True Repentance

What is true repentance? This morning I read Matthew 26 and as I reflected on it, I was struck by Matthew Henry's commentary on Peter's denial of Christ. Henry writes, "Peter wept bitterly. Sorrow for sin must not be slight, but great and deep. Peter, who wept so bitterly for denying Christ, never denied him again, but confessed him often in the face of danger. True repentance for any sin will be shown by the contrary grace and duty; that is a sign of our sorrowing not only bitterly, but sincerely."

In Thailand, I have seen far too many professions of faith that bear no fruit. I have also heard too many Christians misdiagnose the problem of people who profess faith in Christ but don't follow through. One suggestion is that these backsliders need more encouragement. Another suggestion is that they need more follow-up and discipling. Both of these may be true to a degree depending upon how we understand the terms but neither seem to get at the heart of the matter that genuine repentance has likely not occurred. Repentance is not only stopping doing something bad but is also the beginning of doing something new. As Henry points out, Peter not only ceased denying Christ, but he also did the exact opposite - stood up and boldly proclaimed him from that point onward. Repentance does not consist of merely admitting to, or confessing ones sins either to God or to others. Repentance is a decisive turning from evil and self, and towards God. Granted, some new believers exhibit more obvious repentance earlier on because of the gross nature of their former life while others seem to grow or change more slowly as it is less obvious elements, like attitudes of the heart, which need the most change. But in either case, there is a definitive turning. If this change is missing in the life of any supposed Christian believer then, Biblicially speaking, it is not possible to call that one a Christian (regardless of what label you use to modify the term Christian, i.e. nominal, backslidden, carnal, immature, not growing or what not).

The most helpful thing that a Christian believer can do to help a professing Chrisitian who does not appear to have repented is to kindly yet firmly talk with him, opening the Scriptures, and help him see the true state of his heart before God. The book of 1 John was written to help professing Christians have assurance that they are saved (cf. 1 John 5:13) and if we have doubts as to someone's conversion, some time in 1 John will hopefully help to either comfort or convict.

"And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly ethe love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him hought to walk in the same way in which he walked." 1 John 2:3-6 (ESV)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism also helpfully summarizes the Biblical doctrine of repentance so that, in a nutshell, we might know what it is that we it is that we should be looking for in the lives of those who profess Christ.

87. What is repentance unto life?
Repentance unto life is a saving grace,1 whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin,2 and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,3 doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,4 with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.5

1 Acts 11:18
2 Acts 2:37
3 Joel 2:13
4 Jeremiah 31:18-19
5 Psalm 119:59

True repentance is a beautiful thing, as illustrated by the life of Peter who, after being brought to the end of himself, was a new man: humble, yet bold and God-confident, not self confident. Profession of faith without true repentance, however, is an embarrassment to all who call themselves Christians and a defamation of the character of God.

Animism and the Prosperity Gospel

I keep hearing, both first hand and from others, evidences of a theology of the prosperity Gospel creeping through the Thai church. Certainly not all Thai Christians think this way and I don’t want to overgeneralize but I hear enough of it to be concerned. By the term “prosperity gospel”, I mean this type of “Christian” teaching that tells people that God wants them to be healthy and wealthy, and to see health and wealth as sure signs of God’s blessing in their life. I grant that God’s gracious provision of good health and financial prosperity are blessings from God but Biblically speaking, the pursuit of these things should not be the goal of the Christian life (1 Tim 6:10 “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”) but rather, we should be content with what we have (Phil 4:10-13), and trust God to provide for our needs as we make obedience and faithfulness to God our primary concern (Matt. 6:33).

In many Thai churches, part of the worship service is a time for people to get up and give testimonies of God working in their lives in during the past week. There is certainly a place for praising God for giving physical healing, helping in times of financial difficulty, and other practical matters. But when these are nearly exclusively the types of praises that people are giving, then there is a problem. I asked an elderly Thai Christian, who has been a believer for twenty to thirty years, “Since you became a Christian, how have you seen God change your life?” He replied, “I was rather poor but now I am lower middle class.” I was hoping for more but that was it! I was talking with a fellow missionary who told me about the weekly “testimonies” of a church elder at the church where she and her husband worship. I know this church elder personally and he is a very kind grandfatherly type of man who in many ways is a great blessing to that church. However, at the same time, he is getting up in the worship service each week telling the people how God has blessed him financially, flashing money and new electronic gadgets as evidences of God’s blessing.

When I hear Thai believers who talk about God’s blessings in almost entirely financial terms, I can’t help but think of the prosperity gospel from the West which is making in roads in Thai churches. However, I also wonder if the animist mindset which saturates Thai culture is also influencing their thinking. On paper, Thailand is a Buddhist country but in practice, Thai Buddhists worship a variety of spirits and angelic beings. They are just as likely to seek help from a psychic, spirit medium, or a spirit reputed to be living in a large tree, as they are to seek help from a Buddhist monk. And Thai animistic Buddhism is a very practical religion. It entirely focused around seeking religious and spiritual solutions to everyday practical problems. There is no concern about glorifying or obeying any superior being other than doing a certain set of prescribed rituals in order to bring about a certain desired result - whether that be passing the university entrance exam, getting your husband to stop drinking, or being more successful in your business ventures. It is all about getting the spirits to help you pursue your own ideas of what a happy and prosperous life should look like. The variety of spirits don’t have any overarching plan or rules or priorities for how you should live your life or what the purpose of your life is. They are merely powers to be bargained with to get what you want. Seeing that this is the focus of animistic practice, I wonder if this mindset gets carried over into the church as Thai Buddhists become Thai Christians. In the animistic practice that they were used to, certain rituals were performed in order to bring the desired blessings. Now that one has become a Christian, are Christian rituals (such as going to church, tithing, singing worship songs, serving on the church committee) substituted in an ongoing pursuit of one’s own idea of a happy prosperous life without concern for what God desires or what God’s plan is for a their life? God desires to be glorified through repentance from sin, belief in Christ, and God-honoring living, exemplified in honesty, integrity, kindness, forgiveness, and reconciled relationships. But it seem that some view godliness (in this case, going through the outward motions of Christianity) as a means of financial gain (1 Tim 6:5).

Again, I am not sure where the unBiblical thinking is coming from, whether it be a heretical Western “Christian” religiousity or the remaining baggage from an unchallenged animistic worldview. Either way, the result is the same, and the Biblical faith is twisted into a pursuit of health, wealth, and one’s own ideas about what life should be like, and not about what God wants. The tragedy is that the joy and freedom of living in Christ is much more valuable than any worldly wealth or ideas of the happy life, but many don’t have the eyes or hearts to see it.

In Defense of the Sermon - Part 2

In the previous post, we looked at the Biblical precedent for preaching and saw that sermons are not merely a Western cultural tradition but have their foundation in the pages of Scripture. In this post, I would like to wrap up by responding to some objections to maintaining the sermon as a central part of the life of the Christian church.

Objection#1 “Sermons are ineffective”
Perhaps you will grant to me the fact that preaching is important in Scripture but would go on to add that times have changed and sermons just don’t “work”. In some ways, I agree. I have heard lots of sermons that just don’t work. But it is not because the idea of preaching a sermon is a bad one but rather because the sermon that someone decided to preach was a bad sermon. It was boring. It was irrelevant. It was mostly the preacher’s own ideas and hobby horses with little reference to Scripture. It explained the meaning of the passage for ancient Israelites but failed to show how it applies to modern listeners. It was all puffed up emotion or moralistic platitudes with little reference to Scripture. It did nothing to address the misunderstandings and objections of the listeners, failing to make people see what God is saying and how it intersects with their life. It is just a collection of observations about the passage that the preacher thought were interesting but there is no overall coherent message. The preacher, fearing that he will lose people, fills his sermon with too many irrelevant funny stories that at the end of the day make people laugh but fails to feed them with the Word of God. There are lots of examples of bad sermons but that is not any justification for getting rid of the sermon. It is every reason to raise the bar for our preachers, making clear to our preachers that assembling some cool stories and a token passage of Scripture on Saturday night is not an acceptable way to feed the flock of God with His Word.

We shouldn’t be surprised if a bad sermon is not effective. However, when a sermon is Biblically grounded and speaks directly to the people where they are, we should expect it to be much more effective. Of course, we must not forget the God factor. It is possible to preach a good Biblical sermon and get little response, through no fault of the preacher but through the hardness of the listeners’ hearts and the sovereign decision of God. But when the preaching is Biblical and the Holy Spirit is moving, look out! Peter preached at Pentecost and three thousand people repented in one day. I’d say that that was an effective sermon.

