A message to the "See why I faved you" people

On Twitter, there are some accounts which randomly fave Tweets. When you see the notification, the account name is simply "See why I faved you." There is a link in the profile to a website that is basically giving a gospel message. To the people who own these accounts, I want to say:

Please, please, please, please stop it.

Don't misunderstand that I am against evangelism. Look at my other blog posts and podcasts, and you'll see I'm all for winning the lost and speaking truth in love, even if someone is violently opposed to the truth. I'm all for being a witness, even if it's on social media. I'm not one of those "Let's pretend there's peace between God and those who oppose Him" people.

However, these things are just annoying. For one, there's nothing personal about them. It's just "Hey, look at this!" Some people criticize handing out tracts as impersonal, but at least with tracts you're engaging in a person one on one, and speaking with them. For another, I get the feeling there is no rhyme or reason with the faving, and some of these accounts may involve the use of bots or third party programs. Heck, my Twitter account has received them - I'm already a Christian, people! You don't need to win my soul, God has already done that for me. In the end, this trend is really just a Christian version of automated Twitter messages.

This isn't being a witness for God, it's just being annoying.

Granted, I understand this is the internet. You can't control what people do. I don't expect there to be a sudden drop in these things simply because I wrote this one blog post. Consider this post as nothing more than a rant and a call for reason. If you want to witness to people on social media, do it by presenting the Gospel as best is possible in whatever outlet you are using. However, do it in a way that doesn't make the other person feel like they are Bot Victim #241. Thank you.

Russia is Not 99% Atheist

A lot of times, when I hear stories of evangelism or I watch documentaries that touch on the subject, and the topic turns to Russia and modern day evangelism there, the same mantra tends to get repeated: only 1% of Russia is Christian. What is either implied or outright concluded is that the other 99% is atheistic or non-religious, and because of the many decades under Soviet rule.

This number just isn't true, and let's try to put this idea to rest.

Let's use the CIA World Factbook as a source regarding religious numbers in Russia. According to a 2006 estimate, we have the following figures:

Russian Orthodox: 15-20%
Muslim: 10-15%,
Other Christian: 2%

The "Other Christian" are most likely evangelicals or heretical groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. So, when you hear someone say "1% of Russians are Christians," what they're really saying are "1% of Russians are Evangelicals." Even if this were the case, and even if one wanted to argue that these "Other Christian" groups are true Christians, the fact remains that it is untrue that 99% of Russians are atheistic. According to these figures, at least 35% of Russians practice some form of religion outside non-Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Some might say here, "Yeah, but do those Russian Orthodox and Muslims practice their faith?" I'm so glad you asked - the CIA is even kind enough to clarify what these percentages mean:

Note: Estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule

So yes, it's true that Russia has non-practicing believers (ie., false believers for whatever religious faith) and non-believers, and this was the result of the Soviet rule, however the numbers given by the World Factbook account for those actually practicing their religion. Therefore, at least 37% of Russians practice some form of religion with sincerity. This means approximately 63% of Russians (not 99%) are either atheistic or simply non-practicing, but still claim to adhere to some form of religious belief. 63% is certainly still a lot, but it isn't 99%.

This post is not meant to demean or belittle efforts to evangelize inside Russia, either by foreign missionaries or Russian Christians themselves. However, we shouldn't present exaggerated numbers when trying to win people over to the idea of missionary work. Let us who serve He who is Truth speak with truth.

Todd Friel, Evangelism and Lady Gaga

Todd Friel presents an interesting scenario:

"Let's say you're doing open air preaching...and up comes Lady Gaga!"

I wanted to bang my head on a hard surface over the way the street preacher was speaking to Lady Gaga. Referring to her as "darling," going on about her "pervert ways" and "homo stuff," his general sarcasm...I'm sure the video edited out a lot of what he said, but just that little bit was embarrassing enough. As I said in another post about this kind of open air evangelism, how careful we have to be lest we invent the scenario where "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24).

As Todd Friel says in the video, context is everything. Judgment with no Law is simply empty Judgment. This is why so many universalists such as Rob Bell get away with their theology: they attack concepts of Judgment because there is an absence of Law. In proper self examination, Law presents to us the knowledge of our sin - as Paul wrote: "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). From this knowledge of sin from Law comes out acknowledgement of the righteousness of God's Judgment on mankind - as David wrote: "Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified when you speak and blameless when you judge" (Psalm 51:4). It is then that the mercy of God's Grace is realized upon us - as Paul again wrote: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Rom 8:33).

Our goal should be sharing the mercy of Christ upon the sinner. Yes, that does mean identifying a person as a sinner, but that should not be the end of our efforts. If it is, then we are no better than the Pharisees.

Calvinism and Evangelism

A common argument against Calvinism these days is, "If God elects people, what use is evangelism and missions?" This has already been responded to ad nauseum by many who can (and did) do it better than I could, but because this argument seems to continue popping up ad infinitum, I thought it would be worthy to touch on it for a moment.

There are two main points to address why this argumentation is fallacious:

1) It completely ignores historical precedent. Some of the greatest and most renowned evangelists and missionaries have been Calvinists. For example, John Eliot, an early Puritan in New England, was a missionary and evangelist to the Native Americans, as was the 18th century David Brainard. Brainard himself was a friend of the famous Jonathan Edwards, whose evangelical efforts led to the First Great Awakening, and who later served a missionary role among the Native Americans himself. On top of this, we have William Carey, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, David Livingstone and many, many others. Anyone who thinks evangelism and missionary work is an issue for the devout Christian who adheres to the doctrines of grace is simply making bluster.

2) It is based on a fallacious presupposition. The argument seems to come from the thinking that if God elects people, then He can only do it by one way, which is direct divine intervention akin to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. This is simply not the case: while the Good Shepherd knows who His sheep are, He is able to ordain the means by which the sheep are called into His flock.

I would like to briefly look at a biblical passage to address this:

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

Philip said to him, "Come and see."

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"

Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?"

Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." [John 1:43-49; NASB]

The first thing to note is the finding of Philip by Christ: Philip did not seek Christ nor was it Philip who found Christ, but rather it was Christ who found Philip. Upon finding him, Christ simply says: "Follow me." This was the same command given to Matthew at his tax collection booth (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), from which Matthew immediately rose up and followed Christ. Philip likewise is so overcome by Christ's simply command that he runs to his brother Nathanael and tells him that they have found the Messiah.

Nathanael, for his part, is doubtful, but nonetheless goes to see Christ for himself. Christ greets Nathanael with a statement regarding his character and ethnicity, which takes Nathanael by surprise - how could this Man from Nazareth whom he had never met before know about him? Christ replies, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

When Christ said "I saw you," the root word for what is translated as "I saw" (εἰδῶ) actually means knowing, and is often translated "see" in a figurative sense. This could be compared to the English phrase, "I see what you mean," which could likewise mean, "I know what you mean." Christ is not merely saying that He saw Nathanael under the tree, like a psychic might have a vision of someone being at work, but rather Christ knew Nathanael before Philip came to call him to Christ. This is why, upon coming to Him, Christ greets Nathanael with, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Christ had His finger on Nathanael before Philip even arrived to the tree.

Indeed, Christ knew who among all of Israel would be chosen as His apostles, and their selection was not by their own merits or actions but by His own will. This is made clear later on in John's gospel when the Lord says, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit..." (John 15:16). Both Nathanael and Philip were chosen by Christ to be His disciples, and there was no possibility that either could have ended up as Judas.

Here comes the connection with this post's topic: God is the chief designer in the means by which the sheep are called into the flock. Philip was effectually called directly by Christ, yet Christ likewise used Philip to bring Nathanael to Him. Christ could have easily gone to Nathanael and called him as directly as He called Philip, yet it was His will that Philip be used to bring Nathanael to Him. In a similar manner is missions: we are commanded by Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19), and we will be used by God those other sheep of His flock to Him.

Note on this last point: Christ had commanded the apostles to go out into the world and preach the gospel, and yet He had stated, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (John 10:16). On the one hand, the action is given to the apostles; on the other hand, Christ states that He is the active party in the bringing together of the flock. Is there a contradiction? Not at all. Christ is the active party, but - just as He brought Nathanael to Himself using Philip - He uses missionary work as one means to bring together those "other sheep" into the fold.

God is sovereign over all, but, contrary to what hyper-Calvinists would believe, He has a use for we broken vessels. This is why we must endeavor to evangelize to the lost while at the same time remembering that they are never saved because of us, only in spite of us.

Relationship-Driven Christianity and Evangelism

Over the past few months, I've encountered many instances of what I'd like to call "relationship-driven Christianity." That is, the belief that Christianity is a relationship not only between us and Christ, but ourselves and others. Therefore, the correct way to spread the gospel is to form relationships with others over a period of time, giving them encouragement and essentially "enticing" them into a life with Christ. You don't have to present the Law to them, or convict them of their sins; simply show them that a God-loving community makes one feel loved, and therefore they will hopefully join in. In fact, any attempt to use the Law is seen as harsh, and those who do open-air evangelism are often mocked by those who prefer the relationship-driven approach.

Before I continue, it might be best if I elaborate on what this line of thinking does not get wrong. Part of the Christian lifestyle is indeed a relationship not only between believer and Savior but fellow believers. A person who hates his brother cannot sincerely love His God, just as the beloved apostle John wrote: "the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). It is likewise not a bad thing for a believer to become friends with an unbeliever, but it should be emphasized that this is done along with the evangelism.

Where this mindset conflicts, then, is that it takes an addition to evangelism, makes it the sole methodology of evangelism, and essentially falls into the trap of being seeker-sensitive. I've heard those who follow this relationship-driven mentality say that the Law offends, and therefore you cannot win anyone honestly with it. Therefore, one essentially skips Law and runs to Grace, displaying the affects of it by example and inviting others to join in. Christianity essentially becomes a better way of life, no different than a vegan diet or a therapeutic medicine.

The greatest fault in this mindset is that part which says the preaching of the Law offends - to this I answer: of course it does. By the Gospel's very nature, it offends. As the apostle Paul wrote: "the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Part of the Gospel message is that mankind is in need of God, for "there is none righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). All are under Law, and the only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has been given the righteousness of God apart from the Law (cf. Rom 3:21). However, how can a perishing individual come to know this unless they are first taught the truth of the matter? Without the Law, one cannot know sin. This is why the apostle Paul likewise wrote, "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law" (Rom 7:7). This is where, having realized the depths of our sin, we come to know Grace: "what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3).

Those who would propose skipping the Law and running to Grace seem to forget that, as we've seen here, the two go hand in hand. The Law might be "bad news," but it is necessary to show just how good the "good news" truly is. Those who think we should simply skip the bad news seem to forget that in the epistle to the Romans - one of the greatest expositions of salvation - Paul spends three-and-a-half chapters of bad news before finally getting to the good news.

Those who would likewise propose a relationship-driven evangelism seem to forget that there is no scriptural model for this. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was not followed by the apostles slowly making relationships with various people in Jerusalem; instead, they preached to those gathered there and told them to repent (Acts 2:38). Paul, traveling throughout Asia Minor, often began ministry in a town by going to the nearest synagogue and opening debate with those who were inside. Likewise, the first act of Paul upon entering Athens was to invite everyone to the Areopagus, say their beliefs were wrong, and tell them to repent (this often doesn't get covered because, as we've seen, Acts 17:22-23 gets quoted in isolation).

Personally, I believe much of this comes because of the condition of health and lifestyles in the western world. That is, the average person in the western world lives to about 80-years of age, and unless you die in a car crash or some other unforeseen accident, death doesn't become an immediate concern until much later on in life. Is it any wonder, then, that we think we can slowly convert people with relationships, since in our own minds we believe we have all the time in the world? There is no sense of urgency because our lives, as a whole, do not feel urgent.

In the olden days, things were far, far different. Up until perhaps 150 years ago, there was a very good chance you would die of one reason or another. It was very rare for a person to die of natural causes after a long life. Certainly many great theologians passed away due to reasons beyond old age: John Calvin burst a blood vessel in his lungs from which he died a slow death, and Jonathan Edwards died of an infection from inoculation. The common man was simply prone to death. During the Black Death, one out of three people in Europe died, so that even those who were left alive had a sense of what it meant to be mortal. Man's temporal nature was ingrained on the minds of those who had eyes to see.

Is it any wonder, then, that some of the most fiery preachers to ever live come from this time period? John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards...all preaching to the common man as if they were soldiers about to go off into battle and may not be alive come dusk. They understood full well that life was not eternal, and that God's judgment should always be on one's mind. Edwards, in fact, took the funeral of one of his daughters as a chance not to talk about how sweet her temporal life had been, but as a chance to remind the community that death could come at any moment, and after death we will have to stand before our Lord and Creator. These great Christian men would be shocked to hear the current mode of evangelism in many western churches, which seems to instead preach: "Form a relationship with a person first, share the Gospel later."

The other major issue that may be causing this is the decreased understanding of just what that judgment will entail: that is, those who reject Christ will in turn be rejected by Him (Matt 10:33). While I fully believe that Christ knows His sheep (John 10:14) and His sheep cannot be lost (John 10:28), how would it seem to our conscience if we meet a person who does not know Christ, forgo the Gospel out of fear of offending, and then later that day the person were to die by some unforeseen circumstance? How would we be able to stand before the Almighty God and confess that we were too ashamed of His words (cf. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26) to share the good news of eternal salvation with an individual? How can we, like the slave who hid the mina and did not invest in it (Luke 19:11-27), hide this salvation given to us as a gift from our Lord and meant to be shared with others?

The fact is, we are taught to preach and evangelize to others, and part of sharing the Gospel is sharing the Law and the condemnation which all mankind finds itself under (Rom 3:9). Many will be offended, but the pleasure of man should not be in the forefront of our thinking. Our priority is to spread and nurture the seed; God will cause the growth (1 Cor 3:6). We are to become the instrument by which the Good Shepherd calls out to His sheep, and His sheep will hear His voice and follow (John 10:3). We should treat every encounter as a chance to preach, and treat every instance with a person as if we will never see them again, and this is our one opportunity to let them know about the glory and majesty of God. Amen.

Public Witnessing Gone Bad

Every year, Savannah has its Saint Patrick's Day parade. It's a very large one, one of the biggest in the country - second only to Boston. Huge crowds gather, and there are many familiar sights: the bagpipes, the old men dressed as leprechauns, the vendors, and...the street preachers. Every year, men with large signs and bullhorns move through the pre-parade streets, bellowing to the audience. Their signs are adorned either with messages that look like something from Westboro Baptist Church or images of people going to hell for various sins. With their speakers they denounce drinking, fornication, homosexuality, and all manners of public sin, telling the audience they're going to hell. If television crews are nearby (and especially during a live-shot) this group will walk behind the anchors, their signs in view and their speakers blaring their theology loud enough to go over the person speaking. My usual reaction to all this is to put my hat over my head and pray they go by quickly, followed by some damage control by telling people nearby that this isn't real Christianity. Such display is really a disgusting disservice to Christ.

Now so no one misunderstands me, let me make it clear I am not implying disapproval of all forms of public proselytizing. There are many people who simply pass out tracts (there were some at the parade, and they were fine). There are other people who set up tables or engage in one-on-one witnessing inside the crowd. Public proselytizing can be a great thing, and I've heard of people being saved by these methods. Going out in public and attempting to save strangers is by itself not bad, and we certainly find examples of great Christian men throughout history doing it.

What is not edifying are these public, in-your-face tactics that amount to a group saying "Look at me! Look at me!" while pronouncing judgment on all present. Paul debated the pagan philosophers in the Areopagus, but he didn't go through the streets of Athens screaming and telling everyone they were going to hell. Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of the castle church for all to see, but he didn't print each theses on a large sign and have 95 people walk through the streets screaming them out. John Wesley preached openly to large crowds and even talked about damnation and sin, however he did so in an organized fashion and often with the permission of whomever owned the land. They never had to resort to this...and they were all far more successful.

To see such a flagrant disregard for presentation and method, the words of the apostle Paul to the hypocritical Jewish Christians come to mind: "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). The unbelieving people who simply don't know any better probably look at this and say, "Well that must be Christianity, and if that's Christianity, then I want no part of it." While this is not an implication that Christians have to be "seeker friendly," we should avoid orchestrating stereotypes that, again, bring disservice to the cause of Christ.

When I feel Muslims who put on a show, talk big to Christians, and blatantly lie and distort truth and do not seem bothered by it because their only goal is to preach to the Muslim choir, I feel bad for the more calm-minded Muslims out there. When I see things such as this, I feel sorry for the universal church. This can only be what Christ warned about when He spoke against parading your faith before others, and I can't help but think that this has not served the cause of Christ in any great way. When I seek to educate others or be of assistance in another person's understanding, I pray to God that I will be of service to His will and not the evil one. One can only imagine who's will these types of groups are performing.

Below is another example of what I am talking about. The video shows the "Street Screechers," who use similar tactics against Mormons. Lord have mercy.