IrContent

The Bible seems to present the idea that disciples of Jesus Christ can be unsaved. Whether these are cases of those who were never truly saved or who lost their salvation is a theological dispute for other posts (I favor the former), but that these cases exist cannot be easily denied. Jesus taught in His parable of the sower/soils (Luke chapter 8; cf. Mt. 13 & Mk. 4) that:

A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold.

After giving the reason for His speaking in parables, Jesus explains the parable to His disciples:

The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

From this we can see that it is possible that a person can both hear, receive, and believe God’s word yet fall away. (Notice that these are contrasted with those who hear but do not believe unto salvation in the first place.) Jesus teaches a similar thing to his disciples during the Upper Room Discourse in John 15:

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

This statement is all the more impactful when we realize that the Upper Room Discourse was delivered just after Judas, who was a disciple of Jesus (Jn. 6:71-72 cf. Mt. 10:4) had just left to betray Him (Jn. 13:18-30). Note that the disciples were perplexed – they had no idea Judas was the one. Nor was this the first disciple to leave Jesus - in John 6:53-66 many of Jesus’ disciples left Him after he gave them His difficult teaching concerning the consumption of His body.

Now, the key word in the above passage is “abide” (Gk. “meno”) which John uses to contrast true believers with antichrists in his 1^st and 2^nd letters:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 Jn. 2:18-19 [Note: the word “continued” in 1 John is the same as “abide.”])

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn. 1:9)

So we see from Jesus’ own teachings and experiences that disciples can leave the fold. This means that we should expect there to be people who profess belief in the Church today who are not true believers. This seems to me to be the concern of the writer of Hebrews (whose warning passages continue to fuel debate over the issue), who may be issuing pastoral warnings to the believing Jews at large - knowing that his knowledge of their actual salvation state is not sufficient to address them all as permanently saved individuals.

This should give us all pause if we tend to breathe a final sigh of relief when someone finally “says the prayer.” Evangelicals from Reformed Calvinist to Calvary Chapel backgrounds hold that believers cannot lose their salvation, and I agree, but we must not take this to mean that anyone who has even the smallest spark of belief is to be forever considered safe from falling away (the popular view of Philippians 1:6 notwithstanding). We simply do not know which disciples are not true believers unless (until?) they fall away. Fortunately, we are not held responsible for such knowledge. We are to take people’s words and actions into account and treat them accordingly (e.g., Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-5 & 11-12; 2 Thess. 3:14).

OK, this one could get me into trouble, so let me state this up front: I believe that all Christians should practice evangelism. OK? Please don’t forget that as you read the rest. The image above is not my opinion, rather it demonstrates the attitude of many people in America today toward Christians sharing the gospel with them. Now the gospel is offensive to a world that thinks it is doing just fine and doesn’t want to have to deal with a sovereign God with demands that go beyond the world’s standards. Fair enough. But there is a growing animosity toward Christians today that was not the case 20-30 years ago that is making the evangelist’s job even more difficult. For many believers this makes the prospect of “going out witnessing” even more terrifying than than just its public speaking or objection answering aspects. Yet church members continue to be berated for their discomfort (which MUST equate to an unloving or uncaring heart!). The remedy is often training materials or classes, and some are quite good. Yet the problem remains.

I’ll be honest, when I evangelize it is out of guilt - plain and simple. I know many others would admit to having the same motivation. Why is sharing our faith such an issue? Is it just our flesh? (It’s not that I don’t want to talk to people about the truth - in fact I enjoy it. I just don’t want to have to start the conversation!) Is it fear of man? (For me at least it is not simply a lack of courage. I’d take on a room full of angry atheists over handing out tracts or knocking on doors  any day of the week!) Do we just need better techniques? (A lot of us don’t like knocking on doors or approaching perfect strangers for any reason, so no matter how good the latest method seems it’s still very uncomfortable and unnatural - like something is just wrong with the situation.) Hmmmmm.

I have been doing some reading on evangelism that compares harvesting to sowing. Harvesting refers to the “soul winning” and focuses on the person who actually leads someone to belief in Jesus Christ. Sowing is the work done to prepare someone to come to faith and focuses on the work of the “pre-evangelist” (apologists, cultural influencers, friends, etc.). This is a biblical comparison (Jn. 4:35-38). The author’s argument is that the American Church’s typical evangelistic strategies are based on an outdated model that was only successful during a time when the fields were ripe. In other words, when America was a Christian-friendly nation (because of previous sowing), evangelism as an activity could be limited to harvesting - and the techniques of evangelism reflected that.

The time to begin re-sowing was reached nearly a generation ago but because the harvest was still going so well no one noticed. As the field began to show signs of barrenness, instead of preparing the ground for the next harvest time the Church simply asked for more (or better) harvesters. Meanwhile the world was busy sowing. It quietly undermined the foundations of Christianity so that today we are trying to harvest the “world’s field” so to speak. The typical non-Christian today is biblically illiterate, not open to absolute truth claims, and is sometimes even hostile to Christianity. Perhaps it is time to change tactics. Evangelistic strategy needs to be matched to the current cycle. If we don’t start sowing soon there may be no harvest in the future – and all the harvesters in the world won’t change that.

