Evangelism with finesse

What might evangelism be like if we intentionally asked ourselves questions about God's requirements of love and justice in our actions? There would be a constant consciousness of what we ought to do under God's law, juxtaposed with what the person we are speaking to needs. What a tension.

Love and justice each reside within us and continually inform us in every decision, each advocating for their side. Remember that God acts in perfect love and justice always, and if that sounds complex - well, God is complex, and he calls his people to imitate him in that emotional complexity. We are well advised to "listen to both ambassadors [love and justice] and then arrive at a decision that will be most pleasing to their Master." So, okay. Our first object is not to please ourselves or even our audience; it's to please God. At the same time, part of pleasing God is being kind and sensitive to unbelievers.

I don't know if it's like this for anybody else, but to me it is incredibly daunting to realize, yet perfectly, maddeningly clear, that this sort of evangelism requires the utmost care, prayer, reliance on the Spirit, intelligence, and nuance. It's evangelism with finesse. And... I think that's exactly the example we are called to follow. I think that's true sensitivity - to God's requirements even more than man's preferences.

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."
_I Corinthians 9.19-23

Cultural infiltration

(Adapted from an essay I wrote; I didn't feel like going through and making it more conversational, so it's kind of formal. Also, the ideas written here are inspired by this book.)

When considering how to reach those not merely hostile but indifferent to the Christian gospel, one of the best long-term tactics we can use may be indirect communication through the use of art and metaphor. One of the problems that I have personally seen in evangelism is that when a person shows himself or herself not to immediately reject the gospel, Christians take that as an explicit invitation to immediately invade and renovate the person's belief system.

But a person being potentially open to Christianity does not mean that she may not also be open to a thousand other belief systems, or that she does not hold dearly to the belief system she currently holds. There is more work yet to be done before the soil is ready. Indifference to God is a far cry from acceptance and especially love. It is, however, closely related to ignorance, and this is why creative, indirect communication - in a macro perspective, a systematic infiltration of Christianity into the culture - would be a huge asset to Christians in communicating their faith to otherwise indifferent persons in our current society. It would be a re-education of our society.

Many intellectuals today lament the lack of passion and growth of ignorance in present-day America; it is widely agreed upon that we are a culture constantly seeking entertainment. What better way for the Christian message to somehow capture our attention than to succinctly, creatively package it?

Now some churches, instead of trying to infiltrate the culture, have merely bowed to the world's changing values, and instead of making converts have simply converted Christianity into a useless message. Even agnostic Carl Stecher makes notice of this, and others are sure to make the same observations: "In effect, if not literally, the Bible is expugated, bowdlerized, but the God who emerges from this process is not the God of our fathers." Thus the 'creative' strategy has drawn criticism from conservative believers because it 'makes church into a commercial.' I completely agree. However, what I propose is not for the entire gospel to be made into a thirty-second television spot. I do not even advocate such methods to be used in churches. When I refer to spreading the "Christian message" in our culture, I mean a general propagation of Christian values and concepts into the national consciousness. This is not an end in itself, but rather a way of preparing the soil - sowing - to give people a context for the gospel.

So I am not suggesting we make the gospel into a commercial and expect people to be saved through such means. Rather, perhaps a thirty-second television spot, or twenty-minute show, or two-hour movie, can be used to convey a subtle yet attractive Christian message - not the entire gospel, but a small piece of it. The idea of sacrifice. Of redemption. Of moderation. Of obedience to authority. Of truth. Of miracles. All these are becoming more and more foreign to unbelievers; who will remind them, if not us? And if we do not, the gospel will become increasingly unintelligible, until we finally become... well, Western Europe.

If many Christians were to redirect their efforts to such endeavors, and there were suddenly a proliferation of Christian-reminscent popular media, what might the effect be on people's overall worldview? The plan might take years, but it would be worth it - especially since as Tim Downs notes in his book Finding Common Ground, the secular world has been executing this exact plan for years to a great harvest; and "while we measure the bounty of this generation, they prepare to gather the next."

When physicians are the sick.

Aspiring abortion doctors drawn to embattled field

I have been thinking about abortion lately, and have had a few conversations about it. It occurred to me that while most students (sadly, not all) at Biola naturally and strongly are repulsed by the very idea, this is not so in the real world. In fact, there are many in society who are diametrically opposed to all that "anti-abortion" people have to say. According to abortion rights activists, (1) they aren't killing people because fetuses aren't people; and (2) even if fetuses are human, doctors and patients get to decide who lives and who doesn't. Whom we allow into the world is a matter of convenience. Really, the lines are becoming clearer. These days it seems fewer people are using the former argument, and more are beginning to use the latter. Talk about a culture of death, as Al Mohler puts it.

Anyway, the LA Times article I posted above made me so angry, and sickened. Apparently, performing abortions is now a sort of crusade, a civil rights movement, dangerous and heroic and vehemently pursued. What horrifies me most is that the doctors who routinely perform the gruesome task not only become callous toward the "procedure" but feel moral obligation and even self-righteousness as they continue to perform it. Good has become evil; evil, good; and those who are supposed to bring life to the sick, weak, and dying have become messengers of death. Who will protect us?

I ask again now, as I ask so often - rhetorically, in part, but I really do wish there were a sensible answer: Why has this evil become so good in their eyes?

I simply can't fathom any other answer than this: sin has entered the world. Thank God, so has Jesus.

One statement, two considerations

"God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them."

It's a simple but powerful statement, I believe. The one quoted above I mean. And completely true. God cares and grieves for injustices, tragedies, and effects of sin such as these. It might sound a bit maudlin, but I don't think it's in the least trivial or unemotional for Him. God is never mastered by his passions, ever, but he is a God of complex and deep, deep emotion evoked by the condition of his people. The Spirit groans, Jesus wept, God gets angry. He also rejoices and laughs and delights. We can do that to him. Not because we wield influence but because he cares for you. That's my first point.

I also would like to point out, secondly, that the above quotation is from a speech at the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast. Already I feel skepticism rising, at least from myself. And the speech was given by a man with long hair and only one name - Bono. No eye rolling, please. Consider: whatever you might think of Bono's politics, his professed beliefs, his accent, his music, his hair... he's right. I can think of nothing about his words that is untrue about God. God is good and great enough to bestow common grace on all people, even those who may never be saved. All lives, all work, all good deeds are of value to him. As Augustine said, all truth is God's truth. I hope that God helps me to be humble enough to accept profound insights and beautiful Truth from anyone though whom he chooses to speak, even if that particular spokesperson isn't someone I consider qualified. This sounds like a hard thing to accept, but after thinking through it I see nothing unbiblical or unreasonable about it.

This is hard to say because I feel alternately cliche and sacriligious... but thanks, Bono.

Now if you please, you may visit the ONE campaign and see what they're up to lately.

Invisible Children news.

Here (ABC News) and here (Pasadena Star News) are two articles about the recent "Displace Me" human PR campaign (I don't know what else to call it) for Invisible Children. Good stuff, and I'm glad they're getting some public, even national (if somewhat hidden) attention.