The Message of Hair

Posted on 1 November 2013 by Seth Meyers

Recently, I was striding through a mall at a fairly rapid gait when I paused to read a brief paragraph written below the sign for a hair stylist. It was a trendy little shop–actually more of a kiosk. Had I been holding my phone, I would have snapped a photo of the text to be certain to quote it exactly, but I was reduced to reading the copy about three times and then recording it once I got my hands on technology again. In part, the ad read:

My hair is an extension of my style. … My hair is the vibe and music that I create, direct, and enjoy.

What meaning can be exegetically drawn out of these statements? I’m not arguing that the words are true right now, but as Mortimer Adler says, before I can agree or disagree I have to at least be able to say, I understand what is being said. Easy Waves, probably controlled by an expensive marketing firm that has their pulse firmly on the mindset of the populace wanted to send this message: One’s personal appearance including hairstyles is a projection of their worldview.

The second statement assumes that we all relate personal appearance with other aspects of entertainment and pleasure such that even my music runs parallel with the whole gamut of cultural choices I make.

Isn’t this “exegesis” a bit overdone? Yes, but that’s not to say it’s not accurate. Unfortunately though, what is obvious to marketing firms is often a little opaque to Christians, so illustrations from life may be usefully summoned to serve in discussions of culture.

As any beautician or barber knows, hair styles–along with every other cultural form–send messages about our worldview. Let’s stop arguing that the way we express ourselves in personal appearance and artistic style is neutral and shift the discussion to uncovering the meaning that we are sending. After all, if the message is good, then why would we be timid to have it unpacked? Profit-driven companies certainly aren’t.

Posted in Orthopathy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It Is Hard to Use Money Well

Posted on 31 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

In my experience, 95 percent of the believers who face the test of persecution pass it, while 95 percent of the believers who face the test of prosperity fail it.

A persecuted Romanian pastor as quoted by Randy Alcorn in Money, Possessions, and Eternity

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rules for Enhancing Knowledge

Posted on 28 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

These rules are culled and edited from Isaac Watts’ Logic as well as The Improvement of the Mind.

  1. Furnish yourself with a rich variety of ideas through an eager attitude, profitable conversation, and reading good books.
  2. Use the most proper methods to retain that treasure of ideas which you have acquired; for the mind is ready to let many of them slip, unless some pains and labour be taken to fix them upon the memory.
  3. When you hear an idea, remember the source of your learning, and do not give too much confidence to a source that has not merited your dependence.
  4. As much as is possible and wise, learn ideas from the original thing, not from other’s ideas of that thing.
  5. Your mind will focus more easily on study if you consider the divine pleasure that God has in all knowledge, the help you will be to others through learning more, and the great happiness you will secure for yourself in the next world through acquiring truth.
  6. Contrive and practice some methods for acquainting yourself with your own level of ignorance.
  7. Remember that learning and study is hard work—harder than most people think.
  8. Do not give your consent to any questionable proposition until the evidence is unquestionable about that particular proposition.
  9. Never be afraid to admit that you were wrong, when the evidence clearly convinces you. If you exchange a falsehood for a truth, then you are the winner not the loser.
  10. Throw down any thoughts of pride and intellectual self-praise when they come up.
  11. Judge books and people carefully remembering that some parts of a book will be stronger than others. Men’s thoughts too will fluctuate in power, goodness, and logic.
  12. Before declaring a strong opinion on a subject, be certain that your confidence rests on good evidence.

And by way of clarification, Watts’ leaning on “evidence” still fits nicely with a Christian epistemology if some of the evidence that is allowed to sway our opinions is the Word of God. So, some evidence for numbers 8 and 12 could be the authoritative statements of Divine revelation.

 

Posted in Lists | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Church’s Silent Messages Cannot be Ignored

Posted on 28 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

My teammate and I pastor small churches in a pair of rural villages in South Africa. At a service where both churches were present, the same question came to my mind on two occasions as I sat, sang, watched, prayed, listened, and reflected on the service. What exactly is being passed on to the believers God has placed in my stewardship?

