Yesterday, I posted a review of Breaking the Islam Code: Understanding the Soul Questions of Every Muslim, a new book by J.D. Greear. J.D. is pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina and blogs regularly at JDGreear.com. Today, I’m happy to have J.D. stop by the blog and talk about ministry to Muslims.

Trevin Wax: In your experience, what’s the biggest psychological hurdle that Christians have when it comes to sharing their faith with a Muslim?

J.D. Greear: The biggest psychological hurdle is feeling like they have nothing in common with a Muslim. We think Muslims are a fundamentally different kind of person. But they are made in the image of God just like we are, so they have many of the same questions, ideas, and thoughts.

Secondly, they’re very religious people and, because of that, they have a lot of questions about God. Islam has uniquely prepared them to ask questions about God to which Islam does not give a good answer. Islam, in many ways, paves the way for a Gospel explanation.

So understanding Islam, and understanding the true things that it’s taught about God and the untrue things that it’s taught about God, gives you a great place to show that the Gospel gives a superior answer to these questions.

Trevin Wax: In your book, you write about the time you spent in a predominantly Muslim country. Looking back over your ministry to Muslims, what are some things you’d do differently were you to start over again?

J.D. Greear: I didn’t realize this until I had worked with Muslims for nearly two years, but a “win” in sharing Christ with a Muslim should not be just getting them to pray “the sinner’s prayer.” A “win” is getting them to study the Bible with you.

People with worldviews that are as entrenched as they are with Muslims will not likely be brought to Christ with one conversation. Rather, it is seeing the glory of God revealed in the marvelous plan of redemption in the Bible that can open their hearts to see the glory of Christ.

So have as your goal getting a Muslim to study the Bible with you. Study the stories of the prophets, walk through the Old Testament and show him or her how everything points to Christ. Do it in the form of a dialogue. I think it’s less effective to take the role of teacher, and more appropriate to take the role of “let’s read these together and both learn from the Holy Books.”

Trevin Wax: What are some things you did right?

J.D. Greear: What I did right was really nothing profound, just simply to love people and to pray for them and to be involved in their lives. The more that you listen to people and the more that you get to know them, the more they begin to bare their souls and it becomes much easier to speak the Gospel clearly to them.

Trevin Wax: What kinds of misunderstandings and misconceptions get in the way of starting and maintaining these kinds of relationships?

J.D. Greear: The thing to remember is that these misconceptions and misunderstandings go both ways. There are general misconceptions that Christians have about Muslims, namely that they’re terrorists and that they think about God totally differently.

Some of the misconceptions that Muslims have about Christians that are good to know is that Muslims believe that Christians are morally loose and do not show proper respect for God. In part, that is because they watch TV and see people who wear crosses around their necks like on MTV and they think this is what Christians are like. So entering in with that kind of knowledge and knowing how to overcome those misconceptions is helpful.

Another misconception to overcome is what Muslims believe that Christians believe about the Trinity. They think that our idea of the Trinity is that God the Father and God the Mother had God the Son. We need to explain that we would disagree with that very strongly, and that we hold very firmly, as tightly as they do, to the oneness of God.

Probably the greatest area of misconception and misunderstanding is just simply realizing that Muslims think about salvation differently than we think about it, which means that we need to frame the questions of salvation differently so we can show them that the Gospel provides better answers than Islam does. What this book tries to do is to show the reader that Westerners approach salvation from one front and Muslims approach it from a different one. The Gospel answers both equally, but knowing the separate approaches is helpful.

Trevin Wax: It’s helpful to lay these misconceptions on the table and to talk honestly about our differences. You make the case that Muslims do worship the same God as Christians, although with obvious errors in understanding. Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion and how you would maintain major distinctions between Muslim and Christian understandings of God?

J.D. Greear: This is a tough question that has a considerable amount of complexity to it. But at the end of the day, I think the question of whether or not you use the Arabic name for God – Allah – is more of a practical question than a theological one.

Theologically speaking, there is of course only one God. But as I note throughout the book, we see several places where Jesus or the Apostles confronted someone who believed wrong things about God, yet Jesus and the apostles engaged them with the common ground of, “let’s talk about that God you think you know and He is really like.”

For example, in John 4, when Jesus deals with a Samaritan woman who was considerably off on several points about God, Jesus told her that the problem was she did not understand the God that she claimed to worship. Many of the Jews to whom the Apostles spoke did not believe in the Trinity and found it blasphemous. Does that mean that the Jews worship a different God? A better, and more Biblical approach (in my view) is to take the God that they claim to understand and show them what His true revelation is like.

Practically speaking, however, you have to determine whether or not it is more helpful or more harmful to use the Islamic name for God. It is harmful when use of the Islamic name for God cause people to assign the false characteristics to God. But that doesn’t have to happen just because you use the name. For example, Our English word, “God,” comes from German Gott, the name of a false deity. But no one would say that today we confuse the two and assign the qualities of Gott to God.

With Muslims, I would say that more often than not it is more helpful to use the Arabic name for God. They understand that to be the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. That’s a good place to start. Then you can say, “This God you worship, here is what He is really like, according to the revelation.” That said, I would leave this question mostly to the discretion of the person who is on the field in a given situation.

