55 Sermon Illustrations on Opposition

About 20 years ago [mid-1960's] a newspaper in western Canada, the Edmonton Journal, launched a crusade to rid the city of the blight of Christmas. It didn't take. Ted Byfield wrote about their effort:

"The Edmonton Journal has failed. Despite this odd challenge, the festive occasion remains what it always was in the capital of Alberta -- outrageous to the pure liberal, disgusting to the pure spiritualist, abominable to the pure Marxist, and inexorable to the purely common man."

Humanism fails to fulfill, therefore we make a very poor god. But if man cannot worship himself because he is too close to the subject and knows it for what it is, And yet cannot worship God either because God is too far away and he knows not what God is, then what can man worship? ...

Behind the tinsel of Christmas lies an astonishing answer. God has become man. He has shouldered the human burden, played the human game to its bitterest possible end, and emerged triumphant. In Him, therefore, every human finds his purpose, every life its fulfillment, every soul its God. That is Christmas. It is lethal stuff. No wonder they wanted to abolish it."

Assaulted by the enemy’s accusations, it’s all too easy to slide from discouragement into despair, but there is One who can break the deadly grip of disillusionment.

Will the godly always be persecuted?

John Wesley was riding on his horse when it dawned on him he had not been persecuted for three days. “Maybe I've sinned or been disobedient.” He got off his horse, got on knees.

A redneck on other side of road recognized the evangelist and heaved a rock at him. It bounced off the road, just missing Wesley. He leaped to his feet and shouted, “Thanks be to God! Everything's all right. I still have God's presence with me!”

It all began in a cage containing five apes. In the cage a banana was hung on a string, stairs were placed under the banana. Before long, an ape went over to the stairs and started to climb. As soon as he touched the stairs, someone outside the cage sprayed all the apes with ice water.

In a few minutes, another ape began to make his way up the stairs toward the banana ... again, all the apes were sprayed with ice water.

As the day wore on, several more attempted to reach the banana; each time the result was the same: the other [more experienced] apes physically stopped him.

At this time, one of the original apes was removed and replaced by a new one. The new ape roamed around for a minute; then he spied the banana. Immediately, he made his way to the stairs. To his horror, all the other apes attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he realized if he tried to climb the stairs, he’d be assaulted again.

Soon another of the original apes was removed; like the other, he was replaced by a new ape. This newcomer saw the banana and the stairs right away; he wasted no time going for the prize. But, lo, he was attacked savagely. Interestingly, the previous newcomer took part in the punishment of this upstart, doing it with enthusiasm.

Still a third member of the original group was replaced by a new one. The new ape made a turn toward the stairs but was attacked before getting there. Strangely, two of the four apes that beat him had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they were participating in the beating of each newcomer.

After replacing the fourth and final apes, all of those who had been sprayed with ice water were gone. None of the current occupants of the cage ever again approached the stairs, they only looked longingly at the banana. Why not?

Because that's the way it had always been around there, and that's how their traditions always began.

Comments: Paul told us we should fight the good fight, but he intended that our fight be against the enemies of the cross. Little did he know how many would infiltrate the church, or what effect it would have on the children of God.

God hung a banana over the work of every church. He knew it would not be easy to reach, what with the opposition guaranteed to come; but He desires we persist in spite of hardships and headaches, ice water and beatings.

Many churches earnestly recruit new apes ... but, more often than not, the minute he turns toward the prize that’s before him, he’s beaten back by his fellow apes.

________

Adapted from a story by an unknown author via an e-mail from a friend.

Charles Stanley tells of a time when he was surrounded by the Bulls of Bashan [Psalm 22:12]. He relates how a little old lady in his church kept insisting he visit her. He reasoned he had enough to do fighting off the gnats of necessity, together with wolves in sheep's clothing, without having to listen to a frail old woman who probably only wanted her own pound of flesh.

Eventually he gave in, and arrived at her house as planned. She greeted him at the door and escorted him to her living room. Once there she pointed to a picture of Daniel in the Lion's Den, which hung prominently on a wall. She said, "Young man (it was early in his ministry), what do you see"? Stanley recounts that he was caught off guard and so stuttered a recitation of what the picture showed: "Well, there's Daniel. And, well, there's the lions."

"No! No!" she insisted. "Look closely, what do you see"? Stanley looked closely but did not know what she was after and following the beating he'd received from his flock recently he was somewhat suspicious. Embarrassed, he said, "I'm sorry. My mind is just not focusing today. What is it you want me to see?"

This sweet little old lady said, "Brother Stanley, look closely at Daniel. What is he looking at?" Stanley tells how it hit him like a ton of bricks just before comprehension took another ton of bricks off his shoulders. Daniel, you see, was not looking at the lions but up through and opening toward the heavens. [Paraphrased from In Touch Ministries, January 2000.]

Application: Pastors, get your eyes off the lions (lions defined: your circumstances and those who cause them). Get them on God. And get back to your calling.

________

Source/Attribution: © Sermon-Illustrations-Each-Week 2000

"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

-- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6310]

Have you noticed? Some people will just not be stopped. They have accomplished much despite adversity. They refuse to listen to their fears. Nothing anyone says or does holds them back. As Ted Engstrom insightfully writes in his book "Pursuit of Excellence":

Cripple him, and you have a Sir Walter Scott. Lock him in a prison cell, and you have a John Bunyan. Bury him in the snows of Valley Forge, and you have a George Washington. Raise him in abject poverty and you have an Abraham Lincoln. Strike him down with infantile paralysis, and he becomes Franklin Roosevelt. Burn him so severely that the doctors say he'll never walk again, and you have a Glenn Cunningham -- who set the world's one-mile record in 1934. Deafen him and you have a Ludwig von Beethoven. Have him or her born black in a society filled with racial discrimination, and you have a Booker T. Washington, a Marian Anderson, a George Washington Carver.... Call him a slow learner, "retarded," and write him off as ineducable, and you have an Albert Einstein.

Satan worshippers tried to stop David Russell from passing out Bibles and tracts.

Russell is pastor of Restoration Baptist Church, Burlington, VT. For the last five years he’s had a street witness in the area and had set up an outreach table at a local mall.

He distributed about 100 Bibles but drew little interest from the local people. Russell began a new emphasis this year. Using 20 volunteers they have passed out over 1,200 Bibles and 20,000 tracts.

“It’s overwhelming,” Russell says. “This is the first year we’ve seen results.”

Opposition from Satanists followed. Russell was at the outreach table when 35 Satan worshippers gathered. They walked around him with rock music playing at full volume from their radios.

It hasn’t stopped the witness. The church has seen nine conversions and are continuing the street ministry.

Russell says the Satan worshippers are still around, but they avoid him.

________

“Men in Action,” Missions Today, Feb. 1996, p. 4

EIGHT KEY WORDS ("THE PHRASE THAT PERSUADES") by Bob Burg

All of us face the following situation at one time or another. We need a customer service rep, civil servant, or a similar type person to help us to do something they don't have to help us to do. It's easier for them to do as little as possible, or even refuse us altogether. So, what do we do? How do we handle the situation so that we get what we want, while, of course, allowing them to feel good about themselves and helping them learn how to be more helpful to others in the future?

We begin by letting the person have their say. While they tell us why "it can't be done" we simply listen with a polite countenance, without interrupting. If we interrupt, we make them angry, and strengthen their resolve to be unaccommodating. Next, we agree with them. "What?" you may ask. "What good will that do?" It disarms them. We're not disagreeing with them so there is, in fact, no argument. At least not from our end. And, let's face it - nobody argues with themselves! (What are they going to say, "No, you're wrong..... I'm ... wrong!" -- I don't think so). Instead, try, "You're absolutely correct. I totally understand what you're saying. Rules are rules and you've got to follow them."

Now, help them to move into the solution by suggesting a way they can do what you need them to do while still feeling as though they are in control. What you say, of course, will depend upon your unique circumstances. It typically isn't very difficult since doing what's needed usually isn't that difficult.

Thus far you've been polite, patient, and courteously persistent (credit Zig Ziglar with the term "courteously persistent"). The person knows you plan to get what you want, but you've been so pleasant to deal with, not only can they not be angry with you, but they'd actually "like" to help you. Of course, they can't "lose face" in front of you, so you need to help them along. Now is when you say the "Eight Key Words", or what I call, "The Phrase that Persuades." Here it is:

"If you can't do it, I'll definitely understand."

What you've done is given that person an "out"- a "backdoor." You haven't painted them into a corner from which he or she cannot escape but, instead, made them feel very comfortable, not pressured. You've also "gently challenged" them to use their power for good, being part of the solution instead of the problem. They now want to do for you, that which they wouldn't do for most others.

If appropriate, after the "Eight Key Words" you can say, "If you could, I'd certainly appreciate it." Then, while they're checking their computer, you can add what I call the "coup de grace", which is "Hey, don't get yourself in any trouble ... it isn't 'that' important." Wow! -- talk about moving a person over to your side of the issue. What you've really done is to reposition the conflict from "you against them" to "you AND them" ... against the system. Utilize this method consistently, and in practically any situation in which you're dealing with an unhelpful person. You'll both come out winners. And, you'll truly master the art of WINNING WITHOUT INTIMIDATION.

________

Bob Burg is author of "Winning Without Intimidation"

"Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them."

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

Philosopher and writer

Cited in BITS & PIECES

“When life takes an unexpected turn and God's plan doesn't make sense, we can take comfort in the truth that God is in control,” Chuck Quarles said. “He will take what seems to be bad and use it for our eternal good.” Quarles, who teaches at a Southern Baptist seminary, pointed to the Old Testament story of Balaam to illustrate his point.

The story of Balaam, recorded in Numbers 22-24, takes place when the people of Israel were encamped near the border of Moab during the wilderness sojourn, Quarles said. Balak, the king of Moab, had summoned the pagan prophet Balaam to pronounce a curse on the people of Israel because he feared them.

“Balak knew that there was little he could do, the army of Israel was far more powerful than his own and, on top of that, their God was more powerful than his,” Quarles said, recounting that Balak's plan for defeating the army of Israel was to use the power of Jehovah against them. To accomplish this task, Balak enlisted the pagan prophet Balaam to manipulate the will of God. At first Balaam refused to pronounce a curse on Israel, Quarles said. Finally, Balak was able to convince Balaam to curse the people. On three occasions, Balaam attempted to voice a curse against the people of Israel and on three occasions what came out of his mouth was a blessing.

The king fired Balaam and sent him away without pay, Quarles said. Balaam pronounced one last oracle as he left and again it was a blessing -- a prophecy about Jesus.

“According to Jewish and Christian interpreters from two millennia, this prophecy foretold the coming of the Davidic Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ,” Quarles said.

Quarles then pointed to Deuteronomy 23:3-5, describing the verses as Moses' commentary on the events of Number 22-24. Deuteronomy 23:5 recounts, “Nevertheless, the Lord your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the Lord your God loves you.”

“The principle is simple but profound,” Quarles said, noting that “God loves His covenant people so intensely that He will not curse them or will He allow them to be cursed.... [I]nstead, He takes every curse that threatens them and by His grace and for His glory transforms it until the curse becomes a blessing.”

Quarles noted, “I believe this is true with all my heart, not only because it is penned in the pages of God's inspired and inerrant Word, but because I have experienced the fulfillment of this promise a thousand different times in a thousand different ways.”

As an example of how this principle is true, he related the story of his appointment and missionary service in Romania.

For years Quarles and his wife, Julie, sought appointment to serve as missionaries with the International Mission Board. Delay after delay extended their wait for ten-and-a-half years. Finally, the Quarleses were appointed to serve in Bucharest, Romania, in the field of theological education.

Their first two years on the mission field were filled with many blessings, Quarles said. Shortly after arriving in Bucharest, Quarles began to see God work in miraculous ways. Language studies were going well and people were being reached for Christ.

At Bucharest Baptist Theological Seminary and the University of Bucharest, Quarles was training hundreds of pastors and missionaries and he was also involved in planting a new church.

“We had two years of ministry that went far better than we could have ever imagined,” Quarles said. “Then we came to year three. At the beginning of year three life began to change.”

One day Quarles heard his children screaming in the front yard and then saw the neighborhood children throwing bricks and beer bottles at them.

Quarles said that over the next few months he had one of his tires slashed, something was poured in his gas tank preventing the car from running, and a device was placed in his tire in attempt to cause a blowout.

About the same time, the entire Quarles family began to experience nausea, headaches and fatigue. He said that a faulty heater in their home was exposing the family to carbon monoxide. Because the Quarleses had been exposed to the poison for months, their recovery took months.

Shortly after their recovery, Julie and Josh, their 4-year-old son, went to an open-air market to buy vegetables. Quarles said a beggar approached and asked for money. Julie said no, but intended to buy vegetables and bread for the man. As she turned her back, the angered beggar burned Josh's face with his cigarette and laughed. Quarles said that this incident left a scar on Josh's soul and he developed a stuttering problem.

The problems did not end there. Julie developed an intense, debilitating pain in her back. The medical care she received in Romania and Hungary only made matters worse. Finally, the Quarleses traveled to the United States to receive medical care and the doctor scheduled Julie for emergency surgery.

The surgery, performed in Memphis, Tennessee, was required to prevent Julie from having permanent paralysis. Because of the severity of her condition before surgery, she was paralyzed from the waist down when she awoke from the operation.

Quarles said all of these problems took a toll on their daughter, Hannah. She developed a panic disorder and suffered severe panic attacks every time she ventured out of their home. The problem ultimately led to their return to the United States -- they would not be going back to Romania.

“After 10 years of struggle, we finally made it oversees, the ministry had gone far better than we expected and now after two short years the ministry was being cut short,” Quarles said. “We had to come home and it didn't make sense. When the situation seemed the darkest, God intervened and performed a miracle.”

Quarles said that not only can Julie walk, her recovery has been so complete that it has confounded her doctors. His children are recovering from the trauma as well.

“God has obviously worked powerfully and graciously,” Quarles said. “God spared our lives again and again and again.”

Quarles said that teaching at Bucharest Baptist Theological Seminary had been very rewarding. Leaving was hard, because he thought he would never again have such a strategic ministry position.

“In God's gracious providence I'm now teaching on the faculty of one of the largest seminaries in the world,” he said. “I am impacting the lives not only of a few hundred students, but thousands of students who will go and serve where my family cannot go.

“When I read Deuteronomy 23, all I can do is say, 'Amen, praise the Lord,'“ he said in closing. “The Lord turned the curse into a blessing, for the Lord my God loves me and he loves you too. The principle is not just operable for missionaries on the foreign field, it works for all of God's covenant people.”

_____________

(BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at http://www.bpnews.net. Photo title: BLESSING FROM A CURSE.

*

Acts 13:44 – 14:7 — “Paul’s First Missionary Journey — Forced to Iconium” — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter and Beginnings of Gentile Christianity, 9:32-12:25

{1.} Peter in West Judaea (9:32-43)

{2.} The Story of Cornelius (10:1–48)

{3.} Peter’s Action Endorsed at Jerusalem (11:1–18}

{4.} Antioch Becomes a Christian Base (11:19–30)

A. Gentile Evangelization in Antioch (11:19–21)

B. Barnabas’ and Saul’s Ministry in Antioch (11:22–26)

C. Famine Relief (11:27–30)

{5.} Herod Agrippa I and the Church (12:1–24} —

A. Martyrdom of James and Imprisonment of Peter (12:1-4)

B. Peters Escape from Prison (12:5–11)

C. Peter Reports His Escape (12:12–17)

D. Peter’s Escape Discovered (12:18–19)

E. Death of Herod Agrippa I (12:20–23)

F. Continued Progress of the Gospel (12:24)

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem

Acts 12:25–15:35

{1.} Barnabas and Saul (12:25–13:3)

{2.} Cyprus (13:4–12)

{3} Pisidian Antioch (13:13–52)

A. Arrival at Pisidian Antioch (13:13–15)

B. Paul’s Synagogue Address in Pisidian Antioch (13:16–41)

C. Response to Paul’s Address (13:42–43)

D. Gentile Interest Arouses Jewish Opposition 13:44-52 (NKJV)

1. 44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. 50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

2. In Acts 11:2 we had the introduction of a group that would be an element in the early church;

a. What were they called? « – “those of the circumcision” »

b. Who were they? « – Jews who had been converted to Jesus »

c. What was their concern? « – their Judaism took precedence over their being Christians; today, some Christian Jews take this position, holding onto the Torah while others do not »

d. The inclusion of Gentiles into the church brought this issue to the forefront, causing increasing Jewish opposition to the gospel as we shall see in the rest of the book of Acts. In what Roman province are the missionaries now serving? « – Galatia »

3. Comment on the “Pisidian Antioch Evangelistic Campaign”

a. Its success « – almost the entire city turned out »

b. Its failure « – the rejection by a large number of Jews »

4. “Necessary” (verse 46) has a broad meaning from “useful” to “compelling” but weaker than “mandated.” What were some practical reasons for “to the Jew first,” for going to synagogues?

a. For Paul and Barnabas they were « – kinsmen, same culture »

b. They worshipped « – the true God »

c. They knew « – the Old Testament Scriptures and promises »

d. They were awaiting « – the Messiah »

5. Paul quotes Isaiah 49:6 … read verse Isaiah 46:1 —7

a. How does he apply it here? « – to himself and Barnabas »

b. How can it be applied in context « ? – (1) to Isaiah (2) to the Messiah, Luke 2:29–32 (3) to true Israel (= a., above) »

6. What was the general response of the Gentiles there to these words? « – glad worship that God’s word now held promise for them by “specially those that believe” (1 Timothy 4:10) »

7. For Jews there, general, when they heard these words?

a. how did they respond? « – jealous opposition and politicking »

b. who were their tools? « – religious women, secular rulers »

8. What was wrong with the dust of Antioch? « – as Jesus told apostls to do when a city, as a whole, rejects the message, Luke 9:5, 10:11 – in this way they proved Paul’s words true and they lost the privilege of spreading the gospel to their neighbours »

9. Was this true of all Antioch? « – no, a group of rejoicing disciples was left in this city to be visited later, Acts 14:21 »

{4}. Iconium, Lystra, Derbe Acts 14:1–18

A. Adventures in Iconium Acts 14:1–7 (NKJV)

1. 1 Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brethren. 3 Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. 4 But the multitude of the city was divided: part sided with the Jews, and part with the apostles. 5 And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them, 6 they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region. 7 And they were preaching the gospel there.

2. What did Paul and Barnabas do the same in Iconium? « – went to the place of worship, the synagogue and preached gospel »

3. What were the marks of success?

a. Verse 1: « – the belief of many, both Jew and Gentile »

b. Verse 3: « – the opportunity of extended ministry there »

c. Verse 3: « – the signs and wonders worked by God’s grace; in the presence of general unbelief, these were curtailed »

d. What was the stated purpose of these? « – to witness to the truth of the Gospel »

4. “Unbelieving Jews” is also translated “Disobedient Jews” – both are correct and show the strong connection in Greek between the two ideas of trusting and obeying. What disobedience was involved? « – the gospel invitation is a command; consider Paul’s words in Acts 17:30 and Romans 10:16 »

5. What Satanic devices were employed to inhibit the gospel?

a. Verse 2: « – stirring, agitating the minds (get them worried) »

b. Verse 2: « – poisoning, inflaming against brethren (hate, strife) »

c. Verse 5: « – cunning, surreptitious force »

6. What is the effect of the Gospel …

a. … here? « – there was a schism of the city »

b. … promised by Jesus (Matthew 10:34–39)? « – division »

7. What is the missionaries’ response to opposition? « – continue to preach the gospel; compare Philippians 1:15–18 »

8. What did Paul look like? Of course we do not know, but there is a tradition which comes from The Acts of Paul (circa 150 AD) telling of a man, Onesiphorus, who lived in Iconium, setting out to meet Paul: “And he saw Paul approaching, a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness, for he now appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel.”

Acts 4:1–17 — John, Peter & The Sanhedrin — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{1.} The Forty Days and After (1:1–26)

{2.} The Day of Pentecost (2:1–47)

{3.} An Act of Healing and its Consequences (3:1–4:31)

A. A Cripple Cured Acts 3:1–6

Peter and John, going to the temple at the hour of afternoon prayer, are accosted by the begging of a man lame from birth. This man was healed at the name and by the power of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. When people saw this familiar figure leaping and praising God they quickly formed a large crowd.

B. Peter’s Address in Solomon’s Colonnade; his subject was

1. “The Power of Jesus’ Name,” Acts 3:11–16

To this crowd, Peter disclaimed himself and John and acclaimed the name of Jesus Christ as having done this miracle. He contrasts their treatment with God’s, defending the Name of Jesus Christ.

2. Call to Repentance Acts 3:17–21

Peter points out that because they did this ignorantly and that it was God’s purpose that Messiah’s suffering bring them salvation, they can now repent and have their sins forgiven as had been promised.

3. Witness of the Prophets Acts 3:22–26

Peter argues from the prophets, starting at Moses, that what he is saying is not contrary but rather a fulfilment of the promises the prophets foretold. At this point comes the interruption …

C. Arrest of Peter and John Acts 4:1–4 (NKJV)

1. 1 Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

2. The opposition who interrupted consisted of

a. the P « riests » ________ « (probably the high priest, his coterie, the temple officers, and known as the “chief priests” ) »

b. the C « aptain » ________ « of the temple; heading the temple guard, a picked group of Levites (see Acts 5:24, 26) »

c. the S « adducees » ______________ « a party, which included all the high priests from time of Herod’s reign until AD 66. Currying favour with Rome they opposed religious and nationalist aspirations. Regarded Pharisees as just innovators, rejected oral traditions, held to Mosaic law. »

d. what was it about Peter’s message that most annoyed this opposition? — « the preaching of the resurrection; from the other parties we find that the Sadducees did not believe in this or in angelic and demonic hierarchies; (Josephus Antiq XIII, 10:6; XVIII, 1:4; BJ II, 2:14) »

3. What was the response of the people (as opposed to the rulers)? « – many believed, bringing the number of the men in the Jerusalem church to roughly 5,000; there would also be women and children; what aspects of Jewish culture might lead to family conversions? – religious training and Messianic expectations »

D. Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin Acts 4:5–12

1. The Sanhedrin’s Question, Acts 4:5–7 (NKJV): 5 And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, 6 as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”

a. Note: the “you” in the last phrase is emphatic: “people like you!” coming at the end of the sentence

b. Annas, Caiaphas … some of their history

(A) Luke 3:2 « – they were in their office at the start of the ministry of John the Baptist »

(B) John 11:49–51 « – uttered prophetic utterance that Jesus would die for the people (unwittingly) »

(C) Matthew 26:3–4 « — part of crucifixion plot »

(D) John 18:13–14, 24, 28 « – were both involved in Jewish “trial” of Jesus, probably John 19:11 refers to Caiaphas »

c. Deuteronomy 13:1–3 is the basis for the question posed by the rulers

(A) what was their responsibility? « – to identify miracle workers who would turn the people from God »

(B) what did Peter’s reply have to include, therefore? « — that this was a work of the the God of Israel »

2. Peter Answers Their Question, Acts 4:8–12 (NKJV): 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

a. Note: words “salvation” and “saved” encompass both spiritual and physical health

b. What can we conclude about Peter’s words from Luke 12:11–12, 21:14–15? « — that they came from Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit’s work and power; the word “filled” differs from being “full” as Stephen in Acts 6:5, as it represents a distinct, single action of the Holy Spirit »

c. Peter’s response is very pointed

(A) the nature of their deed: « — was good, it was an act of mercy for a helpless son of Israel; the deed draws its kinship to the merciful God of Israel »

(B) the source of the deed: « — was the name of Jesus – Messiah – of the town of Nazareth; this is the crux of their question, “are they preaching another God,” Peter does not sidestep the issue (parallel is Jesus’ “what think ye of Christ, whose son is he?” Mt 22:42) »

(C) how was the Bearer of the Name treated

(1) by God? « – raised from the dead; resurrection was the red flag that originally drew their ire »

(2) by them? « – crucified, rejected »

(3) the quotation « (study the stone theme further) »

(a) found in Psalm 118:22 (Palm Sunday Psalm)

(b) applied by Jesus, Matthew 21:42–46 « – as speaking of himself, and of their being the builders; and they recognized it! Originally spoke of Israel, God’s people, rejected by the nations; but now of Messiah, true Israel »

(D) the character of the Name; it is U « nique » __________ and has been G « iven » _______ so that by it people must receive S « alvation » ____________, that is that they may have fulness and newness of L « ife » _______

E. Debate in the Sanhedrin Acts 4:13–17

1. Their Dilemma, Acts 4:13–14 (NKJV): 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marvelled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

a. Peter and John’s witness showed

(A) their knowledge was not « — “book learning” »

(B) they were Jesus’ « — long-trained disciples »

b. What was their dilemma? « — they could not deny the miracle, which was the only way they could deny the source of the miracle »

c. why could they not just say “Jesus was a false god”? « — because of the resurrection which they could not refute »

2. Their Reasoning, Acts 4:15–17 (NKJV): 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 saying, “What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.”

a. Note: “council” is verse 15 is the word “Sanhedrin” and consisted of 70 members and the high-priest imitating the 70 elders appointed by Moses; these members being former high priests, the heads of the 24 courses of priests, the elders and the scribes or lawyers « (Jos. BJ V, 4:2 et al) »

b. their response

(A) was « — we mustn’t let the facts get in our way »

(B) should have been « — to turn to their Messiah »

c. so, rather than reasoning, they chose F « orce » _________; come and see more about this next Sunday!

3. What response should we anticipate from most people when we tell them about Jesus as Saviour?

Acts 9:19b–31 — “Paul’s (Saul’s) Early Ministry” — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{1.} Stephen (6:1–8:1a)

{2.} Philip (8:1b–40)

{3.} Conversion of Saul of Tarsus (9:1–31)

A. Saul’s Expedition to Damascus (9:1–2)

B. The Light and Voice from Heaven (9:3–7)

C. Saul Enters Damascus (9:8–9)

D. Ananaias Sent to Saul (9:10–16)

E. Ananias Visits Saul (9:17–19a)

F. Saul Preaches in Damascus 9:19b–22 (NKJV)

19b … Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. 20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. 21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, “Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?” 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

Galatians 1:16-17 (NKJV): 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

1. Arabia at then ran from the Suez (Sinai) peninsula northward east of Palestine, (Judaea, Galilee, Peraea & Decapolis) to Syria and Mesopotamia. Damascus, in Syria, was close to the borders with Palestine & Arabia. From about 34 to 62 A.D. there were no Roman coins minted here, but was ruled by Arabs under Aretas. From here to Nabataean Arabia was but a short trip.

2. From last week’s lesson where we looked at Ananias’ role in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, what would you conclude was the spiritual gift(s) Ananias bore at that time? « — healing: by laying on his hands, Saul’s blindness was cured; prophetic: he received a word directly from God and relayed it to Saul, which included relaying the mission command to Saul given by God. »

3. Both Luke and Paul use the same word, “immediately” but one must precede the other; what are the arguments for each? « — (1) Arabia first, as he did not confer with anyone, including Ananias (2) preaching first; a time in Arabia would be too long for the use of “immediately” respecting his preaching. God’s word does not answer every detail; why? to challenge our minds to study »

4. What material did Paul use in preaching? … what illustration might he have used (more than sanctified imagination here!)?

a. Psalm 2:7, Mark 14:61, 1:1 : « the Messiah as the Son of God »

b. Jesus is « — the Messiah or Christ »

c. Illustration (compare Acts 22, 26) « — Saul’s own conversion »

5. Isaiah 29:14 (NIV): Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish. — how does God do this in these verses? « — (1) Saul, coming to eradicate this Way, becomes its foremost proponent (2) the Holy Spirit makes the words of Saul, like those of Stephen, beyond human argument »

G. Saul Escapes from Damascus 9:23–25

23 Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him. 24 But their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates day and night, to kill him. 25 Then the {most manuscripts, “his”} disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall in a large basket.

2 Corinthians 11:32-33 (NKJV): 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

1. It is surmised that when in Arabia, Paul preached the gospel, arousing the ire of Aretas IV (Herod Antipas’ father-in-law) which may be why this secular persecution now took place.

2. What means does God use in protecting His people? « — (1) direct intervention as in release of apostles (Acts 5:17ff); (2) conversion of the enemy as with Saul; (3) making known the enemy’s plan either directly or through natural means »

3. What do we conclude about Saul’s ministry? « — it was effective, as shown probably by the converts he had gathered under his teaching, but also by the opposition aroused. »

H. Saul in Jerusalem; He is Sent to Tarsus 9:26–30

26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.

Galatians 1:18-19, 22-23 (NKJV): 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. … 21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.”

1. How long is the “many days” of Acts 9:23, according to Paul’s own words in Galatians 1:18? « — three years (which under normal Jewish reckoning, could be two plus part of a third) »

2. What antagonists would Saul meet up with in Jerusalem?

a. His old « associates, the Pharisees, now the opposition. »

b. His new « brethren, the believers, whom he had persecuted and still would suspect his motives »

3. We last heard of Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus, when he was selling his property to give funds to the church; how was he able to live up to his name, “Son of Encouragement” here? « — he was able to give strength and courage to both Paul and believers in his recounting what had happened to Saul and how God was working through Saul. This speaks of personal knowledge, so we conclude that Barnabas was not a “stay at home” Christian »

4. How effective was Barnabas’ intercession and why? « — At his word, Saul was received; his known integrity which was shown clearly by the contrasting acts of Ananias and Sapphira (ch. 5) »

5. Galatians is more specific in describing Saul’s meeting with the apostles; how? « — it tells us that he only met with two of them, namely, Peter and James, brother of Jesus (giving him apostolic status, though he was not one of the twelve disciples, a disputed point is that this is James who saw risen Lord, 1 Corinthians 15:7) »

6. Whose work did Saul resume in Jerusalem? « — that of Stephen in debating with the Greek-speaking Jews »

7. Saul’s visit lasted how long? … why so short? « — two weeks (15 days); because the Greek-speaking Jews sought to kill him »

8. What other reason did Saul have for leaving at this time (see Acts 22:17–21)? « — the command of Jesus in a vision, overturning Saul’s arguments to stay, and reminding Saul of the breadth of Saul’s special apostolic commission (Ramsay’s argument void) »

9. In what Roman province is Tarsus? « — Syro-Cilicia or Cilicia; this reconciles the different wording in Galatians from Acts) »

10. Note that in the Galatians passage, as elsewhere, the temple city of Jerusalem was considered quite distinct from Judea. For example, consider Acts 1:8, “… both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea … “ The churches in Judea are those outside of Jerusalem formed by the Paul’s persecution which scattered disciples (Acts 8:1).

I. The Church Enjoys Peace and Prosperity 9:31 (NKJV)

1. 31 Then the churches {some manuscripts, “church”} throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.

2. What do we note here concerning the diversity of the working of God? « — earlier God used persecution to spread the church and establish believers; now He uses peace to strengthen and increase the church. What lesson? We should not tell God how to accomplish His will and purpose in our situation, but that He give to us the faith to recognize and to trust in what He is doing »

3. What spiritual gifts were used in multiplying believers? … the following are the words used … explain in what sense they are spiritual gifts and how they can have this effect? … the lesson?

a. “Fear” « — includes respect and reverence; it is a requisite for worship — “worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23) — joyful, spiritual worship of believers is a witness to God that He will use in speaking to the lost »

b. “Comfort” « — literally the “calling alongside” of the Holy Spirit; (Zechariah 4:6, “not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit”) the freely flowing Holy Spirit in our lives without our grieving or hindering Him will reach lost mankind »

4. This ends the record of Saul’s conversion. When did God begin preparing Saul for ministry (Galatians 1:15)? « — at conception! »

Acts 19:21–19:41 — Leaving Ephesus: the plan and the riot — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter & Beginnings of Gentile Christianity (9:32-12:25)

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem

(12:25–15:35)

{E.} Paul Leaves Antioch & Moves to the Aegean World (15:36–19:20)

{1} Recently Planted Churches Revisited (15:36–16:5)

{2} Philippi (16:6–40)

{3} Thessalonica to Athens (17:1-34)

{4} Corinth (18:1–17)

{5} Ephesus (18:18–19:20) « Review this section »

A. Hasty Visit to Ephesus (18:18–21)

B. Brief Visit to Judaea and Syria (18:22–23)

C. Apollos (18:18–24)

D. Paul & the 12 Disciples of Ephesus (19:1–7)

E. The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus (19:8–10) « in siesta hours »

F. Conflict with the Magicians (19:11–19) « drachma=day’s work »

G. Further (the Fifth) Progress Report (19:20)

{F.} Paul Plans to Visit Rome and Gets there by an Unforseen Route

(Acts 19:21–28:31)

{1.} He Prepares to Leave Ephesus for Macedonia and Achaian (Acts 19:21–20:6)

A. Paul Makes Plans for the Future (19:21–22; NKJV): 21 When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22 So he sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, but he himself stayed in Asia for a time.

1. What were the major cities (where Paul had preached)

a. In Macedonia? « – Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea »

b. In Achaia? « – Athens, Corinth »

2. What was the guiding governance in Paul’s life (consider Philippians 2:13)? « – the Holy Spirit »

3. Does this mean Paul knew fully what was going to happen to him in every circumstance (consider Acts 20:23) « – only what the Spirit chose to reveal to him directly or indirectly »

4. Do we need such guidance today? … of what character? « – discuss promises such as Psalm 32:8, John 16:13; give personal examples of leading (in call to ministry, in sermon subject) by the burden or need; discuss claim of “a voice from heaven” »

5. How did Paul prepare for his return to Macedonia? « – sending two fellow-workers there; might be same Erastus as in Romans 16:23 (written from Corinth) and 2 Timothy 4:20 »

6. Pauls afflictions here: 1 Corinthians 15:32, 2 Corinthians 1:8–9

B. The Riot at Ephesus Acts 19:23–41

1. Indignation of the Silversmiths (19:23–28; NKJV): 23 And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. 25 He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. 26 Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. 27 So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess « * » Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.” 28 Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” « * Greek: Artemis; she was Asiatic in form and name »

a. What concerns did Demetrius, the silversmith, voice?

i. The loss « of personal trade, income and prestige »

ii. The effect « on the worship of Diana; this temple was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world (425’ x 220’ x 60”, 127 marble pillars); foundation uncovered 1869 »

b. How sincere was his statement in your opinion? « – Pro: he was speaking to like-minded craftsmen so he didn’t need a religious motive; Con: the religious motif gave a rallying cry that could inflame the whole populace »

c. What was it about The Way that caused this commotion? « – there is no other way; Christ as God is exclusively Saviour »

d. What does The Way likewise threaten today? « – discuss anti-Christian industries and activities; things in our lives »

2. Demonstration in the Theatre (19:29–34; NKJV): 29 So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. 30 And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. 31 Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater. 32 Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 And they drew « * » Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. 34 But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” « * who is this? … Jewish interest? »

a. Paul’s travelling companions

i. Gaius – see Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 1:14 « – probably different from 3 John 1:1, 4-5 (John’s convert?) and Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4) »

ii. Aristarchus – see Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:24 « – a prisoner with Paul in Rome; from Thessalonica (20:4) »

b. What good qualities does Paul show, verses 30-31? « – listens to the counsel of other believers; constancy in willingness to face the mob to defend his companions »

c. What marked this assembly? « – total confusion or chaos »

3. The Town Clerk Calms the Agitation (19:35–41; NKJV): 35 And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: “Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? 36 Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. 38 Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly. 40 For we are in danger of being called in question for today’s uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering.” 41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly.

a. The city clerk would act as secretary of any civic assembly and liaise with Roman authorities; what particular concern would he have in this situation? « – Rome would hold him responsible for any disorderly (unlawful) gathering »

b. Historic replicas of this image are grotesque and unlike the Roman, Diana; what caused its reverence? « – its supposed heavenly source (some say made of vine-wood or ebony) »

c. How did the city clerk assess Gaius and Aristarchus (and thus, indirectly, their leader, Paul)? « – as innocent of any crime – note that The Way was still considered a Jewish sect and thus free to preach monotheism though hated for this reason (which explains the Jewish interest in this event) »

d. What recourse did he say was open to the craftsmen? « – to come to the regular assizes and there sue a complaint »

e. Was the city clerk right in his assessment of the danger to the worship of Artemis? « – no; the worship disappeared and the temple fell to ruins, disappearing for centuries; compare younger Pliny (Epistles 10.96.10) that the spread of Christianity had reduced sale of fodder for sacrificial animals in Bithynia, ca. AD 112 »

f. What argument probably decided the mob? « – the Roman army would step in to restore law and order »

In an 1803 sermon delivered at Kettering, England, British Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller preached from Jeremiah 29:7 on the subject of “Christian Patriotism” (The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, reprint, Sprinkle Publications [1988], pp. 202-209). Fuller may be better known as the theologian who preached the ordination sermon for William Carey, often called the “father of the modern missions movement.” He also heavily influenced Charles Haddon Spurgeon, perhaps the greatest expositor of Scripture to embrace the Baptist name.

Fuller was known for a deep, personal piety, an avid love and hunger for the Word of God, and as a man who sought to integrate the totality of scriptural truth into his exposition of each individual passage. The text from which he developed this particular sermon was addressed by Jeremiah to his fellow countrymen living in exile. It states, “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the LORD on its behalf, for when it has prosperity, you will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).

It is no secret that our nation is deeply divided around many different issues. It is unfortunate that many who name the Name which is above every Name use the same set of rhetorical strategies to influence public debate as those who do not know the Christ who transforms. The routine rancorous rhetoric of some professing believers, even some preachers of the Baptist persuasion, continually undermines the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The virulent anger manifested in some protests during debate of public policy is often couched in “religious” terms and slogans. This causes the opponents of the Cross to have a distorted view of what redemption actually means and does in the lives of ransomed sinners.

Fuller lived in a day of much wickedness in his own nation. He urged his fellow Baptists to “seek the peace of the city” -- not merely as “an exemption from wars and insurrections,” but to seek the prosperity of the country in general. He cried out, “O my country, I will lament thy faults! Yet, with all thy faults I will seek thy good.”

His sermon was developed around two main ideas. In the first part of his sermon, he “inquired” into the “duty of religious people towards their country,” referencing the opening sentence of his biblical text: “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to.” Among the duties he listed, he gave prominent attention to the rhetoric Christians employ in matters of public debate.

In a particularly noteworthy paragraph, Fuller preached, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures, we shall either be silent, or express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

He continued, “A dutiful son may see a fault in a father; but he will not take pleasure in exposing him. He that can employ his wit in degrading magistrates is not their friend, but their enemy; and he that is an enemy to magistrates is not far from being an enemy to magistracy, and, of course, to his country. A good many may be aggrieved; and being so, may complain. Paul did so at Philippi. But the character of a complainer belongs only to those who walk after their own lusts.”

Later, Fuller noted, “It becomes Christians to bear positive good-will to their country, and to its government, considered as government, irrespective of the political party which may have the ascendancy. We may have our preferences, and that without blame; but they ought never to prevent a cheerful obedience to the laws, a respectful demeanour towards those who frame and those who execute them, or a ready co-operation in every measure which the being or well-being of the nation may require.”

In language reflective of our own day, Fuller commented, “The civil power, whatever political party is uppermost, while it maintains the great ends of government, ought, at all times, to be able to reckon upon religious people as its cordial friends; and if such we be, we shall be willing, in times of difficulty, to sacrifice personal interest to public good; shall contribute of our substance without murmuring; and, in cases of imminent danger, shall be willing to expose even our own lives in its defense.”

In the second division of the sermon, which, in length, is little more than a conclusion, Fuller addressed the “motive by which these duties are enforced,” citing the concluding clause of the verse, “for when it has prosperity, you will prosper.”

Fuller eloquently illustrated this truth, “Let not the poorest man say, I have nothing to lose. Yes, if men of opulence lose their property, you will lose your employment. You have also a cottage, and perhaps a wife and family, with whom, amidst all your hardships, you live in love; and would it be nothing to you to see your wife and daughters abused, and you yourself unable to protect them, or even to remonstrate, but at the hazard of being thrust through with a bayonet? If no other considerations will induce us to protect our county, and pray to the Lord for it, our own individual and domestic comfort might suffice.”

One can easily draw the spiritual parallel between Jeremiah’s prophetic word in this text and Paul’s exhortation in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, “First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

In both passages, we are commanded to pray for and seek the “peace of the city.” In both, our motivation is that, as the city prospers, so shall we. Paul adds an evangelistic motivation as well -- our well-pleasing acts will be evangelistically attractive to the lost, and some will be saved.

In a similar vein, Johnny Hunt, the president of the Southern Baptists, released a statement on “civility in public discourse” in October 2009 (see www.sbc.net/PresidentsPage/JohnnyHunt/PressRelease-10-17-09Hunt.asp). Referencing the Civility Project, brainchild of conservative commentator Mark DeMoss, Hunt called on Southern Baptists to “join with me in showing restraint in our public and private speech.” Citing the “coarseness of our culture and the teaching of our Savior,” he said, “I also urge each of us to communicate our concerns with anyone we believe has crossed the line into mean-spirited attacks. We must never underestimate the power and influence of one voice.”

In his article, Hunt also drew attention to the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the church at Colosse, “Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person” (Colossians 4:6).

Hunt closed his article, “When we exercise civility in our public and private rhetoric, we bring glory to our Lord, enhance our credibility as men and women whose lives have been transformed by God’s grace, and create opportunities to share the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ with our lost and dying world.”

Civility in public discourse is not something we can legislate. It flows (super)naturally out of one’s innermost being. Jesus taught his followers, “A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Luke 6:46).

Hear again Fuller’s challenge to the people of his parish, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures,” let us clearly “express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

As we embrace this biblical ideal, may our demeanor in the public arena -- our behavior and our words -- be the fragrance of life, the life-giving aroma of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. May the light that shines in us radiate out from us so that others will be drawn to faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s my stand. Is it yours?

________

Roger S. Oldham is vice president for convention relations for the Southern Baptist Executive Committee.

“After I became a follower of Jesus, my husband would always insult me,” Melesse* said. “I tried to share with him from the Word, but he said I wasn’t being a good wife and kicked me out.

“Then one night when I was coming home late from work, he and five men followed me and broke down my door.”

Her conversion was fueling their attack -- even though their own churches in the Horn of Africa are filled with crosses and paintings of Jesus.

These predominantly Orthodox Christians are the Horn of Africa’s “hidden lost,” said Aaron Shaw*, who along with his wife Lindsey* first shared the Gospel with Melesse. “They appear to be Christian, and on maps that show a country’s religious makeup, this place is marked as a Christian region.”

They’re counted as reached, though they stone and beat people who carry the Gospel.

They’re counted as “reached,” though they stone and beat people who carry the Gospel, Shaw said.

“The enemy is always at work,” Melesse said, “but God is even more at work. ... Christ promises that no matter what we go through, we will never be separated from Him.”

Melesse survived her husband’s attack. “I prayed to God, and in His power, they were knocked back,” she said. “I called the police, and they arrived quickly.”

It’s not the only time Melesse tells of being attacked for her faith in Jesus. She also has been falsely imprisoned twice.

And about a year and a half ago, Melesse and some other believers were visiting an older woman who had expressed interest in the Gospel. It was a great visit, Melesse said.

When they got back to their car, a mob of Orthodox people were waiting for them, stones and sticks in their hands.

“They circled us and were preparing to beat us,” Melesse said. “We asked them what we had done to offend them, and they brought false accusations about us forcing people to convert. We told them, ‘No, we have come in the faith of our fathers to help the poor and share what it means to follow the Word of God.’”

The faith of their fathers was pure at the beginning, Shaw said. Christianity first came to the region nearly 2,000 years ago, just after the death of Christ.

For centuries, Christ was at the center -- until outsiders wove a macabre legend into their religion, Shaw said. In the folk story, a man was approached by Satan in disguise and asked to sacrifice his son.

“Delighted to have been found worthy like Abraham, he did what they asked, cooked and prepared his son for them to eat,” Shaw said. “Satan and the men with him asked him to take the first bite of his own son, and when he did, Satan revealed himself.”

The man snapped and went on a cannibalistic murder spree, Shaw said. The story recounts that after he eventually was sent to hell, Mary “tipped the scales in his favor with her mercy” and redeemed him to heaven.

“This is when the Gospel died in this part of the world,” Shaw said.

This is the reason the Shaws, Melesse and other believers say they are gripped by the urgency of sharing the truth of redemption found only in Mary’s Son, Jesus Christ, to as many people as possible.

“We have the hope of new life and are filled with that new life,” Melesse said. “These people who are outside the area of those who have heard the Gospel -- God is putting on my heart to be able to communicate the Gospel to them. Please pray for me to be prepared and to know the time and the place to go.”

Dawit*, another Christ follower in the area, said people’s spiritual need in the Horn of Africa is exponentially larger than any physical need they may have.

“This land has a deep spiritual famine,” he said. “People are hungering for the Word, but there are not enough people to take it to them.”

Dawit said his life is dedicated to Jesus’ last words -- the Great Commission.

“We cannot afford to keep this Savior to ourselves,” he said. “Pray for me, that I would live my life as a bondservant. I desire nothing more than to offer my life as a living sacrifice to work in His harvest fields.”

* Names changed

When a noted pastor came through Chicago to speak at a pastors’ conference, one of his messages dealt with the need to depend wholly on the Lord and not on our own resources. As he came to the close, he told the story of how King Jehoshaphat prayed in II Chronicles 20. The Ammonites and the Moabites were moving in a vast army toward Jerusalem. There were so many of them, and they were so well armed, that the men of Israel would never be able to defeat them. As the invaders came closer and closer, the situation looked increasingly hopeless. The king called for a nationwide fast. Men from every town and village gathered in Jerusalem to seek the Lord. Jehoshaphat stood before them and offered one of the greatest prayers in the Bible (II Chronicles 20:6-12). He begins by declaring God’s greatness: “O Lord, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you” (verse 6). Then he reminds God of the promises he made to take care of his people when they were in trouble. Then he tells God, “We’re in big trouble now!” He freely admits, “we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us” (verse 12). And he concludes with this simple confession: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you” (verse 12). God’s answer came through a prophet who told the people to “stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.”

The next day Jehoshaphat put the male singers at the head of the army and sent them out to do battle. They literally stood still and watched as the Lord sent confusion into the enemy ranks. The Moabites and Ammonites started killing each other by mistake. There was a great slaughter followed by the plundering of the supplies left behind by the enemy soldiers. The story ends with the army gathering for a praise celebration, giving thanks to God for the victory he provided.

After telling that story, the pastor commented that when Jehoshaphat prayed, “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you,” he was really saying, “Lord, we’re just a bunch of pathetic losers. And if you don’t help us, we’re sunk.” He went on to say that he had discovered that this was the true mission statement of the church he pastors: “We’re just a bunch of pathetic losers and if God doesn’t help us, we’re sunk.” That’s a good name for a church: “The Church of the Pathetic Losers.” You would never run out of prospects.

I think he’s absolutely right. Apart from God’s grace, that’s all we are-just a bunch of pathetic losers. Without God, we don’t have a chance, we don’t have a thing to offer, and we don’t even know what to do next. Sometimes I think the hardest job God has is getting his children to admit how desperately they need him. A friend told me about a pastor at another church in the Chicago area who preached something similar. He came up with a phrase that he printed at the top of their church bulletins even though some of the leaders didn’t feel comfortable with it: “Blunder Forward.” Having been a pastor for nearly a quarter of a century, I can testify how true that is. Even on our best days, we struggle as God’s people to simply “blunder forward.” And some days we can’t even do that.

Being pathetic losers should not discourage us in the least. God does his best work with pathetic losers who will cast themselves wholly on His grace. Jesus told us how to live when he declared, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it” (Mark 8:35). In the Kingdom of God, all the values of the world are reversed. The way up is down. The last shall be first. The least will be the greatest. The servants will be the leaders.

When we pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” we are admitting that we have no power and no clue how to face the problems of life. God delights to help those who have nowhere else to go but to the Lord.

Christianity has lost three important guide wires: integrity, credibility and, most pressingly, civility, said Os Guinness, co-founder of The Trinity Forum. Guinness believes that Christians must abandon political bitterness and fulfill Jesus’ commands to love one another. His approach to the intractable differences among world religions is to create a “political framework of rights, responsibilities and respect to which all agree.”

A great-great-great grandson of Arthur Guinness, the Dublin brewer and founder of the Guinness brewery, Guinness was born in China where his parents were missionaries during World War II. In childhood he witnessed the Communist takeover of China.

Guinness earned an undergraduate degree at the University of London and a doctorate in social sciences from Oriel College, Oxford. He has been a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and he has published more than 20 books, including “The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It.” In 1991 he co-founded The Trinity Forum, an organization that hosts forums for leaders in business and politics.

The edited transcript is from a conversation with Guinness in October 2009 at Convocation & Pastors’ School at Duke Divinity.

Q: What is important about civility?

How we live with our deep differences is at stake with civility. It’s the American way as described by James Madison, with no state church and no religious monopoly. The framers [of the U.S. Constitution] got religious liberty right with the First Amendment in 1791, long before they got race or women right.

However, the way the founders set the country up has been breaking down since the 1960s, or really since the Everson case in 1947. We have incessant cultural warring with, as Richard Neuhaus put it, the sacred public square on one side and the naked public square on the other. Both of the sides are well funded, both employ batteries of lawyers, both are nationally led and it’s a disaster for America. What Neuhaus and others call the “civil public square” is a key to the American future; Christians should be champions of that civil public square.

Q: Is there a tension between civility and the prophetic role of the minister in the pulpit?

Misunderstandings surround the idea of civility; it’s frequently mistaken for squeamishness about cultural differences, false tolerance or dinner-party etiquette. Classically, civility is a republican virtue, with a small “r,” and a democratic necessity, with a small “d.” It’s the only way you can have a diverse society, freely but civilly, peacefully.

As Christians, we have deeper motivations still [for championing civility]. Followers of Jesus are called to be peacemakers, with truth and grace; Paul asks us to speak the truth with love. We’re called to love our enemies and do good to those who wrong us. This is our Christian motivation for championing the classical virtue of civility.

Freedom of conscience [upholds] the right to believe anything, but the right to believe anything does not mean that anything anyone believes is right. That is nonsense. We have a right and a responsibility to disagree, to debate, to persuade someone that they’re out to lunch. They may be muddle-headed. They may be socially disastrous. They might even be morally evil, but we have a responsibility to disagree civilly.

Q: Much of the incivility in recent cultural debates has come from Christians, has it not?

With the election of President Obama, there was a distinct decline of the religious right. My hope was that good Christian leadership would swing us to a more responsible position, but there isn’t the leadership that there was in the past. The groundswell of populism has joined the bitter resentment we see bubbling up in the health care debates; it’s very dangerous.

It’s time for Christians to speak out, to follow our Lord clearly and differently. I boil [the difference] down to three words: integrity, credibility and civility. Integrity asks, “can we be 100 percent faithful to Jesus, following his teachings, growing like him and still engage with the modern world so that faith prevails?” That’s integrity. Much of the church lacks integrity.

The second difference is in credibility. Since the Enlightenment all Christians are what Richard Dawkins calls “faith heads,” anti-intellectuals, despite the fact that many of the greatest thinkers of Western history -- Augustine, Pascal and Newton among them -- loved Christ passionately. I knew Bertrand Russell when I was a student. He said Christians would sooner die than think. We need to be champions of truth, champions of thinking and love God with our minds in order to recover the great credibility of the gospel.

The third difference is with civility. That sounds very abstract, compared to addressing AIDS, or nuclear issues or terrorism. Actually, living with our deep differences underlies all the other issues. America once got it nearly right, but America is losing its way.

Q: Overall, what is your calling? What ties your work together?

I like to live between the church and the world, making sense of the church to the world and making sense of the world to the faithful. I love apologetics and I love analysis. I live between high-level knowledge and popular knowledge. Christian scholarship is magnificent today. The [communication] gap is with those in the middle, with intermediate knowledge. Much of the good scholarship in the church is unknown to ordinary folk. In my role, I read all that stuff to make it practicable to people. Otherwise the church is not united, it is paraplegic -- the head thinks one way and the body twitches another.

Q: How does your leadership academy, The Trinity Forum, help your intermediary role?

The Trinity Forum is Socratic [in form]. We have no lectures, no sermons, no teachings and no talks. Whatever the topic, we give people the readings on it two months ahead of the forum. Moderators lead the discussion. The leaders do the work for themselves and come to their own conclusions. As in the parables of our Lord, when you engage people, they participate and learn much more.

Our curricula cover many of the great issues of Western civilization, issues of philanthropy and character. Today’s leaders are the heirs to 3,000 years of Western civilization. We are the custodians of that in our time and we need to know what shaped us. Every issue is set in the context of the discussion that’s gone before ... we stand here today in the light of those 3,000 years of heritage.

In The Trinity Forum we’re talking about growing real leadership, not just politicians but statesmen. Often people use the word “intractable” to describe a problem. Intractable problems [indicate] a lack of courageous leadership. Christians should not be complaining and criticizing, but looking at the problems of the world and saying, “We’ve got Christian solutions to these problems.”

I’m working on a global declaration on freedom of conscience. It will [demonstrate] how we can live with deep differences in order to create a cosmopolitan civil public square. Christians should be in the forefront of constructive solutions, bringing Christian principles to bear on the world’s big problems; that’s real leadership.

Dialogue and friendship with Muslims, Buddhists, etc., is perfectly fine, but it’s a total failure as a solution to world peace. You cannot reach interfaith unity and still remain true to your own faith. The differences between various ideologies are deep, ultimate and irreducible. Compromise, not dialogue, is the only way we can reach a common denominator. My approach is to create a political framework of rights, responsibilities and respect to which all agree. Within that framework each faith engages peacefully, free to be itself and therefore different.

I don’t support a sacred public square (the religious right square) or a naked public square (from which the ACLU removes religion), but a civil public square. This is a vision of public life in which people of every faith -- Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, etc. -- are free to engage in public life on the basis of their faith, with freedom of conscience. We must engage publicly within a framework of what’s agreed to be fair for all. What is a right for Christians will be automatically a right for an atheist, a Jew or a Muslim. A right for one is a responsibility for the other; it’s very important to guard each other’s rights.

I use the example of the Queensberry rules from boxing. [With roots in] Roman gladiatorial games, boxing was pretty brutal up until the 19th century. In 1867 the Marquis of Queensberry lent his name to regulations that put boxing in a ring, under a referee, within [a framework of] rules. For instance: Touch gloves to begin and don’t punch below the belt. But boxing is not a love-in. Boxers fight until one loses.

That’s democratic civility. It’s not a “Kumbaya” moment in which we happily agree. The difference is that you are debating with words [rather than fists.]

Q: Can you give an example of civil debate along the lines of Queensberry rules that changed a society?

With an understanding that humans are made in the image of God, Christians and Jews know that every human is precious and has dignity. William Wilberforce entered the ring in 1787 when he argued for the abolition of slavery in the English House of Parliament. He was defeated, defeated, defeated and defeated. Every year he entered the ring again. It took him 20 years to win. He was prepared to enter the ring [as often as it took] to persuade and prevail. That’s democratic civility.

Wilberforce was gracious; he was humble and loving. Twice, opponents physically attacked him in the street. He remained gracious even when he was the most disparaged man in the world. He never vilified his opponents. A lot of reformers are fanatics, like William Lloyd Garrison in the United States. Wilberforce was never a fanatic. He was a follower of Jesus, humble, gracious and loving. That’s how we should be known, not as culture warriors.

The Great Commission stands at the center of Christianity as the command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ for his church to proclaim the name of God in the world for the sake of all nations and God’s glory among them. The church fulfills the commission by making disciples of Christ, teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded his church to believe and obey (Matt 28:18-20). Evangelism that calls sinners to repentance and spreads the fame of God’s name, then, is at the very heart of the mission of God’s people.

EVANGELISM IN A POST-CHRISTIAN WORLD

Every culture and civilization embraces a certain set of assumptions about life, truth, significance, and what it means to be human. Without these shared assumptions, societal life would be impossible. Individuals within these societies may not give much active thought to these common assumptions, but their decisions, expectations, and general dispositions reflect the presence of these assumptions as what some philosophers call background ideas.

Out of these assumptions an entire way of life emerges. Background ideas move into the foreground as morals, manners, and the culture at large begins to reflect the decisive influence of these ideas. In America, an identifiable “American way” of life rules as an operational worldview for many persons — perhaps even replacing more fundamental convictions.

The “American way” involves, among other things, patriotism, a sense of fair play, equality, personal autonomy, and limitless opportunity. We expect each other to respect these assumptions and ideals. Americans are not sure what to do with ideals of equality and fairness, but we are generally certain that equality and fairness are the right categories to employ, regardless of the idea or context.

Looking at these same issues, Peter Berger — now in his tenth decade of life and one of the most influential sociologists of our day — wrote years ago in his book The Heretical Imperative that the “heretical imperative” of the modern era is the imperative to choose. In Berger’s analysis, in the pre-modern era one did not need to choose one’s beliefs. Instead, in the West, virtually everyone was born and baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, identity was externally fixed for individuals. In the modern secular world, however, this is no longer the case. Choice is endemic in every area of life — we simply cannot avoid it. As a result, Berger concludes that in the modern age we must take responsibility for our identity. It is no longer given; it is self-determined.

In our culture, people who think themselves autonomous will claim the right to define all meaning for themselves. Any truth claim they reject or resist is simply ruled out of bounds by society at large. We will make our own world of meaning and dare anyone to violate our autonomy.

This is why evangelism is often perceived as insensitive or even threatening in our culture. Evangelism demands that we press the authority of Scripture and the claims of Christ on sinners as we invite them to the free gift of salvation provided through Christ’s atoning work.

In a post-Christian age, evangelism will be met with one of three responses. First, evangelism will be met with hostility. This will not necessarily take the form of overt action. But, at least in the immediate future, much of this hostility will look like cultural marginalization. Anyone caught inviting sinners to repent of their sin and turn to Christ will be seen as backwards or even culturally subversive.

Second, evangelism will also often be met with befuddlement. In a world that has lost fundamental Christian presuppositions about the holiness of God and human accountability, the call of the gospel will more often perplex than infuriate. The plausibility structures of society are so different from our own that many people simply cannot understand us.

Finally, we will find that we will not only be met with hostility and befuddlement, but also indifference. Many in our society will not even care enough about our message to spend their energies either in hostility or befuddlement.

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITHFUL EVANGELISM

Historical evangelicalism has always valued both theological principle and vigorous evangelism. Indeed, we cannot be authentically and faithfully evangelical without holding both of these features in tandem. The unity between evangelical theology and evangelism is not forced or fabricated. Our theological convictions should irrevocably give birth to our evangelistic fervor.

Historically, evangelicals have always held to the ultimate authority and divine inspiration of Scripture. We believe Scripture, God’s inerrant Word, is the only source of real spiritual authority and power. As a result, our evangelism must be rooted in a rigorous commitment to the Bible.

Too often, Christians fail to appeal to Scripture or employ Scripture in evangelism. But Scripture should be our primary tool for introducing people to Jesus. What better way to let people encounter Jesus than simply to show them Jesus in the pages of the New Testament. As my friend Mark Dever explains in his highly accessible book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism:

The Bible is God’s Word and is inspired by God’s Spirit. God’s message can go out not just through your words and mine, but through his own inspired words. And we can know that he will take a special delight in showing the power of his Word as he uses it in conversions ... Referring to the clear teaching of the Bible also shows our friends that we are not simply giving them our own private ideas; rather, we are presenting Jesus Christ in his own life and teaching. Just as we want the preaching in our churches to be expositional — preaching in which the point of the message is the point of the Bible passage being preached — we want to see people exposed to God’s Word because we believe that God desires to use his Word to bring about conversions. It is God’s Word coming to us that his Spirit uses to reshape our lives. In your evangelism, use the Bible.

At the same time, evangelicals have also historically affirmed penal substitutionary atonement as the heart of the gospel and thus the heart of our evangelistic message. As J.I. Packer once wrote, penal substitution is “a distinguishing mark of the worldwide evangelical fraternity.” Our ultimate need is not that of a moral guide or a philosophy instructor. We need a Savior.

The message of Scripture is that Christ died as a substitute for us, bearing our guilt and absorbing God’s wrath so that we might receive his righteousness. Without that message, we lose the evangel of evangelism.

Fundamentally, the survival of the church in a post-Christian age comes down to a promise and a command given us in Scripture, an indicative and an imperative. First, we must remember that Jesus promised, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

Next, we must remember that we have been commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:18-20). We need to remember both of these words from Scripture in order to evangelize faithfully and maintain our evangelical identity.

As we evangelize we must keep the gospel and the person of Christ central and we must unashamedly and winsomely teach our evangelical commitments. We must talk about God’s holiness and righteousness, we must talk about sin, and we must talk about our need of a Savior. The core of the good news is the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is the one we must talk about most of all — and without fail.

Author Christopher Hitchens, striving for the uncontested title as the World’s Most Strident Atheist, suggests that our culture is experiencing “something like a change in the zeitgiest” -- and that that change means a new openness to atheism. His book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, is a direct assault upon belief in God. The assault extends to the Bible. As religion writer Rachel Zoll explains, Hitchens and his fellow atheists dismiss the Bible as “fairy tales posing as divine scripture.” Many do not mince words.

That doesn’t go over well with Carlin Romano, a professor and literary critic who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania. Writing in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Romano suggests that atheists should learn some lessons in etiquette. Indeed, he argues that atheists could learn from the polite evasions of literary critics like himself, who couch dismissive messages in kinder prose:

The simple answer, then, to how atheists should respond to sacred texts is: politely, if possible, employing all the wry ambiguity book critics use when awkwardly trapped with the author or admirer of a book about which they have reservations. “It’s really quite amazing,” one might say, or, “You know, I was just reading it the other day -- it’s as good as ever.”

To respond otherwise is rude, he believes, and the newly assertive atheists have shown their share of rudeness. But Romano does understand that atheists have to respond to the Bible in some manner:

For almost everyone involved in the believer/atheist debate,

atheism consists in denying the existence of God, then

philosophically evaluating the consequences in the spirit (if not

according to the exact program) of a contemporary Nietzsche or

Grand Inquisitor. Yet, to a literary critic’s eye, many of these

books ignore, for the most part, a crucial question: What should

the atheist’s position be on “sacred texts”?

As any postmodernist worth a salary would quickly understand, Romano describes this as “another ‘death of the author’ problem.”

As he sees the issue, the problem is that the texts remain even when God is dismissed. “Unlike the situation with God,” Romano asserts, “atheists can’t deny the existence of sacred texts, at least as texts. There is indisputably something on hand to deal with.”

That does pose a problem. God may be declared dead or non-existent, but the Bible remains very clearly existent by the atheist’s bed in the hotel room. Just open the drawer and it is there. Then the atheist author goes to his book signing party at the bookstore and nearby shelves are filled with Bibles for sale. What’s the atheist to do?

Most seem to reject it outright, often with vitriol. After reviewing arguments and selected quotations from aggressive atheists, Romano suggests that throwing stones at books believers consider to be sacred is not a good public strategy.

Here is how Romano asserts his call for a new etiquette:

In advanced, progressive, tolerant societies, we also don’t go up

to strangers and tell them that they’re ugly, that their children

are repulsive, that their clothes don’t match, that they need a

bath, that the leisure activity they’re engaged in is stupid and

a waste of time. In the same way, atheists should not,

unprovoked, go on and on about how sacred texts lack God’s

imprimatur. And believers should not blithely go after atheists.

If this sounds like the credo of an American -- an odd creature

of history who might be an atheist or believer -- the plea is

guilty. One can, of course, line up the bolstering high-culture

quotations on this side too, against the belligerent atheists.

Schopenhauer’s proviso that politeness is “a tacit agreement that

people’s miserable defects, whether moral or intellectual, shall

on either side be ignored and not made the subject of reproach.”

Even Eric Hoffer’s lovely line that “rudeness is the weak man’s

imitation of strength.”

And so, just as you would not tell parents that their children are repulsive, atheists should not tell the public what they really believe about the Bible.

Politeness does have its limits, however. Romano argues that when believers “start to use sacred writings to oppress,” the atheists must go on the attack.

As he argues:

Polite respect ends when believers insist on sacred texts as

God’s authorization of those believers to regulate, suppress, or

punish the behavior of nonbelievers. In such situations, the

atheist’s politeness goes out the window because the believer has

thrown his politeness out the window first. Is there anything as

impolite -- a gentle word, to be sure -- as forcing one’s moral

rules on another because they supposedly come from a divine being

whose existence the other doesn’t accept?

Strange as it may seem, I think I like Christopher Hitchens’ approach better. Hitchens at least understands what is at stake. This really isn’t about etiquette. Christians are to be kind and gracious, but the offense of the Gospel remains. It is not considered polite to tell persons that they are sinners destined for hell. Etiquette would demand that Christians abandon the claim that Jesus is the only Savior and that the Gospel is the only message that saves. Such claims are, in our modern context, considered insufferably rude.

In this sense, Hitchens understands what he rejects. It is clear that he has actually read the Bible, or at least much of it. He does not believe in God, therefore he does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. He sees the Bible as a hopelessly repressive book -- a book to be opposed, not politely and dishonestly referred to as “sacred” just because Christians believe it to be so.

At least we understand each other. Both Hitchens and believing Christians understand the limits of etiquette. The Bible demands obedience and belief, not insincere compliments.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #7491]

The Great Commission stands at the center of Christianity as the command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ for his church to proclaim the name of God in the world for the sake of all nations and God’s glory among them. The church fulfills the commission by making disciples of Christ, teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded his church to believe and obey (Matt 28:18-20). Evangelism that calls sinners to repentance and spreads the fame of God’s name, then, is at the very heart of the mission of God’s people.

EVANGELISM IN A POST-CHRISTIAN WORLD

Every culture and civilization embraces a certain set of assumptions about life, truth, significance, and what it means to be human. Without these shared assumptions, societal life would be impossible. Individuals within these societies may not give much active thought to these common assumptions, but their decisions, expectations, and general dispositions reflect the presence of these assumptions as what some philosophers call background ideas.

Out of these assumptions an entire way of life emerges. Background ideas move into the foreground as morals, manners, and the culture at large begins to reflect the decisive influence of these ideas. In America, an identifiable “American way” of life rules as an operational worldview for many persons — perhaps even replacing more fundamental convictions.

The “American way” involves, among other things, patriotism, a sense of fair play, equality, personal autonomy, and limitless opportunity. We expect each other to respect these assumptions and ideals. Americans are not sure what to do with ideals of equality and fairness, but we are generally certain that equality and fairness are the right categories to employ, regardless of the idea or context.

Looking at these same issues, Peter Berger — now in his tenth decade of life and one of the most influential sociologists of our day — wrote years ago in his book The Heretical Imperative that the “heretical imperative” of the modern era is the imperative to choose. In Berger’s analysis, in the pre-modern era one did not need to choose one’s beliefs. Instead, in the West, virtually everyone was born and baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, identity was externally fixed for individuals. In the modern secular world, however, this is no longer the case. Choice is endemic in every area of life — we simply cannot avoid it. As a result, Berger concludes that in the modern age we must take responsibility for our identity. It is no longer given; it is self-determined.

In our culture, people who think themselves autonomous will claim the right to define all meaning for themselves. Any truth claim they reject or resist is simply ruled out of bounds by society at large. We will make our own world of meaning and dare anyone to violate our autonomy.

This is why evangelism is often perceived as insensitive or even threatening in our culture. Evangelism demands that we press the authority of Scripture and the claims of Christ on sinners as we invite them to the free gift of salvation provided through Christ’s atoning work.

In a post-Christian age, evangelism will be met with one of three responses. First, evangelism will be met with hostility. This will not necessarily take the form of overt action. But, at least in the immediate future, much of this hostility will look like cultural marginalization. Anyone caught inviting sinners to repent of their sin and turn to Christ will be seen as backwards or even culturally subversive.

Second, evangelism will also often be met with befuddlement. In a world that has lost fundamental Christian presuppositions about the holiness of God and human accountability, the call of the gospel will more often perplex than infuriate. The plausibility structures of society are so different from our own that many people simply cannot understand us.

Finally, we will find that we will not only be met with hostility and befuddlement, but also indifference. Many in our society will not even care enough about our message to spend their energies either in hostility or befuddlement.

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITHFUL EVANGELISM

Historical evangelicalism has always valued both theological principle and vigorous evangelism. Indeed, we cannot be authentically and faithfully evangelical without holding both of these features in tandem. The unity between evangelical theology and evangelism is not forced or fabricated. Our theological convictions should irrevocably give birth to our evangelistic fervor.

Historically, evangelicals have always held to the ultimate authority and divine inspiration of Scripture. We believe Scripture, God’s inerrant Word, is the only source of real spiritual authority and power. As a result, our evangelism must be rooted in a rigorous commitment to the Bible.

Too often, Christians fail to appeal to Scripture or employ Scripture in evangelism. But Scripture should be our primary tool for introducing people to Jesus. What better way to let people encounter Jesus than simply to show them Jesus in the pages of the New Testament. As my friend Mark Dever explains in his highly accessible book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism:

The Bible is God’s Word and is inspired by God’s Spirit. God’s message can go out not just through your words and mine, but through his own inspired words. And we can know that he will take a special delight in showing the power of his Word as he uses it in conversions ... Referring to the clear teaching of the Bible also shows our friends that we are not simply giving them our own private ideas; rather, we are presenting Jesus Christ in his own life and teaching. Just as we want the preaching in our churches to be expositional — preaching in which the point of the message is the point of the Bible passage being preached — we want to see people exposed to God’s Word because we believe that God desires to use his Word to bring about conversions. It is God’s Word coming to us that his Spirit uses to reshape our lives. In your evangelism, use the Bible.

At the same time, evangelicals have also historically affirmed penal substitutionary atonement as the heart of the gospel and thus the heart of our evangelistic message. As J.I. Packer once wrote, penal substitution is “a distinguishing mark of the worldwide evangelical fraternity.” Our ultimate need is not that of a moral guide or a philosophy instructor. We need a Savior.

The message of Scripture is that Christ died as a substitute for us, bearing our guilt and absorbing God’s wrath so that we might receive his righteousness. Without that message, we lose the evangel of evangelism.

Fundamentally, the survival of the church in a post-Christian age comes down to a promise and a command given us in Scripture, an indicative and an imperative. First, we must remember that Jesus promised, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

Next, we must remember that we have been commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:18-20). We need to remember both of these words from Scripture in order to evangelize faithfully and maintain our evangelical identity.

As we evangelize we must keep the gospel and the person of Christ central and we must unashamedly and winsomely teach our evangelical commitments. We must talk about God’s holiness and righteousness, we must talk about sin, and we must talk about our need of a Savior. The core of the good news is the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is the one we must talk about most of all — and without fail.

The Great Commission stands at the center of Christianity as the command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ for his church to proclaim the name of God in the world for the sake of all nations and God’s glory among them. The church fulfills the commission by making disciples of Christ, teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded his church to believe and obey (Matt 28:18-20). Evangelism that calls sinners to repentance and spreads the fame of God’s name, then, is at the very heart of the mission of God’s people.

EVANGELISM IN A POST-CHRISTIAN WORLD

Every culture and civilization embraces a certain set of assumptions about life, truth, significance, and what it means to be human. Without these shared assumptions, societal life would be impossible. Individuals within these societies may not give much active thought to these common assumptions, but their decisions, expectations, and general dispositions reflect the presence of these assumptions as what some philosophers call background ideas.

Out of these assumptions an entire way of life emerges. Background ideas move into the foreground as morals, manners, and the culture at large begins to reflect the decisive influence of these ideas. In America, an identifiable “American way” of life rules as an operational worldview for many persons — perhaps even replacing more fundamental convictions.

The “American way” involves, among other things, patriotism, a sense of fair play, equality, personal autonomy, and limitless opportunity. We expect each other to respect these assumptions and ideals. Americans are not sure what to do with ideals of equality and fairness, but we are generally certain that equality and fairness are the right categories to employ, regardless of the idea or context.

Looking at these same issues, Peter Berger — now in his tenth decade of life and one of the most influential sociologists of our day — wrote years ago in his book The Heretical Imperative that the “heretical imperative” of the modern era is the imperative to choose. In Berger’s analysis, in the pre-modern era one did not need to choose one’s beliefs. Instead, in the West, virtually everyone was born and baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, identity was externally fixed for individuals. In the modern secular world, however, this is no longer the case. Choice is endemic in every area of life — we simply cannot avoid it. As a result, Berger concludes that in the modern age we must take responsibility for our identity. It is no longer given; it is self-determined.

In our culture, people who think themselves autonomous will claim the right to define all meaning for themselves. Any truth claim they reject or resist is simply ruled out of bounds by society at large. We will make our own world of meaning and dare anyone to violate our autonomy.

This is why evangelism is often perceived as insensitive or even threatening in our culture. Evangelism demands that we press the authority of Scripture and the claims of Christ on sinners as we invite them to the free gift of salvation provided through Christ’s atoning work.

In a post-Christian age, evangelism will be met with one of three responses. First, evangelism will be met with hostility. This will not necessarily take the form of overt action. But, at least in the immediate future, much of this hostility will look like cultural marginalization. Anyone caught inviting sinners to repent of their sin and turn to Christ will be seen as backwards or even culturally subversive.

Second, evangelism will also often be met with befuddlement. In a world that has lost fundamental Christian presuppositions about the holiness of God and human accountability, the call of the gospel will more often perplex than infuriate. The plausibility structures of society are so different from our own that many people simply cannot understand us.

Finally, we will find that we will not only be met with hostility and befuddlement, but also indifference. Many in our society will not even care enough about our message to spend their energies either in hostility or befuddlement.

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITHFUL EVANGELISM

Historical evangelicalism has always valued both theological principle and vigorous evangelism. Indeed, we cannot be authentically and faithfully evangelical without holding both of these features in tandem. The unity between evangelical theology and evangelism is not forced or fabricated. Our theological convictions should irrevocably give birth to our evangelistic fervor.

Historically, evangelicals have always held to the ultimate authority and divine inspiration of Scripture. We believe Scripture, God’s inerrant Word, is the only source of real spiritual authority and power. As a result, our evangelism must be rooted in a rigorous commitment to the Bible.

Too often, Christians fail to appeal to Scripture or employ Scripture in evangelism. But Scripture should be our primary tool for introducing people to Jesus. What better way to let people encounter Jesus than simply to show them Jesus in the pages of the New Testament. As my friend Mark Dever explains in his highly accessible book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism:

The Bible is God’s Word and is inspired by God’s Spirit. God’s message can go out not just through your words and mine, but through his own inspired words. And we can know that he will take a special delight in showing the power of his Word as he uses it in conversions ... Referring to the clear teaching of the Bible also shows our friends that we are not simply giving them our own private ideas; rather, we are presenting Jesus Christ in his own life and teaching. Just as we want the preaching in our churches to be expositional — preaching in which the point of the message is the point of the Bible passage being preached — we want to see people exposed to God’s Word because we believe that God desires to use his Word to bring about conversions. It is God’s Word coming to us that his Spirit uses to reshape our lives. In your evangelism, use the Bible.

At the same time, evangelicals have also historically affirmed penal substitutionary atonement as the heart of the gospel and thus the heart of our evangelistic message. As J.I. Packer once wrote, penal substitution is “a distinguishing mark of the worldwide evangelical fraternity.” Our ultimate need is not that of a moral guide or a philosophy instructor. We need a Savior.

The message of Scripture is that Christ died as a substitute for us, bearing our guilt and absorbing God’s wrath so that we might receive his righteousness. Without that message, we lose the evangel of evangelism.

Fundamentally, the survival of the church in a post-Christian age comes down to a promise and a command given us in Scripture, an indicative and an imperative. First, we must remember that Jesus promised, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

Next, we must remember that we have been commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:18-20). We need to remember both of these words from Scripture in order to evangelize faithfully and maintain our evangelical identity.

As we evangelize we must keep the gospel and the person of Christ central and we must unashamedly and winsomely teach our evangelical commitments. We must talk about God’s holiness and righteousness, we must talk about sin, and we must talk about our need of a Savior. The core of the good news is the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is the one we must talk about most of all — and without fail.

First-century evangelists had a short life expectancy –- and no shortage of enemies.

“Endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist,” the Apostle Paul wrote in a letter to his young disciple Timothy, boiling the missionary task down to its rugged essence (2 Timothy 4:5). Threats, persecution, beatings and probable martyrdom were all part of the job description.

Paul and Timothy preached the Gospel in a violent, decadent and pagan world. The Roman emperors demanded submission and even worship. Roman and Greek idols captured the gentile imagination –- and local economies –- in Roman-ruled cities like Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). The political/religious/economic power structure didn’t take kindly to competition, as Paul discovered when he ran afoul of the Ephesian merchants who made a good living off the cult of the goddess Artemis (Acts 19).

Paul eventually died at the hands of the Romans. Years later, according to church tradition, Timothy was dragged through the streets of Ephesus and stoned to death after trying to stop a pagan procession and preach Christ.

Paul never sugarcoated the difficulty of the mission task. In his letter to Timothy, he predicted things would get even worse in the last days:

“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful,

proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,

without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control,

brutal, not lovers of good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers

of pleasure rather than lovers of God -– having a form of

godliness but denying its power....” (2 Timothy 3:2-5).

Sound familiar? Human nature doesn’t change much from one era to the next.

Christian evangelism is less life-threatening these days, at least in some places. In other places, it’s more dangerous than ever.

“Political disruption and instability threaten missionary presence on many fields,” International Mission Board President Jerry Rankin said June 12 during his report to Southern Baptist Convention messengers meeting in San Antonio, Texas. Global terrorism also jeopardizes ministry in multiple areas.

But sometimes the “safe” places -– such as post-Christian Europe -– present greater spiritual challenges than the dangerous ones. Why?

“A massive wave of postmodern humanism responds with ridicule to anyone who would embrace the notion of absolute truth and the certainty of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ,” Rankin explained.

Reactionary humanism is really another form of paganism –- updated, pretending to be tolerant, but just as hostile to the Gospel as the merchants of Artemis were. The Gospel, however, has two timeless advantages in the global struggle for hearts and minds: It is the truth, and people everywhere are hungry to hear it.

People like Genady Krechin, a Russian businessman who spent years living for himself. He made a fortune in the post-Soviet economic free-for-all by selling vodka and building ties to Russian gangsters. But he felt his eternal soul slipping away.

“As the Bible would say, I decided that I would serve Mammon as the ruler of my life,” recalls Krechin, whose testimony was featured during the IMB report at the Southern Baptist Convention meeting. “But as the money became more and more, happiness and joy became less and less. I was drinking. I was partying. I was destroying myself. I was divided against myself. My spirit was struggling.”

When a Russian Baptist believer told him the story of Jesus, the words about God’s love and mercy moved him. One night, Krechin repented and gave his heart to the Lord. Today he’s a Baptist church planter working with Southern Baptist missionaries in Moscow.

People need the Lord –- and they are desperate to know Him. That was true in first-century Ephesus and it’s true now. And however hostile the world may seem at any given moment, tellers of the Jesus story have more friends than they realize.

Recently a Christian evangelist in China was sharing Jesus with a 16-year-old seeker in a public shopping arcade when a security guard walked over and snatched a Gospel tract out of his hand. Not knowing what would happen next, the Christian turned to the guard and said, “Yes, I have already talked with this young man. He showed interest. I am not forcing him to do anything. If he should decide to believe, it’s his own decision.”

As the guard flipped through the pages of the tract, the evangelist prayed silently. When he saw that the guard was on the last page, he asked, “Sir, do you know Jesus?” To his amazement, the reply was yes.

Then the guard handed the tract to the 16-year-old and said, “Here. Read it.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6989]

Will the godly always be persecuted?

John Wesley was riding on his horse when it dawned on him he had not been persecuted for three days. “Maybe I've sinned or been disobedient.” He got off his horse, got on knees.

A redneck on other side of road recognized the evangelist and heaved a rock at him. It bounced off the road, just missing Wesley. He leaped to his feet and shouted, “Thanks be to God! Everything's all right. I still have God's presence with me!”