Divine Channels?
The one-to-one comparison assumes that both one's life and the gospel are divine channels through which the living Christ is communicated with saving benefit to the nonbeliever. While I would never want to minimize the crucial role of the quality of life of the one bearing witness to the gospel, we must ask, "Is the one-to-one comparison valid?" I believe the answer is no.
Jesus was the perfect, sinless Word of God incarnate. In Him all the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form (Colossians 1:19). He was the gospel itself. In like manner, the gospel is the light of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). But we fall far short of this. True, we are in the process of being renewed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18), and we will manifest, to a degree, the character and service given us by Christ.
But we must keep in mind that we are limited in our reflection of the glory of God in the face of Christ, due to our continued fallenness. Our lives, character and service do not bear witness to the glory and saving presence of Christ on a level equal to that of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel. Our lives do not do justice to the nature and intent of true evangelism. Here are some reasons.
Our lives, in the process of sanctification, cannot bear the burden of purity, truth and glory inherent in the gospel. As Alan Walker commented, "A serious fallacy has spread through the church today. It is the so called presence concept. While valuable as a protest against too great a trust in merely verbalizing the gospel, the presence concept is a danger as a half truth. The presence idea is the reappearance of one of the worst features of the liberal era of theology. It claims that it is only necessary to be kind and good, to be concerned. The presence idea is filled with pharisaism, a pharisaism which claims that quality of life can be so transparent that Christ shines through. It is a denial of the evangelical faith which believes that a man must, through repentance and faith, be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
The idea that "I don't speak, I let my life do the talking" or "I shouldn't speak until my life has done some talking" forces us to ask, "Whose life is good enough for such an assignment?"
Samuel Shoemaker once said, "I cannot by being good, tell men of Jesus' atoning death and resurrection, nor of my faith in His divinity. The emphasis is too much on me, and too little on Him. Our lives must be made as consistent as we can make them with our faith; but our faith, if we are Christians, is vastly greater than our lives. That is why the 'word' of witness is so important.”This subtle shift toward the life of the messenger and away from the content of the gospel is noted by another author: "Relational evangelism, in spite of its good intentions, does not put its emphasis on the hearing of the word of truth as the necessary kindling which the Holy Spirit ignites in regeneration (Romans 10:17). Relational evangelism's approach can neglect the theological content of the gospel by shifting the focus to the personality and experience of the evangelist.”
The "stereophonic" approach (God speaking to the lost equally through two channels – you and the gospel) is confusing for the non-Christian. Instead of being exposed to the clear witness of the self-authenticating power and authority of the gospel, he is exposed to its dim reflection in a fallen human life. True, this life should be different from that of the unregenerate. But understanding the source of this distinction becomes a burden of spiritual discernment that the non-Christian cannot bear.
How is he to tell the difference between the solid and attractive lifestyle of the Mormon family across the street and that of the evangelical family next door? Both husbands go to church on Sunday with the entire family, treat their kids and wives nicer than does anyone else on the block, are faithful to their wives and are very friendly. They are both against abortion, don't drink or smoke, and are continually mentioning Jesus Christ and their activities at church. How is a spiritually blind, unregenerate man to distinguish between the truth of the gospel and the lie of a cult? Between that which brings eternal life and that which leads to death and destruction? If the lost are to "tune in" on the character and lifestyle of the messenger before they hear the gospel, and if this channel is considered to be on a par with the gospel message channel, then I must argue that the lost will not have access to the clear information they need on which to base any sort of eternal decision. At best, they will pick up "static" when the life of the messenger falls short (which is inevitable for all of us) and contradicts his perfect message. How can we expect the non-believer to know that we are a reflection of the good news until they know what the good news is?
Even the most perfect life ever lived was radically misunderstood by many in His audience. Jesus manifested the very life of God, yet was rejected and put to death by His own countrymen. The pagan neighbors of Peter's audience unjustly slandered the Christians as "evil doers." This should convince us of the limits of letting our lives speak for the gospel or of placing the testimony of our lives on a par with the gospel. The gospel is too important to be left to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of human character and behavior. It must be allowed to speak for itself in all its power and authority.
Mark McCloskey
No comments:
Post a Comment