Why are millennials are leaving the church?

Rachel Held Evans answer seems to be attracting attention for some reason. Here are my first thoughts on an answer, for what it's worth...

Declining church membership is a Spiritual and not a sociological or marketing problem. It requires a Spiritual and not a sociological or marketing solution.

THE PROBLEM

Everyone is an individual, but you could follow Jesus and break down the reasons into three categories:

1. Some people are hardened to the Gospel for a variety of reasons. They won't even take the time to think about the Gospel because the Devil snatches it out of their mind.
2. Some people get let the Gospel get crowded out by other concerns in their busy lives. Earning and spending money consume whole lives - literally.
3. Some people are afraid of the cost of following Jesus, especially the cost in their relationships to family, friends and colleagues.

My guess is that there is good reason to think that the later two have been particularly on the increase over the last few decades. I'm not sure whether the first is improving or not.

THE SOLUTION

1. Preach the Gospel more - there will be no fruit without good seeds
2. Recommend the Gospel more - by changed lives of love
3. Pray for good soil more - because only God can change hearts.
4. Send out more workers into the harvest - because the God uses people.

Simple, but not easy! Help us Lord!

WE built a monster

...or our heart is a factory of idols.

Two hot things to say in my circles these days are:

1. People trust in the idols of sex, money and power and they fail to deliver.
2. Too many 'Christians' preach an ugly, tyrannical god

I agree with both statements, but I'm afraid I have to admit that to a large degree I still trust and promote both the first and second set of idols.

We are not in the habit of disbelieving monster gods, we're in the habit of making them!

And that applies to non-Christians as well. My non-Christian friends and family do not disbelieve in the God of Jesus Christ because they perceive him to be a distant bully, whatever they may say. And the reason I don't believe them when they tell me that is because the gods they do believe in are just as monstrous as anything I have heard preached by someone who calls them Christian. Their gods are killing them and giving them nothing in return - but they love them anyway.

Only God by his Spirit and through his Word, which kills the old heart and creates a new one ex nihilo, will we see change in the God we love so that we love beauty.

Motivation for mission

'we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.' (2 Cor 4:13-15)

Mission is founded on personal hope in the Gospel (v.14) and for the sake of

• the salvation of the lost, so that
• thanksgiving may increase, so that
• God is glorified.

So it is not simply an expression of personal joy, or simply to save people from hell, or even simply for God's glory. It is all of those, but in a certain relationship.

(cf. Romans 15)

Incidentally, every time I read Paul these days I see the importance of thanksgiving for him (46 occurrences in ESV). Perhaps I should read David Pao's book.

With Ben and Jerry's and Alcoholics Anonymous in the school of evangelism

In 1978 two friends named Ben and Jerry started selling ice-cream.

In 1935 an alcoholic named Bob met a recovering alcoholic named Bill and gave up alchohol.

We know these facts because both Ben and Jerry's ice cream and Alcoholics Anonymous have some passionate and effective evangelists.

Why?

Mockery

Listening to: Arcade Fire: The Suburbs

Peter calls us to give a explain our hope “with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15). But at first sight that does not seem to fit with the strong language that other biblical authors deploy.

Amos calls people “cows” (Amos 4:1), Jesus and John the Baptist call people a “brood of vipers” and “hypocrites” (Luke 3:7; Matt 12:34, 23:35). Paul wishes false teachers would castrate themselves (Gal 5:12) and Elijah questions whether Baal is not displaying his power because he is asleep (1 Kings 18:27). The examples could be multiplied.

I am not exactly sure how to fit these things together, but I think it may be something like this...

Instances of mockery in the Bible are not within the context of ‘evangelism’ or preaching to a congregation but declarations of judgment upon certain people. They do not seem to be directed against ordinary people but are spoken about teachers or those in some other kind of authority. Jesus and Paul could be remarkably generous and open to people either in deep sin (e.g. Zacchaeus), or held deeply heretical beliefs (e.g. Corinthian church). However, these people tended to be the marginalised, powerless, or poorly taught. To teachers or leaders they tended to be scathing in their language and strikingly condemnatory.

Therefore it appears that when ‘speaking truth to power’ mockery is appropriate and we shouldn't hold back in our language. But when we are the one in a position of ‘power’, e.g. in the pulpit of our own church or leading a Bible study, we should be gentle and respectful. When on-the-level with friends we can ask searching questions and make people feel a little uncomfortable, but only in love and within limits.

Any thoughts?

A low voice trembling in the hearts of men

"Without your wound, where would your power be? It is your very remorse that makes your low voice tremble in the hearts of men. The very angels themselves cannot persuade the wretched and blundering children on earth as can one human being broken on the wheels of living. In love’s service only the wounded soldiers can serve."