The first time this came to my mind was when I considered our churches with African pastors. What would be different? What would be the same? What would the people not tolerate, and what would they not even notice had it changed? What would or should orthodox churches look like with genuine African leadership?

The second time I found reason to chew this cud again was while Paul, my partner, was explaining how Paul the Apostle made himself under the law to win those under the law. I thought about Acres as a 16-year old convert and Musa as a 41-year old religious man who is still fuzzy about key doctrinal distinctives. Were they listening? Were they following the well-laid argument of the Apostle to the Gentiles communicated through the rhetorically simplified craft of the apostle to Mbhokota?

My answer: I didn’t know.

What? I am not sure if the listeners are getting the main points of the sermons? Are we wasting our time? Then entered a string of other observations that made me think that all was not lost even if the propositions were only slowly leaking into mostly sealed containers. What was clearly communicated in the service? What sounded like a trumpet in the midst of Gregorian chants? It seems that the following conclusions came across just as clearly at that service as on every Lord’s day since we were privileged to begin our ministry.

These lessons were not passed on because someone explicitly taught them. Other lessons were explicitly taught that probably weren’t caught, but these—passed on by other means—could not fail to have been received by the great majority.

  1. Christian worship must not be intentionally showy, merely entertaining, or lackadaisically prepared.
  2. Preaching is an important part of worship.
  3. True Christianity is essentially humble and not man-centered. Away with a kind of religion that allows, or worse yet, subtly encourages pride!
  4. We like to sing, and the best songs are packed with ideas and pictures.
  5. Ecclesiastical forms that encourage thinking, reading, meditation, and the life of the mind are the right ones; practices that don’t help those goals are probably bad.
  6. Jesus Christ must reign in our hearts, not lesser loves. Even if someone can’t remember every part of the gospel, they could take this home after only brief interaction with our churches.
  7. Evangelism matters. We urge, command, and beg men to come to Christ. We plan our sermons so that the maximum appropriate pressure would be brought to bear on their souls. And it was equally evident that there are inappropriate ways to effect pressure on a listener.
  8. Men should be leaders in the assembly of God’s people.

I doubt if anyone, even the most careless, could have missed these messages because the forms by which we founded and buttressed the service wrote them in large letters that even the illiterate could take in.

Now, there may be some false doctrines that could weasel into a church thus guarded, but my hunch is that a church is safe when it is rooted with these kinds of priorities deep down in its soil. That entire list might have been communicated to a person who barely understood the words of the songs or preaching.

Don’t get me wrong: the preaching was helpful, and I wished as I have often done in the past, that the Word would cut into hearts making a lasting impression. The message’s thesis was: We deny ourselves perfectly legitimate rights so that we can serve the cause of evangelism. Yet who really remembers that statement now? Though the well-writ thesis may not still be in the people’s consciousness, the other conclusions probably are.

For all our love of right propositions, it may have been the unspoken, implicit signals that were most clearly passed on to the visitors and that were cemented ever stronger for the faithful. I am sometimes filled with a hope that our church members could not be too badly deceived if we left because they have a kind of church culture that will stand watch against such a variety of errors.

This is true for the small congregations in which we serve that include Tsonga, Venda, Sotho, and Shona speakers. And yet, in any part of the world a church’s culture also sends silent messages that cannot be ignored. Since vehicles like architecture, worship liturgy, clothing, musical styles, and sermon types are invested by God with such a powerful ability to carry implicit messages like the ones listed above, that minister who grapples with their speech is doing important exegetical work.

Posted in Orthopathy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Are All Cessationists

Posted on 26 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

In light of the Strange Fire Conference from last week, and the apparently negative press that John MacArthur is receiving, this may be a good time to demonstrate that Reformed Charismatics are cessationists too.

Of the gifts listed in Scripture, there are basically four that summarize the entire debate about charismaticism. Are these gifts still operating today: apostles, tongues, healing, and prophecy? Paul lists other gifts like the word of knowledge and interpreting tongues, but we can classify each of those under their parents.

In each of the four cases some or all Reformed Charismatics believe in a form of cessationism.