Trevin Wax: Thanks, J.D. for taking the time to talk about these important matters. May the Lord bless our efforts to reach people with the gospel!

One of the questions I’ve encountered while writing a book on the gospel is whether or not I should create a new diagram that would help present the gospel to an unbeliever. Though I’ve had a few possible diagrams come to mind, I’ve decided against creating a new formula. Instead, I’d like to point readers to gospel presentations that introduce people to Jesus in a way that keeps the Bible’s grand narrative at the forefront.

A few months ago, I wrote about some recent approaches to “storied evangelism” and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each. One of the approaches I recommend, The Story, is being promoted by a variety of pastors and church leaders (David Platt, J.D. Greear, Ed Stetzer, Alvin Reid, etc.) . Check out their promo video below.

“The Story” Promotional Video from The Story (ViewTheStory.com) on Vimeo.

Yesterday, I wrote about traditional evangelistic strategies and the tendency for us to assume too much when we engage in personal evangelism. Today, I’d like to review three gospel presentations that have recently been developed that seek to combine the theological truths of Scripture with the Grand Narrative:

The Story: How it all Began and How it will never End

“The Story” is a web and print-based tract that explains the gospel message in terms of four worldview questions:

• How did it all begin? (Creation)
• What went wrong? (Fall)
• Can anything be done? (Rescue)
• What will the future hold? (Restoration)

In the space of a few pages, the tract explains the story of the world – from creation to new creation. The final section calls for a response (repentance and faith), but does so in ways that explain these concepts clearly to the lost person. Utilizing materials from Tim Keller, D.A. Carson, and others, the developers of “The Story” provide a biblical presentation of the gospel that explains this announcement of good news within the Grand Narrative.

The strengths of this approach are numerous. It empowers laypeople to share the meta-narrative in which the gospel makes sense. It sets heaven and hell within the biblical context of God’s renewal of the cosmos. It seamlessly unites repentance and faith with the call to recognize the lordship of Christ. The presentation is brief and memorable.

The weakness of “The Story” is that in its pursuit of brevity, the tract skips from Adam and Eve right to Jesus. The exclusion of the Law and the story of Israel deletes an important part of the story, a part which should serve to reinforce our condemnation as well as spotlight the perfect character of God. But even as it stands, “The Story” is a very useful tool for those who want to present the gospel message within the biblical worldview.

Good Soil: The Story of Hope

The Good Soil curriculum is inspired by missionaries who have ministered in oral cultures where storying has been an effective means of evangelism. The Story of Hope is a booklet which takes the reader through 40 essential Bible scenes (20 Old Testament and 20 New Testament), while distilling eight propositional truths from the stories:

• God
• Man
• Sin
• Death
• Christ
• Cross
• Faith
• Life.

In this way, the curriculum combines the biblical and systematic approach to theology. The pictures in The Story of Hope are beautifully done, and the story itself traces the theme of sacrifice from the Old Testament to Jesus – the dying Lamb.

This presentation has many strong points. The curriculum is flexible. If you’re pressed for time, you can present the story in 10 minutes. If you meet with someone for an hour or two, you can present the 20 most important stories. If you have more time, you can present 40 of the stories. There is even an option for presenting a hundred biblical scenes. The best part of The Story of Hope is its ability to connect the dots for people who have little to no Bible knowledge. It presents the Bible as a unified whole.

Still, there are a couple of weaknesses to this approach. It’s not as handy and memorable as “The Story,” though it can be adapted if need be. At times, the reasoning behind the choice of stories is not always clear. The story is told through the lens of atonement (from sacrifices to the cross). But there are other ways to tell this story too – through the lens of death needing new life (resurrection) or creation needing God’s kingdom (the reign of Jesus).

Sometimes the stories are a bit too specific in their detail. For example, instead of leaving the origin of evil and Satan’s fall to the realm of mystery and biblical summarization, the curriculum recounts Lucifer’s story as if the Bible presents it as straightforwardly as it does Moses and the Passover. Likewise, instead of simply focusing on Christ returning to judge the living and the dead, The Story of Hope commits one to a pre-tribulational rapture.

Overall, this presentation is very effective in telling the Bible’s Story to those who are unfamiliar with Scripture. It is also effective in connecting the dots for those who may know isolated Bible stories, but are unsure of how it all fits together. Highly recommended!

Two Ways to Live: The Choice We All Face

I have been using Two Ways to Live for a couple of years now. Like the other two presentations, this tract combines the narrative of Scripture with propositional truths about God, although it tends to lean a bit in the second direction. The history of Adam and Eve, Israel, etc. are passed over for a brief presentation of our problem and God’s solution.

I like Two Ways to Live because of its emphasis on our need to live under God’s rule and the good news that Christ has fulfilled this requirement in our place. The tract clearly lays out the choice that we must make is ultimately about being transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. Repentance and faith are rightfully defined in terms of submission to Christ and trust in his sacrifice.

The weakness of this approach is that narrative takes a backseat to propositional truth about God. There is also very little in terms of the story, even though it is presented in narrative format.

What about you? Do you see storied evangelism on the rise? What tools have you found most effective?

A few months ago, I wrote about the decline of the vocational evangelist and made a few suggestions about what the future of vocational evangelism might look like.

