The Problem of Modern Evangelism Part 2

By S. Michael Durham

The following blog post is second in a series. (The first is here.)

Several key passages of Scripture give us special insight into the evangelistic methods of the apostles. One text of Scripture often cited is 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. It is a key passage stating Paul’s missionary intentions.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

The famed apostle tells us that there is a pre-evangelistic work to be done. He would not argue against lowering as many barriers as possible to the hearing of the gospel. There is some truth to being relevant to audience. Whoever heard of someone trying to sell his products speaking a language the consumer did not understand? Surely, there needs to be some point of identification. Even Jesus became a man in order to win men. Thus, Paul’s cultural behavior took on the customs of the people group he was trying to reach. If he was preaching to Jews, he said, “I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews.” This in itself is a remarkable statement considering Paul was a Jew. What does he mean, “I became a Jew”?

The answer lies in the fact that after Christ saved him Paul did not consider himself a Jew, but a member of a new race of humanity. He tells the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul no longer saw himself under the law with its ceremonies, rituals and traditions. But when ministering to a Jewish audience he complied with their customs so they would not be offended. Paul knew the Jewish regulations no longer had meaning. He was clear in his teaching that observance to these laws and traditions had no saving benefit. Christ was the fulfillment of all the laws of Moses. However, he would not use his Christian liberty to close the door to the Jews. If he insisted on his liberties in Christ, he knew the Jews would not grant him audience.

The same was true when ministering to “those who are without law”; that is, Gentiles. However, Paul was quick to tell his audience that he did not in any way sin against God or violate his conscience. He added that he was not without law but was under the law of Christ. Why say this? So no one would misunderstand him to think he believed the end justified the means. You cannot disregard the will of God in order to fulfill it. Paul was strenuously opposed to trying to reach a sinner by being ungodly. In other words, Paul would identify as much as he could without compromising his new humanity, his identity with Christ. Paul wanted his readers—including us—to know that he was not lawless but obedient to the moral teachings of Christ. And not just outwardly, but also he kept the spirit of the commands of the New Covenant. He would not be involved in anything that opposed Christ’s spirit of holiness. Not even a soul is worth that price tag.

What is holiness? Short hair cuts, ties and long sleeved shirts? No, not at all! Holiness is to be other-worldly. It is not a difference in appearance, but in heart and mind. A holy man is a man who lives by the standard of anther world—heaven, not earth. He separates himself from anything that would spoil or stain his love for Christ. He will be more concerned that you see the glory of the Savior rather than some reflection of yourself. Therefore, the Apostle Paul lived as close to the Gentile customs as he could without being in conflict with the holy gospel he proclaimed.

Paul did not participate in worldliness or anything that would have given the appearance of evil. He tells the Thessalonians to “Abstain from every form of evil.” To the Corinthians he warns, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? . . . Therefore ‘Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord.’”

Yet, Paul is often used to defend compromising with the world. This text is the main barricade many hide behind to defend their personal infidelity with the world. And yet, Paul is very specific within this very text that he was not lawless. He carefully followed the footsteps of his Master and lived out Christ to the maximum.

Paul’s method of relevancy was not based upon how much he could be like his audience without sin, but what barriers could he remove so that his audience could hear what he had to say. It is not, as many have said, that Paul is advocating that you have to be like someone in order to reach that person. If you are to reach a biker, do you need to go buy some leather and a Harley Davidson? He is not saying that only bikers can reach bikers. But in order to reach a biker, any barrier that would keep a biker from hearing your words (other than his own hardness of heart) must, if possible, be removed.

Hudson Taylor, founder of the China Inland Ministries (now known as OMF International) followed this same principle of accommodation. Born in England in 1832, Taylor became one of the most influential foreign missionary pioneers in modern history. A trained physician, Taylor went to China with a burden to reach the interior of China for Christ. The Chinese government made inland China off limits to foreigners. Much of the Christian work in that vast country was very small and located in a few costal cities. All European missionaries lived separately from the Chinese and maintained their western European culture. The message the Chinese received from missionaries was to become a Christian you had to become like the Europeans, which were considered foreign devils.

