Tim Keller Talks Apologetics and Evangelism with CT

Some friends and I had the pleasure of attending Tim Keller's Veritas Forum lecture at Northwestern University, part of his The Reason for God book tour. While he was in town he sat down with Christianity Today assistant editor Susan Wunderink. You can read the interview here.

Since my last two posts have dealt with marketing approaches to evangelism, I took particular note of what Keller sees as a major flaw in this way of thinking:

Marketing is about felt needs. You find the need and then you say Christianity will meet that need. You have to adapt to people's questions. And if people are asking a question, you want to show how Jesus is the answer. But at a certain point, you have to go past their question to the other things that Christianity says. Otherwise you're just scratching where they itch. So marketing is showing how Christianity meets the need, and I think the gospel is showing how Christianity is the truth.

C. S. Lewis says somewhere not to believe in Christianity because it's relevant or exciting or personally satisfying. Believe it because it's true. And if it's true, it eventually will be relevant, exciting, and personally satisfying. But there will be many times when it's not relevant, exciting, and personally satisfying. To be a Christian is going to be very, very hard. So unless you come to it simply because it's really the truth, you really won't live the Christian life, and you won't get to the excitement and to the relevance and all that other stuff.

And here's a nugget for emergents and other skeptics concerning the role of rationality in leading people to faith:

Perhaps there was a day in which Christians thought that you evangelized largely through intellectual argument, but now I hear people saying, "No, it's all personal. If you're going to win people to Christ you just have to be authentic. You have to just reach out to them personally. You can't do the rational." In other words, Christians are saying the rational isn't part of evangelism. The fact is, people are rational. They do have questions. You have to answer those questions.  Don't get the impression that I think that the rational aspect takes you all the way there. But there's too much emphasis on just the personal now.  Maybe you know I'm a 57-year-old man. You'd say, "Of course you'd say that." But I'm knee deep in 20-somethings. So it's not like I don't know how people are today.

Christian Euphemisms

In the interest of clear communication, Christians should carefully consider whether the vocabulary we use in declaring the gospel helps or hinders its furtherance. Contextualization of this sort is commendable. However, sometimes our selection of terms is driven not so much by a desire to facilitate understanding as by a desire to diminish the offense inherent in the message of the cross. After all, warning unbelievers about entering a "Christless eternity" isn't nearly as harsh-sounding as warnings about "hell" and thus the use of such euphemistic language might give us a longer hearing with people who would otherwise be turned off. Of course, it doesn't occur to us that the thought of an eternity without Christ is actually appealing to those who now hate him and have no desire for him.

The use of such toned-down language is not restricted to our conversations with non-Christians. Even when talking with each other we can resort to the use of euphemisms that dilute the concentration of biblical truths. I've always considered the phrase "unchurched" to describe the unconverted to be an example of such. The familiar term can easily give the false impression that a person's most fundamental problem is that he or she has not been properly socialized in church life. Likewise, it can give those who have never repented and trusted in Christ yet who regularly participate in church activities (i.e., the "churched"), a false security.

David Wells in his latest volume, The Courage to Be Protestant, critiques the premises and methods of the church growth and seeker-sensitive movements, noting how the words we use are products of the paradigm that is functionally authoritative:

We need look no further than the way those involved in this experiment speak of the unconverted. In virtually all church-marketing literature, non-Christians are no longer unconverted, or unsaved, or those not-yet-reconicled-to-the-Father, or those who have not come to faith, or those who are outside of Christ. No, they are simply the unchurched. Those who were once the unconverted have become the unchurched. This spares us the embarrassment of uttering theological truth. And that is the tip-off that something is amiss here. What is amiss is that the Christianity being peddled is not about theological truth (p. 45).

Two Roads

Matthias Media has produced a new evangelistic booklet adapted from their popular Two ways to live gospel outline. "It explains the Christian gospel in simple, easy-to-read language." Read the full text of the new tract here.

Culture, Compassion, and Compass: Responding to Anti-Christian Media

In a current Christianity Today article titled "When the Media Became a Nuisance," New Testament professor Darrel Bock offers helpful advice on how Christians can constructively respond to blockbuster books, documentaries, and motion pictures that challenge the truthfulness of the Christian faith. As he points out, a critical necessity is equipping:

Rather than seeing new media reports as conspiracies to rail against, why not see them as opportunities to discuss faith with friends and neighbors who will find them intriguing? Only we mustn't do so with an angry or dismissive tone. Rather, we ought to respectfully explain the historic Christian view. Becoming equipped for such discussions may require seminars organized by local churches. Imagine churches working together to help believers contend for the truth in their communities.