Today, I’d like to share a few thoughts on personal evangelism, particularly the tools being developed to assist Christians in this task.

The Problem with Traditional Evangelistic Tools

In previous generations, tools like the Four Spiritual Laws and Evangelism Explosion dominated the field of personal evangelism. These tools have been effective for many people, and we can be grateful that the Lord continues to use these methods. But now that our society has moved in a direction that is increasingly post-Christian, these methods have begun to show their age.

Traditional evangelistic strategies are not necessarily deficient in what they say, but in what they assume. These methods assume that the lost person already has a basic amount of Bible knowledge. The presentation makes little sense unless presented within a religious framework in which the character of God is largely understood, the nature of sin is acknowledged, and the need for forgiveness is felt.

Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world in which people understand these truths.

The Romans Road

Take the Romans Road for example. As good as the Romans Road is (I’ve used it on many occasions, and it is Scripture after all!), the presentation usually begins with Romans 3:23 (All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), before moving on to sin’s penalty (6:23), God’s intervention (5:8), and our response (10:9-10, 13). Surely one can’t argue against the Bible as a gospel presentation.

But the problem with the Romans Road is that even Romans doesn’t begin with Romans 3:23. In Romans 1, Paul speaks of the character of God and the devastation of human rebellion. Romans 2 indicts all of us – Jew and Gentile alike. Romans 3 underscores the depravity of human nature.

In other words, even the Romans Road (at least as it is popularly used) makes sense only within an overarching narrative that is Scriptural. The presentation assumes that people know who God is, what God demands, who we are, what our problem is, and how God has acted in history to bring restoration.

The deficiency of the Romans Road is not the verses of Scripture, but the disappearance of the framework in which these verses make sense. When the people around us no longer hold to a biblical framework from which to make sense of these truths, the Romans Road turns into a series of cobbled-together propositions that are disconnected from the Story of Scripture.

Evangelists today are looking for ways to hold together the propositional truth claims of Scripture and the Grand Narrative within which these claims find their meaning. Tomorrow, I’ll review three of these presentations, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Related Posts:
In Defense of Proselytism: Talking Points for Brit Hume
Walking and Talking Evangelism
I’m Afraid to Share My Faith

Yesterday, I listed a few reasons why vocational evangelism is on the decline in Southern Baptist life. Today, I’d like to imagine what this evangelistic method might look like in the future.

1. Informative preaching.

In a post-Christian context, the traveling evangelist can no longer assume that listeners have a cursory knowledge of Christian doctrine and need only to be persuaded to “make a decision for Christ”.

I serve in the middle of the Bible Belt. I often meet young people who are completely disengaged from church. If they were to come to an evangelistic service where the preacher focused only on “getting right with God,” they would have no context with which to understand sin, guilt, and the cross. They might come down the aisle at the end, but they would probably not know what they were doing.

We need vocational evangelists who will excel at telling the Christian Story in a winsome, memorable, and penetrating manner. We need men who can unravel the competing worldviews of our society and then lift up the Christian gospel as the answer to the world’s evil and our own personal sin. We need men who can deal with the complexities of life and paint a vision of the Christian gospel in all its glory.

Information is crucial. People who come to a revival service are interested in Christianity. When we neglect to tell them what Christianity is all about, we miss a grand opportunity.

2. Participatory Teaching

In the 1800′s, a common practice for traveling evangelists was to host an “inquiry sessions” after the service. Rather than focus primarily on getting people down the aisle for an immediate decision, the evangelists focused on answering questions and counseling seekers.

Inquiry sessions give an opportunity for the lost person to find answers about Jesus and Christianity. The vocational evangelist of the future cannot rely on wowing everyone with his oratorical skills in the pulpit. He will have to be good at speaking one-on-one with people afterward.

3. Missionary Thinking

If our churches are to reclaim the need and desire for personal evangelism, leaders must train members to think and act as missionaries within their own particular context. Church members should not wait on an evangelist to do their work for them. Instead, the evangelist’s ministry should assist, come alongside, and strengthen the personal evangelism already going on in the congregation.

In their best days, revival services played this important role. But now, as fewer people engage in personal evangelism, the revival service can degenerate into a mere formality in which congregants often attend out of guilt rather than passion.

4. Weekend Evangelism or Conference Styled Services

Remember the days when a revival service might last several weeks? I don’t. But I do remember revivals that went from Sunday through Friday. Now, most revivals last from Sunday-Wednesday. And even then, we have fewer people on Monday and Tuesday nights than we’d like to admit.

There is something powerful about sitting under the Word of God preached for several nights in a row. I hate to think that Christians are now so busy that we cannot devote four consecutive nights to hearing the Word preached.

Still, realistically, if attractional evangelism is to persist into the future, the attractive part will need to be reinvented. A traveling evangelist (unless it’s Billy Graham) will probably not have the name recognition to draw a crowd from outside the church. But if church members invite others to an event (for example) on a Saturday evening, an exploration of Christianity for seekers, they may be more effective in bringing people in.

5. A focus on the urgency of the decision.

The old-time evangelists excelled at putting one’s eternal future before his or her eyes. You will either be part of God’s new world or you will perish forever. The stark knowledge that “this decision is life or death” made the evangelistic plea urgent and timely.

