Christianity in America is plagued with multitudes of religious lost – people who are convinced they are saved, but they bear no spiritual fruit. Their lack of fruit demonstrates that they are indeed still lost. (Matt. 3:10, Matt. 7:19). This is a bitter truth that every Christian in America needs to acknowledge before they will even have a chance to help those around them. Just as important, we must identify the root cause that is filling churches with many false converts. This root cause is easy to see: churches have silently replaced the Biblical gospel with watered-down, easy-on-the-ears, but heretical messages. This problem is maintained by an anti-biblical church structure that perfectly houses the religious lost that it creates. This is no coincidence. It's a well-planned system that could only come from the mind of Satan. I've talked a bit about church structure in previous posts. Now, I want to take some time to expose the heresies that are all too common and then discuss how to minister to others in this type of environment.
We'll start with the basics. Among other places, the gospel is defined in 1 Corinth. 15:1-4. The message is that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. Great news! So far so good – practically everyone gets that part right, even cults. Now, our response to the gospel message, or how we receive it, is by repenting of our sins and putting our faith in Christ (Mark 1:15, Acts 3:19, Acts 26:20). Adding or removing anything anything from the gospel makes it different, makes it 'another gospel', which is condemned in the strongest language (Gal. 1:6-8). This is how heresies are born. You take the gospel and add the keeping of the OT law, good works, baptism, etc. Or, in the case of fundamentalists and evangelicals, you add a sinner's prayer or remove repentance.
The Sinner's prayer is a heresy which promises that you can be saved by asking God for forgiveness or “asking Jesus into your heart”, typically by praying a modeled prayer. Let's be clear. You will not find these ideas anywhere in the Bible. Sinners are always called to repentance and faith. There's nothing wrong with expressing repentance toward God in prayer (Luke 18:13), but the error comes when people are assured that they are saved when and if they recite the prayer. In other words, this modern heresy promises salvation as a result of reciting a ritual prayer, not by repentance and faith in Christ. To make my point, let's look at an example developed and used by Billy Graham published on the Billy Graham Library's website (from the section 'prayer' at the bottom of the page):
Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior.
A few lines after this it goes on to mis-apply Romans 10:13 to suggest that anyone who prayed this prayer is now saved. It all sounds good, doesn't it? But faith and repentance are about actually trusting in Jesus and turning from your sin, not just saying that you will. To suggest that this prayer is sufficient for salvation is to accept lip service where Christ demands the substance.
The sinner's prayer can also be used without suggesting that it saves, but why would you? The prayer does nothing to help bring them to salvation, they need to repent. If the repenting sinner wants to pray, let him, but don't push it. Putting undue emphasis on a prayer can make the issues unclear, and you can make someone believe the prayer is important for their salvation even without explicitly saying so. This is especially true today. Maybe you don't tell the sinner a prayer will save him, but he has probably already heard that from several other pastors throughout his life. So, when you try to witness to that false convert and place the same emphasis on the prayer, he'll assume you're in the same boat. In short, using a sinner's prayer does nothing good, and is almost guaranteed to do some harm. So, if you really don't believe that a sinner's prayer saves, then stop doing it.
The "Romans Road" and "four spiritual laws" methods of sharing the gospel exemplify another type of heresy popular in conservative churches. The main problem of this heresy is that the gospel is proclaimed with little/no discussion of sin, and the need for the sinner to repent is either downplayed or neglected entirely. Yet, in the Bible, God makes it clear that repentance is absolutely necessary for salvation (Matt. 7:21, Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19, Acts 26:20). Let's look at some specific examples of this heresy.
The four spiritual laws can be found on the campus crusade website. In short, the four spiritual laws neglect the Biblical focus of sin/justice/hell/repentance/new birth and focus instead on “God has a wonderful plan for your life...you need Jesus so you can experience God's plan.” Sin is presented as a mere inconvenience that prevents the flow of blessings and is never properly defined. Repentance is almost completely neglected. Sure, there's a little cartoon at the end about Christ-directed vs. self-directed life, but their description of sin and repentance is so vague that it is practically useless to any sinner. Contrast this with the preaching of John the baptist, who called out specific sins and told men exactly what they needed to do (Luke 3:8-18). It wasn't just John, Jesus and the apostles did the same thing throughout the NT. So, instead of using the four spiritual laws, use God's laws (the 10 commandments are a great place to start) and show sinners their guilt, that they deserve judgement and hell, and that they need to repent and trust in the savior that died for them.
The Romans road is a very similar approach. Though older and more traditional, it's no better than the four spiritual laws. This approach relies on quoting several verses from Romans without their context. There are some variations, but let's look at the Sword of the Lord's website – a popular fundie resource. The shallow presentation of sin is similar to the four spiritual laws, but the Romans road is even worse because it mischaracterizes the nature of sin. At least the evangelicals talk about sin as a personal choice. In the Romans road, the fundies just talk about how you inherited Adam's sin nature. Too bad. How exactly are you supposed to repent of a sin nature? This description misleads sinners from gaining any concrete understanding of their personal, willful sins. The reality is that they must repent of their personal sins, not just the concept of sin, nor a supposed sin nature. Of course, they wouldn't know that anyway, because the Romans road doesn't even mention repentance at all. Therefore, the preacher robs the sinner of information they need to be saved. This road is just a spiritual dead end.
Now, given the nature and pervasiveness of these major errors, how can you minister to those around you? Realize that the number of religious lost is astounding, more than anyone would like to admit. From years of experience in preaching the gospel one-on-one, I estimate that less than 2% of Americans can give even passable responses to basic questions about the gospel, salvation, and the new birth – things that are necessary for salvation. If you don't believe me, approach some strangers or those lazy people at your church and ask them the following questions:
1) “Can you tell me how to get to heaven?” Probably the best response you'll get on this one is “believe in Jesus”. While not necessarily wrong, this answer is awfully incomplete. They should show some understanding of repentance in their answer to the rest of these questions. If not, they fail the test. Anyone who claims to have been saved for longer than a month certainly should be able to use the word “repent” without prompting.
2) “How is it that Jesus is able to save you?” they should have at least a basic understanding of substitutionary atonement – You are guilty of breaking God's law, but Jesus died in your place.
3) “What changed when you were saved?” Honestly, they should light up at this point. Every real Christian will have at least one story to tell that is very dear to them: loss of desire for formerly loved sins, a new hunger for the Bible, unexplained love for Christians, etc. They should be able to mention something like this which would demonstrate that they had a very real transition from darkness to light. If they have to think about it, you're looking at a lost religious person.
4) “So what are you doing for the Lord these days?” Maybe they're not making the best use of their time, but they should be doing something. Going to church, staying away from sin, reading the Bible, etc. doesn't count. That's no-brainer stuff that we do for ourselves. A person who does nothing for Christ is demonstrating that they do not really know Him (Matt. 3:10, Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 25:23-30). Can someone recognize their sin and guilt, be saved from death and hell, then move on and not sacrifice and serve their Lord out of love? I don't buy it. There should be a desire to help and reach out to others that manifests itself somehow, ideally by sharing the gospel with others. Expect others to put up strong resistance to this one, as it cuts to the core of what is important.
