Skip to content

Category: evangelism

27

Published on 27 Comments on The Allah of the Quran is not the God of the Bible

These are thoughts that I've been sharing over at Between Two Worlds on a post called Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammed?

My answer?  Of course not.  Here are some points in no particular order:

1) Let's let Allah define himself:

"He does not beget nor is he begotten." (Sura 112)

The Quran defines the god of Islam explicitly as not the God of the Bible. Let's respect Muslims enough to let them define who their god is. He is not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We honour their faith by speaking of Allah as another god - that is how Allah defines himself. From our perspective we cannot speak of Allah as anything other than an idol - anything else fails to take Muslim faith on its own terms.

2) Can anyone really imagine the prophets addressing the Edomites, Philistines etc saying 'Yahweh is very much like Baal/Molech/Asherah'??! Never!

The question for the nations is not 'Do you believe in God?' But 'What god do you believe in?' Whether you're evangelizing in north Africa or north America "God" cannot be assumed.  In fact "God" is the least obvious word in our evangelistic encounters.  How on earth do we get to a position where people make it the point of commonality!

.

At this point a commenter replied that the 'Baal' analogies do not work because Allah is thought to be 'the transcendent Creator' and not simply a power within the world.  He claimed that a Muslim convert would have to repent of many beliefs but not his belief in 'God as infinite transcendent Creator.'

To this I replied...

3) We don't say "Baal is called 'Lord' and receives worship therefore no convert from Baalism needs to repent of their notions of Lorship or worship."  Of course they will have to repent of all of this.  So then why would anyone claim that a belief in the 'infinite transcendent Creator' is of a different order?  Fundamentally I see this as committing two errors.  It is to say...

A) 'Transcendent Creator' is more foundational to God's being than His triunity.

B) The Muslim means roughly the same as the Christian when speaking of the 'Transcendent Creator'

I strongly disagree with both.

A) i) If God is transcendent Creator you've made Him dependent on creation.

A) ii) It is a position that leads to Arianism. Athanasius complained that Arius' error was to conceive of God as Unoriginate and then to consider trinity. On this trajectory he could never affirm the homo-ousios of One whose being was 'ek tes ousia tw patri' (out of the being of the Father). Similarly if your conversation with a Muslim begins with some 'bedrock' notion of transcendence before introducing them to Jesus it will necessarily mean introducing them to one who is less than the transcendent one. You'll have shot yourself in the foot from the very beginning. Let's not define Jesus out of full deity before we've even begun. We therefore must not begin on the Arian trajectory of affirming transcendent Creator first - Jesus will not come out very well from such a starting point!

B) Only the God who exists as Himself in relations of otherness can actually have a relationship with creation in which we can know Him as transcendent. 'Transcendent Creator' is dependent on trinity (not the other way around). The Muslim account of transcendence is completely confused (as is every unitarian account). Allah is a prisoner of his 'transcendence' - by definition cut off from any relationship with it (whether transcendent or immanent).

'Transcendent Creator' is neither the foundational nor a shared understanding of the living God. And it's not desirable that it should be.

.

At this point my interlocutor (rightly) suspected I was denying the possiblity of true philosophical reflection on divinity apart from Christian revelation.  He claimed I was being overly Barthian ;-)   I replied with these points...

4) In terms of theological method, "Christ alone" is not a Barthian novelty!  It's difficult to think of a more crucial verse in the history of the church for theological method than Matthew 11:27: "No-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

To this let's add John 1:18; 14:6 and Colossians 1:15. To this let's add the continual Scriptural witness that we are blind, dead, enemies of God unable to know Him apart from His Word to us.  (e.g. Ps 14:2; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21).  These plain and central truths cannot be evaded by crying 'Barthian'!

5) Nicea's "The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" was a deliberate and crucial choice of order. Triunity precedes creation. Of course it does - unless we want to define God as dependent upon creation.