But many in the Church today still only see “true” evangelism as a proclamation / confrontation. After all, “gospel” and “evangel” are actually from the same root word – thus one is not truly evangelizing unless the gospel (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-11) is proclaimed right? So the goal is simply to get the word out and the job is done – what the hearer does with it is his problem. Now, this position assumes something that, just for fun, I’d like to question. The assumption is that all Christians are commanded to evangelize. (Before reading on, please remember my disclaimer from sentence one!). A good idea at this point might be to ask where we get this idea from (and maybe what evangelism even means).

Where We Get the Idea

In my typically academic manner I turned to that great bastion of scholarship, Google, and typed: “Are all Christians commanded to evangelize?” I read every web page on the initial search results page and found that discovering a universal command to evangelize is not as easy as one might think.

The Great Commission is often at the top of the list. But two problems emerge immediately: First, the command was given to the disciples – not to the Church at large. Thus, an argument has to be made for universal application, but most of the time writers simply beg the question and assert their conclusion. Typical responses will go something like, “Since the Great Commission is given to all Christians . . . (fill in the writer’s view of the Great Commission).” Argumentation is rarely offered as to how this command to the disciples equates to a general command to the Church. It is also revealing that it is almost always the Mt. 28:18-20 version of the Great Commission and not Mk. 16:15-18 that is cited as a proof text (see also Luke’s version of the Great Commission: Acts 1:4-8 cf. Lk. 24:44-49). Are all Christians supposed to follow all these commands as well? Answering “no” would not seem to be out of line as there are plenty of specific commands that Jesus gave to the disciples that individual members of the Church feel free to ignore (practically if not theoretically). These include performing baptisms, discipling people, washing each other’s feet, etc. Of course, dereliction in some areas would not excuse further negligence – but it does call into question why this command to the disciples is generalized to every member of the Church when so many others are not.

The second problem is that the word “evangelize” is not used in the Great Commission. The command is to “make disciples.” Of course, in order to be made a disciple one has to be a Christian, which means that at some point evangelism had to take place, but that does not necessarily mean that every phase of the process is every disciplers’ job. Technically, someone who never shared the gospel even once, but who stepped in after people’s conversion and taught them would be fulfilling this command. Thus, the Great Commission does not seem to require that all Christians practice typical “evangelism” (even if the command is generalized to all Christians in the first place).

Other Proof Texts that fail to convince me include:

• John 15:2 which says nothing of evangelism. It is pure speculation that bearing fruit is “winning souls” and actually does not fit the context at all.
• Rom. 10:14-15 which is specifying Jewish missions, not the world’s. Further, it is stated that in order to hear someone must be sent. If someone (rather than all) is sent then others are not. And this is what the Church did – it sent missionaries, not every single person in the Church. If nothing else, this scenario fits the evangelize-when-gifted view so it cannot be used against it.
• 1 Pt. 2:9 which commands believers to proclaim God’s praises – this is not like typical evangelism methods.
• 1 Pt. 3:15 which commands believers to give an answer to those who ask – a rare method indeed!
• 3 Jn. 5-8 which is not praising Gaius for evangelizing (nor commanding him to do so), but for helping those who were evangelizing.

Now, bad arguments or misused proof texts do not make a conclusion false; but the fact that these seem to be the best people can come up with to support the idea that every Christian must be an evangelist (again, in the usual sense) make me wonder if maybe we’re missing something.

Spiritual Gifts seem to present something of hurdle as well. Some will point out that evangelism is a gift that not all believers have been given, and so reason that not all Christians need to practice evangelism. Now, it is clear that God commands certain people to do certain things based on their giftedness:

• Acts 6:2-3 And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.” But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
• Rom. 12:3-4 . . . we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function.
• 1 Cor. 12:7 To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
• Eph. 4:11-12 It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.
• 1 Pt. 4:10 Just as each one has received a gift, use it to serve one another as good stewards of the varied grace of God.

The usual response is that Christians are still commanded to do things outside their specific gifting (like giving), so not being gifted as an evangelist is no excuse for not evangelizing (especially if there is a command somewhere that all Christians do so). But there are a few problems with this response. First, in this particular gift list (Eph. 4:11-12) Paul is naming offices – not simply spiritual motivations or skills. No one makes the argument that all Christians should teach, prophesy, or pastor churches! Yet these offices are included in the same list. Second, the specific reason these particular gifts are given is to “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.” It seems that these gifts are given for building up believers – not making them into believers. But what need is there for a gifted evangelist among those who have already believed? It may be that the gifted evangelist is a trainer too – a discipler who helps believers hone their gifts. It all depends on what evangelism is, doesn’t it?

What Is Evangelism?

Maybe what we have been taught to think of as evangelism is too narrow a definition. Perhaps the activity of evangelism is a process that includes both preparation and proclamation. Neither Jesus nor Paul “evangelized” at every opportunity. In fact, for the last half of Jesus’ ministry He kept away from the unbelieving crowds (even discouraged understanding for some – see Mk. 4:10-11) and focused on discipling the twelve. Paul spent years at some churches training them before he left on other missionary journeys. Yet one would hardly claim that Jesus and Paul were not evangelists!

