Mass Evangelism Gone Awry - Part 2

I recently ran across a radio program called "Sinners & Saints" put on by some United Reformed Church guys in Southern California and thought that many of their comments on crusade-style mass evangelism dovetailed well with my recent post on mass evangelism in Thailand. Some people may find that they come on a bit strong, or are a bit too cynical at times, but I find most of their observations to be right on, pointing out the bad theology and methodology that is behind much of modern mass evangelism, which in the end results in many false conversions and a weakening of the church of Christ. If you take a listen and start to think to yourself, "So, they don't like what everyone else is doing, but are they going to offer any positive alternative?" then just keep listening because they do offer what they see as the primary way that God has ordained for the preaching of the Gospel and for sinners to hear the Good News of Christ.

Here's the link: Sinner's & Saints Radio Program about the Harvest Crusades, with discussion of the history and theology of mass evangelism (http://urclearning.org/2006/06/21/harvest-crusades/) 24 minutes

How do you say "Godliness" in Thai? (2 Peter 1:3)

I was preparing a Bible study on Psalm 19 in Thai, and wanted to cross-reference 2 Peter 1:3 (“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness... “ 2 Peter 1:3 ESV) but when I went to the standard version of the Thai Bible that is most widely used in the churches (1971 version which is similar to the RSV), I wondered whether the word that they had for godliness (“tham” ธรรม) was really the best choice.

In common Thai, tham refers to the body of Buddhist teaching or the Dharma. In Christian language, it is often modified with the word “Christ” (hence Phra Christ Tham พระคริสตธรรม) to refer to the Bible, or Christian teaching. It still remains however, that the word tham by itself makes most people think of religious teaching, particularly moral or ethical teaching. So, are we to understand that godliness is merely ethical living? I opened up my Greek New Testament to find out what the original word was and found eusebeia. My Intermediate Greek Lexicon (Liddell & Scott) tells me that eusebeia means “reverence towards the gods, piety religion.” That is the general secular ancient Greek meaning. The definition of eusebeia includes “reverence” which the New Oxford American Dictionary defines as “feeling or showing deep and solemn respect”.

So, I am thinking that godliness (eusebeia) in the Biblical sense certainly includes moral living (as the word tham would indicate), but also a reverent, respectful attitude that honors God in all of life. There is a certain seriousness and soberness of mind that is included in godliness. Godliness is not just the ethical things that we do, but is an attitude and a perspective that encompasses all of life. Godliness is the desire and intention to honor God in thought, word, and deed. If that’s the case, how can godliness be conveyed best in Thai?

I looked in three other Thai translations to see what they use. The Thai New Contemporary Version (similar to NIV in English), lumps life and godliness together into “living a life in God’s way” (ดำเนินชีวิตในทางพระเจ้า). The New Thai Translation Version also lumps them together into “a life that is lead according to God’s ways” (ชีวิตที่ดำเนินตามวิถีทางของพระเจ้า). These are both good, in that they emphasize obedience to God in all of life but I think prefer the translation that I found in the Thai Easy to Read version put out by the World Bible Translation Center. It reads “a life that honors God” (ชีวิตที่ให้เกียติพระเจ้า). The word “honor” captures something of the original sense of reverence and respect for God because He is higher and greater than us. Frankly though, I can’t say that anyone of these translations is THE BEST because it is difficult to capture in one word or in a short phrase the true sense and meaning of eusebeia. Even in English, godliness is one of those Christian words that many people would be hard pressed to define succinctly if put on the spot. If you’d asked me not too long ago, I would have answered, “I guess it has something to do with living like God wants you to, and honoring Him, but I’m not really sure.”