As mentioned before, familiarity with the major errors that infect churches today is critical in order to minister to others. If you aren't willing to recognize the problems with a sinner's prayer or Romans road, you'll never ask the hard questions that are necessary to get through to the religious lost. This is not just theory. I seriously challenge you to ask the above questions to people around you. If they can't answer these simple questions about the gospel and the new birth, then it is evidence that they do not know Biblical repentance and faith. Treat them like a lost person until they prove otherwise. Specifically, share the Biblical gospel with them. Take away their hope in their superficial religious rituals, declare their need for repentance, and demand that they show the fruits of repentance. Be warned though, this simple Biblical practice will likely cause your friends and your church to turn away from you. But more importantly, you will have a chance to make a difference in their lives, and you will be following in the footsteps of Christ.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Offering criticism, being offended, and the idol of emotionalism
It's no secret that Americans love to get offended. I suspect that anyone over 20 with a regular job would surely acknowledge this. Unfortunately, like much of American culture, it has also infected Christians and churches. We have accepted the lie that feelings and emotions are more important than truth. Here, I will endeavor to show from Scripture when rebuke should be offered, how it should be received, and how to respond when offended.
Offering rebuke/criticism
Though often referred to as criticism, I prefer to use the Biblical term 'rebuke'. The words are more or less interchangeable though. Rebuke is defined as “an expression of sharp disapproval or criticism”, so I think it's fair to say that rebuke is an even stronger word than criticism. The Bible also uses other words with similar meaning: reprove, reproof, and upbraid. I mention these different words because I can only offer a short treatment of the topic here. I suggest that anyone concerned with having a Biblical view of criticism/rebuke should do a search on these words (blueletterbible.com is my favorite tool) and observe how they are used throughout Scripture. I'll offer a few sample passages to make my points.
Offering rebuke/criticism
Though often referred to as criticism, I prefer to use the Biblical term 'rebuke'. The words are more or less interchangeable though. Rebuke is defined as “an expression of sharp disapproval or criticism”, so I think it's fair to say that rebuke is an even stronger word than criticism. The Bible also uses other words with similar meaning: reprove, reproof, and upbraid. I mention these different words because I can only offer a short treatment of the topic here. I suggest that anyone concerned with having a Biblical view of criticism/rebuke should do a search on these words (blueletterbible.com is my favorite tool) and observe how they are used throughout Scripture. I'll offer a few sample passages to make my points.
- Rebuke is loving, and we are commanded to rebuke those in error (Lev. 19:17, Prov. 27:5, Luke 17:3).
- Scripture is intended to be used for reproof (2 Tim. 3:16).
- Reproof is intended to grant wisdom to the hearer (Prov. 29:15)
It is easy to see that rebuke is unequivocally seen as a positive thing in the Scriptures. At this point, it is fair to ask how harsh our language can/should be when rebuking someone. There are many examples, but I'll choose Matt. 11:20-24. Here, Jesus is described as upbraiding (synonymous with rebuke) these cities. You should look up the whole passage, but I'll point out some key phrases: “You shalt be brought down to hell”, and “Woe unto you”. Woe means, “grief, sorrow, misery, calamity, a curse”. Pretty hard language I'd say. Yet, this was from Jesus who always did things perfectly. So, It's fair to conclude that even sharp language can be appropriate in a rebuke. Obviously, we don't always have to be this hard, but it's at least “fair game”. In practice, the severity of the rebuke should be appropriate for the severity of the offense/error.
Ok, so Jesus uses harsh language to rebuke unbelievers and the religious lost. Are disciples (fellow Christians) any different? Let's look at some more examples. In Mark 8:33, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him 'Satan'. In Gal. 2:11-15, Paul confronts Peter and publicly points out his hypocrisy. In Titus 1:12-13, Paul agrees with the assessment that the Cretians were “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” and instructs Titus to sharply rebuke them because of this tendency. Again, we are to speak the truth in love and try to match the sharpness of the rebuke to the severity of the offense, but it's clear that harsh language is also “fair game” when rebuking other Christians.
Often, those who offer rebuke are told they have a 'critical spirit'. Is such a judgment appropriate? Almost certainly not. As we showed earlier, the Bible always holds rebuke in a positive light. There are only a few caveats: don't rebuke hypocritically, and make sure your judgments are righteous. As long as you follow these simple instructions, you have no need to worry when someone accuses you of a critical spirit. This term is only thrown around by those who refuse to hear rebuke.
There's one other guideline the Bible gives for rebuke: don't rebuke a scorner or a fool (Prov. 9:8). Interestingly, the response that people have to a given rebuke is also given as a sign of wisdom or foolishness. The wise hear and consider rebuke, but fools refuse (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).
What about offending people?
Certainly there are times at which we must speak the truth no matter how it is received. At the same time, we don't want to give offense unnecessarily. How do we make this judgment call? Let's again look at some examples from our Master. In Matthew 15:1-15 we see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees. At the end of the discussion, his disciples approach him and say (if I may have a little liberty to paraphrase) “Hey, don't you know you offended the Pharisees?” Jesus' response is basically,“I don't care”. Actually, he even continues on with the sharp rebuke, calling them “blind leaders of the blind”. In the context here, he's talking to them about their false traditions, hypocrisy, and failure to honor God's commands. Another instance of Jesus offending people can be seen in John 6. This time, Jesus offends many of his disciples because of his hard teaching. Yet another example can be found in Mark 6. Here, Jesus offends many of his family and friends because he preaches the gospel to them. Apparently, they wanted Jesus to be nicer to them because they were friends.
From these passages, we can conclude that when it comes to offering a Scriptural rebuke, teaching Scripture, and preaching the gospel, you should not worry about who gets offended. Basically, any time truth is at stake, there is no Biblical precedent for holding back to avoid offending others. People who get offended do so at their own peril. Again, one who gets offended and refuses to hear reproof is only demonstrating their foolishness (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).
Yet, there are also situations in which it is not right to offend others. Romans 14 lays out a good example of this. Regarding diet, feasts, and holidays, we are not to offend or judge one another. Why? It's because these things are insignificant, having no eternal value (Rom. 14:17). As we have seen above, in instances where someone does violate righteousness or truth, it is not only allowed, but commanded that we rebuke others. To refuse to rebuke where it's needed is to disobey God and to exalt feelings and emotions over truth.
How about speaking the truth in love? (Eph. 4:15) This is certainly an important command to follow. If you offer a sharp rebuke, are you violating this command? Absolutely not. As we saw in the first section, Jesus delivered sharp rebukes to lost people and to Christians. Yet, no one doubts that Jesus was also loving in delivering these rebukes. So, we conclude that this passage is more about motivations than what is said. If you deliver a sharp rebuke because you see your brothers in error and you wish for them to be blameless before the Lord, then rest assured that you are speaking the truth in love just as Jesus did.
What should I do if I am offended?
The process for dealing with offenses is found in Matt. 18, but before getting into the practice, I want to offer a few other suggestions that should be done before taking any action. First, calm down, listen, and establish the facts of the case (James 1:19-20). Far too many people get offended and respond in anger. This does nothing productive and only makes you look silly. As James says, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." Next, analyze the facts and make a judgment call. Be as objective as you can (Eph. 5:15).
