Category: Evangelism

“The battlefield where the devil has amassed his greatest forces and is thrusting his deadliest armies is the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence, and the creation of global government. And it is our own political and corporate leaders that are facilitating this chicanery. Furthermore, by refusing to oppose this surrender, our Christian leaders are complicit as well.”

Chuck Baldwin
Presidential Candidate — Constitution Party

Though I will vote for Mr. Baldwin in November this statement is utterly false. Make no mistake, National sovereignty and independence are crucial but they are not where old slewfoot is gathering his deadliest armies. Old slewfoot understands that National sovereignty and independence will drop into his lap like over-ripe fruit if he uses his deadliest armies to attack the sovereignty and independence of God.

America’s incremental loss of National sovereignty and independence is because of a increasing surrender to the armies of General Slewfoot of the notion of God’s absolute sovereignty and independence. If Candidate Baldwin desires to rescue America’s sovereignty and independence he must see that where the battle rages hottest in that contest is in pulpit’s throughout America. When the Church surrenders a sovereign and independent God it is only a matter of time until the people in the wider culture surrender their National sovereignty and independence. If we will not bow to God’s eternal sovereignty and independence it will only be a matter of time until we surrender our independence in order to bow to the temporal sovereignty of some usurper.

America was founded as a nation by a people who understood God’s absolute sovereignty and independence. The colonialists shook off attempts at English sovereignty going into battle with battle cries like, “no King but King Jesus.” Their descendants, having lost their Father’s sense of God’s sovereignty and independence, will inevitably come under the dominion of some tyrant’s sovereignty.

Candidate Baldwin will never win in the worthy cause of restoring a sense of National sovereignty and independence if the nation is in the spiritual bondage that comes from denying God’s absolute sovereignty and independence. The Battle therefore is not hottest on the score of National sovereignty and independence. That is just a brushfire skirmish. Where the real Battle rages and where Satan is attacking with his fiercest serpentine army is America’s pulpits. The reason National sovereignty and independence is such an issue is that the American clergy have given up on God’s total and absolute sovereignty and independence. They will not be rallied to oppose globalism until they are rallied to oppose the encroachments in the Church against God’s sovereignty.

I applaud Candidate Baldwin’s fight against globalism and I join him in it but I realize that the fight against globalism (tower of Bableism) will never be won until God is seen to be as sovereign as He never ceases to be.

“God Loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” So said a high profile ‘evangelist’ 50 odd years ago and that script has been hardwired into Evangelicals the way Bill Gates hardwires his machines with Internet Explorer. But is it true? Does God Love everybody and have a wonderful plan for his or her lives?

About a year ago this issue came up when I attended a Mormon open house designed to turn their best face toward John Q. Public. A blanket invitation was given in the local newspaper and I decided that it might be interesting to see what the Mormons look like when they have all their makeup on. Upon arriving one was greeted with the requisite punch and cookies as well as the ubiquitous Mormon smile. After the general bonhomie settled down they invited us into an all purpose room to watch a promotional film for the Mormon ‘faith.’ The lights went dim, the VCR whirred and the beautiful people came on screen. Imagine my surprise when one of the first things out of the TV people’s mouth was … “God Loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” (or something very much like that). Now in my exuberance I yelled out … “Stop the tape, Stop the Tape,” which they very obligingly did (when somebody is trying to impress you with how nice they are you can get away with murder). They assured me that they were glad for my questions wherever they came in the program and encouraged me to go ahead and ask my question. And so I did. I asked them, “If God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life then what is the purpose of becoming Mormon?” I mean, if God already is so hotsie totsie for me in my non-Mormon state then why should I change anything?

Silence.

More Silence.

Of course the Mormon oi poloi are taught to evangelize according a very set pattern and if you get them out of that rut (which my question accomplished) they take on the statuesque demeanor of a herd of deer frozen in the mystery of fast approaching headlights. Perhaps some other time I will tell the rest of my ‘Mormon Open House’ story but the point that I made that night in that simple question with the Mormon tribe is the same point that Evangelicals need to consider when they embrace the notion that God loves everybody. The news to the lost that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life pre-empts the attempt made later in the conversation to set the Evangelical hook regarding repentance for what need is there for repentance if God already loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life?