Hudson Taylor refused this logic. He realized that the missionaries had erected barriers between them and the Chinese. He chose to dress like the Chinese, eat like the Chinese and live among the Chinese. Greatly criticized, his principle began to work. Chinese men and women began to listen to him with a different perspective. Taylor himself put it this way:

In (Chinese dress) the foreigner though recognized as such, escapes the mobbing and crowding to which, in many places, his own costume would subject him; and in preaching, while his dress attracts less notice, his words attract more.

The issue to Taylor was removing the distractions so the unsaved could hear the message. This makes sense and does not require a man participating in questionable activities or immoral issues in order to prove his sincerity. This is all Paul was saying in the text we are examining. To make the apostle say anymore than this is to misrepresent him. It is the very

As also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).

In conclusion, if my oxford shirt, khaki slacks, and penny loafers is a distraction for my biker audience, then by all means, I shall put them aside and get me some leather. But my leather does not have to have demonic symbols or worldly advertisements on it. Nor do I need to compromise the Spirit of holiness and grieve Him by speech or actions not in keeping with Christ.

Surely, the apostle Paul did not mean that we have to be like sinners in order to reach sinners. If that were true, then what alternative are we offering the world? The greatest attraction a Christian has to the world is his difference from the world. Otherwise, why preach to the world “be like us” when we are so desperately trying to be like it?

However, as important as this text is, it is not the end of the matter. It is one principle concerning evangelism and not the sum. There is one principle that trumps it. And it was the heart of Paul’s missionary proclamation. It was so important that it influenced this principle of accommodation that we have examined in this article. In our next article we uncover this consuming motive.

The Problem of Modern Evangelism

By S. Michael Durham

A great deal of verbiage has fallen upon our usually very quiet—too quiet blog. I am amazed at how anyone could feel very threatened by the likes of RTM. We have been recently informed that we are “ill-informed,” “cowards,” “untrustworthy,” “noncredible,” “false witnesses,” “nonchristian,” “misinterpreters of the Word of God,” “journalistically dubious,” “pharisaical,” and many things that I cannot write for public consumption. In other words, we’re not much. While I disagree with the above adjectives, I would agree that we are not much. Frankly, that is why we are so surprised by the attention we have received. I am sure that those whom we cited as proof of our concern have a much wider audience than we do. So, if we are all the things listed above and many other things we could not repeat, why the concern? If these people are doing the will of God why are they so bothered by our challenge? Should any of us be surprised if we are in the service of the Lord and men revile us? Why then not just brush us off and pay us no mind? I believe the answer is in the heart.

What do I mean? I am sure that many bands, musicians, and ministers want to reach people for Christ. They truly believe that what they are doing is effective and is God-honoring. We have not impugned this motive of the heart in anyone who has taken exception with our positions. Therefore, anyone who takes seriously the desire to reach others for Christ can be wounded when someone else who is just as serious about evangelism critically analyzes them.

For this reason, let us lay aside all personal feelings and examine this Scripturally. For the problem, as I see it, is much larger than music, bands and concerts. It’s actually a problem that has infiltrated local churches. It has everything to do with preaching, ministry, and how we evangelize.

The postmodern man seems to be no different than his modern father and his premodern grandfather. All three desire to do things their own way. The modernist believes his way was superior to the premodernist, while the post-modernist thinks he trumps them all. But all three believe they know better than their Creator. This they have in common, for it is common to man. We truly think that we can improve upon what we read in the Bible.

For example, we hail the apostles. We quote them regularly. We venerate them as the greatest examples of Christianity. But we refuse to live like them! The western church-world rejects the method of these extraordinary men, who in one generation took the gospel to the then known world. This generation cannot say we have taken the gospel to the entire known world. Granted, the world we know today is much larger than in the apostles’ day. However, we are more in number and resources than they. At the same time we have lost ground in Western Europe and North America. What did the apostles do that we rejected as useless and replaced with a sophistication that has failed? What is missing in our modern evangelistic method that with all its technological advances gets meager results? And why are we unwilling to listen to Jesus’ first disciples who without technology accomplished far more than North American Christians with all their advanced resources?

