On the "stand up and greet time"

Thom Rainer recently produced a post on the top ten ways to drive guests from your church. He followed this up with a post here, after a slew of comments in relation to his inclusion of "having a stand up and greet time" in his original article. Tim Challies has responded to this with his own article: How I learned to Embrace the Stand and Greet Time. The following is my two-penneth.

In his original article, Thom Rainer highlights the extreme revulsion many guests have to the stand up and greet time in the service. His follow up article makes clear that many have, not only refused to come back to the church after such trauma, but left mid-service as a result. 

In his response, Tim Challies honestly admits that he too finds it awkward and difficult. However, he argues in favour of a stand up and greet time, basing this on two key arguments. Firstly, he wants to argue church is not all about me and my comfort. Sometimes we have to do things that are uncomfortable in order for the church to fulfil its function. Secondly, he argues church is for the believer. Though unbelievers should factor in what we do, he says, their comfort shouldn't take precedence. It is what builds up the believer that should be paramount.

So, what do these various articles present us with? Each makes valid points. When we work through them, we are left with three basic facts: (1) visitors - believers and unbelievers alike - despise stand up and greet times and will not return to a church if one exists; (2) church members should not make the church about their own preferences and comfort; (3) what happens in the church exists primarily to build up believers.

The question that remains is whether there is some way to hold these facts in tension. Some of us, I suspect, would be tempted to drop one of the assertions at this point. Most likely, if that's our solution, we either deny the problem of (1) or we reject the assertion in (3). Personally, I subscribe to all three statements but I believe there is a simple solution.

Firstly, although (2) is undeniably correct, it rather misses the point. (2) is only relevant to the discussion if stand up and greet times (a) actively build up the church membership and (b) that what goes on in the church only exists to build up believers. As such, though (2) could be relevant to the discussion, it is only relevant once we have determined (a) and (b).

At this point, we must address (3). It is certainly true that what happens within the church is primarily for the upbuilding of the membership. However, that does not mean the upbuilding of the membership is the only priority of the church. Indeed, if the church is concerned with mission, how we relate to those outside (especially if they have been brave enough to cross the threshold into a foreign church culture) is surely more than a footnote on our service. It is certainly true, the comfort of the unbeliever isn't paramount. Were it, there would likely be no real preaching of the gospel. But that isn't to say their comfort doesn't matter at all and we should ride roughshod over it because one element - indeed, one pretty small element - of the service might benefit believers but make unbelievers uncomfortable in the process.

That leads on to our answer to (a) - does a stand up and greet time actively build up the membership anyway? The sheer number of believing respondents - those who are sympathetic to the church - who seem to loathe stand up and greet times would suggest not. What is the purpose of the stand up and greet time? If it is to be welcoming - yet makes everyone uncomfortable - then it seems to have failed. If it is to build up believers, one is unclear how a forced handshake and contrived greeting (or, in worse cases, hugs and literal renderings of "holy kiss") do anything of the sort. It also begs the question what the point of being greeted at the door (and, in some cases, over coffee pre-service by several others) if we're all going to be forced to do it again mid-service.

On top of all this, there is a point that appears to have been missed in discussion. Are there any ways of welcoming unbelievers, building up believers and encouraging church members to look outside of themselves without making everyone uncomfortable or compromising the purposes of the church? It strikes me there are plenty of ways to do this. 

Most churches do this over tea and coffee before or after the service and train their members in how to welcome guests. Not only does this achieve the same purpose as the stand up and greet time, it actually exceeds it. The greeting (both the timing and the nature of it) are not contrived and forced. It means visitors are not "on display" when being welcomed and are not pushed into meangingless conversations they (nor the other participant) particularly want. It also means church members are built up all the more. Shaking hands and smiling politely at a brother or sister at an enforced point mid-service does not build up in nearly the same way as an intentional approach for a genuine conversation that was taken by choice.

So can we hold all three comments in tension. Yes, I think we can. Though church is primarily for the building up of believers, if believers are rarely built up by a stand up and greet time, it is not doing anything to achieve that purpose. Though visitors hate stand up and greet times, if it does little to build up many believers it seems perverse to insist upon it when neither the church nor the visitors gain from it. Though church members are supposed to look outside of their own comfort in order to build up the church, that doesn't mean we must persist with uncomfortable things simply because they are uncomfortable. Members need only be pushed outside their comfort zone when their comfort is stopping them doing something scripture suggests they should, or should not, do. If there is a way to build up other believers that makes us uncomfortable, we should certainly do that. However, it seems stand up and greet times are not one of them.

Church can build up believers without stand up and greet times. Visitors will feel more welcome without a stand up and greet time. Church members can be encouraged to build up the body over and against their own preferences without a stand up and greet time. Given all that, I'm unsure what is to be lost if we simply canned the practice. There seems to be much to gain by dropping it.

Willful misapplication of the law: a case in point

Three days ago, I commented on the Home Secretary's troubling new proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders. You can see my comments here. My central concern was the stifling of free speech and free debate coupled with the almost certain willful misapplication of the law. Such proposals will have grave knock-on effects, not only for those whose faith is lived out in the public square, but also those who proclaim their faith from the heretofore safety of their own religious building.

For those who doubt the heavy-handed application of the law, an interesting case in point can be viewed here and here. A gentleman who went to Taunton town centre to share his faith has been specifically targeted by police. Market traders have been encouraged to film his street preaching in order to "prove" his words are offensive. Having encouraged locals to aid their evidence-gathering exercise, the evangelist in question is now being prosecuted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act (the very section that has since been amended due to such policing, as you can see here).

The fact the police encouraged market traders to film the man in question is not particularly troubling. Anybody can decide to film anyone else. If anything, it may even help his evangelistic efforts knowing that several market traders are intently listening to his message and, better yet, are keeping it for posterity. Even better again, they are probably passing it on to police as "evidence" meaning his message is being spread further than he could ever have hoped. All of that is to say the filming is not really the problem.

The real issue is that the police predetermined the level of offence and the extent to which Mr Overd was likely to breach the peace and then sought to incite the public themselves gather evidence to prove how offensive he was being. It also seems apparent that those listening were not all that incensed, given a number of complainants "failing to remember what he had said or forgetting when the alleged offensive remarks had taken place". Worse still, Mr Overd is now being prosecuted for a factually-based comparison of the lives of Jesus and Mohammad based upon historical evidence as Mr Overd understood and interpreted it.

Whatever one may feel about his mode of evangelism or the wisdom of making such comparisons, it is undoubtedly beyond question that Mr Overd should be free to do so without police intervention. Muslims, market traders and the multitudes should be free to tell Mr Overd that they don't care for his comments with equal freedom. Those same people should be free to agree and support his comments should they choose to do so. This really isn't a matter for police involvement. There was no danger of violence and certainly no call to arms.

This issue is pertinent because anybody doubting that proposed Extremism Disruption Orders will be misapplied to shut down evangelical street preachers, or even less vocal expressions of evangelicalism, need only look to the application of existing laws. Stories abound, not least this case in point, of such things using existing legislation never intended to be used in this way. The Home Secretary makes no bones about intending to permit the application of the law to people such as Mr Overd. If current legislation, never intended in this way, can be used to stifle free debate and inhibit free speech, what will come of such freedoms when the expressed position of the legislation is to inhibit in precisely these ways?

Know that this is a real issue. An issue that no longer only impacts upon evangelicals brave enough to share their faith in public ways but will affect all those who are evangelical on a Sunday morning, within their own buildings, preaching orthodoxy to their own congregations. We may have spent much time thinking they are coming for the street preachers but I'm not a street preacher so I did nothing. Well, as ever, our inactivity because it doesn't affect us means our comfortable position inside our own church buildings is likely to be next.

Mark Steel is half right... nobody will abandon religion simply because an atheist bangs on about science

I generally like Mark Steel. He is usually funny and happens to take a political stance in his comedy that appeals to such as me. I was interested to read his piece in today's Independent in which he (rightly) argued nobody is going to abandon religion simply because "some atheist is banging on at them about science".

Steel is apt to recognise religious belief - as with almost any other firmly held position - is more than a mere matter of assent to facts/ideas (delete according to your predisposition). He comments, "dealing with the intricacies of people’s ideas requires more than yelling science at them" and offers the example of the anorexic who believes they are fat to underline the point. What passes as obvious for one may seem totally irrational to another specifically because of the intricacy of belief and the presumed facts each one of us deems "properly basic".

He correctly points out the issue with the modern atheist appeal to heinous acts committed by those who profess religious belief. He states: 

isn’t it the actions of these people that are vile, not the religion itself? Unless your attitude is: “Those priests are a disgrace. They sexually abused children, covered it up for decades, then to top it all they give out stupid wafers in their service. How sick can you get”?

This point rather hits at the heart of the issue. Richard Dawkins has argued the heinous acts of several atheist dictators had nothing to do with their atheism whilst simultaneously wishing to maintain the heinous acts committed by Roman Catholic priests were somehow prompted by their religion. For many of the New Atheists (cf. Christopher Hitchens' God is not great: how religion poisons everything), the attitude is precisely the one stated above.

Nevertheless, it is nice to see Steel observe "I spent a morning at a Sikh temple recently, where 4,000 free meals are provided for anyone who wants one" whilst pointedly remarking "if you turned up at Richard Dawkins’s house with 4,000 mates, I’d be surprised if you all got a meal out of him".

For all that, Steel's piece is to be commended. It is funny, endearing and recognises the truth that religious belief - in fact, belief of any sort - is more complex than simply assenting to a series of ideas. Somebody once remarked (and I forget who it was now, so I can't honestly credit it), the means by which we reach conclusions is a convoluted and intricate exercise influenced by many things. Reason is merely the device we use to convince others we are right. Often, we expect others to conclude  by reason alone when, for most of us, it is but one of many tools we use to reach conclusions.

Here, however, is where I think Steel is a little unfair. The very title of his piece presumes that the religious are scientifically deficient. Equally fallaciously, he tacitly gives rise to the view that science is the primary form of knowledge (as opposed to other areas that handle issues science cannot and upon which science is often based e.g. philosophy). For all his denunciation of Richard Dawkins, his concern is more that Dawkins patronises believers, has a problem in principle with all religion and clearly ignores the good that many religious believers do. This rather conveys the belief that atheists are the guardians of science and reason whilst believers - who should nevertheless be entertained in their fanciful views so long as they do no harm to others - are not. Steel's concern is not the specific beliefs of Richard Dawkins but the patronising and/or aggressive rhetoric he employs. It is not his views with which Steel finds a problem but the tactics Dawkins uses to convey them. Ironically, this is rather patronising.

Steel says he finds the "contradictions of religion" confusing - as well he should! The example he cites of a guru continuing to fight a battle having had his head chopped off plays directly to our Western, post-enlightenment sense of that which is "properly basic". Of course that could never happen, says Steel, but look at the good these Sikhs are doing in a community setting, offering meals to people. It's the as-long-as-they're-doing-no-harm form of patronage; "yes, their views are ridiculous but look at the lovely things they do as a result"! At least Dawkins doesn't patronise like that.

It is true that belief is a complex thing and represents more than mere assent to a set of ideas. It is also true that reason is but one of many tools we use to reach conclusions. However, that does not mean religion itself is baseless and one must park one's reason to be a believer. I equally don't believe a guru fought a battle after his head was chopped off. That's not because I simply dismiss it as something that could never happen (a position Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism are forced to hold). Rather, if there are good grounds to believe in a God (and, without rehearsing them all here, I believe there are) all sorts of possibilities are open to us. Nevertheless, I don't believe this did happen because of the positive reasons to reject it (again, all of which I will not rehearse here).

By contrast, Christianity is not a religion beget by presumption and story-telling. Scripture itself records God inviting us to "reason together" and the very basis of Christianity - the spark that ignited it as a movement - was based on the evidence for the resurrected Jesus Christ. Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles argued that their hope - and the whole basis of Christianity - stood or fell on the proof of that one fact. Establish the resurrection as a fraud (as many have tried) and Christianity dies overnight. Establish it as fact (in my view, the historical facts are extraordinarily compelling) and Christianity is based on far more than presumption. It compels us reasonably, philosophically and historically.

