Jun
10
Reflecting on Salvation
Posted by Champ Thornton at 10:59 pm
After reflecting upon Stott’s chapter on “salvation,” I’ll venture a few observations.
1. While I agree with Stott’s critique of the physical, psychological, and liberation views on salvation, I question one of the planks in his argument. Stott attacks the view common among liberation theologians that the exodus of the Hebrews from the oppression of Egypt is a demonstration that salvation indeed includes both physical and spiritual deliverance. Stott claims that the reason that salvation does not include physical (or socio-political) liberation is because God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt was a one-time, unique event in redemptive history. In other words, just because God around 1440 B.C. broke the political chains that bound His people as Egyptian slaves doesn’t mean He intends for us to fight against political oppression today.
But this objection of Stott’s to me does not seem to take in the whole sweep of redemptive history. A couple examples: First, the exodus is used all throughout the Old Testament as the archetypical saving event. God did it once in history and intended it to stand as a model and as paradigmatic for what redemption looks like. Second, the year of Jubilee legislation (Lev 25) seems to have been enacted by God to preserve for Israel what He had achieved for them initially at the exodus. And, like the exodus, Jubilee activities include physical help and socio-political liberation. Third, even into the New Testament, Christ is described as achieving a new or second exodus through His death and resurrection.
2. This leads to my second observation. There should be no denying that the salvation which Christ achieved through His death and resurrection most certainly includes physical and socio-political deliverance, in addition to spiritual and moral redemption. Salvation through Christ ultimately leads to a real and physical New Creation—with no death, tears, sickness, oppression, poverty, etc.
3. The question then is: “How much should we pursue the physical and/or socio-political aspects of deliverance today (in the overlap of the ages, before the full consummation of the age to come)?” Several truths inform our answer. First, when Christ told Pilate, “If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight,” He was not denying that there would be a physical kingdom—and one on this earth. What He was denying was that the kingdom of God was not ultimately located in this present time period on earth. Because this is true, then His servants were specifically not going to challenge or upset the oppressive political structures of government.
Second, when Paul challenges slave owners to treat their slaves with kindness, here is the reason he gives: You, masters, also have a Master in heaven who will judge you for your behavior (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1). The point for us to note is that for wrongs done to slaves, the righting of this socio-political oppression was to happen in the future kingdom, at the final judgment, in the age to come. Similarly, Paul says that those who are slaves when they become Christians should remain slaves (i.e., don’t throw off the yoke of oppression—a difficult truth for our modern ears to hear) (1 Cor 7). Why? Because it is God who has “assigned” (1 Cor 7:17) them that station in life (!).
However, if a believer is free (and not a slave), he or she should not become a slave, and if a slave is able to obtain his or her freedom, he or she should do so (1 Cor 7:21). So, here (again) we see a non-violent pursuit of physical, socio-political liberation (since in Christ, in the age to come, there is no such category as slave or free). In other words, here is a peaceable pursuit of here-and-now liberation—any other sort (violent, revolutionary, etc.) will be achieved and all injustices will be righted in the age to come. And isn’t that how our Master won deliverance for us? Not through resistance or overthrow, but through humble service and ultimately an unjust execution.
So, to conclude, I believe the Bible teaches that salvation (and our mission in the world) includes more than the wonderful realities of spiritual and moral redemption. But, throughout redemptive history God’s people have always had one Warrior, one Deliverer, one King—and He is the one who fights for His people (not the other way around). We must live humbly, helpfully, and actively, and leave the (violent) socio-political warfare to Him—in His hands, in His time, on His terms, and with His outcome.
Jun
9
Stott on Salvation (2)
Posted by Champ Thornton at 11:18 pm
In his chapter on the topic of “salvation,” John Stott began by evaluating three less-than-fully-biblical views of salvation: salvation as physical health, as psychological wholeness, and socio-political liberation.
The last two sections of the chapter deal with how liberation theology approaches the Scriptures (”the hermeneutical question”) and what the Bible actually teaches about salvation and liberation.
What’s wrong with approaching “salvation” as including deliverance from sin and from oppressive societal structures? Stott agrees with this approach: “Liberation from oppression and the creation of a new and better society are definitely God’s good will for man. . . . They could be included in ‘the mission of God’ ” (p. 95). Stott’s hesitation is worth quoting in full.
But to call socio-political liberation ’salvation’ and to call social activism ‘evangelism’—this is to be guilty of a gross theological confusion. It is to mix what Scripture keeps distinct—God the Creator and God the Redeemer, the God of the cosmos and the God of the covenant, the world and the church, common grace and saving grace, justice and justification, the reformation of society and the regeneration of men. For the salvation offered in the gospel of Christ concerns persons rather than structures.
The root problem that causes the diverging of the ways between a liberation view of salvation and Stott’s is hermeneutical. As they handle the Scriptures, ecumenical writings are “sometimes arbitrarily selective (omitting what is inconvenient), and at other times extremely cavalier (twisting what seems convenient in order to support a preconceived theory)” (p. 96). Even a Roman Catholic observer at the 1973 Bangkok conference on world evangelism reported, “I am appalled that you people can discuss ‘Salvation Today’ day after day . . . but not listen to what the Apostle Paul said about it. I haven’t heard anyone speak on justification by faith. I’ve heard no one speak of everlasting life’ ” (p. 96).
Liberation theology draws deeply from the ultimate Old Testament demonstration of God’s salvation: the body and soul rescue of His people from the oppressive structures of national Egypt. But, as Stott points out, this epochal event may be history-making for Israel, but it is far less clear whether it should be considered “‘the type of liberation which God intends for all the downtrodden’” (p. 97). In fact, Stott’s contention is that the answer is that it is not prescriptive for pursuing physical or societal deliverance. “When the New Testament handles the Old Testament promises of salvation, it interprets them in moral rather than in material terms. . . . Christ’s miraculous restoration of sight was a sign that he was the light of the world; it can hardly be taken as an instruction to us to perform similar miraculous cures today” (p. 98).
