Translate

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Reformed Baptist must have book: Help, Mom! There are Arminians Under My Bed!



Reformed Baptist must have book:

Help, Mom! There are Arminians Under My Bed! [Kindle Edition]

JD Hall  
 
Only $3.99 on Amazon.com 
 

Christianity vs Andy Stanley

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

Article by   May 2013
 
For this month's column, I thought I would offer a few reflections on Andy Stanley's recent book, Deep and Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend. Here's a classic passage which represents in miniature an entire universe of erroneous thinking.
People are far more interested in what works than what's true. I hate to burst your bubble, but virtually nobody in your church is on a truth quest. Including your spouse. They are on happiness quests. As long as you are dishing out truth with no here's the difference it will make tacked on the end, you will be perceived as irrelevant by most of the people in your church, student ministry, or home Bible study. You may be spot-on theologically, like the teachers of the law in Jesus' day, but you will not be perceived as one who teaches with authority. Worse, nobody is going to want to listen to you.

Now, that may be discouraging. Especially the fact that you are one of the few who is actually on a quest for truth. And, yes, it is unfortunate that people aren't more like you in that regard. But that's the way it is. It's pointless to resist. If you try, you will end up with a little congregation of truth seekers who consider themselves superior to all the other Christians in the community. But at the end of the day, you won't make an iota of difference in this world. And your kids...more than likely your kids, are going to confuse your church with the church and once they are out of your house, they probably won't visit the church house. Then one day they will show up in a church like mine and want to get baptized again because they won't be sure the first one took. And I'll be happy to pastor your kids. But I would rather you face the reality of the world we live in and adjust your sails. Culture is like the wind. You can't stop it. You shouldn't spit in it. But, if like a good sailor you will adjust your sails, you can harness the winds of culture to take your audience where they need to go. If people are more interested in being happy, then play to that. Jesus did (Kindle 1216-1234).
To be sure, as grateful as I am to the Rev. Stanley for the offer to pastor my children and for providing me with fascinating insights into the philosophical convictions of my long-suffering wife, I cannot help but see this as a remarkably naïve piece of muddled thinking.

With so much promising material, where should one start the critique? Perhaps with the unintended irony of a man warning his readers about feeling superior while at the same time assuring them that he has better insight into the way their spouses and congregations think than they do? Or with the odd way in which he berates his audience for making the mistake of assuming that other people are just like them rather than realizing that they are actually all just like Andy Stanley? Sorry to - as you would put it - 'burst your bubble', Andy, but the people I know are not on a happiness quest. I suspect they are not that ambitious: they simply want to find a decent bottle of cognac so that they might temporarily dull the pain of existence with a little touch of old world class. At least, I have always assumed they are just like me.

One might also look at the travesty of scriptural teaching it contains. The problem of the teachers of the law, for example, was not that they were spot on; it was that they were completely wrong. That is why Jesus spent such a lot of time berating them for their errors of interpretation. And as to Jesus playing to people's expectations of happiness, one wonders why he made such 'play' of the havoc which following him would wreak on families, of the need to take up one's cross, and of the expectation of persecution to come. As far as I know, not even Peter Tatchell has yet tried to argue that first century Palestine was full of sexual fetishists who found their happiness by being regularly subjected to acute suffering brought on by religious commitment.

I will concede that Stanley is certainly right in his basic contention: people are not on a search for truth. The Apostle Paul articulated that well in Romans 1. Stanley is also correct that truth is irrelevant to people, or at least they think it is irrelevant to them. Compared to Paul, Stanley's statement on this issue is rather bland. Paul goes much further, declaring the truth, the message of the cross, to be intellectual foolishness to some and a moral offense to others. It is not, however, Stanley's blandness which is the real problem; it is the practical conclusion which he draws from this. For Paul, the offensiveness and irrelevance of the message of the cross demonstrate the fact that those who think in such ways are perishing. The problem is with them and with their 'cultures,' not with the cross. For Stanley, by way of contrast, it is the 'culture' which is to set the agenda and to which the church must thus conform or die.   

Stanley's pragmatism, in a manner analogous to the soft relativism of certain evangelical postmoderns, looks attractively plausible; yet this is only because it operates within the framework of the likely possibilities determined by the polite pieties and tasteful transgressions of modern middle America. Safe, in other words, because Stanley assumes middle America is pretty much like him and therefore unlikely to confront him or his church with anything too tasteless. After all, what's the worst that 'culture' might throw at them? Homosexuality? That is being rendered thoroughly respectable even as I write. Abortion? Out of sight, out of mind. Nice clean "clinics," a powerful rhetoric built on claims about rape, incest and victimhood, and a euphemistic vocabulary of "women's health," "terminations" and "planned parenthood" help make child killing just one more private and merciful medical procedure.

So far, so middle America. The final cause of personal felicity sanctifies all. But if Stanley had the imagination to set this pragmatism in Nazi Germany or in a country where female circumcision is de rigueur, some place where middle class American tastes and preferences do not apply, then the cost of such intellectual and moral laziness would immediately become apparent. If you cannot stop culture and should not spit in it, what happens when the culture tells you that happiness comes about by gassing Jews or lacerating young girls' genitalia?    That is somebody's culture. No point trying to resist it for that would risk irrelevance, empty pews and an isolationist Pharisaism. And we couldn't have that, could we?

Of course, one can already hear the pat responses of 'It could never happen here!' or 'But that stuff is obviously wrong!' Touching in its innocence and predictable in its complacency, such mewling would yet betray a shockingly shallow understanding of both human nature and history. No one in 1900 would have predicted that the most technologically and culturally advanced nation in Europe would elect a man like Hitler and be the centre of previously unimaginable genocide. Interesting what national military defeat, adverse economic conditions, and concerted anti-Semitic propaganda can do to a nation, is it not?

Still, let's bring it closer to home while staying on the contemporary social margins: what if a pair of twenty-something siblings or a parent and adult child decide that their happiness lies in a consensual incestuous relationship? Consensual incest is already being legally debated in the US; and if the history of sexual politics teaches us anything, it is that what is today considered an anti-social fetish is tomorrow not only a civil right but also protected by hate speech legislation. And let us not forget that a current professor of bioethics at Princeton University sees nothing wrong in principle with bestiality (already, incidentally, being euphemized as 'zoophilia') or infanticide; and argues for both on grounds which are consistent with cultural and legal premises established years ago. In the field of human ethical behavior, one should never say 'it' can never happen here, wherever you may be.

And that is ultimately the saddest aspect of the Andy Stanleys of this world. It is not their patronizing attitude to others. It is not their arrogant assumption that they represent the culture or that they have the right to tell the rest of us how we should think. It is not the sloppy way they bandy words like 'culture' and even 'happiness' around without ever offering a definition of what they think they mean. It is not their crass prioritization of raw numbers. It is not their complete lack of imagination regarding the moral possibilities of 'culture.' Rather, it is the fact that what they confidently present as radical insights are really nothing but lazy, insipid, prosaic, and predictable capitulations to the values of the spirit of the age. In short, they are simply dressing up their society's tastes as absolute truth. Unimaginative, respectable, lazy and lethal. The discreet charm of the bourgeoisie, is it not?

Dr. Carl Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

O death, where is your victory? Read this at my funeral.

On thinking of the death of a friend, about a year ago. I read this and wanted to pass it on. 


“We cannot but hate death,
even when we have ceased to fear it,
and know that for us its sting has been extracted.
We hate it,
and thrust it from us;
loathing its advances,
and waging daily war with it—
seeking by every appliance of skill to overcome it and ward off its stroke.
We hate it because of its
shadow,
and its coldness,
and its silence.
We hate it as the great robber
of our loves and joys,
who gives nothing but takes everything.
It cuts so many ties;
it rends so many hearts;
it silences so many voices;
it thins so many firesides;
it comes with its dark veil,
its screen of ice,
between friend and friend,
between soul and soul,
between parent and child,
between husband and wife,
between sister and brother.
Of human sympathies it has none;
it concerns not itself about our joys or sorrows;
it spares no dear one,
and restores no lost one;
it is pitiless and dumb;
it is as powerful as it is inexorable,
striking down the weak,
and wrestling with the strong
till they succumb and fall. …
Its history is one of evil,
not of good;
of wrong,
and sadness,
and terror;
of breaking down,
not of building up;
of scattering,
not of gathering;
of darkness,
not of light;
of disease,
and pain,
and tossings to and fro,
not of health and brightness. …
Death has been the sword of law for ages;
but when it has done its work on earth,
God takes this sword,
red with the blood of millions,
snaps it in pieces before the universe,
and casts its fragments into the flame. …
We preach Jesus and the resurrection;
Jesus the resurrection and the life;
Jesus our life.
We bring glad tidings concerning this risen One,
and that finished work of which resurrection is the seal;
glad tidings concerning God’s free love in connection with this risen One.
The knowledge of this risen One is
forgiveness,
and life,
and glory.
Oh then, what is there in our dying world like this to impart consolation and gladness?
We shall not die,
but live.
Eternity is a life,
and not a death;
a life with Christ,
and a life in Christ.
For the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne
shall lead us to the living fountains of waters,
and God shall wipe away all tears from our eyes.”
—Horatius Bonar, Light and Truth: Bible Thoughts and Themes (Dust & Ashes, 2002), 5:229—236.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Christianity vs the religon of American Churches

What if Life Was Complex?