Communicating the Gospel in any language is a difficult task if it is to be done well, and the task becomes more complicated when I need to teach the Bible in a language that is not my own. What do the words that show up in the Thai Bible make people think of when they hear them? What words need to be explained, and how do I do that in a way that clears away misunderstanding and builds a right understanding of what God is saying in the Bible? Good Bible teaching that helps people understand what God wants to communicate in Scripture takes a lot of hard word, and one must be a student of the Scripture and a student of the culture. Then add in a second language and I’ve got my job cut out for me. Thankfully, salvation depends upon God and not upon whether I’ve gotten things just right, yet all the same my goal is that which the Apostle Paul gave to Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
(2 Timothy 2:15 ESV)

Mass Evangelism Gone Awry

We’ve just finished the Christmas evangelism season here in Thailand and praise God for the many people who heard the Gospel because of their curiosity about this thing called “Christmas”. In most Thai churches, Christmas is not a season of reflection upon the wonder of the Savior’s birth as much as it is a season of taking advantage of the opportunity to evangelize. Lots of Thai have heard something of Christmas through Western movies, advertising, and the general commercialism and materialism surrounding the season that come with globalization. Personally, I miss the “in-house” reflection and taking time out to ponder Christ’s birth that tends to be characteristic of American and European churches. Yet, I also appreciate the evangelistic zeal of Thai churches at Christmas and the natural opportunities that comes with the Christmas season here. Many U.S. churches could learn from the evangelistic zeal of Thai churches at Christmas time.

However, having attended lots of Christmas outreaches at churches, at schools, and at people’s homes, I have noticed a particular philosophy of mass evangelism among some churches and it bothers me. Initially, I couldn’t figure out why it bothered me and I was hesitant to say anything because I don’t want to oppose something just because I don’t like it. We all have our personal preferences and it would be plain wrong to try to impose my personal preferences on someone else. But the more I thought about it, I realized that it bothered me because this particular way of going about mass evangelism at Christmas time is unbiblical.

I have noticed that some churches use lots of free give-aways and raffle prizes in order to both draw people in, and to keep them at their Christmas outreaches. I don’t have a problem with some gifts or prizes given out in conjunction with an evangelistic outreach, per se. However, when I questioned the necessity of having lots of prizes for a Christmas outreach, some church leaders told me that unless we have prizes, the people won’t come. And, they explained, if we don’t keep the really big prizes until the end, people won’t stay for the evangelistic message. So, as I understand it, the philosophy here is that we need to use whatever means possible to keep people in their seats until the Gospel presentation is finished because people in general are not interested enough to stay without the prospect of a prize at the end. And if they have at least heard, regardless of their motivation for sitting through it, then perhaps they will have a chance to understand and be saved. On the surface, this approach makes sense. People are not generally interested in the Gospel so you use something that does interest them to draw them to your event and then make sure they don’t leave until they have heard the Gospel. Although it is true that people need to first hear the Gospel before they can understand it (Rom 10:17), there are three problems with this approach to mass evangelism: 1) It is manipulative, 2) It depends upon human cleverness to get people interested in the Gospel instead of depending upon God to save people, and 3) It is the exact opposite of Jesus’ approach to mass evangelism. Let’s address these three problems in the order that I’ve presented them.