In contemporary society, we practically ignore death. We simply don’t want to deal with it. Death is sanitized and papered over. Whereas the coming of death was a common dread for people a hundred years ago (a high percentage of young women died in childbirth, many men died in farming accidents, and a flu epidemic could wipe out millions), that dread of death is conspicuously absent today. Because we don’t like to think about death, evangelistic calls that focus on eternity can come across as manipulation, even if they are true!

The future evangelist will have to think creatively about how to stress the urgency and importance of trusting in Christ, all the while recognizing that death is generally far from people’s minds. I’m not sure how an evangelist can accomplish this task effectively, but it’s important that we maintain an emphasis on the urgency of a decision.

What am I missing? Is there a future for vocational evangelism? If so, what kind of evangelism do you see in the future?

“What does the future look like for traveling evangelists?”

In recent days, I have heard this question asked in many forms:

• Last October at the “Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism” conference, the panel was asked about the role of the evangelist.
• Baptist Press has reported that vocational evangelists lament the shrinking number of churches utilizing their services.
• In talks about the Great Commission Resurgence in Southern Baptist life, prominent leaders are asked about the role of the evangelist in the near future.

Why so much talk about the traveling evangelist? I think there are two main reasons:

The first reason is historical. Revivalism has played a large role in Southern Baptist life.

A few decades ago, it was not uncommon to see churches packed on weeknights whenever a traveling evangelist came into town. People came out in droves for stirring messages that ended with pleas for conversion. People were likely to invite unsaved friends and relatives to such events. Because Billy Graham’s crusade-style evangelism became a staple of Southern Baptist piety, it is only natural that in discussions about the future of the SBC, people would ask questions about vocational evangelism.

The second reason is driven by a present realization. Fewer churches are scheduling revival meetings and special speakers.

In the busyness of our present age, church leaders find it difficult to bring back significant numbers of their congregation for a consecutive weeknight services. At the same time, fewer young men sense the calling to vocational evangelism. I know plenty of guys my age who sense the call to ministry, whether as pastor or missionary. I don’t know anyone who says they are called to be a vocational evangelist.

Vocational evangelism has been a big part of Southern Baptist history. Why then is it on the decline? Here are five suggestions:

1. The Church Growth Movement.

I don’t think we can underestimate the influence of the Church Growth movement on Southern Baptists. Though most churches are not officially affiliated with Willow Creek or other seeker churches, the ethos of seeker-sensitive worship and preaching is deeply embedded in Southern Baptist life.

Many aspects of the Church Growth movement are to be commended. We should indeed be sensitive to the visitors and lost people in our pews. That said, there can sometimes be a tendency to downplay a confrontational approach in preaching. Since vocational evangelists intentionally seek to confront the listener with matters of eternity, usually in a powerful and emotional way, they are not as popular in churches that have embraced a softer approach to dealing with the lost.

2. Embarrassing Evangelistic Tactics

A couple years ago, a deacon told me he wanted to invite a lost co-worker and his wife to my Sunday School class. Our conversation took place one week before we were scheduled to have a revival service. But instead of seeing the revival as an opportunity for the lost couple to hear the gospel, he saw the revival as a hindrance, and wanted the person to come and hear the gospel presented by one of the staff on a normal Sunday. “You just never know what an evangelist is going to say or do,” he said.

I’m afraid that some embarrassing evangelistic tactics have spoiled people’s appetite for revival meetings on the large scale. I remember one revival speaker who gave our music minister a script to be read before the love offering, something to the effect of: “For every hundred dollars given to this ministry, a soul is saved.” Echoes of Johann Tetzel! When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.

The majority of evangelists do not resort to tasteless tactics in their preaching or altar calls. But there are enough horror stories out there to have permanently tainted the reputation of the traveling evangelist. Many evangelists will admit that the first Sunday service serves as an opportunity to introduce themselves to the church, redeem their role, and hopefully win over the congregation to attendance later on in the week.

3. Loss of Christendom.

In the past, many (if not most) people in the South had a cursory knowledge of the Christian faith. Those who did not go to church or adopt the religious beliefs of society knew which church they were not going to and which religion they were rejecting: Christianity.

Revival meetings were effective because the Holy Spirit used God-gifted men to stir the hearts of those who had turned away from the gospel. They urged the claims of Christ on the hearer and pleaded with people to “get right with God.”

Today, the South is rapidly changing. We can no longer assume that people instinctively sense the need to be in church or have a relationship with God.

Some evangelistic sermons from a previous era – when preached today – assume too much. They assume a cohesive, cultural understanding of Christianity, in which “making a decision for Christ” makes sense. But these truths can no longer be taken for granted. Christendom is disappearing, but many evangelists continue to preach as if the cultural cohesion from two generations ago is still in place.

4. The Rise of Calvinism

It is no secret that some Calvinists do not like what the invitation/altar call system. Of course, Calvinists are not alone in this assessment. My Romanian brothers and sisters actually leaned towards full-blown Arminianism, and yet they decried the altar call system and condemned the tactics of American evangelism for appealing to the emotions instead of the mind and will.