If you determine that it is appropriate for you to be offended, then begin to take action as outlined in Matt. 18. First, talk out your differences with each other and try to resolve them (v.15). Do not simply demand an apology. Throughout this process, you must consider that you may be wrong to take offense. In the later steps of the process (v. 16, 17), the extra witnesses and the church are there to establish every word and fact. In other words, they are judging between the two, who is right and who is wrong! This stands in direct contrast to common practice, in which the one who causes offense is assumed to be the troublemaker. Often, this is not the case, but people take offense when someone points out their disobedience. “I'm offended” replaces the correct response: questioning, self-examination, and Bible study.
Since this idea may be shocking to some, let me give a personal example. A few years back, I partnered with another man from church to do some door-to-door evangelism. I hadn't been out with this man before, so I was a little bit on edge. While we were out, he said some things that pushed on a doctrinal 'sore spot' caused by recent events, and it made me question if his doctrine was significantly different than mine. Naturally, this bothered me, so I asked him to sit down and discuss this with me. As I told him my frustration and asked him questions, it became clear that the disagreement was caused partly by some imprecise language and partly by me being on edge. I offered him some suggestions on how to phrase his thoughts more precisely and apologized for getting agitated with him prematurely. Some might think this would create awkwardness and tension between he and I, but what happened was quite the opposite. Our honesty and directness with each other created a lot of mutual respect, which cemented a friendship that was only tenuous beforehand.
This brings me to my final point. If you're offended, you should absolutely examine if you're right or not, but if the offense just won't go away, and especially if it turns into bitterness or resentment, you must talk about it. I've seen far too many friendships ruined because someone took offense and bottled it up. The other person wasn't even aware that a problem existed until it was too late. Not only does this cause problems in practice, it is also sin. As the old saying goes, honesty is the best policy.
In conclusion, though there is a stong tendency toward emotionalism (the exaltation of feelings/emotions) over truth, Christians must be diligent to guard against this disease. The preventative treatment is a healthy dose of Bible reading, and the vaccine is a directed Biblical study of rebukes, reproofs, and wisdom. This article has touched slightly on several different aspects of the problem, but it is up to the reader to study diligently, to be “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15)
Ok, so Jesus uses harsh language to rebuke unbelievers and the religious lost. Are disciples (fellow Christians) any different? Let's look at some more examples. In Mark 8:33, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him 'Satan'. In Gal. 2:11-15, Paul confronts Peter and publicly points out his hypocrisy. In Titus 1:12-13, Paul agrees with the assessment that the Cretians were “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” and instructs Titus to sharply rebuke them because of this tendency. Again, we are to speak the truth in love and try to match the sharpness of the rebuke to the severity of the offense, but it's clear that harsh language is also “fair game” when rebuking other Christians.
Often, those who offer rebuke are told they have a 'critical spirit'. Is such a judgment appropriate? Almost certainly not. As we showed earlier, the Bible always holds rebuke in a positive light. There are only a few caveats: don't rebuke hypocritically, and make sure your judgments are righteous. As long as you follow these simple instructions, you have no need to worry when someone accuses you of a critical spirit. This term is only thrown around by those who refuse to hear rebuke.
There's one other guideline the Bible gives for rebuke: don't rebuke a scorner or a fool (Prov. 9:8). Interestingly, the response that people have to a given rebuke is also given as a sign of wisdom or foolishness. The wise hear and consider rebuke, but fools refuse (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).
What about offending people?
Certainly there are times at which we must speak the truth no matter how it is received. At the same time, we don't want to give offense unnecessarily. How do we make this judgment call? Let's again look at some examples from our Master. In Matthew 15:1-15 we see Jesus rebuking the Pharisees. At the end of the discussion, his disciples approach him and say (if I may have a little liberty to paraphrase) “Hey, don't you know you offended the Pharisees?” Jesus' response is basically,“I don't care”. Actually, he even continues on with the sharp rebuke, calling them “blind leaders of the blind”. In the context here, he's talking to them about their false traditions, hypocrisy, and failure to honor God's commands. Another instance of Jesus offending people can be seen in John 6. This time, Jesus offends many of his disciples because of his hard teaching. Yet another example can be found in Mark 6. Here, Jesus offends many of his family and friends because he preaches the gospel to them. Apparently, they wanted Jesus to be nicer to them because they were friends.
From these passages, we can conclude that when it comes to offering a Scriptural rebuke, teaching Scripture, and preaching the gospel, you should not worry about who gets offended. Basically, any time truth is at stake, there is no Biblical precedent for holding back to avoid offending others. People who get offended do so at their own peril. Again, one who gets offended and refuses to hear reproof is only demonstrating their foolishness (Prov. 10:17, 12:1, 13:1, 15:5, 15:32).
Yet, there are also situations in which it is not right to offend others. Romans 14 lays out a good example of this. Regarding diet, feasts, and holidays, we are not to offend or judge one another. Why? It's because these things are insignificant, having no eternal value (Rom. 14:17). As we have seen above, in instances where someone does violate righteousness or truth, it is not only allowed, but commanded that we rebuke others. To refuse to rebuke where it's needed is to disobey God and to exalt feelings and emotions over truth.
How about speaking the truth in love? (Eph. 4:15) This is certainly an important command to follow. If you offer a sharp rebuke, are you violating this command? Absolutely not. As we saw in the first section, Jesus delivered sharp rebukes to lost people and to Christians. Yet, no one doubts that Jesus was also loving in delivering these rebukes. So, we conclude that this passage is more about motivations than what is said. If you deliver a sharp rebuke because you see your brothers in error and you wish for them to be blameless before the Lord, then rest assured that you are speaking the truth in love just as Jesus did.
What should I do if I am offended?
The process for dealing with offenses is found in Matt. 18, but before getting into the practice, I want to offer a few other suggestions that should be done before taking any action. First, calm down, listen, and establish the facts of the case (James 1:19-20). Far too many people get offended and respond in anger. This does nothing productive and only makes you look silly. As James says, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." Next, analyze the facts and make a judgment call. Be as objective as you can (Eph. 5:15).
If you determine that it is appropriate for you to be offended, then begin to take action as outlined in Matt. 18. First, talk out your differences with each other and try to resolve them (v.15). Do not simply demand an apology. Throughout this process, you must consider that you may be wrong to take offense. In the later steps of the process (v. 16, 17), the extra witnesses and the church are there to establish every word and fact. In other words, they are judging between the two, who is right and who is wrong! This stands in direct contrast to common practice, in which the one who causes offense is assumed to be the troublemaker. Often, this is not the case, but people take offense when someone points out their disobedience. “I'm offended” replaces the correct response: questioning, self-examination, and Bible study.
Since this idea may be shocking to some, let me give a personal example. A few years back, I partnered with another man from church to do some door-to-door evangelism. I hadn't been out with this man before, so I was a little bit on edge. While we were out, he said some things that pushed on a doctrinal 'sore spot' caused by recent events, and it made me question if his doctrine was significantly different than mine. Naturally, this bothered me, so I asked him to sit down and discuss this with me. As I told him my frustration and asked him questions, it became clear that the disagreement was caused partly by some imprecise language and partly by me being on edge. I offered him some suggestions on how to phrase his thoughts more precisely and apologized for getting agitated with him prematurely. Some might think this would create awkwardness and tension between he and I, but what happened was quite the opposite. Our honesty and directness with each other created a lot of mutual respect, which cemented a friendship that was only tenuous beforehand.