The reason Dr. Bock has to urge us to employ our imaginations to envision this kind of equipping is it happens so rarely. What a contrast this vision is to the several emails I've received urging me to boycott the film The Golden Compass. I'm sure those who circulate such missives mean well but hopefully we will not think that we are satisfying our calling to be redemptive agents in the world by trying to organize mass protests via the Internet. Clicking "forward" and "send" is certainly less time consuming and mentally taxing than the activity Darrel Bock commends but it is not nearly as effective in advancing God's kingdom.


Thinking about our propensity to opt for demonstrations over dialogues reminded me of lines I marked years ago in J. Daryl Charles's book, The Unformed Conscience of Evangelicalism: Recovering the Church's Moral Vision. In it, the author laments American evangelicalism's lack of a mature theology of public life and moral persuasion. Referring to Os Guinness's Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It, Charles writes:

Evangelicals, he notes, have frequently concentrated their efforts in domains that are peripheral to society rather than central. Correlatively, they have relied heavily on populist strengths and rhetoric rather than addressing "gatekeepers" of contemporary culture. Moreover, and critical to the viability of an evangelical social ethic, we have sought to change society through political and legal means rather than contending in the marketplace of ideas at the intellectual level. Thus, evangelicals have tended to rely on "a rhetoric of protest, pronouncement, and picketing" rather than on moral persuasion.

Johnson adds:

The relative inattention to winning a person's mind and way of thinking, an inattention that tends to depreciate a long-term strategy of building relationships and addressing moral-philosophical complexities, has lasting results that are counterproductive to evangelicals' mission to the world.

I intend to see The Golden Compass, not only because it looks like a spectacular piece of filmmaking (at least as far as special effects go), but because I want to be able to speak intelligently with the people around me who will see it. I also wish to speak compassionately.

In an excellent article titled "Why We Can Neither Boycott nor Ignore 'The Golden Compass'" (HT: The Pearcey Report), David Dunham addresses this point, drawing lessons from Francis Schaeffer's evangelistic method which involved deconstructing a person's unbiblical worldview (a process Schaeffer referred to as "blowing the roof off"). Dunham notes Schaeffer's insistence that compassion accompany this activity, quoting from The God Who Is There:

These paintings, these poems, and these demonstrations which we have been talking about are the expression of men who are struggling with their appalling lostness. Dare we laugh at such things? Dare we feel superior when we view their tortured expressions in their art? Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously. Then we shall have the right to speak again to our generation. These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them? There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.

Dunham adds:

That is probably the greatest lesson we can learn from Dr. Schaeffer. You can never share the gospel with someone whom you do not take seriously as a human being; and they will never want to listen to you if your words are not truth and compassion mixed together. There church, and individual Christians in particular, have over the past several centuries struggled greatly with this kind of evangelism. We have often found ourselves more interested in turning up our noses, mocking, belittling, and boycotting the culture, but Schaeffer would have us to find compassion for the culture. So he says, “As I push a man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care about him. Otherwise I will only end up destroying him…” We must have compassion.

Yes I am angry that Philip Pullman wants to “destroy Christianity!” But in his books (which have been adapted into a full length motion picture, released today) I also sense that there is a man who hates God, who is honest about it, and who needs the gospel. I will find in some of his major fans similar feelings of religious disdain. How I share the gospel with them will need to start with recognizing this factor and lovingly tearing down the worldview that supports it as I bring them the gospel. What Schaeffer does so well is to remind us that the culture is part of life, where people’s worldviews are expressed, and though we would often criticize and demean culture it can and should actually be part of how we do evangelism.

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian is a good example of the kind of action those I've quoted above call for. He recently led discussions of Philip Pullman's trilogy at two local libraries. He has also assembled a list of informative posts he wrote while making his way through the books.


Yes, imagine. Imagine a day when emails calling believers to boycott expressions of unbelief are overwhelmingly outnumbered by invitations to learn how to thoughtfully engage those who produce and consume them. I know, it's a stretch. But imagine.

Isaiah 53 Debate This Sunday

On Sunday, October 28th, Chosen People Ministries will webcast a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach originally held in June of this year. The debate, titled "Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?", focuses on the interpretation of Isaiah 53.

Dr. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from NYU and is the author of several books including the four-volume series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus and What Do Jewish People Think about Jesus? He is the founder and president of ICN Ministries.

Rabbi Boteach, named "the most famous rabbi in America" by Newsweek, is the host of the popular television show Shalom in the Home. He has also authored numerous books including An Intelligent Person's Guide to Judaism and Judaism for Everyone.

View the debate here anytime on Sunday.

Dawkins Talk Recap

For the sake of at least one inquirer and anyone else who's interested, I thought I'd give a brief report on how things went with the discussion of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion at our local public library almost two weeks ago. My friend and coworker, Tim Hunter, and I got the idea for the event while browsing a catalog from the library announcing various classes and lectures that would be offered as part of their adult programming. Seeing the variety of perspectives represented (a class on numerology especially caught our attention) prompted us to consider how we could utilize that forum to engage people in the community with a thoughtful Christian perspective. I frequently consider what the contemporary analogues to the first century marketplace are. In what public venues are people willing to hear and discuss ideas of great consequence? I think bookstores and libraries are natural answers because, for the most part, those who frequent them care about ideas.

