Tim Challies v Phil Johnson: When Real Christians Contend With Each Other

There are quite a few ugly rows going on right now. There are certainly fights worth fighting and heretics that must be exposed. When Brian McLaren denies penal subsitutionary atonement, Tony Jones says homosexuality is a valid Christian lifestyle, and Rob Bell embraces universalism then real Christians must pronounce "Anathema" over them and strip them of their sheep outfits. But when the lines of demarkation drop below the level of heresy and false teaching to matters of preference and opinion our conversation should be seasoned with graciousness and love. The Lord Jesus said that "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

Recently two Christian men whom I love and respect, Tim Challies and Phil Johnson (their blogs "Challies dot com" and "Pyromaniacs" are two of my favorites), have taken up opposing positions in debating the issue of when to criticize and when not to. When godly men enter public debate I have found it to be very educational both in the tone of engagement, and in evaluating an opposing view. These men love each other and value their respective contributions to the body of Christ. They are big boys and man enough to weather each others criticism. And that is a major lesson for people who have been exposed to one too many ugly personality clashes in their local church. When we are secure in our Christian love we are liberated to speak our minds in the hope and knowledge that our true friends will sharpen and refine us with their observations and objections.

What started the debate was Tim's post called Evil as Entertainment where he stated among other things that:

I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news . . . Day after day they offer examples of all that is wrong in the church. They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry . . . these blogs are really little more than entertainment. And once I had these blogs filed in that way in my mind, their popularity and their draw began to make much more sense to me. They are really just a spiritualized form of YouTube or any other site that entertains by sharing what is gross and base and negative and that does so for the sake of entertainment. There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America. Such sites offer evil as entertainment.

Phil Johnson then responded with Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too where he agreed on some points and disagreed on others. Johnson pointed out that:

identifying what I see as the key difference between healthy discernment and the obsessive/compulsive peevishness some of our fellow critics seem to think is the mark of real orthodoxy . . . It needs to be said that "calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option—and it can be quite edifying if done well. That said, anyone can sample my preaching ministry; I invite you all to do so. What you'll discover is that when I am speaking to the flock (as opposed to lecturing in a men's meeting or exhorting pastors in a Shepherds' Conference seminar, or writing on my blog) I employ humor and criticism very sparingly. That's because when I preach, my immediate concern is to explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God. This blog (Pyromaniacs) serves a totally different purpose. It always has. I make no apology for that, especially here in the gutless, effeminate, faint-hearted, hopelessly "diverse," hazy-and-hesitant subculture contemporary evangelicalism prides itself on being.

It has frankly never troubled me one bit that people who hate our theological stance dismiss us as "watchbloggers" (or worse). If someone can't see how PyroManiacs differs in tone and style from the trash-talking parodies maintained by certain bloggers whose sympathies lie at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from us, that says more about their brand of discernment than it says about ours.

Look: I agree with the gist of Tim Challies' concern. (At least I think I do. The more Tim has clarified himself, the less certain I am that we agree as much as I assumed at first. Still—)

I do think it's evil and irreverent to regard apostasy as nothing more than something to mock and be entertained by. Those who fall into that attitude inevitably mirror and amplify the very impieties they say they deplore. They tend to become petty, overly-critical, thin-skinned, and surly-sounding gossip-mongers. Ditto with the sophomoric anti-watchblogs that relentlessly parody such full-time critics, raising the stakes on the irreverence game to ever-new heights. These two opposing forces feed one another's worst tendencies, and I have no desire to participate with or encourage either side in their native forums. The comment-threads on both sides always turn into adolescent insult-contests, and it can be downright ugly. It's an embarrassment. It's also an easy trap for anyone still swaddled in unglorified flesh to fall into.

Tim, as any godly individual should, weighed up Phil's words and delivered his verdict:

I guess any writer can attest that every now and then you write something that is really, objectively good; and other times you lay an egg. Having talked it over and having read plenty of feedback, I’m going to have to say that I laid an egg on Monday. While I do not feel that what I said was wrong or unnecessary, I can see that I should have said it better. At the same time, I think it sparked some useful discussion and for that I am grateful . . . Phil Johnson wrote about how he both agrees and disagrees with me. This article really helped me see the lack of clarity in my own article (well, that and my wife telling me that Phil’s article was better than my own) . . . Most of what Phil says is most of what I should have said (or said more clearly) on Monday.

