Tag: Evangelism

“Which None Can Shut: Remarkable True Stories of God’s Miraculous Work in the Muslim World” by Reema Goode

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

From the time I was a little boy, I remember being fascinated with missionary stories. I’d find the country on a map and visualize myself going to that distant land with the Gospel. Africa, South America, Asia — all were equally enticing destinations. On-screen slide projectors introduced me to the mud huts, shacks and cardboard cities of extreme poverty, to exotic animals, tropical paradises and beautiful vistas, and most of all, to the faces of people who need Christ. In my background, however, I can’t remember many tales of missionaries to Muslim countries. Closed countries were just that, and with the response to the Gospel in more reachable lands, the prospect of outreach to Muslims wasn’t raised.

My experience is certainly not unique. It is only in the past 20 years or so that missions to Muslim-controlled nations have become the dream of Christian young people. A dream and a reality. Two American wars in Iraq and the constant Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have kept the Middle East, and its Muslim religion, at the forefront of our global vision. And many American Christians have taken it upon themselves to pray for the advance of the Gospel (not the same as the success of America, mind you) in these dark lands.

That I call Muslim-dominated lands “dark” is not a popular sentiment in today’s pluaralistic age. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about spreading the light. And Christian missionaries have laid down their lives to spread that wonderful story of Jesus throughout the ages and all over this world. Sadly, many Muslims today mistakenly think Christianity is represented by America’s policies and the evil practices she tolerates. Such is not the case. True Christians serve a Kingdom not of this world.

American Christians like me are beginning to hear of the inroads being made by the Gospel in Arabia and other such places. But what we hear is often only bits and pieces of what God is doing. For Americans in general, and Christians too, there remains a fear of Islam and a mystique to Arabia. Few are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the gospel, and many don’t even know what missions to Muslims would even look like (here in America even, and especially over in a “closed country”).

A new book, shines a beacon on what God is doing in Arabia, and what it is like to be a missionary there. In Which None Can Shut: Remarkable True Stories of God’s Miraculous Work in the Muslim World Reema Goode (and I assume that to be a pen name) shares some of her real life stories of being an American woman ministering to Muslims alongside her family in an Arabian country. Along the way we share her joys and sorrows and come to know more clearly what it is to be ministering God’s love to Muslims in a far away land. The book is a breathtaking tale that is sure to elicit both praise and prayers to God for Him to do even more.

The book is a quick read, and the story moves along quickly. Goode shares the struggle of fitting in to a new culture, and her fear for her children. She describes the people and customs of Arabia well, and draws you into the story. Over and in all of the stories we can see God’s grace and His Spirit at work. God gives Reema and her husband just the right words to say, over and over again. Incredible opportunities to share the Gospel are commonplace, as the people of that land are curious to learn more about Christianity and life in America. Through the Eastern emphasis on community, and the sharing of one another’s lives, the people get to see what a Christian really is.

God’s miraculous power is seen too. Dramatic healings, protection in demonically charged encounters, and the beauty of conversion to Christ are all recounted. Testimony to God’s working in people’s lives prior to and apart from Christian missionaries is amazing as well. And the author insists these stories are representative of God’s work in many lands and many cities all across the Muslim world.

I couldn’t put this book down. And when I did, I was moved to pray more intently for the continued advance of the Gospel in Muslim lands. I fear that many Christians in America are more focused on the encroaches of Sharia law and Muslim suicide bombings than they are on the need these people have for Jesus Christ and the Gospel of God’s grace. May this book serve to elicit prayer rather than prejudice from God’s people.

I think the book could become a best seller and open the eyes of many Christians to the thrill of missions in general, and Muslim missions in particular. May God inspire many more Christians to follow Reema Goode and her family into Muslim lands with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Tyndale House direct.

“Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community” by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Go or Send? How Best to “Do Church”

My pal William Dudding over at Reforming Baptist, has a great post examining the missional model of church growth. He bristles at that term for it’s cutting-edge, postmodern feel (even while others would complain it’s over-used and much abused). I respect Will all the more, for posting a couple video clips of Mark Driscoll talking about this, because if you know Will, he is very much not a Mark Driscoll fan. We can learn from anyone, however, and it takes humility and sincerity to admit that.

I agree with the main point of Will’s post, that attracting people to a church with it’s programs is not the NT model for “doing church”. Rather than sending people to our church, we should be going to where the people are and reaching them. We should gather as believers to be built up, edified, and most of all to worship Christ together. We then leave the assembly to take Christ to the lost all around us.

How do we do this effectively, however? How can I get my own self to open my mouth boldly and also to compassionately interact with the people God has placed in my life? These are the questions Will brings up, and which demand answers.

I think we need to get creative, and make sure our church activities don’t sap us of any time and strength left to think missionally of our own neighborhoods and communities. We need to envision ourselves as missionaries to the places we live.

God ultimately has to guide us and empower our ministry, but there are strategies which may enhance our effectiveness in God’s mission. One of the tools and methods that I most believe could work, has also been ignored by the wider church. In fact I still haven’t come to a place where I have liberty to attempt this (or is it just plain ol’ courage I lack?).

I’m talking about using small groups as home church-meetings, in a sense. We can invite people to come to these smaller meetings where we are more open and real and less “church-ly”. We can let the lost see how Christianity is lived out in our homes and how it radically shapes our outlook. I look in vain to the New Testament for a one-man-gets-up-to-speak-while-the-thousand-congregants-sit-down-to-listen-quietly model of church teaching and preaching. I see believers interacting with one another, teachers interrupting each other as God gives them a word, and prophets judging the prophets in a vibrant, lively way.

I’m a little leery of changing things up too drastically, however. We have hundreds of years of tradition, not to mention the fact that preaching can be very effective in people’s lives. So what about some kind of mix between an emphasis on home groups (where evangelism and discipleship can happen, and where gifted teachers can exercise their gifts) and corporate gatherings of the entire church for preaching and extended worship?

This kind of model is described in detail, in a book I gobbled up a while back, called Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. In the book they talk about living with gospel intentionality. They show how an emphasis on community is encouraged in Scripture. They see evangelism as a three-fold cord: building relationships, sharing the gospel, and introducing people to community (by means of the home groups). All the while, they encourage the Gospel and the Word to stay central. But they also encourage community involvement, and meeting social needs in the name of Christ.

The benefits of the emphasis on home groups is that church planting becomes easier. Training and discipleship can happen while people are ministering in home settings, and seeing ministry modeled up close and personal. Furthermore, the togetherness that this model fosters, aids in purity and spiritual growth, as we really can’t become holy by ourselves, nor were we expected to (think Heb. 3:12-14).

Total Church does have some radical ideas, but I appreciated how they connected everything to the gospel. It’s a book I’ll be picking up again, as I continue sorting out how best we should do church for God’s glory, our growth, and the eternal benefit of the lost around us.

Does this make sense? Am I missing some important problems with this idea? Anyone else thinking along these lines? I’d love your feedback here, or over on Will’s post where they’re discussing this too.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com or through Crossway direct.

Flexibility, Church Planting and Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Steve Davis has an intriguing article on church planting over at Sharper Iron. I will quote the first part of his article then encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Left Behind: The Apparent Absence of Fundamentalists in Resurgent Church Planting
by Steve Davis

While Fundamentalists often noisily do battle over issues important mostly to their sub-culture, there is a battlefield where Fundamentalists are conspicuous by their absence. There has been a resurgence in church planting in North America and few Fundamentalist churches have answered the call. The names of leaders in this resurgence are well-known and include Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Bob Roberts, and Ed Stetzer, to name a few. Whatever Fundamentalists think of these men, let there be no doubt that they are engaged in the most noble of tasks””the Great Commission””on a scale rarely seen and in cities which, with some notable exceptions, have been long abandoned by solid, Bible-believing churches. These leaders are not without their foibles, and controversy often surrounds or follows some of them. That said, it must be asked if there are any church planting movements in Fundamentalism with the depth and breadth of what is taking place in conservative evangelical circles.

Recently I attended a conference on church planting where several thousand active or prospective church planters and their wives were in attendance. Admittedly the presenters and attendees were from diverse evangelical backgrounds, a blessing in many ways in witnessing the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. Many in attendance could not plant churches together, a fact they recognized, due to doctrinal differences that are at the heart of one’s understanding of the nature the local church. One speaker, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, expressed his friendship with and admiration for Tim Keller, yet confessed that they could not plant a church together. There would be an immediate conflict over needing a bowl or a bathtub to baptize the first convert. Yet in spite of obvious differences and the inability to partner in church planting there was a laudable spirit of cooperation to help others plant churches by providing training, mentoring, and access to resources.

Why not?

We cannot partner with anyone or everyone to plant churches. But planting churches is not an option. It is a matter of obedience. If fundamental churches are lagging in this area they need to ask themselves why. The neglect of church planting is flagrant and perhaps nothing will hasten the demise of Fundamentalism more quickly than the inability or unwillingness of Fundamentalists to be engaged in this work. Alas, church planting requires cooperation and networking, rare commodities among many Fundamentalists, among whom the spirit of independence and individualism persists, and few churches have the resources to go it alone. In addition, churches must recognize that the churches they plant may not be a mirror image of the sending and supporting churches, an unacceptable condition and consequence for many churches.

Some of the reasons for the lack of church planting movements in Fundamentalism were addressed in an earlier article and won’t be repeated here. In this article I would like to expand on those earlier thoughts and raise some questions.

I will offer this opinion up front. Most traditional churches cannot reproduce themselves….

[read the entire article]

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.

Deliberate Doctrinal Partnership: Why Denominations Can Be Helpful

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Denominations are often despised. Even many Christians outside of the independent Baptist movement frown upon such formal, concrete institutions. Indeed, mainline denominations have been trending left over the last hundred years and more, so some of these reactions are understandable.

But with the proliferation of non-denominational churches, and in Baptist circles, the mass exodus of independent churches from the denominations, a strange phenomenon has occurred. Rather than remaining aloof from any formal institutional organization, these churches have banded together in a vast array of associations, fellowships and networks. The problem with some of these new fellowships and organizations may be their newness. A forgetfulness of the past and a devotion to the pragmatic and the new, combine to make such fellowships especially prone to parochialism or doctrinal drift.

In all reality, looking back at the denominations we left, we find many of the same things that we have sought after today. Denominations have a built in missions organization. They have longstanding partnerships among like-minded churches. They offer help to church planters and pool resources for the training of men for the ministry. They also have a connection to the work of God in the past, and a wealth of experience from both the past and the present, with which to bring to bear on today’s challenges.

Certainly some denominations have totally capitulated to doctrinal error. I am not advocating the usefulness of that kind of partnership. Instead I am pointing out that many Baptist and Presbyterian denominations exist which can provide help to churches and a connection with an orthodox, confessional history. Other denominations are also vibrant and faithful, and deserve consideration especially if you plan to plant a church or go to the mission field.

Denominations in and of themselves are not necessarily hierarchical structures where all autonomy is lost when a church joins up with them. Nor is a partnership in this sense a full endorsement of all the activities under the tent that the denomination supports. The beauty of denominations is the doctrinal core that you must unite around to join, as well as the freedom and expansiveness to allow varieties of method and practice, and differences of opinion on lesser doctrinal matters. Denominations stand ready to allow churches to unite around the Gospel, and partner in the work of missions.

Every denomination is not created equal. But a good many doctrinally sound denominations could benefit by the presence of more member churches that are solid in faith and devoted to mission.

My thoughts along these lines were recently spurred on by reading a very helpful article by Ed Stetzer on the subject from this month’s Christianity Today. It is the cover article and is entitled, “Life in These Old Bones.” The subtitle explains, “If you’re interested in doing mission, there could hardly be a better tool than denominations.”

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s article and take some thought about the value of denominations. Don’t be ready to cast stones and praise your independence. Thank God for faithful denominations and the churches that founded them.