In an effort to balance out his critiques of salvation as bringing individual wholeness (whether physical or psychological) or structural wholeness (societal and political), Stott asserts:
First, God is greatly concerned for both these areas, namely our bodies and our society. Secondly, one day both body and society will be redeemed We shall be given new bodies and shall live in a new society. Thirdly, love compels us meanwhile to labour in both spheres, seeking to promote physical health (by therapeutic and preventive means) and seeking to create a radically different social order which will bring men freedom, dignity, justice, and peace. Nevertheless, having emphasized the importance of these things to God and therefore to us, we still have to affirm that they are not the salvation God is offering human beings in Christ now (p. 100).
Lastly, Stott presents a more faithfully biblical view of salvation and the freedom it brings. Quoting the Lausanne Covenant, he affirms: ” ‘The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities (para. 5)’ ” (p. 101). Stott then sketches in the biblical contours of this full-orbed salvation by examining its past, present, and future aspects.
As a past-time, historic event: “you have been saved,” “’salvation’ is liberation from the just judgment of God upon sin” (p. 103). As a present reality, salvation is “being delivered from the bondage of self-centredness into the liberty of service” (p. 105). And as a future hope, salvation “will be deliverance from the wrath to come (Romans 5.9; 1 Thessalonians 1. 10; 5. 9). More than that, it will include ‘the redemption of our bodies’ ” (p. 107).
All told, Stott has given an able defense of the biblical teaching on salvation against those who would import good and biblical ideas where they don’t belong. As far as Stott is concerned the danger is not in the good and biblical agendas of concern for fellow human beings (physically, psychologically, societally, etc.). The fly in the ointment is what these good and biblical concerns do to the gospel when admixed with it.
Salt is good. But when a couple cups of it are added to cake batter, it doesn’t sweeten the salt. It ruins the cake.
Jun
8
Stott on Salvation (1)
Posted by Champ Thornton at 10:32 pm
After a week off, we are renewing our discussion of John Stott’s book, Christian Mission in the Modern World (IVP: 1975). The first three chapters (out of five) addressed the topics of “mission,” “evangelism,” and “dialogue.” The final chapter will cover “conversion,” but this week we’re going to consider Stott’s treatment of the term, “salvation.”
First, Stott contends that salvation is a topic absolutely central to historic, biblical Christianity. Although the Third Assembly of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (Bangkok, 1973) was entitled Salvation Today, Stott believes it missed salvation yesterday. In other words, in their attempt to take salvation to the modern world, this conference ignored the historic meaning of salvation as centrally displayed in Holy Writ. “The God of the Bible is a God who has kept coming to the rescue of his people, who has taken the initiative to save” (p. 83). In the Old Testament, God is preeminently the Savior of His people, while in the New Testament, it is Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save those who were lost. “Hence, the Bible is a Heilsgeschichte, a history of God’s mighty saving acts. . . This prominence of the salvation theme in biblical Christianity obliges us to ask what it is which God works, which Christ achieves, which Scripture unfolds and which the gospel offers” (p. 84).
The next 16 pages are given to analyzing and critiquing a number of what Stott considers to be misunderstandings of what the Bible teaches that about “salvation.”
First, Stott says that salvation is not physical health or wholeness. After citing several advocates of this view, Stott acknowledges that sickness and pain will have no part in consummated kingdom of God and that many upon converting to Christianity experience a degree of physical betterment. However, Stott concludes, “what I do deny is that this healing, or indeed any kind of healing—natural or supernatural—either is, or is included in, what the Bible means by the salvation which is now offered to mankind by Christ through the gospel. Of course, at the consummation, God will redeem the total creation including our human bodies, . . . Not till then will disease and death be no more” (p. 86).
Second, Stott challenges the perspective that interprets salvation as psychological health. Some (Bishop John Robinson, for example, in his Honest to God) claim that like the prodigal son “came to himself” as the turning point in his redemption, so too people who experience an integration of their persons—a psychological wholeness—are in fact, finding salvation. In refuting this approach, Stott quotes Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who gave up a prestigious medical practice to enter the gospel ministry. The Doctor says, “The authentic task of the Church is not primarily to make people healthy . . . her essential task is to restore men to right relationship with God . . . Man’s real problem is not simply that he is sick, but that he is a rebel” (p. 87).
At this point, Stott takes up the question of Christ’s ministry of healing. Some point to the fact that the term “salvation” or “to save” is used by the biblical authors to refer to some individual’s physical healing (e.g., those who touched Christ’s garment were “saved;” Mark 6.56; Acts 14.9; James 5.15). But Stott claims that this phraseology is intended to point up the fact that Christ’s healing miracles were intended as “signs” to point to the spiritual and moral salvation He came to bring. As Stott says “So let the sinner put out his hand of faith and let him but touch the hem of Christ’s garment, and he will be made whole, that is, saved” (p. 88).
Returning to his third dissection of a false view of “salvation,” Stott turns his attention to the idea of some that salvation is political and social liberation. After a sad yet enlightening historical tour of five major ecumenical gatherings and their publications on the topic of “salvation” (between the years of 1961 and 1973), Stott quotes their latest views as follows:
“The salvation which Christ brought, and in which we participate, offers a comprehensive wholeness in this divided life . . . It is salvation of the soul and the body, of the individual and society, mankind and ‘the groaning creation’ (Romans 8.19) . . . As guilt is both individual and corporate, so God’s liberating power changes both persons and structures . . . Therefore we see the struggles for economic justice, political freedom and cultural renewal as elements in the total liberation of the world through the mission of God’ ” (p. 91).
Although Stott is very sympathetic with these goals, as pleasing to God and needful for believers, he disagrees with this view when it comes to their theological construct. Using liberation theologian, Gustavo Gutierrez, as a sparring partner, Stott begins, “It is when the author begins to theologize, to try to present social liberation as if this were what Scripture means by salvation, and so to dispense with evangelism in favour of political action, that—reluctantly but decidedly—I part company with him.”
Stott continues his analysis of Gutierrez. “He all but obliterates the distinction between the church and the world, Christian and non-Christian, in order that he may apply to all men the biblical teaching about God’s saving work. Whether they are conscious of it or not, he writes, ‘all men are in Christ efficaciously called to communion with God’. Indeed this, he dares to add, is ‘the Pauline theme of the universal lordship of Christ in whom all things exist and have been saved. . . [Therefore,] the building of a just society has worth in terms of the Kingdom, or in more current phraseology, to participate in the process of liberation is already in a certain sense a salvific work’ ” (p. 94).
Essentially, then each of these three false views (that salvation is to be equated with physical health, psychological health, and socio-political liberation) falls down not merely in their understanding of the biblical usage of the term, but also in their theological understanding of mankind and his chief need. The main problem from which we need rescue isn’t poor health, poor self-image, or poor environs. The primary subject of our need and Christ’s rescue is one and the same—deliverance from our own sin and from God’s just judgment against it.
Tomorrow, we will take up Stott’s examination of both where liberation theology misinterprets Scripture and also where a sound hermeneutic leads when applied to the topic salvation.
Jun
5
virtual vacation . . . while you wait
Posted by Champ Thornton at 8:35 am
(we’ll be back online soon.)
May
29
stott on dialogue (4)
Posted by Jon Trainer at 11:29 pm
John Stott concludes his chapter on dialogue in Christian Missions in the Modern World with three illustrations of dialogue in action. They include dialogue with Hindus, Moslems, and with the unreached masses of industrial Great Britain in the mid-1960s.
In each of these examples Stott builds his case around a missionary to a particular culture giving themselves in creative ways to build what I would term a redemptive relationship with members of that community. Whether it is holding afternoon teas in India, striving to understand the daily religious routines of the Islamic community, or setting aside a week night to invite unchurched couples into one’s home in England, the goal is always to present the supremacy of Christ in every setting. Stott quotes Bishop Stephen Neill, “Christians must persist in their earnest invitation to true dialogue; they must exercise endless patience and refuse to be discouraged. And the burden of their invitation must be consider Jesus….We have no other message” (italics mine).
A few observations:
1. I initially began this chapter with fear and trepidation because the word dialogue is so theologically charged; however, at the end of the day Stott is commending a kind of dialogue in missions that is an effort to better understand anyone that is the object (in the best sense of the word) of our evangelistic concern. He is not interested in any kind of conversation that might be construed as treasonous of Christ or a compromise of an exclusive gospel.
2. The difference between the kind of dialogue practiced by the ecumenical community and the kind of “natural dialogue” commended by Stott is most obvious in their stated purposes. Ecumenical dialogue is often bent on agreement, the production of joint statements, and ultimately, syncretism. On the other hand, missional dialogue is a search for understanding and a recognition of basic disagreement in faith and practice.
3. Missional dialogues should be a common aspect of our daily lives as we rub shoulders with people that do not know Christ; however, dialogue is not an end in itself. It is not evangelism. Dialogue is one tool for creating ground in a relationship that is fertile for planting gospel seeds.
4. Dialogue also enables us to better represent those with whom we differ. We can avoid mischaracterizations and stereotypes in our pursuit of intellectual honesty. We can be more discerning, not less, and practice a more effective apologetic discourse. Craig Blomberg, who is engaged in controversial dialogue with the LDS Church, states this as one of his goals in How Wide the Divide (IVP, 1997).
5. Once again, I find myself contrasting what may be accomplished individually with what might be attempted institutionally. All of the examples Stott proffers of dialogue are cases where individuals are engaged in the task. The example of Blomberg cited above is another. I don’t see any value at this point of the local church engaging as an institution in the process of dialogue. She should equip her members for the job.
6. In a very helpful article along these lines by Jason Barker, Terry Muck (Those Other Religions in Your Neighborhood) is quoted giving the necessity for Stott’s kind of missional dialogue in a pluralistic culture such as ours:
In situations where hostility is not present, where the mutual exclusions of truth are assumed, where commitment is allowed, and where agreement is not the minimal expectation (which I assume eliminates a great deal of what passes for interreligious dialogue today), interreligious dialogue is not just allowed, but I would suggest the world situation demands it.
May
29
stott on dialogue (3)
Posted by Jon Trainer at 7:27 am
We continue our summary of the contents of John Stott’s Christian Mission in the Modern World. Having made the case against dialogue, Stott walks across the aisle in an effort to build up the defendant he has just ravaged.
Before introducing us to the marks of true dialogue, Stott invokes a unique word to describe the intent of dialogue with non-Christian faiths. The word is elenctics, which finds its origins in the Greek word, elengchein, meaning to convince, convict, or rebuke, and ultimately to call to repentance. He writes, “…there is also a need for encounter with them, and even for confrontation, in which we seek both to disclose the inadequacies and falsities of non-Christian religion and to demonstrate the adequacy and truth, absoluteness and finality of the Lord Jesus Christ.” He relies heavily here on J. H. Bavinck who further elaborates on elenctics as the “science which unmasks to heathendom all false religions as sin against God, and…calls heathendom to a knowledge of the only true God.” Stott makes four quick points regarding elenctics: 1) the goal is not to ridicule other religions, 2) the Bible itself is an elenctic exercise, 3) elenctics must be born out of a love for other human beings and not be characterized by harshness (e.g. I am not just concerned about Buddhism, but with a human being and his Buddhism), and 4) elenctics is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit. He concludes this section by arguing that the need for elenctics compels one to engage in dialogue. “Only when we are assured that a true Christian dialogue with a non-Christian is not a sign of syncretism but is fully consistent with our belief in the finality of Jesus Christ, are we ready to consider the arguments by which it is commended….” This is a very helpful section and sets up nicely as a transition for his defense of dialogue.
Stott argues for dialogue by elaborating on four qualities characteristic of the true dialoguer; they are: authenticity, humility, integrity, and sensitivity. Authenticity is simply the shared humanity that two fallen people disclose as they come to know one another in the evangelistic enterprise. There must be a concern for both the Gospel and the other person. “Without the first, dialogue becomes a pleasant conversation. Without the second, it becomes irrelevant, unconvincing, or arrogant” (Witness in Six Continents, 1964). Humility is a grace that esteems others better than self in the midst of the evangelistic task. Integrity is the effort to be real and to truly know the person with whom we dialogue. Sensitivity is the avoidance of fixed evangelistic formula or stereotypes; we must seek to listen to others so that we may understand and evangelize more effectively.
Sitting in the jury box, I find myself just as convinced by Stott’s arguments for dialoque as the case he has previously made against it. In the first half of the chapter he says we must not compromise our doctrinal integrity in order to engage in dialogue and I think, “Hear, hear.” In the second half he defends a dialogue that sounds very much like Paul saying to Timothy, “The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24-25), and I think, “Hear, hear.” The difficulty I believe will be the contexts in which dialogue is attempted. I can imagine myself engaged individually with any person representing another faith group in serious dialogue when the goal is evangelism, but engaging as a church at a corporate level, or as a denomination at a denominational level, where the stated goal is ecumenical unity, sends a whole series of messages to a variety of persons, some of whom are very vulnerable sheep. We’ll conclude this chapter tomorrow by focusing on three examples of dialogue that Stott offers for our consideration.
May
28
stott on dialogue (2)
Posted by Jon Trainer at 7:28 am
How about a pic of a young John Stott? We were all there at some point in time. You can already see it in his eyes can’t you? He must be thinking, “Now if I can just get those silly Catholics to sit down at a table with me and chat,” or some such thing.
Today we’ll travel a bit further down the path as we discuss Stott’s focus on dialogue in the third chapter of Christian Mission in the Modern World (IVP, 1975). My goal is to continue sharing the content of the chapter with limited comment until the last couple days of this week. After hardly dismantling the case against dialogue in favor of preaching (Lloyd-Jones), and totally dismantling the case for open-minded discussion bordering on empty-minded mayhem (Davies), Stott presses on to attempt a definition of dialogue. Before turning to scripture, he proffers one from the 1967 National Anglican Congress:
Dialogue is a conversation in which each party is serious in his approach both to the subject and to the other person, and he desires to listen and learn as well as to speak and instruct.
Fair enough and harmless enough. Next, Stott arrays together several examples from scripture under the heading “dialogue,” beginning in the Garden, running through God’s revelation to Job, the prophets, and finally with numerous examples from Paul’s evangelistic methodology as the Apostle argues, explains, proves, proclaims, and persuades others of the truth claims of the gospel (Acts 17:1-4). The difficulty here, of course, is that God’s dialogue with us is never a conversation between equals. The infinite does not need “to listen and learn” of the finite, though He deigns to graciously listen. And Paul’s dialogue, as Stott acknowledges, is always serving the priority of evangelism. Dialogue for the sake of dialogue is non-existent; there must be some goal, some end. Therefore, a strong case can be made against dialogue, and that is exactly what Stott does next (like our contemporary politicians, he voted against dialogue before he voted for dialogue).
Stott grounds his explanation for the argument against dialogue in church history. He recounts how the conversation about dialogue was greatly impacted by the shift from a triumphant Christianity early in the twentieth century to a chastened Christianity by the middle of the century. In 1910 some viewed the Church as overwhelming the world’s great religions in its zealous missionary spirit and success. After two world wars and a depression, however, the exclusive truth claims of Christianity had been abandoned to a more triumphant secularism. Revelation was replaced by naturalism, particularism and the need for regeneration by universalism and the need for enlightenment. The ecumenists urged the abandonment of the missions enterprise. A Christ that was already present everywhere did not need to be proclaimed to the ends of the earth. In fact, some at the World Council at Uppsala even went to far as to declare that Christ was more present in the non-Christian than the missionary, saying, “In this dialogue Christ speaks through the brother [the unbeliever], correcting our limited and distorted understanding of the truth.” Stott notes that Evangelical pressure caused the statement to be changed to read, “Christ speaks in this dialogue, revealing himself to those who do not know him and correcting the limited and distorted knowledge of those who do.” But this is a small improvement and one can understand why a conservative would be questioning the value of this kind of discussion.
Stott recognizes the severity of the problem. Why should we dialogue, some will argue, with those that deny the need for the gospel to be proclaimed to the ends of the earth, who say that it is already there in one form or another, and that good men merely need to perform good works to be saved? Stott seems to agree and reviews several scripture passages making the case that even so-called good people still need to be justified. Peter, Paul, and John, while all affirming some measure of common grace present in the world (Acts 10: 34, 35; 14:16, 17; John 1:1-14), nevertheless, preach a message of repentance to men that deny or refuse to acknowledge the God of general revelation. The clear teaching of scripture stands in opposition to the ecumenists. So why dialogue?
I’ll stop there for today. Stott is plainly in a strait betwixt two. He affirms the concept of dialogue, but recognizes its limited value when those sitting at the table do not share common belief systems. Isn’t engaging in a conversation with someone opposed to the fundamental truths of scripture really an exercise in treason?
May
27
stott on dialogue
Posted by Jon Trainer at 12:11 am
For the last couple of weeks Champ and I have been reviewing John R. W. Stott’s book Christian Mission in the Modern World (IVP, 1975). Having hit the themes of mission and evangelism, the focus this week is on dialogue. To summarize our conclusions: 1) mission primarily involves the proclamation of the gospel, but some aspect of gospel adornment will often accompany that proclamation, and 2) evangelism is about Jesus–his mission, life, atoning death, resurrection, and exaltation. Evangelism occurs in a context of presence (listening and knowing) and is bent ultimately on persuasion. While Stott places an undue emphasis on the church as institution engaged in the task of “socio-political action”, the individual believer cannot escape the responsibility to “do good to all men,” even if the immediate result is not a proclamation opportunity. There may be occasions when entities within a church or churches partner together to accomplish some task, either evangelistic or doing good works, that cannot be completed alone.
The word “dialogue” is like waving a red flag in front of a bull for some in the theological ring. You might just as well say “compromise” and be done with it. And keeping this text in context, Stott, along with J. I. Packer, are coming off some rather bruising engagements with Martin Lloyd-Jones (MLJ) in the late 1960’s concerning the direction of the Anglican Church, with MLJ eventually abandoning the ship (which interestingly enough Packer has just recently done–see “Was the Doctor Right After All?” and an alternative position taken here). Stott stayed on board the good Church of England and defends that position to this day. You can brush up on all that history in Evangelicalism Divided by Iain Murray, a read devoured in Kaffeeklatsche a couple years ago. It is just important to keep in mind that Stott takes up this topic while many in Christendom are breathing the high and lofty airs of ecumenism, and he as much as any other. It begs the question, would we include such a chapter if we were to take up the same subject (Christian mission in the modern world) today?
Interestingly enough, Stott commences his chapter with a rather favorable review (albeit under the heading “extreme views”) of MLJ’s emphasis on proclamation, and specifically preaching, above any other task to include dialogue. The gospel, according to Stott, is exclusive and a “non-negotiable revelation from God.” The gospel is not open for discussion, but then with a slight nuance, Stott posits that it is open for dialogue. Somehow the two are different, but how remains to be seen.
Opposite MLJ’s “extreme view” is that of J. G. Davies, who regards preaching as overly authoritative, dogmatic, and “entirely lacking in humility.” Davies goes on to argue that true dialogue entails the ability to engage in theological conversations with a mind so open that one could be persuaded to acknowledge the authority of Buddha, or even end up an agnostic. This is not altogether helpful, and with deftness Stott dismisses Davies’ view as “intemperate overstatement.”
Having dealt with the two extremes (MLJ’s inadequately and Davies’ adequately), Stott says,
We should also, as I believe and shall soon argue, be willing to enter into dialogue. In doing so we shall learn from the other person both about his beliefs and also (by listening to his critical reaction to Christianity) about certain aspects of our own. But we should not cultivate a total “openness” in which we suspend even our convictions concerning the truth of the gospel and our personal commitment to Jesus Christ. To attempt to do this would be to destroy our own integrity as Christians.
Tomorrow we’ll see where he goes from there. Can you think of specific examples of dialogue to cull from scripture?
May
26
Remembering those before us
Posted by Champ Thornton at 9:58 am
On Memorial Day, we pause to remember those men and women who have served our nation, even at the cost of their own lives. But today is also a good day to remember those who have given their lives to serve the kingdom of God.
Martin Luther lived a very full and fascinating life for God and His kingdom. At the end of his life, he reflected upon his fruitful ministry with these words:
“I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And when, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my [colleagues], the Word so greatly weakened the Papacy that never a Prince or Emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing. The Word did it all!”
Here is a biographical lesson on the life of a flawed, but greatly-used servant of the Lord, Martin Luther.
May
22
Good News and Good Deeds
Posted by Champ Thornton at 9:08 am
As we’ve been going through Stott’s book on mission(s) and have learned that it’s best not to bait our evangelistic hook with the lure of social help, the following scenario has come up in conversation.
If you were running a homeless shelter in your town, which provided temporary room, board, and work skills training to men who were “down and out,” would you (or should you) make attending the daily chapel programs a requirement for all those who stayed at your shelter? In other words, you would help them with their physical needs only if they listened to your spiritual message.
Is this right? Is this the best way? How would you coordinate evangelism and social help in this context?
And as we are pursuing the topic of evangelism, here are some helpful articles available online.
Tony Payne, over at The Sola Panel, elaborates on the following six points as he works out the relationship between evangelism and social action:
- Evangelism and social action are distinct activities
- Prayerful proclamation is central to the work of the Lord
- Evangelism and social action are inseparable
- Social action is unconditional love, not a tactic
- Social action is not a magic evangelistic bullet
- The Great Commission is to make and to teach
Tim Keller, in “The Missional Church,” writes on doing evangelism, not as one component of church life, but as a comprehensive pursuit. He explains that a missional church will . . .
1. Discourse in the vernacular.
2. Enter and re-tell the culture’s stories with the gospel.
3. Theologically train lay people for public life and vocation.
4. Create Christian community which is counter-cultural and counter-intuitive.
5. Practice Christian unity as much as possible on the local level.
Ajith Fernando, in an article originally written for Christianity Today, discusses the importance of evangelism in the context of social action. He writes:
Even though Youth for Christ in Sri Lanka is an evangelistic organization, we did not do any gospel proclamation during our massive tsunami-relief operation in 2005, according to government rules. Integrity demanded that we not do what we love to do—persuade people to receive Christ’s salvation. (I believe, of course, that people were impressed by the gospel simply by seeing the way Christians helped them. But we would not call that evangelism.)
After about four months of almost total immersion in tsunami relief, we returned to our primary call, evangelism, and in the process refused millions of rupees offered to us for new tsunami-related relief projects. This does not mean that we do no social work now. As a youth organization, we do a lot of things, especially in education, to help youth from economically poor backgrounds advance in life. But we try not to tie that work too closely with evangelism. We do not want people to think that our help is tied to conversion.
May
21
on the heels of trinity sunday…
Posted by Jon Trainer at 12:57 pm
May
21
gospel and technique
Posted by Jon Trainer at 7:40 am
A tract strategically placed on the sink counter (or worse) at a highway rest stop. Leading three kids to pray a sinner’s prayer through the screen door while their parents are away and unaware of the door-to-door visit. Forty-five minute long invitations designed to get someone, anyone forward. Shouting at bar patrons about the pangs of hell through a speaker system attached to the top of a car directly across the street from their watering hole. A senior pastor beckoning a third grader to come forward and then having an elder urge the youngster to “repeat a prayer after me.” These are all answers to the Jeopardy-like question, “What are some of the worse cases of methodology in evangelism you have ever personally witnessed?” And for the record, I was that third grader, and my dad was the “last man standing” during a forty-five minute long, “If you need to love your grandmother more that you do right now, come on down,” public invitation (the rest of the church was on their knees at the front).
We’ve probably all been horrified at some observed methodology employed for distributing the gospel. And no doubt a few well-intentioned people end up being used by God in the most remarkable ways despite their ineptness at sowing the seed. These little “victories” are the life-blood pushing them forward to the next customer. At the end of the day, Gospel salesmen are not sufficiently overwhelmed by the quality of the product they are peddling. For a remedy, they need to read John Stott’s second chapter entitled “Evangelism” in his book Christian Mission in the Modern World. In a broader church world that emphasizes method over message and pragmatism over principle, Stott’s absolute focus on the Gospel as an end in itself would be like drinking water from a cool stream.
After I finished the text this week, I cast a quick glance up to my bookshelf and found these five titles arranged neatly in a row and all published between 2000-2007: Going Public with the Gospel, Going Public with Your Faith, Character Witness, Picturing the Gospel, and Evangelism Outside the Box. Now there is nothing wrong with these titles in and of themselves, but the emphasis in the texts is clearly on the machinations of evangelism, and not sufficiently the wonder of the message proclaimed. There is a place for thinking about method, but in many cases that is all there is. To counter this widespread error in praxis, Stott writes,
….Evangelism may and must be defined only in terms of the message. Therefore biblical evangelism makes the biblical evangel indispensable. Nothing hinders evangelism today more that the widespread loss of confidence in the truth, relevance and power of the gospel. When this ceases to be good news from God and becomes instead “rumors from God” we can hardly expect the church to exhibit much evangelistic enthusiasm. Paul said he was “eager” to preach the gospel in Rome. But then he was convinced that it was God’s power for salvation.
Are we?
May
19
Stott on Evangelism (2)
Posted by Champ Thornton at 11:30 pm
The second half of John Stott’s chapter on “Evangelism” (in Christian Mission in the Modern World) sets forward the content of the good news we are to proclaim. “In a single word, God’s good news is Jesus. . . . Jesus Christ is the heart and soul of the gospel.” (Acts 8:35; Romans 1:1-4) “But how did the apostles present Jesus? Their good news contained at least five elements” (p. 42). To those elements we now turn.
The Gospel Events
Using 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Stott echoes Paul in saying the good news is the death (and attesting burial) and the resurrection (and attesting ascension) of our Lord Jesus Christ. “The apostles did not present their Lord’s death and resurrection merely as historical events, however, but as significant events, saving events” (p. 45). Regarding His crucifixion, the apostles teach that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3); was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25); accomplished the divine purpose (Acts 2:23) through the ministry of the sin-bearing Servant (Acts 3:13) and the curse-bearing Sacrifice (Gal 3:10) (p. 45). Regarding His resurrection, “it was more than a historical event. It was a divine vindication of Jesus” (Acts 2:23, 24; 3:13-15; 5:30-31) (pp. 45-46). The Gospel is not less than actual historical events endued with theological significance.
The Gospel Witnesses
Stott’s second element of the good news is “the evidence to which [the apostles] appealed for its authentication” (p. 46). First, the apostles regularly cited the Old Testament Scriptures as pointing to the gospel of Christ. “In this way the apostles urged that they were not innovators. They had not invented their message” (p. 46). Second, “was the evidence of the apostles’ own eyes” (p. 47). “Theirs is the primary witness, for they were ‘with Jesus’ and knew him, and they have borne witness to what they heared with their ears and saw with their eyes. Our witness is always secondary and subordinate to theirs. . . . Our responsibility in evangelism is neither to create a Christ of our own who is not in Scripture, nor to embroider or manipulate the Christ who is in Scripture, but to bear faithful witness to the one and only Christ there is as God has presented him to the world in the remarkably unified testimony of both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures” (p. 48).
The Gospel Affirmations
Although the good news about Christ is rooted in actual history and attested by historical witnesses, its message also asserts present truths. “The historical Christ is the contemporary Christ” (p. 49). The Christ of the cross is also the Savior, and the Christ of the empty tomb is also Lord. After analyzing various sermons from Acts, Stott states that “the symbolic statement that Jesus is ‘at God’s right hand’ comprises the two great gospel affirmations that he is Savior (with authority to bestow salvation) and that he is Lord (with authority to demand submission)” (Acts 5:31) “Moreover, both affirmations are part of the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ. If we are asked in today’s increasingly syncretistic culture wherein lies the uniqueness of Jesus, I think we should have to answer ‘Jesus is Lord’ and ‘Jesus is Savior’. Theologically speaking, these affirmations express the great doctrines of incarnation and atonement, and there is nothing comparable to them in the ethnic religions.” “The world is still waiting to hear these gospel affirmations, and to hear them in the present tense which speaks to men today, namely, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and ‘Jesus is Savior’ “(p. 50).
The Gospel Promises
Stott now turns to how the gospel is indeed good news for those who hear and believe it. Drawing from Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Stott shows that the Christ, who is Lord and Savior, now offers a two-fold promise, namely ‘the forgiveness of sins’ and ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ After tracing through the Gospels and Acts the apostolic teaching on ‘the forgiveness of sins,” Stott focuses on the giving of the Spirit, who is “the guarantee of our future inheritance in heaven” (p. 52). Stott concludes, “We must not separate the two gospel promises which God has joined together, forgiveness and the Spirit. Both belong to the ’salvation’ which Peter insisted was in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12), and both are part of the ‘liberation’ which modern man is now seeking” (p. 52).
The Gospel Demands
Lastly, Stott moves to the appropriate response to the requirements of good news: (1) repentance and (2) faith. He walks through the scriptural evidence for these two gospel demands then transitions to an application. “This leads me to mention a controversy in certain evangelical circles. Some have been so determined to maintain the doctrine of justification by faith alone that they have not been able to accommodate themselves to the addition of repentance. They distinguish sharply between the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and the surrender to him as Lord. . . . We have already seen that the one exalted to God’s right hand is Jesus the Lord and Savior. We cannot chop this Jesus into bits and then respond to only one of the bits. The object of saving faith is the whole and undivided person of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (p. 54).
The Context of Evangelism
Almost as an addendum to his discussion of the five elements of the good news we are to proclaim, Stott broadens his scope to include what precedes and what follows our giving the good news. “What precedes it may justly be called ‘presence’ and what follows it ‘persuasion’. . . . [W]e have to concede with shame that the ecumenical emphasis on silence [i.e., “silent presence” or “authentic silence”] is at least partly a justifiable reaction against some of our brash and aggressive evangelical forms of evangelism. If, however, generally speaking, there should be no presence without proclamation, we must equally assert that there should be no proclamation without presence” (p. 55). What follows evangelism, “persuasion,” should not be thought of “as if the outcome could be secured by human effort, almost as if it were another word for ‘coercion’. But no. Our responsibility is to be faithful; the results are in the hand of Almighty God” (p. 57).
Conclusion
Stott ends his chapter by quoting a portion from the Lausanne Covenant (paragraph 4, The Nature of Evangelism). Here is that paragraph in its entirety.
To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gifts of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship. Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his Church and responsible service in the world.
May
18
Stott on Evangelism
Posted by Champ Thornton at 11:50 pm
Last week, we began a series of posts based on John R. W. Stott’s book, “Christian Mission in the Modern World.” Stott’s book has five chapters, each one addressing a key word related to mission(s)—mission, evangelism, dialogue, salvation, conversion. Last week, Jon reviewed the first chapter (mission—part 1, part 2, and part 3), and this week I’m reviewing the second chapter (evangelism). So here we go.
Stott opens the chapter by discussing the priority of evangelism (for additional discussion, see this post from last week). By adducing evidence from both the Scriptures and from 20th century church history, Stott shows that evangelism takes priority over social action. He says,
Christians should feel an acute pain of conscience and compassion when human beings are oppressed or neglected in any way, whether what is being denied them is civil liberty, racial respect, education, medicine, employment, or adequate food, clothing, or shelter. Anything which undermines human dignity should be an offense to us. But is anything so destructive of human dignity as alienation from God through ignorance or rejection of the gospel? (p. 35).
Next Stott clarifies the meaning of evangelism, which he simply defines as follows: “to bring or to announce the euangelion, the good news” (p. 37). If this is what evangelism is, then it means that there are any number of things that evangelism is not. He identifies three:
First, evangelism must not be defined in terms of the recipients of the gospel, although it is of course assumed that they will be sufficiently ‘non-Christian’ to need to hear it (p. 37).
Secondly, evangelism must not be defined in terms of results, for this is not how the word is used in the New Testament. . . . There is no mention in these verses whether the word which was ‘evangelized’ was believed, or whether the inhabitants of the towns and villages ‘evangelized’ were converted (p.38). . . . Now of course, our objective is that something will happen, namely that people will respond and believe. . . . At the same time, we must not confuse an object (what we want to happen) with a consequence (what actually does happen) (p. 40).
Thirdly, evangelism must not be defined in terms of methods. . . . In different degrees we can evangelize by word of mouth (whether to individuals, groups or crowds); by print, picture or screen; by drama (whether what is dramatized is fact or fiction); by good works of love (Matthew 5.16); by a Christ-centred home; by a transformed life; and even by an almost speechless excitement about Jesus. Nevertheless, because evangelism is fundamentally an announcement, some verbalization is necessary if the content of the good news is to be communicated with any precision (p. 40).
Stott then takes the discussion to its logical next step. He asks, “Is there a New Testament gospel?” (p. 41). If evangelism is announcing the good news, then what is this gospel which we are to announce? But before this question can be answered, he raises a preliminary question: “Can we even know what the first-century, New Testament gospel really is/was?” Stott answers in the affirmative.
First, even though the New Testament contains a diversity of approaches to presenting the gospel message (due, for example, to authors’ background and temperament, historical development, and the occasional nature of the epistles, etc.), “nevertheless, having allowed for all these variations, and despite all the rich diversity of theological formulation in the New Testament, there was only one basic tradition of the gospel” (p. 41).
Second, even though the writings of the New Testament are embedded in the setting of the first-century Middle East, “the fact that God disclosed himself in terms of a particular culture gives us not a justification for rejecting his revelation, but rather the right principle by which to interpret it, and also the solemn responsibility to re-interpret it in terms meaningful to our own culture” (p. 42).
Along these lines, Stott pauses to comment on “revelation and culture,” which, since our Saturday morning study group is reading D. A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited, might be of particular interest (to some). Stott observes the need for precision in exegeting both the ancient text and the modern culture.
Now it is comparatively easy to be faithful if we do not care about being contemporary, and easy to be contemporary if we do not bother to be faithful. It is the search for a combination of truth and relevance which is exacting. Yet nothing else can save us from an insensitive loyalty to formulae and shibboleths on the one hand, and from a treasonable disloyalty to the revelation of God on the other. ‘Truth and timeliness’ (to quote Bishop Phillips Brooks) makes for communication, and without communication there is no evangelism, no actual sharing of the good news (p. 43).
Stott devotes the remainder of the chapter to identifying what the diverse and culturally-conditioned writers of the New Testament set down as the unified message of the gospel. It is to these five elements that we will turn in tomorrow’s post, DV, with ongoing discussion from Jon and others throughout the week.
May
15
Mission Incorporeal?
Posted by Champ Thornton at 10:44 pm
In the wider discussion of the relationship between Gospel proclamation and social action, there are two general schools of thought. In his book, Paradigms in Conflict, missiologist David Hesselgrave calls these two approaches (1) “holism” and (2) “prioritism.”
In an article on the Lausanne Pulse.com website, Evvy Campbell describes holism this way:
Holistic mission can be defined as “the task of bringing the whole of life under the lordship of Jesus Christ” and includes the affirmation that there is no biblical dichotomy between evangelistic and social responsibility. “Integral mission,” the term adopted for holistic mission at the Micah Network in Oxford (2001), defines it as “the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel,” emphasizing that it is not simply the issue of evangelism and social involvement occurring simultaneously, but that “our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life” and that “our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ.”
The Berlin Congress on World Evangelism (1966) put forth a form of prioritized mission with these words:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, possessor of all authority in heaven and on earth, has not only called us to himself; he has sent us out into the world to be his witnesses. In the power of the Spirit he commands us to proclaim to all people the good news of salvation through his atoning death and resurrection; to invite them to discipleship through repentance and faith; to baptize them into the fellowship of his Church; and to teach them all his words.
So, which approach to missions is best? Which best fits the biblical model? In an attempt to guide this discussion, I’d like to propose one goal (“purpose,” if you really like alliteration); two polarities; and three priorities.
One Goal
As they say, let’s begin with the end in mind. What has Christ accomplished for His people through His death and resurrection? Rescue . . . from sin (Rev 21:8), from God’s just wrath (Rom 5:9), from the Curse (Rev 22:3), from pain and tears and sickness (Rev 21:4), from national conflict (Rev 22:2), and from death (Rev 21:4). Eternity in the New Creation is not described as an existence free from physicality, but free from fallenness. It will be what Eden “should” have been (Gen 2:9; Rev. 22:2).
Two Polarities
Clearly, God is not saving non-corporeal beings. He is saving people—soul and body. So, the first polarity to keep in mind would be that God made people both physical and spiritual beings. The Scripture reveals that He is passionate to care for both aspects of His creatures. Therefore, we cannot neglect either aspect. However, Christ Himself and His apostles teach that, if you have to choose, the physical part of a human takes second place to the spiritual. Christ said that it’s better to lose everything physical and gain life spiritually (Mark 8:36). He also taught to be more afraid of spiritual death than the mere destruction of the physical body (Matt. 10:28). And Paul reminded the believers in Thessalonica that whether they remained alive or lost their lives, their hope was that they were not under God’s wrath (1 Thess. 5:9-10). So, the New Testament sets the priority—-while a human is both physical and spiritual, spiritual well-being far outweighs physical well-being.
Where the first polarity related to the qualitative make-up of human beings, the second polarity deals with the temporal manifestations of the kingdom of God. On the one hand, believers often focus on the importance of social activity because God cares for the physical aspect of His creation and has prepared a New Creation, which is very much physical. On the other hand, believers who support a more prioritized view of mission(s) do so because they realize that, as Cal Thomas has said, there’s no good in presenting people fully clothed and well-fed at the gates of hell.
With the resurrection of Christ (the “first-fruits” of the greater resurrection to come), the New Creation (New Age to come) has broken back into the present age. Although Christ could say, “The kingdom of God is among you” (Lk. 17:20-21; 10:9). He could also instruct us to ask His Father to, “Let Your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). The kingdom is already/not yet. As D. A. Carson explained, “Eternal life, though experienced now, is consummated then, in conjunction with such a renovation of the universe that the only adequate description is ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1; cf. Rom. 8:21ff). . . . There is an ‘already’ aspect of the kingdom, and a ‘not yet’ aspect: the kingdom has already come, but it has not yet arrived” (Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, p. 14-15).
So how might this second polarity apply to mission(s)? If we focus on the already aspect of the kingdom, we might be more inclined toward social action. After all, where the kingdom is, there is healing, justice, etc. (think OT Israel, Christ in the Gospels, etc.). If we focus on the not yet aspect of the kingdom, we might tend to mainly proclaim the Gospel, since the ultimate showing of mercy and doing of justice will be in the New Creation which is only entered into via the Gospel and only ushered in by the climactic eschatological act of God.
But if the already and the not yet aspects of the kingdom are both true, then we need to be full-orbed (both/and) kingdom people. The holistic (physical/spiritual) paradise is already—so, live out the Gospel in social involvement. But to stop here is to miss the not yet. The holistic (physical/spiritual) paradise is not yet—so, tell out the Gospel in evangelism. To stop here is to miss the already.
(Note: The reason some might be tempted to focus on social issues (to the marginalizing of evangelism) is not because they have thought so much on the physical blessing of the New Creation. But it might be because they have not contemplated the New Creation enough! For the new heavens and new earth are the only place where social issues will be resolved genuinely and permanently.)
This is the second polarity, and like the first, it places priority on the importance of gaining entrance into the New Creation, the only place where all effects of the fall will be resolved with no chance of relapse.
Three Priorities
And finally, the three priorities. First, (based on the arguments above), evangelism takes first place above social involvement. Second, benevolent works (social involvement which addresses physical needs) should go in the first place to other believers (Gal. 6:10; 1 Thess. 5:15; John 13:35; 1 John 3:14-17). And third, benevolence should then finally be directed toward non-Christians. It’s not that the Bible is advocating love toward believers and indifference toward unbelievers. Rather, as Tim Chester and Steve Timmis say in Multiplying Churches, the Scriptures always show the Gospel emanating from a warm center. What kind of adornment would good deeds toward my unbelieving neighbor be when I am not lifting a finger to care for those whom I call brothers and sisters in Christ?
So, in light of these three priorities, two polarities, and one goal, I would contend for either a holistic prioritism or a prioritized holism.
Addendum:
Here are some apropos closing thoughts (fresh off the web) from Derek Thomas’ Reformation 21 interview of D. A. Carson on culture.
But many of those who speak easily and fluently of redeeming the culture soon focus all their energy shaping fiscal and political policies and the like, and merely assume the gospel. A gospel that is merely assumed, that does no more than perk away in the background while the focus of our attention is on the “redemption” of the culture in which we find ourselves, is lost within a generation or two. At the same time, I worry about Christians who focus their attention so narrowly on getting people “saved” that they care little about doing good to all people, even if especially to the household of God. Getting this right is not easy, and inevitably priorities will shift a little in various parts of the world, under various regimes. Part of the complexity of the discussion, I think, is bound up with what the church as church is responsible for, and what Christians as Christians are responsible for: I have argued that failure to make this distinction tends to lead toward sad conclusions.