1. It is manipulative. People come expecting to get some food, some prizes, and they perhaps know that there is some religious component to Christmas. And all of those are part of the Christmas celebration but I do wonder if some people feel like the whole thing is a bait-and-switch. The raffle prizes are held to the end specifically to force people to sit through the religious message that they may or may not be interested in. Is it possible that some people resent the fact that they have to stay for the “believe in Jesus” sales pitch in order to get their prize. Is this method appealing to people’s materialistic nature in an effort to get them to hear a message which condemns materialism? Manipulating people to sit through something they are not interested in does not speak well of the God or of Christians.
2. It depends on human cleverness instead of the power of God to save people. This philosophy of using prizes in mass evangelism seems to make the assumption that God is not active in making people interested in the Gospel and giving them enough curiosity to want to know more without a carrot dangling out in front of them. In his conversation with Nicodemus about how people become Christians, (John 3:1-8) Jesus said the Holy Spirit is like the wind that blows here and there yet no one is sure where exactly it came from or where it is going. That is to say, we don’t know whose heart God is changing to repent and believe, and many times it is not who we think it might be. It is God who changes hearts to believe, not any clever strategy or design of men. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44) and a few verse later repeats again that “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65). It is God who has chosen people for salvation before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and it is God who will make them interested enough to listen to the Gospel message. When it became apparent that the rich young man was not ready to turn from his greed, Jesus did not manipulate him to stay until Jesus had finished a Gospel presentation (Mark 10:17-27). Jesus allowed him to sulk off with the realization that he didn’t want eternal life badly enough to forsake his wealth. Jesus could let him go with the confidence that if God had chosen him for eternal life, then in due time the Holy Spirt would convict him of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8) and lead him to someone who could pick up where Jesus left off and tell him of God’s grace and forgiveness towards repentant sinners. God is author of salvation from beginning to end (Rom. 8:30), and we can be confident that He will create sufficient interest in the Gospel among those whom he has chosen without holding out material prizes as a reward for listening to the Gospel.
3. It is the exact opposite of Jesus’ method of mass evangelism. Instead of keeping the maximum number of listeners for the longest time possible, Jesus continually weeded out the people who were not interested so that he could focus on those who were interested. In John 6, we see that Jesus feeds the 5000 and then, when they wanted to take him by force to become king (John 6:15), he went off by himself. The next day, when Jesus is on the other side of the lake and the people come looking for him, he rebukes them because they were only interested in another free meal, not in the implication that the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 pointed to Christ’s divinity (John 6:26). Jesus then goes on to give a really difficult teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Lots of people didn’t want to accept this teaching (John 6:60) and “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” (John 6:66). And then, in chapter 8:31 forward, Jesus lays into the “new believers” who are still remaining, testing them to see if they are truly repentant, trusting in Christ for freedom and forgiveness or if they are presuming that they are accepted by God because they are descendants of Abraham. Jesus’ really wants to help people who have a false assurance of salvation to see the true state of their souls. From the pattern that we see here in the Gospel of John, Jesus used mass evangelism to find people who were interested and then talked with them, and taught them, in such a way as to sound out true spiritual interest and correct misunderstandings about the nature of saving faith.
   

From the model of Jesus, this should be THE GOAL OF MASS EVANGELISM: Sow the seed of the Gospel broadly in order to find the people who want to know more and then follow-up with them in a way commensurate with their interest and understanding.

Given the above considerations, I am reminded of a good example of appropriate and Biblical mass evangelism that I came across in the autobiography of Daniel McGilvary, 19th century pioneer missionary to Northern Thailand and Laos. I find that history is often instructive in balancing out excesses and oversights of the modern era. Mr. Dodd, of the American Presbyterian mission, writes the following account:

“On Friday June 3d [1887], Rev. D. McGilvary of the Lao mission left Chieng Mai by boat for a tour southward, taking attendants and all necessary equipments, accompanied by a raw recruit, and three efficient native helpers. We arrived at our first station about the middle of the afternoon, and before bed-time held religious conversation with as many enquirers as time would permit. Our audience chamber was the house of one of our newly-received members. Our ‘outward and ordinary means’ of attracting an audience was a watch, two mariner’s compasses, a magnifying glass, a stereoscope with an assortment of views, and a violin. The raw recruit played the violin, and thus called the audience together. We used both the other attractions to hold them and to gain their confidence and interest; and afterwards Dr. McGilvary easily and naturally drew them into religious conversation. Soon the conversation became a monologue in the religion of the Great God. The violin was no longer needed to arouse or sustain an interest. Every day, and late into the evening, the Doctor and the three assistants conversed; sometimes to quite an audience, sometimes to individual enquirers.” (McGilvary, Daniel, “A Half Century Among the Siamese and the Lao”, Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, 1912, p.285)

It seems that McGilvary and company used items of general interest and attraction to gather people only as a bridge to talking about God. The mariner’s compasses, stereoscope, violin, and so forth were not held out as carrots that would only be given at the end for those who stayed for the religious talk. Rather, they were used as a bridge to build relationships so that spiritual conversation could be had. This way seems much closer to what we see Jesus doing in the Scriptures and would seem to be more effective in discovering those people whom the Father is leading to repent and believe in Jesus.