6) Even Jews who have the Scriptures do not know the Father if they reject the Son. (cf ALL OF JOHN'S GOSPEL!)

7) To go over a previous point - there are tremendous Arian dangers of considering 'Creator' more foundational than trinity. Once you have assured your Muslim friend that she really does know God and that the God she knows is definitionally the infinite, transcendent Creator, do you really think you've helped her towards faith in Jesus of Nazareth?? Have you not just given her every reason to reject divine honours (thus defined) being attributed to Christ. Won't she simply thank you for confirming her own doctrine of God which by definition precludes Jesus from being anything more than a prophet??

Athanasius rightly said 'the only system of thought into which Jesus Christ will fit is the one in which He is the starting point.'

The Rock upon which we build is nothing and no-one else but Christ.  Let's be clearer on this whether we're evangelizing Muslims or our friends in the pub.  They do not know God and besides - why would we want to confirm for them a sterile, non-relational doctrine of God in the first place??  Let's tell them, 'The god you had thought existed was not God - let me tell you about the living God who is unlike anything you've imagined.  His name is Jesus and He blows your god out of the water!'

.

Published on Leave a comment on Door to Door?

A friend of mine recently posed this statement for discussion

"Five sessions of 5 pairs spending two hours door-knocking is better spent having 5 pairs having neighbours round five times in a season" Discuss.

Some responses:

  • Good thought!  See especially here where Rory Shiner discusses Gospel intentionality as a good 'third way' between cold-contact and friendship evangelism.  He (like my friend) has been very impressed by the Crowded House churches.
  • The personal investment involved in such hospitality is often far greater than the fear factor involved in door-to-door.  In this sense door-knocking, though appearing to be the more impressive, can often be more of a cop-out.
  • A deep sharing of life is surely a far superior context for sharing the faith!

But having said that

  • The context for sharing my faith is, fundamentally, not my friendships down here (though clearly that is ideal).  More fundamentally though, the context for sharing the faith is resurrection, pentecost and second coming. Christ is risen - this is my authority to speak of Christ.  The Spirit has been poured out - this is the power to do so.  He is coming - this is the urgency.  I realise my friend would not wish to disagree with this but it's still good to remember what is at root my authorisation for my speaking.
  • There are millions in this country alone who don't have Christian friends (at least Christian friends who are willing to share their faith).  Friendship evangelism will not reach them.  (Rory's proposal linked above speaks to this - gospel intentionality seeks to reach a wider network of people than those we already know).
  • If it's a question of 'effectiveness' - stranger evangelism 'works'. I will post figures from Bridge Builders when I have them confirmed.  But I know also from personal experience that people are converted through these efforts - this is precisely what we expect given the point above regarding resurrection, pentecost and second coming. 
  • Think of the beginnings of the Salvation Army or David Wilkerson (Cross and Switchblade) - there was no bridge upon which they built their ministry apart from the declaration of the word.  Now they committed themselves to those who responded and very meaningful relationships blossomed (along with ministries that often lost their confidence with the power of the word proclaimed plainly!).  But the footing on which those relationships were placed was the proclamation of the gospel to strangers.  (But again perhaps this is closer to the 'gospel intentionality' model than to 'stranger evangelism')
  • Jesus did both - He did blow into town and speak to strangers.  And He also went to dinner parties and built into very significant relationships.
  • We are to sow on all the soils (Mark 4).

In all I think I agree with the statement in terms of priorities.  I'd want to make sure that those we invite are not simply our friends (Luke 14:12-14) and that we target those who are not only beyond the walls of the church but beyond our friendship groups and comfort zones.  Door to door is never to be an end in itself but the basis on which a relationship will ensue.  It should never be "Gospel apart from relationship."  But if it were ever a choice between "Gospel => relationship" or "Relationship => Gospel" then there should certainly be no theologically decisive preference for the latter!

 Therefore I would certainly not want to abandon door-to-door but seek for all evangelism to involve relationship building. In short, let's sow on all the soils.