Apostles

Wayne Grudem argues that apostles are not for today because apostles aren’t gifts, they are offices. Because they were offices given to the church and not gifts given to individual members to be exercised like mercy or administration, then we can validly allow that gift office to have been closed.

Then we could recast the argument this way: In the book of Acts there was a very important “thing” that was given by God to the church. “It” worked in unusual ways exercising great control over the churches and thus over the worship experience and Christian lives of all believers. But it’s not being given or used today.

If that is an accurate reflection of his position, then it sounds like something has ceased. The Spirit of God had been working in a certain way, and now He is not. Grudem may call it an office or a gift or a blessing or a man, but it works out to the same thing: cessationism.

In my research of a few other Reformed Charismatics they were Grudemian in their view of apostles.

Tongues

Acts 2 clearly describes speaking in tongues as speaking known, earthly languages, and again this is acknowledged by some or all Reformed Charismatics. They would simply argue that the definition for tongues is changed in 1 Corinthians 12-14 to also include speaking in angelic languages in prayer and worship. So, tongues has two aspects: earthly AND angelic languages. However, the earthly aspect of the gift of tongues is evidently different in modern times because most missionaries have to learn languages.

It would seem that a fair representation of this point would be: The gift of tongues in Scripture comes in two kinds. One of those two kinds is very common today. The other one—earthly languages—is very uncommon even though many missionaries need this gift and it could hasten the work of the gospel in unreached areas.

So, 50% of the tongues category has ceased. The angelic prayer language, according to Charismatics, is still going on, but not the earthly languages. Charismatics are cessationists again.

Healing

I don’t have academically acceptable documentation for this point, but I have had private conversations and years of observation to see that the “miracles” being done today are different from the miracles in Biblical times.

  1. Biblical miracles usually healed all present, not merely some.
  2. Biblical miracles often healed visible diseases, not only back pain, and diseases that required expensive tests.
  3. Biblical miracles included raising people from the dead, controlling nature, and creating matter.

Are there Reformed Charismatics who claim to be able to raise the dead, multiply bread for the hungry, cause fish to overwhelm a poor fisherman’s net, and heal all the people in a rural village? I know there are wacko prosperity Charismatics who claim that they can do such things, but their evidence is not worth the dignity of discussion. If Reformed Charismatics cannot present evidence of the same, then what can we conclude except another cessation of gifts from the NT pattern?

Prophecy

A common view of prophecy for the Reformed Charismatic claims that there are two kinds of prophecy following the division between the OT and the NT. The NT prophet does not have to be 100% accurate like the OT prophet so they are not liable to the same harsh penalty as their ministerial counterpart.

Thus, there are really two kinds of prophecy. Some prophecy given by God is infallible and must be completely obeyed because the Spirit of God delivered it in such a way that it cannot be wrong. Some prophecy given by God must be interpreted by the believer and delivered through a mixture of his human frailty and divine inspiration. But one of those two kinds of prophecy is not being given anymore according to the Reformed Charismatic.

What believer today is going to call for the death penalty if a man claims to have a word from God and then turns out to be inaccurate? Something has ceased in this gift of prophecy, but that shouldn’t surprise us because it is the Charismatic modus operandi.

Conclusion

What if someone argues that this shouldn’t bother me since all it means is that both I and the continuationist are now on equal footing? We both see some differences between the NT record and the current state of affairs, so we’re equal, right? No, on two accounts.

First, continuationists that I have read or spoken to do not want to admit that there is a difference between the NT and the present day church. He and I are not equal because I readily and happily admit that there is a lot of discontinuity, but I am not familiar with Charismatics who want to do the same.

Secondly, and this is by far more important, cessationists have a standard by which to judge the lack of continuity. We say that all the miraculous gifts have ceased. God can still enter history, but He has chosen not to intervene in a usual, consistent, or programmatic way. Rather, His ways have changed or He has ceased to act the way He had been acting. All the gifts are still active except the miraculous ones. There is our standard. How can a continuationist answer that same question? On what basis does he cut out apostles and not prophets? How does he know that the angelic aspect of tongues is still valid if the earthly aspect is not? How does he know that miracles are still happening if full, NT-quality miracles are not? On what basis can the Charismatic banish the OT prophet, but not the NT prophet?