Now, it might be the case that people will say at this point that repentance is implied in the statement about God’s universal love for everybody. To which my rejoinder would be, ‘Well if repentance is required before God loves people then it obviously is the case that those who are not repentant God doesn’t love, and therefore it is not true that God loves everybody.’ Then my rejoinder might go on to wonder if God doesn’t love the non-repentant then what is His dispositional state towards the non-repentant? Could it be a disposition of opposition? Could it be the case that the Psalmist is correct when he says that God hates workers of iniquity? And if those who are un-repentant are by definition workers of iniquity (what else could they be working) then it might be just as appropriate to say those who show up for your open house that ‘God hates you and unless you repent He has every intent to punish you for your iniquity working,’ though I wouldn’t suggest leading with either sound bite.

But we don’t say that and we never get to it. We don’t say that because even the hearing of that grates against the hardwiring even though the Psalmist can confess that he hates God’s enemies with a perfect hatred. To suggest that God Hates people is just not something that we have grown up being taught and early-learned ways of thinking are difficult to re-program. Another reason we don’t say it is that we think Evangelism is akin to selling cars and nobody buys a car when the Salesman starts off by saying, ‘if you don’t buy this you will be damned.’ So, thinking that we have to make the sell and close the deal, we look out for the esteem of the buyer and avoid those truths that would violate their esteem. Now, the idea that God hates both sin and the sinner, I am sure you would agree, definitely falls into the esteem-crushing category. But then perhaps that is what we mean when we talk about ‘the stone that makes men stumble and the rock that makes them fall?’

Why do we find it odd though to hear the words, ‘God hates workers of iniquity?’ Even we mortals who love certain truths find the countervailing truths and the people who hold them to be loathsome. For example, if we love the notion that abortion is wrong we are foursquare opposed to those who love the notion that abortion is right. Every truth that we embrace and cherish comes with the notion of despising the opposite. If we love freedom we will hate slavery AND those who would seek to enslave us. If we love Christian Education we will hate non-Christian education AND those who would seek to force non-Christian Education upon people. To love something is always to hate its opposite. A person cannot love without hating at the same time. Even the Scripture recognizes this when we are taught to ‘cling to that which is good and to hate that which is evil.’ And again the Psalmist can say, “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:104). There is such a thing as Biblical Hatred and it is defined as the revulsion we have towards those things that are the opposite of what we are commanded to love.

Now, if this is true for we mortals, how much more so is it true of God? God’s love is ultimately set upon Himself in His Trinitarian Self and all those that despise Him God despises since He hates those who hate what He loves. If God loves in one direction then God hates in the opposite direction. If He loves the good He hates the wicked. If He loves the glorification of Himself He hates those who would steal His glory. If He loves His people then His wrath is upon those who oppose His people. If He loves workers of righteousness then He hates workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5, 11:5). His Hatred, like ours, is but the reverse mirror image of His Love. As a principle it is impossible to Love without also hating, for to love that which is estimable is to hate that which is desultory.

But here is where it gets interesting. In matters touching Evangelism God’s Hate is often based on His love. That is to say in many cases His Hate is serving His love. Augustine, the 4th century Church Bishop had this in mind when he said, ‘Even when God hated us He loved us.” When God through the proclamation of the Gospel reveals His opposition to people who are by nature children of Wrath (Eph. 2:3) it is often with the purpose that His people would flee to Jesus for safety from His present wrath (Rmns. 1:18). That is to say that in God’s economy the reason God makes known His wrath against workers of iniquity is so He might pour out His love out upon those who take refuge in the self-appeasement He has provided in His Son. We who proclaim such a message do not take some kind of maniacal pleasure in God’s opposition to sinners, enjoying seeing people squirm, but rather the reason we declare God’s wrath (and what is Wrath but hatred expressed?) is so that His people would discover their sin and dreadful situation and flee to Jesus and in Jesus learn that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives. When we proclaim God’s opposition it is with the express purpose that people might discover His unmerited favor.

We proclaim God’s hatred of the workers of iniquity so that we might proclaim to them that God’s hatred for those who look to Jesus has already been extinguished in the cross. That is to say that workers of iniquity can now become beloved of God because the hatred God had for them was poured out upon their substitute in the work of the Cross where His wrath against His people is exhausted. We also tell them though that if they will not look to Jesus and become part of a local covenant community (Church) then the Wrath of God remains on them. If we start by telling unbelievers that God loves them then the Cross makes no sense in the telling. The Cross only makes sense in the context of God hating sin and workers of iniquity. If God does not hate sin and workers of iniquity then the Cross was certainly stupid and definitely un-necessary.

If the objector now insists that God only loves people who repent then he ought to quit telling people who haven’t repented that God loves them because what he is saying is different then what he means and it certainly isn’t what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is that God Loves and receives all those who labor and are heavy laden and are looking to Him for rest. What Scripture teaches is that God Loves people who are broken and contrite in heart. What Scripture teaches is that God loves those in the far country who come to themselves. Scripture does not teach that God loves everybody and has a wonderful plan for their lives and saying such things is putrid evangelism that gets in the way of someone who God is pursuing through their seeking and detracts from God’s Glory.

So, lets be done with ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.’ The use of it is getting in the way of those of us who are trying to communicate something besides limp wristed notions of both God and love. If nothing else the present state and condition of the Church in the West testifies to the effectiveness of using that winning insight for the last 50 years. Indeed, it would be nice to be done with canned approaches in general. Certainly I am not advocating that the first thing out of our mouths to an unbelieving acquaintance is the truth of God’s hostility towards them. Shoot, given our culture the first thing may be time explaining the notion of God, the wickedness of autonomy, the reality of right and wrong, the idea of a Bible and other such topics.

Thanks to the wonders of Facebook, in the last few weeks I have heard from a couple old friends I haven’t heard from since I graduated from college in 1982. It was interesting catching up and finding out just a tiny bit about what has happened to them since 1982.

One of my friends works for (I’m not making this up) Hustler magazine now. Another of my friends works for a well known denomination at a kind of middle management level responsible for a missions aspect of the denomination. (In order to understand some comparisons I am going to make in this post you’ll have to read my previous post.)

After some reflection I decided that maybe there wasn’t much difference between those two occupations. They both are trying to evangelize people. The first one uses the lure of artificial women while the second one uses the lure of an artificial Jesus. They both are trying to build the Kingdoms of their respective bosses. The first one is building kingdoms for Larry Flynt. The second one is build kingdoms for Humanistic “Christianity.” They both are involved in businesses that excel in the lost of innocence. The first excels in the loss of sexual innocence while the second excels in the loss of spiritual innocence. Finally, the end effect of both is to create cynicism among their thoughtful converts. The first will find eventual cynicism about all things sexual in his thoughtful converts while the other will find eventual cynicism about all things spiritual in his thoughtful converts.

It is interesting but I find myself more concerned for the soul of my friend working for the Church then I am for the soul of my friend working for Larry Flynt. My friend working for Hustler is in a business that is far easier to see through the emptiness and charade of what it offers, and thus he is far more likely, humanly speaking, to come to the end of his pursuits and himself. My other friend working for the Church and saturated in a Church growth mentality is involved in a giant con game that works so well because everyone involved are “true believers” thinking they are doing the “Lord’s work.” He is far less likely to come to the end of himself and to see the emptiness and charade of what it pretends to offer.

Pray for my friends that they might know the delight of being captivated by the beauty, goodness, and truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“There is great danger to hear, read, and converse, in an unfeeling and unsuitable manner on the them of human inability. There is a danger of mistaking, or drawing inferences, from this doctrine, respecting man’s weakness to holy things.

We ought to be on our guard, lest we think that man’s inability makes him excusable in his sin, or in neglecting his duties and the great salvation. By his inability he does not become unaccountable to God. the Lord’s authority to demand obedience from man, and man’s obligation to obey his Maker, are the same. Our disobedience is not less sinful because we are naturally sinners; and our vileness is not less evil because of our strong opposition to be holy. Let us beware lest we imagine that it is not sinful for us to be sinners. We should also beware of the thought that, as man is unable to change his nature, he is therefore excusable in living in his sin. It is no excuse whatever to him, neither does it lessen his fault at all, for he delights in his sin, and hates to be kept from it. He does not like to live a godly life, nor to be made willing and able. He contends with his Maker, opposes His Spirit, and rejects His invitations. Genesis 6:3, Acts 7:51, Proverbs 1:24-25.

We ought to take care, on the other hand, lest, by proving that it is not the lack of members, senses, or faculties that accounts for man’s inability to act in a spiritual manner, we should set forth that weakness as something small, and that man may remove it by some endeavor of his own; or that ministers may overcome it by strong reasons, solemn, alarming, threatenings, and winning, captivating invitations; and thereby disregard and lose sight of the truth respecting the Spirit’s work in man’s salvation. There is danger lest ministers and people should fail in observing the need of the Holy Ghost working by his grace and infinite strength in man’s salvation. There is as much need of His applying it, as of the Son’s accomplishing it, as already observed. There is room to fear that preachers and hearers grieve the Holy Spirit by losing sight of this; and are, consequently, left destitute of his powerful influences and operations, because they do not seriously consider, nor humbly acknowledge, the necessity of the Spirit working powerfully by the ministry of the Word for man’s salvation.”

On The Moral Inability of Man — pg. 366-367
John Elias — Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Minister

“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia”

C. S. Lewis
The Silver Chair

I love Lewis. The Silver Chair is my favorite book in the Narnia Series. Having said all that this quote has forever driven me nuts because it strikes me as something more an existentialist would say when contemplating the meaninglessness of life then something a Christian would say. A true blue existentialist believes that life has no meaning except the meaning he gives it and even though he knows it has no meaning it is an act of existential courage to act as if it does have meaning. Lewis seems quite neo-orthodox with this quote.

First, I have never been able to understand how made up things could ever seem more important than real things. Now made up things might be more comforting than real things but only an insane person would say a made up thing seems more important than a real thing. Standing by a play world that is known as a play world over against the real world is something that you find frequently from people in a nut house, and I don’t think it does any favors to Christianity to suggest to people that a Christianity that isn’t true would be preferred over a world without Christ that is true. If Christianity and Jesus isn’t true then let us join Nietzsche’s ubermensch and be done with it. If only in this life we have hope in Christ we are of all men to be pitied.

Second being on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan is likewise just plain stupid. If there isn’t any Aslan then there isn’t a Aslan’s side to be on.

The reason this quote came to mind again is because recently I was in a setting where somebody was suggesting that it didn’t matter whether the miracles of the Bible were true since all that really mattered is that, historically, people have believed them to be true. The suggestion was that, as ministers, we shouldn’t worry about the truth or not truth of the miracle accounts, since to do so would be indicative of enlightenment thinking. Rather we should lose the enlightenment category hangups and just emphasize that these stories were the myths that guided the people in Scriptures and they should be the myths that guide us.

Please accept my apologies but I can’t do this. It makes no more sense to say I am going to stand by Aslan even if there is no Aslan to stand by then it does to say that I am going to believe (and act as if) the miracles are true even if the miracles aren’t true. Further, it is quite important whether or not they actually happened or not, because if they didn’t happen then we would be people following cleverly devised tales. I can make up and follow my own tales just as easily as I can follow somebody else’s tales.

Everything hangs on the objective truth of the Scriptures. If the Miracle accounts aren’t true then the whole thing unravels and if the whole thing unravels, I’m warning you now, you don’t want to be around me because I promise you that I will be consistent with what it all means if those Miracles aren’t true.