This brings me to my final point. If you're offended, you should absolutely examine if you're right or not, but if the offense just won't go away, and especially if it turns into bitterness or resentment, you must talk about it. I've seen far too many friendships ruined because someone took offense and bottled it up. The other person wasn't even aware that a problem existed until it was too late. Not only does this cause problems in practice, it is also sin. As the old saying goes, honesty is the best policy.
In conclusion, though there is a stong tendency toward emotionalism (the exaltation of feelings/emotions) over truth, Christians must be diligent to guard against this disease. The preventative treatment is a healthy dose of Bible reading, and the vaccine is a directed Biblical study of rebukes, reproofs, and wisdom. This article has touched slightly on several different aspects of the problem, but it is up to the reader to study diligently, to be “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15)
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Warning to American churches from Colossians 2
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Col. 2:18,23)
As I was reading this the other day, I couldn't help but notice the modern application. One of the main themes of Colossians, especially in chapter 2, is a warning about false teachers: spiritual leaders who will lead you astray. There are some specific characteristics given. I'll point out a few in v.18-23. First, they deal in voluntary (put-on, false) humility and superficial/arbitrary worship (v.18, 23). They work in rituals, ordinances, and give commands not given by God (v. 20-22). They do not hold forth Christ as the Head of the church, and therefore prevent the body from being knit together with each other and with Christ (v.19). Let's break down these 3 characteristics and give examples that are commonplace in American churches.
Voluntary humility is often displayed in churches by a 'humble' leader who publicly declares that God should get all the glory, but they secretly love the attention they get and cling to over-reaching authority. Here's a few common signs of this false humility: 1) A name is not sufficient. It's socially awkward to address them without a title. 2) They have the authoritative opinion when it comes to doctrine. They may declare that Scripture is the ultimate authority, but in practice, different positions are dismissed without consideration, even if argued from a sound Biblical position. 3) They run the whole show all the time, even teaching on unfamiliar subjects when other members of the body are more qualified and experienced.
Rituals and commandments of men can also be plainly found even in conservative baptist/Bible churches. This is seen most clearly when it comes to church polity. It merely takes a cursory reading of the New Testament to see that church was intended to be very different than it is now. For example, the NT church had multiple elders, met mostly in houses, and meetings were for prayer, fellowship and teaching (not evangelistic preaching). I once asked a friend who is now in full-time church leadership why the church continues to run as it does, in clear contrast to the Biblical example. He acknowledged the difference and only said that the Biblical example was OK for the early church, but we've decided to do things differently now. In other words, “Who cares what the Bible says about how to run church when we can make up our own rules!” It's hard to imagine a more clear example of 'commandments of men'.
Lack of focus on Christ is also a major symptom of the typical church. Imagine that you take someone off the street and show them a few typical meetings at your church. After they carefully watch 10 hours worth of footage, you ask them, “who is the head of this church?” You repeat this experiment 500 times. Invariably, they all point to the guy at the front that did all the talking. This is another situation where doctrinal statements do not match practice, but actions speak louder than words. How about the rest of the body? Is each member being knit together with each other in real and practical ways? In my experience, this certainly can happen in church, but only apart from or in spite of what goes on during the meeting – very rarely does this happen during a church service. The false head takes all the focus, preventing the knitting together of the body.
Isn't it sad? The description of false teachers in Col. 2 is being played out weekly in conservative churches across America. Our churches look more like the false teachers described in Col. 2 than they do the churches described in Acts! Most of this is being done by well-meaning pastors who aren't trying to deceive. Shouldn't this tell us that the system is set up wrong?
“Well,” you say, “can it really be so bad? Sure, most of this is true about my church, but I feel really good when I'm there. I enjoy the preaching. I laugh, cry, and learn something about God. The music speaks to my heart.” In other words, you're satisfied with the superficial religion? You will have “a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body”, but what does it satisfy? Is there any tangible fruit, or merely an emotional response?
So what's the remedy? Get away from the shows and rituals and embrace the basics of Christianity – preaching the gospel to the lost and discipling Christians. Dr. Dave recently wrote a good article on this topic which can be found on his blog.
As I was reading this the other day, I couldn't help but notice the modern application. One of the main themes of Colossians, especially in chapter 2, is a warning about false teachers: spiritual leaders who will lead you astray. There are some specific characteristics given. I'll point out a few in v.18-23. First, they deal in voluntary (put-on, false) humility and superficial/arbitrary worship (v.18, 23). They work in rituals, ordinances, and give commands not given by God (v. 20-22). They do not hold forth Christ as the Head of the church, and therefore prevent the body from being knit together with each other and with Christ (v.19). Let's break down these 3 characteristics and give examples that are commonplace in American churches.
Voluntary humility is often displayed in churches by a 'humble' leader who publicly declares that God should get all the glory, but they secretly love the attention they get and cling to over-reaching authority. Here's a few common signs of this false humility: 1) A name is not sufficient. It's socially awkward to address them without a title. 2) They have the authoritative opinion when it comes to doctrine. They may declare that Scripture is the ultimate authority, but in practice, different positions are dismissed without consideration, even if argued from a sound Biblical position. 3) They run the whole show all the time, even teaching on unfamiliar subjects when other members of the body are more qualified and experienced.
Rituals and commandments of men can also be plainly found even in conservative baptist/Bible churches. This is seen most clearly when it comes to church polity. It merely takes a cursory reading of the New Testament to see that church was intended to be very different than it is now. For example, the NT church had multiple elders, met mostly in houses, and meetings were for prayer, fellowship and teaching (not evangelistic preaching). I once asked a friend who is now in full-time church leadership why the church continues to run as it does, in clear contrast to the Biblical example. He acknowledged the difference and only said that the Biblical example was OK for the early church, but we've decided to do things differently now. In other words, “Who cares what the Bible says about how to run church when we can make up our own rules!” It's hard to imagine a more clear example of 'commandments of men'.
Lack of focus on Christ is also a major symptom of the typical church. Imagine that you take someone off the street and show them a few typical meetings at your church. After they carefully watch 10 hours worth of footage, you ask them, “who is the head of this church?” You repeat this experiment 500 times. Invariably, they all point to the guy at the front that did all the talking. This is another situation where doctrinal statements do not match practice, but actions speak louder than words. How about the rest of the body? Is each member being knit together with each other in real and practical ways? In my experience, this certainly can happen in church, but only apart from or in spite of what goes on during the meeting – very rarely does this happen during a church service. The false head takes all the focus, preventing the knitting together of the body.
Isn't it sad? The description of false teachers in Col. 2 is being played out weekly in conservative churches across America. Our churches look more like the false teachers described in Col. 2 than they do the churches described in Acts! Most of this is being done by well-meaning pastors who aren't trying to deceive. Shouldn't this tell us that the system is set up wrong?
“Well,” you say, “can it really be so bad? Sure, most of this is true about my church, but I feel really good when I'm there. I enjoy the preaching. I laugh, cry, and learn something about God. The music speaks to my heart.” In other words, you're satisfied with the superficial religion? You will have “a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body”, but what does it satisfy? Is there any tangible fruit, or merely an emotional response?
So what's the remedy? Get away from the shows and rituals and embrace the basics of Christianity – preaching the gospel to the lost and discipling Christians. Dr. Dave recently wrote a good article on this topic which can be found on his blog.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
A goal worth living and dying for
Many Christians and churches today have rightly identified the plague of apathy that is presently gripping churchgoers across the nation. Any denomination, conservative or squishy, every church seems to have the same problem. It's almost impossible to get anyone excited about Christian ministry these days. In response, admonitions to action ring out from pounded pulpits in every corner of the country. Churches redouble their efforts to disciple their people (not a bad idea in general, but often done poorly) thinking that it must be a lack of discipleship. Church growth 'experts' conduct surveys and decide to add flashing lights and cool music to the old church programs. Yet, the state of things remains largely unchanged. Why? Why are people so cold? Why don't any of these proposed solutions work? What is the root problem? I suggest that there's one underlying cause that nobody is talking about.
Before I get into my main point, it's worthwhile to say that much of the coldness is due to many church member simply being unconverted. Lost people aren't going to get excited about the Lord's work, nor will they be willing to give up much of their life to be involved. This is a huge problem and one that must be addressed with urgency. People need to repent and live for Christ, and churches need to demand repentance from their members and boot those that live in sin and apathy. It is an easy fix, if only people would follow the Lord's directions. I'd like to move on though, not because this is unimportant, but because I want to focus on the more subtle problem facing real Christians.
So, for the real Christians, the truly born-again, why is it generally hard to get excited about Christian ministry? I suggest that it's because most churches are operated in such a way that they replace Christ's objectives with poor substitutes. Jesus outlined his big picture for his disciples: a self-sacrificing life in service to the gospel (Mark 8:34-35). How exciting! We get to be a part of God's master plan! We get to join him in the work of saving souls! We get to form relationships more dear than family as we disciple people and teach them to follow Christ! These things are all truly grand and noble goals, worth living and dying for.
Yet, on any given Sunday, these are not the goals generally laid before the people. While churches in theory hold to the above goals, the goals in practice are much different: We want you to be a greeter. Can you serve in AWANA? Billy has a cold and needs someone to watch him. We need you to work nursery so parents can sit down and....listen...without their children. Invite your friends to outreach day! Come grill hot dogs for our outing. If you're one of the really spiritual ones, spend 6 years in seminary to learn public speaking and never preach to a single lost soul while you're there. We really need a new organ/piano/sound system, so give sacrificially! I could go on. In this system 95% of the money and human activity revolves around keeping a show or program running. Wait, what are we supposed to be doing again?
Is the picture becoming clear? If an American worked for a month to make 10 dollars, convinced he had a great job, we'd call him a fool. Yet, we have done the same thing on a much bigger scale. Christian ministry and service has been redefined in such a way that it is largely useless, self-replicating busy work. In practice, the grand goals that Christ set for the life of every individual has been replaced by a hamster wheel. When you define service, sacrifice, and taking up the cross as 'running on the hamster wheel', why should you be shocked to find that people are not excited? Yet, when Christian goals and service are properly defined (preaching the gospel to the lost and discipleship), a man will gladly sacrifice much of his life, knowing that the cause is worthy. Likewise, a woman who babysits six kids so her husband and his friend can go hand out tracts has much joy in her act of service.
I've done time on the hamster wheel before, so I know that it's endless and tiring. However, I can also tell you that real Christian service done for Jesus involves hard work and sacrifice, but it is also full of joy, contentment, and fulfillment. If you find yourself weary with service and on the verge of burning out, there's a good chance that you're running on a hamster wheel. Take a step back and re-evaluate what you're doing. Men will give you activities and tell you that you're serving Christ when you're actually just serving their program. Instead, spend some time in Scripture and in prayer, see what the Lord wants for your life (hint: I talked about it in the third paragraph). Life is short and there's a grand battle to be fought. Don't waste another second.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
How to personally fulfill the great commission
In a previous entry, I dealt with the error of people who want to treat the great commission as a passive command, or one that only applies to certain Christians. Today I'd like to focus on a similar topic, but from a different angle. As we understand the great commission to be actively followed, how should we fulfill it? Do you need to be witnessing door-to-door? Do you have a specific quota to fill each week? Are you sinning if your friend preached the gospel to 10 people, but you 'only' witness to 4 people? These are the things I now seek to help you understand: What to preach, how to preach, when to preach, and to whom you should preach.
What should you preach? This one's easy. In fact, every real Christian knows this, but sometimes you can get confused by all the nonsense out there. The gospel is defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-11. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. It's that simple. That is the gospel, and your main message. Now, if you read the gospels and Acts, paying attention to how people shared the gospel with others, you'll notice that the gospel is explained often in context of the law. It's worth saying that the law is not the gospel, but is necessary to understand the importance of the gospel because it helps people to understand their sinful state before God. Therefore, I suggest that any time you preach the gospel to someone, you should start with a discussion of sin, the law, and hell. Especially with the self-righteous religious people so common in America, you need to help them to understand they are lost before they will even have a chance to repent. If you want some examples, check out the videos located at: http://wayofthemaster.com/watchwitnessing.shtml or anything by Ray Comfort. Don't worry about the specifics or copying their “script”, but pay attention to the main points that are discussed. You'll also see examples of how to be firm, direct, and compassionate with the lost.
How should you preach? Compassionately, zealously, with love. Pray much, know that as long as you're preaching the gospel, the Lord is working alongside you (Matt. 28:20). Don't minimize or dodge unpopular issues. Be firm on preaching sin. Most people have one or two “big” sins that define them. If you find out what they are, camp there, insist that they repent of those specific sins. Expect most people to hate you. They hated Christ, and you aren't going to be better at preaching the gospel than Him (John 15:18-20) . Don't forget that lost people are not the enemy. When they yell or react negatively, don't get angry at them, but pity them. They are lost souls that haven't been set free. They are lost and they will act like it. If a homeowner was angry at a firefighter for getting his house wet, the firefighter wouldn't stop trying to put the fire out. Don't wimp out when it gets tough. There is an enemy, you know. There are presumably plenty of demons and assuredly few people faithfully preaching the gospel. If you start, you can bet on the enemy trying to shut you down and discourage you.
That covers motivations and attitude, but how about method? We have some examples in Scripture. Jesus preaches publicly to crowds at times. Other times, he approaches individuals with the intent of preaching the gospel to them. No particular method is commanded, and we see many different ones practiced in the Bible. One can only conclude that there's much freedom on how to evangelize. Tracts, open air preaching, 1-to-1 conversations, door-to-door, letter writing, chat rooms, movies/TV, etc. All of these and more can be valid ways to preach the gospel. Take some time to think about your preferences, special opportunities in your area, etc. and decide how you can spread the gospel. While none of these methods are wrong, some are better than others. For example, I think that in our culture it's very difficult to effectively communicate using open air preaching. Very few will stop and listen long enough to hear the gospel. Still, if you are inclined to preach open air, and are able to make it work, go for it! The only real requirement is that you actually have to be preaching the gospel. Doing charity work or having a good testimony is great, but nobody counts that as gospel preaching unless they're trying to justify their coldness. Unless you're somehow communicating to someone that they are a sinner, Christ died for their sins, and they need to repent, then you're not preaching the gospel.