If evangelism as a general practice is more than just the last step (harvesting), then both proclamation and preparation (sowing) are important and might give rise to different giftings. And if the harvester and sower have different gifts, and thus different responsibilities, then the roles of the both should be equally encouraged, taught, and supported by the Church. This is not to say that a sower coming upon ripe fruit should not know how to harvest it - but the opposite is true as well. Harvesters that do not know how to sow may be attempting to pick fruit that is not yet ripe (and note the potential result in Jesus’ other comparison of evangelism and farming in Mk. 4:3-9). For although the harvester gets more accolades (although he shouldn’t – Jn. 4:37-3 and perhaps more satisfaction, in the end both will rejoice together (Jn. 4:36).

So, to avoid any confusion I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this post: I believe that all Christians should practice evangelism. I just don’t think that any particular model of evangelism is how all must do it.

The other day I was preparing to give a lecture on Jesus’ use of parables. If you have heard anything about Jesus you have probably heard that “Jesus taught in parables.” Most of the time when this statement is uttered it is in support of some teaching methodology or genre study issue. My purpose in the lesson was to show that this sentiment is misplaced and to deal with an apologetic issue that is raised by the real reason that Jesus sometimes taught in parables.

But I could not remember the verses that dealt with the question. So I turned to Google and found a web page (which shall remain nameless but whose title is extremely close to that of this article). There enough copyright warnings on it to scare me away from quoting any of it directly, but in summary the writer suggests several reasons why he thinks Jesus taught in parables. These include:

• Parables were the teaching style of the day (which makes me wonder what made the disciples curious about Jesus’ use of them in the first place).
• Parables allow teachers to get away with more (he says Jesus only got in trouble when he claimed to be the Son of God, but what about the Sabbath controversies or forgiving sins?).
• Parables can be used effectively after the fact (he says the apostles later explained Jesus’ parables to the crowds as they evangelized. I know of no instance of this in the New Testament, and in the only example he gives (from Acts 2) they certainly did no such thing.)
• The other reasons mostly revolve around the usefulness of story telling versus making direct statements, which he then applies to modern teaching and preaching methods.

It’s all very nice and sermonly but there is one [additional] problem: It’s not true.

Now, fasten your seat belts as I deliver my stunning process for discovering his mistake. Prepare yourself for a hermeneutical excursion worthy of the finest scholars of any age. If you can master the unbelievably powerful method of Bible interpretation that I am about to impart, you will elevate yourself to dizzying heights of academic excellence. The key to answering the question “Why did Jesus teach in parables?” is . . . IS . . . found in the second half of the sentence! Imagine that! Jesus was asked why He taught in parables and He actually answered. Unfortunately, the writer only partially quoted this sentence at the beginning of his article (even ending the partial quote with a period as if the sentence actually ended there - see example above).

Now, the writer of the article might have gotten confused because the sentence is broken up into separate verses, but this hardly excuses his misquote, or his non-biblical response. Just for fun let’s go crazy and read the whole sentence: The text of the NIV of Mark 4:10-12 reads:

“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, . . .”

Wait a minute. “So that . . .” Hmmmmm. Might that phrase indicate a purpose about to be revealed??? OK, I can’t stand the suspense any longer - here’s the rest:

“But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Sometimes it’s the little things.

When I teach Bible Study Methods one of the things I stress is that of the three standard steps in study (Observation, Interpretation, and Application) it is often during the (seemingly) simple observation of the text that mistakes are made. It is really somewhat shocking how many interpretation or application mistakes are caused by the failure to simply read the text. It does make for good sermon fodder though.

Now just so I won’t leave you hanging, let’s return to the apologetic issue I wanted to raise in class. Why would God bother to incarnate and spend over 30 years as a human being only to come to those He wished to teach and speak so as to obscure His teaching??? The answer is . . .

Ha! Caught you! Jesus already answered that question too (see above)! The unanswered question is why this was His response. And answering that question involves knowing things like:

• Who Jesus’ audience is here (which is clear from the context - start at verse 1).
• What other passages have to say about the event (i.e., Matthew 13:1-17).
• Why Jesus quotes Isaiah 6 here.
• When it happened. Specifically, knowing the timing of this event in relation to Jesus’ overall ministry. This can be confusing without a Gospel Harmony, but Matthew records this event in chapter 13 which comes right after chapter 12 . . . (hint hint!).

I won’t spoil the joy of discovery for you. But in the meantime I suggest the following:

1. Always look up Bible citations.
2. Don’t assume verses are being considered in context.
3. Look for answers in the text first!

Occasionally when I have told someone about my faith in Christ I’ve had them reply with something like this: “I am so glad you have found something that makes you happy. Good for you!” I don’t think people realize how insulting this is. When I say I am a Christian, I am communicating the fact that I have made an ultimate life commitment to follow Jesus Christ – not joined some club or engaged in a mere hobby. It trivializes my faith to act as though I just found something that pleases me and signed on the dotted line.

What this response implies is that Christianity is not true, or at least not believed to be true by the speaker, but that doesn’t matter because, hey, if it makes your life more fun who cares right? So basically, the responder is saying that if believing a fairy tale makes you happy then good for you (moron!). Whether or not it is explicitly thought or stated, that is often how the world sees faith. If it makes a positive difference in your life that is fine so long as you keep it to yourself and don’t hurt anybody. Thus, faith comes across as a simple choice to believe something, not for any good or objective reasons, but just because you like it.

