Hey Mark,
I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my blog. However, I’m extremely disappointed in the manner in which you replied. Rather than address the theological issue at hand, you choose to attack my character and question my integrity. Such a response is shallow and beneath you. I never intended our discussion to degrade to this, but now that my honor is at stake I feel compelled to respond.
Contrary to what you think, I am very open to honest conversation; in fact, that is precisely why I invited you to read and comment on my post. My primary agenda is that we come to a Biblical understanding of evangelism. I think what makes you apprehensive is not that I have a “theological agenda,” but that I find your approach to evangelism unbiblical. The EC speaks a lot about listening to other people’s view points and having the humility to learn from others. I wonder if you have the patience and humility to have a serious conversation with me about this issue. Will you cut off communication because I happen to think your wrong; because I dared to question your methods? Or will you continue to engage in a fruitful conversation with me? My hope is that you will.
Your concern about internet ethics is most admirable. I too am concerned about internet ethics and am a bit disappointed that you not only insinuate that I’ve been unethical, but that my friend Joel is guilty of slander (In his defense, Joel was actually present during the first part of our conversation, and this is the only part he wrote about on his blog. He did not presume to write about what took place after he walked off). I wasn’t aware that writing a blog about one’s experience at a public event was unethical; or that writing about a conversation one had with someone was inappropriate. I haven’t written anonymously, I did not purposefully distort or lie about what happened, and I even sent you an email to let you know about my post. Perhaps you are not as concerned about the ethics of my actions, but more about the audacity of my actions.
You find it, “quite remarkable that . . . [I] . . . would represent . . . [my] . . . interpretation of our brief conversation in such an authoritative posture in a public venue before dialoging with me further to clarify my position.” However, I do not. My blog post details my experience at the Church Basement Roadshow, my emotional response to your presentation, and my thoughts about the conversation we had. I didn’t realize I needed to speak to you first before I shared these things. Nevertheless, as I’ve already noted, I was very interested to hear your thoughts about my experience. This is precisely why I emailed you a link to my blog; and invited you to continue our theological conversation.
You seem to think I have made this a public issue. However, it was a public issue long before I posted about it. You’re the published author touring churches across America pushing the EC’s theological agenda. Furthermore, I met you at a public event and we had a conversation with other people around; namely Joel. You at no point requested I keep our conversation confidential.
I must thank you for cautioning me to “be generous with others who may know more than you, have a different context or experience, or speak from one of the New Testament offices that differs from your own.” Contrary to what you think, I am aware that there are others who know more and have lived longer than I. I have deep love and respect for my father, my college professors, and other older and better educated men and women God has placed in my life. However, I sense you are not sharing this with me out of great love or concern. Rather, I think you are suggesting I had no business challenging you in the first place. Thus, we come to the heart of the problem; you dislike the fact that a young college student had the audacity to question your learned theological agenda. In truth, my age and life experience has no real bearing on the issue. Please address my critiques and refrain from these petty attacks on my character.
You’ve expressed that you feel “set up” by me in our conversation. You state, “ it seems disingenuous and frankly dishonest for you to approach me with feigned curiosity when apparently you were only looking to confirm your presuppositions about a perceived movement you hoped to critique.” This is a highly presumptuous statement Mark. I can assure you that I had no ulterior motives when I approached you. I did have questions about your presentation and problems with your approach to evangelism. The biggest issue I had is that you never shared the gospel with the Emperor—you never challenged him to repent from his depraved lifestyle and to believe in Jesus.
In spite of what you say, I did ask if you had ever shared the gospel with the Emperor; and you responded by reminding me how he reacted to the name of Jesus and suggested that you and Joseph tried not to mention Jesus around him. If this is not so, why were you so terrified when your son suggested you sing happy birthday to Jesus at Christmas?
Now, however, you claim that this part of our conversation never took place. Furthermore, you claim that you did share the gospel with the Emperor on several occasions. To clear up this myth, allow me to quote from your book. After suggesting that you drink your own urine the Emperor claimed to be a messenger from God . . .
“Joseph spoke up. “What a coincidence. We are also followers of God’s messenger, Jesus.” That was the wrong thing to say, for the emperor grew agitated and exclaimed, “I’m #$%! Jesus Christ, the G—n messiah, Jesus isn’t coming back so you had better listen to me! If you don’t believe me, then get out of my bus!”
According to your story, you left the bus thinking the job was done.
Might I point out several things: (1) it was Joseph (not you) who told the Emperor that you were followers of God’s messenger Jesus, (2) neither of you shared the gospel with the Emperor, you simply mentioned the name of Jesus. This is the account as it is written in your book, and this is the account that you read to the audience. So, if you did share the gospel with the Emperor, as you now claim, how was I supposed to know? You failed to record it in your story and you failed to inform me when I directly asked you after the show. In fact, you freely admit that you didn’t inform me; I quote, “I didn’t explain this [that you had shared the gospel with the Emperor] to you, because your line of inquiry presumed that sharing the gospel means telling someone that they are a “sinner.” I am not a mind reader Mark, and I don’t appreciate being called a liar.
You also say that you were “taken a back by . . . [my] . . . deceptive and combative approach to . . . [you].” This is a completely inaccurate depiction of my behavior towards you. I was most congenial when we spoke. I fear the real problem is, you don’t like the fact that I disagreed with you. Mark, it is not deceptive and combative for someone to disagree with you; especially when one does so politely. Your interpretation of my actions is perhaps mired by your belief that I had no right to challenge you to begin with. As you say, “It seems rather strange to me that you would approach someone 10-15 years older than you, whom you don’t know and begin an argument with them based on your presupposed straw man.” If we’re going to have a serious conversation, let’s seriously talk about the issue at hand. Please stop lambasting me with these ad hominem attacks. My age and experience have nothing to do with my argument.