(Thornton Wilder, The Angel That Troubled the Waters, HT PZ)

Do you want the Gospel to "tremble in the hearts" of those you speak to?

It will not happen through eloquence, even eloquence in the service of extolling the beauties of our God.

Paul says that he was among the Corinthians "in weakness and in fear and much trembling"! It was in just this that the Spirit demonstrated his power and Christ was believed on (1 Cor 2:3-4).

I know my temptation when talking about the Gospel is to appear strong, have all the answers and a wide smile. Paul knew better and stood exposed as a weak and sinful Apostle through whom the Spirit powerfully worked.

Michael Horton's summary of the Gospel

What is your greatest fear? If I were asking that question in many parts of the world, answers would probably cluster around basic needs such as running water, food, vaccines, and shelter. For most of us in the United States, though, our greatest fears are more likely to be things like the fear of loneliness, some cataclysmic event that throws me off the ladder of upward mobility, divorce, or the inability to find any ultimate meaning in life. None of these fears is illegitimate, yet none is ultimate. These fears haunt us only because we have the luxury of having them haunt us. Until we are confronted with the reality of God—in all of his blinding majesty, weightiness, and frightful claim on our lives—we are overwhelmed by secondary troubles. But when for some reason there is the slightest glimpse of God in his holiness, we either do our best to domesticate him, turn him into a pet by suppressing the truth, or run for the hills to escape the confrontation.

God should be your greatest fear. Yet there is no salvation from God's just judgment from anywhere else than God himself. Only the same God who fills us with fear is able also to give us peace. If we are to escape this judgment, it will only be the result of the greatness in God's heart and not something in our own. That God has moved toward us—even lunged toward us—not in judgment, as we should have expected, but in loving embrace and reconciliation, clothing us in Christ's righteousness so that we can be acceptable in his holy presence, is the good news that you are called here and now to embrace. Christ lived a perfect life in the place of sinners, bore their sins on the cross, and was raised again for our justification. This means that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Not because of anything that you have done, experienced, attempted, or decided, but because of what he has accomplished for you, can you be assured of God's favor. It is good news, not good advice. It is not a call to self-improvement, but to die to self altogether and be raised a new person, in Christ. It is the free gift of forgiveness of sins, right standing with God, adoption as his heirs, and liberation from the tyranny of sin. As his ambassador, I am calling you in his name to be reconciled to God by turning away from all other saviors and lords and embracing Jesus Christ as your righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Come to him now. His love is greater than your enmity toward him; his grace is greater than your sin; his peace is greater than your fears.

(HT 9 Marks)

Listening to a recording of a piece of classical music you often think that there are bits you like more or less than another recording. Similarly in this presentation of the Gospel of course there are always things you would change, but it is still a delight to hear the melody played so well! Amazing, and very Pauline.

Gift giving

I have just received a package from Amazon containing a book I have bought for a friend. In intention this book is for my friend, but nobody knows that yet. I didn't tell Amazon, I haven't told anyone else and there is no indication on the book itself that it is for my friend.

Does the book belong to me or is it my friend's book? I think you could argue both ways at the moment.

However, when I wrap it up and give it to my friend saying 'this is for you,' then it will be clear that it is now his book. The act of giving, with the words accompanying it, achieve something. It is a speech-act which acomplishes what it says.

Jesus' death and resurrection can be like this. He died and was raised for us, but the event itself does not tell us that.

Jesus' own words and the Bible as a whole interpret the meaning of the event, but it becomes deeply personal when, as Christ's ambassadors Christians say 'you are forgiven,' and just that thing occurs. Forgiveness actually happens in that moment. It has already happened in the cruxifiction and resurrection of Christ, but it is applied in the declaration of absolution that Christians make on their Lord's behalf. Modern evangelicals may baulk at the weight of Jesus' instructions to his disciples, "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld" (John 20:23), but there is no more fundamental part of Gospel-ministry.

Under English law I cannot give a house to someone with only spoken words. It is considered that land is such an important asset that for it to be given away additional formalities have to be observed. So land can only be legally given by way of deed. A deed is written document signed by both parties, which until recently had also to be sealed (e.g. with impressed wax). This deed gives certainty to all the parties that the gift really happened and was not just empty words.

Baptism corresponds to this. It is a binding, visible promise of God that we have died and been raised with Christ and it achieves what it promises. If later in life we have doubts about our true identity or whether we have been forgiven, we point to the cross and resurrection of Jesus but through the word and sacrament that we have already received as a personal address to us. This is what Paul does in Romans 6, and what Luther did when he responded to the devil's acqusations by crying out "I am baptized!"

I may have been given a beautiful house but it is another thing to receive it and live in it.

