Leaven Leaven

Volume 1 Issue 4 Evangelism Article 8

1-1-1990

We Believe! Therefore, We Speak We Believe! Therefore, We Speak

Dean Smith

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology

and Philosophy of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Smith, Dean (1990) "We Believe! Therefore, We Speak," Leaven: Vol. 1: Iss. 4, Article 8. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol1/iss4/8

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact bailey.berry@pepperdine.edu.

28 LEAVEN Fall 1990

We Believe!Therefore,

We Speak.

Dean Smith

In an article published last year in the Chris-tian Century, a United Methodist minister ex-pressed his opinion concerning recent calls for a re-newed commitment to evangelism by the United Meth-odist Church (coinciding with the 200th year anniver-sary of John Wesley's death). Characterizing thosecalls as simplisic and naive, he concluded that "Evan-gelism in the United Methodist Church will not work."It will not work, he said, because in its present state itlacked some of the essential elements from the past,chief of which was a sense of urgency and passion.Several developments were cited as evidence of thisvoid -- from the "softened language" of "churched" and"unchurched" to replace the older terms of "lost" and"saved" (as well as other "powerful, biblical meta-phors"), to a general disbelief among members in anykindof eternal judgement (certainly not eternalcomdemnation), and finally the kind of ambiguousvalues and lifestyles that render believers indistingui-sable from unbelievers. In short, he contended that theevangelism of the past could not be recovered in thepresent because the beliefs that supported it hadchanged so significantly as to undermine its contentand power to motivate. As I reflected upon his com-

Dean Smith preaches for the Church of Christ inMat teson .Illinois and serves on the editorial boardof Leaven.

ments I realized that, despite the fact that his experi-ence was not exactly parallel to ours in the Churches ofChrist, his observations did raise one disturbing ques-tion: How much of our diminished fervor and commit-ment to evangelism in the Churches ofChrist is attrib-utable to our changing beliefs?

We BelieveIn II Corinthians, chapter 4 the apostle Paul

reflects upon the difficulties ofbeing a Christian evan-gelist in spite of rather formidable obstacles. Paul iswell aware ofthe criticism by others that he is too weakand unimpressive to legitimately claim to be an evan-gelist, but he counters that that is precisely whatvalidates his ministry since his preaching proceedsfrom faith and not his eloquence or wisdom. He quotes,in verse 13, from a line in the Septuagint version ofPsalm 115 - "I believed and so I spoke" and appliesthis principle to himself and others who, despite oppo-sition and weakness, faithfully proclaim the gospel.Indeed, they do soprecisely because ofthe content andintensity of their beliefs. His point in this passage isactually a corollary to Romans 10:17 (a very familiarverse to the evangelist). Just as faith is created in re-sponse to hearing the gospel proclaimed, and thus isnot possible without such a proclamation, so the proc-lamation itselfis motivated by the beliefs of the evan-gelist. It is precisely that relationship between believ-ing and speaking which captures Paul's attention andprovides a helpful insight for us as well. For Paul, boththe content of what we proclaim and the motivation to

1

Smith: We Believe! Therefore, We Speak

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1990

proclaim it are bound up in what we really believe. Iemphasize "really" because in our context it is too easyto presume that since we all use the same Bible we

I am persuaded that if weare to faithfully and enthu-siastically proclaim thegospel we must continuallyre-examine our own beliefs.

must all share the same basic beliefs about the mes-sage ofthe Bible or, at the very least, webelieve all thatthe Bible proclaims. Because I share Paul's assump-tion that our motivation to proclaim is inherentlylinked to the content and depth ofour own beliefs, I ampersuaded that if we are to faithfully and enthusiasti-cally proclaim the gospel we must continually re-examine our own beliefs.

So What Do We Believe?Any astute observer of society knows that

rapid changes in philosophies and ideas are occurringconstantly. As Shaun Casey observed in the last issueofLeaven , pluralism is here to stay and with it comesan influx of new perspectives and philosophies con-cerning the Bible and its message. Preachers and con-gregations alike struggle to evaluate and confront theever-changing field of theology, from process to femi-nist to liberation. Theological education by its very na-ture is about re-evaluating what we already believe,with the inherent danger being that in the process ofre-examination we sometimes jettison some ofwhat isfundamental to the gospel message or, more subtly,undermine it with suspicion. One example ofthis is thegeneral perspective on miracles in many scholarlycircles today. Under the theological microscope themiracles of Jesus have been subjected to constantscrutiny and general suspicion for the last century.The result is that for many scholars, often some of themost prominent ones, the significance of Jesus' mir-acles are largely symbolic or theological as opposed tohistorical. By characterizing them as theological onecan affirm their importance to the gospel messagewithout having to comment or commit on the morepersonal question ofwhether or not they actually hap-pened. In other words, it is not important whetherJesus actually had power over nature, but whether hisfollowers believed that he did. Thus the miracle storiesbecome dramatic, literary touches to enhance andreinforce the teachings ofJesus rather than "proofs" in

E'WlIIgelism 29

any form. This explanation is very appealing to ourrational mind since, after all, the miracle stories oftheBible do suspend the natural laws as we observe them.