Where Steel is undoubtedly correct, it will take much more than atheists banging on about science to convince religious believers to abandon their beliefs. Interestingly, Christians recognised this fact long ago. Whatever the compelling reasons for Christianity (and I believe there are many), Blaise Pascal noted nearly 400 years ago, in his Pensées, that reason was but one step (and not even the first one) on the road to belief. No doubt this is where New Atheism is going wrong, merely "banging on about science", but is probably where a lot of modern evangelical Christianity gets it wrong too.

Freedom to be annoying

It is broadly accepted that for a society to be deemed 'free' it must protect individual rights to free speech and expression. Over recent years, however, such rights have been incrementally eroding, one restriction at a time. Now, our current government has determined to further undermine these basic freedoms. 

Not content with restricting freedom of the press, the Home Secretary has unveiled government plans to replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) with a series of new civil injunctions that will clamp down on anything likely to cause "annoyance".

As John Bingham writes in the Telegraph: 

Christian preachers, buskers and peaceful protesters could effectively be driven off the streets under draconian new powers designed to clamp on anyone deemed “annoying”, according to a former Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lord Macdonald QC said Theresa May, the Home Secretary’s plans for a new civil injunctions to replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) amount to “gross state interference” with people’s private lives and basic freedoms.

In a formal legal opinion being circulated to peers, he savages the proposals as opening the way for the outright “suppression” of anything deemed “potentially annoying” with only “vague” justification.

Lord MacDonald QC, writing in a legal opinion commission drafted for the Christian Institute, states:

The danger in this Bill is that it potentially empowers State interference against such activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards and little apparent acknowledgement of the potential effect of its provisions on the ability of citizens to exercise core rights without undue interference... A lone individual standing outside the entrance to a bank holding a sign objecting to its role in the financial crisis, a busker outside a shopping centre, or a street preacher proclaiming the end of days to passers-by may all be capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to some person, but the question is whether they should be subject to such broad legislative intervention as is proposed in this bill.

As I have commented here, here and here, offense routinely appears to be interpreted by police and other authorities as a justification for investigation under the Public Order Act. Despite a reform to Section 5 of the Public Order Act (see here), such continues to occur. Bizarrely, despite changing this law so as not to criminalise "insulting" words or behaviour, the government are now seeking to outlaw "annoying" words or behaviour on even more spurious grounds.

As I highlighted here, this will affect many more Christians than just those engaged in street preaching and tracting (and, whatever our views on these modes of evangelism, the restrictions on such work should still cause us concern). If "offense", the previous watchword, has been replaced with "annoyance", we can guarantee what begins as a clampdown on those doing evangelism outside the church will surely end up impinging on that which goes on inside the church (not least if we "do mission" inside the church and/or bill our services as "public meetings"). How long before a person "annoyed" on the street enters a church building only to be equally annoyed there? What about those parts of scripture that may be considered "offensive"; the public reading of which, and almost certainly the exposition of which, will soon be deemed both offensive and annoying?

Personally, I do not share Cranmer's view of where he "draws the line" regarding free speech. It is my view that we already have sufficient laws against offensive and obnoxious behaviours - and that is quite right. Offensive, obnoxious or annoying words - unpleasant though they may be - should not be subject to controls. Prejudice, discrimination and incitement - whatever danger they pose - are not the heart of the issue. Individuals should be free to spout prejudice and discrimination, whatever form it takes, just as the rest of us should be free to explain in no uncertain terms why such views are vile and repugnant. Individuals should not be free to discriminate or act prejudicially but there should be no bar on these views being aired. How else can we rebuff such incoherent nonsense but for it being spoken? Similarly, incitement is not the issue. We may want to say the words of those who incite violence are so dangerous they must be curbed. But it is not the words that do the violence but those who act upon them - nobody makes anyone else do anything. If we have sufficient controls on behaviour there is no reason to place further controls upon speech.

Some may well find the activities of Christian people offensive, annoying, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative just as many Christian people may find the same of others. Surely that is the price we pay for a free society and society is all the richer for such expressions. As the Cranmer blog put it: "freedom reigns while people are at liberty to spout their views."

Tony Miano arrested for 'hate' speech - full video and police transcript

Yesterday, I posted a link regarding the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist preaching outside Wimbledon.

Since then, a full video of the incident and police transcripts of the subsequent interview have been made available. These have been published on the Cranmer blog. Calvin Smith has responded to the story and posted his reaction here.

Having read the transcript and viewed the video, it appears Mr Miano doesn't do himself any favours on occasion. The officer admitted and exhibited theological illiteracy several times yet Mr Miano continued to explain sin in such a way that the officer misunderstood Miano's view. Nothing he said thereafter did anything to divest the officer of this misconception. Only once did he identify himself as 'a sinner', though not really with clarity. This can't have helped the officer move from his view that 'sinners' are bad people for doing x, y and z whilst the preacher is not such a one. Similarly, it took some pointed questions from his legal counsel to even come close to drawing out the points that (a) he was not intending to offend anybody and; (b) he was not intending to convey the idea that he is good whilst everyone else is sinful (though, as I mentioned, even this was not spoken of with clarity).

Similarly, Cranmer rightly points out that Mr Miano's own version of events are not entirely borne out by the police transcript. He notes '[Mr Miano] specifically stated that the police asked him if he would be prepared to feed a hungry homosexual (corroborated in Christian Concern's press release). This transcript establishes that these words were, in fact, Mr Miano's own; not those of the interrogating police officer. This sort of misinformation or exaggeration really doesn't aid a person's credibility'. Although these were specifically Mr Miano's words, they were a specific example used in direct response to the officer's question 'if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor [sic], you'd quite happily offer them that favor [sic] would you?'.

Nevertheless, Calvin Smith is apt to comment: 'Whatever your view of street preaching, or the style or approach of this particular preacher... we have indeed reached a sinister stage in our country where a single individual who is "offended" can result in the arrest, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and interrogation of another individual'.

Two separate and independent thoughts on freedom in Britain

Here are two interesting posts on freedom in Britain:

The first, from Andy's Study, discusses the ongoing Edward Snowden saga and how the British  government seem equally intent on prolific data collection.

The second, from Cranmer, discusses the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist arrested outside Wimbledon. Whatever one feels about Mr Miano's view, such treatment seems heavy-handed to say the least. At least Section 5 of the Public order Act will be reformed (see here).

Anyway, two interesting posts worth some reflection, wherever such reflections may lead.

Edit: Full video and Police transcripts of the Tony Miano arrest have now been made available and can be viewed here.

When logical actions are culturally defined and appear absurdly illogical

I was recently given a copy of The Briefing which contained an article on the Islamic protests against a film, made in the USA, which depicted Muhammad in a less than complimentary light. The article, 'Marching for Allah', considers questions related to why a group of Muslims in Australia would bother to march and protest against a film created in the USA. What were they hoping to achieve and why did this seem like a logical response to the issue?

The article goes on to outline three types of cultural rationalities: guilt-based rationality; shame-based rationality and fear-based rationality. The Western, Judeo-Christian world leans strongly toward guilt-based rationality which "relies on an internal conviction of right and wrong". The article comments, "western people often think that the right thing to do is the righteous thing, even if it hurts other people. Western people often value personal integrity, sometimes at the expense of relationships. We value truth, honesty, and justice".

By contrast, much of the Middle East and Asia leans toward shame-based rationality.The article states:

In a shame-based culture, people often value relationship and the preservation of community over a personal sense of righteousness. In other words, people from these cultures often think that the right thing to do is the thing that honours the other people in their life, particularly family, but also nation, ancestors and God. People value and rationalize in terms of loyalty, community and friendship, and right action is about satisfaction, rather than justification.

When we consider these differing approaches to rationality, we come to understand something of why these protests took place. Those marching were not concerned with censorship and stopping the film. Instead, the protest was about sending a message to the world that this sort of depiction of Muhammad was not alright with them. As the articles comments:

Muslims care about the way you think about Allah, even if you aren't Muslim. They care about the way you think about Muhammad, who had been publicly shamed. Many of them would prefer to defend the honour of Muhammad by any means rather than sit idly by while he is profaned. And so the protest was what rational action demanded of them.

Understanding differing rationalities may help us comprehend the underlying reasons for the recent Islamic protests, however, it should also have the most profound impact upon how we engage with Muslims.

On one level, this may mean framing the gospel less in terms of guilt and personal righteousness and more in terms of shame and exaltation. Certainly the Bible itself does this on occasion (e.g. Ps 25:3; Isa 53:3; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6). However, this doesn't mean we need to throw out the penal substitutionary view of atonement when discussing scripture with Islamic friends. Instead, it means carefully explaining "the righteousness of God wasn't about God’s own righteousness: God’s intrinsic honour and glory. It was about a righteousness imputed to us; our sin condemned us, but in Christ we stand justified because Christ has dealt with our guilt".

Our culture, in many ways, determines the way we will do theology. However, the reverse of this is also true: "Much of our culture depends on the way we think about God". As the article comments:

In Islamic theology Allah is unknowable. He is utterly transcendent, and it is impossible to penetrate the inside of God to enter into any kind of relationship. The best we can do is know his will for our lives, and then honour him by doing it. It isn’t a religion of relationship, it’s about submission—which is what the word Muslim means. This idea of God shapes every area of Islamic culture. The task of the government is to ensure that Allah is honoured by society and that society conforms to his will. Because of this, Islamic culture will always tend towards social uniformity and political totalitarianism. The concept of dhimmitude also makes complete sense, because non-Muslims also must be seen to honour Allah, even if they don’t believe. Life becomes about conformity and obedience. The good life is one where Allah is seen to be honoured.

But consider the difference that Christian theology makes—the Christian church in its better, more self-consistent moments. Consider that the Father of Jesus Christ would humble his own son; that Christ would become man so that we might penetrate the unknowable God and discover the inner nature of the Father. We think about reality differently because of this. All of a sudden, true power is power to serve others self-sacrificially, just as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. True being is in relationship: existence for another, just as Christ loved us and gave himself for us. Consider how much changes when you see God not through the lens of glory, but through a theology of the cross—that God would be humbled and shamed, cast into the despair of a grieving parent. What might it mean for our dialogue with Islam that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ doesn't always have to be seen to win?

When we respond to and engage with Muslims, the way we respond is important. The message of Islam is triumphalist, couched in the language of victory. Allah will suffer no rivals and, above all else, he must be honoured. Whilst it is right for Christians to speak up and respond to Islam, we are not called to shout louder nor to make sure our God is seen to win. It is not incumbent on us to make everybody honour Christ with the dignity due to him.

Whilst a time will come when every knee will bow and confess Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father (Rom 4:11), this is something God will do himself and does not require from us. When speaking with Muslim friends, perhaps we must acknowledge there is nothing rational we can say, and then should say it nonetheless (1 Cor. 1:18). "Allah may have his day, while Christians continue to meekly proclaim a nonsensical Trinitarian God, a dishonoured and crucified saviour, while we love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us... We aren't going to be able to boisterously commend a crucified God".

Allah’s day is Friday. But it is only one day, and you can’t tell on Friday who wins. Allah may be honoured by all and Christ may be in the grave, but the true God doesn't always need to appear victorious. The victor will only be known three days later. We live on that Saturday in between. We do not yet see all things subjected to Jesus. Rather we worship, proclaim and honour a crucified God, who bore our sin—and shame—in his own body on the tree. He did it to show us the inner heart of the God who suffers with us. He did it to win forgiveness for the meek and humble, and for those that hunger and thirst for a righteousness that they didn’t see in the placards of the protest march. If it is a message that is foolish, then so be it: we will be foolish. For vindication we must wait. But we wait with altered rationality, with a hidden wisdom. We wait with patience and eager expectation, for Sunday.

Clearly, such a view impacts in the most direct way on how we engage with our Muslim friends. However, this should also cause us to consider which, if any, 'protests' are truly worthwhile. Our God and saviour has already suffered the ignominy of the cross. In his humiliation, God shamed himself in the most public and terrible way. When he is derided and mocked today, what is that compared to the shame of the cross? Moreover, though he in no way appeared victorious on the Friday, it is to the resurrection that the apostles continuously point. 

Where people seek to shame our God and saviour, are they really going to do any worse than the cross? When our Lord appears to be shamed, must we defend his honour? His dignity, by his own volition, was given up in the most public way on the cross. The Lord will ultimately triumph and everyone will give the honour due to him. However, this is something he will do and for which he needs no help. Why concern ourselves protesting against trifling attempts to shame Christ when he already shamed himself in the most humiliating of ways? Our calling is not to defend God's honour, he will see to that himself, but to commend a God who so loves the world that he shamed himself to bring people into a relationship with Him.

Why should we bother with prayer?

If prayer is merely 'talking to God', what are we hoping to communicate to Him that he doesn't already know? If God has a pre-ordained plan, what are we hoping to achieve when we ask him to divert from his deterministic designs? Are we hoping to change the mind of, or communicate something unknown to, a sovereign, almighty God?

In the first instance, we should not overlook the fact that prayer is commanded in scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:17, amongst other verses, make clear that God commands us to pray to Him. So, on one level, we should bother with prayer because God commands us to pray. However, whilst this asserts why we ought to pray it doesn't explain why God wants us to pray in the first place. The real question revolves around why a sovereign God commands us to pray when he already knows our thoughts and is in control of everything.

We can glean from Daniel 4:35, Proverbs 19:21, Ephesians 1:11, et al that God is sovereign and in control of everything. Rather than causing us to ask why we should bother with prayer these verses should give us real encouragement to engage in prayer. For, if God is not sovereign, what point is there in asking him to do anything when it is likely beyond his power? It is specifically because God has the power to change events and human hearts that prayer is of any value at all. 

Nevertheless, although the sovereignty of God should cause us to see value in prayer, we are still led back to the original question. If God is in control and works everything ‘according to the counsel of his good will’, why bother bringing anything to Him when he will do as he wills anyway? What exactly are we hoping to achieve through prayer?

In 2 Corinthians 1:10-11, Paul speaks about prayer in a rather unexpected way. He appears to suggest that God's divine will is specifically fulfilled as a result of 'the prayers of many'. Thomas Aquinas picks up this theme in Summa Theologiæ and argues "we do not pray in order to change the decree of divine providence, rather we pray in order to acquire by petitionary prayer what God has determined would be obtained by our prayers". In short, when we pray it is because God, in his sovereignty, has moved us to pray. When our prayers are granted it is because God willed us to pray and, through our prayers, he willed to work.

Although God can, and will, bring about his purposes by his own strength, he has stated the way in which he wants those purposes to to be worked out. God wants to work out his purposes through the prayers of his people. Indeed, this is part of God's rich grace toward us. He can save whomever he wants, heal whomever he wants and bring about whatever events he wants without interference yet God, in his grace, actively includes us in his plan by making prayer the means by which he brings about his divine purposes. When we pray, we are actively - rather than passively or deterministically - participating in God's divine plan. God wills us to pray and, through our prayers, he is pleased to work. 

Our prayers are the means by which God works out his plans and purposes. We are active participants in God's plan when we pray. By his grace, we are included and associated in the working out of his sovereign and perfect plan - we play an active part in all that God decrees is good - when we pray.

This same truth is why we should engage in evangelism and mission. Yes, the Lord commanded us to do it; and yes, God is sovereign and can save whomever he wills without our help. However, God has determined the way he wants to draw people to himself and enlarge his kingdom. He calls us to evangelise and engage in mission because he wants to graciously include us in his plan of salvation. We are associated with the ultimate good of bringing people to a knowledge of Christ, to a position where they can glorify God and enjoy him forever, when we engage in evangelism and the Lord chooses to work through us.

When a child helps their parent bake a cake, the work may take longer and there may be more mess in the kitchen, but there can be no doubt the child most definitely helped. Though it would be easier to do it themselves, in allowing the child to help, a parent gives a sense of ownership of the task to the child and allows them to learn something otherwise unattainable. Similarly, although the Lord could do it faster and with less mess without our help, just like the child in the kitchen, he graciously allows us to be part of his perfect plan. We can lay claim to active involvement in God's plan because we, albeit in our small and clumsy way, most definitely helped. We are given an opportunity to grow in ways that would be utterly unattainable were God to enact his plan without reference to us. 

Prayer and evangelism are God's most gracious ways of actively including us in his plan and are a significant source of growth in the Christian life. Our question should not be 'why should I bother?' but rather 'why would I not?'.

Must I have a heart for particular people before I can reach them?

It is a common enough objection to engaging in evangelistic outreach - "I don't really have a heart for that" or "that's not where my heart is". So, it seems a valid question to ask whether we need a specific "heart" for particular peoples and geographical areas before we can engage in evangelism?

In short, scripture speaks against this idea of requiring a heart for the work. Notably, Jesus did not caveat the great commission so it reads "go and make disciples of all those for whom you have a heart... those you particularly like". Rather, it reads "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19, ESV)". Significantly, Jesus continues and says "teaching them [those of whom you make disciples] to observe all that I have commanded you (Mt 28:20a, ESV)", which presumably includes this bit about going into all the world and making disciples. There was certainly no sense from Jesus that the apostles had to figure out for whom they had a real heart and to focus their attentions solely on them - they were told quite directly to reach all nations.

The book of Jonah frames this issue in an alternative way. The Lord commanded this prophet to go to Nineveh and, we can safely conclude from his response, Jonah did not have a heart for these people (Jon 1:3-16). In fact, Jonah so despised the people of Nineveh that he was prepared to die rather than reach them with God's message (Jon 1:12). Having been humbled by God and eventually taken the Lord's message of judgement to this city, Jonah is apoplectic when God relents at seeing Nineveh turn from its sin (Jon 4:1-3). Far worse than not "having a heart" for these people, Jonah wanted the city of Nineveh to be destroyed. He specifically did not want to take the Lord's message to them because he knew God was gracious and would relent from disaster were the people to repent. It is interesting that God saved a whole city despite the messenger holding the people in contempt and actively hoping for their destruction. It appears God can, and will, work even when our hearts are not really in it.

So, do we need a specific "heart" for peoples and areas before we can engage in reaching them? Scripture doesn't make this a caveat for evangelism. In fact, the Bible suggests we should reach whomever we have the ability to reach. Paul was clear about where his focus lay. He says:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Therefore, where opportunities are granted to us to share the gospel the question of whether we have "a heart" for the area or people should be moot. We should all have a heart for the lost, whomever they may be, because the Lord has a heart for them (2 Pet 3:9), just as he had a heart for us when he died to save us (Rom 5:8). 

A small, yet significant, distinction

"Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison - that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak. 
Conduct yourselves wisely towards outsiders, making the best use of your time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person (Col 4:2-6, ESV)".

During a bible study last night, a small but significant distinction was drawn between evangelists' and preachers' approach to gospel proclamation, including those working specifically in such endeavours for a time, and the obligations of other Christians in sharing the gospel.


Paul, in Colossians 4:3-4, requests prayer that God would grant opportunities to proclaim the gospel and, where such openings come about, his words would be clear. He pointedly makes this request for himself and those working with him in the gospel. In verses 5 and 6, Paul states his prayer for the members at Colosse. The emphasis here changes from proactive proclamation of the gospel to responsive reaction to the questions of non-believers prompted by the differences in the lives of believers.


Evangelists and preachers are clearly called to proclaim the gospel publicly. This public proclamation can also be said to apply to those working in such endeavours for a time e.g. those on short-term mission or who run evangelistic groups (1). For those of us not called to full-time evangelism, the emphasis is on living a Christian life and responding sensitively to those who question us about it.


It is often assumed that unless we shoehorn the gospel into every available opening we have not fulfilled our evangelistic duty. For the evangelist, taking such opportunities to 'declare the mystery of Christ' is key. For other Christians, it is for us to respond wisely to the questions of unbelievers rather than unnaturally spew forth the full content of gospel simply because we are asked why we go to church. Indeed, this reflects something of how Jesus himself interacted with people - when he spoke to crowds he proclaimed the gospel, when dealing with individuals he responded to their questions and reacted in such a way as to provoke real thoughtfulness and insight.


I am certainly not suggesting that many of us have no need to share the gospel. However, it seems clear that we are not all called to proclaim the gospel in the way Paul was but rather to share the gospel through responsive reaction to the questions of unbelievers.


Notes

1. In these cases, however, the emphasis on proclamation would apply to the times when the individual is engaged in the specific evangelistic work