Considerations for evangelists
Consider your perception of the good news. Can you imagine Jesus proclaiming your message? Does your message of the good news emphasize an avoidance of judgment with a vague description of hell? Yet, since even evil repents for a while when faced with potential destruction (Jonah 3:9), is your success at getting a “decision” from people only a temporary self-preservation response from the evil in them (James 2:19)? Notably, Jesus called His “disciples” to make disciples of His Word; so, are you also a disciple who understands the secret things? If not, should you first become a disciple before trying to make a disciple? In particular, before evangelizing to others, do you think you should first understand the signs that Jesus depicted would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17-18)? Should you not seriously consider the extreme potential hazard Jesus described in the rare time He discussed evangelicalism (Matt 23:15)? Importantly, did Jesus claim that the Pharisees were professing the wisdom of man or God; and, how do you know which wisdom that you are professing?
Consider the good news of the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus when He first started His ministry (Matt 4:23). That was three years before the cross, so could He have proclaimed “believe that I am the Son of God who was sent by My Father to die on a cross for all your sins; and, if you accept me as your Lord and savior, then all your sins are forgiven and your future is a place called heaven”? Logically, it is unlikely that He made that proclamation because scripture is clear that the people did not know until much later that Jesus was the messiah and a suffering servant. So, what did He first proclaim, and did His message change over time?
Consider whether God’s Word ever states anywhere that if you “accept” some understanding then you will be saved. Because, if there was some understanding to accept, then would it not make sense that God would clearly state that requirement in His Word at least once? How many opportunities did Jesus have to state your version of the good news, or where He could have said the words “just accept me”? Why did He not say it to the people who came to Him professing what they had done in His name? Too soon? Then why not say it on the cross? If the message of good news is to accept Him, or an understanding of Him, then would it not make sense that Jesus would clearly express His message on the cross? Or, after His resurrection, why not clearly express His message? Does He express it to the two men on the road to Emmaus or to the disciples? Critically, while religion is claiming what you must do for salvation, do you realize that it is never mentioned by Jesus or anyone else? So, when you tell someone that their salvation is contingent on them accepting your understanding of Jesus, do you realize that you are telling them something that is not biblically true?
Perception of essential knowledge
According to religion, the knowledge of God is often reduced to the “essentials” of the faith. Each belief system defines their particular understanding of what is essential, but many employ images of three verses as the basis (John 3:16; Rom 8:1; 10:9). Arguably, John 3:16 is the core message of evangelism, where Jesus states that “whoever believes” will have eternal life; yet, what does it mean to “believe”? There are many instances where people are depicted as believing Jesus before there was any indication of the cross; so, what did they believe? What two things are we to believe in order to please God (Heb 11:6)? Importantly, is the faith to believe those two things a gift from God, or an act of your will (Eph 2:8; John 1:13; Rom 9:16)? In particular, do you imagine that you are the source of your faith? If you think so, then are you then stealing God’s glory by praising yourself instead of God (Matt 16:17; John 6:29)? So, when you tell someone to make a decision of the will, are you making faith a work of human hands? Are you then causing them to stumble, and giving them a reason to boast? Critically, can anyone ever truly believe what you tell them to believe, or must they receive the understanding solely through the direct interaction with God’s Word? Also, do you perceive that a decision must be made before death? If so, then where does it state that in scripture? Would it not be common sense that God would clearly state that critical fact? However, why is the gospel preached to those who have died (1 Pet 4:6)? So, are you falsely assuming a perception that is contrary to God’s Word? Consequentially, have you not based the first “essential” belief as being some version of “you must make a decision before you die” on a misunderstanding of “faith” and a false assumption?
Consider whether Jesus states something new with John 3:16, or whether He is restating truths based on OT images. Can you find the OT images that He employs? Notably, John 3:16 is part of a private conversation with the teacher of Israel and not a public announcement of good news. Jesus is explaining what He calls “heavenly things” that are the heart of understanding the symbolic perspective; so, do you think you can reasonably explain all of the secrets discussed in John 3? Do you speak of what you know (John 3:11)? If not, is it wise to quote a single verse from the middle of a private discourse, of which you do not reasonably understand the context, to impel someone else to make a decision to accept your uncertain understanding?
Consider Romans 10:9, and the context of Paul’s dissertation. Is he not chiding the Jews who were trying to create their own righteousness? Importantly, in chapter nine, Paul gives a long argument stating that God’s election is not based on anything man has done, so why would he contradict himself in the next breath by supposedly saying that you can do something to save yourself? Would that make any sense? So, if he is talking about their attempts of self-righteousness versus a righteousness that comes from faith, then he is not talking about about the initial moment of salvation, rather about them being made holy; that is, their sanctification. Critically, Paul provides the affirming OT image before he commands them to confess and believe. Paul is literally laying the pearl on the surface, but who sees it? Have you not considered the imagery that Moses is depicting (Deut 30)? Is he depicting how to make a profession of faith to be saved, or how God plans to restore Israel from his captivity? Importantly, when I challenge Christians to identify where in God’s Word He says to “accept” Jesus, Romans 10:9 is typically the only verse that is offered. However, can you see how this single verse is being taken totally out of context? So, have you not based the second “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 10:9 as a version of “make this profession of faith and you will be saved” on a misunderstanding of God’s Word?
The misuse of Romans 10:9 is the perfect example of religion incorrectly perceiving a single verse to form a belief statement. Arguably, the image of “confessing” Jesus (i.e. the Word) is the same image being depicted in the OT for meditating on God’s Word; because, a literal translation of the Hebrew word is to “mutter” the Word day and night. So, is God’s Word always on your mind? Whose words are you constantly sowing within yourself? Who is “confessing” to whom in your mind?
Consider how many religious people claim a favorite verse. The verse I hear most often claimed is Romans 8:1, with the phrase “no condemnation” being perhaps the most powerful image of the literal perspective. So, do you also believe that the verse confirms that you will avoid God’s punishment if you “accept” Him? Critically, the verse starts with a “therefore” statement, so it is essential to correctly perceive Paul’s preceding truths regarding the nature of sin. And, if you believe in the concept of having a “free will” that decides whether or not to sin, then presumably either you do not understand Paul’s thinking, or you do not agree with him. Yet, if you do not understand nor agree with his thinking, then should you quote his “therefore” statement? Also, he states that this truth is for those who are “in Christ,” and not those who “accept” something. Apparently some transcripts also include the clarification that the truth is for those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” So, Paul is employing the phrase “in Christ” which he depicts elsewhere as a mystery that is revealed. Can you explain that mystery and how to walk according to the spirit? So, if you do not appreciate Paul’s understanding of sin, and if the mystery of being “in Christ” has not been revealed to you, then how can you be sure that you have correctly perceived the truth of Romans 8.1? Therefore, have you not based the third “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 8:1 as some version of “you will avoid God’s eternal punishment if you accept Him” on your own understanding? Your perception of this one verse may fit the mantra “if you accept Jesus, then your sins are forgiven and your future is heaven,” but can you be sure that is an accurate perception of the image that Paul is depicting? The perception of sin and how God responds to our sin are both challenging images to understand, so is it wise to employ this verse casually without a firm understanding?
Misperception of unconditional election
Consider that, from the literal perspective, the perception of God’s sovereignty in election is easily apparent in God’s Word. Notably, when I began my journey, I was quickly persuaded by the intellectual reasoning of the Reformed perspective of God’s “sovereign” election of those who are saved. However, while I can understand the arguments for why the reprobate go to hell, could the good news from Jesus ever suggest that message? Could He have said in any manner that only some people are destined for heaven based solely on His Father’s will? Yet, is it reasonable to perceive that Jesus initially hid that message, but revealed it later? Why the apparent avoidance by Jesus? Did He hate the message as much as those who are not Calvinists?
The arguments for “unconditional” election are often based on Paul’s “golden chain” of salvation, his discussion of Jacob and Esau, and his depiction of the vessels (Romans 8:29-30; 9). Yet, the big downfall with the literal perspective is consistently this matter of perceiving the images as depictions of external versus internal truths. Because, instead of perceiving the image of God loving Jacob and hating Esau as depicting His actions regarding two literal people or nations of this world, arguably God intended the image to symbolically depict the two nations at war within each of us; that is, the war between the spirit and the flesh that is frequently depicted elsewhere in God’s Word (e.g., Gen 25:22-23; Gal 5:17). Therefore, Paul is not depicting that God “hates” certain people such that He effectively allows them to condemn themselves, rather that God hates the evil parts in each of us and allows them to condemn themselves. Having come from a Calvinist perspective, my heart truly aches whenever I consider that I had once believed this doctrine.
Certainly, the image of “free will” is depicted in scripture, and many within religion focus solely on that image to discern the necessity to “respond” to God. Yet, others perceive, regardless of what you do in this life, that certain people are destined to heaven and all others to hell, a concept commonly referred to as “double predestination.” Both sides can recite verses that support their particular view, but both sides must also ignore those verses that do not support their particular perception. Einstein certainly did not ignore any of his images, because he recognized that the correct understanding could not have any inconsistencies, and that his line of thinking had to “work” in all instances. However, if both sides simply “agree to disagree,” then can either perception of the good news be deemed correct with an unsolvable conundrum at the core of its belief system? Notably, when I realized how this conundrum is resolved, my confidence level in the symbolic perspective rose dramatically.
Perception of belief statements
My ardent plea to evangelists is to reconsider the practice of employing a few verses to “fabricate” a message of “good news” in the attempt to convince others to join your belief system. Arguably, you are “cherry-picking” sentences from a huge book of divine revelation to craft your own impression of another person’s eternal destiny. Certainly, encouraging others to join your community of loving people is a wonderful purpose, but depicting that community as being those who accept a certain understanding of God’s Word is offensive. Because, the mere presence of a belief statement divides the world into believers versus unbelievers of that church’s statement. Therefore, while evangelists can claim that their church is “open” to everyone, any belief statement that creates an “us versus them” culture is divisive by its very nature, and counter to the love of God. So, if you cannot perceive Jesus as proclaiming your message of the good news, then should you reconsider the way in which you introduce scripture to others? Again, the great commission is to make disciples of God’s Word, and not to make converts to your own particular understanding of a few “divine” verses. Importantly, does not God’s Word depict the Pharisees as the religious “evangelists” of their day?
Arguably, the concept of evangelizing a “religion” is based on a flawed perception of scripture, and a primary misperception is regarding the biblical image depicting the church of God. The common perception is that scripture depicts a transition from the “Jewish” way of religious practice to the “Christian” way of religious practice. Presumably, the OT depicts Jews as joining the church through circumcision, whereas the NT depicts Christians as joining the church through baptism. Similarly, instead of worshipping God by the practice of slaughtering animals as depicted by the Mosaic law, presumably Christians are to worship God by the practice of holy communion as depicted by Jesus at the last supper. However, even religion admits that it cannot pinpoint the start of Christianity, because neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any NT author proclaims that a new religion had arrived with a new belief statement and a new set of religious practices. Yet, just like the Pharisees did with the Mosaic law, man’s wisdom “crafted” a religion based on a literal perspective of NT images that depict the church of God. The next chapter will discuss whether God’s Word truly depicts two “religious” dispensations of Judaism and Christianity, and the significance of the image of God calling His “holy ones” out of darkness to join the “ekklesia” of God. At this point, let’s discuss how religion evolved to what it is today.
Evolution of the “good news”
As discussed, the typical biblical worldview evolves because of the evolving “norms” within society. Presumably, an evolving worldview is deemed acceptable by most people, but can it ever be acceptable for the “good news” of scripture to also evolve? Perhaps one should expect that a worldview would evolve, but should you not expect that God’s message of salvation would remain constant? Let’s consider how Christianity first created a message of the good news, and how the message has evolved.
Logically, if you perceive that God provided you with words of divine revelation, then you should expect that those words would reveal “truths” that supersede all other truth statements in the culture. And, just as the Jews created religious traditions based on their literal perspective of the Mosaic law, a similar effort was made to craft new religious traditions based on the NT images. However, since the NT does not explicitly depict the “rules” for worship, the early church perceived the image of Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom as being a “divine gift” placed upon the new church to create the appropriate religious traditions. Therefore, just as Israel practiced Judaism based on the traditions as established by the Pharisees, the new church practiced Christianity based on the traditions as established by the line of popes.
Consider how the “wise” men of early Christianity gathered at councils to formalize the church’s belief statement by debating aspects of the nature of God, such as the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. The church felt the need to clarify its understanding because of various competing perspectives (e.g., Arianism, Gnosticism) being promoted. Of course, the creeds depict Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins, and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead. Notably, the creeds also depict that God is somehow three parts in one, however the many statements just restate the same ambiguous image depicting that “God is three, but He is one.” Critically, a person’s “salvation” is depicted as being “conditional” upon joining the church and by accepting the church’s creed as being the absolute truth. Because, if you disagreed with the creed, then you were “cursed” as being a heretic, and therefore unable to remain a member of the church.
According to the creeds established by the early church, Jesus will judge everyone, but if you accept the church’s doctrines, then you will have a better chance in the day of judgment to be counted among the righteous. Importantly, the church did not claim that you were saved by joining the church, rather that by becoming a member of the church, you could then receive the blessed sacraments from the church which will hopefully lead to your eventual salvation. Notably, still today, Catholicism depicts an image of uncertainty around salvation by making it primarily dependent on “how” you live this life. Arguably, that perception was the original version of the good news espoused by the Christian church for over one thousand years.
So, while the creeds were intended to resolve debates about the nature of God, the creeds require a blind acceptance because the stated wisdom is derived from the “imagination” of men, and not solely from a clear perception of images as is depicted within God’s Word. Arguably, the church was requiring people to believe that salvation was conditional on the acceptance of a theological image that even the wise men of religion did not clearly understand. And, if the wise men of religion today still cannot not clearly perceive the nature of God from His Word, then what hope should you have in them being able to clearly perceive the nature of man who was made in that image, and how the nature of man will be restored to holiness? Further, the ongoing existence of these “abstract” creeds clearly depicts religion’s admission of its blindness towards the nature of God and of His good news, yet the church still tells people today to blindly accept its “belief statement” or risk eternal damnation.
So, what is the consequence of religion’s original perception of the good news? In particular, what perception of God’s Word was ultimately formed in the collective “mindset” of the people after one thousand years of church dominion? Arguably, based on the wisdom of a few self-professed “wise” men, this “new” religion convinced many that salvation was conditional upon them “joining” the church by agreeing to its creeds; such that, from the start of Christianity, the purpose of God’s Word was primarily promoted as depicting how people are to “respond” to God, and the consequences for failing to respond as needed. Consequently, for over a thousand years, the church kept God’s Word from the people, all the while exercising its self-ordained authority to claim that its doctrinal precepts and its religious traditions were the divine understanding of scripture, and the means towards your salvation.
For me, it is difficult to imagine a time of greater consequence upon mankind than the extended famine of God’s voice that occurred during the early church. Because, whereas many Jews presumably could recite much of scripture from memory, the early Christians were compelled to concede that the church had the exclusive ability to read and interpret God’s Word. So, while the Jews had heard God’s voice depicting the OT images, particularly the images of Israel, Christians were encouraged to simply consider a few abstract images of God and Jesus as depicted by the church’s creeds. Consequently, thanks to this great deception by the early church, the perception of scripture was transformed in the minds of the people from the obvious “story of Israel” to a “tool” that God had presumably given the church such that it could reign as His “kingdom” on this earth. Of course, as corroborated by many events in church history, absolute power will corrupt absolutely. Yet, arguably, the more significant consequence is that the people would never return to hear God’s voice depicting the images of His Word.
Praise God for eventually providing a modern translation that made His Word more widely available to the masses, and He encouraged brave men to question the wisdom of the church. Yet, was the famine quelled, such that the people responded with a devout passion to again hear His Word? If not, why not? And, was the inquisitive nature of a few men sufficient to truly reform man’s approach, such that God’s lines of thinking were being revealed? If not, why not?
I suspect that most people, even without an academic degree in the study of religion, have a general understanding of how the Christian religion was formalized by Constantine in the fourth century. And, most people probably appreciate how the Roman Catholic Church was the prominent religion within western societies until the sixteenth century, which is when Martin Luther and others instigated a “protest” against some of the church practices of the time. Since then, many new Protestant religions were formed, yet each with their own particular belief statement (i.e. creed) about the good news of God’s Word.
Arguably, the primary motive that drove the Reformation was not about seeking the correct understanding of God’s Word, rather it was simply a rebellion against some church traditions that obviously went far beyond reason. And, if you investigated the theological reasoning behind the practice of indulgences, then you would also appreciate why some felt that a rebellion was absolutely necessary. Interestingly, the Catholic Church has maintained its “treasury” such that indulgences can still be distributed to those in purgatory, so the rebellion presumably did not change the church’s thinking on the matter.
Certainly, the reformers did argue that many of the established church traditions were not biblical, yet they still maintained the same literal approach to scripture. Such that, in their effort to establish their own church traditions that were presumably based “solely” on God’s Word, the reformers changed the message of the good news from the conditional image of “joining the church” to the “reformed” image of the five solas, which are sola scriptura (scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). However, while it is a “catchy” phrase to state that salvation is based on “Christ alone through grace alone by faith alone,” that theological image is vaguely depicted in scripture, so it must be explained such that people can appreciate the full significance of the statement. Consequently, various wise men each started their own belief systems that presumably explain “in their own words” the good news of God’s method of salvation, and what it means to have “faith” in God.
So, while the Reformation and the printing press made God’s Word accessible, the masses still relied on the wise men of religion to fashion their own belief system of the good news. Because, just as my father advised me as a child, scripture was perceived as being too difficult for a lay person to understand. Arguably, still today, just as the pope and clergy are presumed to have a gift of divine knowledge, there is a similar perception that you must have the proper seminary education to discern the wisdom being revealed by God’s Word. Yet, are you not allowing “academia” to self-proclaim itself as the only capable “revelator” of scripture, much like the early Christians allowed their church to proclaim about itself?
The continued famine of God’s voice
Consider again how the early Christians could not read God’s Word because many of them literally could not read anything, and even if they were able to read, the bible was only available to most in a foreign language. Importantly, lay people were not even allowed to read God’s Word, and they would be labeled a “heretic” with the risk of severe punishment if they denied the church’s total authority over scripture, such that God’s Word was literally being withheld from the eyes and the ears of the masses. Yet, not only was God’s voice being taken hostage by the church, the church instead fed the masses its own wisdom; which is what Paul depicts as a “wisdom of this world” because of its natural (i.e. unspiritual) perception of scripture, which is the result of approaching God’s Word with a literal perspective (consider James 3:15, 17). My heart had ached as I considered how scripture returned “void” for so many centuries because of the early church, and it was difficult for me to imagine a sadder time in world history than that severe famine of God’s voice; that is, until I considered the present times.
Arguably, while God has offered His Word to the masses for well over four hundred years, people still prefer to simply hear someone else’s interpretation of verses instead of meditating on the images as being depicted by God’s voice. Does not anyone else “mutter” God’s Word continually to themselves? Do you? If not, why not? Arguably, few people seek God’s voice to understand the images within His Word, rather they only perceive the biblical images as they are depicted by the words from other people, such that the severe famine of the voice of God has never ended.
Of course, many argue that the “heart” of man is the reason for the continued famine of God’s Word, yet I would argue that the religious thinking created by man’s wisdom is the root cause. Certainly, there have been billions of people who truly had a heart for God, whether or not they had ever joined a church. But, once man’s wisdom assumed the opportunity to create a “biblical” worldview, the early church put in motion a process that would inevitably result in the continuous evolution of the good news. Of course, people raised in a religion will perceive that their “modern” perspective is sane because the thinking is based on the wisdom of two thousand years of church history, and because communities of loving people will always have a positive impact on each other and society. Therefore, as certain as death and taxes, there will always be those who have a heart for God, and religions will continue to evolve in their effort to offer a more appealing image to attract those hearts. However, has the “good-hearted” effort of the church only made it more difficult for the people who have a heart for God to personally seek the voice of God? So, are you accepting the “good” news of religion at the great expense of something far more important (e.g., Matt 23:16-22; Heb 13:10)?
The popular depiction of insanity is to repeatedly do the same thing while also expecting that different results will occur over time. So, how much more time should man’s wisdom be given to perceive the absolute truth based on the perspective that scripture is a history book? Is not two thousand years enough? Arguably, no one really expects man’s wisdom to arrive at an absolute understanding, such that everyone accepts that they must create their own “personal” image of God based on their particular perceptions and experiences that occur in their life. And, if you are seeking a wisdom of this world, then some variation of religion will likely provide an adequate answer. However, if you are seeking God’s understanding of His Word, then how much more time are you willing to concede that your perception of the images must come from the blind wisdom of other men?
For me, a huge change in my life occurred when I tuned out all of the voices of man’s wisdom, especially my own, and instead began to seek only the voice of God. And, to my great surprise, a “voice” is continually and logically building a simple yet deep understanding of His Word, just as any reasonably sane person should probably expect from God. Yet, what has become very frustrating is how everyone wrongly assumes that the symbolic perspective blindly assigns the meaning to the biblical images, while at the same time they are willing to accept that their preacher or a commentator can arbitrarily assign a meaning, presumably because they are perceived as a trained theologian who can interpret God’s Word. Yet, would not Jesus consider them as “untrained” scribes if they employ any other source than scripture to form their line of thinking? So, why are you allowing the famine of God’s voice to continue in your life? Read God’s Word, and consider the story that He is depicting.