What say you?

.

Published on Leave a comment on What age are we in?

Are we in the Post-Christian age? 

Is this age characterized by total cultural memory-loss regarding our Christian heritage?  Is this the age in which people are so far back in their Christian understanding that the mission stategies of previous centuries are virtually useless? 

Are we in the Post-Modern age?

Is this age characterized by the total devaluation of truth-claims?  Is this the age of story rather than argument?  Of dialogue rather than preaching?  Is this the age in which declarative proclamation will be basically impotent? 

Are we in the Post-Ascension age?

Is this the age characterized by the Spirit's pentecostal power?  Is this the age in which every minute represents the LORD's gospel patience?  Is this the age in which the church is commissioned to make disciples of all nations, empowered by His resurrection authority and accompanied with His living presence? 

.

I am tired of hearing Christians rehearse 1 and 2.  We all know about 1 and 2.  But what's fundamental here?  What age are we really in??

 .

2

Published on 2 Comments on Calling sinners to Christ

I've just written an essay on repentance and evangelism.  It was very hurriedly written, but basically my point is: Unbelievers can't repent, believers must - all the time. 

One of the implications is that evangelism is calling sinners to come to Christ just as they are.  Two men preaching in the 19th century grasped this very well indeed.

Here is Spurgeon calling sinners to repentance:

Do not attempt to touch yourself up and make yourself something other than you really are, but come as you are to Him who justifies the ungodly. ...The Gospel will receive you into its halls if you come as a sinner, not otherwise. Wait not for reformation, but come at once for salvation. God justifieth the ungodly, and that takes you up where you now are; it meets you in your worst estate. Come in your disorder. I mean, come to your heavenly Father in all your sin and sinfulness. Come to Jesus just as you are: filthy, naked, neither fit to live nor fit to die. Come, you that are the very sweepings of creation; come, though you hardly dare to hope for anything but death. Come, though despair is brooding over you, pressing upon your bosom like a horrible nightmare. Come and ask the Lord to justify another ungodly one. (From "Justification of the Ungodly" by C.H. Spurgeon.  A sermon on Romans 4:5)

And this is from a wonderful piece called Evangelical Repentance by John Colquhoun (1748-1827) 

Do you postpone the act of trusting in the Lord Jesus for all His salvation, till you first sit down and mourn awhile for your sins, or till your heart be so humbled that you may be welcome to Him, and so have from your own resources a warrant for trusting in Him? Do you object against coming to Christ because you are not certain that your conviction of sin and your repentance are of the right sort? Do you apply yourself to the exercise of repentance in order to be qualified for believing in Christ, or do you apply your conscience to the commands and curses of the broken law, in order so to repent as to be entitled to trust in Him? Know, I entreat you, that this preposterous and self-righteous course will but sink you the deeper in unbelief, impenitence, and enmity to God the longer you try in this manner to seek for evangelical repentance in your heart or life, the farther you will be from finding it... Do not try to wash yourself clean in order to come to the open fountain of redeeming blood; but come to it as you are, and, by the immediate exercise of direct confidence in the Lord Jesus, wash away all your sins (Ezek 36:25).

.

Published on Leave a comment on What does the 'priesthood of all believers' mean?

I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone.  Here's what I think the phrase must protect:

  • The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes.  (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10) 
  • Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood. 
  • None is more priestly than another. 

To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest.  (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings.  How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ.  But that's for another time!)

So this is what we are protecting by the phrase.  BUT surely what we can't mean is:  Every individual is equally a priest in themselves.  Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself.  That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.'  To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine.  My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body.  And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body.  But never in me!  I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.

Why is this important?  Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:

1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God.  But...

2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation.  The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.

3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips!   In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles.  But...

4.  We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.

That seems fairly straightforward.  And yet. 

  • How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
  • How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness? 
  • How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'? 
  • What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual?  The 'answer' or more than that? 
  • How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
  • How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission? 
  • How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?

