Is Sharing the Good New of Christ ALWAYS a Good Thing?
Is sharing the Good News of Christ always a good thing? In theory it always is… but theory can fall apart when bumping up against reality. I will give a few little examples that I have shared before, but then will put more focus on the last one since I haven’t talked of it before.
1. Brad Vaughn in his book “One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization” gives an entertaining presentation of the gospel by taking a lot of imagery from the Bible that he puts together into one paragraph that sounds contradictory and culturally “tone-deaf.” The end result is a bit nonsensical. Vaughn does not do this to tell us not to share the Gospel. Rather, he is noting the importance of good contextualization. If contextualized poorly, the Good News can sound like the Bad News… or sound irrelevant. Titus 2:10 says we are to adorn the Gospel… or make it look good. In the context of the passage, it is clear that the emphasis is on linking the message to godly living. In general, though adorning the Gospel should also involve maintaining the truth of the message while making it understandable and enticing.
2. A number of years ago a church in Texas invited youth to a school gym they rented out for a sleep-over— sometimes known as a “lock-in.” Unfortunately, they took the term too much to heart and literally locked the doors so that participants could not leave and then “forced” them to listen to the gospel message. This activity was considered dangerous (which it clearly was), and was tantamount to kidnapping (which could be argued to be true as well). Personally, I don’t like situations (such as in jails or schools) where people are forced to listen to the gospel message. This happens a lot in the Philippines. More on that later. But even for those who feel differently about that, I hope you would agree that the method most likely would have a greater likelihood of pushing people to respond negatively to the gospel rather than towards it. If one looks at the qualifications for an overseer (bishop/pastor) in I Timothy, one is that the individual has a good reputation in the community. I really wish churches (especially congregational churches where selecting the pastor is done by the local church) would be more concerned about this than whether the person is divorced, single, or male versus female. The reason I feel this way is two-fold. First, the good reputation qualification is pretty straightforward and explicit, while the other concerns really are not nearly as clearly spelled out in Scripture. Second, having a bad reputation is likely to sabotage the influence the church has in a community. If a church wants to have a positive influence in a community, don’t kidnap their children.
3. Here and there in church, as well as mission, history there are examples of coercive evangelism tactics. Most obvious were forced conversions– choosing the cross or the sword. Another is buying conversion… particularly giving out jobs or food if a person converts. I recall being in Egypt at a time when a Muslim group was giving very extravagant gifts, such as cars, for Coptic Christians converting to Islam. Or so I was told… I never saw primary data on this. That is creepy… but to me it is even creepier if Christians try to do that. I have very little interest in evaluating the actions of Muslims (or adherents to other non-Christian faiths). But I am concerned about Christians who behave badly… and even more so when that bad behavior is associated with the sharing of the Good News of Christ.
4. This is the story that got me interested in writing this post. A friend of ours (a disciple of my wife actually) called us about a concern she had about a Protestant preacher who is going around to public schools in the Philippines and proselytizing (sharing the gospel message and seeking people to accept salvation). She wasn’t bothered by this happening in public schools (the wall between church and state is much more permeable here in the Philippines than in many other countries), it was because of some of the associated messaging.
The gospel presented was pretty old-timey. When I use the term old-timey I am not saying “wrong” or “false” necessarily, although I think in some ways it is wrong. It was very hellfire and brimstone. Salvation is not about following Christ… being a disciple of Christ. Salvation is not about communion with God. Salvation is not even about abundant and/or godly living. In the presentation, salvation is about believing something so that one will not BURN BURN BURN.
This also is not really what our friend was concerned about. The presentation had an extremely simple (too simple in my opinion) view on belief. Belief seemed to be really nothing more than a mental assent to something. Some might call this “easy believism.” In support of this, the speaker made it clear that it does not matter if one’s life became even slightly more godly. The “believer” could be a bad after as they were before and they would still be saved. After all, one is saved by faith, not by works. Now while I would agree we are saved by faith and not by works… God has called us to be followers of Christ… disciples. A definition of belief that does not include repentance or a change of course seems to be sub-biblical. This is getting much closer to our friend’s concern about this speaker… and mine as well.