How to Prepare for Missionary Service

At one point in the history of missions, it was rather difficult to get approved for missionary service unless you were an ordained pastor (or married to one). There were exceptions, of course, for those who were going to serve as school teachers, doctors, and other types of ministries that did not primarily involve Bible teaching. However, where we find ourselves today, in many cases, is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Churches and mission organizations vary in their requirements, from very stringent to very lax, but since I got involved with missions about twelve years ago on a short-term trip to Poland, I have heard many times over, from various places, something along the following lines, “If you love Jesus and are willing, then you’re ready to be a missionary.” Granted, loving Jesus and being willing are very important but is that all that is needed? I was reading the book of Ezra today and came across this verse:

“For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.” (Ezra 7:10)

I am not convinced that every single person who wants to be a missionary should go to seminary and get a Masters of Divinity, but at the same time, every missionary candidate should have a desire to really study the Word of God, and DO IT. I think that those who say that all you need to do in order to be a missionary is love Jesus are perhaps reacting to a perceived over emphasis on academic head knowledge in the missionary preparation process. There are lots of things that are studied in seminaries and Bible schools that don’t “seem” to be applicable to life on the mission field where people are ignorant of even the basics of the Gospel (I will return to this point in a moment). To return to the verse in Ezra, Ezra’s fundamental purpose in studying the Law of God was not to gather head knowledge that could then be spoon-fed to his fellow Israelites so that they could also have lots of head knowledge. Ezra studied God’s word because he desperately wanted to know want God wanted him to DO. God is the awesome and mighty God who had called his people out of bondage in Egypt and was now calling them back from exile in Babylon. Ezra loved God, and he wanted to obey God because he loved God. He wanted to live as God wanted him to live, not in a desperate attempt to earn God’s favor, but to thankfully honor, exalt, and glorify this God who had done much more for Ezra and his people than they could ever do for Him.

Anyone who wants to be a missionary needs to love God enough to search out in God’s Word what it is that God requires of him or her. If someone says, “I love Jesus” but does not have a hunger to know God’s word and obey what they find there, then there is something tragically wrong. This should be the fundamental attitude of the heart: “I want to know how God wants me to live. I hunger to know God and to live in humble submission and devotion to Him because he is my great King and Savior. To desire anything less would be unworthy of my God.” The missionary must love Jesus and that love must be defined as devotion to, and adoration of God that results in eager seeking to know Him in His Word, and to obey Him. An emotional experience in a worship service or a warm feeling after reading a Christian devotional book neither proves nor disproves whether a person loves Jesus. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). Obedience to Jesus is a good indicator as to whether you love Jesus (read the book of 1 John for more on this).

A second point to be garnered from Ezra 7:10 is this: Before you are ready to teach God’s word to others, you must study it and learn to obey it first. I am convinced that there is no shortage of professing Christians who have truly been converted and love Jesus but do not really understand their Bibles and have not sufficiently worked out some of the very basic implications of God’s Word in their lives. Granted, there is not one single person alive who has FULLY worked out all the implications of God’s Word for every area of their life. However, if someone wants to be a missionary, are they actively studying God’s word and seeking to put it in to practice? Is this person’s life changing in conformity to the Bible in ways that are observable by both the person themselves and those around them? Nobody is perfect, of course, but over a protracted period of time (perhaps 6 months, a year, five years) is there discernable forward progress? If not, then that person is not ready for missionary service and (dare I say it?) may not even be a Christian to begin with.