I believe the answer is one thing—let me step aside and allow the Apostle Paul to tell us—“But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Their evangelism did not lack compassion for the lost. There is no want of compassion in Paul saying, “for I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.” But the ultimate motive for their labor in the gospel was to please God: “not as pleasing men, but God.” This is what is missing in today’s preaching and singing.

We at RTM do not in the least suggest that motives are not genuine from the church house to the concert hall. But if I am only motivated to see lost people saved, I must say my motive is too low. I must be moved by something more than this, greater than this, and holier than this. What can be more, greater and holier than wanting to see people redeemed? One thing—to please the Redeemer who saves sinners.

A proclaimer of the gospel must first remember that he has been purchased. Our allegiance is not to the sinner, but to the Savior. As Paul, we are debtors to the lost; we are obligated to give the living dead (that is what I call sinners) the only hope they have for a resurrected life. This obligation is a moral and ethical obligation. It is the same obligation a man has who has the cure for a terminal disease. He has an ethical responsibility to share it with the dying. But our obligation to God is more than moral or ethical. It is the obligation of worship. The first and great commandment still applies, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). It is the obligation of love, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The Lord God has not treated as His enemies, but through Christ has loved us and purchased us as His own special possession.

It is not just a moral obligation to please Him. The pleasing of God is more than duty. It is my highest desire and pleasure. Why? Because I love Him. If we love God supremely, then pleasing Him must also be supreme. It is the same obligation that a husband owes his wife—his absolute love and devotion. For him to pursue another woman is wickedness. For us to pursue the salvation of the lost for the sake of the lost is adultery against God. To seek to please men in order to reach them is the first step on a slippery slope of spiritual adultery. And this is true not just for Christian artists. It is true with those of us who stand before a crowd of people and proclaim the unsearchable riches of the gospel of Christ.

Ministry has an inherent danger. It can become the means and the end. Success in ministry can become our goal and not Christ. Seeing people converted can easily become the ultimate goal. However, when it becomes the end, then we cease to be worshippers and become professional ministers. This is why I say worship and adoration trumps all other motives and must rule supreme. If I do not serve Him with this kind of heart, then my service can be nothing more than a terrible source of displeasure.

It is this motive that is missing today in most Christian heralds. We may have a myriad of good intentions, but we are missing the only intention that truly counts. We refuse to do what He has called us to do the way He has called us to do it. The modern missionary believes He has learned a better way. Better way? How can anything be better if God is not pleased? What if we reached the whole world but did not please the God who has commanded us to obey? What kind of success would that be? It is to succeed at failure.

Let us be agreed that evangelism done any other way, for any other motive, but to please God is wrong. It is not the way of the apostles whom we love to quote. It is not their modus operandi. It is not their method of obedience. In our next blog we unfold their ways and methods. Please, if possible, refrain from commenting until I have finished this brief series of articles. When I have finished and you do not agree, then by all means say so.

The Deep Depths of Relevancy: A Response

We have been recently deluged with comments regarding a post on our blog from the end of July. It was about the Cornerstone Music Festival and the way the festival and bands are trying to attract people to the event. I cannot answer each one personally as most were posted anonymously. It seems better to start with a new post to answer questions as opposed to creating a long comments thread.

First, I stated that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was shown at the festival and was accused of lying. I got my information from a person who attended the festival. It is an eyewitness account. I assume that the movie was part of an evening as described by the Cornerstone website where they showed movies that were “not kid friendly.” They describe them as “movies your mother warned you about and that you watched anyway.” So that is where I got my info.

Next, most of the comments were negative against my assessment of the band Grave Robber. They are a band who dress in costumes that make them look like they are decomposing corpses. In the comments, many claim that the band is reaching a horror-punk subculture in a way that no one else can.

The question is, does the end justify the means? Do we really need to become more and more like the world in order to reach the world? Isn’t the very nature of a Christian one who has been saved from the world and is no longer a slave to the world and to sin and to the flesh? Grave Robber is trying to be like the world. They promote the fact that some of their influences include Alice Cooper, Type O Negative, GWAR, and Black Sabbath. So, in essence, they are saying “We are like those sinful things that your sinful flesh desires.” They are taking the worst of the world and trying to Christianize it. At the same time, they are giving credence to the very bands they mentioned. They do not speak against them but try to emulate them. And on a personal note, I know these bands well. I was a big fan of Type O Negative at one point, and they are not anything to try and emulate. Why do we need a poor, Christianized version of something evil?

Trying to use the world and its ways to attract people is against scripture itself. Here are a few: ". . . do not be conformed to this world. . ." -Romans 12:2. "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." -Colossians 2:8. "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." -1 John 2:15. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." -1 Corinthians 3:19.

We just produced a video on this subject that may be helpful to you. http://vimeo.com/15035465. Please watch it and remember that it is not based on what we think but what scripture says.

Next, some of the comments defended the sincerity and genuineness of the guys in Grave Robber. I am not saying anything against their sincerity or personal devotion. I do not know any of them. But as the old saying goes you can be sincere, yet sincerely wrong. Plus, even if someone was converted to Christ, the end does not justify the means. I rejoice over a conversion, but pragmatism is not the rule of thumb. Scripture is our only source of truth.

Some have questioned why I am against their celebration of death since death is natural and all around us. We do not rejoice in nor glorify death. Horror movies and zombies are unacceptable because they are not only glorifying death but glorifying death by entertainment. They also glorify the sin of murder. At this moment I can hear the argument of “Well, don’t we glory in the death of Jesus?”. Yes, but any such questions shall be ignored and not posted. There is great difference between the atoning sacrifice of our savior and the morbid fascination with murder and the death of sinners. Death is the result of sin. It should be preached but not gloried in.

Lastly, we will not allow comments that only call names or are rude or offensive. We don’t mind being disagreed with, but when someone resorts to name calling, we will keep it off our blog. I will respond to one comment, however, that resorted to such tactics. I was called a tie-wearing door-knocking do-gooder who would not have the guts to share Christ in a dark bar room at midnight on a Friday.” You apparently do not know me. First, I hate wearing ties. Secondly you envision me as a suit wearing fundamentalist. Funny. I am covered in tattoos as a result of the sinful lifestyle I had before Christ saved me. I know where this culture is. I was in it. As I said earlier, I loved bands such as Type O Negative. If you know anything about them, you know where I was. I was saved on my way to jail one afternoon. The sin I once loved I now hate. And as far as going to bars is concerned, I’ve been there too. I have been to bars in the middle of the night in order to share the gospel. I have labored with a fellow brother to bring the gospel to those folks because we were once one of them.

I urge the people who run Cornerstone and bands like Grave Robber to repent of trying to be worldly in order to reach the world. Don’t depend on gimmicks. Depend on the Sprit of God. Use scripture as your guide. Study the Word for yourself and seek wisdom from God.

God So Loved

By S. Michael Durham

Note the distinctive adverb used: “God so loved.” He did not just love, but He “so loved.” There is an eternity in the word so. Jesus could have said to Nicodemus, “For God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . .” and we would have accepted it. But Jesus adds the word so to make a statement. The Father’s love is much more than we can fathom. He did not just love us; He so loved us.

The degree of His love is seen in what He gave—He gave us His only begotten Son. He did not summon heaven’s angels and chose one of them to die. He did not look upon the celestial crowd and say to Himself, “Which of these do I love the least that I can sacrifice for men? Which of these can I spare and give up for the elect?” No, this He did not do. Rather, He looked to His right hand and upon His most beloved. He looked to Him who is more valuable than all the angels of heaven.

