How to Evangelize with Humility
If we lack humility when we share the gospel, that’s a problem. A prideful attitude will affect the manner in which you share your convictions. That’s not good. Remember, though, you’re an ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), and you’re called to present the truth in a persuasive and gracious way.
If you believe someone is mistaken about an important matter, are you more likely to come across as arrogant? Do you find yourself lacking humility in those conversations?
I was recently asked what believers can do to remain humble when they engage non-believers. After all, I was told, Christians think non-believers are mistaken about Jesus. Is there a solution that will help believers evangelize with humility? Three quick thoughts come to mind.
First, the Bible commands believers to be humble.
Philippians 2:3–8 tells us, “With humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves.” The passage later tells believers to have the same attitude as Christ, who “humbled himself.” First Peter 5:5–6 commands younger men in this way: “Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” and “humble yourselves.” Scripture routinely reminds us that humility should characterize our attitude in various situations, and so it seems reasonable to think that such an attitude should carry over into other areas of our life, including evangelism.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Machen on the Church: A Reflection on Ch. 7 of Christianity and Liberalism (Part 1)
In the face of the liberal peril, what should evangelicals do? A first step is to “encourage those who are engaging in the intellectual and spiritual struggle” (146–47). The intellectual battle must consist of both articulating and defending Christianity. Against those who focus solely on the propagation aspect, Machen suspects an anti-intellectualism underlying this approach, which he decries. While granting that the proclamation of the gospel might have sufficed historically,[9] given the juncture in which the church currently finds itself, Machen opines that “the slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord” (147).
Part 1: Historical Context and Summary of Machen’s Argument
To give a brief sketch of the historical context in which Machen addressed the church, I focus on two leading proponents of the type of liberalism against which Machen battled—namely, Adolph von Harnack and Albrecht Ritschl.
Adolph von Harnack’s Husk and Kernel
In his What is Christianity?, Adolph von Harnack decried Christianity as an institutionalized religion of dogma, an institutionalization and dogmatization that had corrupted the early church as evidenced by its councils and creedal formulations.[1] In its place, he advocated a religion of the heart: the way of life that Jesus himself had taught. His method in arriving at this liberal articulation of Christianity was that of distinguishing between the “kernel” and the “husk”: the kernel being the permanent, pure essence of Christianity, and the husk being its temporal/ historical, (often) corrupted expression. As von Harnack presented the kernel, “In the combination of these ideas—God the Father, Providence, the position of men as God’s children, the infinite value of the human soul—the whole gospel is expressed” (Lecture 4).
Amalgamating these ideas, von Harnack’s liberalism consisted of three tenets.[2] First, “the kingdom of God and its coming” (Lecture 3). Specifically, “The kingdom of God comes by coming to the individual, by entering into his soul and laying hold of it. True, the kingdom of God is the rule of God; but it is the rule of the holy God in the hearts of individuals. God Himself is the kingdom. It is . . . a question of . . . God and the soul, the soul and its God” (Lecture 3). The flavor of a de-institutionalized and non-dogmatic, subjective Christianity is well pronounced.
Second, “God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul” (Lecture 4). This tenet set the stage for von Harnack’s affirmations of (1) the Fatherhood of God, a principle he affirms is true of all human beings everywhere, not just of Christians in their churches; and, flowing from it, (2) the brotherhood of all humanity, again a principle that he would not restrict to followers of Jesus Christ. Because God the Father unites to himself all human beings as his children, the infinite value of their “ennobled” soul is underscored (Lecture 4).
Third, “the higher righteousness and the commandment of love” (Lecture 4). According to von Harnack, Jesus’s constant denunciation and overturning of the Jewish religion of his day established Christianity as an ethical religion freed of “self-seeking and ritual elements” that could be reduced ultimately “to one root and to one motive—love” (Lecture 4). Such love “must completely fill the soul; it is what remains when the soul dies to itself. In this sense of love is the new life already begun. But it is always the love which serves, and only in this function does it exist and live” (Lecture 4). Accordingly, this third tenet
combines religion and morality. It is a point which must be felt; it is not easy to define. In view of the Beatitudes, it may, perhaps, best be described as humility. Jesus made love and humility one. . . . In Jesus’ view, this humility, which is the love of God of which we are capable . . . is an abiding disposition towards the good, and that out of which everything that is good springs and grows. (Lecture 4)
Christianity as a moralistic religion of humble love is emphasized.
