Jesus is the Word of God
UCCF estimate that 30 000 students this year will be reached through 100 CU missions.
In this podcast I talk about last week's mission to Edinburgh Napier University and Andy and I start to talk about student missions more broadly. More to follow in next week's episode.
Must you evangelise? Well that depends on what kind of "must" we're talking about.
Take financial giving as an example. Must we give money to the cause of the gospel? Well, remember that both Moses and Paul insist you give freely and not under compulsion for 'God loves a cheerful giver.' (Exodus 35; 2 Corinthians 9). It's the same with mission. It shouldn't be done reluctantly and from compulsion for God loves a cheerful evangelist.
Here's my conversation today with a taxi driver called Luke. I wrote it down about as soon as I finished speaking to him, so I've remembered it pretty much as it happened...
- Do you like working Sundays? Bit quieter right?
Absolutely. Saturday night is something else though!
- Yeah? What happened last night?
Oh, well... Actually I got a call at midnight. My friend drank himself into a near coma last night. He was rushed to hospital.
- Oh no. Is he alright now?
Not really. He has stage 4 Hodgkin's disease and time is running out. He should have been dead already really. He used to be a full on Christian but he lost his faith and now he's hit the bottle hard.
- Oh man. I'm a Christian minister actually. I'm on my way to Edinburgh to speak about a few things - including God and suffering.
You're a Christian??
- Yeah. I speak about God and suffering all the time. One of the things I always say is, if you get rid of God, you've still got the suffering, but now you're on your own.
Yeah, hitting the bottle has not been the answer. So you're a vicar? I'm not religious myself. No, I reckon I'm going to hell, haha.
- But there's no need! No-one ever needs to go to hell. That's the whole point of Jesus.
Yeah but I was a real fighter as a youth. I've done a lot of... I guess you could call them sins.
- Well that's good cos only sinners go to heaven.
Only SINNERS go to heaven? Wait. Sinners go to heaven?
- ONLY sinners. One of Jesus' most famous sayings is "It's not the healthy who need a doctor, it's the sick. I haven't come for righteous people I've come for sinners." Doctors don't want you to pretend you're healthy, you need to admit you're sick.
That makes sense actually. Haha... There were a couple of Christians in my cab a while back, they kept going on about how my name was the name of a guy in the bible. They said there's a book of the bible called Luke, is that right? They said they were going to send it to me. Still haven't sent it though.
[About 3 minutes earlier I had taken a copy of Luke's Gospel out of my bag, ready to give him. I place it on the dashboard of the car underneath the satnav.]
- Luke, I'll give you one guess what this book is?
You're joking! Is that the Luke book?
- Yep. And here's the thing. When I packed my bag on Friday I put Luke's Gospel in it praying that God would give me an opportunity to give it to someone.
- No way! This is what those Christians were going to send me??
- Yep. I reckon God wants you to read it, don't you?
I'm not religious but I like reading spiritual things. I'll definitely read that.
- Great, well it starts with the Christmas story - Jesus' birth and all that - and then follows him as he grows up. I became a Christian when I read that book, so I'd watch out if I were you.
Haha - I'll definitely read it. I'll definitely read it. And if I become a Christian I'll blame you.
- Haha, I think we've just seen this is out of both of our hands!
So pray. And carry gospels.
On Twitter and Facebook I asked for your favourite books to give away to non-Christians. Below are the responses. I should add that this doesn't necessarily imply endorsement - I'm familiar with only about half of these titles. But I've enjoyed checking out some of them in the last few days, perhaps you will too...
Ultimate Questions (Blanchard); Grace for You (MacArthur); A New Beginning (Cairns); All of Grace (Spurgeon); Roger Carswell's little hardback evangelistic books.
If God then what? (Wilson); What we talk about when we talk about God (Bell). Confident Christianity (Sinkinson)
A maroon coloured Gideon's NT... "Red on the outside, but rarely read on the inside."
Jim Packer's Knowing God, C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity.
Gospels. Usually Luke or John.
Lewis: Mere Christianity, Keller: The Prodigal God, Dickson: If I were God I'd end all the pain.
Stott's Basic Christianity
"Longing for Paradise" (tract) and "Lives Jesus Changed" (book) by Simon Vibert
Grill a Christian by Roger Carswell
'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel
TryPraying.org
Keller's 'Reason for God' for sceptics and 'Prodigal God' for seekers. If they're keen to encounter Jesus 'King's Cross'.