I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'?  We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member.  As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you.  The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route. 

.

Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.

.

Published on Leave a comment on What does the ‘priesthood of all believers’ mean?

I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone.  Here's what I think the phrase must protect:

  • The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes.  (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10) 
  • Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood. 
  • None is more priestly than another. 

To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest.  (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings.  How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ.  But that's for another time!)

So this is what we are protecting by the phrase.  BUT surely what we can't mean is:  Every individual is equally a priest in themselves.  Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself.  That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.'  To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine.  My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body.  And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body.  But never in me!  I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.

Why is this important?  Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:

1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God.  But...

2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation.  The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.

3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips!   In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles.  But...

4.  We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.

That seems fairly straightforward.  And yet. 

  • How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
  • How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness? 
  • How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'? 
  • What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual?  The 'answer' or more than that? 
  • How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
  • How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission? 
  • How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?

I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'?  We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member.  As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you.  The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route. 

.

Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.

.

Published on Leave a comment on I believed, therefore I spoke.

Our church is in a sermon series encouraging us to put mission at the heart of all we do and say.  It's got me thinking about one of my favourite verses: "I believed therefore I have spoken." (2 Cor 4:13)  I've been trying to think, what do I need to believe in order to be the evangelist God calls me to be?  Here are 21 thoughts:

  1. God is mission.  He is Sender, Sent and Proceeding.  His being is irreducibly bound up in sending - in mission.  He is the out-ward focussed God, the spreading God.  He is a fountain of sending love.
  2. Participation in the life of this God means, inescapably, participating in the glorifying/magnifying/proclaiming of the Persons ("Behold My Servant..." Is 42:1ff).  Life in God means life in mission.
  3. The Father is over all our missionary efforts.  He is the real One who summons the world to faith in Christ and who orders all things that they might be brought under His feet (Eph 1:10).  Therefore He is not limited by my limitations and can do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine. (Eph 3:20).
  4. The Son is the centre of all our missionary efforts (Rom 1:3-4).  He is the One proclaimed - the substance of all our proclamation.  Good thing too because He is unbelievably attractive.  Speak of Him and you cannot go wrong.
  5. The Spirit is the power of all our missionary efforts.  You are ‘clothed with power' as you go in mission (Luke 24:49).  The One whose very nature is to make known the Son is with you in divine power and presence. 
  6. Hell is real and the certain destination of all those apart from Christ.  (Acts 4:12; 2 Thes 1:8-10)
  7. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16).  I am unleashing divine potency as I testify to Christ.
  8. The love of Christ compels us (2 Cor 5:14).  This is not a case of God saying, "I've been good to you in X, why don't you be good to me in Y."   It's a case of "I have swept you up in my mission to the world.  Now carry on!"
  9. I am salt and light (Matt 5:13-16). I am a witness (Acts 1:8). Whether I act on this or not, I don't have to become an evangelist.  God has made me what I need to be.
  10. My flesh is the real enemy to evangelism not lack of evangelistic techniques!  My flesh curves me in on myself when mission is to extend myself into the lives of others.  The arguments against me evangelizing always revolve around my present comfort, introspection and the status quo.  My desire for vain glory, approval and ease stops me gospelling.  My fight against the flesh is one fought on the front lines of the mission field.
  11. My authority to speak of Christ is not about me 'earning the right' but the authority is Christ's resurrection from the dead. (Matt 28:18-20)  That is the Ultimate Disruption that authorizes all other disruptions of the status quo that aim at making disciples of Christ. 
  12. Giving myself away is the happy life - the way of Christ, the way of blessing.  (Mark 8:35)
  13. Disgrace for the sake of the Name is glorious (Acts 5:41).  There is nothing like evangelism for experiencing standing with Jesus as one chosen out of the world (John 15:18-21). 
  14. Nothing is neutral (Matt 12:30).  My friends, family, colleagues and the public space is not neutral but conveys spiritual values all the time.  I never 'inject' God-talk into the world.  All talk is god-talk, that is - talk about ultimate spiritual values.  I never need to be ashamed that I'm the one forcing spiritual views on another.  Such proselytising is a necessary part of all conversation.  I may as well bring true God-talk to bear.
  15. The Gospel is about everything!  Fundamentally I don't have to turn the conversation to spiritual things.  It's already spiritual and it's already addressed by the Father in the Son and by the Spirit.  (I just have to figure out how! - but that will come in time.)
  16. The community is chosen, dearly loved and special in its world-focussed outward-looking-ness (1 Pet 2:9).  I have a whole body - the body of Christ - behind me.  In fact no, let me re-phrase.  The body of Christ surrounds me as an intrinsically evangelistic organism.  The burden is never simply on my shoulders.
  17. The community in its unity is hugely important  (John 13:34-35; John 17:20-26).  Before I've loved the unbeliever, my love of the believer (if done in view of the world) has already witnessed powerfully to Christ.
  18. The community in its diversity is hugely important (Eph 4:10-12).  I have been uniquely gifted in the evangelistic task and I am surrounded by others (who I need) who are likewise uniquely gifted.
  19. I don't have to be holy first then a missionary.  I strive for holiness in mission.  (More on this in other posts).  It is the outward-looking holding-up-of-Christ that is the umbrella activity of the Christian under which my holiness is worked out.  So don't wait to evangelise while you sort out your personal walk.  Use mission to conquer those besetting sins and habits (they won't be properly conquered any other way!).
  20. I don't have to be complete in knowledge first and then a missionary.  John 9: "I was blind but now I see."
  21. There is reward for the evangelist!  (Dan 12:3; Luke 16:9; 1 Thes 2:19)