At no point in my blog did I resort to such fallacious argumentation against you. In fact, the one comment I did make about your character said that you were, “a compassionate man with an honest desire to reach out to the “dregs” of society.” My blog dealt with the struggles I had with your approach to evangelism, and fleshed out my problems with your response to my questions. You seem to perceive this as a personal attack on your being, rather than a critique of your theological position.
It is quite possible that you never intended to disparage my name; so I suggest we start afresh. I will post an article which responds to some of the theological comments you made about my blog and which explains my position on several of the key issues you brought up: for instance, the place of sin in the gospel, how Jesus interacted with the lost, and how to share the message of Jesus to the mentally ill. This will allow you to comment on the content of my argument and will hopefully allay any temptation to continue this senseless rehtoric. I do wish to continue our theological conversation; however, I have no desire to continue this dog fight. I want you to understand my position and I want to have a meaningful dialog about it. I’m quite sure that you feel the same as me. At the end of the day, the only agenda I want to push is God’s agenda. I want to have a right belief in the message of Jesus and the kingdom of God and a biblical understanding of evangelism.
The only question now is; are you up for the discussion?
Sincerely,
Joshua Brown
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 28, 2008 at 9:45 pm
jeffcstraka
It seems to me, a non-professional layperson listening in on both sides of this conversation, that one of the key differences between the fundamentalists and the emergents is in the definition of the gospel.
If I understand your side, the gospel is boiled down to “Jesus came to die for you sins so that when you die, you can go to heaven (what heaven is about is a whole ‘nother topic) when you die.” So, essentially, the gospel is more about the “afterlife” than the here and now. When you “share the gospel” you basically do like this guy demonstrates:
http://battlezone.echurchnetwork.net/Training/ShowMeHow/SharetheGospel/default.aspx
Note how the beautiful Biblical narrative is chopped and sliced. Genesis 3, The Fall, is essentially the starting point (well maybe 2:25), and then the entire Hebrew Bible, and most of the synoptic gospels are bypassed. Boom! Right to Jesus came to die for our sins so that we can be with him forever.
My understanding of the gospel, and I would guess many in the emergent movement, is the ENTIRE Biblical narrative, from Genesis 1 all the way through Revelation 22. Yes, Jesus’ death on the cross and eternal life is a part of that story, but to me it does a great disservice NOT to include in your conversation stories about how God created the heavens and the earth and called them all GOOD. About how when Adam and Eve sinned, God did not simply people on one side of a huge canyon and then simply stand on the other side and wait for Jesus to come to “fix things”. About how the Hebrew Bible is FULL of stories of God’s continued pursuit of us. About how Jesus being born was God incarnate, again, showing his desire to live with his people – to “tabernacle” with us. About how Jesus lived his life to show us what it looks like to be in FULL relationship with God, with others, with creation, and with ourselves (true Shalom). About how, by us living in Shalom NOW, heaven can begin NOW, not just later when we die. About how God is on a restoration project that was “launched” by Jesus being resurrected, and about how God wants to restore not just US, but ALL creation (that’s what it is groaning in anticipation for!).
Now, it would be difficult to do justice to such an amazing story of the this good news in a clever 2 minute “pitch” that concludes with the “sinners” prayer (by the way, I don’t EVER recall hearing Jesus ask anyone he healed or saved to “say the prayer”). In order to do justice in telling this story, one needs to be in a true relationship, not just a superficial one with the end-game of “saying the prayer”. In order to make this story believable, one needs to be living inside the full gospel story (the whole narrative), not just “selling” it.
The Emperor was seeing the gospel “lived out” and was actually becoming part of the story himself. There were no empty words steering him towards “saying the prayer”. Hearing the Emperor singing happy birthday to Jesus probably made God a whole lot happier than him saying a forced sinner’s prayer to get his butt into heaven. Like the little video says, it’s about the HEART, not the white frosting.
Anyway, that’s my two cents worth on “your” gospel vs. “my” gospel.
July 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm
jeffcstraka
p.s. – some “non-emergent” resources that have influenced my “gospel theology”:
http://www.biblicaltheology.ca/index.htm
http://grts.cornerstone.edu/wittmer/
http://tinyurl.com/wolters
http://tinyurl.com/plantinga
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
July 29, 2008 at 4:29 am
cdavis94
To the above poster:
I have thought about and prayed about the points you make in your post, and I believe that the root of our disagreement comes down to two points.
1. Is there an actual salvation event for the individual?
2. What is the gospel?
To the first question, the Bible is adamant. The salvation of a person’s soul comes when that person puts their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. When the depraved sinner realizes his condition and calls out to Jesus, that man is saved. I cite Acts 8:36-37, 16:29-31, and especially Romans 10:9-17.
Evangelism is the God-ordained act of preaching the gospel (we’ll get to what that is in a moment) so that a person can come to faith in Christ. One of the glorious benefits of an act of faith is that it secures one’s place in heaven. In fact, it is an excellent motivator for a lost person that Christ employs on more than one occasion (see Luke 16:14-31 for one strong instance.) But we would be remiss if we were to say that the point of preaching the gospel is merely eternal salvation to begin at death. Eternal life begins here!
“For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God. Not of works lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” – Ephesians 1:8-10.
The point of salvation is not merely to go to heaven when we die – it is to equip us to work for our Creator here. There must be a point where we are born again of immortal seed (John 3:1-7; I Peter 1:23) because man in his natural, unregenerate state does not follow God and cannot know him. (Romans 1-3; Colossians 3:1-12.)