Article by   April 2013
This month, I thought I would use this column to indulge in a little thought experiment. What, I wonder, if the conservative evangelical church world came to be dominated by a symbiotic network of high profile and charismatic leaders (think more Weber than Wimber), media organisations, and big conferences? What if leadership, doctrine, and policy were no longer rooted in the primacy of biblical polity and the local church? What if, in other words, all of this became a function of an Evangelical Industrial Complex?

It is an important question. It is probably a year or so since I raised the question of the impact of celebrity on evangelicalism. As I was told then, celebrity either does not exist in the evangelical subculture or is of no real importance there. Thus, I suspect the Evangelical Industrial Complex either does not exist or exerts no influence; but it is entertaining to imagine what would the signs be that it was a real issue (which, I am sure you will agree, it is not).

The aesthetics of success would subtly and imperceptibly supplant the principles of faithfulness or would indeed come to be identified with the same. The rhetoric of faithfulness would be retained, but the substance would be less and less important. Thus, the key leaders would be the men at the big churches or with the ability to pack a stadium or to handle media with slick sophistication. Fruitfulness and faithfulness would be rhetorically opposed in a way that would be ridiculous if we were talking marriage, but which somehow seems plausible in a church context.  

The key books on pastoral ministry would be written by men who either have no real experience of anything approaching normal pastoral ministry or have not had such for decades. Students at seminaries would rarely, if ever, name their own pastors as the most influential preachers in their lives. Multi-site video churches would spring up, as the desire to be connected to success and to the Top Men, rather than to serve as part a local body, would become a significant factor in church life. The pastors held up as models of ministry would have little personal contact with most people in their churches. Of course, the Complex may make space for criticism of this type of church and churchmanship; but it will not do anything about it, thus making the matter yet one more area where we can - must -- all agree to differ.

Leaders would gradually and sometimes self-consciously become brands. The instruments of fostering that intimacy of strangers which is such a part of celebrity culture - for example, the faux-chumminess of all those tweeted exchanges and retweets, lives lived as soap operas mediated by the internet - would feed smoothly, humbly, and imperceptibly into the building of one's brand. Another sign of this branding would be that publishers and conferences would recruit writers and speakers not on the basis of competence but of market appeal. Some writers would thus write the same book over and over again (using different titles, of course). Some topics would not be considered sufficiently or definitively addressed until the Complex's own brand names had had their say. Few, if any, thoughts or sermons of the brand names would pass unpublished.

Overall control of the evangelical world would in practice lie in the hands of select groups of unelected  leaders, captains of industry, answerable to nobody but themselves and with no transparent accountability beyond the constituency's ability to give or withhold funds.    
As a corollary of this, ordained office would be of little significance in the world of the Evangelical Industrial Complex. Character, personal orthodoxy, a transparent, stable, loving family life embedded in a particular congregation, prioritisation of hard work in the local church setting (evidenced by far more Sundays serving in your home church than anywhere else), ability to teach the local church, accountability to a local session, elder board or presbytery - these things would be at a discount. One might even come across key leaders who had left their local calling precisely to further their 'ministries.' Paul's list of elder qualifications in the Pastorals would be of secondary interest compared to the ability to handle communications media, to attend board meetings, to attract a crowd, to sell a title, and to network. And the average age of the key movers and shakers would slowly but surely decrease.

Criticism would be effectively stymied. Most critics would lack the stature to present a threat and could thus be safely ignored. Those who carried influence could be internalized by being offered a cool speaking gig or a place at the table or inside the tent; they might even be allowed to voice their criticisms there - but only as members of the club, in which role they would demonstrate the Complex's openness to discussion. The fear of missing a true movement of God would ultimately keep them from actually doing anything to upset the PR strategy. Finally, those who could not be ignored or internalized could be rendered irrelevant through linguistic demonization: they would be decried as 'haters', 'ivory tower academicians', 'ranters' and 'envious.'

Along with this, a more positive rhetoric would also be developed to pre-empt criticism. A term like 'gospel centered,' for example, could easily be turned from a helpful description of a ministry into a kind of mantric shibboleth, implicitly ruling as imbalanced, malicious, or unbiblical any criticism of those who own its copyright. 'Confessional orthodoxy' would be wrested from its historic ecclesiastical context, with its connotations of elaborate theological formulation connected to clear polity built upon a Pauline view of the church and her officers. Instead, it would come to be whatever the careful negotiation between the captains of the industry, the media moguls, and the marketplace would determine it to be.  

Grand visions always create large overhead costs. Money would therefore play a larger and larger role in who is in and who is out, who gets to speak and to write and, indeed, what therefore comes to be spoken and to be written. Further, production of commodities is never simply a response to market need but is often creative of the same. After all, nobody needed a smartphone or an iPod until someone invented one. Thus, the captains of the industry, the big conferences, and the key media outlets would come increasingly to set the churches' agenda.  Supply would shape demand.

Creation of new markets would therefore play a large part in determining what issues are addressed and which are ignored. For example, everyday problems would be subject to mystification so as to place them beyond the competence of the minister and elders and deacons (and thus beyond the church as Paul envisaged it) and therefore to require specialized training and help. And guess who is there to provide the quasi-Gnostic knowledge necessary? It can be purchased, of course, from the members of the Evangelical Industrial Complex. And this would in turn feed into further marginalization of biblical polity and ordained office.   

It is a bleak and disturbing scenario. One can only be glad that it is not really happening. [Or is it?]

Dr. Carl Trueman is the Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and the pastor of Cornerstone Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ambler, PA.

A Christian review of Rob Bell's newest book

What We Talk About When We Talk About God

Article by   May 2013
belltalkaboutgod93.jpg
Rob Bell, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 240 pp., $16.00

"Detheologizing" Christianity

For those who have read Rob Bell's other books (such as Love Wins and Velvet Elvis), the tone, disposition, and content of this new book will sound all too familiar.  In What We Talk About When We Talk About God, Bell continues his campaign to reshape and repackage Christianity for this postmodern generation, and to rescue it from those he thinks are holding it back (traditional Christians). 

In this way, Bell positions himself as an apologist of sorts. Our world views the Christian God as irrelevant and outdated (like an Oldsmobile), and Bell's mission is to give Him an extreme makeover. Bell takes the God who seems like a grumpy, judgmental old man in a polyester suit who is pointing his finger at you while simultaneously thumping the Bible, and changes him into a hip, urban young guy with skinny jeans and horn-rimmed glasses who invites you to have a latte with him and ponder the mysteries of the universe.  

Bell's book, therefore, functions a lot like the Apple vs. Microsoft commercial that was popular a number of years ago. Microsoft was represented by an out of shape, poorly dressed geek, while Apple was represented by a thin, hip, well-dressed urbanite. In effect, Bell is arguing that God is not like Microsoft. He is more like Apple. God is relevant. He can keep up with the times. 
Unfortunately, being an apologist for the faith does not always lead one to uphold the faith.  Indeed, there is a long history of folks who have sought to defend Christianity from critical attacks by simply changing the problematic portions of the faith. In other words, apologetics is not always about defending what we believe, but is sometimes about modifying what we believe.  Apologetics is sometimes about giving Christianity an extreme makeover. 

In this regard, one thinks of scholars like Rudolph Bultmann. Despite the negative press Bultmann has received, it should be noted that Bultmann regarded himself as a committed Christian and a defender of the faith. Bultmann recognized that in this modern, enlightened age, people could no longer believe in supernatural events. So, in order to rescue Christianity from its imminent demise, Bultmann stripped all the supernatural elements out of the faith (see his book, New Testament and Mythology). In short, he "demythologized" the Bible. Bultmann wanted to convince people that God wasn't an Oldsmobile. God could keep up with the times. 

Of course, Bell's method of defending Christianity is not by stripping it of its supernatural elements (that was the issue in Bultmann's day). On the contrary, Bell is quite keen to remind the reader of the supernatural--God is everywhere, busy at work, in us and in our world.   Instead, Bell's makeover method is to change Christianity into a broad "spirituality."  His book downplays (and in some instances, simply ignores) many of the key doctrines that make Christianity distinctive. He simply turns Christianity into vague, general, theism. Whereas Bultmann demythologized the faith, Bell has detheologized the faith. 

Bell's makeover motif is evident from the very opening chapter, entitled "Hum." He complains that there are many "conventional categories" of belief that are harmful to the church. His examples include the belief that women shouldn't be pastors, the belief that "everybody that is gay is going to hell," and the belief that non-Christians will endure "untold suffering" after the second coming of Christ (p.6-7). These are the types of beliefs (though not all) that Christianity must rid itself of, if it is to avoid going the way of the Oldsmobile. 

In chapter two, entitled "Open," Bell offers modified form of the teleological argument. He goes into great detail about the order and the complexity of the universe in an effort to show the skeptic that you can't rule out the existence of God--the universe is too marvelous, too complex, to be sure there is no divine. I think this chapter will be effective with the non-Christian, and is probably the best (and most interesting ) chapter in the book. 

In chapter three, entitled "Both," Bell returns more directly to his makeover motif. The overall point of this chapter is that the language we use to describe God is inherently and unavoidably vague--God is beyond words. And if God is beyond our ability to explain, then we cannot really be certain in our beliefs about God. Bell laments those fundamentalist types who process God in either/or categories. "There are limits to our certainty because God, it's repeated again and again, is spirit.  And spirit has no shape or form" (p. 88).  

It is clear that Bell is using this chapter to set the stage for his makeover. If words about God are unclear, and we can never really be certain about anything, then we should not feel bound by certain limitations about God. This allows Bell to scold those "fundamentalist" types who are all too certain about their theology, and it allows him to suggest that we should think of God differently. In particular, Bell hones in on the issue of God's gender. He argues that masculine language in the Bible about God is just the product of primitive cultures that couldn't help but think of their "god" as male (p.88-89).   

In chapter four, entitled "With," Bell focuses on the immanence of God and how he is always near and present with us. This would be fine if Bell stuck to biblical categories about the way that God is present. But, instead he "detheologizes" the Christian view of God's immanence and makes it more like New Age, Gnostic spiritualism. God's presence is described in language like "creative energy," a "life force," and an "unending divine vitality" (p. 106). This divine energy creates a oneness to the universe: "When we talk about God, we're talking about the straightforward affirmation that everything has a singular, common source and is infinitely, endlessly, deeply connected" (p.118).  This sounds more like "the Force" from Star Wars, than the God of the Bible. 

In chapter five, entitled "For," Bell says that he wants to recover the "fundamental Christian message that God is for us" (128). That is certainly a commendable goal, but Bell once again "detheologizes" what this concept actually means according to Scripture. Entirely missing in this chapter--indeed entirely missing in the whole book--is any meaningful discussion of the cross and atonement. Absent is discussion about our sin, God's wrath on our sin, and how Christ's death on the cross paid that penalty. Absent is the clarification that without the cross, God is definitely not for us and that his wrath remains on us. Sure, Bell talks about Jesus and the incarnation. But, the mission of Jesus is reshaped so that its purpose is "giving us a picture of God who is not distant or detached or indifferent to our pain...but instead is present among us in Jesus to teach us and help us and suffer with us" (p. 131).  

In the final two chapters, Bell continues to talk about key Christian themes such as Jesus, repentance, confession, forgiveness, and so on. But, incredibly, he empties each of these terms of their biblical meaning and simply replaces them with a meaning that fits with postmodern spirituality. His "detheologizing" of Christianity is complete. 

In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it. 

Bell's book, therefore, is really just spiritualism with a Christian veneer. It's a book that would fit quite well on Oprah's list of favorite books. What is Rob Bell talking about when he is talking about God? Not the God of Christianity.  

Dr. Michael Kruger is President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Do Your People Really Know the Good News?

The Gospel Test: Do Your People Really Know the Good News?

April 2, 2012|10:03 am
 
Imagine waiting outside the doors of the sanctuary of any evangelical church in America with a video camera and a microphone at the end of the Sunday morning service. Your mission? To interview 10 random members of the congregation with a simple question, "If I were not a Christian and you were to explain the gospel to me what would you say?"
Supposing you weren't tackled by a rogue usher and Good Fellas boot stomped in the foyer, imagine some of the potential answers you could hear…

"Um, well, I guess that God loves you and if you, well, follow him then, you know, it will all work out."

"As long as you're a sincere person and don't kill anybody or anything like that I think God would let you into heaven."

"Isn't there some prayer that you are supposed to say and then you're in?"

"I don't really concern myself about this sort of thing because it's the pastor's job to tell people about Jesus anyway."

"If you were chosen before the foundation of the earth to be a part of his family then you're in. If not, well, nothing you can do will matter anyway."

"I guess if you live a good enough life you'd be okay."

"I'm not sure but it has something to do with Jesus dying on the cross."

Sadly, it's not hard to imagine hearing answers like these coming from church-going people today. But what if you were interviewing the people of your church with the same question?
Before you dismiss the scenario of less-than-adequate answers coming from members of your congregation (or attendess of your Bible study, students in your youth group, etc) consider the possibility that you could be over-estimating what the Christians you lead really know when it comes to the Gospel.

I have been greatly disappointed in my informal interviews with countless Christians from all sorts of denominations on this very subject. As I've traveled the United States and preached in hundreds of venues, from churches to conferences to camps and retreats, I've been sadly surprised by the inability of many believers to articulate the simple truth of the gospel in a clear way. Many of these believers have attended church for years and still can't pass "the gospel test" at least when it comes to explaining the message of the good news of Jesus Christ.

Paul summed up the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 when he wrote, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…."

The gospel is the message that Jesus died in our place for our sins as a substitutionary atonement. He was buried and he rose from the dead, proving that he was the Son of God himself. In the most famous verse of Scripture Jesus said that whoever believes in him has eternal life.

Yes, it's that simple! It's so simple that a child can understand it and so jaw-droppingly deep that a Seminary professor can choke on it.

So if the gospel message is so simple then why can't the average Christian clearly articulate it? And what are some practical action steps we can take to help those we minister to understand it more deeply and articulate it more clearly?

1. Relentlessly present the gospel in your sermons, lessons and talks.
Too many preachers only give the gospel when it fits naturally into their sermons (or on Christmas Eve, Easter and other special outreach services.) Many have told me things like, "Well, the church service is for the believer and that's why I don't give the gospel." They say things like this as if the gospel were only for unbelievers and can be set aside after a person puts their faith in Jesus. But what you see in the preaching of the disciples was an obsession with the good news of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection for the Christian and non-Christian alike! The gospel messge was at the epicenter of their epistles, the driving subject of their sermons, the launching point of their theological rants, the punchline to their practical applications and the basis for their painful rebukes.

The best preachers throughout the ages have been equally obsessed by the gospel. From Martin Luther to Martin Lloyd Jones to George Whitefield to Billy Graham the message of the cross was the engine that drove each of their sermons to believers and unbelievers alike. Charles Spurgeon was once asked, "What is your style of preaching?" His answer was simple and straightforward, "I take my text and make a beeline for the cross."

Pastors, take your text and make a beeline for the cross until your church members feel the splinters of its blood stained wood in their hands. Youth leaders, Sunday school teachers, Bible study leaders….do the same. Relentlessly tie the gospel into your talks until those under your spiritual leadership can share the gospel without thinking or blinking.

Before I was a full-time evangelist I was a church planting pastor who gave the gospel at the end of every sermon I preached. Rich, a member of our church who happened to be a UPS driver, told me that he had the opportunity of leading a person to Christ that week. I asked him what evangelism training class had prepared him to do that. He said, "I haven't taken a class or read a book on evangelism. But I hear you give the gospel every week at the end of your sermons and now I can share the good news of Jesus in my sleep."

If you make a beeline for the cross in each of your talks those you minister to will be able to do the same thing.

2) Equip them to master the message of the Gospel.
As the leader of a ministry that trains teenagers to relationally and relentlessly evangelize (Dare2share) I get the privilege of equipping young people to master the message of the Gospel all across the United States. I don't train them to use a method but to master the message of the Gospel. To do that I have them memorize an acrostic that tells the whole story (aka "metanarrative") of the Gospel from Genesis to Revelation. We call it the GOSPEL Journey Message.

God created us to be with him.

Our sins separate us from God.

Sins cannot be removed by good deeds.

Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again.

Everyone who trusts in him alone has eternal life.

Life with Jesus starts now and lasts forever.

Why invest the energy in getting others to memorize an acrostic? You wouldn't dare try to play the guitar without mastering the chords. Well, think of these six points as "chords" to the gospel message. Have those you lead memorize these points and personalize them until they can turn these six chords into beautiful music spiced with their own story and style. Soon their explanation of the gospel will go from awkward to awesome. To help you train those you lead here is a podcast you can watch and a PDF outline you can use which will help you equip them in the GOSPEL Journey Message.
Whether you choose to use the GOSPEL Journey Message or something else, the main thing is that those you minister to on a weekly basis have a clear, cogent and complete understanding of the simple truth of the good news of Jesus Christ. If you don't think they need it I dare you to break out the video camera and microphone this Sunday at your church. Interview ten random people and see if they can pass the Gospel test.

You may be surprised.

Greg Stier is the President and Founder of Dare 2 Share Ministries in Arvada, Colo., where he works with youth leaders and students, equipping them to be effective in sharing the gospel. With experience as a senior teaching pastor and in youth ministry for almost 20 years, Greg has a reputation of knowing and relating to today's teens. He is widely viewed as an authority and expert teen spirituality. He is known for motivating, mobilizing and equipping teens for positive change. For more information on Dare 2 Share Ministries and their upcoming conference tour and training resources, please visit www.dare2share.org

Check out How to answer the Fool! its great propositional evangelism tool

How to Answer the Fool: a Presuppositional Defense of the Faith

Order the DVD! 


"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalm 14:1
Not since the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen debated Dr. Gordon Stein in "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" have we really seen presuppositional apologetics in action. And few have taken it into culture to show that there are only two positions, Christ...or absurdity.
But wait no more... Apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate takes this apologetic to the streets and Universities exposing the logical inconsistencies of the unbeliever (and dare we say some 'Christians') by showing that we don't need 'evidence' to prove that God exists. For as Romans 1:18-21 declares:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Produced as a cinematic film, How to Answer the Fool was adapted for use in small group and Sunday School classes, making it a useful tool for individual or group study. With an eye-opening, cinematic message, How to Answer the Fool deliberately and strategically teaches you how to defend the Faith; answering the call of Scripture to 'be ready in season and out of season' in order that we may '...always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in [us].'

"Within a minute or two you’ll see highly intelligent college students stunned at their inability to answer questions about knowledge and ethics. This six-part video series is a game-changer, not only for the unbelieving world but also for Christian apologists who compromise the gospel by arguing for the possibility that God exists and not the certainty of God’s existence." - Gary DeMar

Complete Set includes:
• DVD with 6 cinematic lessons
• Study guide 
Produced by American Vision in association with Crown Rights Media. Copyright 2013 | All rights reserved.

You Tube Sample! 

The ‘new legalism’ READ UP!

 

The ‘new legalism’

Religion | How the push to be ‘radical’ and ‘missional’ discourages ordinary people in ordinary places from doing ordinary things to the glory of God

Enlarge Image
@iStockphoto.com/CEFutcher
Is Paul’s urging to live quietly, mind your own affairs, and work with your hands (1 Thessalonians 4:11) only for losers? Do you feel that you’re wasting your gifts if you “settle” into an ordinary job, get married early and start a family, or live in a small town or suburb? Acton Institute Power Blogger Anthony Bradley has some provocative thoughts on the “new legalism.” —Marvin Olasky
A few days ago on Facebook and Twitter I made the following observation:
“Being a ‘radical,’ ‘missional’ Christian is slowly becoming the ‘new legalism.’ We need more ordinary God and people lovers (Matt 22:36-40).”
This observation was the result of long conversation with a student who was wrestling with what to do with his life given all of the opportunities he had available to him. To my surprise, my comment exploded over the internet with dozens and dozens of people sharing the comment and sending me personal correspondence.
I continue to be amazed by the number of youth and young adults who are stressed and burnt out from the regular shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not be doing something unique and special. Today’s millennial generation is being fed the message that if they don’t do something extraordinary in this life they are wasting their gifts and potential. The sad result is that many young adults feel ashamed if they “settle” into ordinary jobs, get married early and start families, live in small towns, or as 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] affairs, and to work with [their] hands.” For too many millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.
Here are a few thoughts on how we got here.

Anti-Suburban Christianity

In the 1970s and 1980s, the children and older grandchildren of the builder generation (born between 1901 and 1920) sorted themselves and headed to the suburbs to raise their children in safety, comfort, and material ease. And now millennials (born between 1977 and 1995), taking a cue from their baby boomer parents (born between 1946 and 1964) to despise the contexts that provided them advantages, have a disdain for America’s suburbs. This despising of suburban life has been inadvertently encouraged by well-intentioned religious leaders inviting people to move to neglected cities to make a difference, because, after all, the Apostle Paul did his work primarily in cities, cities are important, and cities are the final destination of the Kingdom of God. They were told that God loves cities and they should, too. The unfortunate message became that you cannot live a meaningful Christian life in the suburbs.

Missional Narcissism

There are many churches that are committed to being what is called missional. This term is used to describe a church community where people see themselves as missionaries in local communities. A missional church has been defined, as “a theologically formed, Gospel-centered, Spirit-empowered, united community of believers who seek to faithfully incarnate the purposes of Christ for the glory of God,” says Scott Thomas of the Acts 29 Network. The problem is that this push for local missionaries coincided with the narcissism epidemic we are facing in America, especially with the millennial generation. As a result, living out one’s faith became narrowly celebratory only when done in a unique and special way, a “missional” way. Getting married and having children early, getting a job, saving and investing, being a good citizen, loving one’s neighbor, and the like, no longer qualify as virtuous. One has to be involved in arts and social justice activities—even if justice is pursued without sound economics or social teaching. I actually know of a couple who were being so “missional” they decided to not procreate for the sake of taking care of orphans.
To make matters worse, some religious leaders have added a new category to Christianity called “radical Christianity” in an effort to trade-off suburban Christianity for mission. This movement is based on a book by David Platt and is fashioned around “an idea that we were created for far more than a nice, comfortable Christian spin on the American dream. An idea that we were created to follow One who demands radical risk and promises radical reward.” Again, this was a well-intentioned attempt to address lukewarm Christians in the suburbs, but because it is primarily reactionary and does not provide a positive construction for the good life from God’s perspective, it misses “radical” ideas in Jesus’ own teachings like “love.”

"The ‘new legalism’" Continued...

The combination of anti-suburbanism with new categories like “missional” and “radical” has positioned a generation of youth and young adults to experience an intense amount of shame for simply being ordinary Christians who desire to love God and love their neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40). In fact, missional, radical Christianity could easily be called the “new legalism.” A few decades ago, an entire generation of baby boomers walked away from traditional churches to escape the legalistic moralism of “being good,” but what their millennial children received in exchange, in an individualistic American Christian culture, was shamed-driven pressure to be awesome and extraordinary young adults expected to tangibly make a difference in the world immediately. But this cycle of reaction and counter-reaction, inaugurated by the baby boomers, does not seem to be producing faithful young adults. Instead, many are simply burning out.
Why is Christ’s command to love God and neighbor not enough for these leaders? Maybe Christians are simply to pursue living well and invite others to do so according to how God has ordered the universe. An emphasis on human flourishing, ours and others’, becomes important because it is characterized by a holistic concern for the spiritual, moral, physical, economic, material, political, psychological, and social context necessary for human beings to live according to their design. What if youth and young adults were simply encouraged live in pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, understanding, education, wonder, beauty, glory, creativity, and worship in a world marred by sin, as Abraham Kuyper encourages in the book Wisdom and Wonder. No shame, no pressure to be awesome, no expectations of fame but simply following the call to be men and women of virtue and inviting their friends and neighbors to do the same in every area of life.
It is unclear how millennials will respond to the “new legalism” but it may explain the current trend of young Christians leaving the church after age 15 at a rate of 60 percent. Being a Christian in a shame-driven “missional,” “radical” church does not sound like rest for the weary. Perhaps the best antidote to these pendulum swings and fads is simply to recover an mature understanding of vocation so that youth and young adults understand that they can make important contributions to human flourishing in any sphere of life because there are no little people or insignificant callings in the Kingdom.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

From James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries

Buy your copy now LINK!

Editorial Reviews

From the Back Cover

Learn What Islam Really Teaches, Straight From Its Sacred Text
Relying on the media and politicians to tell us what Muslims believe isn't going to cut it. Christians need to be better informed, whether the goal is to understand global politics or to talk to a Muslim neighbor across the street.

Through fair and accurate use of the Qur'an and other documents, scholar and accomplished debater Dr. James White examines what Muslim sacred texts teach about Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the afterlife, and other crucial topics. This book provides the answers you've been looking for to engage in open, honest discussions about Islam with Muslims and others.

About the Author

James R. White is the author of several acclaimed books, including The God Who Justifies and The Forgotten Trinity. The director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization, he is an accomplished and respected debater and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. James also blogs at the Alpha and Omega Ministries site www.aomin.org. He and his family live in Phoenix, Arizona.