Spiritual warfare in evangelism

One of my passions in life is to share the gospel with the lost and to stir up Christians to do the same. I truly believe there is no other activity we can do on Earth which is more dear to the heart of Christ. However, if you're doing it Biblically, you can guarantee that you'll be on Satan's radar too. Preaching the gospel to the lost is an act of spiritual warfare and Christians should be aware that much of the fear and nervousness they feel about witnessing is normal, and should be expected. To make this point and give tips on fighting through it, I'd like to share my recent experience. Hopefully, if you read this and find yourself nervously sitting on an evangelistic fence, this will encourage you to hop off the fence and join the fight!

For a week, I had planned a time to do some evangelism on the UIUC quad. This is nothing new. It's been my favorite 'fishing hole' for years, and though I'm out of practice due to the long winter, I've surely done this more than a hundred times before. Yet, as I'm gathering my tracts before I leave, I'm overcome with a wave of nervousness. This is nothing new either, but is as strong as I've ever felt, forcing me to take a deep breath before I push myself out the door.

As you go through these feelings, you should immediately recognize them as spiritual warfare. You're going out there to steal members from Satan's family – of course he's going to fight! The demons tend to use the same tactics. They're predictable, but can still be very effective. They'll pull on every desire, weakness, and heart string that will take you away from your destination.

As temptation arises, the thoughts enter my mind as I drive toward the campus. “You're really tired, should just go home and rest.” “You're sick, maybe you can push through, but you'll feel even worse later.” “You're alone again. Who could blame you for quitting?” Wherever the thoughts originate from, I swat them aside and try to push through some prayers for strength and wisdom. I feel my chest tightening the whole time.

In times like these, you have several weapons at your disposal, and it pays to be prepared. Prayer is always a good option, but don't just wait until you're in the battle. You know the fight will happen, so pray beforehand as well. Scripture is great for encouragement and conquering temptation. Read it and memorize it. Songs can help as well – yet another reason to know some strong hymns. There's no magic formula for each situation, you must simply fight on. The Lord never promises to completely remove temptation, but he does promise that we will be able to handle it and that there will be a way out.

As I park my car, I'm hit with a wave of strong and completely irrational fear. I can't find it in me to open the car door. I pray a little more, then sing to myself a few lines of “Lord, send me anywhere”, a hymn that has often comforted me. I ask myself out loud, “Is your love for Christ so weak that you can't overcome this?”. Now it's on. There's no way I'm going to let a challenge like that stand. I collect my tracts, get out of the car, and walk toward the quad. On the way there, I see my first face and the crippling fear melts away instantly, replaced instead by love and concern, surely a mere fraction of a shadow of what Christ has for these lost sinners. I smile and cheerfully hand him a tract, “hey man, a free gift for you.” The next couple of hours are enjoyable and relatively easy.

I've found that this pattern repeats itself almost every time that I go out to preach the gospel. As I've talked to others who share the same convictions and act upon them, they report the same struggles. Though preaching the gospel is incredibly enjoyable and rewarding, there's nearly always a huge up-front energy barrier that must be overcome, usually in the form of fear/nerves. To be clear, as a scientist, I've done important presentations to superiors, public speaking at conferences, etc. Those things are work – not as enjoyable as sharing the gospel, but there's less fear associated with those things. However, when it comes to doing this thing that I really enjoy, there's a huge barrier of nerves/fear before I get started. Isn't that interesting? This can only be explained by spiritual warfare. Recognize this, and fight back! As I related in my story, the biggest struggle is overcoming that initial barrier, but it gets easy after that. Remember, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7).

Finally, I recommend taking some time to debrief after you are done. This is obviously useful with regards to content (What objections were raised? How can I handle them better? What do I need to study? What verses should I memorize?), but it's also useful when it comes to handling spiritual warfare. Sometimes you won't be able to see the whole picture, but often you can. For example, you'll likely find that spiritual battles are more intense than normal if you are about to walk into a big opportunity. As you begin to recognize these trends, it teaches you to fight harder, recognizing that if the enemy is opposing you strongly, it might mean that this is a particularly important battle. In the example that I gave above, it turned out that there was a softball game that just ended, so there were many more people at the quad than normal. I was able to have several conversations, one which ended in great clarity, and hand out ~150 tracts, several times more than I'm able to do on an average day at the quad. That's certainly a good cause for the devil to want to keep me away from there. Was it the number of tracts? Or maybe the conversation with a pair of professing Christians where I pointed out that they are obviously not yet converted – and related their need of repentance, faith, and the new birth. Maybe both. Most of the time, you won't know how much difference your efforts will make, but the stakes are heaven vs. hell! If you could make that kind of difference, even for just one soul, would that not make every battle worthwhile? The point is, recognize the enemy's tactics, and don't forget what you're fighting for!

In conclusion, I've related this personal story with some commentary in the hopes that it will be an encouragement to others who are struggling through the same thing. Really, we have it quite easy in America, let's make use of our freedom. From the immature Christian struggling with the idea of sharing the gospel with strangers, to the battle-hardened elder, may we all be refreshed in our understanding of the importance of this great battle, and be encouraged to work harder for the Lord.

Book review - The House Church Book

This is a review of Wolfgang Simson's "The House Church Book". This book is the condensed version of another of Simson's books, "Houses That Change the World". I came across this book in some of my reading on house churches and thought I'd give it a shot. Simson's goal in this books is to describe house churches and give advice to those looking to start one.

I'll start on a positive note. Simson does correctly identify the unbiblical leadership of institutional churches and how it inevitably leads to a clergy-laity division, even if it's unintended by the leaders. He also presents a decent discussion of the lack of fellowship in institutional churches caused by the 'one man show' and he argues for the necessity of small house churches for real fellowship to be possible. Simson suggests that the maximum size of any individual house church should be about 20-25 in order to maintain close connections. This seems reasonable, and agrees closely with what I've heard from friends in house churches. Finally, I appreciate Simson's discussion of the 'city church' concept, where the local church really should include all likeminded Christians in the city, even if they meet with different groups. In other words, the local church really should be a network of house churches.

In short, Simson seems to understand the big picture of a Biblical model of church. However, he fails miserably when it comes to the details. I'll provide a few salient points. The most serious problems in this book stem from the author's charismatic and ecumenical perspective. Throughout, his outlook leads him to promote and speak well of false teachers such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially David Yonggi Cho (who was recently convicted of embezzling from his church). 

It should come as no surprise then that Simson is also soft on the gospel. For example, he accepts mass "conversions" of people who are run through a sinner's prayer as genuine, suggesting they would be interested in church if only churches were better. I agree that Biblical churches would tend to promote more interest and zeal in Christians...but those who show no interest in Christ, who have never repented, who have never been born again...they're not Christians at all! Shame on Simson for not recognizing this simple fact.

As if his misunderstanding the gospel wasn't bad enough, Simon's charismatic errors lead him to nearly undo his main thesis in the second half of the book. Early on, he correctly identifies key issues with the way leadership is done in institutional churches, but he makes those very same mistakes when he describes house church leadership. He describes essentially every leadership position as being outside of and separate from 'the flock'. In other words, he correctly rails against the aloof single man leading a show, but goes on to suggest that leadership should be several aloof men who lead from a distance (p.66-69). How does this make a difference?

In reality, church leaders are supposed to function within the body, leading mainly by example (1 Peter 5). For this to occur, leaders should not be considered as scouts walking a mile ahead, calling for everyone else to keep up. Rather, leaders should be more like connective tissue, woven throughout the body, connected to each part, helping the body connect with its other parts, providing structure, support, and nourishment. There are no superheroes except Christ. He should be the Head, leading the body, which operates through various roles, but follows him as one.

Simson continues to undermine his own position during his discussion of parachurch structure. Early in the book, he correctly criticizes the normal instutional model of denominations, mega-pastors, and popery. Yet, he goes on to propose that house church networks might be lead by "apostolic regional fathers" at the city, regional, and even national level (p.85). In short, Simson actually supports leadership by superstar, as long as you call them an 'apostle'! Surely the 'apostles' won't have even bigger heads than the 'pastors', right?

At first, this book seems to be a real boon to house churches, but the solutions Simson offer still carry the super-pastor leadership problems that are found in institutional church. Pardon me, I meant super-apostle. In the end, I can't recommend this book. There is some good discussion of the 'big picture' of house churches, but any benefit is drowned in a sea of errors by the time you reach the end.

The widow's mite: an example of sacrificial giving or modern religious abuse?

What a title! I'm sure we all know the answer, right? The widow's mite was a beautiful example of sacrificial giving, now praised in pulpits around the globe. At least, that's what I've always been told. Surely that can't be wrong, can it? As I discuss this passage here and show how the story of the widow's mite is often misused, let it also serve as a lesson that careful Bible study is absolutely necessary to avoid being confused by various teachers.

The story of the widow's mite is related in Mark 12:42-44 and Luke 21:1-4, but I'll be making the argument that really the whole chapter should be included in the story. Looking at these isolated verses, it seems like a nice simple story. The rich cast in much, but Jesus notices a poor widow who puts in only a few coins. He comments that she has given much more than anyone else because it was all she had. That's a story that will preach! The cries ring out: Give your all to Jesus! Won't you give your all to the Lord's work? This poor widow had nothing and gave to the Lord's work, surely you can give your 10% ! Of course, those in the 'prosperity gospel' camp are the biggest swindlers, but you will hear these types of things in fundamentalist and evangelical crowds too. Instead of “give me money and God will bless you”, it is phrased, “To be a good faithful Christian, you need to put God first in your finances (and that means putting your 10% in the plate)”. While the fundies and gellies tend to be more cautious about promising blessing, they will still tell stories of those who gave during hard times and how it worked out better in the end, floating the implication that tithing had something to do with it.

In all this, everyone seems to miss the fact that Jesus does not point out this woman as an example of righteousness, but as a victim of a wicked religious system. Jesus' observation of this widow is not a random, standalone happenstance, but occurs as his final blow in a dispute with the scribes, elders, and chief priests that started in Luke 20:1. This dispute starts when Jesus is teaching in the temple and the priests came looking for trouble. They wanted to catch Jesus in his words and make him look stupid, but instead they are the ones who end up looking foolish. After some time and a barrage of questions, they realize they are fighting a losing battle and so they stop talking (Luke 20:40). But Jesus isn't done yet. He goes on the attack, challenging their understanding and showing that the Messiah must be God's son according to the Scriptures. He then turns to the audience and says:

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. (v.46-47)

Immediately after Jesus says this, he looks up to see people giving their offerings and points out the widow who put in everything that she had (Luke 21:1-4). In other words, Jesus is delivering a scathing rebuke about the scribes, only to look up and behold a perfect example of his warning. It's like he's saying, “Look, even now, do you see that poor woman over there? She just gave everything that she had. That's exactly how they are devouring widows' homes!” So, from the context it is obvious that Jesus is not praising this woman for giving her all, but he is pointing her out as a victim of the abusive religious system that he is condemning. Interestingly enough, despite his other errors, John MacArthur is one of the few to get this one right, as seen in this video. However, he merely applies this to the prosperity preachers, missing the fact that evangelicals can be almost as guilty.

Just to be clear, sacrificial giving is not the problem. The problem is when bad leaders make Christians feel like they are in some way obligated to give, but this is especially bad when done to the poor. There is a time and place to dig deep and give, as mentioned of the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8, but Paul only accepted their giving after 'much intreaty' (v.4). He also goes out of his way to make it clear to the Corinthians that any giving is to be done voluntarily and without any feelings of compulsion or necessity (9:7). It would be wrong for pastors to compel giving/tithing for even good causes, but observe, where does the money go after it's put in the offering plate? Paying for the church building, insurance policies, new sound systems, etc. A super-pastor building a church in his own image is bad enough, but to build it on the backs of the poor is downright evil!

How much this applies to modern churches! Not all, but many pastors are either 'rock stars' or authoritarian 'men of God'. They love the dress-up, the show, the way people treat them, the position of authority and importance. They'll do what it takes to keep up their spiritual image, and they have no problem taking money from the widows and the poor to support all this! As we've seen with the widow's mite, they'll even take the very passage where Jesus taught against this kind of abuse and twist it to support their doctrine! It would seem that Satan has an appreciation for irony.

There's a few things to learn and apply from this. First and foremost, if this describes your church, run away and take as many people with you as you can! In addition, this passage is a great example of how easily Scripture can be twisted right under your nose. How many times have Christians read over this passage, yet still most wrongly teach that it's about sacrificial giving. I admit that even I didn't see this until recently when a friend shared a helpful article. It just goes to show that if you want to really 'get' Scripture, you have to be very discerning about teachers. If you aren't paying close attention, it's very easy to get duped. Let this motivate you to further concentrate your study of the Scriptures.

Analysis and aftermath of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate

Let's get this out of the way...Bill Nye won the debate with Ken Ham.

Ouch. In this debate, which was covered at least in some measure by major news outlets, Christians had an opportunity to take a crack at many atheists, but it ended in a bit of a flop. The pain of this failure is made worse by how rare these debates are. For the past few decades, in order to discredit creation and avoid the issues, atheists have made it clear that their tactic is to avoid debating creationists. This cowardly tactic is no secret or conspiracy theory, but is vocally promoted by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. Even in this case, many told Bill he shouldn't do this debate at all. So, I certainly respect Bill Nye for having the guts to stand up and argue for his position. Since I feel that Ken Ham's performance was poor, and in order to help bring about some good from this event, I'd like to offer some commentary and analysis. The point is not to slam Ken, but to learn from this experience to see what Christians can do better in the future when we engage with atheists.

First off, I'd like to explain why I say that Ken Ham lost the debate. It's quite simple really: he just didn't sell any of his points because of a failure to be assertive/aggressive. He made some good comments, but failed to hammer the point home. His initial 30 min. presentation was quite good, but he fell apart quickly after that. It's unfortunate because the rebuttal section is generally where debates are won or lost. Ken spent most of his first rebuttal talking about Christians who don't believe in creation, leaving Bill unchallenged and ignoring the topic of the debate, thus leaving a very weak impression. Bill Nye wasn't terribly on-topic either, but at least made a few clear points and drove them home. In the rebuttals, Ken lost because he just played defense and when he finally tried to make a positive attack on Bill's position, it was too little, too late.

Calling out Bill's bad arguments

I'd like to now analyze some things that Bill said and show how Ken should have called him out on it. As a reminder, let's clearly state the topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? In general, Bill's tactic involved bringing up a lot of irrelevant things and acting like they proved his point. For example, he spent a lot of time discussing advancements in medicine, engineering, etc. but these are irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue. Bill also brings up the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as evidence for his position, but this again is irrelevant. The CMB appears in creation models also. In light of this, Bills argument melts away. What is his point? How is the creation model invalid? He never says.

It was also clear that Bill wasn't familiar enough with creation models to even know what he's arguing against. Bill brought up several issues that have already been well-addressed by creationists: feasibility of the ark, ice core dating, radiometric dating, etc. Reasonable models have been presented on all of these topics. (To get an overview of some of these issues, see A short course in creation/evolution). Again, I ask, in what way is the creation model invalid? Where is Bill's argument?

This is a little off-topic, but I think it's also worth addressing Bill's ignorance of the Bible. Frankly, a lot of the atheists I meet are just as ignorant. They make the same claim as Bill, “Well, the Bible is unreliable because it has been translated so many times and it's kind of like the telephone game.” Seriously guys, get some facts before speaking. Want to know how many times the Bible was translated to get an English text? Once. From the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. By the way, those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are the most well-established historical documents. Long story short, If you have a Bible translated from the textus receptus (KJV), you can guarantee that you hold in your hands a translation of what was written thousands of years ago. The evidence is that sound. Now, I partly understand the confusion of the atheist due to the multitudes of Bible versions out there, but that's another topic for another time.

The attack Ken should have made

Now for some offense. Here's a short summary of what I think Ken should have said: Compared to evolution, creation is a far superior model of origins. Evolution survives in the scientific community merely because of an imposed absolute adherence to naturalism. Evolution predicts that organisms would be simple things, able to be generated by many small steps, evolved to be little more than sufficient for their environment. Creation predicts that organisms will display complex patterns and well-engineered forms that evidence the work of an intelligent creator. The prediction made by the creation model is true, and is the grounds of a whole multi-disciplinary branch of science called biomimicry. Evolution predicts that natural selection and random mutation can work together to generate creatures of increasing complexity. Creation predicts that natural selection and random mutation acting on an initially perfect creation will have a detrimental effect, causing loss of complexity and ultimately disease. Modern genetics confirms the prediction of the creationist, that if positive mutations occur, they are few and far between, and that they get “washed out” in the sea of bad mutations. Therefore, creation is not only a viable model of origins, but indeed seems to be the correct one. I could go on in this comparison, but I think you get my point.

The Christian reaction to the debate – driven by laziness?

When I first set my mind to write this post, this section was not included. However, after reading so many Christian responses to the debate, I feel there are major issues that need to be addressed. I've seen many private comments that concerned me, but for now I'll focus on the response written by Al Mohler since it is a good representation of the problem. In general, many responses that I've seen from Christians intimate a dismissal of the whole debate, an attitude of “who cares” or “debates don't change anyone's mind/heart, so why bother?” This is particuarly ridiculous to me, because debates on the creation/evolution issue were helpful to me in coming around to a creation position, which then made me open to the gospel. If I determined 10 years ago that the Bible was merely a book of stories, I'm sure any Christian that tried to share the gospel with me would have a much harder time. In other words, I know this stuff is important because it was helpful to bring me to Christ.

Now, looking specifically at the article from Al Mohler, he expresses a sentiment that I see coming from many Christians when he says that the real problem is “autonomous human reason”. In essense, Mohler sees human reasoning as the enemy. He intimates in this article that human reasoning is corrupt and therefore only divine revelation will help the lost sinner. In other words, don't engage the sinner's reasoning because it can't possibly work. How silly. Mohler seems to imply that we should do nothing more than walk up to an atheist, deliver a monologue about the gospel, then expect God to save them. I've seen a lot of Christians saying similar things...or at least showing that they give up way to easily. What happened to pleading with the lost, reasoning with them (as Christ and the apostles did, by the way), working, and doing whatever it takes to bring them to an understanding of the cross?

Now, when sharing the gospel, there are certainly times to move on. If they stop listening and are merely mocking, don't waste your time, but find someone else. However, in my experience, that's only about 30% of atheists. The majority are willing to have a reasonable conversation, about creation, the gospel, etc. Oh, and don't think that apologetics aren't important. Yes, sharing the gospel is the most important thing, but using just enough apologetics to shake his naturalistic foundation is a wise move.

In all these responses, it seems that Christians have given up way too easily, so much so that we no longer expect dialogue or debate to do any good at all. I can only imagine that this is driven by laziness. There are so few Christians that share the gospel in the first place. So, to ask someone to go the next step and try to learn a thing or two in order to better engage with atheists...well, that's just asking too much, right? Is this how cold Christianity has become? Is our passion for reaching the lost so dead that we give up after a single half-hearted attempt? It's so much easier to just say, “well, he's entrenched, unreachable, etc.” than it is to examine ourselves and question if we are actually giving the atheist a compelling argument. If you have a desire to see people saved, don't fall into that trap. Try to put yourself in their position...if you were an atheist would you be compelled by the things Christians say? Try different things, learn, improve, find someone passionate about evangelism and learn from them. Eventually you'll get quite good at talking with atheists. But please, whatever you do, don't just act like it doesn't matter.

Christians need wisdom!

In this post I plan to tackle a subtle, but important point relevant to Christian living. Specifically, what role does wisdom have in our lives? How do we make decisions? Should we be worried about the “wisdom of the world”? As with many of my posts, my motivation for writing here comes from personal experience. I have run into too many Christians who act and speak foolishly and who refuse to learn, who are so afraid of “the wisdom of man” that they dive into folly. Even worse, I've observed “shepherds” who seem to encourage this fear of wisdom to keep the sheep in line. It's hard to describe in detail all the ways in which this thinking has weakened Christians. Let me start by using a fictional (but all too familiar) story to illustrate my point.

Hank is a bright high school senior. With graduation coming up, he's trying to decide what to do with his life. Hank was saved about a year ago and genuinely wants to please the Lord in everything. Hank has always loved working on cars, and there aren't any good mechanics in his town, so he's looking to become a mechanic. One day Hank discusses his future with his pastor, who warns him that although according to the wisdom of the world, becoming a mechanic would make sense, he should pray a lot about it, “lean not on your own understanding...and who knows, you might even be called to preach”. Hank agrees to do some serious prayer, but doesn't initially think that he'd ever be a pastor. Sure, he has grown spiritually by leaps and bounds since his salvation, but he has never considered being a pastor himself.

Over the next few weeks, Hanks prays much about his career choice. With consistent nudging and whispering from people around him, Hank starts to believe that these things are an answer to his prayer, that God is telling him to go into ministry. Hank has heard that you need a 'calling' to be a pastor, so this must be it. He doesn't know why, he just feels it emotionally (it's not hard to get those feelings when several men you respect are nudging you along with your ego). Hank goes on to seminary (which is, ironically, modeled after the world's education system.) and graduates with no job in ministry, despite a lot of looking. Hank is sure this must be a trial from the Lord. He struggles financially for years, working whatever job he can to make ends meet. Finally, he finds a job as an assistant pastor, then graduates to a full pastorate where he teaches other young men to make decisions in the same way that he did so many years ago.

Making decisions with wisdom

I've written already on the problems with the seminary system and modern church polity, so in this story I'd like to focus on the way decisions are made, and again, this question of wisdom. This story illustrates how, in most churches, the decision-making process has been hyper-spiritualized and feelings/nudges/promptings are held as the authority above common reasoning. I'm not saying that the Lord doesn't direct us, but that he directs us unequivocally. Most of the time this direction takes the form of wisdom. As James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5). This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit will immediately make you smart, but in my experience, this typically occurs by the Holy Spirit bringing passages to mind.

And how are we to make decisions? Not looking for nudges, promptings and feelings, but with wisdom that is informed by Scripture! “The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit” (Prov. 14:8) and again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” (Ps. 119:105) We are supposed to understand our path and scripture is intended to be a guide for us. If your path is darkened, it may be because you have neglected your lamp. “But what about decisions related to your job, relationships, etc. You know, stuff the Bible doesn't talk about?” Are you kidding? The Bible addresses every area of life! Of course, it doesn't cover everything in complete detail, but provides enough direction that you can use a little wisdom and apply the instructions to any situation. Herein lies the problem: many Christians lack the wisdom to apply Biblical admonitions to real-world situations.

This wisdom does not come by osmosis or a half-hearted search. “Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.” In other words, don't expect to be wise if you're just doing your 'daily bread' devotionals. If you want wisdom, you must separate yourself from distractions and intentionally seek it as a pattern of life. The first step is to really desire wisdom, to value it above any money or treasure. This is easy once you realize how important it is. A foolish servant is of no use to his master, but can actually be a burden. How can a man without understanding please the Lord? Also notice that the call to wisdom in Proverbs is intended for all men, not just some special class (Prov. 1:20-24). In other words, if you're a Christian, you should be doing this, not relying on your 'clergy' to carry you. There are 2 books of the Bible specifically devoted to the topic and it is discussed in many other books as well, so I can guarantee it's important!

How do I avoid 'the wisdom of man'?

What about this matter of man's wisdom? We see in the first three chapters of 1 Corinth. That we are not to rest in the wisdom of the world. So, what exactly is 'good' wisdom and what is 'bad'? There are only a handful of passages that make a distinction about wisdom – either God's or man's, but from what I can tell, it seems that when the distinction is made, the Bible is talking about wisdom informed by a particular worldview. For example, in Prov. 23:4 laboring to get rich is identified as man's wisdom. Well, if you had a naturalist/materialist worldview...then laboring to get rich would make sense for maximizing your enjoyment in this life, it'd be wise. With a Christian worldview, we realize that trying to get rich is a bad goal, that we should lay up treasure in heaven and use our wealth to further the gospel, not to spend on our lusts. Not only does Scripture tell us this, but it just makes sense once you have the Christian worldview. Taking this perspective, the first few chapters of 1 Corinth. are easy to reconcile with the rest of Scripture. The “wisdom of man” is not a boogeyman that will bite the Christian who studies too hard, but it is the result of trying to obtain wisdom by starting from a worldview that rejects God.

Let's drive the point home by looking at some other passages. In 1 Corinth. 1:17-31 Paul blasts the wisdom of the world and says that God has chosen to work through foolishness, but is careful to point out that these things aren't actually foolish, but only seem so to the world (ie a person with a worldview that rejects God). We see this in v.34-35.

What about Proverbs 3:5-7? This verse is often used to support the idea that we should not use our own wisdom when making a decision. However, that idea contradicts the rest of the book. Instead, this passage is better understood as an admonition for the student of wisdom to have a Bibilical worldview. Of course I'm paraphrasing here, but read the passage both ways and you'll see what I mean.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that wisdom is critically important for Christians. A lack or misunderstanding of wisdom is most dangerously shown in the hyper-spiritualization of otherwise obvious decisions. This corruption of the decision making process leaves Christians vulnerable to poor life choices and false doctrines that are emotionally satisfying. I've also explained the difference between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God, showing that a Christian grounded in a Biblical worldview can give themselves to a search for understanding and wisdom without fear of somehow mysteriously being infected with the 'wisdom of man'. Therefore, I strongly encourage everyone to diligently pursue wisdom. “Get wisdom, get understanding...wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.” (Prov. 4:5-7)

The sinner's prayer, four spiritual laws, Romans road, and other heretical gospels

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.

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.

• 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)