There is so much we can learn from these two godly men!

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 6)

Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. Today is the final installment of this series and fifth observation on how we should evangelize atheists:

OBSERVATION 5
People don't reject the Gospel because it wasn't presented in a clever or attractive manner, people reject the Gospel because they love darkness and hate the light.

Again, John 3 explains to us why people reject the Gospel. It is amazing how much neglected yet important information is contained in the verses following John 3:16. Information so important in fact that a working knowledge could have saved many "seeker sensitive" pastors a lot of time and effort with how they approached evangelism.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Again, I commend Ray and Kirk for avoiding the conventional route of clever argument and instead choosing to reason of sin, righteousness and judgement. It's not rocket science - people love sin and therefore hate the light of God's Holiness. With this in mind and knowing our own sinfulness and the incredible mercy extended to us by God, let us approach the task of evangelism with deep humility but strong urgency to show the sinner (as lovingly as we can) that his deeds are evil and his primary need is not happiness but righteousness. Reasoning from God's law is the only way to show the sinner his exceeding sinfulness and warn of the coming judgement as Paul did in his sermon to the pagan culture of his time

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

In the Old Testament God continually reminded the Israelites that they should remember that they were once strangers in Egypt. We Christians should humble ourselves in the memory that we were once strangers from God and that our redemption had nothing to do with our own merit (because we have none) but by God's grace so that we could never boast in anything but the cross of our risen Saviour. With this in mind may we plead with lost souls appealing to the Holiness of God, the wretchedness of man, the justice of God in punishing sin, that God punished Himself in our place, sealed our eternal hope through His resurrection, and that all men must respond in repentance and faith.

Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 5)

Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. In the following days I will be publishing five observations concerning the debate and how we should evangelize atheists. Here is my fourth observation:

OBSERVATION 4
The atheist already has knowledge of God and his conscience bears witness that he is alienated from Him.

The atheist can deny all he wants and try to argue from an intellectual standpoint. It is both foolish and futile to war on this front because knowledge is not the issue and some atheists are a lot smarter than I am. But try as he may, the atheist cannot explain why his conscience opposes his human nature. But we know why because God's Word tells us that God's law is written on everybodies heart and our knowledge of right and wrong testifies both to God's existence, and man's alienation from this God.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

By explaining God's moral law via the ten commandments prior to explaining the Gospel message Ray and Kirk actually gave the necessary point of reference in order to understand the Gospel and in so doing avoided futile reasoning on the intellectual level. I do not mean to discount the use of the intellect but rather to use it only when an individual is humbled before God. Brian Sapient and Kelly may have mocked and laughed but they have the knowledge of God and suppress it in unrighteousness, this I know for the Bible tells me so.

It seems ironic that in a land with so many "seeker sensitive" mega churches built on a catch cry of "relevance" that they have neglected to fully explain the universal guilt of mankind. I can't think of anything more relevant than the fact that "all have sinned". Sure it might get mentioned from time to time, but rarely is it explained. Sin by definition is transgression of God's law (I John 3:4) and I fail to see how an individual could fathom their sinfulness without an understanding of God's law.

Concludes Tomorrow - Observation 5

Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 4)

Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. In the following days I will be publishing five observations concerning the debate and how we should evangelize atheists. Here is my third observation:

OBSERVATION 3
The atheist already has knowledge of God but suppresses it in unrighteousness.

It is worth asking ourselves the question at this point as to whether it is a worthwhile exercise investing time in dazzling the unbeliever with wizz bang apologetics concerning God's existence when the issue is not one of knowledge but of sin.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

These verses from Romans 1 tell us "that which may be known of God is manifest" in the unbeliever "for God hath shown it unto them". They are holding "the truth in unrighteousness". And what is it that testifies God's existence to sinful men? Verse 20 tells us the answer. The "invisible" things of God are "clearly seen" in God's creation "even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". Put simply, the creation compellingly testifies to the Creator God Himself. My disappointment with Ray and Kirk in using the argument of creation instead of "deeper and more profound apologetics" was one of biblical ignorance on my part (it is interesting to not that some atheists did call in to talk back radio after the debate and concede that they did find the creation argument compelling). It is clear to me that Ray and Kirk showed great wisdom in realising that the atheist already has knowledge of God's existence and time is better spent trying to awaken this knowledge rather than try and win an argument with him. Because the atheist's problem is not a lack of proof concerning God's existence, but rather one of human pride and a love of sin. Understanding this has helped enormously with my witnessing activities because I have stopped wasting time arguing over God's existence and spent time trying to awaken the unbelievers conscience through God's moral law that brings the knowledge of sin which leads to my next observation.

Continued Tomorrow - Observation 4

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 3)

Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. In the following days I will be publishing five observations concerning the debate and how we should evangelize atheists. Here is my second observation:

OBSERVATION 2
A healthy understanding of our own depravity dissipates our desire to deliver a knockout punch and raises our urgency to plead with those who are lost.

Romans 3:9 asks the question "are we better than they?" and goes on to say "no, in no way" for we are "all under sin". The following verses go on to tell us that "there is none righteous" (v10), "none that seek after God" (v11), "none that do good" (v12), that the law of God "stops every mouth" from justifying and leaves the whole "world guilty before God" (v19), and that God's law brings "the knowledge of sin" (v20). A healthy grasp of this passage destroys any remaining traces of self righteousness and, with that, the need to compete with an ungodly adversary. But this passage does serve to remind me of my own guilt, that it is only an understanding of God's moral law that will stop the sinners futile self defense and, in turn, awaken his guilt before God. With this in mind, I see the biblical soundness of Ray and Kirk's approach in explaining God's moral law via the Ten Commandments prior to presenting the Christian Gospel.

Continued over the next three days - The observations that really took me by surprise.

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 2)

Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. In the following days I will be publishing five observations concerning the debate and how we should evangelize atheists. Here is my first observation:

OBSERVATION 1
As a Christian our primary calling is to preach the Gospel because the wrath of God is poised to slay our "opponent" at any moment and condemn them to eternal conscious punishment.
Most professing Christians can quote John 3:16 but are unfamiliar with the rest of the chapter. One who is familiar with John chapter 3 understands that "he that believeth not is condemned already" (John 3:18) and that "the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). The atheist spends every day on the brink of eternal torment and the cruelest approach a Christian could take would be to engage in a debate without ever proclaiming the Gospel. I applaud Ray and Kirk for leaving their egos at the door and focussing first and foremost on giving a clear proclamation of the Christian message which is the (already condemned) atheist's only hope of escaping God's wrath.

Continued Tomorrow - Observation 2

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

The Wolves in Wolves Clothing (Part 1)

Last year, after viewing the debate on ABC between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and the atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" I found myself initially walking away with mixed emotions. The chest beating male in myself saw it as a contest of Tyson v Holyfield proportions and was cheering for my guys (Ray and Kirk) to kick some serious atheistic butt. Having been heavily influenced by Ray and Kirk's ministry I was well aware that both Ray and Kirk are fine Christian apologists who have deep familiarity with the Scriptures and are very capable at going "into the ring" with the angriest of atheists. As I watched them argue primarily from the basis of creation and human conscience pointing to a creator I found myself screaming on the inside begging them to pull out the heavy argumentative artillery and teach these atheists a lesson. Many Christian commentators felt the same and launched some stinging attacks on both Ray and Kirk and suggested that they did a poor job of defending the case for a Creator.

My thoughts were that I loved Ray and Kirk and their ministry but I was disappointed that they didn't "go for the jugular" with their opponents. They failed in their attempt to convince the American public of God's existence......... or did they. It was at this time that I was slowly working my way through the book of Romans and the Gospel of John. By the time I'd hit chapter 3 in both of these books I was convinced that my initial impression of the debate was wrong and that Ray and Kirk actually did the right thing in appealing to the idea that creation proves there is a Creator, and that the conscience reveals God's moral law written on the human heart. No one has asked me to write this, but my hope is that it would serve as a reminder as to what Scripture tells us about sinful man and what our priorities should be as the body of Christ, sinners saved by grace, embarking on the great commission.

So what happened in my travels through the early chapters of John and Romans? Over the next five days I will be discussing Five Observations about witnessing to atheists drawn from these chapters of Scripture as well as the debate that occurred between Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and those angry atheists. I hope that they will serve to galvanise and transform our evangelistic endeavors in the future.

Starting tomorrow: Observation 1

Go On To Part 2

Bananaman vs Alienman

Ray Comfort has just lifted his offer to $20000 dollars for 30 minutes of Richard Dawkins' time to debate the existence of God. Dawkins doesn't believe in God or "the flying spaghetti monster" but he does seem to believe in "Bananaman" - so much so that he's afraid to meet him.



Ray Comfort's recent book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think" has caused quite a stir among the faith community of atheists (it takes a lot of faith to believe we came from nothing) and rocketed to #1 in Amazon's atheist category. This, of course, prompted a smear campaign of atheists bombarding Amazon's website with one star ratings for a book they've never read. Ray Comfort has done a lot of interviews and debates with respect to his book and from those I have heard so far he is doing a sterling job. I must admit, though, that you have to feel sorry for atheists in a debate - after all it's hard to argue that everything came from nothing, that order can come out of chaos, and that my great great grandmother had a hairy back. It certainly takes a lot of faith to be an atheist!

Ray Comfort was also the subject of a recent story on New Zealand's version of the current affairs program "60 Minutes". It is a really positive media piece on an evangelist. But the best part is seeing Ray riding his kid's bike to work!

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 2)

We've already read and heard the shocking views that Tony Jones (national coordinator for the Emergent Village) has concerning the authority of Scripture and his acceptance of people who practice homosexuality and claim to be Christian.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Tony is one of the few emergents willing to be clear and open about his agenda - which is why I am amazed that he still gains acceptance as a legitimate Christian teacher. He was one of the most vocal supporters of staunchly pro-abortion President elect Barack Obama. He recently appeared on "Way of the Master Radio" to debate Christian pro life apologist Scott Klusendorf one day prior to the US presidential election. Click Here to hear the debate which begins 21 minutes into the program.

A theme that emerges throughout the debate is that Tony Jones takes a pragmatic approach (even by his own admission) that is not really well thought out even as far as pragmatism goes. Todd Friel who hosts the program later informed me that the audio was lost for the closing part of the debate which was apparently very zesty and revealing. Nonetheless, the audio that remains is very interesting fly on the wall stuff in trying to understand the trainwreck that is "emergent theology".

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Stop apologizing - It's not Always Wrong to be a "Single-issue" Advocate

By Joe Belz from World Magazine

It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues."

It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?

And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices.

Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics.

And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray.

It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow.

But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?

That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening.

But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.

It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.

Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.

And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.

So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14153

Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend

I recently copped some criticism from one of my very closest friends over my post concerning Tony Campolo. He felt that a stern response was warranted but was fearful (probably due to prior experiences of bitter response) about doing so because of the friction he didn't want to generate. We really need to question our friendships if they can't withstand loving correction. I assured my friend that I always want him to feel at liberty to rebuke me when necessary and within the bounds of Scripture.

Brothers and Sisters, I fear that this is symptomatic of the therapeutic age we live in. We live in a day where an individual's self esteem has become sacred and scape goats abound for our own sinful actions. Shepherds fear confrontation because even the smallest rebuke seems to generate long term ill feeling and it is not uncommon for church members to feel hostility from their pastor in response to being biblically critiqued. People may say that they have a high view of Scripture but only so long as they can maintain diplomatic immunity.

Why are we so surprised that we need rebuke in the light of our inherent sinful nature. Spurgeon said that if someone rebukes you for something you haven't done, receive it anyway because the day will come when the shoe will fit.

Proverbs 27:6 says this "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." I contend that one of the strongest measures of a person's godliness is the way they take rebuke. One who longs to be conformed to Christ embraces the rebuke of a genuine brother because he fears offending God more than being offended personally. And beware those commendations from the enemy. I've seen more than one Christian leader taken down by his inner circle of yes men. I've also heard plenty of sermons against negativity (chapter and verse please). If by negativity they mean people who dare to disagree with them then it is a suicidal philosophy for they become isolated from the precious wounds that help us conform to Christ.

In closing I want to throw one other thought out there. Jesus laid down His life and went as a sheep to the slaughter - how are you doing in the area of dying to self. Jesus went ballistic when His Father's house became a den of thieves - are you more offended when people insult you or when they blaspheme God. I contend this is a good test of one's meekness.

I will not comment on the Tony Campolo post here - I'll do that later. I don't want to distract from the point I'm trying to make here because Pastors have a hard enough job to do without having to tread on the egotistical egg shells of an insecure congregation. Please - embrace the wounds that a true Christian brother or sister delivers so that we can become more like Christ.

The Bottom Line With Atheists

Last year, after viewing the debate on ABC between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and the atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" I found myself initially walking away with mixed emotions. The chest beating male in myself saw it as a contest of Tyson v Holyfield proportions and was cheering for my guys (Ray and Kirk) to kick some serious atheistic butt. Having been heavily influenced by Ray and Kirk's ministry I was well aware that both Ray and Kirk are fine Christian apologists who have deep familiarity with the Scriptures and are very capable at going "into the ring" with the angriest of atheists. As I watched them argue primarily from the basis of creation and human conscience pointing to a creator I found myself screaming on the inside begging them to pull out the heavy argumentative artillery and teach these atheists a lesson. Many Christian commentators felt the same and launched some stinging attacks on both Ray and Kirk and suggested that they did a poor job of defending the case for a Creator.

My thoughts were that I loved Ray and Kirk and there ministry but I was disappointed that they didn't "go for the jugular" with their opponents. They failed in their attempt to convince the American public of God's existence......... or did they. It was at this time that I was slowly working my way through the book of Romans and the Gospel of John. By the time I'd hit chapter 3 in both of these books I was convinced that my initial impression of the debate was wrong and that Ray and Kirk actually did the right thing in appealing to the idea that creation proves there is a Creator, and that the conscience reveals God's moral law written on the human heart. No one has asked me to write this, but my hope is that it would serve as a reminder as to what Scripture tells us about sinful man and what our priorities should be as the body of Christ, sinners saved by grace, embarking on the great commission.

So what happened in my travels through the early chapters of John and Romans? I would like to plead with the reader at this point to biblically consider these following observations in the hope that they might galvanise and transform our evangelistic endeavors in the future.

OBSERVATION 1
As a Christian our primary calling is to preach the Gospel because the wrath of God is poised to slay our "opponent" at any moment and condemn them to eternal conscious punishment.
Most professing Christians can quote John 3:16 but are unfamiliar with the rest of the chapter. One who is familiar with John chapter 3 understands that "he that believeth not is condemned already" (John 3:18) and that "the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). The atheist spends every day on the brink of eternal torment and the cruelest approach a Christian could take would be to engage in a debate without ever proclaiming the Gospel. I applaud Ray and Kirk for leaving their egos at the door and focussing first and foremost on giving a clear proclamation of the Christian message which is the (already condemned) atheist's only hope of escaping God's wrath.

OBSERVATION 2
A healthy understanding of our own depravity dissipates our desire to deliver a knockout punch and raises our urgency to plead with those who are lost.
Romans 3:9 asks the question "are we better than they?" and goes on to say "no, in no way" for we are "all under sin". The following verses go on to tell us that "there is none righteous" (v10), "none that seek after God" (v11), "none that do good" (v12), that the law of God "stops every mouth" from justifying and leaves the whole "world guilty before God" (v19), and that God's law brings "the knowledge of sin" (v20). A healthy grasp of this passage destroys any remaining traces of self righteousness and, with that, the need to compete with an ungodly adversary. But this passage does serve to remind me of my own guilt, that it is only an understanding of God's moral law that will stop the sinners futile self defense and, in turn, awaken his guilt before God. With this in mind, I see the biblical soundness of Ray and Kirk's approach in explaining God's moral law via the Ten Commandments prior to presenting the Christian Gospel.

The following observations really took me by surprise.

OBSERVATION 3
The atheist already has knowledge of God but suppresses it in unrighteousness.
It is worth asking ourselves the question at this point as to whether it is a worthwhile exercise investing time in dazzling the unbeliever with wizz bang apologetics concerning God's existence when the issue is not one of knowledge but of sin.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

These verses from Romans 1 tell us "that which may be known of God is manifest" in the unbeliever "for God hath shown it unto them". They are holding "the truth in unrighteousness". And what is it that testifies God's existence to sinful men? Verse 20 tells us the answer. The "invisible" things of God are "clearly seen" in God's creation "even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". Put simply, the creation compellingly testifies to the Creator God Himself. My disappointment with Ray and Kirk in using the argument of creation instead of "deeper and more profound apologetics" was one of biblical ignorance on my part (it is interesting to not that some atheists did call in to talk back radio after the debate and concede that they did find the creation argument compelling). It is clear to me that Ray and Kirk showed great wisdom in realising that the atheist already has knowledge of God's existence and time is better spent trying to awaken this knowledge rather than try and win an argument with him. Because the atheist's problem is not a lack of proof concerning God's existence, but rather one of human pride and a love of sin. Understanding this has helped enormously with my witnessing activities because I have stopped wasting time arguing over God's existence and spent time trying to awaken the unbelievers conscience through God's moral law that brings the knowledge of sin which leads to my next observation.

OBSERVATION 4
The atheist already has knowledge of God and his conscience bears witness that he is alienated from Him.
The atheist can deny all he wants and try to argue from an intellectual standpoint. It is both foolish and futile to war on this front because knowledge is not the issue and some atheists are a lot smarter than I am. But try as he may, the atheist cannot explain why his conscience opposes his human nature. But we know why because God's Word tells us that God's law is written on everybodies heart and our knowledge of right and wrong testifies both to God's existence, and man's alienation from this God.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

By explaining God's moral law via the ten commandments prior to explaining the Gospel message Ray and Kirk actually gave the necessary point of reference in order to understand the Gospel and in so doing avoided futile reasoning on the intellectual level. I do not mean to discount the use of the intellect but rather to use it only when an individual is humbled before God. Brian Sapient and Kelly may have mocked and laughed but they have the knowledge of God and suppress it in unrighteousness, this I know for the Bible tells me so.

It seems ironic that in a land with so many "seeker sensitive" mega churches built on a catch cry of "relevance" that they have neglected to fully explain the universal guilt of mankind. I can't think of anything more relevant than the fact that "all have sinned". Sure it might get mentioned from time to time, but rarely is it explained. Sin by definition is transgression of God's law (I John 3:4) and I fail to see how an individual could fathom their sinfulness without an understanding of God's law.

OBSERVATION 5
People don't reject the Gospel because it wasn't presented in a clever or attractive manner, people reject the Gospel because they love darkness and hate the light.
Again, John 3 explains to us why people reject the Gospel. It is amazing how much neglected yet important information is contained in the verses following John 3:16. Information so important in fact that a working knowledge could have saved many "seeker sensitive" pastors a lot of time and effort with how they approached evangelism.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Again, I commend Ray and Kirk for avoiding the conventional route of clever argument and instead choosing to reason of sin, righteousness and judgement. It's not rocket science - people love sin and therefore hate the light of God's Holiness. With this in mind and knowing our own sinfulness and the incredible mercy extended to us by God, let us approach the task of evangelism with deep humility but strong urgency to show the sinner (as lovingly as we can) that his deeds are evil and his primary need is not happiness but righteousness. Reasoning from God's law is the only way to show the sinner his exceeding sinfulness and warn of the coming judgement as Paul did in his sermon to the pagan culture of his time

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

In the Old Testament God continually reminded the Israelites that they should remember that they were once strangers in Egypt. We Christians should humble ourselves in the memory that we were once strangers from God and that our redemption had nothing to do with our own merit (because we have none) but by God's grace so that we could never boast in anything but the cross of our risen Saviour. With this in mind may we plead with lost souls appealing to the Holiness of God, the wretchedness of man, the justice of God in punishing sin, that God punished Himself in our place, sealed our eternal hope through His resurrection, and that all men must respond in repentance and faith.

Cameron Buettel 12 February 2008