There are a number of different ways I can respond to the gift:

(i) If I believe that this house is now both mine and more beautiful and solid than the house I currently live in I will joyfully move in all my possessions, explore every room, make myself at home and invite others to share in my joy by inviting them to stay.

(ii) But while I may believe that this house is mine I may doubt that it is really that nice a house. My heart may remain in my old house, and I may want to live there most of the time. When the floods come then I will finally realise that this house I have been given is the best, but in the meantime wise friends will warn me of the dangers of living in my old house, and extol the beauty and security that the new house offers. They won't spend time persuading me that the house is mine, but they will spend time persuading me that the house is a uniquely wonderful place to live.

(iii) Sadly, I may love the house but even with the deed in my hands not believe that it is really mine. Perhaps I think that past or present sins disqualify me from such a gift. I might feel I need to earn the house and start sending the giver cheques out of my wages - even though he never asked for them. To this person wise friends will point to the promise; the words and the title deeds. 'This house is yours, enjoy it!' 'You have been baptised, the promise is yours free of charge, live out that reality!'

(iv) Finally, I may doubt that the house exists at all and the house I live in is the only house there is. I may have heard the promise and been given the deeds but concluded that they are worthless pieces of paper. Wise friends will explain how they have seen the house, how it is attested by reliable witnesses and fits with the rest of our experience. To this person you may give Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.

Faith is how we feed

Listening to: Mozart: Violin Concertos

[This is an attempt to explain why only those with faith are saved by putting it in the context of the nature the salvation itself. I'm a bit torn whether I've succeeded. Let me know your thoughts if you have any]

1. God lays on a meal for everybody, no matter who they are

In the Parable of the Great Banquet, Jesus begins by encouraging generosity to all types of people.  He says that ““when you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbours, in case they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” (Luke 14:12-13).

It is obvious why Jesus needs to say this isn’t it?

We are nice to those people that we want to be nice to us in return.  Who among us can say that we treat the shop attendant with the same attention we do someone interviewing us for a job?  We will buy a round for someone who we know has a record of buying rounds for us, but we won’t do the same for someone who never offers to get us a drink.

Or we can be prejudiced against whole classes of people who we don’t identify with.  Historically we have treated those of a different race as second class citizens, but perhaps now are more likely to express contempt towards those both above and below us on the class ladder.  Paul seems to be combating just that attitude in 1 Timothy 2 when he encourages the Christians to pray for their political leaders, because God cares for ‘them’ as much as ‘us’.  Although for them it may have been even tougher given the oppression they would have experienced from their leaders.

Like Paul, Jesus sees that how we treat other people will mirror how we believe God treats people.  Often we are tempted to feel that God loves people like ‘us’, not people like ‘them’, and we think that justifies us in our lack of love to those people.  Where we do that we need to be sorry and change because God should be our model and is not like that.  God loves “all” people, as Paul says.

Jesus illustrates how God loves all people in this Parable of the Great Banquet.  He compares “the Kingdom of God”, or as Paul would say it “salvation”, to a great banquet.  It is not a bring-your-own meal and it is not beans on toast, instead it is a lavish feast provided entirely at God’s expense.

And this feast is not just for God’s friends or those who have something to offer him.  He has “made everything ready” for “many” people, even those who we read later in the parable don’t like him very much.  

God models just what Jesus says that we should do.  Love everyone and happily share what we have with everyone.

2. The meal is Jesus and he gives life

But what is the banquet that God puts on?  The disciple in verse 15 talks about “bread”, which doesn’t sound all that lavish.  But in John 6 we learn what type of bread is on offer.

Jesus explains that he is “the bread of God” (v.33) who gives “life”.  When we eat food we are nourished and sustained in life.  The difference with this bread is that Jesus gives not just “life” but “eternal life”.  Normal bread fills us up for a little while but then we need more to keep on living, but in contrast if we eat “the bread of God” then we shall “never hunger” (v.35).

I often feel it is a bit weird and disgusting that Jesus is talking about himself as food to be eaten.  When it says that the disciples said in response that “this is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (v. 60) I have to sympathise with them.

It is pretty offensive that a lamb is slaughtered so we can eat it, but it is even more offensive that Jesus is crucified so that we can eat him. There is no getting round that. You cannot prettify death, but Jesus’ death is the major event of the Gospels and Christianity as a whole so you cannot avoid talking about it.

But as well as an offensive image, there is a sense in which this is the most beautiful image you could imagine. It is a beautiful thing when someone empties their fridge to lay on a meal when you visit. It is an even more beautiful thing, although also more tragic, when a single mother goes out to work all the hours she can manage to put food on the table for her family. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever heard of that Jesus died so that everyone can have eternal life. That is why it is at the centre of what Christians believe.