If you are not making observable progress in putting God’s commandments into practice in your life, then how are you ever going to teach others to do it? Remember, Bible teaching is not about transferring head knowledge but rather explaining and applying Scripture to people’s lives in such away that they develop a love for God expressed in joyful obedience to God. Depending upon the type of missionary service that one is headed for, either more or less formal Bible training may be advisable. I myself only had informal training through InterVarsity and my local church when I went to the mission field in Thailand for the first time as an associate (1-3 year term) with OMF. At that time I was doing some language study and English teaching, with the aim of being a witness and helping the long term OMF church planting in our city. As time went on, I realized that I really wanted to be in more direct church ministry (including teaching and preaching) rather than English teaching, and in order to do that, I would need to get some more formal training. So, I went back to the U.S. and went to seminary. Going to seminary and going through the ordination process were a great help in forming my understanding of Scripture and firming up my convictions in a variety of areas, but all of it was built on the fundamental desire to study God’s Word because I want to know God, and express my love for Him through obeying Him. Also, I was concerned that unless I really knew God’s Word well, I would not be properly prepared to help people understand and apply Scripture like I needed to. I wanted to do all that I could to be a good shepherd to people’s souls and not just try to scrape by with the minimum of Scriptural understanding.

Earlier in this post, I mentioned things that are studied in seminaries and Bible schools that don’t “seem” to be applicable to life on the mission field. After all, who needs to know the intricacies of theology when people don’t even know the Gospel? There is a story that someone once came to famed evangelist D.L. Moody and asked him what he thought about the higher critical theory on the book of Isaiah which claimed that there were two or perhaps three authors writing in the name of Isaiah instead of just one. D.L. Moody replied something along the lines of, “Why should I be concerned about second and third Isaiah when most people don’t know there is even one Isaiah?” There is some truth to Moody’s flippant response, however here’s my case for learning ALL that stuff in seminary, especially the ancient heresies and finer points of theology: All the bad theology and in-house controversies make their way to the mission field eventually. You’ll meet fellow missionaries who imbibed the poison Kool-Aid and are now teaching it on the mission field. If you don’t meet the missionary themselves, then maybe you’ll run into some heretical Christian literature that someone thought it would be a great idea to translate. Or maybe you meet a local believer who read that book that should never have been translated. Besides that, missionaries need to be somewhat knowledgeable about what is going on in the church back home so that they can interact with both other missionaries on the field and also churches back home when they go on home assignment (furlough) eventually. In the mid-19th century, the tiny missionary community in Bangkok had a split because of disagreement over Charles Finney’s teaching that a Christian could achieve perfect obedience to God in this lifetime. Even 150 years ago when communication was much less advanced than now, the big trends in the church at home made it out to the mission field eventually. And when it lands on your doorstep, you can no longer ignore it.

Postively speaking though, one really great reason to soak yourself in the Word of God and learn as much as you can at seminary or Bible school is for the nourishment of your own soul and your ability to persevere in ministry over the long haul. My study of Scripture, both informally and formally in seminary, has helped me to think through and process the experiences (both good and bad) that I experience on the mission field. Also, my wife and I are much more alone on the mission field in Thailand than when we were part of a good healthy church back home, receiving good Bible teaching and encouraging fellowship. There are other missionaries within a half an hour of us but we don’t see them regularly, and due to a variety of issues, our ministry situation is many times not very enjoyable, encouraging, or edifying. There are joys and things to give thanks for, but the struggles and frustrations are just as many. In those times, we are glad to have that deep well of Scripture to draw from - both what we have learned in the past and what we learn afresh as we come expectantly to God’s Word to discover what God wants to speak to us today.

Christ: Central or Peripheral in Evangelism?

What I am about to say should be so obvious that I don’t need to say it, but I am becoming more and more convinced that this truth is being severely neglected in churches today: The person and work of Christ must be the content and center of our evangelism and preaching. Just this past December, I attended a Christmas outreach event at a local church (here in Central Thailand) where the primary evangelistic message had to do entirely with the benefits of believing, i.e. all the good things that will happen to you as a result of believing. The speaker used many funny and engaging stories to help his audience understand that when you believe in Jesus, you can expect to have joy, peace, eternal life, and help from God. There was one thing that was glaringly absent from his message: Christ!