Calvinism and Revivalism have had a checkered history. In their best days, they pull at one another and keep each other from opposite errors. Revivalists can keep Calvinists from sliding into Hyper-Calvinism, which denies the need to invite people to Christ at all. Calvinists keep Revivalists from sliding into Pelagianism, which sees sinners as bound to change their own hearts before God.

Still, as the Reformed Resurgence among the younger generation continues to move forward, it is unsurprising that methods of evangelism that are more common to a “missionally Reformed” approach would be used instead of the itinerant evangelist.

5. Evangelistic Apathy.

Evangelism takes place in many forms. Revival meetings are just one method among many. I am not arguing that it is the exclusive or even the best method to bring lost people to Jesus.

But I cannot help but conclude that at least one reason why vocational evangelism is on the decline is that personal evangelism is also on the decline. I worry that the people in our pews no longer truly believe that eternity hangs in the balance when it comes to trusting in Christ for salvation.

• We see people as “unchurched” rather than unsaved.
• We see people as nominal Christians who need to be reactivated, when many times, the nominals are lost and need to be regenerated.
• Our people are practical inclusivists, regardless of what they may hear from the pulpit.
• Our burden for lost people seems to be waning.

So what does all this mean for the future of evangelistic meetings? Tomorrow, I will offer a few ideas regarding how vocational evangelism might look in the 21st century.

Last month, I wrote a post about Brit Hume, defending his freedom to proselytize. An old friend of mine, Gary, sharply disagreed and left a long comment. I continued the conversation, since I believe Gary’s point of view to be prevalent in our society today. Gary and I are continuing our friendly conversation about proselytism and truth below:

Gary: Trevin, you say that the Christian Story is true. But what is the “Christian Story”? Christians disagree about what it means to be Christian, which proves my point. What is true within Christianity is true everywhere else. Each individual or group clings to that which they feel to be true, myself included.

So while I uphold my vision of reality as true for me, I can see that reality is infinitely amenable and may accommodate each perspective on this planet, even those I find heinously off. Perhaps, rather than rejecting other perspectives on the single basis that they are not mine, I could learn from other perspectives, especially from the accumulated wisdom of Earth’s many wisdom traditions.

Trevin: Gary, I am not rejecting other perspectives “on the single basis that they are not mine.” That would indeed be arrogant and patronizing. As a Christian, I seek to discover what is true and to cast aside that which is not true.

You speak of “accumulated wisdom of Earth’s many wisdom traditions.” Doesn’t this idea contradict your previous analogy of individual pilgrims taking their own paths up the same mountain? After all, for wisdom to “accumulate,” it must be spoken or written by someone who sees himself/herself as farther along on the journey and wants to share the lessons they’ve learned. Whether in a soft or hard form, wisdom in this manner is taught, which presupposes that some people have greater knowledge of truth than others.

You say that “reality is infinitely amenable and may accommodate each perspective on this planet.” If you mean to say that our perception of reality is fluid and changing and that humility requires us to recognize our limitations, then I agree. But to say that reality itself is infinitely amenable is saying something else altogether.

It is true that within the Christian family, different groups interpret the Bible differently. But the whole reason this diversity exists is because each group believes there is such a thing as a “right” and a “wrong” interpretation. Of course, we hope that such discussions take place with humility and love, and with a clear understanding of the fallenness of our minds.

But you imply that one cannot have a firm opinion about the rightness or wrongness of someone else’s belief without doing injustice to them. I simply cannot grant that assumption.

Gary: I see why it makes sense to you that proselytism is a positive service to others. You are only directing their eyes to an objective reality to which they are blind. My case is not to reduce faith to the level of transience, to that which satisfies the taste bud or the eye. Faith as I see it is a very, very deep and personal choice that affects every area of our lives, from the mundane to the profound. It is no small decision!

Trevin: I am glad that you recognize the importance of faith. But I worry that in your description of faith as “deep and personal” that you are making it merely personal, and thus sealed off from questions or challenge. This over-personalization and privatization of faith is a distinctly Western phenomenon that has only appeared widespread in our society in more recent years.

Answer me this: Is it possible to believe something false?

Let’s say I adopt a religious faith that teaches the non-existence of oceans on the earth. (No such religion exists, but let’s pretend for now.) Should others challenge that faith? If they did, on what basis would they challenge it? The challengers would say, “Oceans exist whether or not you believe deeply and personally that they don’t. Furthermore, it may be dangerous to continue believing there is no ocean, since you are not living according to reality.”

Christians believe that the news about Christ’s death and resurrection is public truth. Yes, we believe it personally. But Christians also claim that the resurrection is true whether someone believes it or not. In your letter, you seem to be personalizing religious truth to the extent that it is totally relativized.

I believe you are doing a disservice to religion, placing it in a category that makes it largely irrelevant to questions about reality. We don’t treat other areas of life this way. We don’t personalize science this way. Nor do we personalize medicine or physics. Why do you assume that faith necessarily has to do with what we do not know rather than what we can know?

Gary: Regarding the Christian story, we might agree on the actual events that occurred and yet differ in their interpretation.