The Puritan John Flavel, quoting an unnamed author, tells of a famine in Germany and a poor family who wrestled with the decision to sell one of their children into slavery in order to buy food. Here is Flavel telling the story.

A poor family being ready to perish with famine, the husband made a motion to the wife, to sell one of the children for bread, to relieve themselves and the rest: The wife at last consents it should be so; but then they began to think which of the four should be sold; and when the eldest was named, they both refused to part with that, being their first born, and the beginning of their strength. Well, then they came to the second, but could not yield that he should be sold, being the very picture and lively image of his father. The third was named, but that also was a child that best resembled the mother. And when the youngest was thought on, that was the Benjamin, the child of their old age; and so were content rather to perish altogether in the famine, than to part with a child for relief.

How do you part with one child to save the remaining children? Which one do you choose? The one you love the least? But you do not love one the least. You love them all and each for their distinctive reasons. You could not so choose. Yet, God the Father willingly yielded His Son to the tormentors that He might save His enemies. The Father joined Jesus’ persecutors and rejected Him and tormented Him with the torment of the damned. Not only does it not compute; it is contrary to our own hearts as parents. “For God so loved.”

If you are a cold, calculated mathematician or accountant, you could say that you let the math answer the question—one for the many. Give up the one and get many in return. It’s the law of investment. If you are a politician you could reason the sacrifice of one political ally to gain many more allies. If you are a Caiaphas you can think, “it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50).

But we are not talking about accountants or mercenary politicians. We are talking about God Almighty who loved His Son Jesus more than all of His creation and yet is willing to sacrifice Him because He so loved us. How do I get this?

Well, that is my dilemma. I cannot fathom God loving us to this degree. It baffles the mind but blesses the heart. My mind cannot understand it but my heart can believe it. And believe we must.

History of the Modern Gospel: Session Three

The next video in the History of the Modern Gospel series is up. It is titled "Welcome to the Circus". It is our personal favorite, so far. Please watch, and let us know what you think!

How to Give According to Grace Part 4

By S. Michael Durham

We have one more principle to discuss that governs how New Testament believers are to give. According to the Word of God in 2 Corinthians 9:6, we are to give sacrificially: “But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”

Most giving is based upon the principal of affordability. If we think we can afford to give, we do. Paul illustrates this with an agricultural metaphor. To sow sparingly is to sow what you think you can afford to lose. Think about it. Why would a farmer sow sparingly? Surely, he knows the more seed he sows the greater chance of a larger harvest. But in the first century, farming was more primitive than today. There were no farm stores to buy seed for present year’s growing season. A farmer would take seed from his harvest and use it for next year’s planting. Therefore, a farmer might decide to sow sparingly, concerned that his seed may not produce a good crop and hoping to ensure he’ll have seed the next year. He feared loss more than he desired gain.

This is the motive behind giving what you think you can afford. You give with an eye on possible loss. You think of things you could do with your money rather than invest in God’s kingdom. Whatever, is left over is what you think you can afford to give away. But, if we wait until we think we can afford to give we will give sparingly, if at all.

Sacrificial giving is motivated by a law of sowing and reaping. The more sown the more reaped. Therefore, the amount kept is more important than the amount given. This was true of the Macedonians. It was true of the poor widow who gave her last two mites. Most people look at the amount they give and congratulate themselves. But was it truly sacrificial? Look at how much you have after you gave and you have your answer. Sacrificial giving means that a poor person can give more than a rich person, even though the actual amount the rich give far exceeds the poor. Why? Because of the amount left over after giving. A. W. Tozer said,

Before the judgment seat of Christ, my service will be judged not by how much I have done, but by how much I could have done. In God's sight, my giving is measured not by how much I have given, but by how much I could have given and how much I had left after I had made my gift.

This is the attitude behind sacrificial giving. You think, “How can I sacrifice more so that I may reap more in the kingdom of God?” It is not motivated by a fear of loss but of gain. When you give, you never truly give it away. In reality, you are investing, and one glorious day you will reap your reward. Sow, and then sow some more!