As part of the Bible reading plan that I am using this year, I’ve started to read through the book of Acts and in the first few chapters, we see plenty of examples of the content of preaching in the early church: Christ. In Peter’s Pentecost sermon, he basically tells his listeners that God sent Jesus, you crucified him, and God raised him, so don’t make any mistake that this Jesus is both Lord and Christ, i.e. Savior (Acts 2:22-36). Again, after the beggar is healed at the temple, Peter stands up and gives the a very similar message: God sent his servant Jesus, you betrayed him to death, you acted in ignorance but it was God’s plan, so repent so your sin may be blotted out because God sent Jesus to turn you from wickedness (Acts 3:11-26). After this Peter and John are arrested, and when examined by the authorities as to how they healed the guy, they say the same thing: this man was healed by Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom you crucified, God raised, but whom you rejected, and there is salvation in no one else (Acts 4:7-12).

Biblical evangelism and Biblical preaching must have the person and work of Christ at it’s center. It may be more appealing to preach about a Jesus who primarily wants to give us stuff but it is only the sinless Savior who died on the cross because of God’s grace toward wicked sinners who is worth following. A Jesus who just gives us stuff is more like Santa Claus than God. Any nobody follows Santa Claus. They just get stuff from him and say, “Thanks Santa, see you next year for so more stuff.” Santa does not inspire devotion or obedience, and requires no repentance. If only the benefits of believing in Christ are preached, and not the person and work of Christ, then people are easily misled as to the nature of the true Gospel. And the Gospel is wonderful! To think that wicked people who have hated God who is so merciful and gracious could actually be forgiven and our lives redeemed from bondage to sin and from the prospect of God’s judgment, is a fantastic and almost unbelievable thought. I want to preach Christ and repentance towards Christ for the forgiveness of sins so that God and sinner might be reconciled. This is the wonderful Gospel message and this is the Biblical message. Anything less is not the Gospel.

Whatever Happened to Repentance?

There is a trend in modern evangelism to replace the language of “repentance” with “opening your heart”, “receiving Christ”, and making a “decision for Christ”. I hear it when people share the Gospel with non-Christians and I read it in a lot of evangelistic literature that it being published. Far from an isolated phenomenon, I have noticed this in both the United States and in Thailand where I serve as a missionary. I am sure that the same is true in much of the rest of the world as well since the trends in Western evangelicalism, whether for good or for ill, have a way of making the rounds. In this case, the de-emphases upon the need to repent is a serious compromise of the Gospel and can create a wrong understanding of what it means to become a Christian.

Let me give an example of what I mean and why it is so serious. Sitting in front me right now is an evangelistic tract called “The Gift of Love”. It is put out by one of the largest (if not THE largest) publisher of evangelistic Christian tracts in Thailand. They have a number of good tracts and I don’t want to detract from the quality thinking and writing that they have produced in a number of cases. However, the way that this little tract, “The Gift of Love”, ends rather troubles me when I compare it to evangelism in the Bible. Near the end of the tract, it says (in Thai), “The opportunity to be saved from sin is right before you... hurry and open your heart to receive this gift of love right now. Don’t miss this opportunity to receive this gift that God wants to give you. If you want to receive this gift of love, all you have to do is confess your sins and and ask for help from God like this...” and a sample prayer as to how to receive Christ follows.

There are two things that I want to point out about the excerpt from this tract. The first is that the tract instructs the reader to “open your heart” in order to receive the gift of salvation. No where in the Bible are people interested in the Gospel told to “open their heart” to “receive Christ”. Although this is the language most often used by modern evangelists, it is not the language of Scripture. What does the Bible say? Let’s look at a couple example from the New Testament to see how the apostles instructed those who were interested in the Gospel.

After the apostle Peter preached at Pentecost, his listeners “were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:37-38) Peter instructs the people not to “open their heart” but to “repent”. Elsewhere, we find the Apostle Paul explaining to King Agrippa the content of the Gospel message that he has preached, namely that the Gentiles “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with repentance.” (Acts 26:20). Paul, like Peter, tells people not to “open their hearts” but to “repent”.

Perhaps some of you are thinking that I am just splitting hairs here because “open your heart” and “repent” are basically the same thing, aren’t they? Let’s look briefly at the meaning of each. In Paul’s defense before Agrippa, Paul clarifies that repent means to turn to God. This implies turning away from sin. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines repent as follows: “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin”. If one feels great remorse about sin, then should not one want to stop doing it, and flee in the other direction. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, in response to question #87, “What is repentance unto life?”, says this: “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.” (Acts 11:18, Acts 2:37, Joel 2:13, Jeremiah 31:18-19, Psalm 119:59) In sum, to repent means to hate your sin, to turn away from it, and turn to God.

“Open your heart” on the other hand, eludes definition. The phrase in itself is somewhat vague. It is not a Biblical term and I can find no where in Scripture where non-Christians are told to open their heart to Jesus. I would hope that the Christians who use this phrase in evangelism would understand it to mean repent and believe. However, the phrase itself is unclear. If the term is left undefined (as it often in evangelistic messages and literature), and the nature of repentance and the cost of discipleship are not explained to a prospective believer, then it could be understood in a variety of ways. Is it not likely that that many understand it as merely warm feelings toward Jesus or an attitude which is open to listening to more of what Jesus has to say. To the person who “opens their heart” to Jesus, could this not be easily understood to mean, “I like what I’ve heard about Jesus and I feel good about that. I want Jesus to help me in my life.” To say that “I like Jesus” or “I want Jesus to help me” or even “I want Jesus to save me from sin so I can go to heaven”, is not the same as saying “I hate my sin and I make a choice to turn away from it, and to change my allegiance from self to God.” Of course, it is possible that someone could present the Gospel very clearly, talking about God, sin, wrath, repentance, grace, and forgiveness, yet still use the phrase “open your heart” to indicate a decision to repent and believe in Christ. However, I have yet to observe that happen. Most often, “open your heart” and “receive Christ” take the place of “repentance.” As it is currently used, the phrase “open your heart” is too vague and meaningless to be useful. The Bible uses the clear language of repentance so that no one is confused about what God requires of them if they are become a follower of Christ. In order for Christians to be as faithful to Scripture as possible, it is best to emphasize what the Bible emphasizes and to use the language that the Bible uses. Granted, in today’s world some Bible words are not understood very well, like “repentance”. But that doesn’t mean that we jettison repentance altogether but rather that we are careful to take the time to define it and use more familiar words to explain the concept of repentance, i.e. turning from sin and turning to God, doing a 180, making a U-turn, and so forth.

The second observation I want to make about the language used in this tract has to do with the phrase, “all you have to do is confess your sins and and ask for help from God like this”. Really? Is confession and praying a simple prayer ALL that one needs to do to become a Christian and receive eternal life? I find that there are many more people who are willing to confess their sins (especially if they don’t have to name them specifically) than to repent from their sins. Confessing sin is not hard at all. Everybody acknowledges that they are less than perfect. Sure, I have some sin and you have some sin. Who doesn’t? But are you willing to turn from your sin? Do you hate your sin? Do you want to stop sinning? Are you aware of how much your sin grieves God and the greatness of God’s wrath against sinners? None of this is very much fun to talk about and very few want to hear about it. You don’t win many friends by talking about sin (unless you keep it so vague that it doesn’t touch the heart, and you pass over it as quickly as possible on your way to talk about grace, mercy, and eternal life). To say, “all you have to do is confess your sins” entirely skips over the important point that you need to repent from your sins as well.

Discussing this point with a fellow missionary, he pointed out that some people might understand repentance to be included in confessing your sins so that it is not necessary to specifically use the word “repentance”. Perhaps some people would understand it that way, but when it comes to helping people clearly understand the Gospel, we can not afford to be vague. We can not afford to assume that people know that they have to repent from their sins in addition to just confessing them. With something as important as the Gospel, can we really assume that people understand what we mean without us saying it? I have seen too many people make professions of faith in Christ yet nothing changes in their life. They are temporarily excited about whatever they think it is that they have done, yet there is no hunger for God, no desire to fellowship with other Christians, no hunger to learn God’s Word, and no repentance. When sharing the Gospel, I want people to know exactly what they are getting themselves in for and exactly what the Gospel means. This is a matter of life and death and it is irresponsible for Christians to lower the bar as far as possible to make it as easy as possible for people to “become Christians”. Sure, it may feel good for a time to think that so-and-so has “received Christ” but if they never understood the Gospel to begin with, and never understood that repentance was required, and if they have yet to experience that heart change wrought by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8, Titus 3:5), then they have not become a Christian. Praying a certain prayer or merely admitting to having sin does not make one a Christian, but rather spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-8, Titus 3:5) that results in repentance from sin and wholly depending on Christ for salvation makes one a Christian.

It is time to abandon the language of “opening your heart” and it is time to return to the language of “repentance”. To do anything less is to preach another Gospel and to dishonor God by filling the world with people who profess to know God but do not love or obey the One whose name they bear.

New Year, Old Problems

I’ve never been all that excited about New Year’s because the mere change of a date on the calendar doesn’t change anything that really matters. This morning, I went out to run an errand and when I stopped off to get a coffee, I saw a familiar motorcycle parked out in front of the coffee stand that hugged the curb. Coming around the car, I saw a guy from church that had stopped by to borrow our guitar the previous night. It was nine o’clock in the morning and there he was with a big bottle of beer, strumming the guitar and hanging out with his friend, the guy selling coffee. I don’t have anything against alcohol in general, given it is consumed in moderation and with appropriate consideration to who your company is. However, I KNOW that this guy has a drinking problem.

My initial impression of him, about a year or so ago, was that he is friendly fellow with a good head on his shoulders, and perhaps some potential for leadership in the church. That initial impression has proved to be inaccurate as it has become obvious that he has a drinking problem that doesn’t concern him as it should. On numerous occasions (especially after I haven’t seen him for a while), he tells me that he hasn’t forgotten about God and that he is still walking in God’s way, and doesn’t worship idols or get involved in witchcraft and so forth. He says, “Is drinking wrong? Yeah, it’s wrong. We all have our sins though, and nobody is perfect. I don’t lie. I’ve never lied to you. I don’t gossip. I don’t do this or that. I haven’t forgotten God.” On another occasion, he and I were chatting in our kitchen and I said in passing something about our lives changing as a result of knowing God. He replied, in a rather offhand way, “Oh, I don’t think my life has changed very much since becoming a Christian.”

All of this, and more, makes me very concerned for this brother in Christ, if indeed he is a brother in Christ. I sincerely hope that he has been converted through the power of the Holy Spirt, and not merely through human methodology which has succeeded in making him “church-ized” but not truly Christian. What I mean by “church-ized” is someone who knows how to do the church thing, and can talk the church talk, but whose life lacks that desire to know God, to live in holiness, to hate sin, and to love righteousness. I have told him of my concern for him, and have challenged his assumption that if he just gets married, then his drinking problem will go away because he won’t be lonely anymore. However, I can talk until I am blue in the face but nothing will change unless God works in his life and he wants to change. It pains me to see a man who claims to know God but whose life fails to reflect love for God and obedience to God. I don’t want to be too hasty and say that he is not a Christian since I do not know the heart, but the things that a person says and does often reflect the heart. And as of right now, this man’s life does not seem to be reflecting Christ.

How is God to be glorified and acknowledged as wonderful and mighty when those who bear the name “Christian” don’t live lives different than those around them? What motivation could anyone have to become a Christian if knowing God doesn’t make any difference in a person’s life? How am I to have any kind of credible witness about the power of God to change lives when those whom bear the name “Chrstian” and claim me as a friend don’t live lives honoring to God? How are people going to believe the Gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins when Christians seem to be indifferent about sin?

This may be a new year but nothing has truly changed. Satan is still up to his old tricks, to kill, steal, and destroy. However, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8) and He has promised, “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18). Despite how things look, I choose to take God at his word.