For example, I believe

• that there did indeed exist an entity known as Jesus the Christ.
• that he did preach about the Kingdom of God, about turning your cheek, loving your enemy, and giving to those in need.
• that he did indeed die on a Roman cross after having willingly rode into Jerusalem, knowing what lie ahead for him.
• that he was resurrected.
• that in the course of his incarnation he became a divine being, a perfect union between the human and the mystery.
• that Jesus represented the fulfillment of human potential.
• that we are all *potentially* Christed beings, heirs to that kingdom which he described.

The life of Jesus as told in the canonical Bible, his death and his resurrection, is replete with meaning that may be contemplated and mined for rich spiritual understanding. And I know that my understanding differs from your own. The point I am trying to drive home is that what we engage in is *interpretation*, not objective knowing.

Trevin: I am glad to hear that you affirm many of the historical circumstances surrounding the first-century life of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, we have very different interpretations of those events.

Here’s my question: Can one interpretation be closer to the truth than another? Is there no way to judge between these two interpretations? Are there no useful criteria to adjudicate and decide which interpretation best fits the evidence?

Here are some historical questions that I believe beg to be asked:

• How did the earliest Christians interpret the significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection? Is it closer to your interpretation or to mine?
• What affirmations were made by those who were most significantly, personally invested in believing in Jesus? What did they say about him? What did the martyrs believe about him?
• Did the earliest Christians, those who walked and talked with Jesus and were filled with his love, engage in proselytism? If so, why?

You have the freedom to believe whichever interpretation of Jesus’ life that suits you best. I understand that your beliefs are “deeply personal,” as are mine.

But if we are indeed talking about an actual person who walked along the seashore, preached with a Galilean accent about the kingdom of God, and was later nailed to a Roman cross, then should we not consider how Jesus was understood within his own time and historical context?

I don’t find a first-century interpretation of Jesus’ life that accords with yours. That’s not to say that you can’t be right, merely that historically speaking, it seems a bit of a stretch.

It is also revealing that the interpretation I subscribe to is one that millions of people across two millennia have found to be the most compelling interpretation of the evidence. Again, that’s not to say that I am right and you are wrong (after all, communities can be wrong too!). But surely the testimony of a large community of faith who lives according to one interpretation of Jesus’ life should count for something.

Here’s how I see it. You pick and choose beliefs from whichever religion best accords with your overarching, objective principle: all religions are attempts at grasping the same truth. You have no need to submit to any outside authority, such as the Bible or the teachings of a church. You choose to be your own authority, determining your own truth for yourself.

In our hyper-individualized, autonomous, anti-authoritarian American culture, your beliefs fit right in with the mainstream. But it must be lonely to have no ties to a line of people stretching thousands of years, to have no legitimate spiritual ancestors that you can draw wisdom from, men and women who believed the same thing you do. And thinking about the future, who’s to say that our world won’t change and your beliefs will soon fall out of favor? What will your grandkids and great-grandkids believe?

Cut off from both the past and the future, you are free to believe whatever you like. No one can (or should) stop you.

But my mind is too restless to trust so much in my own ability to pick and choose whatever seems palatable from other religions. I am too suspicious of the idea that all religions are legitimate paths up the same mountain, since most of the people outside the West think that idea absurd. I am too unsettled when I consider the historical questions surrounding the earliest Christians and how they interpreted Jesus. I am too conscious of my own defects to argue against the “accumulated wisdom” of centuries of Christian reflection and adopt a viewpoint that doesn’t accord with anyone else.

I know my limitations and thus am compelled to trust in the testimony of those who walked and talked with Jesus, and those who have followed Christ for centuries. Is that the arrogance of a proselytizer? I don’t think so. I hope it’s the humility of a pilgrim.

I generally do not interact in great detail with readers who leave comments on my blog. It’s not that I wouldn’t like to, but I find it difficult to blog consistently and stay active in every comment thread.

Nevertheless, a friend I used to work with in Louisville left me a long comment about my recent post in defense of proselytism. Since his comment represents the thought of many in our society today, I thought I would respond to his comment with a new post. You can read the original post and his comment (unedited) here.

Gary: Please know that I appreciate you and mean you no disrespect at any point through this missive.

Trevin: I echo the same sentiments, and I am not offended in the least by the points you raise. Even though I’m going to press you on some of your comments, I hope you’ll take them in the spirit of friendship that I offer them.

Gary: Each of us must find that way of viewing the self, world, and the divine that works best for us, that which we feel to be superior, so while an adherent of any philosophy, spiritual system of thought, or religion will likely find their path to be “the best”, what makes proselytizing a rather ugly practice, in my honest opinion, is the belief that the proselytizer’s path is *objectively* superior, not *subjectively* superior.

Trevin: You are rightly focusing on the main issue – that someone who proselytizes thinks their belief is objectively true for all, not merely true for them. That is the rub. For me to remain a faithful Christian, I cannot speak of Christianity as merely “the best way to live.” We believe that the Christian Story is objectively true.

I don’t think it’s arrogant to make a claim that is true for all people. It seems more arrogant to me for someone to make the case that their faith is superior, without making any attempt to ground that conclusion in objective reality. If faiths are merely a matter of subjective preference (like having a favorite color, or a favorite kind of ice cream), then yes, proselytism is ugly and intolerant. But if faith deals with truths that encompass all of reality, then proselytism is only natural.