In his summary, von Harnack offers “the three spheres which we have distinguished—the kingdom of God, God as the Father and the infinite value of the human soul, and the higher righteousness showing itself in love—coalesce; for ultimately the kingdom is nothing but the treasure which the soul possesses in the eternal and merciful God” (Lecture 5).
Albrecht Ritschl’s Lived Faith
Similar to von Harnack, in The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation,[3] Albrecht Ritschl bemoaned the traditional exposition and understanding of “the Christian faith [as] some imperfect form of theology, that is, some system of ideas of God and humanity” that is far removed from religious self-consciousness—particularly that of the original/apostolic Christian community (3)[4]—and worship of God (210–11).[5] For Ritschl, Christianity is not a doctrinal system, but a lived faith in community.
Like von Harnack’s focus on the kingdom of God as love, Ritschl emphasized “the Christian idea of the Kingdom of God, which [is] the correlate of the conception of God as love, denotes the association of mankind—an association both extensively and intensively the most comprehensive possible—through the reciprocal moral action of its members” (284). Emphasizing “the community,” Ritschl distinguished between the church and the kingdom:
The self-same subject, namely, the community drawn together by Christ, constitutes the Church in so far as its members unite in the same religious worship, and, further, create for this purpose a legal constitution; while, on the other hand, it constitutes the Kingdom of God in so far as the members of the community give themselves to the interchange of action prompted by love. (290)
By the community’s loving action comes about the revelation of the truth that God is love: “The creation of this fellowship of love among men, accordingly, is not only the end [purpose] of the world, but at the same time the completed revelation of God Himself, beyond which none other and none higher can be conceived” (291). The church, the kingdom of God, and love are interwoven as the summum bonum of existence, and this supreme good is known by the people of the community not rationally or dogmatically, but only as they relate to it.
Faith in God’s providence is an essential feature of Ritschl’s agenda:
For that unified view of the world, the ruling idea of which is that of the supramundane [spiritual, heavenly] God, Who as our Father in Christ loves us and unites us in His Kingdom for the realization of that destiny in which we see the final end [purpose] of the world, as well as the corresponding estimate of self, constitutes the realm within which come to be formed all such ideas as that all things and events in the world serve our good, because as children of God we are objects of His special care and help. (617–18)[6]
To members of the community, God promises to his providential care, which they know not theoretically but by personal experience (618).
In summary, both von Harnack and Ritschl proposed a liberal form of Christianity that (1) distanced itself from doctrine and institutionalism and re-envisioned it as living the way of Jesus; (2) conceptualized God as Father of all human beings (in the same way he is Father of Christians); (3) focused on the kingdom of God as his rule in human hearts and as related to the idea of God as love; (4) prioritized human experience over objective norms like Scripture and theology; (5) emphasized the common community or brotherhood of all human beings, whose souls are of infinite value; (6) appealed to the providence of God and his particular care for all human beings for their good; and (7) highlighted moralistic religion and the ethic of love.
This brief sketch of two leading theologians provides some of the context into which Machen stepped and directed his Christianity and Liberalism.
Machen’s Response to von Harnack and Ritschl
Specifically, in his seventh and final chapter, Machen treats the church.[7] While affirming that both Christianity and liberalism are “interested in social institutions” (133), Machen underscores the significant difference between the two religions’ notion of sociality. Reflecting the sentiments of P. T. Forsyth—“the same act which sets us in Christ sets us also in the society of Christ. . . . It puts us into a relation with all saints which we may neglect to our bane but which we cannot destroy”[8]—Machen insists, “When, according to Christian belief, lost souls are saved, the saved ones become united in . . . the brotherhood of the Christian Church” (133). For Machen, this is a far cry from “the liberal doctrine of the ‘brotherhood of man’ . . . that all men everywhere . . . are brothers” (133).
Nuancing his statement, Machen acknowledges that such a doctrine contains some truth: in the sense of creation, all human beings are creatures of the one Creator and are of the same nature. Accordingly, Christianity “can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man” (133). But Machen points to a different “Christian” notion of brotherhood: in the sense of salvation, only those who are rescued from sin by Jesus Christ constitute “the brotherhood of the redeemed” (134).
Read More
Related Posts: -
Contend and Build
If God be for us, who can be against us? We must keep the faith even when things get especially difficult. God’s people are called to trust God and not fear. Second, they prepared a guard as protection during the day and the night. Nehemiah teaches us that the wise man keeps his head on a swivel (as my old football coach used to say). Being naive is not a fruit of the Spirit.
The world that we are living in is a spiritual and physical battlefield. Most of the world knows this. Historically, most of the civilizations in the history of the world have known this. But it seems that many of us, especially in America, have forgotten this reality.
Cotton Mather, a seventeenth and eighteenth-century American Puritan, wrote that “[Christianity] begat prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother.” Christianity brought with it prosperity—the Protestant work ethic, Christian morality and laws, the inalienable rights of human beings, the virtues of justice, temperance, and courage. Matther was describing how biblical wisdom, when widely accepted by a particular people, produces an environment ripe for people to prosper.
The problem, as Mather succinctly describes it, is that when prosperity is widespread, people forget its source—the daughter devours the mother. A biblically formed people have a sinful tendency to forget God and begin to worship their comfort and prosperity. They neglect the Creator for his creation, and when that happens, their faith flounders and society collapses. We are in this precarious situation today. We have prospered. God has blessed us, yet most of our society has turned away from him. I pastor a young church in Davenport, Iowa. Most of us are making more money than we were ten years ago. We own nicer houses, drive newer cars, and can afford to go on vacation. But as the Lord prospers us, it’s easy to forget that we are in a war. Opposition can surprise us. How do you feel when a fight breaks out at a hockey game? Pretty normal, right? Okay. Now how do you feel when one breaks out on the golf course? It’d be shocking. Our world is far more like hockey than it is like golf. So many Christians don’t realize they’re playing the wrong game until a fight breaks out.
God has called Christians to build families, churches, businesses, schools, and governments on his Word because Jesus is the King of the nations. The book of Nehemiah teaches us that all of our work will be done in a war zone, with proverbial bullets flying. If building things isn’t hard enough, it’s even more difficult when people are actively set against you and doing their best to stop you by any means necessary. This is why the fourth chapter of Nehemiah is one of my favorite chapters in the whole book of Nehemiah. In this chapter, we learn some common tactics of the enemy, and we get a striking picture of how a godly leader responds to those attacks.
The Response to Mocking and Threats
The first thing we see God’s enemies do is jeer and mock those who are trying to rebuild the wall (Neh. 4:1–3). Mocking is a common tactic God’s enemies use to discourage God’s people from the work God has called them to accomplish.
Read More
Related Posts: -
“The Most High Rules the Kingdom of Men” – Daniel 4:1-18 (An Exposition of the Book of Daniel–Part Eight)
Christ’s kingdom may have a small and inauspicious beginning (twelve disciples) but it becomes far greater than any geopolitical empire (such as Nebuchadnezzar’s), as the gospel spreads to the end of the earth, through word and sacrament, in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8, “none of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus’s kingdom–which uses the same tree imagery as found in the king’s dream–truly shelters the birds and beasts (symbolic of the great expanse of this kingdom), and provides genuine rest and shelter for the people of God.
