Gospel-Centered Resources from Midwestern Seminary
The young man was dying—without Christ.
“I have a habit,” he said, as he looked up from the bed that had been moved into the living room for his last few weeks on earth. “I know that it is sin and that God does not permit it. I want to continue my habit, however, and I honestly don’t intend to stop it. On the other hand, I desperately want to go to heaven. May I become a Christian?”
How would you answer this question?
I responded by saying that it was impossible for him to be converted to Christ while at the same time loving his sin. It is true that anybody who comes to Christ will come with sin. In fact, he or she will come precisely because of that sin—that is, to be rid of it and its awful result. But to come to Christ while loving and cherishing sin is totally impossible. It is like an airplane trying to fly in two directions!
Was I being cruel? No, in fact, I was as loving as I possibly could be. I wanted the man to know the truth about repentance because Jesus had said, “I tell you . . . unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:3
When the apostle Paul walked up Mars Hill in Athens to contend with the philosophers of his day, he was perfectly frank about their need to repent. He courageously declared that God “commands all people everywhere to repent.” Acts 17:30 If God demands repentance from all people everywhere then you and I are also included.
What is repentance?
To repent means to “change the mind.” But this change of mind is not merely a new way of thinking about Christ and salvation. It is much more profound, affecting the deepest attitudes and actions.
When a person repents, he comes to God hating what he once loved and loving what he once thought so little of. Such an intense change in thinking about sin and Christ results in believers and doing “works befitting repentance.” Acts 26:20 As a person thinks, so he or she acts.
A man came to Jesus who was obviously impressed with Him. He got on his knees to ask Jesus an important question. “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Mark 10:17
Jesus’ answer was just the reverse of what you would imagine. He said, “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and mother.’”
And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”
Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”
But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Mark 10:17-22
Do you think Christ was also cruel in what he required? Not so. In fact, the passage specifically tells us that Christ loved him. But this man had another god—Money. Jesus knew that no man may come to Him while simultaneously worshipping another god. “You cannot serve God and Mammon (Money).” Matthew 6:24
The man wanted eternal life, but not enough to give up his favorite god. Rather, he rejected Christ for his money, even though he was sad he could not have both.
Christ showed the man that even though he perceived himself as a person who kept God’s laws, he really was a law-breaker. After all, he broke the first command! God had clearly said, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:3
This story is an illustration of a man who needed to repent, just like the first man described in this article. Unfortunately, both of these men, to my knowledge, refused to give up their cheap god for Christ. Both, therefore, went to hell.
Do you remember what Jesus said? “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:3 He requires repentance from you just as he did from these two who died.
You must reject your gods whatever they are—money, sex, sports, sinful habits, hobbies, relationships, even your own self—anything that contends with God’s rightful place in your life. What may be good and beautiful under the authority of God, becomes a damning god if you love it more than Christ.
Will you repent and come to Christ by faith? Or, will you stubbornly hold on to a god who will drag you to hell forever?
Christ is not cruel in His offer. He gives you abundant life, forgiveness of all your sins, the Holy Spirit to live in you, a family of loving believers, understanding of the greatest book ever written, and eternal life in heaven—all for the repenter.
Even a dog recognizes the difference between the rancid old chicken bone in his mouth and the fresh T-bone steak set before him.
Repent now and come to Christ.
Editor’s Note: This originally published at Christian Communicators Worldwide
Willie Nelson may be America’s most famous marijuana user. In a recent interview in Rolling Stone, he said: “It’s nice to watch [marijuana] being accepted — knowing you were right all the time about it: that it was not a killer drug. It’s a medicine.”[1] Nelson’s description of marijuana as “medicine” reflects wider confusion in our culture regarding the morality of marijuana use, a confusion sometimes reflected within the church. As states rush to legalize medical marijuana, how should Christians think about it?
To begin, we should note just a bit about the pharmacology of marijuana. Its two active chemicals are Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD). THC is the main psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical responsible for making people intoxicated, while CBD does not have this effect. Medical marijuana comes in various forms, some which include THC and are intoxicating, and other forms which only use CBD and do not make you high.
When discussing medical marijuana, the first obstacle one faces is getting good data to use in forming opinions. Anecdotal claims about purported curative properties of marijuana abound, almost as widespread as the testimonials related to diet pills and weight-loss fads. Peer reviewed data based on controlled experiments is rarer, but data based on controlled experiments is what Christians need to form a moral opinion. Christians should use discernment in weighing the various claims about medical marijuana because many of them are exaggerated.
To date, the FDA has only approved three drugs derived from marijuana. Two of these drugs contain THC – dronabinol and nabilone – and are prescribed to treat nausea caused by chemotherapy and to increase appetite in patients with extreme weight loss caused by AIDS.[2] Currently, only one drug derived from CBD is approved by the FDA: Epidiolex is prescribed for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy.[3]
Of the many over-stated claims about medical marijuana’s benefits, one of the most often repeated is that it relieves intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma. Smoking marijuana does relieve intraocular pressure, but only for 3 – 4 hours at a time. The problem is that glaucoma needs to be treated 24 hours a day. Thus, for marijuana to be effective, it would have to be smoked 6 – 8 times day, meaning a person would be perpetually stoned. The American Glaucoma Society says, “Although marijuana can lower the [intraocular pressure], its side effects and short duration of action, coupled with a lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma, preclude recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time.”[4]
Marijuana is also touted as a cure for far more vague issues such as chronic pain, stopping muscle spasms, treatment for depression or anxiety, alleviating PTSD, plus a whole host of other medical conditions.[5] These ill-defined categories present a major problem with medical marijuana: People without a clear diagnosis may find a friendly physician to fill out the paperwork for a medical marijuana card, which in many cases is nothing more than a way to purchase pot for recreational use. Furthermore, when some people say they smoke marijuana to get relief from pain, what they have in mind is relational or emotional pain, but getting high on marijuana is a terrible coping mechanism for psychological distress and grief.
The appropriate use of medications is morally permissible for Christians. Yet, at this stage, it is still unclear exactly how marijuana or products derived from it can be appropriately used. The Bible gives us two principles which should guide our reflection. First, we are admonished to get wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 4:7) and we also commanded, “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11) Wisdom dictates Christians wait for the best research and only use medication derived from marijuana under guidance of a physician and pharmacist so that dosage and timing can be controlled for the most efficacious result. At the same time, the recreational use of marijuana has no place in a Christian’s life, but is associated with the “unfruitful deeds of darkness.” In this light, carelessly smoking marijuana as a cure-all is not only foolish, but sinful.
In the 1800s, a flood of patent medicines were sold over the counter, some containing dangerous drugs such as opium. Unknowingly, many people with minor ailments became addicted to these drugs, with devastating consequences. Yet in each case, the patent medicine claimed to provide miraculous relief from the pains of life. In a strange turn of events, the legalization of medical marijuana has brought a new wave of cannabis-based patent medicines into the market, many of which make ridiculous and unproven claims, but have the potential to lead the unwise Christian into a life of drug use. When listening to claims about medical marijuana, remember Proverbs 14:15, “The naïve believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps.”
Notes:
[1] James Minchin, “The High Life,” Rolling Stone April 29, 2019, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/willie-nelson-weed-issue-826290/.
[2] National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, “What is Medical Marijuana?,” July 2019, https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine#references.
[3] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA approves first drug comprised of an active ingredient derived from marijuana to treat rare, severe forms of epilepsy,” June 25, 2018, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms.
[4] Henry Jampel, “American Glaucoma Society Position Statement: Marijuana and the Treatment of Glaucoma,” Journal of Glaucoma 19.2 (February 2010): 76.
[5] John Hudak, The Medical Marijuana Mess: A Prescription for Fixing a Broken Policy (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2016), 18.
The first thing one should notice from the title of this post is that the document produced at the Council of Chalcedon in October 451 was not a “creed”; it was a “definition.”
A creed, properly speaking, is not a statement of what Christians believe about our faith. (That would be a “confession.”) Instead, a creed is a pledge of allegiance to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Creeds answer the question, “In whom do you believe?” more than the question “What do you believe?”
Creeds were originally intended for liturgical use, as the people of God affirmed their allegiance to the persons of the Trinity prior to baptism or the celebration of the Eucharist. In contrast, a definition is a commentary on a creed, designed to give more terminological precision to the content of that creed.
The Council of Chalcedon
At the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the Greco-Roman world), the bishops who assembled were firmly convinced that the Nicene Creed was sufficient to affirm their faith in God, his Son, and his Spirit.
They were right: the Nicene Creed clearly identifies each of the divine persons, shows that they are equal to one another, and emphasizes that for us and for our salvation, the Son came down from heaven through the incarnation. At the same time, the bishops at Chalcedon were under intense pressure from the emperor to produce a new creed, because he wanted to be able to call himself a new Constantine, presiding over the writing of a creed as Constantine had done at Nicaea in 325. The bishops also recognized that they needed more specificity than the Nicene Creed gave about how to understand Christ as both divine and human. As a result, they decided to write not a creed, but a “definition.”
Contrary to popular opinion, the Chalcedonian Definition is actually about five pages long—far too long to recite as part of a worship service. It includes the full text of two different versions of the Nicene Creed: the original form from the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325, and the expanded version (the one familiar to us) from the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.
It includes descriptions of heresies that had arisen since 381 (Nestorianism—which regarded Christ not as God the Son incarnate but as a man inspired by God, and Eutychianism—which truncated the full humanity of the incarnate Son by refusing to accept his consubstantiality with us). Then the Definition concludes with a paragraph that gives specificity and terminological precision to the church’s articulation of the incarnate Christ. This paragraph is usually regarded mistakenly as being the entire definition, but with that mistake duly noted, it is still worth our while to read and consider that paragraph.
The Text
As I translate it, the paragraph reads as follows:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all unite in teaching that we should confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This same one is perfect in deity, and the same one is perfect in humanity; the same one is true God and true man, comprising a rational soul and a body. He is of the same essence (homousios) as the Father according to his deity, and the same one is of the same essence (homousios) with us according to his humanity, like us in all things except sin. He was begotten before the ages from the Father according to his deity, but in the last days for us and our salvation, the same one was born of the Virgin Mary, the bearer of God (Theotokos), according to his humanity. He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten, who is made known in two natures (physeis) united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction between the natures (physeis) is not at all destroyed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature (physis) is preserved and concurs together into one person (prosopon) and subsistence (hypostasis). He is not separated or divided into two persons (prosopa), but he is one and the same Son, the Only Begotten, God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the way the prophets spoke of him from the beginning, and Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and the Council of the fathers has handed the faith down to us.
Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared at the blog for Credo Magazine.
I was having coffee with one of the women I’ve been discipling last month. This is her first year in Kansas City, and in the few short months she’s been here, her growth has been exponential. The opportunity to be discipled, combined with an increased love for learning and heightened capacity to understand theological truth and apply it to her spiritual walk has made her year unforgettable.
Seeing such rapid and significant growth has been fascinating. The Bible uses cultivation language to talk about the lives of believers and how they interact with teachers, disciplers, and others who have influence in their lives – some water, some plant seeds, and some get to witness the harvest. Ultimately, God gives the growth, and every now and then, we get the privilege to watch other Christians bear fruit and flourish.
But, flourishing begs the question: what happens when all of that fast growth catches up to you? When the Lord is exposing your sin and working on your heart, it can be desperately painful.
Have you ever experienced this? The Lord exposes a sin, and by the grace of God, you respond to his prompting and begin killing it. The Lord gives you victory, and you have a community to confess to and to walk alongside of you. But after a few weeks, you begin to grow weary of talking about it, weary of re-opening wounds to clear out infection. You know it needs to happen, but the joy of growth is overrun by the growing pains that accompany your newness of life.
There’s something that just hurts about the rawness of sanctification. It’s good to grow, and be vulnerable and share and let the deepest parts of your life out. But often after a season of prolonged openness, that raw wound can begin to hurt: to recoil at the touch or even mention of it. We get bleary eyed, unable to actually process or discern because we’re just so tired of talking about it over and over.
The growth that we’re loving begins to stretch us at the seams, and reminds us that vulnerability creates a tender spot where tough skin used to be. This is such a tangible picture of the Lord refining us. And we want to be refined, no doubt! But often, I don’t think we realize what we’re truly asking for.
When we ask the Lord to grow us in holiness, he may do so by revealing indwelling sin that we have ignored or never seen before.
When we ask the Lord for wisdom, he may do so by bringing us difficult circumstances that stretch our discernment.
When we ask the Lord for patience, he may bring us trying times that test our commitment to selflessness.
Seeing the Lord redeem and restore brokenness is one of the gifts of the Christian life. These are the true miracles that we experience in our lives – seeing how the Lord redeems thoroughly broken people and introducing them to abundant life. To witness this over a series of months and years, this is a grace to the church, to see the Lord use awful circumstances, situations, or sin struggles to give us opportunities to delight in his glory and the good that he has for us.
But it takes courage to walk in full repentance. It takes trust to see the Lord expose the depths of our hearts to others. It takes endurance to do the work that comes with saying “yes” to the Holy Spirit — to listen, to respond, to engage the way that believers are called to do so.
When confession gets overwhelming –
When wounds start to sting,
When honesty feels like too much work,
Press into the gentle and lowly heart of Christ. Our weakness is the place where his strength abounds. He loves to bind up the wounds of the broken, and to restore those who need it. The Lord is for you — his sanctifying spirit is a gift to you. Press on, and press in, believer, and allow the Lord to be your strength.
Is theology important for preaching? If you read many preaching books, you may be tempted to answer “no,” since most focus on methodology. They tend to provide clear instructions for studying a text and preparing a sermon, but few address the theology of preaching. Those that do address theological issues related to preaching only do so incidentally. Given these facts, one might reasonably conclude theology is not important for preaching. Yet this would be a mistake. As Chase Kuhn and Paul Grimmond argue in their new book, Theology Is for Preaching, “preaching and theology are mutually informed” (xx). Theology undergirds the task of preaching, and preaching communicates sound doctrine (theology). Preaching is unavoidably theological!
Kuhn and Grimmond have assembled a team of respected scholars to address various theological issues and their relationship to preaching. Preachers who desire to gain a better appreciation for the theological nature of preaching will benefit from reading their work for three reasons: (1) the book covers a broad range of theological issues as they relate to preaching, (2) the authors demonstrate the connection between the theology of preaching and the practice of preaching, and (3) the book provides models of theological preaching for those who aspire to deliver theologically sound sermons.
Deep and Wide
Theology Is for Preaching is an edited volume, which means various scholars contributed to the work. As you would suspect, some chapters are better written than others, and some chapters are more relevant than others. I will leave it to you to decide which is which! Nevertheless, most chapters are solid and well-written, and most of them address theology and preaching in some shape, form, or fashion. The use of a wide range of scholars allows the book to cover a wide range of topics, which is one of the primary strengths of the book.
Theology Is for Preaching includes chapters on the theological nature of preaching (see Mark Thompson’s chapter “The Declarative God: A Theological Description of Preaching”), a biblical-theological description of preaching (see Claire Smith’s “‘Preaching’: Toward Lexical Clarity for Better Practice”), the Christological nature of preaching (see Daniel Wu’s “Old Testament Challenges: Christocentric or Christotelic Sermons?”), and the theological content of preaching (see Simon Gillham’s “Theological Formation through the Preached Word: a Biblical-Theological Account”). The broad focus allows the reader to familiarize himself with various theological aspects of preaching by reading a single volume, which is helpful for beginning preachers or those who have not devoted time to reflecting on the theological nature of preaching. The downside, however, is that contributors are not always able to go as deep as they might have gone if they were writing a complete volume on the subject. This does not take away from the usefulness of the book, but it is a reminder of the limits of edited works and the introductory nature of the present volume.
Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy
From the outset, Kuhn and Grimmond emphasized the “practical” nature of theology. Theology is practical because it shapes the method of preaching. Our theological convictions about God, revelation, and Scripture (among other things) should lead us to preach expositionally. Our theological convictions about Christ and salvation should lead us to preach Christocentrically. Our theological convictions about the power of the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit should lead us to preach confidently. The bottom line: our approach to preaching should be shaped by our theology.
Theology is also practical because it shapes the content of preaching. Our sermons should contain sound doctrine that lead to godly living. In their preface, Kuhn and Grimmond argued, “The intention of preaching is a clearer and more faithful theology” (xx). This theology “is not merely cerebral or esoteric, but also ethical” (xx). In short, “faithful living requires sound doctrine” (xx). Preachers should strive to deliver sermons containing sound doctrine and practical instruction based on that doctrine, sermons aimed at producing orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Watch and Learn
Theology Is for Preaching does not contain instruction alone. The book also includes two sermons meant to model theological preaching. The first sermon, entitled “Listening Before Speaking” and delivered by Simon Manchester, expounds Jeremiah 23:16-32. The main point of the exposition was preachers should “hear” God’s Word clearly and personally before attempting to communicate it, or speak it, to others. The second sermon, entitled “Meeting Jesus” and delivered by Phillip Jensen, expounds Luke 5:1-11. The message was evangelistic, as the main point of the exposition was the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation. These “model” sermons are helpful for readers. They provide tangible examples of what the various contributors have been saying about theological preaching. Plus, each preacher included an “evaluation” of the sermon and how it contributes to a study of the theological foundations of preaching. Preachers should be inspired to preach theological sermons by the content of the book and the examples of the expositors included in the book.
Conclusion
Kuhn and Grimmond have done preachers a great service by producing a book exclusively devoted to the theology of preaching. Those who read their work will walk away from it with a greater appreciation for the theological foundations of preaching, the biblical-theological framework of preaching, and the theological content of preaching. They will also be encouraged and equipped to preach theologically sound messages. Preachers, take up and read!
I’m not just referring to apologetic arguments themselves or to every Christian’s calling to defend the faith. I’m talking about the world of public apologists—those who garner acclaim for their poise in the art of persuasion. Perhaps you, like me, grew to admire such famous apologists not just as brilliant thinkers but also Christian role models.
But now, it’s 2021, and we’ve all seen how far a Christian celebrity can fall. And in some ways, that’s a good thing—a reminder that our trust should be in God, not men.
How should Christians think about apologetics now, moving forward? The answer is that the discipline can benefit a lot from missionaries. And the reason is found in the seminal apologetics verse.
The Apostle Peter’s words in his first letter are often used to ground Christian involvement in robust, intelligent defense of the faith:
“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15, NIV)
In context, Peter is exhorting believers to endure suffering for good, and he expects that they will face opposition designed to repudiate their beliefs. Amidst such attacks, the apostle encourages his readers not to bend or break but to continue speaking truth in love. We too, in our “post-truth” age, must be ready to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.
We cannot miss Peter’s foundation in the first sentence: “[I]n your hearts revere Christ as Lord.” In our celebrity culture, apologists are tempted to ignore this first step—the step of inward devotion—and instead chase applause through their eloquence. But we dare not elevate human approval over holiness. As one Christian author remarked, “If we came [to faith] through the door of argument, then all it will take is a better argument to cause us to leave by another door.”1
Rather than well-crafted arguments, sharp minds, or silver tongues, it is a deep, abiding commitment to Christ as Lord that must be the starting point of public witness.
Apologetics is not lacking in bright intellectuals brimming with “lofty speech” (1 Cor. 2:1) and the “wisdom of the age” (1 Cor. 2:6). But we have a dearth of reverent servants passionate to impart the “secret and hidden wisdom” of Christ (1 Cor. 2:7) to others.
The question is: who can lead this reform? Not the academy, but missionaries. Consider these three reasons why.
1. Missionaries’ Heart of Humility
The Anglican clergyman John Newton once warned a fellow minister preparing to engage in debate, “What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?”2
The warning is still apropos to today’s climate of public Christian debate. Even if an argument is won, if it comes at the cost of behavior antithetical to the gospel, then the apologist has lost.
Newton’s warning was really only echoing Scripture: “Watch your life and doctrine closely . . . if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). Our salvation and the salvation of our hearers depends not only on our words but our lifestyles too.
Newton also wrote to his friend, “You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.”3
Apologetics needs a missionary spirit because those who revere Christ in their hearts know that they too have sinned and fallen short and are recipients of grace. This realization produces humility—the attitude required for every believer witnessing on the mission field or the debate stage.
2. Missionaries’ Commitment to the Local Church
The lack of accountability among Christian celebrities can be largely resolved through a biblical insistence on church membership—a commitment missionaries understand.
In an investigative article on Ravi Zacharias, Christianity Today noted that he “was not a member of a church and did not submit to a local pastor.”4 This is unsurprising, since Zacharias traveled the better part of a every calendar year for nearly half a century.
Itinerant apologists who forsake gathering with the saints have no brother to lead them back to truth when they wander (James 5:19). True accountability is found not in a parachurch ministry board but in church membership and submission to a local body and its pastors.
For an itinerant apologist, this lesson can be hard to learn. But a healthy missionary, as an ambassador sent by the local church (Acts 13:1-3), should have a deep sense that the local church is his or her lifeline and the heartbeat of the Great Commission.
This point bears application. Missionary-apologists should use public discussions as platforms to strengthen the body of Christ. Apologists should leverage their public engagements to serve nearby churches, giving local congregations opportunities to sponsor and follow-up with more evangelism. Apologists come and go, but the church stays. If anyone is to encounter Christ, they need to be connected to a local church.
3. Missionaries’ Desire to Win Souls, Not Arguments
We believe in missions because we believe in winning the lost to Christ. Yet much of apologetics has become more about winning arguments, not people.
Atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens, noted for his antagonism in debate, make it their aim to either “destroy the man or the argument.”5 Not so for the Christian apologist. We are not permitted to slander our fellow image-bearers. It is not even enough to win the argument. We must also call our opponents to repentance and faith in Christ. But the heat of debate can obscure this aim. We’re tempted to see our opponents as philosophical constructs rather than souls.
As lost souls, these people must be brought face-to-face with the gospel. Healthy missionaries understand this intuitively in ways academicians may not.
Returning to 1 Peter—we derive our word “apologetic” from Peter’s use of a Greek word meaning a reasoned defense. A defense of what? Our faith—centered on the gospel message itself. Apologetics that does not culminate in a clear gospel presentation is, thus, undeserving of the name. Yes, apologetics is distinct from evangelism. But the simple message of Christ crucified and resurrected must reign supreme in both disciplines.
I’m not advocating an overly simplistic evangelistic approach that devalues higher learning, philosophy, or the intellectual rigors of debate. But to defend the gospel, an apologist must be most passionate about the gospel.
This same zeal for the gospel that drives missionaries to the most remote and hostile places on earth should also compel apologists to the lecture hall or auditorium.
The Way Forward
Celebrity apologists exert undue influence on us, and we should be grateful when their failure causes us to realign our hearts. But the apologetic discipline should not be abandoned.
Only a humble, church-focused, Christ-centered missionary spirit can save apologetics. Let’s pray that God would raise up apologists who are, first and foremost, missionaries.
Editor’s note: This post originally appeared at the AWBE blog.
Footnotes
1. Ray Comfort, “Where did we go wrong with Ravi Zacharias?” The Christian Messenger, February 23, 2021, http://www.christianmessenger.in/where-did-we-go-wrong-with-ravi-zacharias/
2. Nathan W. Bingham, “On Controversy,” Ligonier Ministries, March 2, 2012, https://www.ligonier.org/blog/oncontroversy/
4. Daniel Silliman, “Ravi Zacharias’s Denomination Revokes Ordination,” Christianity Today, February 19, 2021, https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/february/ravi-zacharias-cma-investigation-revoke-ordination.html
5. Larry Taunton, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2016), p. 115.
In 1854, when Charles Spurgeon began pastoring at the New Park Street Chapel, he had a handful of deacons assisting him and a membership of 313. In just twelve weeks, they outgrew their space and began making plans to enlarge their building. As soon as that was done, they found themselves immediately in need of more space, and so began making plans to build a new building, which would eventually be the Metropolitan Tabernacle.
Spurgeon found himself caring for a congregation that was beyond his capacity to shepherd.
This mattered to Spurgeon because of his ecclesiological commitments. He was not an itinerant preacher. His church was not merely a preaching station. Rather, as a committed Baptist, Spurgeon’s ministry was rooted in his congregation of baptized believers. For all of his evangelistic preaching, Spurgeon refused to separate his call to the gospel with a call to be committed and accountable to a local church. In his careful practice of membership and discipline, Spurgeon once stated that “He would rather give up his pastorate than admit any man to the Church who was not obedient to his Lord’s command; and such a course would certainly promote the downfall of any Church that practiced it.”
For Spurgeon, this was not an idle commitment. In the first 6 1/2 years of his ministry at the New Park Street Chapel, the church took in 1,442 new members. That’s 1,442 membership interviews by a deacon, 1,442 meetings with Spurgeon, 1,442 membership visitations, 1,442 testimonies before the congregation, and 1,442 approvals by the congregation (not to mention over a thousand baptisms, as most of these were new converts). And once they were settled in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, these numbers would only increase.
Throughout his ministry, Charles Spurgeon pursued meaningful, regenerate church membership. In doing so, his church became an engine for gospel-ministry all around the world.
How did he do this? Here are five ways:
In the February 1869 edition of the Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon provides this six-step description of their membership process:
With so many applying for membership, Spurgeon refined and made this process more efficient over the years, but never in a way that compromised the thorough and careful consideration of every person coming into membership.
In bringing people into membership, Spurgeon was concerned not simply to have people on the church rolls, but making sure that these people were continuing in their profession of faith. In his last sermon to the Pastors’ College, Spurgeon urged his students,
Let us not keep names on our books when they are only names. Certain of the good old people like to keep them there, and cannot bear to have them removed; but when you do not know where individuals are, nor what they are, how can you count them? They are gone to America, or Australia, or to heaven, but as far as your roll is concerned they are with you still. Is this a right thing? It may not be possible to be absolutely accurate, but let us aim at it… Keep your church real and effective, or make no report. A merely nominal church is a lie. Let it be what it professes to be.
Spurgeon was persistent at regualarly tracking those who came to the Lord’s Table. Upon joining the church, members were given a communion card, divided by perforation into twelve numbered parts, one of which was to be delivered every month at the communion. These tickets would checked by the elders and if any member was “absent more than three months. This enabled the church to work towards meaningful membership by providing better care and discipleship, or by removing those members from the membership.
Because each candidate needed to appear before the congregation and be approved by the congregation, congregational meetings became an essential part of the life of the church. With the exception of the annual meeting in January, congregational meetings at the Tabernacle were almost entirely devoted to membership matters. And these meetings could last a long time. In the church minute books, on May 18th 1860, we see recorded a congregational meeting in which 42 candidates appeared before the church, each giving testimony to their conversion. This meeting began at 2PM, and according to Spurgeon’s notes in the margin, “This most blessed meeting lasted till a late hour at night. Bless the Lord.”
However, these congregational meetings were not merely about church business. No, these meetings were meant to be edifying. They were an important part of the discipleship of the church, complementing the Word ministry of the church. In the telling of their conversions, the congregation heard not only stories of people who were converted under Spurgeon’s preaching, but also of those who were saved through other ministries of the church; because a member invited them to church, shared the gospel with them, or faithfully prayed for them for decades. In those meetings, the congregation gained a vision for the power of God to save and of their role in bringing the gospel to the lost.
When Spurgeon first began at the New Park Street Chapel, the church only recognized the offices of pastor and deacons. However, as the church grew, the work of caring for the spiritual and temporal needs of the congregation became too much for the deacons to handle alone. And so, in 1859 at a January congregational meeting, Spurgeon made a biblical case for the office of elder, dedicated to the spiritual care of the church.
These elders would go on to labour alongside Spurgeon. The February 1869 edition of the S&T describes the work of their elders like this:
The seeing of enquirers, the visiting of candidates for church membership, the seeking out of absentees, the caring for the sick and troubled, the conducting of prayer-meetings, catechumen and Bible-classes for the young men – these and other needed offices our brethren the Elders discharge for the church. One Elder is maintained by the church for the especial purpose of visiting our sick poor, and looking after the church-roll, that this may be done regularly and efficiently.
Spurgeon lamented that most of the Baptist churches of his day did not have the office of elder implemented and encouraged them to follow the NT pattern in this way.
An accurate membership roll is not a goal in and of itself. Rather, Spurgeon understood that a congregation full of people who genuinely loved Jesus and believed the gospel was an army that could shake the world. And so he constantly called his people to do something for God’s kingdom.
Oh to get a working church! The German churches, when our dear friend Mr. Oncken was alive always carried out the rule of asking every member, “What are you going to do for Christ?” and they put the answer down in a book. The one thing that was required of every member was that he should continue doing something for the Savior. If he ceased to do anything, it was a matter for church discipline, for he was an idle professor, and could not be allowed to remain in the church like a drone in a hive of working bees. He must do or go.
Out of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, over a hundred of churches were planted, hundreds of pastors and missionaries were trained and sent out, dozens upon dozens of charitable organizations were begun, publications and tracts and pamphlets were distributed throughout the world, and the impact of this church continues to be felt today.
Not every church will be a Metropolitan Tabernacle and not every pastor will be a Spurgeon. This is never the goal. The goal is for every church and every pastor is to be faithful; faithful in doctrinal purity, faithful in guarding the membership, faithful in active gospel ministry. In this, Spurgeon and the Metropolitan Tabernacle remains a model for pastors and churches today.
Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared at Spurgeon.org, the internet home of the Spurgeon Library.
FTC.co asks Dhati Lewis, lead pastor at Blueprint Church in Atlanta, Georgia, “What advice would you give to Christians who feel exhausted by today’s discourse in evangelicalism?”