Gary: He who is not called to proselytizing may follow his path to his utmost while recognizing the uniqueness of each creation and the free will upon which each creation is founded…. In this point of view, the non-proselytizer can embrace the great diversity of paths which begin from different starting points but which all, in their own time, converge upon the mountaintop at the same point.

Trevin: I believe you are contradicting yourself, and if the full text of your comments is any indication, you recognize that this is a contradiction. You believe that we should all see our faiths as “subjectively,” not “objectively” superior to another, which means that we should not proselytize, but recognize that everyone has their own subjective viewpoint.

The problem is… if you are going to hold fast to this idea, you too must admit that your mountaintop analogy is also subjective. But that’s not what I see going on here. No… you are using an objective argument (“all faiths lead to the same point from different starting points”) in order to make your case that all faiths are subjective.

Can you see the arrogance of this line of argumentation? Everyone else is blind and can’t see the whole mountain. I alone have the vision that captures it all. I alone can see that all religions are actually getting at the same thing.

Your method of argumentation actually cancels out your main point, namely – that we should see our beliefs as subjective rather than objective, since you are putting forth an argument that assumes an objective reality that encompasses all of the subjective religious beliefs. Though you claim to be just another pilgrim on a different path, your illustration betrays the fact that you actually are standing from a vantage point that takes in the whole picture. (You recognize this at the end of this section of your comment, when you admit that your belief here is also subjective.)

Gary: The proselytizer ultimately hopes to accomplish the subversion of another’s free will to choose the path that is for them – the imposition of one’s will upon the other.

Trevin: I don’t see it that way at all. The proselytizer is merely seeking to persuade someone to another point of view, which is what you are doing too in this comment thread. Nothing wrong with that!

I don’t believe you are trying to subvert my free will by trying to convince me that proselytism is “ugly”. You are making a case and seeking to persuade me. Likewise, I’m making a case for Christianity and seeking to persuade you. We are appealing to each others’ mind, emotions, and experience. I’m not subverting your free will or imposing my will on you. Neither are you doing the same to me.

Gary: I do not believe that all religions are “equal”. I believe that that while there is great commonality across the religions, especially to the eye of the mystic, there is significant difference. They are not “equal” at all. However I would contend that each path is *valid* to those who know how to properly use it.

Trevin: I am glad that you do recognize differences between systems of thought. My question is this: What do you do when the religions contradict one another?

For example, Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross, but someone who looked like Jesus got crucified. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross. These statements are contradictory. One must be true and the other false.

Likewise, Hindus believe in many gods. Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe there is only one God. Atheists don’t believe in any god at all. Who is right?

My concern is that, in your effort to see commonality between the religions, you paper over these distinctions and consider all these viewpoints valid for the one who holds them. But it is wrong to consider falsehood (in any form) as valid.

If you are driving a car on a path headed toward a cliff, it would be silly for me to say, “As long as you think your path is leading up the mountain, have a good ride!” Instead, you would expect me to warn you that the path is wrong. If you told me that your religion teaches the non-existence of gravity, I would be a fool to say, “As long as that’s true for you, have fun jumping off my house.” No… I would say, “Gravity is an objective reality whether you believe it personally for yourself or not. Watch out that you don’t kill yourself.”

The proselytizer believes in something objectively true, and that is why he or she warns other people who may be adopting false beliefs.

Gary: The narrow-minded need to foist Jesus upon another, rejecting that which the individual has learned and gained upon their sacred journey and supplanting it with a *personal*, subjective vision of truth. The act which you describe says loudly, “I personally know what is best for you… over and above what **you** think is best for you.”

Trevin: The biggest source of our disagreement is in how you define religious truth. You would proselytize me into believing that Christianity is just one of many paths to the same (nebulous, undefined) god. You would have me not proselytize, even if Jesus commands me to make disciples. You would have me abandon the radical, unique truth claims at the heart of the Christian faith.

I cannot adopt your idea of religious truth as being subjective and personal without cutting out the very heart of my faith. You want me to be true to Christianity as a religion true for me. But that is not how Christianity works.

Christians believe that God entered the world as Jesus Christ, died as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and then rose again bodily to new life on the third day after his death. The death and resurrection at the heart of Christianity are historical events that change things objectively. We believe these events are objectively true regardless of how many people believe in them. For me to see Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as a “personal, subjective” belief is to abandon legitimate Christianity and replace it with something else.

In the end, I go back to my initial defense of proselytism. Both of us are involved in proselytism, Gary. I just wish that you would recognize your version of it. You make your case as if your belief is objectively true and encompasses various religious beliefs (and should be adopted by proselytizers like me!).

There’s nothing wrong with that… We can have a further discussion about religion if we can at least agree on the basic tenet that there are objective truths in the world that are true for everyone, and if you will admit that you are putting forth an objective viewpoint in an effort to persuade me as well.

The furor surrounding Brit Hume’s encouragement to Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity shows us that the prevailing sentiments of our culture is adamantly opposed to the idea of evangelism.

As Christians, we must recognize that before we can make a robust defense for the Christian faith, we may have to clear the air by making a case for evangelism in general. After having listened to some of the remarks made about Brit Hume, I have compiled a list of common objections to “proselytism” and why each of them are unpersuasive.

