The following is part of a response that I've worked up to Dan's recent postings on his dealing with Dr. Newsome. His full postings can be found here. Reader's Digest version: Dan wants to reclaim education for the glory of God and he feels that drastic steps need to be taken so that the wholesale preaching of the Gospel of Christ can occur in a public education environment. If this sounds radical to you, well, it is. I encourage you to hear him out, though, because he speaks with a sincere heart and has some good things. At this point in my thinking I can't endorse all his conclusions but, well, I'm still in process on all of this myself. When all is said and done, he may just be right. So, with no further ado, here is my open response to Dan. I encourage you to post comments in either my blog or his. The both of us would love to hear from you.
Dan,
Thanks for posting at least a taste of what your meeting with Dr. Newsome looked like. I've got a lot to say in response but in the interest of keeping the size of my posts mangable, I'm going to try to break my thoughts down into (hopefully) single-issue responses. I'm also going to start with a thought you expressed part-way through your post because it is one that I have already collected my thoughts on due to our previous phone conversation. In fact, with your permission, I'm going to paraphrase part of what you said during that conversation and include it in the content I'm going to respond to in this post.
(Paraphrase) "Christians, teachers and students alike, need to either preach the Gospel boldly and openly in the public education classroom or they need to get out of the system entirely." Phone conversation
"We must obey God, not men"
You've really challenged me with your example of Peter and John from the Bible. You make a great point in that we need to be placing the commands of God above the laws of the land and speak boldly into the culture in which we live. Preach the Gospel, brother. Knowing you (and it is implicit in what you write) I think you would also say that we compromise our faith when we allow the laws of the land to keep us silent from proclaiming the truth. This is a challenging statement to me personally and something in which I need to spend some severe amount of prayer. How should this look in my workplace? How should this be played out in my daily life?
There is an aspect of this, though, that I don't think that you have considered and it comes from a desire to find a practical application to this idea. If we don't let any laws of any land prevent us from preaching the truth boldly, then I would say that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the world's population will not ever even hear the name of Christ (This is assuming that it is entirely up to us to spread his name which, thankfully, is not the case). I'm referring to those who live in lands that are openly hostile to evangelism, China being a prime example but far from the only offender; there are many such nations throughout Asia. Preaching the Gospel openly and boldly in these places has severe consequences: deporation for non-citizens and worse for those who call that nation home. These nations hold a significant percentage of the world's population, somewhere between one-third and one-half is my guess. If we want to bring the Gospel to the people of these nations we must construct other tools besides direct, open evangelism and find other ways to bring truth to these people. A change of tactics is needed to still effectively bring salvation to people who are lost and who's governments would rather that this not change. This is, in my mind, a very plain truth that would be very hard to dispute. Street-preaching in China is not a viable method of saving very many Chinese. To evangelize you've got be there with the non-Christians.
Consider this: due to the increasing hostility towards the message of the Gospel in our own modern, Western culture I suggest that we start viewing our nation in a similar fashion. We still have a great deal more freedom than those in China when it comes to preaching the word and I think we need to use this freedom. Not to become beligerent and annoying street-preachers but to become consistent, truth-revealing lights in the world around us, using our tongues to re-affirm the Christ-formed character our lives demonstrate. Though you may disagree, Dan, I think we have a responsibility to continue to engage our culture in every way possible even if that means having to play by rules with which we don't agree. I think Christians need to be in environments that are openly hostile to their beliefs trying to find ways to subvert those environments for the cause of Christ. For the purposes of this discussion, I think Christians need to be in public education, reaching out to students and faculty to find ways to bring the love of Christ into their lives. (We'll call this the Trojan horse model.) Again, to evangelize you've got to be there with the non-Christian students and teachers.
Dan, I say this because I believe Christianity does not leave withdrawl as a viable method for maintaining purity and holiness in a culture that is corrupt and continuing to be corrupted. Israel has utterly failed to be the light and salt it was called to be in the OT because they mis-applied their understanding of the law. Christ removed confusion by making it clear that salvation is available to all, regardless of their ethnicity. As followers of Christ today that mandate still holds: we hold no prejudice and seek to evangelize all regardless of ethnicity, hair-color, nationality, sexual-orientation, occupation, criminal record, food preference, or educational environment. All are within the scope of salvation and we need to be actively engaged in bringing truth to the world. This means, implicitly, that we have to be there, in their lives, engaged in everyday living with them. We cannot share the truth if we're not around to share it.
When we spoke on the phone recently and you mentioned that you are convinced that Christians in public education need to be preaching the Bible in the classroom(regardless of the consequences) or need to get out of public education entirely, students and teachers alike. Let me make it very clear that I disagree with this for the simple reason that I will not abandon this segment of the population to their own desires and not continue to try to be an influence in their lives. Christians should not be withdrawing from these tough fights where are hands are tied but continuing to engage them despite our hands being tied. We want the lost people in these environments to have to deal with us, hampered and all, if they want to continue harming themselves. I don't think that a necessary condition of evangelism is having a clear and level playing field; this is a sinful world and the cards are stacked against us in so many ways. Though this field is not fair I don't think we have the option of taking our ball and going home; we can't evangelize if we're not there. Similarly, if we choose not play by their rules they are going to ask us to leave and we're in the same position. No, the way to continue to influence them is to stay in the game and work from there. It isn't easy or fun but the alternative of leaving the environment and letting sin run it's course just doesn't seem to have the best intersts of those we would abandon at heart. To bring salvation to the lost we have to be a part of their lives and able to influence them for Christ; we can't save them if we're not there.
One more quick point and then I'll wrap it up for now. As I mentioned above, (if I understood you correctly), you believe that if we cannot preach openly in the public education system then we need to withdraw and wait until the world degrades to such an extent that they come back to us, begging to know the truth. I don't think it will actually work out that way, that our presence will be missed, and I say this because it hasn't worked in the past. Look at the Amish, for example. Through their desire to be holy they have taken the OT Jewish route and effectively removed themselves from society. They seek to evangelize through example and hope to spread the truth when the world comes around and realizes it is screwed up and that they, the Amish, might be able to help. If the Amish have an evangelism strategy, this is it and you know what, it hasn't worked yet, not for several hundred years. Though society has, by their standards, continued to degrade for decade after decade, it is no closer to realizing it's decadence and mending it's ways by coming to the Amish point of view. Though there are several other factors that are causing this method of evangelism to fail, the one that is most pertinent to this discussion is the nature of sin. Sin not only screws us up it also prevents us from seeing how screwed up we are. Look at the book of Revelation. Is the world not engaged in actively resisting Christ at the cost of their lives even up to the bitter end? Sin binds and sin blinds and if we want to be that freeing light we are called to be, we need to not leave the sinful world to it's desires but continue to confront it while staying culturally relevent.
When the rubber meets the road staying culturally relevant while continuing to follow Christ is a very hard thing to do. I think the book of Revelation also makes it very clear that there will come a time when cultural relevancy will be next to impossible without compromising our faith and when that time comes we need to pick a side. You might say, Dan, that at the core of this discussion if the question of whether this time has come or not: I say it hasn't and you (I'm guessing) say it has. You could be right, you really could be. Things might be so bad already that we just need to let sin run it's course and hope things get bad enough that some of world realizes the dead end it is on and turn to us, the isolated followers of Christ, to find truth. Me, I'm not convinced it's gone that far and I'm going to continue fighting in the trenches engaging those around me, confronting them with truth, and challenging their beliefs in hopes that my influence will be positive in their lives. At least, that's what I'm going to try to do. Keep challenging me, Dan, to not compromise.
Trevor,
ReplyDeleteHey man. I'm looking forward to this debate. I am convinced that God will use this for his glory. Hallelujah.
You said, "If we don't let any laws of any land prevent us from preaching the truth boldly, then I would say that a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the world's population will not ever even hear the name of Christ (This is assuming that it is entirely up to us to spread his name which, thankfully, is not the case). I'm referring to those who live in lands that are openly hostile to evangelism, China being a prime example but far from the only offender; there are many such nations throughout Asia. Preaching the Gospel openly and boldly in these places has severe consequences: deporation for non-citizens and worse for those who call that nation home. These nations hold a significant percentage of the world's population, somewhere between one-third and one-half is my guess. If we want to bring the Gospel to the people of these nations we must construct other tools besides direct, open evangelism and find other ways to bring truth to these people. A change of tactics is needed to still effectively bring salvation to people who are lost and who's governments would rather that this not change. This is, in my mind, a very plain truth that would be very hard to dispute. Street-preaching in China is not a viable method of saving very many Chinese."
I could not disagree with you more. Tell me - what was the difference between the Roman Empire (hostile to the propagation of the gospel) and China (hostile to the propagation of the gospel). Besides the fact that Chinese are a different race than the Romans, I see none. What was the early church's strategy in the 1st century - while they were being persecuted (forget deportation - they were being put to death). Their response was to courageously herald the gospel! The Apostle Paul went forth with the courage of a lion boldly and without hindrance preaching the gospel. Like me, he was afraid to do this - which is why he asked the Ephesians for prayer that he would fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel. Twice in two verses he asked the Ephesians for prayer that he would preach the gospel fearlessly.
I just don't see how you can hold on to your view. On what Biblical principles and Scriptures do you base this view? In that first century, Christians engaged their extremely hostile culture by boldly preaching the gospel - and then being martyred for the faith. In the face of severe persecution, Christianity spread like wildfire.
It is interesting that there are churches in China. The government is not opposed to peaceful churches that bow down to the whims of the government. Rather, they are opposed to Christians who really follow Paul as he followed Christ in fearless preaching the cross of Christ.
Peter said under the inspiration of God, if any man speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.
Every word we speak should be for the glory of God. Speaking courageously by faith over the reality of our world situation is what is necessary.
As for getting into these closed countries - I don't know. I think that we need to look out for open doors - and kick down some closed doors. Ultimately, we need to be led by the Spirit. Paul got to Rome by appealing to Caesar. He had to wait a long time. But during that time, he did not, like the Amish, lose his focus.
This brings me to my second argument. Many Amish (not all) have lost their focus. It is true that as we disengage with the world that we can easily forget. This is why it is so crucial for us to celebrate all the Jewish holidays: so that we remember the greatness of our God and those things which He would have us remember. Instead, we often look to the world to see what to celebrate, how and when.
Also, to some degree, I think that the Amish are being an effective light. Many people are seeing the craziness of America, and when they drive through Mennonite and Amish country in Pennsylvania, they think, "Ahh, the simplicity of life. A people celebrating little things - like their God, their wives, and their families. We need more of this in America." Of course, I am only hoping that people are thinking this. I do not know.
Interestingly, at Willow Valley, (where Nancy and I got married), I saw an article written by a Mennonite on how the world views them. This family was driving through and the wife said to her husband how nice it was and quaint that these people live their lives in the manner that they do. The husband said, "Yea, but its kinda backwards. Don't you think?"
Well, the guy who wrote this article was a Mennonite, and he made a pretty strong case that they are not backward. On the contrary, they are sane. They value hard work, faith in God, the 10 Commandments, and quality time with their families. I would hope that the average liberal New Yorker might read this guys' writings and be challenged. These people aren't backwards. These people are really a light in a dark world.
Finally, I do not support the idea that we disengage from our culture. I am calling for tactical retreat, so that we might regroup and then engage effectively. I am doing that. I met with Dr. Newsome. I am fully engaged in the fight. But I am suggesting that we can't tell people to live Christianly and establish Christian culture, if we are not modeling for them what as Christian culture looks like.
I think everyone should think like me. Go forth with boldness. Look for open doors - or kick them down. Pray. Stay in the word. Celebrate salvation. Preach your guts out. Find a way to unite with God's people to do God's work on God's authority and with God's grace on God's terms. That is what I am preaching.