It is interesting how Jesus defines life in John’s Gospel though. The image of food suggests that Jesus is just the source of life. However, later in the same Gospel he also says that he is “the life” itself (14:6).

Jesus explains that “eternal life” doesn’t mean just existing for a long time, living a life of leisure or having lots of stuff. Instead he defines it in terms of a relationship: “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ” (17:3).

If Jesus stayed dead to give us life, then that would be no kind of life at all. One of the best things about life is the people, but the very best thing, and source of all other good things, is knowing God and his Son, Jesus. The reason that Christians celebrate Easter is that Jesus was raised from the dead after 3 days being dead, so that we could have a relationship with him and his Father by his Spirit.

Jesus Christ is the feast that God the Father has put on for us, and his company at the table is what makes it worth looking forward to.

3. God invites people to the meal through people speaking about it and eating bread and drinking wine

God has provided a feast which he wants every single person to come and enjoy. But how will people come and enjoy it?

In the first place they need to know that there is feast to enjoy.

In the Parable of the Great Banquet Jesus says that the host sends out his servant to tell everyone that the banquet is ready to be enjoyed (14:17). In a similar way at the end of every Gospel Jesus says that the invitation to him is to go to all the nations. It is not just for the Jews, because God wants everyone to come, so the disciples will have to pass on the message to people all over the world (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:46-48; John 20:21).

This message is passed on by preaching and by the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, all of which have a fundamental role in the life of all Christians. When Paul preached he said he aimed to preach “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:22). Not advice, not rules on how to live and not philosophy, but an offer of a death to give us life. Jesus’ death is also prominent in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which originates from when, the night before he died, Jesus told the disciples to regularly eat bread and wine as his body and blood given for us.

When the bread is broken in two at the front of a church meeting, or when we hear someone talk about how Jesus died so that we could live knowing him, then we are invited to come and eat at the feast. We will only get tasters now, but when Jesus comes again then we will sit down to a great feast (as many other Bible passages talk about).

It is a sobering thought that if people do not receive the invitation they will not come to the feast. If we love people like God loves them then as his servants we will carry out the task Jesus gave to his disciples at the end of each Gospel and go to every corner of the earth to tell people invite people along. And that is what thousands of Christians have done, even if like Jesus it cost them their life.

4. Eating the meal by faith

This odd concept of eating Jesus, even though it is rich and meaning-packed, begs an important question: ‘how do we eat someone who is alive but we cannot see?’

Jesus makes clear what he means by eating in John 6:35-40. To eat him is to come to him (the feast) and we do that by believing in him.

In the Parable of the Great Banquet the invitation goes out to lots of people who come up with excuses not to come. But why would someone not want to come to a free party?

You only don’t accept an invitation because you believe that the alternative is better. If you don’t think you will enjoy the company, or that the food won’t be that good you make your excuses and don’t come. That is what lots of people do in Jesus’ parable. They thought that staying at home has more to offer than Jesus.

As any host the Father is offended by this. He has been the great giver, but people refuse to receive the gift. It is irrational and morally reprehensible, but people do that to other people and they do that to God. God is angry with those who despise his beloved Son.

The offer still stands until Jesus comes again though. Jesus says that he is offered “so that one may eat of it and not die” (John 6:50). It is important to remember that the reason people will die in hell is because they have chosen to refuse the invitation to eat. This seems mad, but people do have their reasons. They refuse the gift of salvation in Jesus because they that they have a better offer of salvation somewhere else.

That people do not hear about this great feast is a terrible tragedy and the fault of the church. That people hear about this great feast and yet believe it to be a poor offer not worth taking up is also a tragedy, but it is their fault not God’s.

The truth is stark, but if you don’t believe you don’t eat and you don’t live. But if you do believe Jesus is the bread of life he promises and you do eat of him visibly at the Lord’s Supper and by invisibly by listening to the Bible taught, then you will live and feast with him when he comes again.

Random thoughts on the tragedy of those that haven't heard

God's providence is incredible. On Thursday, after a week of Rob Bell posts hogging Google Reader, out of the blue I had a weighty conversation with someone really wrestling with this issue.

All the musing that I had been doing in relative leisure was put to use, but I finished realising the utter insufficiency of myself, my thoughts and my words for the task. For the last 2 days my mind has wandered back to the subject again and again. Here are some random reflections.

