is holding an Evangelism Bootcamp June 20-26. This would be a great chance to get trained using excellent materials and get an awesome chance to practice in the same live environment where we were, for a very reasonable price. Maybe Mark will even take you out in the middle of the night. :-)

We spent the next three hours walking around the central park area of Antigua, sharing the gospel with whoever we met there. The Way of the Master method is quite simple: you essentially follow the first three chapters of Romans. You first present the bad news, then you present the Good News. That is, you present the law of God in the form of the ten commandments, and demonstrate that all your listeners have broken them. For example, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Have you ever told a lie? If so, what does that make you? The obvious answer is "a liar." The Bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Next, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Have you ever looked a a member of the opposite (or same) sex not your spouse with lust? Jesus said that's the same as committing adultery in your heart; thus, that makes you an adulterer-at-heart. After presenting three or four commandments and have the listener admitting that he has broken all of them, you help them to understand that they do not deserve heaven, they deserve hell. Once they have that understanding, then (and only then) do you share the Good News: that Jesus Christ died to take the penalty that they deserve, and by putting our faith in Him and Him alone, we can be freed from the penalty that we all deserve. Straight out of Romans.

It might seem that it would not be a fruitful place to preach, as most people in the park at 1:00am were drunk, but it was. Though we didn't have anybody put their faith in Christ right then and there, there were definitely a number of people who were under strong conviction by the Holy Spirit. One young lady, after I had explained about the ten commandments and how breaking them meant she was headed for hell, looked at me with a blank look in her eye and asked "so what can I do?" At that point you have the privilege of explaining that putting your faith in Christ's sacrifice, not in your own works, is the way of salvation. It's such a freeing truth! And, I should note, one that friendship evangelism would most likely never have provoked.

We were actually interrupted one time by an intelligent but militant atheist heckler who wanted to argue about the injustice of God using regurgitated quotes from Christopher Hitchins as well as scatter-shot fired objections he seems to have actually thought of himself. Mark was preaching at the time, and his lack of facility in Spanish actually came in handy: the atheist switched to English and continued the argument while Dave and I talked to the crowd. Ja then came to our rescue and took the atheist aside and talked with him for awhile (I'm very proud of that boy) so Mark could return to talking to other members of the assembled crowd. It all turned out very well: you might even suspect that God had a hand in the whole thing. (Wink.)

After three hours of exhausting preaching we returned to the church café for a cup of coffee and cookie, and off to bed. (Ja, of course, had a sandwich. He earned it.)

The next afternoon, after sleeping in, we went out to the market to buy a few final souvenirs. As we were walking around the market, we happened to see a street preacher we didn't know walking through the market and evangelizing. After listening for a few minutes to convince myself that he was doing solid Biblical preaching (you can't be too careful), I struck up a conversation with him. We talked for a minute and then we both spontaneously started talking in raised voices. I found myself again preaching in Spanish to a rapidly assembling crowd right there in the middle of the market! I suspect the fact that we were a gringo together with a Guatemalteco that attracted people's attention, but so what? Once they started listening, they could hear our gospel presentation. Once again, we had a number of interested listeners. I handed out as many gospel presentation tracts as I had with me to our listeners. Ja did a double take and said "where did you get those from?!" as I had apparently produced them as if out of thin air. Thankfully, I had brought along a handful for just such an occasion: it always pays to be prepared. I could have given out two or three times as many as I had to the eager recipients.

So, we had an extremely exhilarating but exhausting 24 hours. There were a minimum of 8 people who I believe were genuinely under conviction by God's Holy Spirit. Since then, I have been praying for them. I would appreciate your prayers for them, too.

Before I close, let me make an aside to those readers who are not evangelical Christians. Most people in Guatemala are Catholics, but we were emphatically not out there to get people to change churches. Good evangelists never do that. If an evangelist is trying to get you to join his particular church, run away, and FAST. (Well, either that, or evangelize him, like I do with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who show up at my door.) That's not what the Bible calls us to do. It calls us to introduce people to being in a relationship with Him, the living God of the universe, NOT to join a particular church. My primary desire is to see people come into a live-giving relationship with God; I trust that the same God who can save them will lead them to being in whatever church He wants them in. If God leads them to stay in their own current church, that's wonderful; if He leads them to leave, that's great too. I figure God can choose what church they should be in way better than I will ever be able to. Do I encourage them to join a solid church that teaches the Bible? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that my church is the only place that does it.

Thoughts on making disciples

My friend Dennis Elenburg asked how we are fulfilling the great commandment to go out and make disciples. I said with my family, preaching at the retirement home, and leading worship at my kids' middle school. He then asked me three followup questions, which I will attempt to answer here.

(1) How do I make disciples within my own family: Well, one thing is that I am trying to teach the kids good theology. Nobody (believer or unbeliever) has no theology, just right theology or wrong theology. And theology is something that I think is also neglected in many churches today. We can't even come to faith in Christ without a somewhat right theology - to believe that we are sinners, that God is holy, hates sin, and only Christ can save us. So, with my son (and daughter to the extent she can understand, which will grow as she gets older of course) I have him read books that teach good theology - such as the absolute sovereignty of God in every area, including salvation - and we talk about the subject, such as discussing fallacies and problems with other theologies. He needs to be able to think and understand these things for himself, which is part of being a Christian.

Another thing is to teach them through words and example that they are here to do the work God put them here to do. So, I had my son join us in the evangelism course we took, practiced together, etc. Also, I make it very clear that I expect him to volunteer his time to help people in the community, to shine the light of Christ for them. I told him he could do anything he wanted, but since I am already connected at the retirement home, suggested he start there. And he is. He's playing the music for my Sunday morning service and also at another lady's Wednesday Bible study, and is doing other volunteering over there. Last week he played cards with the residents for an hour or so.

(2) How do you know if someone is a "true disciple": Well, I'd say that it's impossible to know for sure. I do think that God gives us some level of discernment, but ultimately we won't really know. I think the best measurement may be how they react to the gospel and its preaching. For example, I know a person who seems to be a Christian, is very interested in church things. We got to talking about sin and how many churches don't seem to want to talk about it nowadays. This person said something along the lines of their church talking about it too much. That made my ears prick up. Can you ever really talk too much about sin, given that in any church there will likely be a number of people who desperately need to understand their own sinfulness and hear the gospel? Somebody else complained about their sermons always presenting the gospel (sin, repentance, the cross, salvation). Does any true Christian/disciple get tired of hearing that message? I certainly don't.

However, my point was not really that we can know whether somebody is a true disciple, but rather whether we really preach the gospel so that they can become true disciples. We can talk about doing good things for other people and learn how to have a better sex life all day long, but unless we understand sin, repentance, and the cross, we and they are never going to become true disciples.

(3) Have you seen any elderly folk come to faith in Christ at their advanced ages? Not yet that I know of. There was one gentleman who I think God was drawing to Himself - his level of interest was certainly increasing, based on the questions he peppered me with weekly - but he passed away a few weeks ago. I can only pray that he heard and heeded the truth before he died. I figure if I'm faithful, if I'm there, God will draw those whom He wants. I may plant the seeds, water, or reap the fruits, but God gives the increase.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

Preach the Gospel at all times; where necessary use words

This quote, attributed incorrectly to St. Francis of Assisi, is often used to discourage people from actually preaching the Gospel. It seems to me that one reason it's so popular is that it encourages people to do what they naturally would anyway. After all, look around: you will see lots of examples (not enough, of course) of people being nice to each other. Simply put, it makes us all - unbeliever as well as believer - feel nice to be nice. Being nice salves people's consciences and gives them plusses that they can pile up on that scale in their minds to balance out the minuses and (in their own minds at least) keeps them out of hell. Oh man, I fed my lustful thoughts and then lied about it ... well, let me give a few dollars to these homeless people to balance it off and keep myself in the "credit" column with God.

Don't think I lack sympathy with these people. All too often I would rather work my way back into God's good graces rather than facing the tragic truth that in my flesh dwells nothing good. Reminds one of the old prejudice about the Irish and Polish Catholics going out drinking and carousing all night, and then running in and confessing it in the morning. (It strikes me that while drinking and carousing isn't a good way to spend your night, it may at least bring you to true repentance and genuine conversion, far more likely than going to a lukewarm liberal church, giving to charities, and thinking you're getting an "in" with God.)

Anyway, Ray Comfort has a great column this month about this insidious little Franciscan saying. Read it, and I guarantee (at least, if you're a Christian) you'll never look at this saying the same way again. One small thing that I hesitatingly add is the quote you always hear on Way of the Master Radio: "What Bible verse is that?" There you hear "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life ... What Bible verse is that?" I would say, similarly:

Preach the Gospel at all times; where necessary use words... What Bible verse is that?

No matter how much one might respect somebody like St. Francis, we must give Scripture a greater weight, and nowhere there do we see this statement or even the sentiment. Scripture is about helping people, true, but I don't see it implying that we can really do that without taking care of their greatest necessity, the spiritual. It sounds very deeply spiritual to say "where necessary use words", but tragically it encourages us to do what we would naturally. Meanwhile, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that which he shed His own precious blood for, that which the martyrs died to proclaim, is preached less and less. We haughtily say we don't want to be "bullhorn guys," but silently we wish we could be as bold as them, and know we ought to be. We recite little sayings to make us feel better about our fear and timidity, and countless people are - no thanks to us - on their way to hell.

Update: Way of the Master radio has an update on this subject. "Run as fast as you can, where necessary use your legs ... it's a little hard to proclaim something [i.e. the Gospel] if you don't open your mouth." It's a classic.

More on Friendship Evangelism

Part of a series on Friendship and Evangelism
[Two Ways] [Leaving 'em Hanging] [More on Friendship]

I was talking about the concept of friendship evangelism with a good friend of mine last night, and she (as usual for her) made a very insightful comment. She agreed with what I was saying about friendship not being the same as evangelism, and then added "in fact, I've found it sometimes gets harder to share the whole Gospel with somebody as I get to know them better."

It made a lot of sense to me, and is quite in accord with my own experience. Thinking about the different stages of a friendship, I think we can delimit the following stages, which follow fairly closely popular communication intimacy models:

1. First meeting: The point where you first meet the person. This can take place either through another friend or by meeting somebody cold (e.g. on the street, at a conference)
2. Acquaintanceship: You know each other, act friendly to each other, but that's about it. You discuss facts and opinions but that's about it.
3. Friendship: You start to discuss feelings and want to spend more time together.
4. Deep friendship: You trust each other to be vulnerable and discuss your needs.
   

We reach this fourth level with very few people: most stay in the first three categories. Even if we wanted to and there were enough people out there with whom we have enough in common, we don't have sufficient time to devote. This makes me wonder whether we ought to resurrect the old-fashioned idea of circles of deep friendships similar to C. S. Lewis's Inklings group - you have the luxury of close friendships without the exorbitant time demands required if you met with each of them separately.

Anyway, if we think about these levels of friendship as related to evangelism with my friend's comment in mind, it seems that the folks who try to give the Gospel at the First Meeting level might qualify as "bullhorn guys." (By the way, unlike Rob Bell, I think there's a place for that kind of evangelism - after all, the reality is that some of these folks would never get close enough to a Christian otherwise to hear the Gospel. You can't practice "friendship evangelism" with them, because they simply don't want to be your friend. Frankly, if I were them, I would question your sincerity anyway: "You want to be my friend so you can share the Gospel with me? What am I, chopped liver?) If you listen to the Way of the Master radio show, you'll hear people sharing the Gospel at this point without being pushy stereotypical bullhorn guys, and we all should be able to do it if God arranges appropriate circumstances. But for most of us (not especially gifted in evangelism), most of the time, this level is probably not the place for sharing the Gospel.

At the fourth level, Deep Friendship, you can talk about anything without worrying about offense (always assuming, of course, you do it lovingly). At this level, hopefully, you would feel comfortable talking about the full Gospel, including sin and repentance. That assumes, of course, that you are ever comfortable sharing it. Way of the Master is ideal for learning how to be comfortable sharing the real Gospel, no matter who you're talking to. Unlike what some people think, it's not just for people you accost on the street: it's for learning to share the whole Gospel with anybody.

However, it is these middle levels I think my friend was talking about. It is hard, when you are in that level 2-3 area with a person (acquaintanceship to friendship), to talk about "icky" and non-friendly things. I may be wanting to get to know this person better because I feel we have things in common, and I honestly don't want to mess it up by talking about threatening things like the Gospel. At this point, if my own experience is correct, they have started to trust me, but not to fully trust me. Thus, not wanting to offend, I find excuses not to share the complete Gospel. And since I actually advance to the Deep Friendship level with few of those people, I never actually get around to helping them see their need for a savior.

In my counseling at 1st Choice Women's Health Center (despite the center's name, we also counsel men, usually the boyfriends of the young women that come in), I am in kind of an odd situation. I don't really know the people - usually having just met them - but we talk about an entire range of things: the whole gamut of levels of communication despite the fact that we may have just met. That's a situation that is rather unusual, but it still has the same challenges: the same opportunities to share the Gospel, the same slight natural resistance to the icky-ness of it all.

So what is the solution? First is to pray, of course ... pray for opportunities with people, pray that you'll recognize times when the other person may be more open to God's truth, pray for the boldness to step forward and start the "icky" conversation when need be, and pray that you'll have the right words to say. Second is to get yourself trained. I keep mentioning Way of the Master. The more I know of them, the more I appreciate them. There are several useful aspects to their ministry:

• The radio show is very valuable because you hear a wide variety of situations in which the guys share the Gospel, as well as tips. Just recently, for example, they talked about good and bad experiences with witnessing, and how you can feel closer to God after a bad session of witnessing to people because you find yourself praying for that person more.
• They have the Training Courses - basic and now advanced.
• They have a TV show that may be available in your area or on your satellite. Another resource that I have just found out about is Streaming Faith, which apparently shows the show several times a week on its various constituent broadcast stations. For example, TBN has the show on Monday nights at 7:00 Eastern. (Believe me, I don't like TBN any more than you do, probably - but they do have some good shows.)
• They also have lots of tracts. Ray Comfort apparently is a big believer in tracts. I personally wonder whether they are really effective: I never would have paid attention to a tract when I was an unbeliever. But that's a personal opinion: lots of people say they are very useful tools, and Way of the Master has many kinds.
  

So, there's really no excuse. Finally, get out there and share the whole Biblical Gospel. You'll never do it if you don't start!

Seeker Churches and Book of Acts

My friend Joe Carr (and I do consider him a friend and a brother in the Lord, though we strongly disagree) talks about the church in the book of Acts and compares his own church, Lifepoint, favorably with the church in Acts. I totally agree with him about the folks in Acts. But how is that related to most seeker churches today, including, I am sorry to say but I am believing this increasingly, Lifepoint? Taking some of his points about the church in Acts:

• They were consumed with presenting Jesus: From what I've heard (two sermons now, more below), Lifepoint seems to me consumed with being cool, funny, and "relevant" with no real presentation of Jesus that I've heard so far; certainly no presentation that would convict somebody to repentance.
• They would go to any lengths to reach people: Yes, and this primarily included preaching the whole Gospel to the people. In the two sermons I've listened to now, the better one of the two spent just over 10 minutes of the 40 discussing anything from the word of God; the rest was personal experiences and emotional exhortations to practice "what if thinking." The worse of the two was 2.5 minutes of anything even remotely Biblical with the rest of the time spent in sexual jokes and self-help advice.
• They offended the Pharisees: Actually, a number of Pharisees came to faith in Christ, and it was purely by preaching the whole word of God to them. I know the Pharisees aren't in the demographic a lot of churches are trying to reach, but Pharisees need Jesus too. What's more, Jesus confirmed the Pharisees' understanding of several important issues against the more "liberal" Sadducees.
  