The Be Thinking booklets. John Chapman books (e.g. A Fresh Start)
Mere Christianity (Lewis)
'A Fresh Start' (J. Chapman) and 'More Than a Carpenter' McDowell
If I could ask God one Question by Paul Williams and Barry Cooper
The Christianity Explored and Alpha books
Amy Orr-Ewing - Why trust the bible? But is it real? J John's "The Life"
Keller's Counterfeit Gods
I give out Gospels - usually John, but I take the opportunity of explaining chapter 1 to them first:
"The Word is Jesus, meaning He explains God to us and the rest of the Gospel shows how wonderful it is that Jesus is the revelation of God."
I encourage them to pray as they read:
"If this is God's word then reading it is a spiritual thing. So I recommend shooting up a prayer and saying, 'God if you're there, show me Jesus.' If God isn't there, He won't answer, but if He is, then there's nothing more important than meeting His Son."
Sometimes I give Chappo's Fresh Start - maybe cos of sentimental reasons. It made a big impact on me when I was 14.
Any more you'd recommend?
And please pray for me as I'm currently trying to write one myself...
Do you get your words all mixed up when you speak of Jesus? That's so much better than being slick.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. And none so gullible as those who will not believe.
Exhibit A: Here's Stephen Fry spouting absolute bunkum for two and a half minutes:
He sets himself up as the sceptic to debunk the religious. In fact he is the sucker, falling for a completely discredited copy-cat theory with not an ounce of truth to it. Here's a good take-down by Lutheran Satire:
In a show that seeks to explode popular myths, why does Fry fall for one in such spectacular fashion? Might it be that he's not actually as sceptical as he likes to think? Might it be that the commitments of his heart do the "thinking" for him?
Exhibit B: This post, supposedly reporting new liberal views from the Pope, is from Diversity Chronicle, a site which claims "The original content on this blog is largely satirical." It's supposedly a statement from "Vatican 3" which declares all religions true, etc, etc.
It has been shared tens of thousands of times, very often by "sceptics" like Derren Brown.
Conclusion: None of us are as rational as we like to imagine. We find ourselves able to justify any number of foolish beliefs if they line up with what we wish were true. Sometimes sceptics need to be more sceptical.
Update: Derren Brown tweeted a correction last night, good on him.
If the God of the Bible exists then this God is the certain thing, we are the added thing, right?
"In the beginning" there was this God and we've come along later.
What's more, according to the Bible, this God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creates not out of need but out of generosity - not from emptiness but from fullness. Make sense?
If that's the case then we are entirely unnecessary, a profligate extravagance, a superfluous addendum, an embellishment, a flourish. We are not needed at all. We are wanted, which is nice, but it all puts us soundly in our place.
So that's the position if the God of the Bible actually exists. But... if such a God doesn't exist then, of course, we are the certain thing. The natural world (as Enlightenment people are wont to call it) is what's really real. The super-natural? Well that's, by definition, the extra thing isn't it? What we can see, hear, touch, taste and feel is rock solid. Anything beyond that is sinking sand, wouldn't you say?
Now... in a discussion between a Christian and an atheist, who has the burden of proof? Who must justify their position by bringing evidence that overwhelms the assumed 'default position' (the null hypothesis)?
If we were talking about the existence of Big Foot, we can probably all agree that those who believe in Big Foot's existence have the burden of proof. They need to bring convincing proofs or else we'll continue to hold our null hypothesis. Our null hypothesis is: Big Foot's existence is unproved and in serious doubt until further, convincing evidence is produced.
So then, why not say exactly the same about the Christian God? Why not say "The existence of God is in doubt until extraordinary evidence is produced"? Why not put the burden of proof on the Christians?
A couple of reasons off the top of my head:
1) God is not in any way like Big Foot. Big Foot (if he exists) is an extraordinary being within the created order. But God - despite how both atheists and some theists want to paint Him - is not just a super-being. The God of the Bible is the Source of Being. And the difference between a super-being and a source-of-being is not one of mere quantity. We're talking about a qualitative difference of infinite proportions.
According to Acts 17: "In Him we live and move and have our being." If Big Foot actually existed it would have no implications except for a small number of enthusiasts. God's existence changes everything for everyone. Who He is, fundamentally changes the universe we inhabit. It changes who we are - suddenly we are unnecessary-but-loved creatures of the living God. Therefore God's existence cannot be held at arm's length and discussed at a distance. When we talk about God we're talking about a reality-defining being. He defines us. And He also defines - must define - Himself.
That's the second reason why the burden of proof is not obviously with the Christian...
2) Anyone who claims that God must justify His existence is clearly not dealing with the Christian God. The great I AM is. Actually God must justify our existence! If that doesn't sound right it can only be because we're not considering the actual God of the Bible. To think of God as a potential addendum to reality is not to think of the living God.
If a person claims that God's existence is possible but requires additional proofs, they show that they are refusing to consider the reality of God. If the triune God exists then God is not the 'added thing' whose reality may or may not be granted. If the Christian God exists, we are the added thing. If the Christian God exists, He must be taken for granted as the certain reality or else we're just not talking about God, only a Big Foot in the Sky.
Who has the burden of proof? It all depends on whether God exists! If the triune God lives then of course it's our existence that must be justified, not His. The good news is that God the Son does justify our existence - He enters it, redeems it and binds it to His own existence forevermore. Jesus is not simply proof of God's existence - He's the guarantee that we exist - really and truly connected to the eternal life of Father, Son and Spirit.
But if the triune God of Scripture doesn't exist - if 'God' is merely a super-being somewhere or there is no god - then the burden of proof would lie with the theist. Because then our existence would be most fundamental and the extra thing - 'God' - would have to show itself.
So then, if someone insists that the burden of proof is with the believer, they may claim to be open-minded about the possibility of God but they have, in fact, decided the issue in advance. By setting things up in this way they have determined not to deal with the great I AM, only with a potential super-being (and only if that super-being passes the tests they set).
In other words:
No-one seeks God... Faith comes through hearing (Romans 3:10; 10:17)
Earlier today Derren Brown retweeted this photo with the comment "Oh Lord." It's had 85 retweets and counting. Here are some of the comments in replies:
The list is backwards
'You last'. What a heart-breaker
So sad, make them feel guilty, bad and no self worth...sorry no religious belief from me!
On the original Classic Pic tweet were the following comments (swearing coming...)
disgusting crap message on the wall. abandoned child must focus on invisible Jesus rather than own needs
that is the saddest thing I have seen in days. *sob*
fuck that, fuck the message on the wall
This is a desperately sad photo. Not just the message, but the stark walls and the bleak, loveless room.
Interesting photo. Revolting story told in the photo.
Everything that's wrong with religion
"Dear Lord. i thanks you for giving me no parents and a shitty start in life."
Torn between sorrow and rage.
This is all sorts of horrible. Poor kid.
Horrible, horrible child abuse. Disgusting.
I grew up with "Jesus, Others, Yourself" - JOY comes by putting yourself last, right? If you grew up in a Christian home I'd be surprised if you've never come across the acronym. I mention this so that no-one thinks this is the orphanage's way of putting the children in their place. This is not a power-play, it's the opposite. This is the essence of the way of Jesus: self-giving sacrifice as the way to fullness of life.
But what's fascinating to me is that in 1947 'Self Last' would have been roundly endorsed as the moral position. Today 'Self Last' is not just strange or inadvisable, it's immoral. It's disgusting crap. It's everything that's wrong with religion, etc, etc.
But what do we have in this photo? We see a little girl in need. She's an orphan and our hearts go out to her. But who is actually caring for her? Answer: the people who believe in "Self Last", that's who. And which body of people have had the longest and most impressive history of caring for orphans? Christians - i.e. those who believe in 'Self Last'.
What's the alternative? Shall we declare 'Self Last' as an abusive sentiment? Shall we endorse 'Me First' instead? How many orphanages could be built on that foundation?
But, some will say, this girl is at the bottom of the heap already. How crushing for her to be told to pray this hierarchy into her heart every day! Isn't that abusive?
Ah but, here's the thing. All Christians pray 'Self Last.' I'll bet the Queen herself was taught this acronym. Everyone is called to the selfless life of Jesus. Christ's kingdom inverts all our 'Me First' values. As Mary's Christmas song (the Magnificat) reminds us:
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:52-53)
'Self Last' is a philosophy that humbles the highest and lifts up the poorest. In the kingdom of 'Self Last' it's the lowliest who are greatest. As this little girl prays, she is in touch with the Lord of the universe - the Lord who stoops, serves, suffers and dies.
Just practically speaking, her greatest hope is the 'Self Last' people. They are the ones who care for orphans. And spiritually and existentially speaking, her greatest hope is the Lord who put Himself last. In His kingdom she is the greatest:
46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and made him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.’ (Luke 9:46-48)