It should come as no surprise then that thiskind of scrutiny and suspicion should be directedagainst the greatest miracle of all- the resurrection.Increasingly, scholars have reinterpreted the resur-rection of Jesus, choosing to emphasize, again, itsprofound theological significance while side-steppingthe question of its historical reality. Thus, for many,the resurrection becomes no more than saying that the"cause lives on" (in much the same way one might saythat the spirit ofMartin Luther King, Jr. lives on in thefight for civil rights).

Obviously, to my way of thinking, there areserious problems with this perspective, the most obvi-ous of which is that the resurrection was not pro-claimed this way originally. In I Corinthians 15 Paulreminds his readers of the host of witnesses (over 500)who saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion and burial.For Paul this was not the mythical illusion of devotedfollowers, but an historical fact upon which he andthousands ofothers had staked their very lives. Itis in-conceivable to me that the disciples who walked withJesus and witnessed the eventsofhis life, including thedeath, burial, and resurrection might, after his tragicdeath, invent and spread the rumor that he was raisedfrom the dead to enhance their own status and con-tinue the movement. However, when persecution andthreats of imprisonment and death ensue, it is incon-ceivable to me that these "eyewitnesses" would will-ingly suffer and die to perpetuate what they knew to beuntrue.

Yet, nineteen centuries later the church, andparticularly those who pursue higher education intheology, are continually confronted with the chal-lenge of such an alternative interpretation which al-lows one to support and encourage a general belief inthe resurrection and in Jesus without having to con-front the specific challenge of affirming and defendingthe historicity ofJesus' resurrection to an increasinglyskeptical church and society. This is too appealing toour rational instincts.

These are not the only challenges to our beliefsand thus our proclamation. They are but a broaderparadigm shift in our society that significantly affectsthe message and proclamation of the gospel. A profes-sor of theology at the graduate school I attended firstenlightened me to this shift when, on the last day of anadvanced course he imparted to those who would leavehis class to preach one day this insight. He advised usto remember that for nearly nineteen hundred yearsafter the birth of Jesus the world has lived by thequestion: "If God is just how can any be saved?"However, in the last century that question haschanged to: "If God is love, how can any be lost?" Ifwehoped to effectively preach the gospel, he maintained,

2

Leaven, Vol. 1 [1990], Iss. 4, Art. 8

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol1/iss4/8

30 LEAVEN Fall 1990

we could not presume that our audience shared thesame assumptions as those to whom the gospel wasfirst preached. Nor could we presume that our audi-ence would automatically understand the vocabularyand concepts ofthe gospel without some incisive inter-pretation by the preacher. Although our insistence inthe Churches of Christ has insulated us somewhatfrom this shift, or at least slowed its progress, we havecertainly not been immune to it.

It is evidenced in our increasing uneasinesswith any preaching of"judgement to come" and specifi-cally with its corollary terms, "lost" and "saved." Thisreticence is understandable given some of our historyofsectarian arrogance characterized by the notion that"we"were the only ones goingto heaven. Embarrassedthat too often our preaching shifted from followingJe-sus to following us many ofus have tried to compensatefor that error by avoiding all talk offuture judgement,often prompted more by our insecurity than humility.Thus we have uncritically embraced the terminology ofthe Church Growth movement to categorize people aseither "churched" or "unchurched" in order to avoid theimprecise and often damaging presumption that thosewho attend a church other than the Church of Christare automatically "lost."

Unfortunately, while attempting to reject oneuncritical assumption we may have fallen prey toanother. That is the assumption that the terms"churched" and "unchurched" are but a "kinder, gen-tler" equivalent of the terms "lost" and "saved." Let mepoint out that many who use these terms do so fullyaware of the distinctions and do not regard them asequivalent. However, increasingly preachers, eldersand church members are using them as equivalentswhile failing to appreciate the erosive effect this has onthe proclamation of the gospel.

The terms "churched" and "unchurched" areprimarily sociological. They reflect the social implica-tions of a theological truth. Inherent in our salvationis our relationship both to God and the church. Butboth relationships have reference to what it means tobe saved, not what it means to be "churched." The callto the gospel is to those who, despite some degree offaith in God, have yet to translate that belief into acommitted relationship to God, what Paul would callthe "obedience offaith" (Romans 16:26), and thereforeare "dead in their trespasses" and "blind" to god'ssaving grace and wisdom. In short, they are "lost." Iraise this issue not to prompt some ill-conceived,sweeping call to return to the "old paths" of "hellfireand brimstone" preaching (a call that I find foolish anddistasteful, but as a reminder of the serious and ulti-mate implications ofwhat we believe and proclaim. AsGod's "ambassadors" we are called to remember thathowever much we may try to address such personaland social problems as stress, money management orcodependency from a Biblical perspective, our funda-

mental concern is the alienation ofhuman beings fromGod, an alienation that without Jesus Christ will beeternal.

In recent years it has been distressing to mehow often the Bible has been comandeered in bits andsnatches of practical advice (through an endless suc-cession ofbooks, seminars, and videos) with less atten-tion paid to addressing our culture with the fundamen-tal claims of the gospel. There are times and placeswhere one might reasonably assume that the basicproblem ofbeing alienated from Godhas become secon-dary or even irrelevant. As one minister said to merecently, "People just won't buy it!" (an interestingmetaphor). Thus the bits and snatches ofpractical wis-dom from the Bible, divorced from the larger context,are gathered together to take their place as one moreprogram of "self help."

Properly understood, the reality ofjudgementis not simply a distasteful subject that people will nothear. In fact, I believe we donot speak ofjudgement forthe same we reason we do not speak of death - in ourhearts we know it is real but would rather not face it.It is curious to me that in a time when thousands ofpeople are discovering true freedom from a variety oflife-threatening addictions through the support of"annonymous" groups which emphasize accountabil-ity, we are silent on the subject ofjudgement. In thesegroups individuals who have failed miserably in vari-ous forms of professional therapy and "self-help" pro-grams discover a power beyond themselves and re-cover a sense of purpose and direction in their livesthrough the support and accountability these groupsafford. They do so, in part, by admission and throughbeing made personally accountable for their failures.Who can help but be reminded of Romans 3:23 - "allhave sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

As I deal with the problems in my life and in thelives ofothers I donot find the notion of some accounta-bility for our actions in the form ofjudgement to be the

We may have fallen prey tothe assumption that theterms "churched" and''unchurched'' are but a"kinder, gentler" equiva-lent of the terms "lost" and"saved."

least bit unrealistic. What I do find amazing is thegrace of God that reconciles us, in spite of our failures,and makes us both responsible and redeemed. Maybe

3

Smith: We Believe! Therefore, We Speak

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1990

if we could recover the balance ofjudgement and mercythat is inherent in the gospel we would be more moti-vated to proclaim it, and others might recognize it as"good news."

Finding Our VoiceThomas Long has described evangelism as

"faith finding its voice" (Preaching In and Out ofSeason, p. 77). Ifwe are to find our voice we must con-tinually struggle with the challenges, problems, anddemands offaith in our own lives. Wemust speak fromour beliefs. Ironically, this means that we must faceour own doubts if we are to help others struggle withtheirs. To face the fact that the miracles of faithincluding the miracle of the resurrection, are outsideour realm of experience and, therefore, at some levelbeyond comprehension is to better understand the na-ture of our faith.

Years ago, as a college student strugglingthrough a crisis of faith, a professor helped to relievemy fear that all my doubts and questions would lead tothe complete loss of my faith. He simply pointed outthat rather than assuming I was losing my faithperhaps I should realize I was finding it. This was abreakthrough which gave me a completely differentperspective on doubt. As Frederick Buechner once putit, "doubts are the ants in the pants of faith" (WishfulThinking, p. 20).

This is not meant to enshrine our doubts butto face them squarely. Facing our doubts will requireus to analyze their nature, whether they are intellec-tual ("I've never actually witnessed a resurrection") oremotional ("How could anyone be lost eternally") oreven volitional ("I believe in prayer, but I have notprayed for weeks"). Ours becomes the confession of thefrightened father in the gospel who confessed to Jesus" d 'Lor ,I believe! Help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). Onlythen will we be in a position to "receive mercy and find

£"""8<1i= 31

help" in our time ofneed (Hebrews 4:16). Perhaps if wewho preach would have more courage and confidenceto face our own struggles offaith our preaching wouldsound less like "expert testimony" and more like thatof an "eyewitness." This gives our "voice" integrity.

As we are vigilant about the integrity of ourown faith, so we must be vigilant in our interpretationand proclamation of our beliefs. It would be easy toconclude that since theology confronts us with somanychallenges we must avoid theological inquiry. Theol-ogy, however, is simply the exercise of reflecting uponthe nature and will of God. To dispense with theologyis like throwing away your eye glasses because yourperscripton is wrong. What is required ofus, especiallythose of us who preach, is not less theological inquiry,but a more faithful and precise inquiry. Becauseevangelism is inherently communication, language isa vital component in that endeavor. As my motheroften said (in a different context), "Watch yourlanguage!" The language and metaphors of the Bible,particularlyof'the gospel, powerfully communicate themessage of God's grace and salvation. If we are to beproper stewards of this grace (I Pt. 4:10-11). we mustbe extremely precise in our interpretation andcommunication of this message as well. This will notallow us either simply to parrot the words of scripturewith little attempt to help our audience understandthose words nor to "simplify" the gospel in such a waythat it is robbed of its truth and power.

Finally, we must resist the popular notion thatcertain aspects of the gospel are not relevant or mustbe reinterpreted in order to make the gospel morepalatable to unbelievers. Although this idea promisesto make evangelism easier and more successful, theend result is not the "kingdom of God." As RheinholdNiebuhr once wrote, "The practical difficulty ofpreaching the gospel is that it seems relevant to thosepeople and to those generations to whom it is mostrelevant" (Judgement and mercy, p.132).

4

Leaven, Vol. 1 [1990], Iss. 4, Art. 8

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol1/iss4/8