This might be true for many religions, but Christians need to stand up to this preference-based-faith attitude when it raises its ugly head. Think about it – if all people chose their religious beliefs based on preference alone then how would Christianity fair as an option? Here’s one of the very few faiths that not only excludes all other faiths from its rewards, but promises punishment for those who do not believe. Why would anyone desire that to be the case? That’s just mean!

So if someone really thinks that you believe in Jesus Christ simply because of your preferences then you must be some kind of jerk! Why not choose a nice religion like Buddhism or New Age pantheism? They give people all the chances they need and we all get to be one in the end. How sweet! Given these options, for someone to choose an exclusivistic religion like Christianity based on their personal preferences they would have to be pretty awful people. At least it seems that way to most of the world.

Of course some Christians do not have good, objective reasons for their faith. But that is not the point. Christianity has good, objective reasons for making its truth claims whether or not particular followers of the faith know them. This is why apologetics is so important for believers as well as unbelievers.

• I am not Christian because I like Christianity best – as a finite human sinner I can certainly think of religions that sound much more fun.
• I am not a Christian because of any alleged perks in this life – not only are few promised, some degree of persecution is guaranteed.
• I am not a Christian because it makes me happy – I was quite happy before I came to believe, and Christianity has not always been a catalyst for enjoyment.

Rather, I am a Christian because Christianity is true.

How do I know? First, the universe gives evidence of a single, all-powerful, creator (Monotheism). This was discovered centuries before Christianity by the great philosophers and has been continually ratified by most of the best philosophers of all time. Given this, we can summarily dismiss any competing religion that denies this fact. Second, Christianity alone lays claim to the only kind of evidence that is sufficient to show it is from God - supernatural support. Of the competing monotheistic religions Islam has no miracles in its original scripture (the Quran), and Judaism has none greater than Christ’s historically verified resurrection.

So the next time someone tells you how nice it is that you found something to make you happy, maybe tell them that you would choose to believe in the truth one way or the other!

It is often said that “there are no atheists in foxholes!” This is in reference to the idea that when people are faced with their own mortality they will cry out to God for salvation (temporal if not eternal). Quips like this may be generally accurate but I think there is a danger in presupposing that people will reach out to God when life gets bad enough. For one thing, life may never get that bad for many people and for another it smacks of the idea that God is a life preserver and salvation is the means by which he saves people from a bad life. In any case, a clear example of this not occurring was pointed out in a very interesting movie about mountain climbing . . .“Touching the Void” is a true story, a docu-drama about two young climbers (Joe and Simon) who sought to stand atop the last great peak in a section of Peru that had yet to be conquered. It was a brutal climb and eventuated in Joe severely breaking his leg in a fall. Simon attempted a rescue that went awry to say the least - Joe ends up stuck in a seemingly bottomless crevasse with his leg broken. The rest of the film concerns Joe’s excruciating ordeal, and his unbelievable escape.The climax of the film involves Joe’s overcoming the odds and pushing himself to survive. It is a great “triumph of the human spirit” type movie - except for one odd scene. At one point Joe pretty much thinks it’s all over for him and he gives a short soliloquy on his catholic upbringing and how he left the church. He says he always wondered if, when the chips were down, he would reach out to God for help. His answer is chilling: “It never even occurred to me.” Joe states quite clearly that he really does not think there is anything after death (hence the film’s title). Then the story simply picks right back up as if nothing had happened.Joe’s decision to fight for his life was basically just an arbitrary choice on his part. He says in the film that it was due to his stubborn nature and not wanting to die alone. So the very heroism he showed is undercut by his worldview which espouses a meaningless universe where actions are not, at the end of the day, meaningful at all. Basically, if there is really nothing after death then life is ultimately meaningless. In an atheistic world it is not just that death is a void, life is as well: de-void of ultimate meaning or significance. If I were to meet Joe someday I’d like to ask him how it is that his atheism can explain this drive to overcome, or his appreciation for the essentially useless beauty of uninhabited mountain ranges.The fact that he survived under the circumstances seems miraculous itself. If it wasn’t a true story I would have thought it was completely ridiculous - it does not seem possible that someone could survive against such odds. He might say that it was due to his courage and willpower. He might even blame God (if he believed one existed) for his broken leg in the first place. But though Joe’s broken leg can be explained by gravity and bad climbing conditions (which he willingly and enthusiastically challenged), it will be far more difficult to explain some of the elements of his survival . . .

Like how he could fall 40 feet, break through the ice, fall another 20 feet down into a crevasse without further injury and just happen to land on a tiny platform only a few feet away from another 100 foot drop. He would have to explain how he just happened to have enough rope leftover to lower himself to the bottom of the crevasse plus the single remaining ice screw to secure it. He would have to explain how there just happened to be an opening to this crevasse that was within his greatly impaired ability to reach. He would have to explain how, much later, there just happened to be water available on the day he probably would have died without it. He would have to explain how he just happened to end up in the camp’s latrine area where the smell revived him one last time to call out for Simon (who should not have even been there)- who just happened to hear him in the middle of the night with the chance of weather conditions that could have easily made this impossible.

It is these elements that saved Joe Simpson just as much as his hard head and will to survive. If any one of them had not been in place all his striving and pain would have been for nothing. But in an atheistic universe where all is random and meaningless, all these startling survival aids must be chalked up to chance - with his survival only meaning the opportunity for a few more years of ultimately meaningless existence.