Objection#2 “People learn better in a participatory environment. Listening to a sermon is too passive.”
God knows about different learning styles. He invented them. The people in ancient Israel and the New Testament church had a variety of learning styles too because people are people no matter what century they live in. And for that reason, we should not fail to have Bible study groups, Sunday school classes, and personal conversations that help people understand God’s Word in an interactive two-sided way. But God has still given us the sermon in the pages of Scripture as a central way to proclaim God’s Word and teach His people. As for the sermon being too passive, I want to suggest that the problem may not be with the preacher but with the listener. Are you as a listener paying close attention to what the preacher is saying, looking back at the passage being preached to see if the Scripture really says that, and actively thinking about what is being said and what it means for you? A lot of people have not been instructed as to how to listen to a sermon, so they just sit there expecting their weekly dose of encouragement to be served up on a silver platter without any thinking required on their part. Sometimes I will take notes on a sermon so that I can look back at them and be reminded of the content of the sermon and can think upon it later. We need to train people to be active listeners. And the listeners themselves need discipline themselves to pay careful attention. For those coming from a Thai Buddhist background, the idea that it is important to pay attention to the content of the sermon may be difficult to grasp at first. If a Buddhist goes to the temple and at least physically hears the monk preaching, then the listener earns merit and has derived religious benefit from the exercise even if they spent the majority of the time whispering to their friend or examining the paint on the wall of the temple. However, if someone wants to hear what God wants to say to them in the Bible, it would seem natural that they would want to pay attention to what is being preached. Someone is not going to get much out of the sermon if they are fiddling with their mobile phone or doodling inside the back cover of the songbook. It takes work to get something out of a sermon. If someone is not willing to do a some work in their listening and pay attention to the sermon, then I am not surprised that they don’t get anything out of the sermon.

Objection#3 “The sermon is a Western church tradition, rooted in culture and not the Bible. We should find more indigenous ways of teaching the Bible.”
We have already covered the Biblical foundations for preaching and observed that preaching is rooted in Scripture. It may have become Western church tradition but with good reason - it is in the Bible. From a cultural and pragmatic point of view though, I would say that preaching is a culturally appropriate and indigenous form of speech in many cultures. It is here in Thailand. Buddhist monks preach. They give sermons. I went to the book shop at the local shopping center, and there is a big tall shelf with tons of MP3 CDs and VCDs of Buddhist monks preaching. Some are more serious conservative preachers and some look like popular youth speakers, trying to connect Buddhist teachings to the lives of modern young people. The fact that they sell Buddhist sermons in the book shop means that someone is buying them. Many nights when I go out to buy food at the fresh market across from the big temple here in town, there is a monk preaching on a loud speaker for all the surrounding community to hear. Granted, I have my doubts as to how many people are listening but he is preaching nonetheless. Monks preach on the radio and on TV, besides at the temple. So, just from a cultural contextualization point of view, the sermon is a very valid form of indigenous Thai speech that is used to communicate religious truth. Truthfully, it is the interactive participatory discussion around the Bible that feels more foreign to Thai people than the sermon. Although I wouldn’t go this far, if you wanted to be really indigenous in your church planting, then you should cut out the participation and question-and-answer time because that has more of a foreign feel to it than a sermon.

The institution of the sermon is rooted in Scripture and is an important model of communicating God’s truth that he has given to the church. Granted, we need to use a range of methods to communicate God’s truth, but I would seriously question anyone who would want to jettison the sermon from the life of the Christian church. To get rid of or sideline the sermon in churches today, either Thai or Western, would be to ignore both the Biblical precedent and the common cultural conventions of religious communication.

In Defense of the Sermon - Part 1

I’ve heard some missionaries say that the sermon is not all that important for the spiritual growth of believers. Others have suggested that the sermon be done away with all together. Isn’t the sermon merely a cultural tradition of the Western church anyway? Shouldn’t we find some better, less passive, and more culturally appropriate way to help believers understand and apply the Bible?

Hearing statements like this have concerned me because in the name of contextualization and better spiritual growth, we are about to throw out something that not only has a firm Biblical basis but is also an appropriate and contextual form of religious speech in Thai culture. In this first of two posts about the sermon, I would like to lay out some Biblical arguments for why churches should retain the sermon as a centerpiece of Christian worship and teaching. Not only churches in the West, but churches everywhere.

The Biblical Precedent for Preaching
If we look through Scripture just briefly, we’ll see lots of examples of preaching. The idea of the sermon was not developed in some Puritan think tank in 16th century England. When the people of Israel had newly entered in the land of Canaan, Joshua expounds to the people the history of what God has done for them (Joshua 24:1-13) and upon that basis goes on to challenge them to choose whether they will serve the God of Israel or some other gods (Joshua 24:14-15). Here we have two fundamental components of a sermon: explanation of God’s words and actions and application of that to the lives of the listeners. Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel stood up in the public square, bringing God’s word to the people, and exhorted them to turn back to God. In the book of Nehemiah, we see a wonderful example of this as Ezra the priest stands up to expound the law of God to all the people who are gathered in the public square (Nehemiah 8:1-8). Ezra stood up on a wooden platform and read the Law of God to the people from morning until midday and the other priests with Ezra helped explain what Ezra was reading so that the people could understand it. The Bible and it’s explanation and application were central for Ezra (Ezra 7:10) because that is what the people needed most - to hear from God. And the sermon was the appointed vehicle for doing so. If we skip over to the New Testament, we see that Jesus preached. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) he starts from the people’s misunderstanding of the Word of God and goes on to explain its true meaning, which had been distorted by the Pharisees. Some missionaries say that Jesus used stories so therefore we should emphasize stories over exposition of Scripture. Granted, Jesus did use stories but that is not all he did. He also explained Scripture and applied it to people’s lives. That’s preaching. Although it wasn’t a sermon per se, Jesus even engaged in systematic theology with the two disciples on the Emmaus road. “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). In other words, Jesus went through the Scriptures systematically drawing out all the relevant parts to explain the doctrine of Himself. The apostle Peter picked up on this on the day of Pentecost, preaching to the people about the person and work of Jesus Christ from the Old Testament (Acts 2:14-36), applying these truths to his listeners (“you killed Jesus”). Three thousand were convicted to the heart and repented. The apostle Paul’s common method of evangelism was to visit the synagogue in the city he was visiting and preach to the people gathered there (Acts 19:8 is just one example). Sure he taught from house to house, but he also taught publicly (Acts 20:20). When Paul was booted out of the synagogue in Ephesus, he started preaching in the hall of Tyrannus. Paul certainly knew the value of teaching people at home and speaking with individuals and small groups, but he also preached to large groups.

Please don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that small groups in homes are bad or that people should not circle up the chairs at times and have a discussion around the Bible. I think that both of these are great. Personal evangelism and small Bible studies have been greatly used of God to advance his church over the centuries. But God has also used the sermon to mighty effect throughout history and there is a strong Biblical precedent for continuing to preach sermons today.

The Preacher as Prophet
There is a sense in which the New Testament preacher takes up the mantle of Old Testament prophet. I don’t mean to say that there is a continuing gift of prophecy but rather that as the preacher stands in the place of God in speaking to the people (as Moses did), their is a certain commanding authority and one-sidedness that is derived from the Word of God. In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever writes, “Permit me to suggest that the one-sidedness of preaching is not only excusable but is actually important. If in our preaching we stand in the place of God, giving His Word by His Spirit to His people, then surely it is appropriate that it be one-sided - not that it should be one-sided in the sense that the one preaching is never to be questioned; but, in the event of preaching itself, the univocal character of God’s Word comes as a monologue to us, not hoping to solicit interest and participation but requiring that we respond. Something of this character must be retained.” (Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, p.33). If the sermon is done away with than the church misses out on that prophetic voice of God made visible in the act of preaching. In Scripture, a high place is given to the prophetic exposition of God’s Word in the act of preaching, and we would do well to uphold and maintain it.

In the next post, we’ll take a look at, and respond to, some objections to the continuing use of the sermon in the life of the church.

The Freeing Doctrine of Election

This past Sunday, we took a group of people from PhraBaht church out to Nong Doan, a lower class farming community where we are hoping to see a church planted. The goal of our visit to Nong Doan was evangelism - to hand out tracts and to visit people at home. Tracting is really not an ideal way to get the Gospel out but it does have it’s place in stimulating people’s thoughts. One in six Thai Christians report that a tract or some other piece of Christian literature had a role in their coming to faith. In Nong Doan however, our goal is not to just hand out tracts but to meet people and have the opportunity to talk with them about spiritual matters, in particular the Gospel. We want to meet people who are interested to know more and are happy for us to come back regularly, sharing the Gospel, studying Scripture, and building relationships.