So the things that you seek – intimacy with God, peace with self and others, and a life lived for Christ – cannot happen until you have first placed your faith in him. This is why we preach the gospel.
Which leads us to the second question. What is the gospel? Simply put, it is the story of Christ, and more to the point, his death, burial, and resurrection. Hear the Apostle Paul:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” I Corinthians 15:1-4
The life of Christ and indeed the whole counsel of the Word of God is of the utmost importance. But the Law of Moses does not save. The stories of faith and heroism throughout the Old Testament do not save. The acts of the churches do not bring us one step closer to a relationship with Christ. It is only his sacrifice on Calvary’s tree that can save us.
Jeff, my prayer is that evangelicals everywhere would share your zeal for living out the life of Christ. But it is also my fervent prayer that you and any who are looking to emulate Christ would first come to him, broken by the sin we have all born, asking forgiveness.
“Because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued to trust himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds, you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.” — I Peter 2:21-24
July 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm
jeffcstraka
In order to answer question 1, it would be important to clarify that your definition of “salvation” is probably different than my definition. I may be generalizing, but it seems that most fundamentalists use the words “salvation” and “saved” to mean “my ticket into heaven”. If you watched the video link of the guy “sharing the gospel”, the “end game” seemed to be an assurance of going to heaven instead of hell when you die (which I am fully down with, by the way). MY understanding of “salvation” or “being saved” also includes healing, transformation and restoration NOW, and not just for an individual, but of all God’s creation. Being “saved” means that I am now given resurrection-power (the Holy Spirit) to partner with God in the redemption/restoration of ALL creation – not just human souls. To me, going to heaven when I die is “icing on the cake” – an amazing by-product of a much more comprehensive and complete salvation. The Hebrew understanding of the word salvation seems to be “brought into an open area from the restriction of oppression (narrowed area) from enemies”. When Jesus did his “inaugural sermon” (Luke 4:14-21) he never mentioned that the “good news” was restricted to “going to heaven when you die”. His message seemed aimed more at a salvation or healing in their lives NOW. You admit that salvation is not just about “going to heaven when you die” but to “equip us for work for our Creator here”. My guess is that you might define “work” as primarily “saving more souls” (by preaching the gospel). My definition of that work is “partnering with God in his restoration/rescue project – putting the whole world to rights”. That means feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the hurting, standing up for the rights of the oppressed, caring for the environment, protecting animals and other forms of life, etc. Sorry for the wordy definition, but I thought it essential to point out a potential chasm.
Now to answer question 1: I cannot speak for all people, but for me I cannot point to a single event in my life where – BOOM – I felt saved. No single “event” where I could see I crossed a sharp line from “unsaved” to “saved”, from “no faith” to “full faith”. But I was born into a “church goin’ family” and was never fully atheist (though I came close in my twenties). For me, it is an on-going journey, from sinner to saint. To me, repentance means to turn from the ways of a sinner and move in the direction of a saint. To me, I have to wake up every day and recommit/recenter/return/re-orient myself towards Jesus. I like Shane Claiborne’s definition of himself as a “recovering sinner”. It realistically implies that, like a recovering alcoholic, it is a daily decision one makes, a daily struggle, but a struggle that we now have the power of the Holy Spirit to give us strength on the path. So to me, salvation is an ongoing process, a daily process of peeling back all the layers of oppression covering our heart (think of an onion) until our heart is finally pure and as God originally intended (heaven).
Question 2 (what is the gospel?): I pretty much defined my broader-scoped gospel in my first entry. You went on to negate the entire Biblical narrative as “good news” (with the exception of those verses dealing with the death, burial and resurrection) because “it didn’t save” (by YOUR definition of “save”). It is interesting to me that when Jesus is transfigured (Matthew 17:2-4), who appears with him? None other than Moses and Elijah – saved from Sheol! Had Jesus gone to the cross at that point? Seems to be an exception to your “rule”. How many others in the Hebrew Bible did God call “righteous”? So, I am under the impression that our God is NOT limited or restricted on how and whom he saves – we simply cannot put God in a box. I also look again at Jesus’ inaugural sermon for what the gospel is: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Sounds like a plan to bring healing (salvation) to a hurting nation NOW, not later. If the main point of the “good news” was to “get to heaven when you die”, why did Jesus not take this perfect opportunity to let them in on it? And why didn’t Jesus come out and say that “in order for all this good news to take place, I must first die on a cross for your sins”?
Again, I have never attended a seminary, and am simply a layperson trying my best to figure out my place in God’s Story, and do my best to figure out what it means to follow Jesus…
July 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm
jeffcstraka
ps – In this list:
That means feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the hurting, standing up for the rights of the oppressed, caring for the environment, protecting animals and other forms of life, etc.
I meant to include: to persuade others to join me in this restoration project (to add more followers of Jesus – the Great Commission).
July 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm
cdavis94
Let me see if I can clarify our positions:
You: Salvation is a life-long journey taken with Christ.
Me: Salvation is an act of God in response to our faith that BEGINS a life-long journey with God.
Acts 2:39-47: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Thus, salvation was the reception of the Word (Peter’s sermon to repent and believe) followed by baptism, and beginning a lifelong journey that included sharing with one another, receiving the poor and downtrodden, and learning from the apostles. This is NOT salvation – it is the fruit thereof.
I don’t really understand your argument about Moses and Elijah with Christ on the mount, but I think I Peter 1 gives us a great definition of the relationship between Old Testament prophets and New Testament believers:
1 Peter 1:10-12: Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
Salvation has been for all people who would receive God’s promises. It does save us from Hell, and it does save us to work for Him, which includes sharing our faith but also includes all of the wonderful things you brought to light.
Please let the Scriptures guide you as you continue in your walk toward faith. We are all searching for God’s Will that we may glorify Him, but everything He tells us points to that journey beginning at the cross.
July 29, 2008 at 5:24 pm
jeffcstraka
My point with Moses and Elijah is that they were apparently “saved” or brought into heaven (God’s full presence) PRIOR to Jesus’ death on the cross. It was in response to your statement “It is only his sacrifice on Calvary’s tree that can save us.” You seemed to be saying that one can ONLY be saved by Calvary. I was saying that it sure looked like there were some who were “saved” prior to Calvary. Look at Luke 19, Zacchaeus the Tax Collector. “Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. ” Jesus hadn’t gone to the cross at that point (obviously), yet he says that Zacchaues is saved TODAY! For you to state emphatically that ONLY the cross saves people seems to limit God or put him in a box. I believe that God can save anyone he chooses, any way he chooses, and I base that in what I read in the Bible.
You end your last comment by saying “that journey beginning at the cross”. I believe that in order for us to fully understand the meaning of the cross, we can’t START there. Jesus took a long journey that eventually led him to Jerusalem and to his ultimate death. That long journey included many parallels or re-telling of the Hebrew scripture: Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan – the Hebrews crossing the Jordon into the Promised Land, Jesus’ forty days in the desert – the exodus forty years in the desert, Sermon on the Mount – Moses and the Ten Commandments. My point here is that unless and until we understand the WHOLE story of God’s people, we will not understand the full meaning and the full depth of the cross and the full meaning of what the resurrection means (MUCH more than just our “souls” going to heaven).
And yes, I believe that salvation is a life-long process and journey. I am not yet fully “saved”, I am “being saved”. That journey began when I first realized that God was in search of ME all along. God was not distant, he was not waiting on the other side of some canyon for me to get my crap together – he was right beside me, in the mess and stink of my life the WHOLE TIME. I know I am not fully saved or healed because I still stumble off the path. But I know I am BEING saved and healed because God continues to pick me up and dust me off.
July 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm
andyfromwestbythesovereigntyofGODvirginia
OK, I can’t believe I’m doing this. I like conversations over coffee, not on the keyboard, but here goes:
1. It’s not the sacrifice of Jesus ALONE that saves us, but it is the grace of God which provides us with the faith that is given to us by God, that saves us. That faith is in the God who sent His Son to die for our sins and take us from children of wrath and turn us into children of God by Christ’s righteousness. The OT points to that climactic event, so their faith in God and His promises provide the salvific effect.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Ephesians 2:8a
2. It’s that same faith that saved the OT saints and those before Jesus.
“For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:3
Paul clarifies what the OT saints are saved from, and it is God’s Wrath:
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring (remember, that includes the uncircumcised Gentiles) that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is not law there is no transgression.” Romans 4:13-15
3. There is no such thing as someone “being saved” throughout their lifetime. If that were the case, Paul could not call the Corinthians “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2). The Corinthian Church should be your illustration for a group of people in a process of “being saved” but Paul takes that thought away in his greeting! Sanctification is a now-but-not-yet motif. It’s not a process. We stumble because of the sinfulness yet in us, but Paul has clear directions for this in Galatians:
“But I say, walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” Gal. 5:16-17
Finally, Elijah never died, so he should not have faced Sheol as an option:
“And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire seperated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, “my father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw him no more.” 2 Kings 2:11-12.
Cory and Josh, I love and miss you guys. Go to Zeke’s and eat some fish for me and drink a Dublin Dr. P for Meghan. BTW we are expecting DeHart #2 in February. If it’s a boy, Judson, if it’s a girl, Piper. I hope to hear from you guys soon. Missing Fort Worth often.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Andy
July 30, 2008 at 12:22 am
cdavis94
First of all, let me say that I am really enjoying this dialogue. It is helping me understand at least one Emergent person’s thought process better.
First paragraph – your argument regarding those saved before Christ. Just because they lived and died before Christ’s atoning death does not mean that they were not saved by it.
“Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He [speaking of Christ], having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time sat down at the right hand of God.” Hebrews 10:11-12
And then, speaking of the faithful of the Old Testament, the writer says, “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” Hebrews 11:13
I love that you look so much to the Old Testament, and I hope that you see there what I see – it all points to Christ! The faithful of the Old Testament were saved looking forward to the promises of God; specifically that He would send a Messiah. “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” I Peter 3:18
In short, Christ’s death is the atoning payment for the sins of all mankind for all time.
Second paragraph – your argument against the journey beginning at the cross. Again, I agree with you totally on the relevance of the Old Testament in better knowing our Lord, but I cannot overstate the importance of the cross. When Paul went to Corinth, a city of mostly Gentiles, he didn’t preach the Old Testament. He began and ended with the cross:
“And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” I Corinthians 2:1-2
That is not to say that in their subsequent learning that they did not pour over the Old Testament, seeing Christ (as you do; as He is) at every turn. But the pictures of Him beforehand, His teachings and exemplary life, and everything that happened in the wake of His glorious ministry are worth nothing if we do not first come to know Him as Savior.
Which brings me to the last paragraph – your belief that salvation is a lifelong process. Again, there are things you say that make me understand where you are coming from, but the semantics and therefore the soteriology is off. No, we are not fully saved in the sense that we still await the fruit of our salvation to be given to us at His Second Coming. (I Peter 1:8-10) But in the sense of the security of our souls after we call upon the name of the Lord, we are wholly and fully saved. Notice even in John 3:16 that the person who believes in God already has his eternal life. Jesus promises that the sheep given to Him by the Father will never be taken from Him. (John 10:28) Jeff, we all stumble because we are still in this sinful flesh and living in a sinful world, but as you have pointed out, God is still there with us, helping us along the way.
That is why so much evangelism seems geared toward the afterlife; because it brings it home for people like you who have this sense of progressive salvation. You say you are “being saved,” but when does that process end? I know that you do not expect to one day come to a point where you no longer stumble, so where do you come to the point where you can have assurance that you are fully God’s and He is fully yours? I know right now that I am His because He says that I am. I have placed my faith and trust in Him, and I am saved to the uttermost. Now I am still growing in Christ, still learning to walk with Him every day.
Again, this is why so much evangelism is based on the simple question, “Do you know that if you died tonight that you would go to heaven?” It puts the rubber on the road, so to speak. It speaks to the practicality of your soul condition. If you do, then it is because you have placed your trust in Christ and are confident that He can keep your soul until judgment. (II Timothy 2:12) If you do not, then you have no assurance, which is what God wants for you. (Hebrews 10:22)
Our walk with God will not be perfect, and He will pick us up and dust us off, but there must be a point where, like the woman who came to Christ in Luke 7 broken and worshiping Him, the Savior says to you, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:50)
July 30, 2008 at 12:24 am
cdavis94
Edit: that stupid smiley face thing was supposed to be John 10:28. Sorry.
July 30, 2008 at 2:51 am
jeffcstraka
I, too, am enjoying your friendly dialog. But please don’t place me fully into an “emergent” box (I hate boxes) – my influences are many (including Michael Goheen, Albert Wolters, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Michael Wittmer – good reformed theologians, and N. T. Wright, to name a few).
I have a HOPE that I will be in the presence of God when I die (paradise) and then live in heaven (life after life after death) in a fully resurrected body (not a disembodied soul) on the real, physical, restored earth. But it would be quite arrogant of me to ever think that it was a 100% lock. Only God knows for sure. So how could I go around telling someone if they simply say a prayer that they have a 100% fool-proof ticket to heaven? I can share with others the beauty and joy I have being a partner with God RIGHT NOW in a restoration project already in progress, with great hope of living with God in the age to come when heaven and earth join, as the scriptures give us a foggy glimpse of.
But I could not, in any way, shape or form, reduce the gospel conversation to “soul condition”. I don’t think that is “rubber meeting the road” in the least (I think the car is half OFF the road). In my opinion, reducing the Biblical narrative to a 2-minute “pitch” with a “closer” question (did you watch the video demo in my first comment?) is actually turning off more people (especially postmoderns) than is being realized. Real gospel sharing comes with real relationship where the story is not only verbalized, but lived out.
When will I come to a point when I have the 100% assurance like the woman in Luke 7? When I meet Jesus in Paradise and I hear him tell me face to face, “Well done good and faithful servant. Your faith has saved you.” Until then, I will live my life in great hope and in the best faith that this sinful body can muster. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that my journey is filled with taut tension: saint/sinner, faithful/unfaithful, believer/disbeliever, lover/betrayer. But I thank God every day for being with me every step of the way (“I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” Mark 9:24).
July 30, 2008 at 4:51 am
jmatthanbrown
Hey Jeff,
Sorry I haven’t posted a reply yet; things have been hectic. I should be able to post a proper response tomorrow. Take care.
Josh
July 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm
cdavis94
I apologize for putting you in a box. I know I hate it when people assume things about me just because I claim to be a Baptist.
Regarding your position on hope and assurance, it is not arrogant at all to say that I know I am saved because it is not based on my righteousness but on the promise of God that “anyone who believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life.” The hope that I have is not in my ability to follow Christ but in His ability to keep my soul. Hebrews 11 says, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” I am SURE of my HOPE because I have faith in a God that assured it in His Word. I am not putting God in a box – I am holding Him to His Word, as He has instructed me to do. (Psalm 34:8-10)
I am a little frustrated that after all of our discussion on true evangelism and the gospel that you returned to the rhetoric of your first post. When have I ever reduced the gospel to a two minute pitch? What I said was that when you talk to people about their eternal destination, it brings to light their current situation. And don’t even think about belittling this tactic because Paul used it often, speaking to people about their eternal state as a way to get them to realize their current state.
I watched the video several times, and I have purposely stayed away from commenting on it because this discussion has nothing to do with a video about which you have already made up your mind, but here you go. First of all, the situation of the training video implies an existing relationship; he had invited the man to church and had spoken with him before. Why not also assume that the sharer lives a just life in front of the man? You seem to assume that the only part of evangelism is the presentation of the gospel, but it is about a contrite heart and a life lived in service to the Lord.
The point is that you cannot start that journey while you are still an unredeemed person. The Bible is clear that a conversion experience must precede your walk with Christ.
And what is necessary for conversion? A working knowledge of Old Testament covenants; an understanding of the parallels between Israel and the church? No! As Paul stated again and again, to start the journey, you need to know your state, who Christ is, and what He has done to reconcile us to God. Then, you need to accept that sacrifice as paying your sin debt. I know it sounds formulaic, but it is the clear and plain truth of the Word. There are people that misuse this knowledge and have what essentially amounts to a soteriological one night stand by sharing the gospel and moving on, but that is not what is being done in the video, and that is not what most of us do. We build relationships, we share the gospel in the hopes that the person will accept Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and we continue the relationship with discipleship, accountability, and fellowship.
How can you begin a relationship as a spiritual journey in faith and hope that at the end you have done enough or that your faith is in shape enough? Galatians 3 talks about this at length.
July 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm
austinmcknight
I know it’s hard to enter a conversation that’s already in existence with several people involved, so I’m going to try to make my point short. I’m not exploring all the implications of what I will say, and I’ll assume that you understand that basics of what I’m saying.
I think that the best understand of the whole Bible story is wrapped up in three things.
1. Man’s falleness and rejection of God.
2. God’s love for man and willingness to forgive man.
3. Jesus! Jesus is the best display of God’s affection, the pinnacle of it all.
So then, I would view the Bible this way:
The Hebrew Bible is looking forward to Jesus. This is the purpose of all the sacrifices, to continue to teach man that a sacrifice must be made for our sin. God continually showed love and took care of his people as well, and taught them to have faith in God’s care, which ultimately would be Jesus.
The idea of the Hebrew Bible looking forward to Jesus is clear in 1 Peter 1:10-13
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”
Hebrews 11 also talked about our ancient Jewish forefathers and their relation to Jesus. Verses 13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” This is talking about the faith of our fathers in God, and his future sacrifice. Verse 17 continues to talk about the foreshadowing of Jesus when Abraham was to sacrifice his own son. From this I think it’s clear that much of the Hebrew Bible was looking forward in anticipation to Jesus, the Messiah who would be Salvation for us all in the sense that he would establish God’s Kingdom (on Earth and in Heaven).
The New Testament Gospels are, of course, about Jesus and much after that is only possible about Jesus and utilizes the teachings of Jesus.
For God’s glory and his love for us is made perfect in Christ.
I think that this is the most beautiful and full way to view the whole Bible, knowing that God shared his ultimate love with all mankind in a single moment. Not to disclude and ignore anything else God did, and still does for us (I expect you to assumed that I don’t want to forget about anything God did) but for us as Christians, our relationship with God began with Jesus.
Second point… this was longer than I thought. For our evangelism, shouldn’t we just look at the way they spread the Gospel in the Bible? I think that people’s hearts are universally the same in what they need to hear, and what their needs are in life. Considering this, the basic principles of evangelism shown in the Scriptures should be universal to all periods of time, including now.
John 4
This is an example of evangelism via Jesus. In short, it included:
1. Humility in verse 9
2. telling of the gift and promise of God in verse 10
3. verse 13 and 14 have a transition of using physical matters to better explain spiritual ones
4. verse 15 the woman hears and desires the promises of God
5. verses 16-18, Jesus presents the fact that she is a sinner
6. verse 21 Jesus answered any question she asked
7. verse 25, talk about the Messiah or Jesus begins
This is but one example, but notice the conversation must include humility, careful explanation, God’s love, man’s sin, and Jesus Christ.
What are some other examples of evangelism in scripture which could tell us more about what our evangelism should look like?
July 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm
jeffcstraka
cdavis94:
But the discussion DOES have to do with the video, which is why I originally included it! My whole point at the very beginning was that evangelicals/fundamentalist boil the meaning of the gospel down to a 2-minute pitch. Often times it is handed out as a tract called “The Four Spiritual Laws”. Other times, like in the video, it is boiled down to a clever acronym (G.O.S.P.E.L). And then you look at Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron “Way of the Master” as Street Preachers. It is: God loves you but sin separates us from God. Jesus came to die on the cross to pay the penalty of our sins. If we received this “good news” and trust in it, we will be with God in heaven.
And you, cdavis94, agreed that the gospel is a simple as a way to heaven:
Again, this is why so much evangelism is based on the simple question, “Do you know that if you died tonight that you would go to heaven?” It puts the rubber on the road, so to speak. It speaks to the practicality of your soul condition.
It is MY contention that the gospel is MUCH, MUCH more than this! If you read my link to Albert Wolters book review (Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview), you would begin to understand my point. Here is an excerpt of the review:
The gist of the book can be stated this way: there are two major themes in biblical theology – creation and redemption. Unfortunately many believers today only consider the latter. That is, they are focused – and in many ways, rightly – on personal salvation. That is why Evangelicals are called Evangelicals: they take seriously the task of evangelism, of telling people the good news of the gospel.
But sometimes in their zeal to do this, they reduce Christianity to just one thing: getting souls into heaven. Now that of course is vital. As Jesus said, “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26). So telling people about their eternal destiny is crucial.
But that is not the entire biblical gospel. Redemption is important, but so too is creation. Yes, creation is fallen, and sin has marred God’s original design and purposes. But why did God create in the first place? Is this world just transient and unimportant? Or is there a greater purpose for creation?
Recognising that one day there will be a new heaven and a new earth should remind us that this world is not just secondary to God’s purposes. In fact the two-fold nature of the biblical worldview is really a threefold one: creation, fall/redemption, and re-creation.
God is not finished with this world, and has great plans for it. Indeed, argues Wolters, we need to have a more wholistic view of what biblical redemption in fact entails. He says that “the redemption in Jesus Christ means the restoration of an original good creation. . . . In other words, redemption is re-creation”.
Believers sometimes tend to forget that the original creation made by God was pronounced “good” by the creator. And even though now labouring under the effects of the Fall, it is still a good creation. Everything that God created – be it social, relational, cultural or personal – is part of God’s good creation and is meant to be redeemed, to be taken into the Lordship of Christ.
Now THAT was my original point, and it seems like we got off on many unintended sidebars. I am in full agreement with Wolters (and you will see others reformed theologians supporting this if you check my links way at the beginning), and many Emergents tend to share the belief that there is a much FULLER gospel that needs to be communicated. And LIVING into this fuller, richer gospel changes EVERYTHING in how you respect all of God’s creation, not just “human souls”. When you truly understand that the end game is NOT “floaty souls in heaven somewhere in the clouds”, but a fully restored physical earth with all God’s glorious creatures and fully resurrected bodies and fully tabernacling again with God as heaven comes down to invade earth, well, THAT is something I can get excited about!!
July 31, 2008 at 5:01 pm
jeffcstraka
to austinmcknight:
I, too, like the example of the “woman at the well” for an example of evangelism. What Jesus does NOT do (as opposed to most typical fundamental/evangelical approaches) is threaten the woman with eternal torment in hell. Not ONCE does Jesus ask “if you die tonight…”. In fact in ANY of Jesus’ encounters with sinners, I do NOT recall him threatening hell. Now religious leaders was a different story…
July 31, 2008 at 6:44 pm
jmatthanbrown
Hello Jeff,
Sorry for my delayed response.
To begin with, I can understand your ill feelings about gospel tracts and street evangelism. Often these methods can cheapen the message of Jesus and lack the personal touch that a long standing relationship with someone has to offer. However, this does not make “cold turkey” evangelism invalid. Sometimes God asks us to share his message with someone we’ve never met and during a short conversation it is prudent to touch on the major points of the gospel narrative; namely, man’s fallen nature, the forthcoming judgment of God, who Jesus is and what he accomplished on the cross, and man’s eternal destiny. You’ve stated that God is at work in the world now. If you believe this, you must also believe that a Christian should always follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Is it so hard to believe, considering His foreknowledge, that God knows who will accept his word and that sometimes His Spirit leads us to speak to total strangers knowing they will repent or at least that a seed will be planted?
All that being said, building a longstanding relationship with someone is often a more effective way to share the gospel. It allows one to show the love of Christ in very practical ways, and places the believer in a position to speak wisdom and truth into the life of his/her friend. As Christians we should show the love of Christ, in practical ways, as Mark Scandrette did with the Emperor, regardless of how people respond. However, there is more to the Gospel than simply showing love; there is content (information) that must also be communicated. So, whether you meet someone on the street or have known them for years you are obligated, not only to show them practical love but also to tell them the “good news” of Jesus. Without content there is no gospel. Even a pagan can love; followers of Islam can show compassion. It’s the object of one’s faith that makes a difference. The content of the gospel is what saves; it has the power to transform a person’s life.
My beef with Mark was not over what he did for the Emperor; it was over what he didn’t do for the Emperor. The Emperors only hope was to repent from his sin which was destroying his life and Mark never told him who Jesus was and what he accomplished, he never challenged him to turn away from the things that were eating him alive and believe in the only one who could transform him into a new creation. The truth is, without Christ we are all doomed; forever enslaved by our sinful passions. Only Christ has the power to break our chains and free us from the bondage of sin. Only Christ can heal the terrible wounds and physical effects of sin.
In Romans 10:9-13 Paul explains how one can be saved — if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]
While it was cool that the Emperor sang happy birthday to Jesus on Christmas (and I really mean that), this ultimately did not save him. Only by confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in his heart could the Emperor be saved. This is the only way the Emperor could fully benefit from the gospel and participate in the Kingdom of God as a true citizen; as a child of God. This is the only way the Emperor could be healed.
You are correct when you say that the entire Bible is important, however, there is a distinction between the entire Bible and the gospel. The entire Bible addresses everything from the creation of man, who God is, and how we should worship. It also contains salvation history, which documents God’s plan to save man. This covers the fall of man, the promises of God to Abraham and his descendants, God’s work with the nation of Israel, the message of the prophets, Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection, and culminates in Christ’s second coming.
The message of the gospel deals specifically with who Jesus is, his message, what he did on the cross, and how this impacts all of creation. As far as evangelism goes, one does not have to explain to someone the entire Bible for them to have a basic understanding of the Gospel. However, it is obvious that discussing salvation history is very important and is an integral part of evangelism. Evangelism should involve discussing the whole Bible but should primarily focus on the gospel.
July 31, 2008 at 8:58 pm
jeffcstraka
So I see very clearly your narrower view of the gospel is cemented and nothing I say (even the “Creation Regained” worldview) is moving you to a more full definition. I find it interesting that you seem to discount Jesus’ own explanation of the gospel in Luke 4:18-19, but whatever. I have MY view, you have YOURS.
I am willing to bet that you never read Mark’s book in its entirety, and am further willing to bet you never investigated the ReImagine project Mark launched in S.F. – see http://reimagine.org/ (interesting that one of the beliefs stated on this site: We believe a new life is now possible through the example and sacrifice of Jesus. Seems that Mark and you (and I) are in agreement with that part the gospel (I like how he expands it to include “life” – most just skip over his amazing life and go right to “Jesus came to die”). If you click on the “What We Believe” link, I don’t think you will find much to disagree on.
I find pretty interesting that you are “beefed” at Mark for him not “closing the deal” by YOUR definition. You have no idea what is in the Emperor’s heart, nor any conversation he might have had with God. Perhaps singing happy birthday to Jesus WAS the Emperor’s “sinner’s prayer” – his personal point of finally accepting Christ – he said the “word” he claimed to have once HATED, for crying out loud! Only GOD and GOD ALONE knows what is in someone’s heart, and someone saying the sinner’s prayer just because they are scared crapless of going to hell doesn’t sound like a heart change to me – it sounds more like a brain-change. So for you to say that the Emperor is NOT saved sounds like you are putting yourself in God’s role. In my opinion, Mark was DOING the gospel to the Emperor. THAT seemed to be Jesus’ way – he pointed to the Kingdom of God by actually DOING the “gospel things” he preached in Luke 4:18-19, not just talking about them. If Mark was being obedient to the Holy Spirit in his actions with the Emperor, who are YOU to question it?
Sorry if I seem a bit “put-off” but I really don’t get why the criticism against someone like Mark, doing such amazing Kingdom work, just because HIS Christian worldview doesn’t mesh perfectly with YOURS. Seems like we all (Emergents and Evangelicals) need to stop sniping at each other and focus on the Work at hand (and it’s not “souls” for me)!
August 1, 2008 at 12:23 am
jeffcstraka
I meant it’s not JUST souls for me…
August 1, 2008 at 2:24 am
cdavis94
Jeff,
My name is Cory, by the way. Just so that you don’t feel like you have to call me cdavis94. This will be my last post on the subject because I think that at this point, we are not going to move each other. I completely understand your points, but you seem to keep missing mine.
1. I agree with the post from Wolters book. The gospel is not the ONLY important thing in the Bible. It’s just the first thing that people need to hear. The death, burial, and resurrection saves, nothing else. Romans 1:16
2. I also love Luke 4:18-19, but it does not expand the gospel beyond they way that Paul defined it in I Corinthians 15 one iota. It only outlines more of Jesus’s mission and says who he will preach to.
3. If I believe what the Bible teaches – that it is repentance and faith brought by the preaching of God’s Word that saves – why would I support Mark Scandrette, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, or Bryan McLaren who teach the exact contrary? Is this harsh? Yes. But Jesus did not come to be liked by the world or to make peace with people. The world hated him and he set sons against their fathers. The gospel is divisive as truth always is.
4. You are RIGHT when you say that we should live out the gospel, but it is NOT these good deeds that save us or anyone else. If it was just about doing good, there are plenty of people who are doing good. As well model your life after Oprah Winfrey or Gandhi. People who have never heard of Christ or of the Father do good works and did good works before Jesus came. Why would the Father send His Son to DIE if people could just do good and be okay? There is NO salvation without the atonement. Feed the hungry and clothe the destitute all you want, but if you do not preach Jesus to them, you have only done them temporal good that will last but a few years. Why would we not focus on people’s eternal state? How self-centered and arrogant of anyone to assuage their guilt and pad their egos by providing for people’s physical needs without caring one bit about their spiritual ones!
As I said, I have enjoyed our interchange, but it seems this room is getting a bit crowded, and I think you might be the only one in here championing Mark, so I’m going to bow out and let you speak with these others fellows. I am praying for you, Jeff. I hope our paths cross again in the blogosphere.
August 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Jeff
I’m bowing out of this conversation, too. It’s like beating my head against the wall. We appear to be WORLDS apart in our definition of the gospel. Mine is “this AND”, your is “this ONLY”. You believe in a God that would throw people he made in his image, and claims to love, into some physical realm with unquenchable fire JUST because they “don’t say the sinners prayer” or haven’t been “preached the 4 spiritual laws to”. If the missionary’s truck breaks down on the way to explain the gospel, too bad for the poor unwashed. I believe in a God in the way of Jesus. A Jesus that said to love those not like you, not destroy them. A Jesus that told Peter to put away his sword and then healed the ear of a man that came to arrest him. Doesn’t sound like a Jesus/God that would dangle people over the flames of hell.
I do like people praying for me, but not if you are praying that I be saved from my “evil beliefs”. I’m just fine, thank you very much.
August 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm
jeffcstraka
I’m bowing out of this conversation, too. It’s like beating my head against the wall. We appear to be WORLDS apart in our definition of the gospel. Mine is “this AND”, your is “this ONLY”. You believe in a God that would throw people he made in his image, and claims to love, into some physical realm with unquenchable fire JUST because they “don’t say the sinners prayer” or haven’t been “preached the 4 spiritual laws to”. If the missionary’s truck breaks down on the way to explain the gospel, too bad for the poor unwashed. I believe in a God in the way of Jesus. A Jesus that said to love those not like you, not destroy them. A Jesus that told Peter to put away his sword and then healed the ear of a man that came to arrest him. Doesn’t sound like a Jesus/God that would dangle people over the flames of hell.
I do like people praying for me, but not if you are praying that I be saved from my “evil beliefs”. I’m just fine, thank you very much.
August 5, 2008 at 3:41 pm
tsfgodguy
If anyone cares (and I don’t do alot of self promotion so sorry), this whole experience of Josh and Mark sparked a new post on my blog. If you care….
http://tomhypes.com/2008/08/05/the-jedi-error-revisited/
Blessings!
August 6, 2008 at 5:47 am
austinmcknight
I’m enjoying just reading the conversation here. It seems that we are, in this case, looking for a balance in our evangelism. One side (call em Fundamentals or Evangelicals) don’t want loose evangelism the the other side (Emergents… I know we don’t like titles but you know what I mean) want more open ways of evangelism that aren’t boxed in which don’t scare people away and are open to answering questions.
Aside from some silly minded people, I think that both sides are responding to issues of their generations. The conservatives are fighting off liberalism and universalism while the emergents are fighting against staunch fundamentalist that are creating their own white collar culture. Aren’t the concerns on both sides legitimate?
Yes, we need Biblical evangelism that spreads the gospel the way that the Bible meant it to be spread, and yes we don’t need to set forth this non-existent magic formula that “ensures” a salvation just in order to add numbers. Both are real concerns that must be addressed. What happens in the process of addressing both of these concerns is that people can be extremist in either direction.
It’s important for us to be aware of both of these problems, and answer them by seriously staying true to the Bible and our nature of evangelism. Rather than making evangelism our own flavor (whether crunchy and old or trendy and new age) we should be legitimately concerned with the Great Commission and how the Bible says it should be carried out.
Now, anyone could write a book on what that looks like, but that is what seems to be the problem here. Am I wrong to say both sides have real concerns that they are attempting to address? Would I also be wrong to say that sometimes those problems do get addressed inappropriately?