A dialogue:
“Do you mean to tell me you follow Jesus Christ?”
“Sure! Who else in history would you choose to follow?”
So begins my guest column in today’s Newport News Daily Press.
The link above will expire in a few weeks. Here is a permanently available pdf.
I do not write the headlines for my columns; the editor does.
No automatically-generated related posts found.
Jesus Christ IS God! But He came not to be a moral example for people, but to REDEEM all those HE chose before the foundation of the world to save. To all non Christians (and many thinking, professing Christians), the the cross is foolishness. Do people HATE that; YES! Matthew 7:22 “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy Name and in Thy Name have cast out devils and in Thy Name done many wonderful works? v23 And then I will profess to them I NEVER KNEW you, depart from Me ye that work iniquity”. If you, me or anyone else is in heaven it will be because God chose of His own free and sovereign will to bring us there. There will be MULTITUDES of moral men and women in HELL! Men need a Savior not an example.
Right. (Settle down a moment, please, Craig.)
I agree.
Read the New Testament carefully, and you’ll see that Jesus and the apostles, when sharing with people who did not fully understand or agree, were willing to start from where their hearers were. With those who had much background knowledge, they assumed a lot of background knowledge. But for those who had less (see Acts 17) they took a more gradual approach toward the presentation of truth. They tried to bring people along. If every encounter with a non-Christian was required to include all that you just wrote, then Paul failed. Jesus himself failed, if that is the requirement. But of course it isn’t a requirement at all.
My point in this article was to try to bring people along the path toward Christ. The point, really, was in the end: “you might want to read the New Testament.”
Craig, if you were talking with someone who at the beginning of the conversation was totally derisive and dismissive of Jesus Christ, and if by the end of the conversation that person was open to re-reading the New Testament, would you not consider that progress?
Tom, you and I have something in common. Both of us have served on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. After reading your article in the Daily Press, the comment above and your response, I felt the need to weigh in. I get the whole “bring people to the New Testament” but I don’t think Dr. Bright, in his devotion to sharing the gospel, brought people to the new testament…he brought them to the PERSON of Christ. While Mr. Akins was pretty strong in his comments I can’t say that he is wrong. What is wrong is to present Christ as a “great example to follow” without focusing on His claims to be God. Apparently you have forgotten C.S. Lewis’ argument that Jesus didn’t leave people the option to see himself as a good moral teacher or example to be followed, but based on the claims He made about Himself…He is either a LIAR, a LUNATIC or LORD. I just felt your article was misleading people, not directing them to the PERSON of Jesus Christ. That, to me, is patronizing and NOT getting people to know the truth about who Jesus really is.
Tom,
Well you got a doozy of a first comment at the newspaper.
“Bible stories depict Jesus as a meglomaniac, probably schizophrenic, and a person who saw violence as an exceptable means of displaying faith. I would also point out that you are stating an abject lie to say anybody “knows” he existed, or any credible majority has any evidence for concluding thus.”
Maybe you could have tried posting you column at Infidels.org for a more reasonable response!
Debbie, I can appreciate what you’re saying, and it’s not unlike what Craig said earlier. It was my intent through this to point readers toward Christ, to lift up his greatness that excels all others, and hopefully to encourage readers to explore further.
I have a 600 word limit in these columns, so there is only so much I can accomplish in them.
I see the need in our culture as manifold. One part of it is opening up just the door to a willingness to encounter Christ. There are many for whom even that is a long step from where they are.
I look at Jesus’ encounters; some of them were just to get people started thinking. They didn’t include the whole message. Like the rich young ruler, and the three would be followers who hesitated. There must be room in our proclamation to tell part of the story sometimes. My hope was that this would serve as a very motivational part, and spur some on to next steps in discovering Jesus.
I could be wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time. Yet it seems to me there is biblical precedent due an approach like this. I hope so, anyway.
I think Bill’s comment illustrates how far it is for some people to go, even to begin seeing who Christ really is. This column was directed toward that kind of reader, or maybe more toward some who are not quite so distant but had never really considered the uniqueness of Christ.
Thank you for your response. While Jesus and Paul changed their approach they didn’t change the message and in every case they presented the gospel. Paul, even in Acts 17, presents the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. Verse 34; “Howbeit certain men clave to him and believed….”.
Our responsibility as Christians is to give out THE WORD OF GOD, speaking the TRUTH in LOVE. Some seed falls by the wayside, some on stony places, some among the thorns and some on good soil. Our churches are full of lukewarm, lost ‘christians’ who see Jesus as a good example, but who leave Him at church.
Frankly, I read the NT many times and tried ‘religion’ a couple of times early in my life and it is the MOST miserable way to live, full of hyprocrisy UNLESS the HOLY SPIRIT borns you again.
Let’s leave subtilty and cleverness to Satan and the world and give out the Gospel in love. GOD will honor that.
To say that Jesus or Paul “never changed their message” would be to say that every time they spoke they said precisely the same thing. That’s certainly not what you intended to say, Craig, so I’m wondering what you meant by that.
Clearly the overall message they presented remained consistent, and it was always grounded in a consistent set of central truths. But they adapted to their audience. Sometimes, when they had the time for it, they taught at length. Sometimes they had only a moment, and the sense I get from those moments is that they were trying to stir up interest for further exploration. Even what they tried to stir up would vary, though: sometimes exploration of the truth of the gospel, sometimes the hearers’ own distance from it.
Jesus’ talk with the woman at the well (John 4:1-42) is completely different from his discussion with Nicodemus (John 3:1-20; commentators disagree on where the conversation ends and the narrative by John picks up again within this passage.)
Paul’s interrupted message at Lystra, Acts 14:8-18, does not present the basics Craig mentioned above, and even his extended defense before Agrippa in Acts 26 lacks some of them.
Campus Crusade for Christ staff member Randy Newman wrote in Questioning Evangelism, a book soundly endorsed by many other Campus Crusade leaders,
Why is this? Because people are different, for one thing. Because they have beliefs they need to unlearn; preconceptions they need to examine. In the case of the article I wrote here, I was addressing those whose preconception is that Jesus is either irrelevant or worse. For many, the first step toward “Jesus really is God and Savior” needs to be, “Jesus is worth paying attention to.” If their prior opinion is that he isn’t worth paying attention to, then helping them take that step can be significant.
I could have said, “Jesus is worth paying attention to because he is God, you’re a sinner, and you need him to save you.” That would certainly be true. But the twenty-first century listener would likely say, “No, no, and absolutely no!” and shut his ears completely. So I said, “Jesus is worth paying attention to because if you’re looking for a great person in history whose life is worth examining, there is none better. ” The twenty-first century skeptic hearing that kind of approach might very well consider Jesus’ life worth examining.
If I can get anyone to look closely at Jesus Christ who has never done so before, I consider that effort very well spent.
-Theism is a naive superstition from a primitive culture.
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
-What?!
Man is sinful and separated from God.
-Whatever.
Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin.
-(click)
Well, at least you communicated the gospel–or did you?
Good point, Fred. I hope readers don’t misunderstand what you’re getting at.
Now, I can’t help but emphasize that the Four Spiritual Laws (which you quoted here) were what God used to bring me to faith in him, and he still uses that presentation over and over and over again to do it today. The gospel is in them, and for many people, the Four Spiritual Laws communicates that truth effectively.
It is your last line here that makes the important point: what does it take not only to present the Gospel, but to communicate it.