Objection #1: “Brit Hume’s remarks indicate that he thinks Christianity is superior to Buddhism.”

Response: Of course, he thinks Christianity is superior. Otherwise why would he remain an adherent to the Christian faith?

In the same way, I would expect a Buddhist man to think that his religion to be superior to Christianity. If the Buddhist doesn’t consider Buddhism to be superior, then why not convert to whatever religion he thinks is superior?

It is not arrogant to believe that your religion is superior to others. We should assume that religious people believe their faith to be superior.

Furthermore, if you believe no religion is superior to another, you are putting forth a viewpoint that you believe to be superior than the “religious superiority argument” you condemn. Thus, you fail to live up to your own demand.

Objection #2: “Christianity looks bad when Christians talk this way. Christians should not publicly and actively proselytize people of other faiths.”

Response: If Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations and to preach the gospel, then Jesus is calling us to evangelism / proselytism. The issue is not about the way Christianity looks before the world. The question is whether or not someone can be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and not evangelize.

To the person who says, “It’s arrogant to proselytize”, I say, “I consider it more arrogant that you think I should follow you in this area rather than Jesus Christ, who I claim as Savior and Lord.” It is the height of arrogance (and prejudice) to tell a Christian, “You should not follow Jesus Christ in this area.”

Objection #3: “Brit Hume implied that Buddhism is deficient in some way.”

Response: The assumption behind this objection is that all religions are equally valid. But that assumption is not so easily proven.

Do we really want to argue that no religion has any deficiency? That every religion is equally good (albeit in its own way)? Such a view is very disrespectful to the adherents of other religions. Buddhists know that they are not Christians. Christians know that they are not Muslims. By assuming that every religion is equally valid and good, you are downplaying the significant differences between these faiths.

Don’t patronize people and act like their differing views don’t matter. They do. They know they do. We know they do. Let’s agree on the fact that there are substantial disagreements and leave aside this nonsense that we all believe the same thing.

Objection #4: It is arrogant for Brit Hume to assume he believes in the only true religion and to try to lead people to the Christian faith.

Response: Is it? Most people in the world today do not believe that all religions are equally valid. In fact, most people believe that their religion is the correct one.

So by saying that it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right… well, that’s an arrogant statement too. You’re telling me that the majority of the world is wrong and you are right. Sounds oppressive. It’s also ethnocentric and prejudiced to believe that we in the enlightened West have figured out that all religions are the same and the poor, mindless Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists across the world are still in the dark, thinking they have the only light.

Objection #5: Brit Hume’s attempt to evangelize Tiger Woods shows how exclusive and narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians are.

Response: Actually, no. True evangelism takes place because the call of salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities.

The truly narrow-minded, prejudiced Christian looks at a Buddhist like Tiger Woods and stays quiet about Jesus. Their silence says this: Jesus isn’t for you.

On the other hand, the evangelistic Christian recognizes the radically inclusive call to salvation. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls all people everywhere to repentance. Forgiveness in Jesus Christ is available for all… even Buddhists like Tiger Woods.

I have been thinking lately about the saying, “If you’re going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk.”

The point of that phrase is to criticize those who “talk” about the gospel and yet fail to walk in the way of the gospel. Hypocrisy, of course, is a perennial problem.

But I am afraid some might hear in that phrase a downplaying of the importance of “talk.” In my experience, it appears that those who evangelize are generally seeking to walk worthy of the gospel. And the people seeking to walk the walk usually talk the talk as well.

Whenever I think of the relationship between “walk” and “talk,” I am reminded of the example of John the Baptist. Here was a prophet who foretold the coming of the Messiah in a way that captivated the people of Israel. His lifestyle (seriousness) matched his message (the kingdom is coming!).

First, John saw his own significance in light of Jesus’ identity. He knew who he was. He did not share personal thoughts about his life. He pointed people to Jesus. His entire life was oriented around Jesus, and that lifestyle made his proclamation of Jesus all the more powerful. The lesson for us is that our lives should be distinctively “Jesus-shaped” if we expect people to hear our words about Jesus.

Secondly, John the Baptist was humble. When he speaks about his unworthiness in stooping to untie the sandals of Jesus, he was expressing his lowly status. We need to follow John’s example and realize that we cannot talk about Jesus in a prideful way and expect to be heard. The most powerful evangelists are the most humble evangelists.

Third, John’s lifestyle backed up and enhanced his message. It didn’t detract from it. We need to think about our lives. When people see how we live, they should think, This person seriously believes in Jesus! Does our lifestyle prepare the way for us to share the gospel? Or is it an obstacle we have to get past?

I fear that we too often err in all three areas. We think of Jesus only in terms of what Jesus can do for us. We think of ourselves as being more spiritual than we really are. And we don’t witness to others because our life often doesn’t back up our talk.

Instead, our actions should prepare the way for our words. Our lives should give us credibility when we speak about the transforming power of the gospel. People ought to hear the gospel from our lips and see the gospel at work in our lives.

Walking the walk prepares the way for us to talk the talk. And unless we talk the talk, we really aren’t walking the walk.