• The number of believers grew unbelievably. Yes, they did; but in every case the believers were made by taking them to the Scriptures, even the philosophers at the Areopagus. Remember too that Jesus had a large number of "disciples" who fell away at the first hard saying - in fact, most of his "disciples" did so, if you count numerically. This kind of "disciple" we don't need; and, if my experience with seeker churches is any indication, their "disciples" will never hear the kind of hard sayings Jesus gave them.
  

Now, a lot of what I hear at churches like Lifepoint is very nice. It pumps people up; maybe even motivates them to get off their rear ends and do something good for somebody else. That's great: I myself spend a good deal of time and money ministering to people in my community. "Making disciples" is all the rage today, which is good as far as it goes.

But making disciples is absolutely worthless unless their hearts are converted first. Paul had lots of good deeds, but he considered them all rubbish compared to the glory of really knowing God. The two sermons I've listened to from Lifepoint are enjoyable and motivational, but it pains me to say that no way would they ever bring the unbeliever to know God. And isn't that what the unbelievers coming to Lifepoint (and all other churches, I'm honestly not trying to bust on Lifepoint) need first? To come to know God? There's plenty of time for good deeds after their hearts are converted, and then you should exhort people to do them as much as you can: but the conversion must come first. And I have heard nothing in the 80 minutes or so that I've invested in Lifepoint sermons that would make the unbeliever realize that he is a sinner and needs the living Christ as Lord of his life.

Again, don't think I'm dissing the Lifepoint pastor's intentions here. I can hear his heart - and Joe's - for the lost and hurting people, and I appreciate it. I think what they're doing on this trip to Brazil is wonderful, I thank them, and I have been praying for their efforts there. Rather, I think it's a philosophical problem that has eternal consequences for people. It appears that many believe people can be motivated into being Christians by relevant talk and emotional exhortations. This is generally called semi-Pelagianism, and if it were true, the seeker method would work well.

Sadly, the Bible tells a different story. Only if God converts our hearts - which only comes through the solid and consistent preaching of the Word - do we become Christians. Will those people going out there and exercising their "what if thinking" help the world? No doubt they will. Meanwhile, the poor souls themselves will be smug in their belief that they're getting an "in" with God, while moving along briskly to Hell. That breaks my heart as much as the plight of the orphans in Brazil.

Leaving 'em hanging

Part of a series on Friendship and Evangelism
[Two Ways] [Leaving 'em Hanging] [More on Friendship]

I listen to Way of the Master Radio often. It's entertaining, but the main reason I listen is to sharpen my own understanding of how to share the whole Gospel with people and how to respond to their objections. Not that I think I can talk them into being Christians: but unregenerate people (as we all were at one time) throw up all kinds of objections, and it's useful to think through in advance what they might be. I mean, like most people, although I try to practice friendship evangelism, it's a lot easier for me to do the friendship part than to do the evangelism part, so I need some extra training on the latter.

One of the things I've noticed recently, such as in Todd Friel's talking with Wilmar, is that Ray and Todd often refrain from "going for the closer": they do not end their presentations by leading the person in a sinner's prayer, they only lead them halfway down the "Romans Road." At first, this struck me as odd. Isn't the whole point of evangelization to get people saved? Why not take them through all Four Spiritual Laws? If you leave them hanging like that, they may lose the opportunity to come to faith!

But when I thought more about it, it made a whole lot of sense. Oftentimes, I know in my own life, that the Spirit of God convicts me of things in the still of the night, and when I least expect it. The choice, then, is sometimes to rush the witnessee into a too-fast profession of faith or to leave them to the Holy Spirit to convict of their sins. It seems to me wiser to trust that God knows what He is doing: that He will keep working on their conscience, using your words and half-remembered Bible verses, until they come to true repentance and faith.

