Summaries Now Available!

310D727a2fL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_Now available in summary form is Politics for Christians.  This is an election year and the candidates for both the Democrats and the Republican parties are less than stellar according to many.  Moreover many people while having opinions on their preferred candidates have no grid from which they clearly decide on a particular person for office.  As Christians, we divide on many things and our preferred political party is certainly one of them.  Whatever party lines believers find themselves coming under, a fundamental question needs to be answered: “what policies come closest to our worldview as ambassadors for Christ?”

Answering that question takes careful thought and humility.  It’s my hope that the summaries of this book will help the Christian in particular be salt and light as they engage to the glory of God, the political process.  Moreover, it’s my desire to see the citizens of heaven consider their temporary earthly citizenship as a means to rule and reign that honors Christ and their fellow man, rather than shaming his name.  Take up and read friends.

Summary of Chapter #4: SECULAR LIBERALISM AND THE NEUTRAL STATE (Pgs.119-143)

310D727a2fL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

In this chapter Beckwith begins pointing out that Christians who support a liberal democracy (see chapter 2) nevertheless are dismayed at the fruits of incivility, relativism, and the use of tax dollars to support abortion, SSM (same sex marriage), and public education that’s less educative and more indoctrinative in nature.

In all spheres of life people have embraced “secular liberalism” as the position to maintain and safeguard democracy while simultaneously marginalizing “religious positions” for making public policy.  There’s much confusion concerning the term “religious” but it’s assumed by far too many people such that the  cultural haze is continues to be perpetuated.

After considering the aforesaid, Beckwith delves into the meaning of secular liberalism which at its core makes the individual king when moral disputes arise in order to resolve them.  That is, the individual is ultimate never the state nor any “religious” tradition, all of which is a relativized view of the “good life”.

When it comes to the meaning of “secular” Beckwith notes that restraints on citizens can only be enforced through “non-religious” arguments or worldviews.  The problem of definition of course obtains but no one bothers with this.  They just assume everyone “knows” the meaning being employed.  In other words, “religion” brings bondage to citizens, but the “secular” non-religious bring liberty.   The state here may even pay for the poor to have an abortion, but it must never stop said procedures from obtaining lest personal liberty be hindered.

The reality here is that a relativistic presupposition is being employed in absolute terms.  It’s Secular Liberalism that’s largely responsible for advocating SSM, Abortion, etc., which is fine because the reasons used to support such acts are secular, not religious.  That’s bogus because it’s also coming from a worldview that is absolutely not neutral but “closed minded”.

Beckwith continues and points out three arguments used to advocate (SL) that doesn’t measure up to rationality and are thus self-refuting in nature.  First, is the Golden Rule argument advanced by philosopher Robert Audi which holds that we ought not to impose our religious viewpoint on those who disagree with us because we would not want that done to us.  Two problems obtain here; one is that the term “religious” is vague and second there’s always a worldview governing human affairs telling us what is and is not good.  Why is SL better than a “religious” point of view?  Beckwith then uses examples which either expose SL’s relativism or radical subjectivism [pgs123-132].

Second, there’s the Secular Argument which essentially hi-jacks reason to mean “non-religious in nature” but Beckwith rightly points out that reason has the properties of either true or false  right or wrong, not black or white, religious or non-religious.  This muddies the waters of reason and clarity  and is used to justify the issue of abortion [pgs.133-138].

Third, there’s the Err on the Side of Liberty argument which ends up being not just obtusely incoherent but also shoots itself in the foot when applied to itself [pgs.139-142].  Beckwith concludes the chapter by pointing out that secular liberalism is no more dogmatic in its stance than any “religious” view ever has been.  The irrationality here is legion and yet largely goes undetected by throngs of people.  It’s bizarre.

Summary CHAPTER 4: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AUDIENCE (Pgs. 57-70)

51O3B1fQj-LToo often when we engage people regardless of the venue, many of us forget to consider who it is we are talking to and thus mis-communication occurs.

In this chapter McGrath argues that the book of Acts and the Gospel accounts should be used as an apologetic for non-believers and skeptics seeking faith.  The reason is because unlike Paul’s letters which are primarily addressed to the believing community (his audience) not skeptical seekers, Acts and the Gospels are.

In the book of Acts, McGrath points out three different apologetic approaches that are audience sensitive thus making the gospel presentation more impacting.  First, before his Jewish audience, Peter’s apologetic appeals to the Old Testament for his proclamation. He explained the fact of Christ’s life, death and resurrection and interpreted its meaning, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth is the long awaited Messiah.  Peter appealed to the authority for monotheistic Jews—Torah, and grounded his message in it (Acts 2-4).

Second, before his Athenian audience, Paul’s apologetic appeals to common ground on Mars Hill.  Here, Paul explains the nature of who the “unknown God” is, by appealing to creation, their poets and finally Christ’s resurrection.  Had Paul appealed first to the Scriptures, it would not have been effective (he probably wouldn’t have gotten an audience) because Torah was not authoritative to the Athenians, but their philosophers were (Acts 17).

Third, before the Roman Court, Paul’s apologetic appeals to legal terminology and reasoning.  The apostle here by using the language of the court culminates his message in Christ’s resurrection which assures God’s nearness and thus none can hide from Him (Acts 25-27).

These examples serve as a reminder to all believers that the audience does and should (generally speaking) consider the audience before a particular apologetic approach is followed.

McGrath affirms that critics and skeptics abound, thus depending on the person and the situation, our methods must change but never our message.   That’s obvious in Acts and should be in our encounters as well.  This will require loving sacrifice of our time, energy and money to get better equipped.   See pages 68-70 for general and specific examples of dealing with differing worldviews.

Fool’s Talk: CHAPTER 11: KISSING JUDASES (Pgs.209-227)

a71a75151cde6531d9f825c62f330f24

In this chapter Guinness begins by pointing out that Christendom has enemies from without and also from within.  Enemies from within the ranks are responsible for heretical doctrines and a syncretism that undermines the Faith once delivered to the saints and are unfaithful to the LORD of the Church.  These are responsible for weakening the church through their anti-intellectual bent and their abhorrence of the apologetic enterprise (pg.211).

These heretics Guinness calls revisionists who essentially imbibe the cultural climate of the day, and what’s in vogue is promoted (I.e., the culture determines truth, not Scripture).  Now, more than ever, the church needs Christian advocacy with the prophetic spirit of St. Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. who are radically Bible-centered using the best arguments available to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

It’s time for prophetic courage to say what’s not popular and declare what the culture views as passé.  Unfortunately, many Christians in the past and presently scorn apologetics for good reasons, but in so doing have thrown out the baby with the proverbial bath water.  They have unwittingly weakened the bride of Christ by deriding some members of the Body of Christ (See 1 Cor.12).

Apologetics has fallen on hard times and negatively viewed such that instead of persuading with the Gospel we are only to proclaim it, instead of defending the faith we are called to dialogue about the faith (Pgs.212-215).  Unfortunately, these divisions of duty are contrary to Scripture (Mt.28:18-20; 1 Pet.3:15; Jude 3) and rather than strengthening believers have left them vulnerable and ineffective in their being salt and light (Mt.5:13-16).

Guinness says the two major objections to apologetics are that it has first, trumped the authority of the preached word and second, that it has been used to grieve the Holy Spirit.  Where that charge obtains, it should be corrected and not be tolerated.  But let us not kid ourselves that only apologetics is guilty here.  I contend that unlike apologetics; inept preaching, unbiblical leadership, finite power struggles among believers, petty rivalries and more, have often stripped the church from coming under the Scriptures authority and has grieved the Holy Spirit perhaps more than apologetics.[i]

The sad reality is that through abandoning the apologetic enterprise the church has been left weak a defenseless: it’s weak because it does not understand the power of the Gospel and it’s defenseless because it does not know how to fight darkness with arguments wedded to prayer.  Said defenselessness has permitted the revisionist’s (I.e., the heretics within the church) to denude Christianity from its historic roots and Scriptural authority.

This denuding has come in the guise of liberal theology that’s not challenged but assumed to be true.  Assumptions like; what’s new is good and true, but what’s old and traditional is false and bad, what is left of the traditional is adapted to bend to the spirit of the age and is assimilated in the syncretism of culture such that the Christendom which remains is a shadow of the reality (pgs.222-226).

Revisionists betray the LORD of the Church and weaken His Bride not with a kiss, but through a pen, as they twist the meaning of Scripture and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness, not only to their own destruction but also to those who hear them.  This is serious business, not a joke.  Thus the apologist must speak to the maladies outside the church but also combat those within her ranks.

[i] I say perhaps more but actually more is closer to reality.  Too many professing Christians I’ve observed are lazy and don’t read the Scriptures much less in context, making them less inclined to seriously make disciples and to engage the spiritual warfare we are in with arguments (2 Cor:4:3-4; 2 Cor.10:1-5) and prayer (Eph.6) which was Jesus’ and Paul’s practice.

Fool’s Talk: CHAPTER 10: BEWARE THE BOOMERANG (Pgs.187-208)

  • 510E27T-g7L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_Guinness begins this chapter by affirming that Christianity’s Achilles heel is hypocrisy and when believers fight among themselves it is a sure signpost that this fracture obtains.  Hypocrisy among believers (I.e., charge of Christians not loving one another) is one of the main reasons for why people don’t come to faith and coupled with a worldly church, leaves the Christian advocate in a difficult place.

Guinness admits that everyone is a hypocrite because self-deception and truth suppression is committed by all which means that for the charge of hypocrisy to be real, objective truth must be presupposed.  This is problematic for Post-moderns because the very notion of objective truth is alien to their worldview.

Hypocrisy ends up violating; truth, justice and honesty, because in one way or another, the position of a proponent is merely spoken, rather than lived out.  That is, a person can “talk the talk, but fails to walk the walk”.  When this kind of disconnect, from word to deed occurs, a loss of credibility follows and results in many people not having an ear to hear the Gospel, and thus calling believers hypocrites.

[It’s important however to point out that most, if not all non-believers, don’t understand the Christian struggle Paul reveals in Romans 7 with sin.  To struggle with sin is one thing, to pretend not to, is another.  And that is perhaps where I think Guinness could have been clearer.  Nevertheless nonbelievers do understand that hypocrisy is bad which points to the reality of objective truth.]

This notion of objective truth is revealed through the social benefits of hypocrisy according to Guinness.   While admitting that hypocrisy is bad and immoral, he says that it can offer some benefits to society for it:

falsely (models) virtue—there’s actually a good to imitate, it may affect others to practice what they preach—there’s actually moral consistency at which to aim, it may stir everyone to self-examination—there’s actually a corporate understanding of this malady, it points to the inner value of life and not just outward image—there’s actually more to us than mere physical properties.

When it comes to the confession of hypocrisy, Guinness admits that it’s the road to freedom and truth rather than bondage and deception.  Moreover, our confessions’ motive should be God’s approval, not peoples, and lastly if truth does not exist, the charge of hypocrisy can’t coherently be leveled.

Fool’s Talk: CHAPTER 9: THE ART OF ALWAYS BEING RIGHT? (Pgs.169-185)

fools talk

This chapter confronts a real problem in many apologetic encounters and reminds me of difficult encounters with family and friends I’ve experienced where they always had to be right, at all costs.  I’m certain we all struggle with this to one degree or another but it’s contra the spirit of 1 Peter that commands believers to humility rather than pride in human interaction and Christian advocacy (1 Pet.3:15).

Guinness points out that in the early Christian century’s the great church orators understood the dangers of using words as power and thus balanced persuasion with grace and truth (E.g., Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, etc.).  He highlights that truth and persuasion should not be pitted against each other as the Greek Sophists often did by twisting words for their own gain regardless if its truth or falsity.  The goal was to win the argument at all costs—even at the expense of the truth.

This lead to a dilemma in debate: to be a failure or a fraud.  The former’s focus on truth and not persuasion often lead to defeat, while the latter’s focus on persuasion often lead to lies twisting the truth.  One was a failure, the other a fraud.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Guinness then writes the principles (virtues) some Greeks and Romans kept in mind when engaging debate so that the truth would not be distorted.  First, it was kept in mind that truth and virtue are more powerful than falsehood and vice.  Second, that the speaker must be one of character and virtue.  And third, that the speaker should always address the public good and not just his own interests.[i]  This is a good starting point, but for Christian advocates there’s more.

Christian’s as Christ’s ambassadors in their debating or apologetics must be God-centered not man-centered so as to guard against the “Sophist” spirit. This is accomplished by keeping in mind the effects of “The Fall” (I.e., people both suppress the truth and seek it), the Master’s manner of communication (E.g., human strength subverted by God’s weakness), and God’s truth requires God’s art to serve God’s end (I.e., His ways are not ours too often).

Guinness continues by warning believers if their manner of speech is rightly criticized, humility, not pride must obtain.  That is, if one is wrong, they must admit it, not cover it up which is far more attractive than the opposite.

Guinness then turns to the issue of persuasion which incorporates not only logic and argumentation but also drama and humor, for the latter disarms and invites the hearer to discover the truth in a way the former can’t.

He finally deals with the charge that persuasion while an art, seems to be manipulation in disguise and thus spends several pages answering that indictment.  Guinness finally concludes that the art of always being right is a trap for Christian advocates, and the art of persuasion is a privilege that needs to be exercised with humility and God’s grace.

 

Fool’s Talk: CHAPTER 8: SPRING LOADED DYNAMICS (Pgs.149-167)

fools talk

In this chapter, Guinness asks the question of how one chooses the proper worldview in the midst of Atheism, Hinduism and Christianity.  Everyone has a worldview and when one is exposed to another worldview it often forever changes the way they perceive their own worldview.

Add to this the issue of pluralization where the choices offered seem to be unending, and we find ourselves in an era where the propensity to change our worldview or paradigm is real.

Guinness explains that apologetically it’s crucial to know this for it points to what kind of unbelief (unbelief is always a rejection of God) we are dealing with, and it points to what kind of arguments we should employ.  When people are closed minded this is especially helpful knowledge.

Reaching the Closed-Minded Person  

Consider the account of the prophet Nathan exposing King David’s adultery and murder.  Instead of confronting the king with the facts, the prophet used a fictitious story to appeal to David as judge and lawgiver of Israel.  The end of that account reveals an infuriated David unwittingly condemning himself when Nathan says, “You are the man”, followed by heart break repentance and cries for forgiveness.  That’s powerful!  Lesson—keep the audience in mind in order to connect with them.

Another way to reach a closed-minded person is to keep the goal of the encounter clear.  That is, depending on their disposition, we must proceed with the truth in such a way that it will meet their need.  Some people don’t need a bunch of arguments to believe (E.g., the Philippian jailor) but others may (E.g., Doubting Thomas).  Regardless, we eventually want to get to the truth of the gospel if possible.

Sometimes there will be the need to reframe the truth properly when God is misrepresented and thus rejected on false premises.  Our duty is to clarify who God is and explain what entails rejecting Him.  After this is done, if one still rejects God, then at least the real has been snubbed, not a phantom caricature (E.g., the disciples on the road to Emmaus [Pgs.166-7]).

Still another way to pry open the closed mind is to ask questions.  When we learn to ask questions properly, we are help people live the examined life, perhaps see the way of their errors and thus enable them to pursue the truth.  Guinness reminds us that questions have the power to engage people because they are indirect and involving.  The greatest questioner in history was not Socrates, but God seen in Genesis 3 and blossomed in the life of Christ.

Yet another way to open the closed minded is through the use of parables, drama and ploys.  For example the Rechabites were used by Jeremiah the prophet to explain Israel’s disobedience through Jeremiah asking the Rechabites to drink wine with him.  He knew they didn’t drink (modern day equivalent to fundamentalists) because they obeyed the word of a man, but Israel refused to obey the word of the LORD God.

Postscript: Guinness ends the chapter by pointing out that in this age words suffer from inattention and inflation. When we speak people are not listening, and when words are used they distort reality so as to sell one’s product to a consumer.  As people of the word, who worship the WORD, words ought to matter to us.  Thus instead of championing technological marvels, Christians should grow deeper in their theology.  This is one way to combat the misuse of words—the suppressing of truth in unrighteousness.

Fools Talk: CHAPTER 7: TRIGGERING THE SIGNALS (Pgs.131-147)

510E27T-g7L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Guinness sucked me in with riptide force by the people referenced, their historical milieu and their life experiences which created a “cognitive dissonance” forcing them to reconsider their view of reality—worldview.

Issues like death, suffering, evil, justice, truth, and joy are often the necessary “triggers” that awaken people to rethink their dearly held worldview presuppositions and as a result, it leads them to Christian conversion.  Two of the many examples Guinness considers are W.H. Auden and C.S. Lewis, both former atheists who converted to Christianity.

Consider W.H. Auden, one of the 20th century’s most influential English speaking poets, whose worldview was jolted by the gruesome reality of Nazi Germany and their death camps.  Previously, he thought people were generally good, God was a crutch, and there were no moral absolutes.  However, Auden now faced a two-fold conundrum: first, how could he make sense of the undeniable evil he encountered, and second, how could he justify rightly condemning Hitler for the evils perpetrated if there are no moral absolutes?  These “pebbles” in Auden’s soul caused him to raise this question to his friends and later to a reporter:

“The English intellectuals who now cry to Heaven against the evil incarnated in Hitler have no Heaven to cry to.” And, “Unless someone is ready to take a relativist view that all morals are a matter of personal taste, one could hardly avoid asking the question: If, as I am convinced, the Nazis are wrong and we are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs? ” (Pg.133)

Auden’s desire for justice in the face of egregious evil could not be realized if relativism was true.  He concluded that the only way to combat such evil was to renew “faith in the absolute”.  Here Guinness explains that although Auden had not yet converted to Christianity, these “signals of transcendence” propelled him to leave his atheism and to become a seeker.  His life experience and the horrors of the holocaust jarred him into reality like no argument could.

Guinness goes on to explain that such jarring experiences act as “signals of transcendence” that cause us to transcend our present awareness to think more deeply, broadly and honestly.  He notes:

The signals message is a double one: it acts as a contradiction and a desire. It acts as a contradiction in that it punctures the adequacy of what we once believed.  It arouses in us a desire or longing for a new answer that is surer, richer and more adequate than whatever it was we believed before—which has patently failed ” (Pg.134)

These signals are pointing to an end that is hopefully more satisfactory then the present state of affairs.  Auden, the former atheist turned into a seeker because existentially his worldview could not satisfy his desire for justice, truth and moral knowledge.

Death is the horn-blast that something’s wrong!  The signal (I.e. the horn-blast) however is not the end but the means through which an answer can be had; it does not conclusively determine the destination.  When the signal is confused for the goal, the search for meaning stops and some commit suicide— seeing no point to life.

Guinness goes on to consider the issue of desire and longing in light of the truth.  Depending on the religious persuasion, desire and longing can be viewed either negatively (Buddhist and Stoic position) or positively (Jewish and Christian tradition).  Negatively viewed, desire needs to be transcended and escaped, positively considered the object of desire determines whether it is negative or positive.

For example, the reason we have desire according to Plato is because we are incomplete essentially because we’ve been “cut-in half” and we long for our other half.   Again, in the Classical Greek and Roman paradigm there’s four major passions: desire, fear, joy and grief.  Desire is yearning for that which we don’t possess; fear is the aversion to the undesirable; joy is the possession of what we desire, and grief is undergoing what we fear.

However, in the Judeo-Christian perspective desire is positive or negative depending on the object desired.  There’s no need to deny, escape, or transcend desire itself (I.e., Buddhism & the Stoics).  However, when it’s directed ultimately toward the creature instead of the Creator, something called “The Fall” occurred (Genesis 3).  As a result of God not seen as our highest good, it’s not that we’ve been cut-in-half (I.e., Plato) but we’ve been cut-off from God, ourselves, each other, and nature itself.  Guinness says,

“So now we live east of Eden…We are all prodigals now, and we are all in a far country.  Yet however far away we go there is always a longing for home that will not go away” (Pg.136-7)

 We are aware that something is missing and there must be something more.  Apologetically, we must prick the soul in its desire factory for “something more/better” secondly, we must appeal to what we know is wrong “fear grief”.  That is, we must point to the desire for joy and the fear of grief, these immaterial drives that trigger a hunger for the transcendent, as evidence for an object that can satisfy such longings, even though some would suppress that truth of God in unrighteousness.

Guinness contends that a strategy to combat such suppression is to use an existential presuppositional approach which presses people to the logic of their own assumptions and shows them that their faith (whatever it may be other than in the Creator) is neither true nor adequate.  In other words, what they profess to be “true” can’t be lived and this realization leaves them thinking, maybe even perturbed.  This happened to Auden, it can happen to our loved ones.

Consider C.S. Lewis, a former atheist and 20th century Christian apologist who was captivated by joy as retold in his biography.  He recalls that this joy was aroused by a flowering currant bush which brought back childhood memories with his brother.  Lewis describes joy not as pleasure or happiness which is conditioned by circumstances or the senses, but as something other worldly.  That is, if this joy could be possessed it was not attainable in this life, but how he knew it was indeterminable.  Regardless, to possess such joy would be incomparable to any experienced pleasure (E.g., The Pearl of Great Price parable).

Here was a signal of transcendence not the attainment of faith, says Guinness, although for Lewis that was its end.  Although joy raised questions it supplied no answers (pg.144).  Among Guinness’ many points, the one made here is that sometimes nonbelievers come to faith as a result of the horrors or joys of life that contradict their present worldview.  This causes a person to search through transcendent signals that point to a reality of life’s true meaning.  Sometimes this pursuit ends in conversions, sometimes in suicide.

Fools Talk: CHAPTER 6: TURNING THE TABLES_DO YOU REALLY WANT TO KILL YOURSELF? (Pgs.107-129)

510E27T-g7L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

In this chapter Guinness gives some very helpful insights into what people say as opposed to what they believe.  That is, some thoughts can be articulated, but some thoughts can’t be lived out because we live in God’s world and are created in His image.

Guinness recalls a G.K. Chesterton account in “Manalive” where a pessimist philosopher waxes eloquent from the comfort of his chair and glass of port to a student that’s trying to make sense of life—to live or commit suicide from this “horrible world” was the student’s dilemma.  The logical responses given by this professor’s philosophical pessimism however turned when he found himself staring down the barrel of this student’s gun on the ledge of a window.

The professor’s horrified eyes revealed that he’d rather live than die and thus resolved the student’s suicidal dilemma.  The point is that what we believe surfaces when reality is about to pull the trigger.  This is table turning which has several facets worthy of note.

First, in order to reach those whose minds and hearts are closed off to the gospel, we must appropriately use apologetics and evangelism.  While these two are distinct, they are nevertheless inseparable (E.g., like the head is inseparable from the neck).  Guinness laments modern day apologetics when he says:

The isolation of apologetics from evangelism is the curse of much modern apologetics, and why it can become sterile and deadening intellectualism.  Whenever apologetics is needed, it should precede evangelism, but while apologetics is distinct from evangelism, it must always lead directly to it.  The work of apologetics is only finished when the door to the gospel has been opened and the good news of the gospel can be proclaimed.” (Pg.110-111)

Thus, in our defense and proclamation we need to scratch where people itch. 

Second, in order to reach people that are contented and contending, we must find the inconsistencies of their worldviews and point them out.  That is relativize the relativist, be skeptical of the skeptics skepticism.  Too often, the relativist and skeptic think that everyone but they are immune to being questioned, but it “just ‘ain’t so”.

Third, in order to reach people that are sitting on the spiritual fence, we must with prophetic subversion apply their own criterion to their objection and mirror it onto them God in Romans 1 gives up those opposed to Him to their own desires.  We must challenge people to choose between God and any other treasure because the day of reckoning awaits us all.  Moreover, we must remember that the consequences of words need to be considered in light of reality—can one live what they say?

Fourth, in order to reach those closed to the gospel sometimes requires no argument at all. The centerpiece of approaching these kinds of people often requires our focus to be on their treasure (I.e., their children) in order to come to faith (Pg.122).  Sometimes life itself, not just logic, forces people to reconsider what they believe and how they are living because of who/what they treasure.

Fifth, questions that raise other questions by using another’s authorities rather than our own are powerful ways of peaking interest.  That is, we must know the prophets’ people listen to, understand and be familiar with their big ideas so that we may be able to turn the tables on their unbelief.

Sixth, we must remember that people live in God’s world.  That is, they are created in His image and are constantly bumping up to His reality, thus their claims will have a mixture of truth and falsehood.  When these are discovered ultimately it will lead them to the dangers of their position because the Day of Judgment is forthcoming and their decisions have an end result.

Fool’s Talk: CHAPTER 2: TECHNIQUE—THE DEVIL’S BAIT (Pgs. 29-46)

510E27T-g7L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

On the fridge in our home is a little magnet that shows a flock of sheep meandering down a country road.  Underneath is a caption: “Rush hour Ireland”.  It reminds me of a Spanish professor visiting the west of Ireland where the sense of time used to be the slowest of all.  Interviewing an old gentlemen he observed sitting for hours outside a pub, he asked him if the Irish had an equivalent for eh Spanish word mañana.  The old Irishman thought for a long while, and then answered, “No, we don’t have any word as urgent as that.”

A Kenyan once said, “Westerners have watches, Africans have time” (pg.29) which is a succinct description of the way we in America tend to live our lives.  Our clocks form the way we live, McDonalds the way we market ideas, but time is not on our side and fast food is often neither fast nor good.  Thus, we trade quality for quantity, use clocks to measure efficiency and all the while never seem to have enough of either efficiency or time.

Good thinking however, requires thought, meditation, disjunctive reasoning and time which are not measured.  When it comes to Christian persuasion, Guinness reminds us that it takes more than arguments to capture a persons’ soul.   

First, Christian persuasion deals with a persons’ heart not just their “head.”  We are complex creatures and as such our “web” of beliefs are not one dimensional, but rather multifaceted.

Second, Christian persuasion is not a science, but an art [I would say it’s both or else Os would not be instructing us with knowledge], there’s creativity, nuance, timing, etc. to the craft.

Third, Christian persuasion is person relative and as such, it’s rarely the same.  No “cookie-cutter” approaches here.  No two people are alike, thus it’s critical in conversation to listen rather than “waiting to speak”.

Fourth, Christian persuasion because it’s person relative requires different approaches to attain.  What works for a scientist might not work for a carpenter.

Fifth, Christian persuasion has no sure-fire way to commend the faith.  This means that sometimes regardless of our arguments, skill and tactics, some people won’t be reached.

Sixth, Christian persuasion is organic not mechanical.  It often flows naturally in conversation and by how we live.  The old adage, “Your actions speak so loudly, I can’t hear what you are saying” is so true.  If our walk does not match our talk we lose “social capital” in persuasion.

Seventh, Christian persuasion uses techniques but is not overwhelmed by them.  Well used techniques can often help remove obstacles for a clear hearing of the Gospel message and that is a good thing.  But when it consumes our focus, we have lost focus.

Eighth, Christian persuasion welcomes honesty and at times silence.  These two factors in human communication can have tremendous force in getting at the truth.  In the West we tend to applaud honesty but abhor silence because it threatens our sense of “control” our sense of “stability” when neither obtain.

Ninth, Christian persuasion is sourced and grounded in the Cross of Christ not sophistry.  The temptation to want to “out-sophisticate” our opponents with arguments without ever bringing in the meaning of the Cross must be avoided because believers are called to make disciples of the nations, not theists.

Tenth, Christian persuasion makes much of God and humbles man.  The Gospel indeed crushes human pride for Christ alone is the answer to our sinful plight.  We bring nothing to the table but a broken and shattered life which needs to be mended in order to flourish.  The only physician fit for such a task is the Great Physician Christ Jesus.

Eleventh, Christian persuasion uses both books but ultimately submits to God’s incarnate word.  Both General revelation (the knowledge of God through nature) and Particular revelation (the redemptive knowledge of God through Christ in Scripture) are the means used to communicate the Gospel.  But the Particular revelation of God through Christ is ultimate and must be our last word since it is God’s last word (Heb.1:1-3).

Twelfth, Christian persuasion aims for repentance which leads to real conversion.  A prayer does not save a person, Christ does.  Consistent with the preaching of the apostles in Acts, the hearers of the Gospel must be confronted with Christ’s demand to repent and believe in the resurrected Lord who bids us all  to come and lay down our lives for the cause of the kingdom and ultimately the King.

Thirteenth, Christian persuasion must be enveloped by love which grounds the previous points.  This love is costly but gives life to those who receive the message.  “The one who does not love”, the apostle John wrote, “does not know God for God is love”