But where things really went off the rails was when he really tried to drill home the doctrine of eternal security. He really focused on that. He started going into stronger and stronger statements to drive home the idea that “once saved, always saved.” And by the way, I do hold to that doctrine. I am aware that there are some passages in the Bible that certainly can make one pause and wonder if that doctrine is true, but on the whole, that seems to be the Biblical message. So my concern at least here is not so much about eternal security… but we are about to hit the key concern.
In an effort to drive home his view on eternal security he started giving examples. I am choosing not to direct quotes here… but his presentation is on Youtube. He said to the effect, “If you steal something from someone, can you lose your salvation? No. God may punish you in some way on earth, but no punishment follows you in Heaven. Your salvation is secure.” Then he goes into other things as well. I think he spoke of murder. He definitely spoke of suicide. He made it clear that suicide has no affect on one’s eternal state (and apparently earthly state either since God can only punish a person on earth and the suicide is now already dead). He mentions three persons in Scripture who committed suicide and says that all three of them are now saved and in heaven for eternity. The three he mentioned were Samson, Saul, and Ahithophel. (I don’t remember any place in the Bible that speaks of the eternal state of those three, but never mind.) While talking of Samson’s state of eternal grace, he described how Samson “suicide” as essentially the same as a suicide bomber.
Okay, let’s back up and look at this. Do I believe one cannot lose one’s salvation? As I said “Yes” but would not want anything I said to imply that our behavior now has no consequences. There are clearly places in the Bible, especially in the Gospels, where it is strongly implied that our behavior on earth has consequences, both positively and negatively, in the eternal state… even for Christians. BUT… more to the point, he was telling CHILDREN this. Even if what he is saying is technically correct (and I do think that there ARE some technical problems), the message is pretty much designed to give these kids the wrong understanding. There was very little difference in what he said than if he said, “Hey, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins today, you can walk outside of this classroom, rape one of your classmates, stab to death a couple more, and cut your own throat, and immediately you will be welcomed into the eternal state with Jesus saying, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’”
Is it not clear how toxic that is for children? St. Paul talks about the milk of the Word versus the meat of the Word. Children cannot understand nuance that well. The presentation, in an attempt to make it clear that one is not saved or maintained in being saved by works, gives a message that focuses on how bad you “can get away with” once you are saved— a lifelong moral “hall pass.”
That is a concern… but in some sense it gets worse. You see, this particular pastor (actually an American missionary working in the Philippines) got permission from the school to share the “gospel message.” Of course, public schools don’t really care that much about sectarian concerns. They care about values education and morality. In fact, in the Philippines, to go to college, one needs to have a form from high school that attests to the student’s “good moral character.” In the request letter, this pastor said that he would share the gospel and talk to the children to “work hard, strengthen their character, and be a blessing to their community.” I think it is safe to say that this latter part is either simply untrue, or at best presented in the form of a very mixed message. To me, his training goes against part of what he was permitted to do… the part that the school actually cares about.
James Fowler spoke of stages of faith. While I don’t really accept everything he says (I still can’t see how “universalizing faith” should be seen as the pinnacle) he does make some good points. One of these is that there is a process of faith in relationship to moral development. To ask a young person or more generally a young believer to do right because it is right— well that is a bit naive. In a similar thing from pedagogy, Bloom notes the stages of affective learning. There is a process of increasing valuing, to identifying with, to naturalizing right beliefs.
The preacher in an attempt to distance himself from Catholics (the majority sect in the Philippines) and from Lordship Salvation, gives a message that is not only “not completely true,” but one that a young person in the faith would clearly not be ready for. Additionally, by making the concept of belief so weak (little more than mental assent) the preacher may give an unregenerate person a false sense of immunity from eternal punishment.
So I am going to say it. Sometimes it is better to NOT share the gospel message. Sometimes the manner or specifics of the message can do more harm than good.
