The Scoop on the Poem "Footprints" and Other Stuff from Around the Web
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 02:18PM 
In the fundamentalist churches of my youth, so-called "blue laws" were the norm. Since we were dispensationalists, we were taught that the law (the ten commandments) was for a different dispensation. Now, we were under the law of Christ. Of course, that meant no smoking, no consuming adult beverages, etc. While "blue laws" are often tied to American fundamentalism, seems the theological left have a few "blue laws" of their own. For starters, how about ignoring climate change? Click here: FOXNews.com - U.K. Bishop Compares Those Who Ignore Climate Change to Austrian 'Horror Dad' - International News
In the "what are Muslims mad about now?" department, two American preachers are in trouble in the UK for committing a "hate crime" by daring to enter the "no-go" area in Birmingham. Seems Muslims have set up their own "safe" areas and won't allow outsiders (i.e, Christians) in. Why are Muslims so afraid of the gospel? Click here: Police advise Christian preachers to leave Muslim area of Birmingham - Telegraph
This is ironic. Back in the day when I owned a Christian bookstore, we sold a million of these (Yes, I have repented). I'll bet every grandma and aunt in America has the poem "footprints in the sand" on something from a decoupaged wall-plaque to a coffee mug. Seems like the poem wasn't so "anonymous" after all. The son of the supposed author is suing for all royalties, because mom told him that she wrote it. The reason why there is only one set of footprints? The other person walking along the beach has been hauled off to court! Click here: Search to Divine Authorship Leads
'Footprints' to Court - washingtonpost.com
Seems we continually reach now lows in nanny-state stupidity. Now college graduates can't throw their mortar-boards in the air because "they might hurt somebody." Click here: A University has asked students not to throw their graduate hats in the air in case of injury | The Sun |HomePage|
Reader Comments (32)
Isn't what matters simply that Christ is truly proclaimed to all who can/will hear and that by the grace of God and by the Spirit those who hear may believe regardless of setting or form....
We are all certainly vulnerable to the traditions of men. But I am leery of those who presume that it is possible not to be, which I hear bleeding through your comment. Indeed, the case could be made that those who strive for not only rules but the tenacity to abide by them are the ones who want to avoid the traditions of men. In the end, those who have no regard for form become the most vulnerable in the name of purity.
The irony is when doing another project like defining the lines of orthodoxy itself those who have an essential disdain for rules and their abiding have some of the nastiest things to say about false religionists (i.e. calling Mormons cultists). Rules keep us from being at our worst. Can true Calvinism really think anything less?
Our church has two campuses (St. Thomas Ev. Lutheran Ministries). In Phoenix; 5237 W Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ 85031 & 16220 W. Van Buren, Goodyear, AZ 85338. (WELS) Please visit us at anytime. (You'll get more liturgy than you ever thought was possible!)
Hi ZRIM:
I read all of Calvin's Institutes, and a lot of other of Calvins works. In paraphrasing Calvin, Calvin said that we need to preach the Gospel to everyone that has a heartbeat throughout the world. Calvin had a heart for the lost. Calvin also said that it is none our busines trying to figure out whom the elect are -- just preach it to all.
I know that this is the same feeling that Pastor Kim or Dr. Horton have. I think that a lot of the Reformed (not Kim, or Michael) are spending too much time trying to convert other Christians to Reformed Theology, rather than gently going after the lost -- like Calvin says to do. Like Kim says, invite 'em to church, than you can give 'em your theology.
Techniques? I certainly wouldn't appeal to their felt needs. Nor would I attempt to get them to make a "decision for Christ", which is un-biblical. I would just give them the law and the Gospel. I feel no preasure to "convert" anyone, for God gives them the ability to believe. (Phil 1:29)
Hank Hanegraaff always talks about the five essentials of Christiany and almost everything else as "secondary issues or inhouse debates".
As a confessional Lutheran, we don't believe in "secondary issues or inhouse debates". It is all or nothing, as far as doctrine. If your beliefs are not in agreement with the Book of Concord, you are in heresy. Hopefully, that will give you enough "form and content".
But, the average Joe on the street doesn't give a crap about "form and content". Give 'em justification, law and the Gospel, the H.S. does the rest.
Let me put it this way.
1). Should Christians engage in evangelism?
Answer--Of course. It is commanded in Scripture.
2). Should Christians be careful about doctrine when evangelizing?
Answer--Of course. We must tell the truth about the human condition, and be perfectly clear that the only way of salvation is through Christ's redemptive work received through faith alone.
3). Is there any category in the New Testament for someone who becomes a Christian, but who is not also a member of a local church?
Answer--No, there is not. Conclusion--this means evangelism is a churchly activity in the sense that the church should oversee efforts at evangelism so that people are actually telling non-Christians the truth in love (i.e., that we not teaching false doctrine and misrepresenting biblical teaching), and so that people who do respond to the gospel are brought into the fellowship of a local church.
4). What about the Christian who (from the best of intentions) shares Christ with someone, but who makes no effort to steer them to a local church? Are they being faithful to Scripture?
Reg, I understand your concerns about the rules of men. Such rules are sinful. But the New Testament does tell us that when people become Christians, they become members of the body of Christ, and therefore, they should come under the care of pastors and elders in a particular congregation, who are to shepherd their souls. This found throughout the New Testament, and can hardly be considered "rules of men." It is not like we are making up the Presbyterian ecclesiology (elder-ruled churches) found throughout the New Testament!
5). Do Reformed people too often debate about how evangelism ought to be done, and do they complain that the evangelicals do it all wrong, and then often fail to do evangelism themselves?
Answer--Yes we do. Often times we debate evangelism like pompous know-it-alls, and never do put our own theology into practice. There's no excuse for this.
But the solution is not to just "do" evangelism for evangelism's sake, but to do it in a way which is consistent with biblical teaching.
As I understand the New Testament, evangelism should conducted under the oversight of biblical church government. While individuals should be trained and equipped to tell non-Christians the truth in love (Zrim's point about organic v. mechanical is a good one), what end does that proclamation have? The end (goal) is that such people should make a profession of faith (and be baptized, if need be) in the context of joining a local congregation!
As for method, Reformed are content to leave the "how" question up to the local church and its pastors and elders. One size does not fit all. But the mandate is clear from Scripture and from our confessions. Even the Canons of Dort tell us to be "promiscuous" in our proclamation of the gospel (CD II/5).
Yes, we need to lead people to Christ, but Christ's people form his body, the church. So, leading people to Christ is a wonderful thing. But then what happens to them? In the New Testament, they all become members of a church!
That was my point, and I think that was the context in which the discussion was occurring,
I run into a lot of people, customers and clients etc., that I only meet once for a few moments. If the opportunity presents itself, and they won't or can't come to church, but they are willing to discuss it, I will still give them the Law and the Gospel anyway!
I am in agreement with all your points.
(As a side note I have to tell you I have been reading your blog for over a year and it is one of my first stops every day when I get on the internet. Thanks for the time and effort you put into it.)
Re your point on Calvin (KR and MH), again, I couldn't agree more. THAT we are obligated to evangelism goes without saying. Moreover, THAT the gospel should be preached liberally, with zeal and confidence (read: the well-meant offer) is also undeniable.
Maybe it's my inner Lutheran finding comfort in the words of an explicit Lutheran, but great point as well about trying to convert Xians to Reformed theology. I try making that point to my fellow Calvinists to little avail, so I owe it to someone else for making that same point (!). The energy spent running around blaming others for being what they are instead of us could be better spent mining our own respective traditions and behaving accordingly.
But, while what the average Joe in the street cares about may figure into this and may not care about form and content, I am yet unconvinced that we shouldn't as well. I think your point may be that we ought not get too bogged down by some concerns at the expense of liberal and free preaching of the gospel, and that is well taken. I am loathe to flirt with anything that resembles a form of hyper-Calvinism, to be sure. I just don't think that means we should err on the side of Revivalism though.
...kidding, kidding. Who says stuffy Presbies can't joke around?
'Yes, we need to lead people to Christ, but Christ's people form his body, the church. So, leading people to Christ is a wonderful thing. But then what happens to them? In the New Testament, they all become members of a church!'
Ironically (or not) one of the problems with the conservative evangelical church in Birmingham in engaging the so called 'no go areas', is the reluctance of churches and the para churches who take the lead in the outreach to plant a church with it's accompanying marks. Please pray for that to happen ... as I have said before on this blog these areas have been long evacuated by evangelicals and may have never had a reformed church.
So I agree with you all that a major part of the problem is ecclesiology (or lack of it).
Colin
Very well stated. I am in 100% agreement with you.
Blessings!!