.

I'm sure others can add more.  What is it that we need to trust that will motivate our evangelism?

.

Published on Leave a comment on Mission, evangelism and social action – part 5

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:23)

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:14-16)

The congregational life of the church has breath-taking potential.  We are on show to the world - even beyond this world! (Eph 3:10).  Jesus wants the world to look on and to say "The love these people display reminds me of Christ.  This love is out of this world. Now I believe that Christ came from the Father.  Praise be to God!"

If we took this seriously we would see that there is not 'fellowship' on the one hand and 'mission' on the other.  But in the plan and purpose of Jesus our fellowship is missional.  Our life together is to the end that we witness to the world.  We are a missionary body - a kingdom of priests. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10).  The community of the church is not a community for its own sake but for the sake of the world.  This outward focus is constitutive of our life together.  Thus we are neither a 'holy huddle' nor a loose association of evangelists. 

These are the two errors we could fall into.  On the 'holy huddle' side we may invest in community life for its own sake.  And yet Jesus expects that the world will be able to see our united love.  On the other side we may neglect our brothers and sisters for the sake of mission.  Yet this is impossible if we've understood Jesus' commands above.   Loving the 'brotherhood' is missional.  Thus when Paul says to do good "especially to those who belong to the household of faith" (Gal 6:10) it is not simply an inwardly-looking nepotism.  The love of the Christian family is the shop-window of the gospel and has unparalleled magnetic potential!

The question in practice is how do we make this gospel fellowship visible to the outside world?  I have three suggestions, I'd love to hear any that you have.

  1. Churches should keep 'church' commitments to a minimum so that Christians can actually engage in the world around us.
  2. Home groups should be places where non-Christian friends can come along and see fellowship (over meals preferably)
  3. Church members should be encouraged to collaborate in efforts to 'infiltrate' clubs, sports teams, bars etc.  This way Christians can 'love one another' before the watching world rather than having guerilla soldiers go on individual 'raids.'

Any other thoughts on the practicalities of this?

.

For a sermon I just preached on John 13 which prompted these thoughts go here.

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer