I gave a talk a few weeks ago at North Dakota State University during the bisonCatholic week put on by FOCUS.
After giving the talk a college student involved in Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) said something to the effect that I didn’t “share the gospel” at any point during my speech.
At first I was a bit confused because in my talk I described how:
- I was an atheist who was depressed, had panic attacks, and was contemplating suicide
- I prayed for Christ to help me if He was real, and began reading the Bible
- Miraculously, I experienced real help from God that transformed my life
- I was given faith, hope, and love from Jesus and was reborn
And so my life itself has been a testimony to the Good News of Christ–not that it has been perfect since becoming a Christian–but without God I would have ended my life.
But I knew what he was saying: at no time in my talk did I say: “You should accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior,” or “Repent of your sins and ask Christ into your heart, and you will be saved.”
That, I understood from him, is the only way to “share the Gospel.” So here I was, having told (from the heart) my testimony of grace to four hundred people, and the Cru guy was looking for something to criticize–as if to say “it’s all well and good that Christ saved your life from death, gave you faith where you had none, and has transformed your life, but you didn’t say the right formula of words to qualify as having truly shared the Gospel.”
God love him, and I forgive him. But it betrays a very narrow understanding of what the Gospel is and what counts as sharing it.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this. Please no destructive criticism of Cru, however. I believe all the people involved in it are well-meaning and love Christ.
I hear this from a lot of ex-catholics. “I went through catechism, got confirmed, went to church for 30 years and never heard the gospel!” I find that difficult to believe because the missal goes through nearly the entire Bible every three years or so. Of course, being an ex-evangelicalist (not a typo), I can translate: “I never heard that I was supposed to have a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus.” Interesting, that word does not appear anywhere in the New Testamant with respect to salvation (although RELIGION is!), and it is certainly not found in any of the biblical gospel formulas. Further, if what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:1-5 is accurate then the gospel is affirmed every single week when reciting the Nicene creed. But, of course, Paul was not an evangelicalist either.
amen Doug.
I just had a conversation with my wife about this. When I read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John while part of a Protestant community, I had difficulty reconciling the gospel according to these four with the gospel as it was being preached in that community.
Sure, I could see a great deal of contact between the two gospels, but I found it strange at how the MMLJ gospel was deeply mysterious in its communication, while my community’s gospel was a simple, cut and dry formula. Not only that, my community was absolutely sure this verbal formula was correct, but I couldn’t derive it independently from them with only MMLJ as my guide.
And then, on Wednesday night, while teaching in the RCIA classroom on the eighth commandment, and how not only words, but actions, can have a truth value, it clicked for me why the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is so deeply mysterious. It’s mysterious because the very center of the story (the Paschal Mystery) is a truth conveyed through actions, not words! The very heart of the story is the non-verbal drama of Christ’s suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, and it is utterly irreducible to a verbal formula.
Of course, we can use words, but words alone can never capture it all. It *needs* liturgical action to be communicated effectively. It also *needs* a Church to interpret the mystery authentically because the sacred actions of Christ are an even-less transparent medium for communication than words.
well said, David.
Devin,
You were punked–evangelical style. I’m just sayin
it’s true and when this young man challenged me on this, I was kind of like “c’mon man, really?”
Maybe a more constructive comment might have been to suggest that you include in your talk an invitation to those present to examine the claims of Jesus more closely? Just a thought.
yeah that would have been better. Though of course when we hear a talk like this we instinctively start thinking about whether we can see ourselves there, apply it to ourselves, etc.
I like this approach better – you naturally expect a person with at least normal intellectual capacities to be able to examine their own spiritual life in light of what you’ve said. You give them more credit and more respect by not spelling it all out for them, eh?
I can think of one of two things that *might* prompted that response:
1. Like Doug B. posted before, you didn’t go into the religion vs. relationship thing, which experience at Cru taught me was precisely how people understand the Gospel. (That you’re Catholic might have confirmed in some people’s minds that you’re firmly in the “religion” camp.)
2. Maybe you didn’t focus enough on the Cross, and for some people, you can’t have Gospel if the Cross isn’t the central part of your preaching.
Yes they definitely had preconceptions ahead of time because I was sitting next to them as I was waiting to be introduced and they didn’t know I was the speaker. Hehe.
It’s true that I didn’t tell everyone that Jesus died on the Cross–figured most people there already knew that since it was geared toward Catholics and Protestants and they made up 95% of the audience.
But…he wasn’t preaching. He was talking.
I know, but I think there are some people who aren’t going to make that distinction.
It’s not that you didn’t share the gospel, it’s that he didn’t hear the gospel.
In all seriousness, I think some people will use their prejudice to criticize no matter what you do.
true Sylvia!
What!? No altar call!?! Devin are you even saved brother?
Seriously, this incident reminds me about the saying of St. Francis of Assisi (paraphrased:)
“Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words.”
Your testimony preached more of the power of the gospel than 10,000 altar calls Devin.
Thanks David. What’s funny is that I did answer the altar call at my Baptist church and got baptized after it! So I’m all about the altar call in a sense, but the idea that every talk should have one is misguided.
yeah… i was involved with cru at my school and that was always that punch line for anyone sharing their story… what a shame. i mean none of the apostles ever said you have to “accept Jesus into your heart” or whatever…
btw, I’m a devout Catholic, even when i sin.
Thanks for chiming in Kevin and welcome to my blog!
The question is, was he looking for a ritualistic formula or was just superstitious?
“You should accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior,” or “Repent of your sins and ask Christ into your heart, and you will be saved.”
Those statements are NOT gospel…they are law. A great many Evangelicals don’t have a clue what the gospel really IS.
They turn the gospel (‘Christ died for your sins, you are forgiven’) into another law by laying on you something that YOU MUST DO…in order to become a Christian. That is not salvation…it is damnation.
.
So do you think that there is anything we must do in order to be saved?
Drina,
No. God saves us. If there was just one little thing that we must do, then it would not be ‘the gospel’.
Steve,
Try to explain more how Lutherans see this. Of course God saves us but some people become saved and others do not. If people don’t do anything (not even make an assent of faith), then what makes the difference between those God saves and those who He does not?
Devin,
The Bible tells us that faith is a gift of God. Jesus told Niccodemus that (in essence) that we cannot be born again on our own, but that has to happen from above.
He also told Peter (when Peter replied to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”) “Blessed are you Simon Peter, for this didn’t come from you, but my Father in Heaven.”
(covering old ground here, I know)
So, some hear the gospel, and come to faith…and others do not hear it (really hear it in the way that faith is created)
Why? We can’t answer that. That’s one for the BIG GUY!
Steve,
Isn’t it a false dichotomy to say either
a) we do something apart from God’s gifting us to do it …
…or…
b) we do nothing because salvation is God’s gift
Why can’t what we do also count as God’s gift if we do it by his grace? (e.g. faith, repentance, even good works?) If your a Protestant, why not put these things (grace, faith, repentance) together the way Scripture does? This would lead to the idea that whatever we do to be saved is only and always the result of the operation of God’s effectual/infallible grace.
If you would only be willing, then you could have a different formula (not to mention a new way of thinking) that overcomes your problematic dichotomy. This formula would go like this:
a) we repent and believe
b) because of the effectual operation of God’s grace that grants this belief and repentance
We could even take it further and add “good works” to part a, unless, of course, we want to believe that initial justification is totally a gift from God, but the Christian life, on the other hand, we do apart from God’s gift of grace, which is something even Pelagius wasn’t crude enough to say).
With this latter formula, you can still hold on to your precious insight that the gospel is all about how God’s grace justifies us (or saves us, however you want to put it) but still hold on to the biblical texts that require faith and repentance as the condition of salvation (and there are more of these than you would care to have your attention flooded with by a combox full of biblically keen Catholics and Protestants alike). Without removing your dichotomy in the original formula, you not only cannot do justice to wording of Scripture, but you have no way to distinguish between the saved and the unsaved, at least without some elementary modifications/qualifications in your way of putting it so far.
For ease of dialogue, we could even call the first formula the “If G, then WDN” formula, standing as shorthand for “If salvation is all of God’s grace, then we do nothing to be saved.” We can call the second formula the “If G + F/R, then WDS” formula, standing as shorthand for “If salvation is totally by God’s grace, and it’s by faith and repentance also (as the Christian Scriptures ubiquitously attest), we do something to be saved, even if what we do God does within us by his grace.” Now this latter part could be worded in different ways.
“… even if what we do we do because of God’s sovereign, effectual, infallible grace.”
“… even if what we do we do only by the grace of God …”
” … even if what we do is totally the gift of God …”
” … even if what we do is caused wholly by the Grace of God …”
You get the idea right?
So … I put before you two options and I will let you discern which is the better way:
1. If G, then WDN.
2. If G + F/R, then WDS.
Your thoughts?
Bradley
Steve said:
“No. God saves us. If there was just one little thing that we must do, then it would not be ‘the gospel’.”
Steve may or may not be a Calvinist, but as a former supralapsarian Calvinist who was quite zealous, let me say that what Steve is describing is at best a kind of antinomianism found in the low church “non-Lordship” circles and at worst more of a pauline ultradispensationalist mindset. Although both are bad. Any Calvinist will tell you that after the soundbytes are over, of course we need to DO something to approach God!
BUT… with Catholics they would say that it is by God’s grace they are able to DO it. Now the details of how that works out they would differ with Catholics of course, but both Catholics and Calvinists can say loud and clear that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit from start to finish. And they both will say that doesnt mean we get to just sit back and enjoy the ride. The Spirit has gone before us to “prepare beforehand good works that we should walk in them” (Eph. 3:10). Walking in them is something we “DO”. Yes we do it by the power and guidance of the Spirit, but we do it nonetheless. The only potential problem with us “doing” is when we forget God and look to our own efforts instead of Christ working in us. But if we keep our eyes on the cross, it is fairly difficult to get to excited about our ability to save ourselves, and our works are more obviously see by us as coming from God and as an offering to God.
Drina,
This is probably the best sermon that I have ever heard on the subject:
http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/i-believe-that-i-cannot-believe.mp3
.
Steve,
You sound like a supralapsarian Calvinist. Is this true?
Also, I am interested to hear your interpretation of Acts 2:37-38, where on the day of Pentecost, Peter’s hearers asked what they must do in response to his sermon.
If what you are claiming is true, why did Peter say, “repent and be baptized”? That sounds like doing something.
If your claim were valid, I would expect Peter to say “Don’t do anything! There is nothing you can do. Either you were predestined by the decree of God from all eternity, or you weren’t. If you were, you will be saved. If you weren’t, you are damned anyway and there is nothing you can do about it.”
Jesus also had many calls to action, and never answered the question “What must I do to be saved” with “Nothing.”
In your theological system, what is the point of these answers if nothing could be done?
Hi Devin,
Again, a great post.
I see that we are, at this writing, X posts in, so I am quite late to the dance.
However, I need to reply to this post in particular, as it is resonant to the VERY FIRST movement in my heart by the Holy Spirit to be a member of the Catholic Church today. I am reminded of a line in the Lord of the Rings where the coming of Merry and Pipin to Fangorn were equated by Gandalf to be like …the falling of small stones that begin a landslide. Well, this same situation as you describe was it for me.
About 12 years ago, I worked for a company whose owner, after battling drug addiction, had a conversion experience (although he was raised Catholic), and had become a “born again” Christian. He integrated that conversion into his business (at least on the surface). In fact, all the company stationary and paper products had “Christ is the Answer” emblazoned on it.
I came from a staunch mainline Protestant family, whose roots in this country, and its Puritain “roots within roots” actually are older than the country itself (Mom was, and is, quite the genealogist, and has all the ancient grave yards of our “olde tyme” ancestors who were the founding families of York County ME all plotted out). As such, I did not have a great deal of experience with the “born again” wing of the Protestant spectrum.
That naiveté would be quickly blown away. When I joined this company, I noticed they had Tuesday Morning prayer group before work. I thought that was great. Initially it was fine. The owner, his secretary, and a few regulars made up the crew. Until one day, the owner turned on me (mind you, this was after months of regularly attending this group), to me and asked me if I was “saved.”
I know now that he was beginning the wind up for the old schlock used by evangelicals. I told I him I had been baptized. Not being satisfied, he moved on to what I now know is an old rhetorical question; i.e., if you were to die today and stand before God and he would ask you why he should let you in to heaven, what would you say…
As this guy was the owner of the company, I knew I was limited as to how aggressive my answer would be. My first response would be that if I was before God, and god being perfect, nothing imperfect could stand before him, his premise was logically flawed. Suspending the flaw, I said that I would recite The Apostles Creed (the one we recited in my church once a month on the back page of our Pilgrim Hymnal) …I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, etc…
But this wasn’t good enough. I had to use the mantra that “he” approved of. I had to recite the “Sinners Prayer” (which he gave me a copy of), and I needed to go and pray hard about it, and he would pray for me.
I was livid. I wasn’t saved unless “he” saved me, or at least using the formula which “he approved of (which to me felt eerily to me like some sort of incantation), I must accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, in those exact words (trumping even the Apostles Creed, which was penned by ???). Any variation or deviation was unacceptable, and I was still dead in my sins. Huh?
I knew he was wrong, but I was so mad that I could not articulate “why” he was wrong, it made me go back and study my faith which had before been more cultural/historical to me.
Thus the pebbles did indeed start the landslide. In my studies I found out what my faith “really” believed, or rather what the faith of my Congregational ancestors had to devolved in to believing. I was aghast. Thus began my journey for truth began. But that’s another story for another day.
The sad but humorous B story to my born again employer is that he ran the company in to the ground through his lavish lifestyle (he had, unfortunately, replaced one addictive behavior [drugs] with another [compulsive spending]). When the company went bankrupt, and when evidence came about that he knowingly ran up bills with creditors knowing full well he had no intention of paying them (which came out in court proceedings) it caused quite a stir in Evangelical circles.
I always remember the irony in the responses from those who talked about him. They deemed his conversion invalid. He was never “really” saved.
The shoe was on the other foot now …
i believe this “formula” is very hurtful.
and im really sad this person said this to you.
as a born again e free, i said this prayer over and over just to make sure i got it right, bc when i felt distant towards God i thought i didn’t do it right.
so i just had to be positive.
what a lie.
it goes back to your learning karate post, was that you? or someone else, i cant remember off the top of my head… throw me a 5 step pamphlet but i need to see the visible moving church to be a Christian.
Hi Shawna,
Yep, that was me with the Martial Arts analogy. Good memory.
Sorry all for the many typos. I do that when I get all fired up. Sorry.
It seems to me that, broadly speaking, evangelicals constantly fall prey to the tendency of reducing everything to the bare minimum. Theological reductionism is almost a compulsion, it seems. At least in my experience.
This, of course, applies to the evangelical version of the Gospel, and the all too common attempts to quantify it in a formula with a certain number of steps, or even to a word, such as “relationship.” There is a reason, however, that it took four different authors and four different books to narrate the gospel. It is much too big for a word, a sentence, or a tract.
Evangelicals do this to not just the Gospel, but many other aspects of the faith as well, most especially the Bible. Walk into a generic Christian bookstore, and you are instantly greeted with many books that attempt to turn the Bible into a how-to manual on everything from your finances, to your sex life, to depression, to cooking, to your health (I recently saw a book entitled “What the Bible has to say about Prostate Cancer.” What?). I am just waiting for the book with biblical instructions on changing the oil in my car. It could be called, “The Oil of Gladness.”
All kidding aside, this tendency to reduce the Bible to a bunch of instructions, or a how-to manual, is destructive to faith. Approaching the Bible looking for instructions entirely misses the point. The Bible is primarily the revelation of a Person and the narrative of salvation. It contains the profoundest truths we can know—truths that cause the angels to wonder.
If God couldn’t tell us what we needed to know in less than the entirety of Holy Scripture, who are we to seek to condense the Gospel into a bite-sized nugget simply because it makes it easier to digest. No, the gospel is the fullness and completeness of the Catholic faith—a banquet and not a bite. Anything less is a cheap and shabby substitute.
what you said was really beautiful.
Well put, Sylvia.