• I can't see how people who have not heard can be saved in the present because:
• Creation tells us about God's grace in giving us life, but not of forgiveness for us destroying that life.
• If salvation is a personal relationship, knowing God in Christ, then we can't be 'anonymous Christians'
• Any salvation without hearing ends up being legalistic, because it ceases to be reception of a gift and becomes a test to be good enough
• The Holy Spirit is found wherever the Son is found and the Son as Redeemer is found wherever the cross is preached. So there can be no regeneration without preaching.
• In principle I can see no problem with post-mortem repentance and faith in response to a revelation of the grace of God in Christ after death, for example through some kind of purgatory. The thing is that the whole NT and historic church says that Christ will "come again to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles Creed). In his first advent he did not come to condemn the world, but in his second advent he will come to condemn. That puts fear in my heart, as it did in Paul's (2 Cor 5:10-11), but it is unavoidable that "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb 9:27)
• Isn't it crazy... just plain crazy...that God has made the salvation of people dependant on them being told by the church? That's people like me! But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men", so although I can't imagine why he has left things to jars of clay, he is wiser than me in doing it.
• Any kind of inclusivist view on the salvation of those who haven't heard tends to cut out the church. Perhaps it is the lack of a strong ecclesiology and an emphasis on the "personal relationship" (by which we mean "individual relationship") with Jesus that has meant that we have forgotten why to have God as our Father we must have the Church as our mother (Cyprian).
• I really do not deserve to have heard when others haven't! This week, for the first time in years I've been shaken by something that begins to approach the thinking of war veterans on TV who ask "why did I get to live and they didn't?"
• The problem of the seeming unfairness of people being condemned for the sin of rejecting God the Creator only, when they never had chance to accept or reject God the Redeemer, is no greater than that of the seeming unfairness that God chose only some of those who did hear to have new hearts. It is a problem we cannot solve.
• The revelation of God's love is full. There is no more loving act that we can know than Jesus carrying the cross to Calvary and dying there. Yet people watched and hated him all the more for his love. Paul testifies to the same division as a result of his "ministry of reconciliation". Adam and Eve knew nothing but love and walked out on that relationship. No demonstration of God's love post-mortem is going to be more powerful than Christ on the cross.
• Have I ever really understood mission to my neighbour and the world as anything other than a superfluous "nice to have" even though it is essential and desperately needed? Suddenly reading John and Romans the need to invite and to to proclaim seems to be behind almost everything John and Paul are saying.

Tears of the Saints from AsiaLink HistoryMaker on Vimeo.

Why so many people become Christians at University

I was one of those people, and I'm aware that was purely down to God's grace. I'm not thankful enough.

But the human reasons I most often hear for the remarkable number of people who become Christians at uni is that students have been taken out of their old social structures and/or students are particularly intellectually open.

I have another idea based on my experience over last few years (and the Bible!).

There is one main way that we see God bringing people to himself and it is the main reason why so many people become Christians at university:

Passionate Christians living life in public.

There are plenty of passionate Christians of all ages; they are not limited to university. But post-university almost all of them do nothing other than work in the company of non-Christians. They spend their social time with other Christians and they only live with Christians (their spouse or housemates).

This is a personal observation for me because in a few months I may have to move from my house with my two wonderful Christian housemates. I'm really struggling at the moment to decide whether I should choose to live with Christians or non-Christians if I do move. I know how good it has been for my Spiritual growth that I have lived with the guys I have lived with. It has also been almost hassle-free. To live with non-Christians will be hard in comparison, but I can't avoid what I have observed and learnt about how the Gospel is spread. It is a challenge to seriously think and pray about. Although there are other ways of living life in public, a good example is having an particularly open home and sharing meals.

Longing for an advocate

How many times do we speak to people who are not yet Christians about how they long to be loved, and point out how that longing can be satisfied in God?

But I was struck by the passing comment in this video, that we all have a longing not just to be loved and told that we're loved, but for the person who loves us to tell the world that they love us.

Jesus is our great advocate to his Father and he is also our great advocate to the world when he comes again to reveal us to be the Father's beloved sons and to declare us to be his beloved bride.

Incidentally this shows that justification is at the heart of the Gospel of relational love - it is not just a one metaphor among many.

Four potential pitfalls in workplace evangelism

Four potential pitfalls in workplace evangelism:

1. Not making time
• To be with people
• To pray for people
2. Trying to do it in your own strength
3. Facts without love
4. A lifestyle that detracts from the message

From: Dom Hughes, Evangelism for Lawyers, MP3.

Living witnesses to the Gospel

What kind of life commends the Gospel?

My stock answer would be something like Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:6: "by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love". In short, by 'the good life'.

But that isn't the whole picture. As Paul himself says in that passage it is also by "great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labours, sleepless nights, hunger" (vv. 4-5). We commend the Gospel by suffering! I don't often hear that or say that, and I think that is because I'm a closet theologian of glory.

Sinning less is how I see us commending the Gospel. But that isn't a rounded New Testament picture. In many ways it is by appearing foolish, weak and bad in the world's eyes that the Gospel is most proclaimed. Not by seeming to be wise, strong and holy.

Although this does not flow seamlessly, PT Forsyth has his own problem with the idea that it is by sinning less that we commend the Gospel:

The difference between the Christian and the world is not that the world sins and the Christian does not. It suits the world to think that it is; because it offers a handy whip to scourge the Church’s consistency while resenting its demands. But such a distinction is no part of the Church's claim. Nor does it mark off the Christian’s worldly years from his life in Christ. A difference of that kind is merely in quantity — all the sin on the one side, none of it on the other. But the real difference (I must say often) is not in quantity; it is in quality. It is not in the number of sins, but in the attitude toward sin and the things called sin. It is in the man's sympathies, his affinities; it is in his conscience, his verdict on sin, his treatment of it — whether the world's or his own.

(p.109, God the Holy Father)

So both in respect of our physical lives, and our moral lives, it is also being put to death (in the physical body by others, and the moral 'body' by ourselves) that we point people to Christ.

As Paul said "We are...always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (4:8-10).

Thoughts on how to do evangelism

Listening to: Mozart: Cosi fan tutte (interspersed with preview of Thea Gilmore's live album on Amazon!)

[Here are some hasty thoughts on my philosophy on how to 'do' evangelism. Perhaps one day I'll turn it into something proper. As this has quite big implications for my life it is probably more important than almost anything else that turns up on this blog so please do point out anything amiss. Also as a by-the-way, I don't live up to this at all.]

A. HOW PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS

1. Prayer

Because evangelism is God's mission before it is ours, prayer should be the most important activity of evangelism. It is God alone that enables people to see the truth of the Gospel (2 Corinthians 4). The Lord's prayer includes within it the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God, and that grows as people become Christians (e.g. Luke 16:16) and its consummation is hastened by every person that is converted (2 Peter 3). Paul commands us to pray for everyone because of God's desire to save all people (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

2. Witness of the spoken word

But of course God uses means and faith comes by hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17; cf. 1 John 1:1-3 etc). It is God's word which converts people, because it never comes back without achieving its purpose (Isaiah 55:11). Our imperfect lives, and limited resources are never going to be up to the task of converting people. Even Jesus who lived the perfect life, and had the most impressive show-stopping stunts, 'proclaimed' the good news. The reason the spoken word has priority is that the Gospel is firstly something that happens outside of ourselves. While the Gospel is something that happens to us, and in us, it is firstly something done to and in Christ.

3. Witness of community of love

Jesus also teaches that people will belief in him because of the unity in love of the church community (John 17:23). People looking on the community of people preaching a message of forgiveness and love and will judge the truthfulness of that message on the basis of whether the people doing the preaching are living consistently with what they say. This is why Lesslie Newbigin described the church as the 'hermeneutic of the gospel'. Francis Schaeffer also saw the importance of this for evangelism and termed 'the observable love of true Christians for true Christians' as the 'final apologetic'. The good works of the community is a light for people to see and then believe in Christ (Matthew 5).

4. Witness of individuals living in hope

Christians should seek to do good in all of their lives though to point people to Christ (1 Peter 2:12). Employees should work hard and honestly for their employers to avoid people having contempt for the Gospel (1 Peter 2:15). Spouses by their conduct in marriage may convert their unbelieving partner (1 Peter 3:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:16). Sometimes this way of living will be seen in Christians in community by non-Christians but often it will just be individuals that they come into contact with. But they should notice that the individual Christian they know is not living for this world, but has a hope beyond it, and so they will want to know the reason (1 Peter 3:15).

5. Witness of miracles

It is easy to see in the Gospels and Acts how people believed in the Gospel because of the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles (John 10:25, Hebrews 2:3-4 etc). Even today many people do become Christians because of miracles.

B. IMPLICATIONS

1. Pray lots

Self explanatory really. But is prayer a central part of the church's life? And if so, is it prayer for the world or for our own personal needs? Tim Chester comments that in "the UK the traditional midweek church meeting often provided a focus for missionary prayer. But the house groups that have in many cases replaced it can all too easily become insular and self-regarding" (p.219, The Message of Prayer).

2. Call all the witnesses to the stand

Leaving aside the vexed issue of miracles, are in our evangelism are we integrating all the ways in which the gospel is witnessed to? Do our colleagues just see us living as individuals with hope but never as part of a community of love? Do people experience hear the message but never get to see the community of love in action?

I really like the Christianity Explored training graph of amount of Gospel Content v. depth of relationship. I think it was right that both should grow together. But I would make it a 3D graph with spoken word/individual relationships/corporate relationships all increasing together. As we get to know our colleagues more we should speak more about the Gospel, and they should get to know our church community more. And the same with all our networks of relationships (including church relationships).

In short, we should be questioning any activity which does not include all the witnesses to Jesus.

3. The prescription for the church and the world is the same

It is striking that what brings people to Christ, is the same thing as helps them to grow in him. It is as we hear the gospel that we grow stronger (Hebrews 5:11-14), it is as we are rebuked and encouraged by the church that we become more Christ-like (1 Thessalonians 5:11; Hebrews 10:25).

The problems for both non-Christians as well as Christians is unbelief, and the Gospel to believe is the same for both.

Because of that we don't need to have one set of activities for non-Christians and another for Christians. They can and should be the same. But that means we should have an eye to both Christians and non-Christians in all our meetings (as Paul says 1 Corinthians 14:23). Meetings should always be accessible but should also recognise that the felt needs of both Christians (e.g. rousing worship or traditional hymns etc) or non-Christians (e.g. a good moral environment for children) are not what we are here for. The church is in the business of preaching the gospel and bringing people under the Lordship of Christ.

4. Break down barriers to witness

What is it that stops us bringing all these witnesses onto the stand together for people to see and hear?

Perhaps we work in one area, live in another, and go to church in yet another so all three witnesses will never get together. Perhaps we only have time to build relationships with church people because we are too busy with church activities. Or perhaps we only have time to build relationships with colleagues, but not people at church, because we are too busy with work. Or perhaps the activities of church (organisationally and socially) are totally divorced from those of our family, friends and colleagues outside church. Or perhaps we are not being challenged from the pulpit to live the kind of radically unworldly lives that would turn heads.

I'd like to believe, but can't!

I have now met a few people who have:

1. been persuaded that Christianity is good news;
2. heard most of the evidential arguments for why we can trust the bible and why Christianity is coherent;
3. have prayed to God that they he would convince them he is real; and
4. still don't think that they are sure enough to commit their lives to Jesus.

So, my wise and learned readers, how do you help such people?

Perhaps there is no hard and fast advice. For some they may in reality be baulking at the cost, and need to be confronted with that. For others they may believe but be seeking an unreasonable level of certainty, and just need to be encouraged to live out the Christian life.... Perhaps there are other categories as well. In fact there are probably as many categories as there are people... But do you folks have any guidance?

Why did we start trying to excuse God?

Gerhard Forde wonders why "there were so few attempts to construct theodicies prior to the 18th century". He quotes Hannah Arendt as offering an answer: "When men could no longer praise, they turned their greatest conceptual efforts to justifying God and His Creation in theodicies" (pp.84-85, On Being a Theologian of the Cross).

I had a 20min conversation with a colleague at work today about why he wasn't a Christian. It was annoying because I had to cut it short because after 20min of just chatting it was about time we got back to some work. But it was also annoying because I did a really rubbish job of giving a reason for my hope... One of the many problems I see looking back on it was I failed to really praise God with what I said.

Lets pray God uses the foolish and sinful.

Sources of disquiet

Helmut Thielicke puts into words some frustrating feelings that I have about my experience of speaking to those who wouldn't call themselves Christians:

Aren't discussions, by their very nature, endless? Do they not go on spawning new discussions? Doesn't every serious discussion end with the conclusion that this is where we really have to begin, and that we have arrived not at a period but only at a colon? Isn't this constant beginning anew the sign that we are moving in a circle, a curved line that never ends? This is disquieting, for the circle is ultimately the symbol of noncommitment.

If one examines the conversations of Jesus, one will note that they always end in an arrest, in a sudden termination of the circular. Without exception they end in a "Hix Rhodus, his salta." ["Here you must leap or retreat"] They end at the steep escarpment of a message which cannot be avoided by any detour.

(p.x, I Believe: The Christian Creed)

From this he explains why it is important to teach the "forbidding wall" of the Apostles' Creed. That certain facts must be reckoned with and confessed. However, he is somewhat troubled by his own conclusion, and again puts into words a feeling I have, this time speaking to those who would call themselves Christians but don't seem to know what that means:

We must ask whether the creed is not a continual enumeration of some things which we must believe. Is it permissible to speak of faith at all in this additive way? Are we allowed to say anything more than the simple confession, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief"? Is there such a thing as a minimal content of belief, the possession of which gives me the right to call myself a disciple? Didn't the people to whom Jesus attributed great faith actually believe very little so far as content was concerned, and, what is more, was not that little - as in the case of the woman with the hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20 ff.) - actually very questionable?

(p. xii, ibid)

... lots of questions which I share. No answers!

Evangelism-driven legalism

Peter Dray has just posted a typically pastorally perceptive post on what he terms 'Evangelism-driven legalism'. You should read it.

In it he shares his concerns about quite how we sometimes argue like this:

• Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
• Therefore make an effort to impress non-believers by your behaviour - this might take various forms: be outgoing, be generous at work, arrive early at church to chat to newcomers... and so on.

I think it worth thinking about at length. Because the argument is correct and true, but yet it so often does lead people to a place of crushing legalism. As Peter rightly points out the only way we can teach this truth, without it leading to nasty consequences, is by always teaching it in a context soaked in grace.

One thing Peter only touches on, but I think flows out of this, are the consequences for what we mean by attractive holy lives. As sinners, holiness is as much about how we react to our sin, as how we avoid sinning. What is more attractive than someone who is open about their failings, but who keeps trying to change; someone who is pained by the consequences of their sin, but always full of confident joy that they have been forgiven?

The fate of the Unevangelised

I hesitate to post on this. It is not something you should talk about lightly and without feeling the weight of what you are discussing. We are all aware of it and so usually when Christian's are asked about it they tend to be tentative in their response and emphasize how we don't know the fate of anyone, and it is not our place to judge. Instead we rightly emphasise that we know the one who judges and he is just and merciful and we want to leave it with him.

Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the reason why we have become uncertain about this question is because we have forgotten two points of massive importance. You may want to disagree with the two points I make, but I think it is helpful at least to identify that our response to these two questions determine your answer to a question about the fate of the unevangelised.

1. Creation only communicates the law and not the Gospel

The law is true knowledge of God, and Creation communicates this to us. It presents us with God as he is loving, kind, just and powerful. However, it just presents us with him, and tells us nothing of how we should relate to him - especially as we then look at ourselves. Because of this we create our own ways of relating to him. Our own 'gospels'. We may ignore him because we cannot imagine how we could relate to him. We may bring him close by worshipping created things. We may try and work our way to a place where we can approach him by good works or acts of contemplation. All of these work only by suppressing the knowledge of God that we have through Creation. They work by downplaying the demands of the law, or making them the 'gospel'. Either way we are left without excuse.

Because the distinction between law and Gospel has been forgotten in much contemporary Christianity, we think there is only one kind of knowledge of God. Because of this we merge or confuse law and Gospel and make them both communicated through creation. Therefore the hypothetical unevangelised man alone on an island in the Pacific has the same kind of knowledge as the well-taught Christian in England, just a different amount. In fact there is not just a quantitative difference between the knowledge of God, but a qualitative difference as well.

Classically, when considering the difference between general and special revelation we go to Calvin's Institutes. We would benefit from listening to Luther as well:

Everyone naturally has a general idea that there is a God [...] But someone may object: "If all people know God, why does Paul say that before the proclamation of the gospel the Galatians did not know God?" I reply that there is a twofold knowledge of God [duplex est cognitio Dei], general and particular. All people have the general knowledge, namely that God exists, that he has created heaven and earth, that he is righteous, that he punishes the wicked, etc. But people do not know what God proposes concerning us, what he wants to give and to do, so that he might deliver us from sin and death, and to save us - which is the proper and true knowledge of God [propria et vera est cognitio Dei]. Thus it can happen that someone's face may be familiar to me but I do not really know him, because I do not know his intentions.

(from 1535 Lectures on Galatians, in p.99, The Christian Theology Reader ed by A McGrath)

2. The Holy Spirit can only be received through the specific word of the Gospel

Constantly we are tempted to have the persons of the Trinity acting separately from one another. One way in which we do this is through a concept of a free-floating Spirit who acts apart from the Word - that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course all of creation is sustained by God's Word and the action of his Spirit. In that sense the Spirit does operate even where the Gospel is not preached but he does not indwell believers apart from it.

In what way, then, does the Holy Spirit come to us? How and in what way does he impart himself? The Spirit works faith in the human being inwardly, but never apart from means, never without the external "physical Word" [...]

Luther would formulate the central thesis for his understanding of the Holy Spirit as "The Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel." This means: although the Holy Spirit cannot be apprehended, he is not an incomprehensible fluidity, but comes in a clearly specific Word that can be heard [...]

If the Holy Spirit calls only "through the gospel," but the gospel is gospel only as it is distinguished from the law, then the distinction between law and gospel is decisive with respect to the teaching about the Holy Spirit, about pneumatology, as well. Thus the work of the Spirit is, first of all, to sharpen the law and to bring about God's judgment against sin; only then does the Spirit work through the second and final Word of God, the gospel, in that he forgives sin and creates faith [...]

Whoever agrees today with Luther's understanding of the Holy Spirit, according to which he binds himself to the external Word, and is in agreement with it, muct be ready for the hard task of a fundamental critique of modern subjectivism.

(pp.242-251, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation).