It Really is This Simple

I fear that many Christians make Christianity far more complicated than they need to make it. Christianity is about Jesus of Nazareth, period. Christianity is about who Jesus is, what he claimed, and ultimately, it is about whether or not he rose from the dead.

Let's take the last one first. Did Jesus rise from the dead after having been crucified? If the answer is no, then Christianity is a total waste of time. This is not simply conjecture, it is what the apostle Paul taught. He wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins...if in this life only we have hoped in (the resurrection of) Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:14-19).

It breaks down like this:
1. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, preaching Jesus is worthless.
2. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your belief in Jesus is worthless.
3. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, you lie about God when you tell people he did.
4. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Paul is self-admitted liar.
5. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christians are pitiful.

It really is that simple. Christian, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, do something else.

However, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then that is spectacular. People don't just get up from the grave after being dead for three days. And, as Paul goes on to write, "In fact, Christ has been raised from the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20). It is in this resurrection from the dead that Jesus' teachings and and "Christ" title are validated. Again, Paul writes that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).

Technically speaking, crucifixion is not that awesome. Lots and lots of people were crucified in the first century. However, rising from the dead is a marvelous feat to say the least. Since Jesus rose from the dead, it means that he merits an audience. We ought to listen to this man and what he taught because he alone has the answer to death. He is only one to defeat it.

So ask yourself, if you are a Christian. Is this what defines you? Is this what your co-worker would say defines you? Do they know that you do what you do because Jesus conquered death? Do they know that you obey Jesus because you believe him to be both Lord of all Creation, Conqueror of Death, and Savior of Mankind, and that you believe this because he rose from the dead?

Or do they think that you are simply a moralist? They probably know about your "do and don't do" list, but do they have any idea how you got that list? Do you implicitly or explicitly impose that list onto others without speaking of the resurrection of the dead?

What I mean by that is this: When someone advocates a cause or behavior that you know is not pleasing to the Lord, is your first impulse to declare yourself against it, or is your first impulse that you need to speak about Christ's resurrection? Because if you say what you are against wihtout giving the foundation for why you are against it, you are going to hang yourself out to dry at best, and at worst you will become a moralist.

So talk more about the resurrection of Jesus and the fact that he has the power to grant eternal life. Then, having talked about that until you are certain that everyone knows you are obsessed with it, you may then proceed to unpack why you are for or against certain behaviors.

Are You Salty?

Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Luke 14:34-35).

One thing is certain, a disciple of Jesus Christ is not to be bland. A Christian ought to be earnest. He ought to be plucky. He ought to be divisive.

If you find that last fact shocking, or perhaps even errant, then I wonder if you are being salty enough. Behold the context from which that quote comes:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14:26). Jesus then urges his listeners to count the cost of being his disciple. One of those costs is this: if you cling to Jesus above all others as your only hope, you will be alienated from others that you love. You will become, by virtue of your faith, a divisive person.

This is not to say that Christians should be belligerent and try to stir up trouble. Certainly, we ought to heed the wise words of our Master and be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." However, if we are never ruffling feathers, if we are never irritating people with our convictions, then we simply are not being New Testament Christians. Jesus said this, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (Luke 12:51-53).

This divisiveness that Jesus brings is one of the most detestable things in our culture. Our culture values peace above reason and justice. It values obfuscation above forthrightness. It values doubt above certitude. It finds absolute truth claims in the area of theology, philosophy, and therefore morality to be nigh ludicrous. Therefore, if a person asserts the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, the reality of eternal judgment to come, or if he should condemn an act as sinful, then he is in danger of that dread label of "fundamentalist."

This is not rant or a complaint; I want to be clear about that. It is a simple observation that, in this life, the Christian cannot avoid these things if he wishes to be salty and therefore useful. We have the only Savior who can actually save. We worship the only God who is actually God. We have the only book that is actually inspired. If you believe these things alone, you will automatically become a persona non grata in many circles.

Let me end this little post with a couple of exhortations. First, just because people will think you are an imbecile does not mean you have to act like one. You do not have to cruise for fights, and you do not have to act indignant when they come. Just remain calm and faithful, and be prepared to give a reasonable answer for the faith that you hold dear. So think about these things: One: Have your convictions caused any friction lately? Why or why not? Is it because you are actually being abrasive? Or secondly, if you have caused no friction, is it because you have ducked opportunities to be salty?

Jesus Said That

I always find it curious when someone who is not a Christian proceeds to tell Christians that they are not good Christians. Usually, the phrases that get used are something like, "Judge not that you be not judged!" or "God loves everyone just the way that they are." Usually, this comes about when a Christian has voiced his or her opinion about some type of behavior being sinful.

Now, the first thing that a Christian must keep in mind is that this sort of argument is not to be taken personally. Secondly, they must remember not to get angry about this because it is patently silly. Silly things should not make us angry or defensive. If my buddy Matt tells me that he is the Queen of Sheba, anger should not be my first impulse.

Once these first two impulses are squashed, the third imperative can follow. That is, we must remember that the main issue is always Jesus. Who is Jesus? What did Jesus teach? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? This is far more important than debating marriage laws, polygamy, homosexuality, or whether or not someone should vote Republican.

So if I say, "I believe that 'gay marriage' is as ridiculous as a squared circle," and someone retorts that I'm being a judgmental bigot who is unworthy to call myself a human being, much less a Christian, because Jesus would never say such a preposterous thing, I need to think, "Heeeey...this person doesn't know about Jesus very well" not "Heeeey...he just called me a BIGOT!"

Here is something that Jesus actually said, "He whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:34-36). Jesus makes some pretty big claims in this passage.

First, Jesus claims that God sent him. Next, Jesus claims that when he is speaking, he is uttering the very words of God. Then, Jesus claims to be the rightful ruler of all things because God gave him everything. Finally, Jesus says that whoever does not obey him will perish under the wrath of Almighty God. Jesus made it abundantly clear throughout the gospels that he believed himself to be the only way to get to God (John 14:6). He also defined marriage, and a great list of other things whilst he was here, including affirmations of the Old Testament.

This is how the Christian can deal with name-calling and misunderstanding. Jesus said, "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matthew 10:25). Basically, if someone objects to the teaching of Jesus, even though it is a hapless Christian merely parroting the words of the Great Teacher, the one who is objecting falls under the condemnation of which Jesus spoke. In reality then, it could be Jesus who is the judgmental bigot who is unfit to be a human being, or he could be the King of the Universe who gets to make the rules for the creation that he himself helped make and currently sustains.

Just a Reminder

As I read my Bible today, I was reminded of the great necessity for believers to warn others to flee from the wrath that is to come. Won't you use your influence today to bear witness of the great escape that God has provided for us in Jesus Christ? Will you pray that God will grant you an opportunity to share and the boldness to do so when the opportunity presents itself?

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those whodo not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (1 Thess. 1:5-10).

The End of the World and Apologetics

I meant to post something here yesterday about the gospel and evangelism. But I got busy in a little debate with someone over at Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost. It all started over a "rapture friendly" theological video. You can view the video here and then scroll down to read our exchange. So, what do you think? Is that evangelism? Did I present the gospel? Or is it apologetics? Or some of all. I'd appreciate your input since I'm apparently gone off the deep end.

Update:So, is this a complement?

Brad,

I respect you for sticking up for your beliefs in a polite and thoughtful way. But the divergence between your good character and the horrible things you claim to believe is just made all the more stark to me by your calm, rational delivery.

The horrible things that I am claiming are that men are sinful and deserving of death and hell. Also, I claim that outside of Jesus Christ there is no salvation.

What is Evangelism? Part 1

I'm going to try to do a series here that answers the question, "What is Evangelism?" It may only be two posts; it may be five. No big promises here. But it occurs to me that answering this question is very important because, by all accounts at the last convention, the problem with the SBC is that we aren't doing enough of it. Even the President of the Convention said so, and I do not doubt that it's true.

So let's get a rudimentary definition of "evangelism." I'll say that evangelism is the heralding of the gospel of God. This can be one on one, or it can be done in crowds of thousands. That sounds easy enough, but the concern I have is that we have lost the key component of evangelism: the gospel itself. If we have no sound gospel, then we have no evangelism. Do you suppose this is what President Page means?

Secondly, I am afraid that we have lost the purpose of evangelism. I will say, just to get things going, that the chief end of the gospel/evangelism is not to get people saved. I believe that even if we have a sound gospel, if we try to use it in a way that it is not intended, or expect from it what it was never intended to do, then we will become frustrated with it. Sort of like trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail. Or better yet, trying to turn a screw with the tip of a butterknife. While I believe that it is true that many "evangelicals" could not give a satisfactory answer for "What is the Gospel?" I believe that most would do even worse with, "What is evangelism for?"

I wrote that the chief end of the gospel is not for the salvation of people. Though by God's grace, many are saved through its proclamation. The reason this cannot be its chief end and primary purpose is because not everyone is saved by the gospel. Let me through another point in here; I believe that neither evangelism or the gospel fail in their purpose. My outline looks like this:

1. Evangelism is the heralding of the gospel.
2. Evangelism never fails in its chief end.
3. Often, people are not saved after they are evangelized.
4. Therefore, the chief end of the evangelism cannot be the salvation of souls.

So if evangelism's chief end is not for the salvation of souls, what is the purpose of evanglism? My simple answer is that evangelism, which is the heralding of the gospel, has for its chief end the glorification of God. This, I believe, should be self-evident and basic. It should not shock, and after building up to that point, you may have hoped that I was going for something a bit more profound.

If it is true that the chief end of evangelism is to glorify God, is it true that evangelism never fails in its purpose? I say that yes, it never fails. "Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?" (2 Cor. 2:14-16). When we herald the gospel, we are always a pleasing aroma to God, regardless of whether people believe.

If this is true, then why is it that almost every year our success in evangelism is measured in terms of conversions and/or baptisms? Why is it that we push men and women onto the mission field with pleas to go to people who are "starving for the gospel?" Do we wonder why missionaries and church members burn out after going "door to door" and living amongst the lost when they see no conversions? The reason they get so discouraged is because, on some basic level, we are taught that the purpose of evangelism is to get people saved. I cannot imagine a more potentially discouraging situation.

One of my chief discouragments, year after year, is to hear evangelism preached at the convention in terms of "we've got to win people to Jesus." God knows that I long to see people won to Christ with all my heart. But what I long for above all things, indeed the chief end of my life, is to see God glorified. Maybe missionary and evangelistic endeavor is marked as "failure" because we have forgotten what it is for. Couldn't one, just one pastor stand at the convention and preach on evangelism as if God's glory is at stake and not just the fate of wretched, rebellious people who hate Him with every fiber of their being? When I say that His glory is at stake in the gospel and evangelism, I do not mean that He is gambling His glory there as if He could lose it or gain it according to our faithfulness. Rather, I mean that His glory is at stake in terms of our seeing it manifested, by salvation or by glorious judgment, if we do not herald it.

Tomorrow, we'll have to answer, "What is the Gospel?" if we want to understand evangelism better. Stay tuned.