This particular Sunday afternoon, one of the ladies in our group wanted to go visit a co-worker who comes out from PhraBaht to Nong Doan on the weekends to visit her family. By the time we got there, this co-worker had already left to go back to PhraBaht but we met her brother and her elderly mother. The mother was happy for us to pray for her as many Thai Buddhists are. Who wouldn’t want a blessing, after all? As we met and chatted with this spritely eighty year old woman, it was discovered that she had never heard of Jesus and knew nothing about the Gospel. Chris, a new missionary who was along for our evangelistic outing was taken aback by actually meeting someone who had never heard the name “Jesus” never mind believing. Chris has blogged about this over at The Stark Truth. After talking a bit and praying for the woman, she invited us to come back again because she wanted to hear more about going to heaven.

Afterwards, as we were sharing our experiences and talking about how things went in our tracting and visiting, Pastor Jarun advised that we need to take our time in building relationships, and building trust with people as we share the Gospel. One woman piped up and pointed out that this elderly woman would need to believe soon if she were to be saved because she is so advanced in years already. So, the question hanging in the air was, “Do we need to push for this lady (or anyone else for that matter) to believe because if we don’t, then they might miss their opportunity to be saved?”

I was overjoyed to hear the response to that unspoken question from some of the believers seated there. It seems that for at least a few of them, they are beginning to grasp the wonderfully freeing truth that we don’t need to pressure anybody to believe because God has chosen those whom He will save from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1). If God has chosen somebody for salvation, they won’t die before having believed. Therefore, we have the freedom to build relationships of respect and trust, sharing the Gospel appropriately, without fear that if we don’t solicit a response now then there might never be another chance. Apparently, no one has informed them that a belief in predestination dampens all enthusiasm for evangelism because they are looking forward to the next time we go out to Nong Doan to tract and visit. I get the sense that a number of these church folks have a heart to evangelize but are saddled with this “get-them-to-say-the-sinner’s-prayer-quick” philosophy of evangelism that they have inherited from the larger evangelical world in Thailand (and globally). They have been taught (or have picked up) from the evangelical sub-culture that the way to get someone to saved is by saying the sinner’s prayer. And to get someone to say the sinner’s prayer, then you just need to make sure they consent to all the items on the prospective convert checklist, i.e. Do you believe you’re a sinner? Do you want to go to heaven? Do you want to believe in Jesus? If they say, “Yes, Yes, Yes” then you lead them in prayer and rejoice that they are going to heaven. However, I think that in the past the PhraBaht church members have seen quite a few people say these kinds of prayers and then either shown no change in their life, barely darkened the doors of a church, or shown zero for spiritual interest in subsequent conversations. Of course, there are people who say the prayer and the LORD has actually regenerated their hearts and worked true faith in them, despite the unbiblical methods used. And because of the exceptions, many people continue to believe that this is God’s appointed way to “get people saved.” But, seeing the failure of many of these prayers to “stick”, I think that the church folks that we are working with are open to the Biblical teaching that God saves, in his time, in his way, and we are merely to be faithful instruments in sharing the Gospel, while God does the work. As we are faithful in loving people and sharing the Gospel, the Spirit works faith and repentance in people’s hearts independent of any invented ceremony of religion that is supposed to bring about the moment of conversion.

This year I am planning to make these visits out to Nong Doan with the PhraBaht church members every two weeks and hope that as we go together, and do some on-the-job training in the essentials of the Gospel and in Biblical, Christ-exalted evangelism, that these church folks with be grasped by the magnificence of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the freeing knowledge that His Spirit goes before us, just as he did before the apostles, as Luke records,

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48 ESV)

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.

"Does God have Good Manners?" (or "Why Christians Don't Grow")

A few months ago I was visiting some new believers with a Thai pastor and other church members when I heard something quite disturbing. In the course of his teaching, the pastor explained that some Christians don’t have changed lives because they don’t yield to the Holy Spirit. He went on to say that God has “good manners” and therefore doesn’t force himself on anyone. If a believer yields to the Holy Spirit, then his life will change in accord with God’s will. However, if he does not yield to the Holy Spirit, then his life will not change and he will exhibit little or no evidence of being a Christian other than his profession to be a Christian.

Is this really the best way to explain why professing Christians fail to show any evidence of love for Christ or obedience to his commandments? I have another theory as to why some professing Christians don’t show any evidence of conversion. They were never truly converted to begin with!! Some may say that this sounds judgmental but I believe that there is sufficient Biblical support for such a conclusion.

The Bible has absolutely no category for people who have trusted in Christ as Savior but have not repented (turned) from their sins and made a decision to obey Him as their Lord. In Matthew chapter 3, the Pharisees and Sadducees are coming out to receive baptism from John the Baptist but John rebukes them and tell them to "bear fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matt. 3:8). Profession of allegiance to God must always be accompanied by repentance. A profession of faith is not genuine if it is not joined together with repentance. The book of James is even clearer. James writes, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17). If someone truly has faith, then that faith will be visible in his life. If there is no evidence of a changed life, then there was never any heart change to begin with. If there is no obedience to God, then there is no love for God. If that sounds harsh, then listen to the words of Jesus. Jesus said rather directly, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). A few verses later, He expresses the same truth in the negative “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words.” (John 14:24). A person who does not obey God does not love God. And, if a person does not love God, it seems very difficult to make the case that such a person is a true Christian. Jesus himself said that a person’s external words and actions show what is in a person’s heart. “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.” (Matt. 12:33). If a professing Christian does not show any fruit, then we must seriously question whether that person has truly understood and embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“But,” you may object, “Some people grow more slowly than others and nobody obeys God perfectly. Everybody still has sin in their life so let’s not be too hasty in saying who is and is not a Christian.” Granted, we can never know another person’s heart perfectly, but Scripture teaches that all believers are “sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13) and that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). Scripture does not say that SOMETIMES the Holy Spirit produces these qualities in a believers life. Scripture states plainly that the Spirit produces these qualities in a believer’s life, without qualification.. The implication is that ALL these qualities will be present in the life of the believer. Regeneration and renewal of the believer is the work of the Holy Spirit (Titus 2:6) and He will carry out this work in the life of all true believers. If someone lacks the fruit of the Spirit, then that person most likely lacks the Spirit. If someone lacks the Holy Spirit, then that person is not yet a believer for the Spirit indwells all believers (Eph. 1:13).

The apostle Paul wrote letters to churches that had a multitude of besetting sins, compromise with the world, and gross immorality. However, he also had confidence that these believers were being molded by the Holy Spirit and that God would finish his work in the lives of these believers even though they still had sin in their lives. To the Philippian church, Paul wrote “I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6) Of course, no one will be perfected in holiness this side of heaven, but all Christians should be evidencing these qualities (Gal 5:22) in increasing measure. Very few new Christian believers evidence a radically changed life overnight. Change is a process. When someone becomes a Christian, he should begin to evidence an increasing measure of the fruit of the Spirit. Some people change quickly and some more slowly but over the course of time, there should be measurable change. I was chatting with a member of the Thai church that we work with and he said plainly that since he became a Christian six years ago, his life hasn’t changed any. That statement sent up a red flag in my mind. I don’t want to jump to conclusions and prejudge him because perhaps I misunderstood what he meant. I need to do some follow up to figure out whether he meant what I think he means. I am concerned though because I am aware of some of the serious sins that are still present in his life and often times he seems to regard his sin quite lightly. It concerns me to hear a professing Christian say that nothing has changed in their life since becoming a Christian, especially when he doesn’t seem to be properly disturbed about the continuing presence of serious besetting sin in his life. The Bible takes it as a given that God changes lives, so all Christians should show at least SOME evidence of a changed life.

It deeply concerns me that a fellow Christian, a pastor nonetheless, would be content to explain away the disobedient lives of professing Christians by claiming that God has good manners. It is insulting to God to say that God is powerless to change the life of a person who has professed faith in Him. God always completes the work of salvation that he starts in a person, and sanctification (a progressive growth in holiness) is an integral part of that work (Romans 8:29-30). Regardless of whether someone professes to be a Christian or has prayed a prayer to receive Christ, we need make a realistic assessment of their relationship to God by looking at their lives. If there is a noticeable lack of the fruit of the Spirit, their conversion needs to be called into question. If we fail to make a realistic assessment of where a professing but unrepentant Christian stands in relation to God, then we do a disservice to that person and dishonor God.