Since Dawkins' book has proved to be of such great national interest (falling short of a year on the New York Times' bestseller list by only a week), it seemed a reasonable choice for a library event. Our intent was not to give a gospel presentation but rather to chip away at the plausibility of Dawkins' argument in hope of getting people to think critically about his position and, perhaps, to open lines of communication with people willing to discuss the issues further beyond the scheduled event.

Fifty-three people registered for the program though only about 50 showed up with 15 of that number being from our church. Prior to our getting started the library's coordinator of adult programming informed us that someone had called earlier that day complaining that the library was hosting such an event because "only one side would be presented." I was hoping that the caller would be there to offer an opposing viewpoint but if he or she did attend, they didn't offer any rebuttal to anything we offered by way of critique of Dawkins' position. Admittedly, we were slightly nervous about the potential of having hostile audience members but that wasn't the case. The conversation that did take place after our presentation, even with those who seemed sympathetic to Dawkins, was mutually respectful and enjoyable.

Making efficient use of the 90 minutes we were allotted was challenging. We wanted to allow adequate time for Q & A but we also had a lot of material to cover. We assumed that most of the people in attendance would not have read the book and that assumption proved correct. In our introductory remarks we noted that we were the kind of people that Richard Dawkins hopes would be converted to atheism upon completion of his book. We went on to explain that neither of us had such an epiphany as a result of reading The God Delusion but not for the reason Dawkins offers. According to him, "dyed-in-the-wool-faith-heads" are immune to reasoning on account of years of religious indoctrination including dire warnings to avoid "Satanic" books like his. Tim and I said that while we have arrived at a different conclusion than has Dawkins, we nevertheless are in agreement with him that the discussion of whether God exists is worthy of discussion in the public arena and are therefore grateful to him and the spate of atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris who have helped bring the topic to the forefront of public discourse.

We went on to point out another area of agreement with Dawkins, namely that religious beliefs should not be afforded such a privileged status that their being questioned or critiqued is regarded as inherently offensive. We said that while we think that people should be treated respectfully, we think it's misguided to insist in the name of respect that we take a position that counts all religious beliefs as equally valid or true. We added that we think we should be able to argue the merits of various religious systems while being respectful of those with whom we disagree. As Christian theists, we are persuaded that Christianity is true just as adherents to other religious and/or philosophical beliefs regard their beliefs as true which means that regardless of our position, we consider beliefs that contradict those we hold to be true, to be false.

We spent a little over an hour giving a chapter by chapter overview of the book followed by our critique which concentrated on Dawkins' pre-scientific materialistic philosophy, his failure to distinguish between science and scientism, the inconsistency between his Darwinian account of morality and his repeatedly speaking like a moral realist or absolutist, and his failure to even acknowledge the theistic argument from rationality as presented by C. S. Lewis in Miracles and more recently by philosophers such as Victor Reppert in his C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason and Alvin Plantinga in numerous writings including his review of The God Delusion for Books & Culture.

By the time we got through our presentation we had about 25 minutes left for discussion during which time someone said that though Dawkins might overstate the case, he does have a valid point about the atrocities committed on account of religious beliefs. We responded that it is not religious belief per se that causes violence but rather what is believed that is the crucial issue. Another participant voiced frustration with every religion trying to prove that it's better than the others and made an appeal for tolerance. To this we reiterated that if we are to take religious claims seriously, we can't say that they're all accurate descriptions of God and the world regardless of the fact that they are, in many cases, mutually exclusive.

Following our presentation we had some opportunities to talk with a few folks who thanked us for our efforts. The library's program coordinator sent us a very encouraging letter of appreciation in which she reported that numerous patrons told her how much they enjoyed the event. This, along with the number of people who showed up, makes us optimistic about the potential for offering related talks in the near future. We've already started thinking about what other books we might use.

Phil Johnson and John MacArthur Talk Election

Thanks to Brian Thornton for making an audio of John MacArthur being interviewed by Pyromaniac Phil Johnson on the doctrine of election available at his blog, Voice of the Sheep (HT: Brian McCrorie).

I haven't listened yet but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Brian's analysis:

This interview of MacArthur is so good for a number of reasons. It is what I would call a no-holds-barred, politically-incorrect, biblical look at the doctrine of election. Nothing is held back by either Phil or John, and the result is a straight-forward and truthful look at a doctrine that the unregenerate find so repulsive. I would encourage anyone who has struggled with this doctrine - or has professing family members or friends whose view of election is far from the truth - to listen to this interview themselves and also to direct others to it here. Then I would encourage you to contact Grace to You to see about getting a copy for yourself. It is a CD that every true believer needs to have in his/her library.

Mere Mission

I hope the following excerpt from Tim Stafford's interview of N. T. Wright prompts you to read the rest:

For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human beings and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.

The longer that I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it's been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and how we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics.When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmoutoutou. It's quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It's from somewhere else, but it's for this world.

Wright also addresses evangelism in a post-Christian age, the contemporary appeal of Gnosticism, and why our ideas about God must be shaped by New Testament Christology.

9 Marks Interview: The Gospel and Islam

Listen to pastor and author Thabiti Anyabwile discuss "the beliefs and history of Islam, his own experience as a Muslim, the contradictions in the Koran, as well as the way for churches to approach evangelism with Muslims, which he calls an amazing, God-given opportunity the church has today." (HT: Greg Linscott)

John Stott Praying for Apologists

Jeff Clinton's posting the following quote from John Stott's Your Mind Matters prompted me to take the thin volume from my shelf and thumb through it once more. As Jeff points out, though over 30 years old, Stott's petition is as timely today as when originally penned. I wonder, then, why we don't hear it uttered more frequently in our churches. The kind of laborers Stott prays for are not the kind that usually come to mind when we ask the Lord to send workers into his harvest :

I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the gospel; who will relate the one to the other with freshness, pungency, authority and relevance; and who will use their minds to reach other minds for Christ (52).

I was surprised to see that my copy of the book is clean, free from any underlining or marginal scribbles. That probably means that I first read it prior to getting into the habit of marking books up as I read them or I just thought it was all so good that I would have marked everything! Here's another of Stott's many noteworthy thoughts concerning why the fact that human reasoning is fallen is no excuse for failing to engage people intellectually in our evangelism:

It is quite true that man's mind has shared in the devastating results of the Fall. The "total depravity" of man means that every constituent part of his humanness has been to some degree corrupted, including his mind, which Scripture describes as "darkened." Indeed, the more men suppress the truth of God which they know, the more "futile," even "senseless," they become in their thinking. They may claim to be wise, but they are fools. Their mind is "the mind of the flesh," the mentality of a fallen creature, and it is basically hostile to God and his law.

All this is true. But the fact that man's mind is fallen is no excuse for a retreat from thought into emotion, for the emotional side of man's nature is equally fallen. Indeed, sin has more dangerous effects on our faculty of feeling than on our faculty of thinking, because our opinions are more easily checked and regulated by revealed truth than our experiences (16).

More YouTube Apologetics from Jay Smith

Christian apologist/evangelist Jay Smith has added the following videos to his series on Islam and Christianity (previous videos listed here):

Is Allah God?
Re: The Name of God is Allah...Jay Disagrees
How Many Bibles Do We Have?
Re: Theo Van Gogh's Film Submission, Women in the Qu'ran

In addition to providing useful information and sound arguments, these videos are good examples of how to respectfully dialogue with those with whom we have strong disagreement. They're also a creative and wise use of the the Internet to declare Christ.

YouTube Apologetics

The A-Team's Roger Overton shared exciting news about how evangelist/apologist Jay Smith of AnsweringIslam.org is making use of YouTube. You can read Jay's thorough explanation of the project at Roger's post.

Here are the videos available so far:

Jay Smith's First Video
Veil- Jack Straw and the Problem with the Hijab
Who Represents Islam in Britain Now?
Re: Who Hijacked Islam?! (a response to a Muslim rant about his religion being misunderstood)
Is the Bible Corrupted?
Rules of Engagement
Re: Muslim Teacher Suspended for Wearing a Veil in Class

An Anglican's Call for Gospel Clarity and Courage

It's not a good sign when your non-Christian friends are curious about why you're not more actively seeking to persuade others of the message of salvation you claim to believe. Paul Eddy, a member of the ruling body of the Church of England, reports, "My Muslim friends say they can't understand why we Christians don't evangelise more, especially as they have a strategy to convert Britain."

Eddy recently accused bishops in the Church of England of avoiding the biblical mandate to evangelize so as not to offend minority groups and adherents to other faiths. To address this, he has made a motion intended to force the Church's General Synod to debate and clarify its position on the uniqueness and exclusivity of the gospel. From an article in the Telegraph:

[Eddy] said the Church's official statements tended to gloss over the issue of converting Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions. His motion calls on the bishops to report back on "their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none".

Eddy sounds a sobering exhortation to Christ-followers everywhere: "The Church needs to regain confidence in the God it professes to believe in, and a new confidence in the Gospel it should be proclaiming. And that starts with a clear steer from the bishops."

Another Look at Jesus and 'Porn Stars'

At Boundless Webzine, Matt Kauffman responds to objections from readers of his previous article questioning the evangelistic strategy of Pastor Craig Gross and other members of a ministry reaching out to erotic entertainers at a recent pornography trade show. At issue is the wisdom of leading with the message "Jesus Loves Porn Stars." (Gross and his ministry partners handed out about 3,000 Bibles whose covers sported those words at the convention.) Matt offers sound counsel for all of us who are prone to gloss over the issue of sin and judgment in order to quickly present the good news of God's love:

The greatest temptation for Christians today, however, is not to be too harsh, much as some may be guilty of that; it's to be too soft. In the name of being winsome, we're pulled to go along with a live-and-let-live society that seeks nothing so much as freedom from moral strictures and hard truths. And even when we may not intend to do so, we have to realize that society around us is all too eager to find the only "true" Christianity in a religion that fits comfortably into that worldview.

In the ears of most who hear it, "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" fits the bill. And that's why, whatever else may be said for or against the people who've chosen to lead their witness with those words, it's simply sending the wrong message.

No More Mr. Nice Guy? The Jolly Blogger on Rick Warren

Actually, though he called the post, So Much for Being Nice About Rick Warren, David Wayne is very charitable in what I think is a valid criticism of Warren's approach to helping revitalize Jewish worship:

Like Paul, we can and should love our Jewish neighbors, serve our Jewish neighbors and there is even a place for becoming like our Jewish neighbors in some way. But when we become like them, we must become like them to win them. In this case, Warren is becoming a Jew to the Jews with no obvious intention of winning them.

Ken Myers on What We Do After Evangelism

In February of this year, Mars Hill Audio's Ken Myers delivered four lectures at Christ Presbyterian Church in Marietta, GA under the heading "After Evangelism: The Cultural Lives of Christians and Their Neighbors." Here's a blurb from the conference web site:

What if the Church organized its life around a commitment to discipleship and not just mere evangelism? What would the Church look like if it acted consistent with its calling to teach disciples to observe all that he has commanded? How should the Church minister in the world if those commands are not just about personal belief and piety but about the way we conduct every aspect of our lives in the Creation that exists by, for, and through Christ? How would the Church’s forms of expressing its identity and message be different if Christians realized that cultural life isn’t just a convenient and arbitrary conduit for evangelism, but the way that our obedience, faithfulness, our new life find concrete expression in the world, but not of it?

The four lectures (titled "Christ and Creation: Two Adams and a Fall," "Creation and Redemption: Salvation and the Fulfillment of Humanity," "Creation and Culture: Real Reality and Cultural Order," and "Church and Culture: Discipleship and All of Life") are now available for purchase. You can find ordering information, brief quotes from each session and a 38 minute audio portion (MP3) of the first lecture at the conference lecture page.

Using Films to Rattle Cages: Movies and Apologetics

Speaking of films, bethinking.org has posted an excellent audio by Andrew Fellows on the use of film in apologetics. Fellows, a staff member of L'Abri in England, gave this presentation to a group of campus ministry workers.

He begins by dividing the apologetic process into three stages:

1. Subversion
2. Persuasion
3. Proclamation

Proclamation is the telling of the core gospel. Fellows says this is the most precious stage in the process yet complains that for many Christians, this is the only stage. Consequently, we miss many opportunities. Persuasion targets those who, though skeptical, are open to dialogue about the possibility of Christianity being true. Here, believers give reasons for their faith. Finally, subversion, the most challenging stage, is needed when dealing with those who are completely closed to considering the gospel. This involves getting inside the other person's worldview and "rattling their cage." (Though he doesn't mention it, this is equivalent to what Francis Schaeffer meant by "taking the roof off.") Fellows thinks that popular films can be effective tools in this phase of apologetics and estimates that about 80% of his own conversations with those who are closed to Christianity revolve around movies.

Fellows' talk has four main points:

1. Don't underestimate the power of film
2. Allow film to function as narrative
3. Be attentive to the worldview that lies beneath every film
4. Checkpoints for our use of films

In the course of the talk, Fellows explains the power of narrative and how we must learn to make connections between a film's narrative and the Christian story which is the one, true, epic story. Every other story that has ever been told connects to this story in some way. Subversive apologetics through film seizes or exploits the similarities between the film's story and the Christian story while recognizing the essential differences in worldview. (Fellows offers nine worldview questions to ask when viewing a film.) However, the focus of this kind of engagement is not primarily about arguing worldview but about the story and its appeal to the imagination.

Fellows says that the more his own Christian worldview has developed, the more his enjoyment of film has increased. He also says that if unbelievers see that we love and understand films, real discussions will emerge.

During the Q & A, he urges the campus ministry leaders to teach their students how to watch movies, something most of them don't know how to do. Teaching them how to do this will equip them to discuss films with their peers. This caused me to think about the need for churches to educate believers in a similar manner. For those interested, Brian Godawa's book, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment, is a good resource for that.

Tim Keller on Leading the Secular to Christ

Since reading about Dr. Tim Keller’s ministry in the New York Times (and blogging about it here), I’ve gone directly to the source (thanks to Steve McCoy's impressive resource list). So far, I've listened to three of his sermons and read a few of his writings much to my enjoyment and benefit. I want to point to one article I found especially insightful concerning apologetics and evangelism in our postmodern ethos. It’s called “Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs: Leading the Secular to Christ” (pdf).


Dr. Keller defines defeater beliefs as a culture’s “common sense consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people.” Because these deeply-entrenched beliefs are assumed to be true, people hastily dismiss the Christian faith since it contradicts them.


If, for example, a culture is convinced that all religions are true, Christianity’s exclusive claims are quickly rejected as ludicrous. Implausibility structures are culturally relative, meaning that “Christianity is disbelieved in one culture for totally opposite reasons it is disbelieved in another.” This is an important point highlighting the sociological dimension of fallen humanity’s suppression of the truth. While it’s accurate to say that depravity is ultimately and universally responsible for unbelief, the “course of this world” that the unregenerate follow is not monolithic but varies across historical period, geography, people group, etc.

Recognizing the inevitable presence of implausibility structures and how they stand as barriers to the gospel has important implications for how we seek to commend the faith to postmodern hearers. Some Christians insist that we abandon argumentation as a means of gospel persuasion and, instead, rely on the apologetic power of Christian community and ministries of mercy to those outside the church. Keller’s reaction to this line of thought is worthy of quoting at length:

"I couldn’t agree more that post-modern people come to Christ through process, through relationships, through mini-decisions, through ‘trying Christianity on.’ They are pragmatic rather than abstract in their reasoning, etc. But the books that are against any arguments at all seem to miss the fact that the extreme pragmatism of non-Christians today is part of a non-Christian world-view. Our post-enlightenment culture believes what has been called expressive individualism. That is – ‘it is true if works for me.’ This obviously is based on the view that truth and right-or-wrong is something I discover within my own self and consciousness.

What then of the claim that ‘post-modern people don’t want arguments – they just want to see if it works for them’? All right – as with any form of contextualization, let us as evangelists enter – adapt partially – to the culture of expressive individualism. Let us show them the reality of changed lives. Let us use narratives rather than long strings of logic. But at some point you must also challenge the sovereignty of individual consciousness. Jesus is Lord, not my personal consciousness. At some point, the idea that 'it is true if and only if it works for me' must be challenged. We have to say: 'Ultimately that is correct - in the very, very long run, obeying the truth will 'work' and bring you to glory and disobeying the truth will 'not work' and bring you to ruin. But in the short run (like - even throughout all the rest of your life!) obeying the truth might lead to ostracism, persecution, or other suffering.'"

Keller goes on to explain that sharing the gospel involves a two part approach, a negative apologetic dimension that consists of deconstructing the reigning cultural implausibility structure, and a positive aspect of sharing the gospel. This communication must be done in a fashion so as to connect the gospel message to what he calls the culture's base-line narratives. He writes, "In short, you have to show in line with the culture's own (best) aspirations, hopes, and convictions that its own cultural story won't be resolved or have a 'happy ending' outside of Christ."

Keller advocates presenting the gospel using a three-layered approach composed of these two aspects. The layers are as follows:

a) Brief gospel summary. First, the gospel must be presented briefly but so vividly and attractively (and so hooked in to the culture's base-line cultural narratives) that the listener is virtually compelled to say 'It would be wonderful if that were true, but it can't be!' Until he or she comes to that position, you can't work on the implausibility structure! The listener must have motivation to hear you out. That is what defeaters do - they make people super-impatient with any case for Christianity. Unless they find a presentation of Christ surprisingly attractive and compelling (and stereo-type breaking) their eyes will simply glaze over when you try to talk to them.


b) Dismantle plausibility structure. ....The leading defeaters must be dealt with clearly and quickly but convincingly. Defeaters are dealt with when the person feels you have presented the objection to Christianity in a clearer and stronger way than they could have done it.


c) Longer explanation of the person and work of Christ. Now, if people find you have at least undermined the defeaters in a listener's mind, you can now return to talking at greater length about creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If you try to do apologetics before you pull off a quick, attractive presentation of Christ, people's eyes will glaze over and they will become bored. But if you try to do a very lengthy explanation of the meaning of Christ's cross and resurrection before you convincingly deal with the defeaters, they won't listen to you either.

Keller illustrates how this approach looks interacting with two pervasive Western cultural concerns : 1) personal freedom and identity and 2) unity and diversity. He then gives brief but helpful examples of deconstructing six dominant defeaters in Western civilization: 1) Christian exclusivism in light of religious pluralism, 2) evil and suffering, 3) the ethical restrictiveness of Christianity, 4) the record of Christians, 5) the angry God, and 6) the unreliable Bible.

The article concludes with points the unbeliever who's ready to explore the Christian faith must consider, including this one about doubt: "Your doubts are really beliefs, and you can't avoid betting your life and destiny on some kind of belief in God and the universe. Non-commitment is impossible. Faith-acts are inevitable." What Keller is stressing here is that there is no such thing as ideological neutrality. Objections to the Christian faith don't spring from nowhere but are expressions of alternative systems of belief which are themselves in need of a defense.

Part of our evangelistic task, then, is to help our hearers become more aware of their own presuppositions. We must ask them the same question Cornelius Van Til did in his "Why I Believe in God": "Will you not go into the basement of your own experience to see what has been gathering there while you were busy here and there with the surface inspection of life? You may be greatly surprised at what you find there." Then, if we are prepared, we can take their hand and lead them downstairs.

Deviating from Scripted Evangelism

Here are two very good cautions against approaching evangelism in a mechanical or formulaic manner :

Melinda Penner notes how misusing the "sinner's prayer" can undermine the point of salvation - discipleship:

Sadly, sometimes the "sinner's prayer" is treated as almost a magical formula. Some evangelism encounters end with the prayer and that sums up the fulfillment of duty for the evangelist. The point of salvation is discipleship, not just a prayer. Many times I've heard the answer to the query whether that wayward friend or family member is a Christian that they "prayed the prayer." The book of James should cause grave caution about drawing much comfort from merely praying a prayer. Consequences will follow from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

In "A More Spontaneous and Genuine Evangelism," Jim Elliff identifies factors that diminish our boldness in telling others about Christ. Among them:

....we have the mistaken notion that evangelism is a choreographed set of ideas well laid out, perfectly transitioned and flawlessly presented. Forget it. It's not this way. Many of us have tried this with frustration. It is much better to think of evangelism the way the Bible does—"sowing the seed" in any way you can. Any of us can do that. Ever seen a weed grow in an otherwise barren parking lot? Somehow the seed got there and flourished. The simple word in the right place, or the tract well-placed might be the means God uses. Well-oiled presentations frustrate because there is no room for serious questions and discussion on the one hand, and it rules out the less verbal among us, on the other. Rejoice over even the smallest of advances! You are sowing the seed.

I don't wish to say that there is no value at all in memorizing a set plan. But there are many limitations to such methods. The proof is that the enthusiasm for such plans often dies away after the weeks of concentrated effort are finished. Also, among the least desirable aspects of most of these plans is the fact that they may not encourage listening to the person you are addressing. It's primarily about getting a set of concepts across, rather than finding out the real questions people have and the dilemmas they face.

Book Review: Questioning Evangelism

Author Randy Newman says that being an ambassador of Christ in the twenty-first century requires three skills. Obviously, one must be able to declare the gospel, concisely and accurately articulating the message of salvation through Christ. The second necessary skill is the ability to defend the gospel in obedience to the Bible's call that we be ready to give an answer (i.e., an apologia or defense) to everyone who asks us the reason for our hope. A third and frequently neglected skill is that of dialoguing the gospel (I really like that phrase). Newman describes it as "giving and taking-asking questions and bouncing ideas back and forth." This way of interacting with those we're seeking to persuade of the good news is, as the book's subtitle indicates, "engaging people's hearts the way Jesus did." Newman notes that it was characteristic of Jesus to answer questions with questions and that this style of teaching was commonly employed by Jewish rabbis. For this reason he calls the kind of evangelistic style he's proposing "rabbinic evangelism."

Asking questions in response to the questions and objections raised by unbelievers can lead them to reconsider their ideas of what is plausible and probable, thereby paving the way for them to be more willing to listen to Christian answers. It can also help us to clarify what is really behind the questions and objections people raise so that we can respond most appropriately. For instance, the question of why the church is so filled with hypocrites may be motivated more by pain than by a desire to justify one's unbelief. Through asking questions we can stir the curiosity of those who have read very little of the Bible, inviting them to search its pages. Because people's familiarity with Scripture has declined so drastically, Newman says that "today's apologetics should encourage literacy before defending historicity. We must challenge people by asking, 'Why don't you read it?' more than, 'Why don't you believe it?'"

After making a case for asking questions being both biblical and beneficial, Newman devotes the second part of the book to seven questions Christians are bound to encounter in various forms:

1. Why are Christians so intolerant?
2. Why does a good God allow evil and suffering such as Columbine and AIDS?
3. Why should anyone worship a God who allowed 9/11?
4. Why should we believe an ancient book written by dead Jewish males?
5. Why are Christians so homophobic?
6. What's so good about marriage?
7. If Jesus is so great, why are some of his followers such jerks?

Drawing on more than twenty years of working as a campus minister and lecturer with Campus Crusade, Newman uses actual conversations to illustrate how questions can be effectively used to help us better understand our audience and prepare them to take the gospel message more seriously. However, Newman warns against viewing these conversations as scripts to be committed to memory and repeated rotely at the next witnessing opportunity. Rather, he hopes that his examples will help readers

"...develop a different way of thinking about people, their questions, and our message. And because of that difference, our evangelistic conversations will sound less content/persuasion driven and more relationship/understanding driven. They'll sound more like rabbinic dialogues than professorial monologues. They'll be an exchange of ideas that lead both participants to the truth of the gospel. For one participant, it will be the first arrival at that point; for the other participant, it will be a rediscovery and a new appreciation of the message of the Cross."

In the third and final part of the book, Newman addresses two questions that Christians should ask themselves. A chapter titled "The Question of Compassion: 'What If I Don't Care That My Neighbor Is Going to Hell?'" addresses the sad reality that we are often apathetic about the lost condition of those around us. What's worse, our attitude is frequently contemptuous. Our emotional response (or lack thereof) to the sin-ravaged lives that confront us daily has more in common with Stoicism than with Jesus who was moved with compassion as he observed the aimless crowd.

"...some followers of Jesus have mistaken Stoicism for Christian maturity. They think that the healthy Christian is unflappable. They read the newspaper, listen to their neighbors, or watch television and remain emotionally unmoved. Their trust in God's sovereignty and their confidence in Christ's return put everything neatly in place for them. They don't get upset or angry (at least, not in a righteous way). They just 'praise the Lord,' knowing that they won't get left behind."

Confession and petition for God to transform our hearts are the first steps toward our being "de-Jonahized," followed by our beginning to intercede for the unsaved. Newman also suggests trying to see things from the perspective of non-Christians as another means of fostering compassion.

The following chapter deals with our anger toward non-Christians, the subtle ways it expresses itself in our witness, and what to do about it. The concluding chapter discusses the importance of listening, why we don't do more of it, and how to do it more effectively. Newman is quick to note that while there are practices we can adopt to become better listeners, listening is not primarily a technique but an expression of Christlike character: "...gracious listening flows from a heart that has been humbled, stilled, and transformed by the power of grace. Listening is simply a form of serving, of putting the other person first, as Philippians 2 implores us." Jazz fans will appreciate the author's suggestion that we need to be "cool" listeners (along the lines of Miles Davis) rather than "be-bop" listeners (along the lines of Dizzy Gillespie).

The book includes a study guide with questions designed for group discussion and application making this an excellent choice for evangelism training in the context of small groups or Sunday School classes.

One of the ingredients I especially appreciated about this book was the author's sensitivity to the Bible's literary diversity and the communicative significance of such. In a beautiful and honest response to the problem of evil, Newman draws out the implications of God's giving us poetry such as the book of Job instead of philosophical abstractions. Concerning what he refers to as the Bible's "messiness," (its complexity and diversity of locations, languages, genres, and literary styles), Newman suggests:

"Maybe the Bible's messiness corresponds to our messiness, making it the perfect revelation to get us out of our mess. Perhaps its use of various genres corresponds to our complex nature - the intellectual, emotional, volitional, social, and physical components of our personhood. Maybe God inspired the Bible to suit our total being."

Newman notes that what unifies this assortment of literary diversity is the biblical story which Newman outlines under the headings of Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Consummation. Like many others, Newman espouses a story approach to evangelism. "Rather than listing disconnected propositions, we should show that the Bible's story connects with our story at our point of deepest need." His reason for advocating this narratival approach is not, however, to simply cater to postmodern tastes. Rather, he believes that stories connect so well because they fit our "narrative nature": "Having a chronological beginning (birth) and end (death), we respond better to stories - which have a beginning and an end - than to ahistorical proclamations of dogma." Lest anyone fear that Newman has an aversion to propositional truth, rest assured. He doesn't.

"Proclamations do have their place. The Bible's inclusion of epistles and prophecies validates their importance. But we should read Romans and other didactic material in the context of the larger story line of God's divine narrative. In evangelism, we should declare the doctrine of Romans - the gospel - as narrative so that our message appeals to the whole person. We want to convert, not merely convince. Narrative evangelism does both."

Using the analogy of a musical with its recurring themes, Newman says there are propositional melodies imbedded in redemptive drama. I like that!

I hope that something of my enthusiasm about this volume is evident. Randy Newman has produced a book that not only aids Christians in better understanding the times in which we live and how to converse with our unbelieving contemporaries but also helps us better understand the gospel and its implications. I heartily recommend that you read this one.