All serious Christian students of the Holy Spirit are cessationists, but only one of the two groups can account for the cessation. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Posted in Hermeneutics, Inconsistency | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What is Christ-centered Preaching?

Posted on 24 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

An arms’ length to my right are four different books unpacking Christ-centered preaching. On my iPod is a fairly popular series by Tim Keller doing the same thing. Yet as I read them, it took me some personal meditation and practice in actually preaching to try to boil down this kind of homiletics to a workable definition.

Preaching Christ means to draw their hearts into deeper love for Jesus. It is speaking for God so that men have their affections turned toward the person and work of the Son of God. It is a magnet that pulls the hearts of true believers toward their Savior.

Isn’t this evident in the tone of Paul’s numerous ministerial summaries?

  • But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor. 1:23-24
  • To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ. Eph. 3:8
  • We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. Col. 1:28

Paul aimed for the affections of his hearers as these verses exemplify in a microcosm. Passion and hope drip from these inspired statements, and they are merely samples of what we find in other epistles. Intensity is seen in the contrast between Paul’s confidence in preaching a crucified Messiah and the Jews’ tripping over Him. The beauty of Christ is painted with brief strokes when the apostle refers to His “unfathomable riches.” One of Piper’s titles is poignant here: Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ. The Apostle was doing that and he wanted his listeners to have that same kind of inner compulsion.

This same conclusion is found in Luke 24:25 as Jesus explains Himself on the Road to Emmaus. The disciples were rebuked by the Lord for having slow hearts. How could their hearts have been quicker? Had they merely known facts about the Bible? No, Jesus rebuked them for not being internally magnetized by the magnificent complex of diverse glories that shone out from Him as recorded in the pages of Scripture.

A preacher can say true propositions about Jesus of Nazareth without preaching Christ if he himself has not first been personally stirred to worship and adore the Savior. True statements are certainly necessary, but they are not sufficient unless somehow wedded to a deep-seated, whole-souled commitment to Christ that overflows from the pulpit to the people.

Have I preached Christ if my hearers can understand my message, yet still be disinterested in Jesus? Preaching Christ drives the intellect to adoration.

Posted in Definitions | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Self-denial Applied to Media?

Posted on 24 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Many good preachers, though commanded to mortify the deeds of the flesh, have tenaciously clutched to the notion that television and movie watching are somehow neutral, and that Hollywood, a major prophet (if not the major prophet) of anti-Christian ideology, produces entertainment that must be classed as ‘Christian liberty.’

Jeff Pollard

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Comfort

Posted on 24 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

The preaching of Christ will answer every end of preaching. This is the doctrine which God owns to conversion, to the leading of awakened sinners to peace, and to the comfort of true Christians. If the doctrine of the cross be no comfort to us, it is a sign that we have no right to comfort.

Andrew Fuller

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reasons Missionaries Can’t Get Along

Posted on 21 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

1. They cannot overlook personal faults and idiosyncracies such as differences in communication style, sense of humor, perspectives on leadership, or common courtesy.

2. They are philosophically different regarding issues such as the use of American funds, the nature of a missionary, or the role of social ministry in cultural reformation.

3. There is tension among the wives.

4. They are theologically different either in their conclusions or in their general interest in theological discussion and study. Nestled in this category is the hyper-separatism of too many fundamentalists who draw a line in the sand over nearly everything. For some no doctrine is too tangential to deserve the final weapon of separation.

5. Their mission boards disagree, or amazingly enough, they disagree over the very existence of boards.

6. A general apathy about the value of unity or friendship keeps one or both of them from taking the initiating strides necessary to form an enduring relationship. This runs tandem with a spirit (Should I say a “fierce spirit”?) of independence among many missionaries.

7. They differ in their work ethic or lifestyle such that one feels the other’s presence is a constant and uncomfortable barb.

8. A missionary’s difficulties in one area of ministry begin to weigh him down so that he is susceptible to sinful schism with a fellow missionary over an entirely separate point. The accumulated stresses tempt him to magnify some other minor tension with another man.

I have sometimes been astounded at the nature of interpersonal problems between two or more missionaries. Hopefully, this list will remind us of the insidious nature of Satan’s attack on those serving outside their home culture. It may also gently direct us toward fuller conversations and fervent prayer on this important topic.

Posted in Missions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evaluating the “Altar Call”

Posted on 20 October 2013 by Seth Meyers

Somewhere around 400 times I have led altar calls in my early days of ministry. Somewhere around 2,500 times in my life I have stood as the pastor called people to make a public decision at the end of a church service. This theological heritage is as familiar to me as a child’s mother tongue.

But it’s not merely my experience, the altar call is common in contemporary Christianity. I have met a number of other African pastors from rural areas (including my own village) who are familiar with this method even while unable to offer better verses to support their salvation testimony than “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Phil. 4:13)

What is it? The altar call is a method of evangelism (and even sanctification) used after a public presentation of truth whereby people are urged to respond immediately with a physical action.

In spite of my heritage and the prevailing moods of contemporary ministry, I do not anymore support the use of the altar call as a method for evangelism. Four lines of Scriptural thought produced this change in me. These reasons could possibly be subdivided or viewed in different ways, but they should be clear enough to drive home several Biblical points.

Before launching into the heart of my objections to this particular method, one of my reasons to oppose altar calls is not that altar calls are connected to other aberrant methodologies. I do believe that often an assembly of God’s people that is wrong in one area will be wrong in another area of similar kind, but determining necessary causes for religious movements and practices is notoriously difficult. So I shall content myself to stay closer to Scripture.

1.     The altar call is not in Scripture.

Christians commonly employ methods that are not in Scripture such as Bible societies, seminaries, publishing houses, church associations, and mission boards. However, altar calls are methods employed in the worship of local assemblies. And even though there is some flexibility in applying the regulative principle to church worship, proponents of altar calls cannot appeal to a Scriptural example or command for their reasoning. Whatever their motivation, it must be a logical implication or a merely pragmatic decision.

The water gets even muddier when history’s pages show us the roots of calling people forward to make decisions on the spot. Charles Finney was, if not the first then definitely the key man, responsible for popularizing the altar call. Yet here are a few lines summarized from his autobiography. His Revivals of Religion and Lectures on Revivals also offer more statements similar to the ones below.

  • He repeatedly uses the words: feel, impression, seems, overwhelmed, and other language of experience. (These citations are from Charles Finney’s Autobiography, ed. Helen Wessel, 1977. Pages 21, 24, 25, 45, 56, 75, et.al.) In his autobiography there is little discussion of Scriptural theology.
  • At 30 years old the Presbyterian church asked him to study theology at Princeton Theological Seminary so that he could be a pastor. He refused to study theology though he wanted to be a pastor. Eventually, they allowed his pastor to train him. But in his own words, “I [Finney] could not receive his [the orthodox, confessional pastor’s] views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will, or any of the kindred doctrines. … He used to tell me that if I insisted on reasoning on these subjects, I would probably land in infidelity.” (46-47)
  • Finney deceitfully said that he accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith even though he knew that he had not even read it. (49)
  • Somehow he was ordained as a Presbyterian pastor and within a short time came to his own unique doctrinal conclusions. (50-51)
  • Finney describes what was a common pattern for his sermon preparation. Though he had to preach in the evening he wrote, “I had not taken a thought with regard to what I should preach. Indeed, this was common with me at that time.” Later he wrote, “For some twelve years of my earliest ministry I wrote not a word and was most commonly obliged to preach without any preparation whatever, except what I got in prayer.” (57, 75) His sermons often lasted 2 hours.
  • He repeatedly references the Holy Spirit communicating privately to him. (92, et. al.)
  • In order to get more people to be saved, Finney looked for ways to get them to make decisions. These were called “new measures” at that time. The most famous is the modern altar call. Seats were placed at the front where people who wanted to be saved could come and receive prayer. (55, 158-160)

The altar call is not the result of careful Scriptural exegesis so that the preacher is backed in a corner by the text and with no room to wiggle, he must bow his knee to the Scriptural doctrine of the altar call. No, the theological heritage of the altar call is steeped in pragmatic revivalism with an emphasis on numbers.

2.     The altar call assumes a defective theory of regeneration.

Regeneration, also known in Scripture as being “born again” (John 3:3), drawn by the Father (John 6:44), or “called” (Gal. 1:15), is the powerful working of God whereby He creates new desires in the heart of the sinner so that those who hated Him (John 7:7) now love Him. (1 Peter 1:8) However, the practitioners of the new measures hold firmly that men can cause their own spiritual birth by exercising a latent faith which every man has in his own power.

Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes… so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.” This illustration is unavoidably clear regarding how believers are born again. The miracle of the new birth comes from a sovereign act of God’s Spirit. It cannot be juggled into a mildly interested attendee at a religious event by means of a potentially coercive method.

Yet the altar call implies that men have control over the matter of their own spiritual birth. When they are good and ready, they can initiate the process by means of a faith which is often—thanks to this method—mingled with some works such as prayer, coming forward, or raising a hand. If regeneration is a monergistic act, then the altar call is potentially dangerous.

3.     The altar call discourages careful thought about spiritual matters.

Revivalism in general has always been in a hurry. Whereas Jesus did not rush the rich young ruler to respond publicly, successful modern evangelists may have handled this seeker differently and thus added a number to their tally though the soul was still lost.

While walking on the road to Jerusalem before his crucifixion, and before having met the rich young ruler, Jesus turned to a crowd of people who were following him and clarified that He was not seeking quick decisions, but measured careful responses by those who had counted the cost. (Luke 14:28) A modern advisor might have suggested that He who is our Wisdom adopt a more prudent and effective method to preserve some of the fruit from an apparently large audience, but fake converts won through hasty methods damage the church by introducing more tares among the wheat.

Certainly there should be urgency in the Christian life and evangelism. But the pleading of an evangelist should always draw the hearer toward Christ not a work however subtly the two are interchanged. Such discerning urgency has been the hallmark of great evangelists in the past such as the apostle Paul, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Each of these men (and many others) was privileged to see hundreds or even thousands come to Christ by employing more strictly Biblical methods.

4.     The altar call encourages an emphasis on numbers as the evidence of ministerial success.

Paul’s measure of success was faithfulness to the Word of God. (1 Cor. 4:2) Jesus emphasized the same thing with the parable of the talents and His famous prophecy that the greatest commendation for a believer to receive is, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” A pastor who could honestly be called faithful meets all the requirements Jesus laid out. (Rev. 17:14)

I thank God for delivering this truth with power to me as I read Kent Hughes’ Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome. In less than 200 pages Hughes argues that the great need of the day is pastors who obey Scripture not necessarily examine the past week’s, month’s, and year’s statistics of attendance and giving.

But the altar call provides nearly irresistible temptation to base our feelings and projections of success on how many responded. Some pastors even tone down the numbers’ feel by adding phrases like “professions of faith” rather than “number of people saved,” yet the final result is very similar: We all look to see who had the most. This must happen because altar calls are intentionally visible. On several occasions Jesus gave us good reason to doubt the sincerity of large crowds. In John 6, many—possibly thousands—followed Him, but after a pointed sermon on God’s sovereignty and true faith “many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” The Lord didn’t count these people because He knew what was in man. True faith will demonstrate itself by slow and steady perseverance over time as the fruits of the Spirit become more evident.

Conclusions

Even with these critiques of the altar call, it must be remembered that many who still use this method are fervent and active evangelists, many have been saved through this method, and it is possible for a pastor to love the Five Solas and still use an unscriptural method. May we rejoice for all the good God does through broken tools, but in striving for consistent obedience to Scripture and a method that does not encourage false converts, let us keep shopping without putting the altar call in the cart.

The altar call is not found in Scripture nor is it the product of exegesis. It assumes a faulty perspective on regeneration. It joins the rest of the contemporary world in saying, “Now!” while Jesus says, “Think carefully.” It points us toward numbers when faithfulness is the watchword our Lord left with us.

The altar call is not evangelicalism’s greatest sin, but neither is it the answer to a church’s struggles to evangelize effectively.

Posted in Missions | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments