The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

#3 "Do you know Jesus as…" — In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. "I’m, yeah, actually I have." I finally managed in reply.

"Oh," he said, visibly disappointed. "Okay, that’s good." He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never saw him again.

This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.

Next: Tribulationism and Testimonies

 
What are the ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful? Great question. Here, are my first two. I’m not sure that these are necessarily the two most pernicious problems, but they are definitely in the top ten.

1. The Sinner’s Prayer.  Amen and Amen (and Amen).  The idea that the dynamic, awesome, humbling, heroic, life-giving opportunity to form intimate relationship with Jesus could be reduced to a bunch of words that will purportedly provide insurance against eternal damnation is, well, from hell. Few things in the last 2,000 of the Christian faith may have more eternal downside than this so-called "Sinner’s Prayer." As with most things that are wicked it was conceived with the best of intentions - a sincere desire to help people enjoy the heroic fellowship of life with Jesus. But what it did instead was offer a cheap, two-dimensional, lifeless "invitation" to the Jesus life. I’m with you when you write, "I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit," but oh the damage that it has done to Believers, pseudo-believers, non-believers and everyone else… Jesus included.  Ok, one last thing. Can you imagine what Jesus’ response might have been as he was up on the cross were he to have been told, "Hey, 2,000 years from now people will say a little prayer saying they believe in you but live a life no different from the thief who just denied you."

Ok, that’s enough for now… 

This part from your last post, David, really resonated with me: "I fear for myself and I fear for so much of our country who believes themselves on the "Jesus insurance" track - those who have said a few words and then gone on with lives that are little different than if they never said the words in the first place."

I completely agree. In fact, I consider this to be #1 (the "Sinner’s Prayer") on my list of the ten fixtures of evangelism that I find particularly harmful (#2 Making Converts is closely related):

#1 The Sinner’s Prayer — The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner’s prayer." I’ve searched through the entire New Testament and can’t find an example of anyone who was "saved" after reciting such a prayer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such prayer is worthless or that it can’t be used by the Holy Spirit. But salvation is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, "Christians" will discover after it’s far, far, too late.

#2 Making Converts — I’ve always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion, much less helping make true disciples.

Over the next few days I’ll mention the others. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #10) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes. I’d be interested in hearing what would make your list.

 
Wow. That was a great post Joe.  Seriously great. I need to process it for a bit. 

What really  struck me about the Ramirez/Congo contrast wasn’t just the media coverage, it was the horrifically stark contrast between our frivolous wealth and the massive poverty and horror around the world. Ramirez’s agent was complaining because the $60 million the Los Angeles Dodgers was offering was far too low. Meanwhile, there is the devastation occurring in Congo. It is so jarring. It is an incomprehensible contrast. But it is one that will not last forever… and that should scare us all. One of the things that Jesus promises is that when his Kingdom is fully come things will be turned upside down. The last will be first and first last. Those who suffer greatly will be greatly comforted. Those who are the least and the forgotten will be first. 

Then there is that other thing that Jesus promises - a day of surprises. How many times does he say that when that Day comes a bunch of people who think that they are outside of the Kingdom will be ushered in… and those who thought themselves inside ushered out… Jesus is the great lamb of God but he is also the ferocious Lion of God… and when he returns justice returns and there will be a whole lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. I fear for myself and I fear for so much of our country who believes themselves on the "Jesus insurance" track - those who have said a few words and then gone on with lives that are little different than if they never said the words in the first place.

Anyway, these are 2am thoughts. 

Thanks again for your post. It was really good and I’ll get back to it. 

In your recent post, David, you asked which news story would be getting more attention, a humanitarian crisis in eastern Congo or the Dodger’s offer to Manny Ramirez. Do you think there is something inherently inappropriate about that? I ask in all seriousness for it isn’t simply a hypothetical concern for us (we do, after all, run a media company).

Thinking about the issue reminded me of this passage from a an essay by Eric Cohen on "Bioethics in Wartime":

In the midst of World War II, C. S. Lewis addressed a class of Oxford students on the question of "Learning in War-Time." With so much uncertainty, so many peers dying in the trenches, so much suffering and destruction, why should any decent person spend his time reading and studying? Or doing anything else that men and women normally do: laughing, marrying, lighting Sabbath candles? With so much horror, what room can there be for happy pursuits? With challenges so obviously large, why worry about problems so seemingly small?

The answer Lewis gave, in his typical way, was both sharp and deep: "The war creates no absolutely new situation; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice" If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with "normal life." Life has never been normal." It has always been an uncertain mix of greatness and misery, joy and heartache, long-term plans and sudden disasters.

Should we only write about atrocities until we reach a state of "normal life?" Must we wait until there is no genocide in Darfur, no poverty in Appalachia, no persecution in China? Should we wait until there is no evil to be found in the heart of man before we turn our attention to "happy pursuits?"

I understand how it might seem that Americans have misplaced priorities because of the type of news we prefer to consume. But I’m not sure there is anything wrong with focusing on the trivial, rather than tragedies we cannot prevent. Often enough tragedy strikes in our own country or own lives, filling up the space of our attention and demanding that we cease talking about trivialities and focus on the horrors that have occurred.

But the world is not normal and won’t be until Christ returns to establish a new creation. We can’t wait until war has ceased or before human nature has been redeemed before we carry on with the job of living, laughing, marrying, lighting Sabbath candles and — as seemingly small as it might be — caring about sports.

 Livvy, my 3-year-old daughter, is going through an "I’m scared" phase at night. She wants us to sleep in her bed and check on her all the time. As I write, her shades are up, a little nightlight is on, and she’s hugging her Raggedy Ann…and a dozen other stuffed animals… simultaneously.

A few nights ago as I was tucking her in she said, "Daddy. I want to see the angels." I didn’t quite get it. "I want to see the angels that protect me. That way I won’t be so scared."

Every night during tuck-in Kim prays with Livvy and one of the things she prays is for angels to surround Livvy. And so the question.

I felt like saying, "Yeah, me too." But I don’t think that she would have understood me.

So I told her that no, she couldn’t see them and I couldn’t either but that we knew they are there.

Were she older I would have told her about the one or two times that I felt angelic presence - palpably.

One of them was 5 1/2 years ago as I recuperated from brain surgery (but not on the sensory part of the brain - just in case you were thinking I was imaging things).

During that time in our lives, our intimacy with God was profound. There was no life apart from him. We knew that. We’d seen the instant fragility of life and so we clung… not to religion but to Jesus.  

Every night before we went to sleep we spent a good bit of time praying not just for ourselves but for others and also just marveling at God’s goodness.

In the middle of one of those nights I was turning over when I became aware of a presence - an almost electric presence - in the room. It didn’t feel like anything I’d ever come across before. It certainly wasn’t malevolent. But neither did it exude any syrupy niceness. It felt weighty, certain, sturdy, good. As I said, it was was unlike anything I’d ever experienced.

I didn’t make the full turn. Instead I just laid there on my back, fully conscious, feeling like I needed to be fully still. And so I was.

I wanted to tap Kim and wake her up and try and explain it all but I had this sense that by the time I did that the experience would have been over, the force gone… the sense that this was for me. 

Thankfully Livvy isn’t old enough to understand that story just yet. She just has an intuitive sense of whether she feels safe or not. And so I hold her close and I am teaching her to pray and telling her about the Good Shepherd and all the while reminding myself that I can’t see the angels either but I know that they are there.

 
Two news stories from today. 

Fighting in eastern Congo has turned a breadbasket into a hunger zone where hundreds of thousands of people chased from their lush fields now rely on imported food, U.N. food agency WFP said.

Malnutrition rates in Rutshuru, which has seen weeks of fighting between government soldiers and dissident Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda’s rebels, are almost double emergency thresholds and aid workers are battling insecurity to deliver rations.

The latest wave of fighting has worsened a humanitarian disaster that began in the 1990s.

Over 5 million people have died since Congo’s last war began in 1998, more than in any conflict since World War Two and nearly all from war-related hunger and disease.

And here is the second story:

Manny Ramirez could become the $60 million man if he stays in Los Angeles. But the slugger is guaranteed at least $45 million if he accepts the Dodgers’ initial offer, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Dodgers’ initial offer to Ramirez contains a club option for a third year that could take the deal to $60 million, but includes a $7.5 million buyout guaranteeing him at least $45 million, the Times reported on Tuesday.

Ramirez’s agent, Scott Boras, who already has said that the length of the initial Dodgers offer is not acceptable, said in Thursday’s editions of the Times: "On behalf of Manny Ramirez, we will, for the first time, begin accepting serious financial offers on Friday."
 

 Guess which story is getting more attention?

 
Joe - Thanks for your response. I love our discussions and so appreciate your passion for the unborn. In fact I share your passion for reducing abortions - for eliminating abortions actually. We just have different ways of approaching it. That being said, I’d like to try and steer this conversation away from abortion if I might. If you’ll let me, let me synopsize your argument about the spiritual state of our union by saying that you believe Christians are ignoring BIblical priorities in their voting and that abortion is the most obvious example. Is that fair?

And let me do one other thing. Let me narrow the topic slightly. Instead of talking about the ’spiritual state of our union" in generic terms, I’d like to focus it on Christians since that is what we are. 

In the interest of length, I’m going to stop here for now. I’ll post something a little later today on my first take on the election. 

In 2004, Obama gave an interview to Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani in which he talks in detail about his faith. The full transcript had never been published in a major publication until yesterday when Beliefnet reprinted it in its entirety. The interview is well worth reading for it provides a fascinating glimpse into the religious beliefs of our President-elect.

I’m sure that David will agree with me that from a political point of view, whether the President is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever, should make no difference. But I believe it is useful to have an idea of what theological commitments we might have in common. And after reading this interview, I would say that Obama and I share very few beliefs. 

If you tell me that you’re a "Christian" I take that to mean that you subscribe to a common set of doctrines outlined in either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both of these creeds are ecumenical Christian statements of faith accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and almost all branches of Protestantism. They outline what it means to be a "mere" Christian.

Included within these creeds is the belief that Jesus is the "Son of God", that Christ is a divine being. From this interview it does not appear that Obama believes this is true:

FALSANI: Who’s Jesus to you? (Obama laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

This is, of course, exactly wrong. Jesus is not merely a "bridge" between God and man, Jesus is both fully-human and fully divine. Obama’s statement is more akin to something his role model Gandhi would say, rather than the claim made by an orthodox believer.

In fact, nowhere in the interview did I ever get the impression that Obama subscribes to even the most basic beliefs that are typically associated with being a Christian. For example:

On Sin

FALSANI: What is sin?

OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

FALSANI: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

On Hell

Obama: …There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.

FALSANI: You don’t believe that?

OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

 

On Heaven

FALSANI: Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

FALSANI: A place spiritually you go to after you die?

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ. 

What did you think of it, David? Would you be comfortable calling Obama a Christian?

Update: I respond to Andrew and Freddie here.

What does this election say to you about the state of the Gospel in America circa 2008? My initial inclination is to answer, "Absolutely nothing." But that isn’t quite accurate.

As much as I would like to claim that the election is not a barometer of our America’s spiritual state, I think the evidence is against me. Christians — the only group whose spirituality I understand well enough to comment on — continue to take their cues on how to vote from wordly priorities rather than Biblical principles.

For instance, one of the greatest issues of justice in our era is the protection of the unborn. Defending innocent human life from destruction should not be merely one of many priorities, but should be our top priority. Therefore, at a minimum, no Christian should, in good conscience, vote for a politician whose policies encourage abortions.

If a plurality of Christians would simply be guided by this simple tenet, abortion in American would cease to be legal within one election cycle. If all Republicans and Democrats realized that they could not win an election if they supported abortion, they would quickly put in places laws protecting the most vulnerable members of the human community.

But the parties need not worry for Christians love a mulititude of other things more than they do justice. Think I’m being unfair? Consider: Obama — the most radically pro-choice presidential candidate in history — won 95% of the black vote. Are we to believe that there were no pro-life Christians in that 95%? If there were, then what possible excuse would they give for betraying their principles? What issue was more important that caused then to cast a vote for a man whose policies will increase the number of abortions, not only in America but across the globe? I’d really like to know the answer.

It isn’t just black Christians, of course, who should be ashamed. All those who betrayed the unborn will one day have to answer to their Creator for how they cast their ballot, in this and all elections.

So while I can’t say exactly what this says about the spirituality of America, I know it can’t be good. What is your take on the situation?

 
So Joe, we’re a week out from the election. There is a tiny bit of perspective that has been gained about what happened and what didn’t happen. There has already been a massive amount of (virtual) ink spilled analyzing the political implications of the race. And there have already been plenty of Republican and conservative conclaves to lick wounds, form circular firing squads, and try and plot a way back to power - I’ve even heard talk that some people think conservative policies might be the ticket.

But there hasn’t been a lot of talk about the spiritual implications of the election. So, since we both love Jesus more than politics or religion, I’d like to talk to you about what you think this election taught us about the spiritual state of our union in general and then about the evangelical movement in particular. 

What is your take?  What does this election say to you about the state of the Gospel in America circa 2008? 

 
I stumbled across this picture earlier today and haven’t been able to get it out of my mind. Barack Obama had never been to the Oval Office before. What could be going through his mind as he prepared to step foot inside? It is unimaginable. 

Unimaginable too is the symbolism of the moment. The old president welcoming the new, the black man walking first through the doors to the president’s office. And watching it unfold is Lincoln’s platter. 

Entering the Oval Office from those doors, President-elect Obama would see two things most clearly - the Resolute desk and a built-in bookcase on the opposite wall. And, unless things have changed recently, on that bookcase, front and center is a purple and ivory serving platter from President Lincoln’s White House china. 

I wonder if President Bush was showing it to him. I wonder if the President-elect even knew.

I wonder if President Bush might leave it on the desk when he leaves the office for the last time. 

I am dazzled by America. 

 
Tonight Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama both attended the Al Smith Dinner - a charitable event for Catholic Charities and a place where presidential candidates share the stage and laugh at themselves and each other… if only for a few hours before the nasty campaigning resumes.

Watch these videos. They are extraordinary, truly extraordinary. We are ridiculously blessed to live in a country where two men who are fiercely opposed to one another are nevertheless able to set it aside for a night and laugh. It isn’t quite a miracle but it is certainly a marvel. And if you have had to see countless political ads and three presidential debates, you owe it to yourself to watch these videos. After all, these guys are just running to be the head of our government - nothing more. 

Well done gentlemen.

Andrew Sullivan got it:

At no point have we seen a grace note from McCain.

That is exactly right. The problem with McCain’s whole campaign is the lack of grace. The campaign is shrill. It is tiring and old and angry. And when that is the only note things get very tiring.

Those words uttered first by… the Republican.  What Twilight Zone is this?

Maybe it works. Maybe people are so angry themselves that McCain’s barely contained rage is appealing. All I can say is that my dog is scared. 

Shorter McCain: We should trade with Columbia, and not just cocaine either. Sen. Obama, you should travel to Columbia.

Shorter Obama: No way, dude. They kill AFL-CIO-type people down there. And nobody prosecutes them! (Why do you think I left Chicago?)

The moderator, Ed Bradley, asks how much we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Shorter McCain: We don’t need oil from foreigners. Expect Canadians. But only because those silly Canucks will sell it to China if we don’t buy it first. Oh, and we need to build nuclear subs to power all our homes.

Shorter Obama: We need more domestic production (except in state’s in which Sarah Palin is governor). But we can’t drill, baby, drill our way out of the problem. We need more wind power and cars(?). What we don’t need is that NAFTA stuff because it doesn’t have the right rules. For example, it doesn’t allow us to to force South Korea to buy more of our crappy cars.

The moderator, Morley Safer, asks why would your running mate be better choice for president than your opponent?

Shorter McCain: Sarah Palin is for reform and against autism. Top that, Joe Biden.