When should you preach? Only in season and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Or in other words, any chance you get. I strongly encourage everyone to seriously think about how you can make more effort to share the gospel with others. At the very least, get some good tracts (tracts that cover everything we talked about under the 'what' section and do not have a sinner's prayer on them) and give them out at the store and at restaurants. It may not seem like much, but it really makes a difference! Now, let's be clear, there's no quota or anything that says you have to witness to 100 people each month or you're a bad Christian. With that said, if you are feeling fine, but skip out on evangelism to watch TV or something, make no mistake, you're sinning (James 4:17). You should try to witness as best as you can while balancing other areas of life. Yes, there's an imminent need for people to preach the gospel, and yes there are souls at stake. Still, you will be useless to the Lord if you burn out or damage your family through negligence. For more info, a friend of mine wrote a really good article on finding balance that you can find on his website. I'll give another short, but important bit of advice: make sure you have strong Christian fellowship! This is fun and exciting work, but also draining. Find other Christians that are sharing the gospel. Swap stories with them, pray for each other, plan activities together if possible. If you can't find someone like that in your church, find a new one! If you can't find someone like that at all, then contact me!
To whom should you preach? Sinners. You pretty much can't go wrong here. There are a few exceptions that I'll note. First, there's the whole “don't cast pearls before swine” thing. This isn't an excuse to not share the gospel, but guidance on when to walk away. The key is the second part of the verse, “lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). In other words, if you're talking to someone and they tell you to stop, or start threatening violence (vocally or body language), just walk away and find someone else to talk to. Or, a more likely scenario, if someone gets argumentative and stops listening, it's fine to just walk off. Sometimes you may just have to use your best judgment on this one. The point is, you'll never run out of sinners to preach to. It's silly to waste your time on someone who's angry and not listening.
Second, generally avoid preaching at work. You're not being paid to talk, but to do your job. Besides, there's a real possibility of getting in trouble these days if you open your mouth. Don't lie or deny it, but there's nothing wrong with using a little wisdom and discretion. I've met people who rarely/never preach the gospel in their free time, but they get in trouble at work because they won't shut their mouth. That's just stupid. If there's a particular opportunity that you see with a co-worker, I recommend inviting them out to lunch and using that time to witness.
That covers almost everything! Preaching the gospel is actually quite simple, we only make it hard with all the silly ideas that people have these days. Find a sinner, tell them about the savior. Do it as often as you can. That's the main thing: do something. I've seen so many churches go through evangelism training programs, revivals, etc. but only two weeks later, you can't find anyone in the church who is making any effort to personally preach the gospel to others. Read the gospels and Acts to see how Jesus and the apostles lived and preached. Follow their example and you can't go wrong.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Unstoppable was a bad movie and evangelical philosophy is to blame
Update: Since I grilled this movie for failing to address why bad things happen, I wrote an article where I offer my take on it here.
I'm writing this the day after I saw Kirk Cameron's Unstoppable and I'm still in shock at how bad the movie was. I'm mostly familiar with Kirk through way of the master and living waters. He and Ray Comfort put out some pretty top notch evangelism training material, so I had a lot of respect for the guy. I liked Fireproof quite a bit as well. So when I heard Kirk was putting together his own little movie project, it grabbed my attention. I knew little about the movie other than it was supposed to focus on the question 'why do bad things happen to good people?' If you haven't realized it already, this question is very much relevant to the gospel, so much so that it's actually hard to answer that question without preaching the gospel. Surely Kirk is going to knock this one out of the park...right? I wish.
For the first half of the movie, I was laughing at how ridiculous everything was. Outside of Kirk telling a story of a friend for a few minutes there was very little content, and what was presented wasn't really in line with the topic. I didn't keep track of time, but I'd estimate about 30-45 minutes of the movie was spent telling the story of Genesis chapters 1-6 in a rock music video format. Kirk would read/talk about a little bit, then subject you to headache-inducing music alongside “I'm trying way too hard to be artistic” imagery.
As the movie drags on, Kirk briefly skims what was supposed to be the topic of the movie. In short, his main message seems to be: yeah, bad stuff happens but God works it out for good. Of course that's true, but it's also woefully inadequate to anyone seriously asking this question. Kirk also failed to present the gospel in the movie. Sure, the facts were there – Jesus died for your sins and rose again – but that was about it. No call to repentance, not even a mention of salvation through faith. Unless I missed something, Kirk didn't make any effort in this movie to tell sinners what they should do so they can be born again. I know Kirk can do better. I've seen/heard him witnessing to people and he does a pretty good job. I think it's fair to say that in terms of answering big questions and reaching out to people with the gospel, the movie was a flop.
So what does this have to do with evangelical philosophy? Everything. Somehow a guy who 5 years ago had a lot of zeal for the gospel just put out a movie on the 'big questions' which had a lot of flashy imagery, but said almost nothing. There's a bit of a mystery here, and while we don't have perfect knowledge, it's easy enough to put the pieces together and see how this happened. I suggest that two major problems caused the changes in Kirk as evidenced by this movie:
One might say, “but those things are in the Bible!” Yeah, and there are some things better left in text. There are certainly some 'gritty' things in the Bible, but they are never presented in a 'just for fun' way, but as a important part of the narrative or for emphasis. In contrast, the nakedness of Adam and Eve, and the fight between Cain and Abel had absolutely nothing to do with this movie. It had no narrative purpose, but merely an entertainment purpose. In other words, it was put in there just to try to be cool. Pointless sensuality and violence in a movie? Sounds like Hollywood to me. What a shame that such things are found in this film.
When it comes to the question of why bad things happen to good people, calvinists and non-calvinists give very different answers. If Kirk goes on the movie and says what I'm certain he at least used to believe: “First off, there are no truly good people, but we all willfully sin each day. You chose to sin at some point in your life, chose to jump on the bandwagon with the sin-cursed world, now you reap the consequences for your choices. Death, sickness, and disease is the way of the world because of our choices.” Well, if Kirk said that, he'd get all kinds of flak from MacArthur, Piper, White, and all the other calvinists. He surely doesn't want to upset them, that would harm their 'unity'. Perhaps he should just put out a movie that gives the calvinist answer, “It pleases and glorifies God to destroy your young child with cancer, to kill your baby in the womb, etc. Be comforted, because God causes all these things to happen.” Well, that'd make the calvinists happy, but everyone else would be horrified.
So, Kirk has his hands tied. No matter what answer he gives, many will be offended. Ah, but there's a third option. Make a music video, talk a little about mostly irrelevant things, then dodge the issue by simply saying, “Well, God works everything out for good.” I imagine this same concept causes Kirk to dodge the gospel application in this movie. Well, we can all agree on the facts of the gospel, but there's different opinions on how to apply it. According to the calvinist, don't worry too much about it. God chooses to save you or not and there's nothing you can do about it. If you're elect, God will fill you with irresistable grace and you're set. So, Kirk couldn't say, “Christ died for every man and offers you forgiveness if you'll repent of your sin.” Again, if you value unity above all things, you can't take a position, but must dodge the issue and in the process, neglect to preach the gospel.
In conclusion, Christian unity is important and something worth striving for, but if you try to compromise truth for unity, you end up with neither. The road of compromise leads to a shallow, powerless religion which is toxic to real Christian living. As Christians, we must heed the Lord's admonitions to be separate from the world and theological error (Rom. 16:17, 1 John 2:15-17, James 4:4, Jude). To obey Scripture in these things is an unpopular stance to take, but a necessary one if you intend to make your like useful in the Lord's service.
I'm writing this the day after I saw Kirk Cameron's Unstoppable and I'm still in shock at how bad the movie was. I'm mostly familiar with Kirk through way of the master and living waters. He and Ray Comfort put out some pretty top notch evangelism training material, so I had a lot of respect for the guy. I liked Fireproof quite a bit as well. So when I heard Kirk was putting together his own little movie project, it grabbed my attention. I knew little about the movie other than it was supposed to focus on the question 'why do bad things happen to good people?' If you haven't realized it already, this question is very much relevant to the gospel, so much so that it's actually hard to answer that question without preaching the gospel. Surely Kirk is going to knock this one out of the park...right? I wish.
For the first half of the movie, I was laughing at how ridiculous everything was. Outside of Kirk telling a story of a friend for a few minutes there was very little content, and what was presented wasn't really in line with the topic. I didn't keep track of time, but I'd estimate about 30-45 minutes of the movie was spent telling the story of Genesis chapters 1-6 in a rock music video format. Kirk would read/talk about a little bit, then subject you to headache-inducing music alongside “I'm trying way too hard to be artistic” imagery.
As the movie drags on, Kirk briefly skims what was supposed to be the topic of the movie. In short, his main message seems to be: yeah, bad stuff happens but God works it out for good. Of course that's true, but it's also woefully inadequate to anyone seriously asking this question. Kirk also failed to present the gospel in the movie. Sure, the facts were there – Jesus died for your sins and rose again – but that was about it. No call to repentance, not even a mention of salvation through faith. Unless I missed something, Kirk didn't make any effort in this movie to tell sinners what they should do so they can be born again. I know Kirk can do better. I've seen/heard him witnessing to people and he does a pretty good job. I think it's fair to say that in terms of answering big questions and reaching out to people with the gospel, the movie was a flop.
So what does this have to do with evangelical philosophy? Everything. Somehow a guy who 5 years ago had a lot of zeal for the gospel just put out a movie on the 'big questions' which had a lot of flashy imagery, but said almost nothing. There's a bit of a mystery here, and while we don't have perfect knowledge, it's easy enough to put the pieces together and see how this happened. I suggest that two major problems caused the changes in Kirk as evidenced by this movie:
- A desire to mimic the culture.
One might say, “but those things are in the Bible!” Yeah, and there are some things better left in text. There are certainly some 'gritty' things in the Bible, but they are never presented in a 'just for fun' way, but as a important part of the narrative or for emphasis. In contrast, the nakedness of Adam and Eve, and the fight between Cain and Abel had absolutely nothing to do with this movie. It had no narrative purpose, but merely an entertainment purpose. In other words, it was put in there just to try to be cool. Pointless sensuality and violence in a movie? Sounds like Hollywood to me. What a shame that such things are found in this film.
- A philosophy of “let's get everyone together” that emphasizes unity to the exclusion of much important doctrine.
When it comes to the question of why bad things happen to good people, calvinists and non-calvinists give very different answers. If Kirk goes on the movie and says what I'm certain he at least used to believe: “First off, there are no truly good people, but we all willfully sin each day. You chose to sin at some point in your life, chose to jump on the bandwagon with the sin-cursed world, now you reap the consequences for your choices. Death, sickness, and disease is the way of the world because of our choices.” Well, if Kirk said that, he'd get all kinds of flak from MacArthur, Piper, White, and all the other calvinists. He surely doesn't want to upset them, that would harm their 'unity'. Perhaps he should just put out a movie that gives the calvinist answer, “It pleases and glorifies God to destroy your young child with cancer, to kill your baby in the womb, etc. Be comforted, because God causes all these things to happen.” Well, that'd make the calvinists happy, but everyone else would be horrified.
So, Kirk has his hands tied. No matter what answer he gives, many will be offended. Ah, but there's a third option. Make a music video, talk a little about mostly irrelevant things, then dodge the issue by simply saying, “Well, God works everything out for good.” I imagine this same concept causes Kirk to dodge the gospel application in this movie. Well, we can all agree on the facts of the gospel, but there's different opinions on how to apply it. According to the calvinist, don't worry too much about it. God chooses to save you or not and there's nothing you can do about it. If you're elect, God will fill you with irresistable grace and you're set. So, Kirk couldn't say, “Christ died for every man and offers you forgiveness if you'll repent of your sin.” Again, if you value unity above all things, you can't take a position, but must dodge the issue and in the process, neglect to preach the gospel.
In conclusion, Christian unity is important and something worth striving for, but if you try to compromise truth for unity, you end up with neither. The road of compromise leads to a shallow, powerless religion which is toxic to real Christian living. As Christians, we must heed the Lord's admonitions to be separate from the world and theological error (Rom. 16:17, 1 John 2:15-17, James 4:4, Jude). To obey Scripture in these things is an unpopular stance to take, but a necessary one if you intend to make your like useful in the Lord's service.
Does the great commission apply to everyone?
Lately I've run into quite a few people who are determined to change the meaning of the great commission as it applies to Christians today. This command, which should give us joy, excitement, meaning, and purpose is seen as grievous by some. I can only assume that this stems from an over-attachment to this world with its temporary pleasures and comforts, fear of men, or plain laziness. Whatever the motives are for these attacks, I think it's worthwhile to frame some responses. The accusations generally fall into two main categories which I'll tackle here.
Let's also look at the rest of Jesus' ministry. He called every one of his disciples, not just the twelve, to follow him. He spent years showing them first hand how to minister to others, specifically in preaching the gospel. Obviously, the twelve had a special mission, but it was special only in scope and specificity. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that there were certain commands that didn't apply to other Christians. In fact, this idea runs contrary to passages like Gal. 3:28 that state all Christians are equal. When Jesus wants something done, he doesn't only use a special group of people (contrary to the clergy/laity division you see in churches), but the Lord delights in using 'average' people to perform his work.
Finally, we can see this claim as nonsense from the testimony of the early church. Much of Acts focuses on specific instances of the apostles, mostly Paul. Still, if you're paying attention, you'll notice that most of the spread of the gospel is accomplished by the average rank and file Christians. For example, see Acts 8:1 (notice the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but others fled during persecution) and compare this will Acts 11:19-20. Recall that the first martyr wasn't an apostle or church leader, but a regular guy. As a deacon Stephen was to be in charge of taking care of widows and the poor. Apparently, even with this heavy charge on his shoulders, he was convinced it was important for him to go out and preach the gospel to people. We could go on. Acts and the epistles tell a unified story. The early churches had plenty of problems, but zeal in preaching the gospel was not one of them.
So does the KJV translate the great commission improperly? One proposed rework that I've seen recently suggests that it should read more like: “as you are going, make disciples...”. Therefore, they say, there's no need to actively preach the gospel to others. Just go through life as you normally would, except live a little better, and maybe tell someone about Christ if they ask. Booorrring! Do you really think that's all that Christ asks of us? When Jesus calls us to lay down our life for the sake of him and the gospel (Matt. 10:39), do you really think he's just going to clean you up and then send you off in basically the same direction of life that you were going? What about the command to deny ourselves, to strive as faithful soldiers of the cross? (ex. Matt.16:24) None of this makes any sense if the battle for the gospel is merely passive.
Now that we've looked at how the proposed understanding doesn't mesh with other parts of Scripture, let's deal with the proposed translation itself. First, I would remark that even if we grant the assumption that this new translation is correct, it still wouldn't justify the conclusion that sharing the gospel is passive. It would just make it sound like Jesus is assuming they're going to preach the gospel. After all, where else would they go, and what would they do? The Lord has just spent years teaching them to minister to others, even if Jesus gave the commission phrased like this, the disciples would still understand it perfectly. Again, if you try to make the case that the great commission was passive, a simple reading of Acts makes it perfectly clear that nobody understood it that way, but they all knew it was something to be done actively by each Christian.
There's one final point I'll make on this. If this is truly the “correct translation” as decided by so many pastors who took one year of Greek courses online, why are you hard pressed to find any translation that renders it this way? Really, there's so much variety in modern translations, with some even removing whole passages and significantly changing others. If the translation is so uncertain, surely there's someone out there willing to translate it 'correctly'. Not really. I checked all the major modern translations and some historical, Geneva, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NLT, etc. and even a few very liberal translations. Of about 20 different translations that I checked, nearly all of them rendered the passage actively, as in the KJV. I found one exception in an obscure version that I had never even heard of before. Isn't that interesting. Even modern scholars, who are willing to change/question significant parts of the Bible, all agree on the translation of the great commission. I'm not saying that a modern translation would justify the argument, but if this idea is to be accepted, shouldn't you be able to find someone who has put serious effort into understanding the translation process who would agree to this rendering? Their argument fails on even this 'bare minimum' test. Without little/no suppport from any real translator, historical or modern, to support this position, I can only conclude that this idea is mostly championed by people who know just enough Greek to be dangerous, who use it to justify their cold heart towards the Lord and their fellow men.
There's a good lesson here. In general, you should always get very skeptical when someone takes your Bible and tries to say what it really means in the original language. Translators, especially historic ones, were not stupid or careless, but devoted their life to their studies. If you've ever struggled with this type of thing I highly recommend doing some reading on God's preservation of the Bible. If you've been clinging to various excuses to justify your cold attitude, repent and seek to follow the Lord without reservation. I'll make another post soon which should be helpful in understanding your part in the Lord's work.
- The great commission only applied to the twelve, not the rest of us.
Let's also look at the rest of Jesus' ministry. He called every one of his disciples, not just the twelve, to follow him. He spent years showing them first hand how to minister to others, specifically in preaching the gospel. Obviously, the twelve had a special mission, but it was special only in scope and specificity. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that there were certain commands that didn't apply to other Christians. In fact, this idea runs contrary to passages like Gal. 3:28 that state all Christians are equal. When Jesus wants something done, he doesn't only use a special group of people (contrary to the clergy/laity division you see in churches), but the Lord delights in using 'average' people to perform his work.
Finally, we can see this claim as nonsense from the testimony of the early church. Much of Acts focuses on specific instances of the apostles, mostly Paul. Still, if you're paying attention, you'll notice that most of the spread of the gospel is accomplished by the average rank and file Christians. For example, see Acts 8:1 (notice the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but others fled during persecution) and compare this will Acts 11:19-20. Recall that the first martyr wasn't an apostle or church leader, but a regular guy. As a deacon Stephen was to be in charge of taking care of widows and the poor. Apparently, even with this heavy charge on his shoulders, he was convinced it was important for him to go out and preach the gospel to people. We could go on. Acts and the epistles tell a unified story. The early churches had plenty of problems, but zeal in preaching the gospel was not one of them.
- The great commission isn't properly translated, it should be more passive.
So does the KJV translate the great commission improperly? One proposed rework that I've seen recently suggests that it should read more like: “as you are going, make disciples...”. Therefore, they say, there's no need to actively preach the gospel to others. Just go through life as you normally would, except live a little better, and maybe tell someone about Christ if they ask. Booorrring! Do you really think that's all that Christ asks of us? When Jesus calls us to lay down our life for the sake of him and the gospel (Matt. 10:39), do you really think he's just going to clean you up and then send you off in basically the same direction of life that you were going? What about the command to deny ourselves, to strive as faithful soldiers of the cross? (ex. Matt.16:24) None of this makes any sense if the battle for the gospel is merely passive.
Now that we've looked at how the proposed understanding doesn't mesh with other parts of Scripture, let's deal with the proposed translation itself. First, I would remark that even if we grant the assumption that this new translation is correct, it still wouldn't justify the conclusion that sharing the gospel is passive. It would just make it sound like Jesus is assuming they're going to preach the gospel. After all, where else would they go, and what would they do? The Lord has just spent years teaching them to minister to others, even if Jesus gave the commission phrased like this, the disciples would still understand it perfectly. Again, if you try to make the case that the great commission was passive, a simple reading of Acts makes it perfectly clear that nobody understood it that way, but they all knew it was something to be done actively by each Christian.
There's one final point I'll make on this. If this is truly the “correct translation” as decided by so many pastors who took one year of Greek courses online, why are you hard pressed to find any translation that renders it this way? Really, there's so much variety in modern translations, with some even removing whole passages and significantly changing others. If the translation is so uncertain, surely there's someone out there willing to translate it 'correctly'. Not really. I checked all the major modern translations and some historical, Geneva, ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NLT, etc. and even a few very liberal translations. Of about 20 different translations that I checked, nearly all of them rendered the passage actively, as in the KJV. I found one exception in an obscure version that I had never even heard of before. Isn't that interesting. Even modern scholars, who are willing to change/question significant parts of the Bible, all agree on the translation of the great commission. I'm not saying that a modern translation would justify the argument, but if this idea is to be accepted, shouldn't you be able to find someone who has put serious effort into understanding the translation process who would agree to this rendering? Their argument fails on even this 'bare minimum' test. Without little/no suppport from any real translator, historical or modern, to support this position, I can only conclude that this idea is mostly championed by people who know just enough Greek to be dangerous, who use it to justify their cold heart towards the Lord and their fellow men.
There's a good lesson here. In general, you should always get very skeptical when someone takes your Bible and tries to say what it really means in the original language. Translators, especially historic ones, were not stupid or careless, but devoted their life to their studies. If you've ever struggled with this type of thing I highly recommend doing some reading on God's preservation of the Bible. If you've been clinging to various excuses to justify your cold attitude, repent and seek to follow the Lord without reservation. I'll make another post soon which should be helpful in understanding your part in the Lord's work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)