So I guess maybe there are atheists in foxholes and cravasses - let’s not wait until they face death to tell them that the true void is life without God, and that the welcome void they might expect after death does not really exist.

I’ve heard this more than once in varying conversations: “I don’t follow any religion, I have my own beliefs.” What exactly is this supposed to mean? On the surface it’s a rather obvious truth - like saying, “I have my own body.” No kidding, so does everybody. We all have our “own” beliefs whether we learned them from someone else or made them up ourselves. We can’t avoid having them, in fact. Even saying we don’t believe in a thing means that it is our belief that that thing is false. If we try to wriggle out of that by saying, “We just can’t know,” then we believe it can’t be known. Most of these “agnostics” claim they do not know if God exists or not but I’ve never met one that lives as if He does “just in case.” The fact is that our true beliefs will always manifest themselves in our actions . . . I think what is meant behind the bland statement of “my own beliefs” lurks what is supposed to be a profound statement . . . but only ends up meaning something along the lines of, “I make up my own religion as I go along.” This is supposed to remove the speaker from any pitfalls associated with “organized religion” because their faith is internal and not subject to any authority. The “believer” getd to be their own independent, changing source of truth. Rather shaky grounds if you ask me. I’ve not encountered many things in reality that change because of my thoughts about them.I think that it somehow comforts a person to not have an authority outside themselves for their source of belief. It’s a great situation to be in because one can never be wrong (being the source after all), and, more importantly, one can never sin (it’s difficult to fall below one’s own standard). Further, one can never be proven false because he is not making any kind of truth claim about reality . . . or is he? Here we find the main problem with this idea of “my own beliefs” - do these people think their beliefs are true or not?

It seems absurd to think that someone believes what they think is false - in fact I don’t think it’s possible by definition. So they must think that “at least for them” their beliefs are true. But if a belief is true its contrary must be false. For example, if I say I believe that getting drunk is OK then it must, by force of logic, not also be wrong. But these kinds of beliefs are almost never held to be universal truths (true for everyone), for that would be far too “narrow minded” or “bigoted” - self-righteous if you will. Yet that is exactly what any claim to personal, subjective truth is - SELF righteous. This is because the person is claiming that what they themselves think is, in fact, righteous.

The person may wish to escape the problem by stating that their beliefs are only true “for them.” In the above example it might work like this: “For me getting drunk is OK, but for someone else it might not be.” OK so what we’re dealing with is not a belief about what is ACTUALLY TRUE - but our own preferences concerning it, “Whatever I like is OK for me - and that is what truth is.”

But what happens when we apply that ideal to people more evil than us? Was it right for Hitler to have millions of Jews killed because he liked it? Of course not - that’s objectively wrong. But if killing is objectively wrong (independent of anyone’s feelings) then why isn’t getting drunk? We only have two choices. Either the difference is real, objective (“It is universally true that getting drunk and murder are in different moral categories”) - or it is personal and subjective (“I think that getting drunk and murder are in different moral categories”).

But now we have another problem: how do we know how to choose between these two options? Do we use subjective or objective means to determine which difference (objective or subjective) is true? It’s really the same problem all over again - without an objective standard we can never arrive at an objective truth. This means that we are trapped in our own feelings and can never reach that which is really TRUE. Our beliefs, in this sense, are really only our preferences.

For illustration let’s take a less controversial subject - ice cream. If I say, “Chocolate ice cream is delicious,” I’m not really saying anything about the ice cream - I’m only telling you about my experience of it. Ice cream is not essentially delicious or non-delicious (the way a triangle is essentially a three sided figure). The OBJECT (ice cream) is only said to be delicious in the experience of a SUBJECT (me). So the answer to the question, “Is it true that chocolate ice cream is delicious?” is only true or false in relation to one’s preferences because that’s all the question is really asking about - preferences. It cannot be universally true that ice cream is or is not delicious because different subjects have different experiences. (This doe snot invalidate objective truth, however, for statemetns about preferences are objectively and universally true).

What does all this mean? It means that if we are not asserting that what we believe is true for all people then all we are really communicating are our preferences. But we know that preferences cannot really say anything about universal truth because they only tell us how we feel about things. This idea of “my own religion” is thus sort of self defeating.

Suppose I say that “X” is true, and someone else says that (for her) “X” is not true. She is responding to my statement about “X” being universally true in reality but is responding only with what she feels about “X”. Well, just as my feelings about gravity don’t change gravity in reality, neither do her feelings about “X” change what it is in reality. “True” is said of a thing when it corresponds to reality - which our feelings cannot change - and is therefore always objective and universal. If she wants to argue that her beliefs are really true then she will have to say that they are true in reality - universally, objectively - not just how she feels about them.

If “my religion” only applies to me then it is not universally, objectively true. If I do not think that my beliefs are universally, objectively true, then I am believing what I think is false. And that’s about as irrational as someone can get.Then again, that’s just my belief . . .

Do all men have, as Pascal is said to have put it, a ‘God-shaped vacuum?’ That is, a hole in their soul that longs for God but that people try to fill up with other things in their denial of Him? It’s an interesting question. Here are just some thoughts, not a definitive answer.

To begin with, despite the innumerable “quotes” of Pascal on the internet, he did not in fact say “there is a God-shaped vacuum” in anyone. What he said was . . .

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. . . . And yet, after such a great number of years, no one without faith has reached the point to which all continually look. . . . A trial so long, so continuous, and so uniform, should certainly convince us of our inability to reach the good by our own efforts. . . . [yet] he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present . . . But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.”
(Pensees 6.425)

and . . .

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.
(Pensees 10.14

Thus the hole Pascal speaks of here is, from the human perspective, “happiness-shaped.” The problem arises when evangelists confuse this with the idea that people are intentionally searching for God, when it is really happiness they seek. That one can only find ultimate happiness in God is a separate matter.

Then we have the Scripture verse that is often brought into play: Ecclesiastes 3:11 where God’s placing of “eternity in their heart” is said to be equivalent to the God-shaped hole inside of all people. But this may not be what the verse is actually speaking about. The preaching that usually accompanies such a quote follows along the lines of people who spend their lives looking for something to fill their God-shaped vacuum. Without God, they will try to fill the hole with with sexual immorality, work, relationships, drugs, etc., remaining unfulfilled and wondering why their lives never seem satisfactory. We are then told that the key to evangelism is to get people to admit to this problem, show them that nothing will ever satisfy them besides God, and then proceed to the gospel. But what exactly does it mean to have “eternity in one’s heart”?

We might begin by asking if this is even what the Bible says. There is some debate as to what word this is (the Hebrew olam or ‘elim) and which of several definitions should be used of either. For example we have:

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” (NIV)“He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” (KJV)“God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives.” (NET)

None of these seem to be clearly referring to any kind of internal desire that all people have for God, even if the word is “eternity”. And the context does not suggest in any case that the author was necessarily leading up to this point.

Further, with all due respect to Pascal (who I think is being misquoted), I see several problems with the idea that all people are made with a longing for God. First, the Bible does not paint a very pretty picture of an unsaved person’s desires. Rather, it says that people have hearts that are full of evil (Ecc. 9:3), that they do not seek God (Rom. 3:10-18), and that man’s desire can lead to sin (Rom. 7; James 1:14).

Second, I clearly remember my “B.C.” days (having been saved as an adult) and I was definitely not seeking to fill any God-shaped vacuum. I came to Christ in fear and trembling - aware that I was in big trouble if God was really perfect and would judge me for my unbelief. I was not simply responding to my everyday dissatisfaction with life. Not only that, but I desired many of the same things I still do - security, safety, soundness . . . and although I have learned that I must trust God for my needs (met or not) I still desire these things. I think most people are the same way.

Third, what a lot of people who preach this message do not seem to realize is how unique were Qohelet’s (the author of Ecclesiastes) circumstances. How many people today can exhaust themselves on riches, women, food, drink, learning, etc.? We all probably make a lot more money than we did five years ago but we still want more, right? Even if we are not greedy, I think we can all admit that doubling our pay would be more satisfactory! The trouble is that we won’t find out that it doesn’t until we get it. Besides, even if we get the money we’ll just think that a newer car, or a thinner spouse, or a shorter drive to work, or any number of things will satisfy more. The fact is that it is extremely difficult to find someone who has sampled enough of the world to be convinced that they will never get enough to find true happiness in this world. Finding someone who has hit rock bottom abusing themselves is another thing, of course, but that only pushes the starting point to below zero - the same desires still apply.

So in conclusion I do think that man was made with a desire for happiness - virtually all great thinkers agree with this. Further, it is certainly the case that it is only God (Who is infinite, eternal, unchanging, etc.) Who can, ultimately, fill that longing. But I think it is a mistake to act as though unbelievers are out there groping for God and all we need to do is tap into that and we will gain converts. There is just too much potential in this world, especially in America, for additional satisfaction (how ever short-lived). But we can argue from this innate desire that unless existence is a cruel joke there must be an ultimate satisfaction to be found. And that ultimate is God.

The other day my buddy Vozzy and I were discussing the fine points of apologetics, philosophy, theology, evangelism, and heavy metal, when he made an interesting point that I am now stealing for my own Blog. He said this was OK though so it’s not a sin. Also, the hand thing was his idea. OK, on to the Blog . . .

You see, I grew up in the 80’s. It was great - I got out of high school before the whole gangsta movement and I never had to wear clothes that didn’t fit. We rocked hard and rode free. Metal ruled the land. Most good things come to an end though, and with the rise of the poser hair bands metal took a bad turn. By the time of the “W” bands (Winger, Whitesnake, Warrant, White Lion, etc.) Heavy Metal’s reign was pretty well shot, and as I entered college was eclipsed by the grunge scene. So sad. Interestingly, another more extensive cultural shift also began . . .

The post-modern movement began at about the same time Metal was on the decline. Suddenly things like absolute truth were no longer popular and people embracing the movement basically became really really stupid (or possibly their stupidity was the cause of the movement . . . but I digress). For those of you who do not know, post-modernsim’s main claim to fame is that all truth is either unknowable or relative (which itself is a knowable, non-relative truth claim). In short, Pomo’s do not accept any grand unified truth of reality (except the grand unified truth that there is no grand unified truth).

Thus, they also are not impressed by heroic figures who claim to know something important that they do not. All that matters is the conversation. The good news is that the pomo movement decried the materialism of the ’80s, which is good I guess, and it made thinking (even if done poorly) popular again. This opened the door to conversations that might have simply turned off an 80’s Yuppie. Another good thing to come out of the pomo movement was the proliferation of coffee shops and the rise of the internet - both of which, in their own ways, have changed the preferred types of communication.

Watch out, I’m dangerously close to making a point with all this . . .

Now if you watch the movie “Rock Star” you can see this whole shift take place through the eyes of the main character, which is kind of cool. You see the innocence of a guy who just wanted to rock and roll contrasted with those who were in the Metal scene more for the “sex, drugs . . .” part. By the end of the film our hero has moved through these stages, seen through the veneer of rock stardom, and ends up in Seattle where his music becomes more personal and real. Instead of playing to 10,000 seat arenas (the best scene in the movie is his first onstage performance), he now plays to a few dozen people in a coffee shop.

I think that we can learn from the arena-rock-to-coffee-shop shift. The postmodern generation is not impressed by hugeness, explosions, and makeup. They want one-on-one, personal attention. They aren’t looking for larger than life heroes - they want real relationships with real people. The draw is no longer toward huge group experiences, rather it is centered on personal contact and real rapport. For the evangelist/apologist this is important. Evangelism in America is now being done in coffee shops and on message boards - not necessarily through massive crusades with celebrity speakers. Further, the modus operendi is different. Huge hair, makeup, and a wall of Marshall amps all turned up to 11 just doesn’t go over real well in a 200 square foot room with only a dozen people in the audience. Metal requires the arena. On the other hand, the typical grunge / emo / (insert whatever short-lived category they call pop music these days) band wouldn’t be able to pack a 10,000 seat stadium three nights in a row these days. In the same way, grandstanding style evangelism is not going to work in a coffee shop or jazz club. If we expect to draw 10,000 non-believing pomos into some sports arena to hear the gospel defended we will probably be disappointed.

Perhaps we can learn from the Apostle Paul who utilized the most popular venues (e.g. the Aereopagus in Athens) and spoke according to the expectations of his hearers (e.g. quoting the Old Testament to Jews or popular poets to pagans), and mold our gospel presentation and defense strategies (although not gospel the message) to our audiences as well.

It’s funny to me that some people argue against arguing for one’s beliefs when that is exactly what they are doing! While there are objections to doing apologetics, most are self destructive like this one and others are simply confused. I think that for the most part it is due to a lack of critical thinking skills that allow one to consider good arguments instead of only reacting emotionally. This, added to the world’s self-defeating “tolerance” position, is also imbibed by many in the Church. All this combines to make apologetics unattractive to many who would otherwise claim to follow what God commands Christians to do in Scripture.The classic verse promoting apologetics (the defense of the faith) is 1 Peter 3:15, which basically says that believers are to make a defense “for the hope that you have.” The only way to do this effectively is to study the reasons for why we believe what we believe. This will prepare us to ” demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” as Paul said we should (2 Cor. 10:5). Paul practiced what he preached, in fact doing apologetics was his regular activity (Philippians 1:7 ). In fact, he refers to apologetics as his mission in the same passage (v.16). He also made apologetics a requirement for church leadership in Titus 1:9. Jude, an apostle of Jesus, wrote that “although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v.3). Where did they all get these ideas? from the Master Himself. Jesus was His own apologetic as He stated time and again that we should believe in Him because of the evidence He provided for what He taught (John 2:23; 10:25; 10:38; 14:29). In fact the whole Bible is full of miracles specifically being done by God to confirm what He wants us to believe (Ex. 4:1-8; 1Kgs 18:36-39; Acts 2:22/43; Heb. 2:3-4; 2Cor. 12:12). People rightly refuse to believe something without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, we should not be surprised when He expects us to live rationally. As Norman Geisler says, “This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.”

Those who oppose these clear biblical teachings and examples may say things like, “The Word of God does not need to be defended!” But which of the world’s writings are the word of God? As soon as someone answers that, they are doing apologetics. (How well they do it might be another story!) Some claim that human reason cannot tell us anything about God – but isn’t that a reasonable statement about God? If not then there is no reason to believe it, and if so then they have contradicted themselves. One of my favorites is, “If someone can talk you into Christianity then someone else can talk you out.” Why is this a problem? Did not Paul himself give a criterion by which Christianity should be accepted or rejected in 1 Corinthians 15? It is only misplaced piety that answers in the negative.

Now none of this is to say that bare apologetics, free from the influence of the Holy Spirit, can bring someone to saving faith. This creates a false dilemma in the minds of many. But it does not have to be “Sprit vs. Logic” – why not both? We must not confuse the fact that the Holy Spirit is required to move one into a position of belief with how He accomplishes this feat. With some people God uses trials, in others it is an emotional experience, in others it is through reason. God can use whatever means He wants. We, however, are commanded to use apologetics in as many or more places as we are told to preach the gospel. How is it then that all churches affirm the latter but so many ignore the former?

The mushy-gushy gospel is what my friend Larry calls the “life enhancement” gospel of today. You’ve heard it before, a popular version begins: “God has a WONDERFUL plan for your life! But you don’t have it because of sin.” Hmmm. I don’t recall any promises like this in Scripture. Jesus promised abundant life (He did not exclude the bad parts here), but He promised more than once to expect suffering (see Mt. 10:22; Mk 10:37-39; Lk 6:22; Jn. 16:33; Acts 5:41, 14:22; Romans 5:3-5, 8:13-17; 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Phil.1:29, 3:8; 1 Thes. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:8, 2:3, 3:12, Heb. 5:8, James 1:2-4,12, 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2:20-21, 4:12-19, Rev. 1:9). Pretty much all the really good stuff comes after this life - but by then it is too late, so that can’t be what the mushy-gushy gospel is talking about. The idea behind the mushy-gushy gospel is to be positive - forget that hellfire and brimstone stuff, it’s too negative and people won’t listen. So we offer life enhancement to them instead. Two things immediately come to my mind though: (1) If even one of the above Bible verses are true then what happens when they pan out in the life of a “believer” who was told that the gospel was about avoiding suffering? (2) What sense does it make to tell someone that God is love and He’ll send you to Hell if you don’t love Him back. That’s a pretty tough pill to swallow. In trying to make the gospel more palatable to people who just cannot tolerate negativity we have either eviscerated it or made God into a divine stalker who threatens those who won’t love Him back.

So then we have people who, afraid of offending someone with the truth, create interesting new strategies for sharing the gospel without actually saying anything. Imagine, if you will, the following:

You’re sitting on the beach enjoying a hot summer’s day. You’ve got an ice cold non-alcoholic beverage in one hand and a copy of Left Behind part 32 in the other. You’re basically in paradise. As you look upon the people playing in the ocean you notice something that makes your heart stop - a shark fin. No one in the water sees this. Do you:

• A. Tell the people there is a shark coming and help them get out of the water.
• B. Pray that the people will see the shark before it is too late and leave the water on their own.
• C. Hope that the lifeguard will save everyone (since it’s really his job, not yours).
• D. Try to show by your example how great it is on shore and hope that the people playing in the water will be so interested that they will come out and join you.
• E. Befriend individuals in the water one by one until you have “gained the right” to gently inform each of them that there is a shark in the water.
• F. Don’t mention the shark because it might put the people off. Instead try to convince the people that by playing in the water they are really missing out on the best life possible and that only by coming to shore can they be truly happy.
• G. Wear a sandwich board with messages of doom and walk around screaming like a madman that all swimmers will suffer shark attacks for their careless playing in the water.

I hope all of you picked ‘A’. “Duh,” right? Then why do we often pick B-G when it comes to the “spiritual shark” of sin and eternal death? Why do we think we can offer people a more desirable life (on earth) than the world can (when it’s often not).? Why do we think that we can just be so darned positive that people will gravitate to us in amazement and ask how we got to be so? Or why do we think that our love and friendship with them will be seen as being any better than the world’s (when it’s often not)? More importantly: Why do we think the gospel is a message of life enhancement in the first place?

The gospel as presented in Scripture is not about some sappy relationship, not about “finding our purpose”, not about some mystical experience . . . It’s about avoiding judgment and Hell. Yes, Jesus loves us. Yes, Jesus is our friend (although the biblical definition is not “buddy” - Jn. 15:15). Yes, we can have a relationship with God. But all these are the effects of being saved - not salvation itself. Jesus does not offer us a better life here on earth. Jesus is not our boy/girlfriend. Instead, the gospel says that we are all sinners and that God’s wrath is upon us, but we can repent - turn to God for mercy through Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-5).

The term “salvation” might be our first clue in this whole mess - salvation from what? From loneliness? From boredom? From a life that is less than the American dream? No. It is salvation from the wrath of God - eternity in Hell as punishment for disobedience. The gospel makes little sense apart from this fact. Hell seems pretty obscene if it is the penalty for merely “missing out on all that God has for you.”

When I was perched on the edge of salvation my life was great. I had lots of friends, girls dug me, I was smart and did well in school, I didn’t do drugs or smoke, I had great relationships with my parents . . . What did I need from Jesus? Then I had people telling me about all the horrible things they did before Christ saved them. Well, that’s fine - if they needed Christ just to be a decent person then I was happy that they found a solution to their weakness. But I was doing just as well (or better) than they were without Jesus!

What got to me was the simple (and undeniable) fact that I was not following God’s will and He was not going to let me get away with it. It took nothing but a heads up to show me the problem, and believe me I was grateful for the solution! True, it took some apologists to convince me that the gospel message was the true solution, but it would have made little sense without awareness of the problem (which was obvious). Telling people how wonderful a solution is makes no sense if they don’t know there’s a problem in the first place (and screaming the solution without the problem only makes it worse!).

So the next time you prepare to share, please start where Jesus and the apostles started - with the problem, not some pie-in-the-sky fairy tale that is not a promised part of the salvation package (2 Tim. 2). People will (rightfully) reject what they don’t think they need. Or, if they accept the mushy-gushy gospel in order to get the promised benefits, then what will happen when the benefits do not materialize or life gets even worse? They’ll probably become one of the thousands who say, “I tried Christianity and it didn’t work for me.”

We dare not blame these people for rejecting a false gospel, and we had better repent if it is a false gospel that we have given them.