In other words, if you rush them through the Four Spiritual Laws, you may get a quick profession of faith, but that apparent faith may really be a cover-up for a lack of true conviction. They may well be going through the motions to get rid of you, or worse, may actually go straight from unbeliever to unregenerate "disciple," thinking themselves followers of Jesus when their heart is not truly converted. These are exactly the kinds of "disciples" who left Jesus at the first sign of difficulty, and I believe that easy-believing "Jesus wants to be your friend, solve your marital problems, give your life 'purpose', etc." kind of "evangelism" tends to breed them. Anybody with a church history will admit in principle that we are sinners; but only actually feeling it and knowing it to your core will bring repentance and saving faith.

On the other hand, if you let them stew in their own sinfulness, they may still ignore you; however, when they least expect it, God may also bring them to that true repentance that leads to faith and conversion. "But," I can hear somebody saying (because I said it myself when I first started pondering this question) "if they don't believe now, they may never do it!" That question reveals a wrong theology, that of decisional regeneration. As that linked document says, decisional regeneration is the doctrine that "an individual is saved by a mere 'decision of the will' ... that men can be saved by merely making a conscious choice to be saved."

But it's not a matter of me making a decision for Christ, thank God (I mean that literally!): it's a matter of God making a decision for me and then replacing my heart of stone with a heart of flesh. And I believe whole-heartedly that Jesus will not let that person go; He will not lose even one the Father gives Him.

So, if the person is truly receptive, by all means lead them down the Romans Road, use all four Spiritual Laws, or whatever little method you like to use. That is valuable if God chooses you to be the one who leads that person across the last step. On the other hand, many times we are doing the "up front" work ... planting and watering rather than reaping the harvest. It may be less glamorous, but it's no less necessary. Let's not mess it up by rushing our friend past the planting and watering stages. He may not say that sinner's prayer with you standing there; but if God wants that person, his heart will whisper it, even if it's on his own with nobody around to lead him.

Two ways of evangelizing?

Part of a series on Friendship and Evangelism
[Two Ways] [Leaving 'em Hanging] [More on Friendship]

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19, ESV)

All believers are told to evangelize. If you don't agree with that, the verse says to make disciples and teach them to observe all things God has commanded. First off, this must mean true disciples, those who are regenerated by the Spirit of God. So many churches today are discipleship-driven, even talking about unregenerate people simply as pre-disciples (a ridiculous name if I have ever heard one). Making "disciples" who have not been regenerated is a waste of time and a terribly sad thing to behold: people thinking they're saved but on the way to hell. They have never been told the full gospel in its glory.

But, given that we are to evangelize, the question is how. Historically (i.e. throughout the history of the church, including the New Testament), evangelism meant primarily preaching sin and repentance. After all, only if you understand your own sinfulness can you ever understand the Gospel. In fact, the good news is only good if we see it as the solution to the problem of sin that we know we have. After all, what's the message of the first three chapters of Romans? (1) Sin is real, and it's progressive, leading to worse and worse offenses. (2) Jews and nominal Christians don't get off the hook because they're relatively good. (3) The problem is everybody's, and we have no hope on our own.

Only in that light does the Gospel show up for what it is. I love how Paul, after he has just spent 2 chapters saying things like:

There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God. Romans 3:10-11 (NKJV)

and gets everybody in a state where they finally see their own sinfulness in all its terrible reality, says:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. Romans 3:21-22 (NKJV)

In the mindset of somebody who really understands what Paul is saying in the first three chapters of Romans, and feels it to the depth of their soul, "But now" must be the two most beautiful words in the English language. Now that's what I call "good news." Good news is good primarily in comparison to bad news, and the first 2.5 chapters of Romans have been bad news.

Nowadays, on the other hand, there seems to be a push to kinder, gentler evangelism. The bullhorn guys are out, considered too mean, a relic of the past: relationship evangelism is in. Watch how you live; be nice; in the words of the immortal movie Jonah, "Be a friend, say your prayers, heaven loves a heart that cares."

Now, I am quick to add that I have no problem with this approach; in fact, it's very important. As they always say, "they don't care what you know until they know you care." However, I know from personal experience that it is very easy to think that I am evangelizing somebody by being their friend. In fact, I think the term "friendship evangelism" is entirely a misnomer. Friendship may bring both of us warm fuzzy feelings. We may talk about God or even Jesus in nice, non-threatening ways. Friendship is many good things: it's good, it's nice, it's wholesome, it's good for breaking down barriers.

The one thing that it is not, however, is evangelism. At best, friendship is a protoevangelion: that which comes before the evangel or good news. Unless you are a complete Pelagian, you can never believe that friendship alone will bring somebody to faith in Christ. There's only one thing that brings people to faith in Christ: the faith and repentance that comes from a changed heart. These will only come when a person realizes their lostness, their hopeless situation; and these will only come when a person is truly convicted of their sins.

In other words, it's easy to pretend that we can be a friend (which is generally pretty easy) and skip over the hard bit of sharing our faith. Or, perhaps I should say, it is easy for some people. Every one of us has some things that are hard for us to do and others that are easy. For the stereotypical bullhorn guy (if such a person actually exists), it's easy to preach sin and repentance but hard to be a friend. For many, many others - I would venture to say the vast majority of us - it's easy to be a friend but hard to preach sin and repentance; but the people we want to witness to need both. I can be a friend to somebody easily, I can "share my faith" if that means talking about church and even my own testimony; but I completely seize up when it comes to talking about sin and, in short, anything that might actually bring the other person to repentance. It's "yucky" - and it's not "friendly" in the commonly-understood sense.

So, what is the role of friendship in evangelism? I think it's important to help break down barriers people erect against the Gospel. As somebody said, the Gospel is an offense in itself; we should not add to that offense with our actions. But it should not be confused with sharing the Gospel or anything that would convict a person of his or her sins. After all, conviction of sins is not friendship's natural way of talking. To help somebody come to a realization of their sinfulness is not friendly; yet it's vitally important for them to know about them, realize their lostness, and only then can they come to faith in Christ.

What I am trying to guard against is that smugness we - I - can feel when we're doing friendship evangelism, feeling that we are superior to those bullhorn guys yelling the Gospel at people. In fact, I think most of us know in our hearts that we are not really sharing the Gospel: the Romans Road is great, but to somebody who does not really and truly, down deep in their heart, understand their sinfulness, it's just a bunch of words. Somehow, however, we feel quite certain that, when the time comes, we will really give them a full Gospel presentation. How often does that time never come? Or an opportunity comes up and we chicken out - again - and promise ourselves we'll do better next time?

So, let's get sensitivity towards "friendship evangelism," by all means. Let's try and be friendly to people, break down barriers, and all the rest. But let's not forget to get some help on preaching the real Gospel as well. I highly recommend the Way of the Master materials. They also have an Internet radio show that you may want to listen to. The radio show is great because they cover so many different situations, so many different kinds of objections to Christianity.

There are not two ways of evangelism we can pick and choose from. There are really only two different aspects of one way, and we must master both of them to win that lost and hurting world.

Calvinists don't evangelize!

"Calvinists don't evangelize. After all, if you're among the elect, God will save you no matter what happens. If you're not, God will send you to Hell regardless of what you do."

If you're a fellow monergist, you have no doubt heard those statements countless times. If you are a synergist (either of the classical Arminian variety or a modern "all means all" Southern Baptist/Calvary Chapelite), you have probably said them. A good friend of mine who is one of the latter said essentially this very thing to me not long ago, and there is a recent comment in Tim Challies' blog saying essentially the same thing. I would like to give an answer to this from the point of view of one monergist.

The crux of the issue is that we need to distinguish between classical Calvinists/monergists and hyper-Calvinists. As I discussed in an earlier entry (although Phil Johnson does a much better job of it than I ever could) they are not at all the same thing. I have generally found that those who are not monergists generally don't make such distinctions - not that nobody does, but that most don't. It's not that surprising, really: people tell me all the time that the kinds of music I favor (classical, jazz, and bluegrass) "all sound the same," though they know next to nothing about the genres. We tend to lump everything we don't really know or understand into one big category: thus black/European/Asian people "all look the same," and as C. S. Lewis pointed out, in most people's minds basically all of history up to about 100 years ago was one big undifferentiated soup of Roman centurions, Vikings, Renaissance men, and Knights.

If you are only planning on having a passing interaction with a subject, I suppose that's reasonable: I don't expect a person who likes to listen to general "classical stuff" as background noise to master the fine distinctions between fugues and canons; similarly, between bebop and post-bop, or between Bill Monroe's instrumentation and that of Flatt and Scruggs. There are only so many hours in the day.

However, if you are going to make an argument maligning another person's love for the lost, it is a serious charge and you really should know what you're talking about. And this is what I find many synergists don't do. Many of them take a sketchy understanding of the monergist's understanding of the secret will of God, and then they extrapolate it to be his total belief about the action of God in history. Furthermore, they then assume the monergist will ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to evangelize the world in favor of his understanding of God's secret will.

For that is what we are really being accused of: ignoring God's clear command to evangelize in favor of our understanding of God's secret will. This is no small accusation. However, if you think about it, does it really make any sense? Is somebody willing to tell me to my face that we monergists are willing to ignore God's clear commands and follow what we think (even based on good evidence) that God is planning on doing to the unregenerate in the end? If one is going to take that tack, why not do as the extremist Muslims to, and kill the infidels? After all, God is just going to send them to hell in the end anyway, right? One might object that we don't know somebody is non-elect, only that they are not yet regenerated (yet synergists make this same mistake when they facetiously ask us "why don't you just preach to the elect?") But let's say that we somehow did know who was elect and who was not. In principle, why not kill them now, since we know God is planning on reprobating them anyway?

The answer should be obvious: because God never told us to. He told us to love our neighbor and preach the Gospel. And ignoring what you are clearly told for what you think God will do in the end is not only extremely foolish but sinful.

Worldly churches do not convert anybody

I have been thinking about this posting on oldtruth.com. Many in the seeker movement believe that you must lure people into the church with cool music and videos and then God will work on their hearts. It is my firm conviction that many who say that to save the world the church must look like the world are well-meaning - I really do respect their desire to reach their unsaved neighbors, and indeed wish that all reformed believers were as zealous - but just as "zeal without knowledge" (Romans 10:2) is not good, I believe that many of them really do not know whereof they speak. How many of these seeker/emergent folks are anywhere from 20-somethings to 40-somethings and have spent virtually their entire lives in the church? I think that most (not 100%, but I believe the vast majority) have lived in somewhat sheltered Christian communities their entire lives, and are, quite naturally, reacting against both perceived and real problems in the church.

As someone who was on the outside for my entire adult life until God sovereignly chose to save me at the age of 35, I can tell you that I would not have been taken in by worldly music, videos, and self-help sermons, nor by cussing preachers. Believe me, I knew cussing plenty well: my friends and I did enough cussing for all the cussing preachers out there put together.

While I might have been willing to attend such a worldly church - for awhile anyway, until I got bored or had something better to do on Sunday mornings - what brought me to Christ was several people who, without being judgmental of me, were different. Although on most occasions they didn't rebuke my profanity, they were always strangely silent when we were using it. I'll always remember one guy who made one single, soft-spoken remark after one particularly vile thing I said: "That's kind of gross if you think about it." He probably does not remember saying that, but 20 years later I still remember it clearly.

What converts people? The Holy Spirit working through the word of God and examples of changed lives around them. Not churches copying the world.