The New Situation In Babylon
In Daniel chapter 4 we are given remarkable insight into a man who has played a central role in Daniel’s prophecy–the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. In each of the previous chapters of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar exerted his royal power and authority, demonstrated his hot temper and tyrannical nature, while championing the “gods of Babylon.” We have also seen that his “gods” and his Chaldeans (the wise men and court magicians) repeatedly failed to give the king that which he demanded. The great king was even forced to seek help from one of his young Hebrew servants to interpret a troubling dream–which he will do yet again in chapter 4. YHWH has clearly won the battle with the idols of Babylon. Through all of this, it has become clear that YHWH is sovereign over all things, a fact which Nebuchadnezzar has been forced to admit repeatedly when neither his idols nor his Chaldeans could help him. This was also made clear to him in chapter 3 when Nebuchadnezzar witnessed three Hebrew officials (who were friends of Daniel) survive being thrown into a super-heated fiery furnace with the aid of a mysterious fourth man (the pre-incarnate Christ, or an angel of the Lord).
But in Daniel chapter 4 we find that everything has changed. Much time has passed and Nebuchadnezzar is a different man. Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which Daniel must interpret for him–only this dream comes much later in the king’s career, toward the end his life. In this chapter–filled with remarkable contrasts and ironies–we read of a king whose days as a cruel tyrant seem to be in the past. The king greatly enjoys the creature comforts accrued after a long career as ruler of a great empire. Daniel’s report almost makes us feel sorry for Nebuchadnezzar as the pagan king is forced to wrestle with the fact that YHWH is the sovereign Lord, who rules the affairs of men and nations, and of whom Nebuchadnezzar will affirm, “how great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.”
Another Dream – A Different Outcome
We also learn in this chapter that Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which must be interpreted by Daniel after we read again of the inability of the king’s court magicians to do so. We also learn (in vv. 28-33) that at some point during this period of his life, the great king experiences what used to be described as a “nervous breakdown.” This complete mental and emotional unraveling causes the king to flee his palace and his capital city to live among wild animals, eating grass, and becoming almost unrecognizable in appearance. Chapter 4 ends with Nebuchadnezzar regaining his sanity and affirming YHWH’s greatness, but not making a credible profession of faith.
On the one hand, this is a fascinating story as we witness such a mighty and cruel man come to the brink of faith, then instead fall into madness, only to be restored unto sanity. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar’s inner-struggles are revealed by Daniel to serve as a powerful reminder to the Jewish exiles then living under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in Babylon (those who are the initial recipients of Daniel’s prophecy), that no human king is truly sovereign over the dealings of men and nations–only YHWH is. Kings rule only as YHWH allows them. YHWH can and will protect his people, even as they suffer under a tyrant’s rule, Daniel and his three friends being the proof.
YHWH Rules Over All – Even Pagan Empires
Daniel’s message to the Jewish exiles living in Babylon is that YHWH chose to give this particular kingdom to this man at this time and place–but YHWH forces Nebuchadnezzar to realize that fact. YHWH can easily give Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to another–as we will see with the fall of Babylon to the Persians, shortly before the end of Daniel’s life. YHWH is Nebuchadnezzar’s Lord. YHWH is the one who ultimately determines the fate of the Jewish exiles. Through his prophets, YHWH has revealed to the exiles in Babylon that one day their exile will come to an end, and YHWH’s people will return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and its temple. Nebuchadnezzar cannot stay YHWH’s hand, and in this chapter we are given a glimpse into why this is the case. The great king is but a mere man, with a great many problems, fears, and weaknesses of his own.
Two Kingdoms in Contrast
As the fourth chapter of Daniel unfolds, we see the sharp contrast between Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom and Christ’s. The Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is mighty, powerful, and fearsome by human standards, yet is puny, weak, and pitiful when considered in the light of Christ’s kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and kingdom will come to an end as foretold in the vision of the metallic statue in chapter 2. Yet not all the kingdoms of this world combined can defeat the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which, conquers not with the sword, but through the gospel. Jesus Christ’s kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, which explains why earthly kingdoms and worldly power cannot contain it. This is the lesson the king is beginning to learn.
We turn our attention to Daniel 4, which recounts the 4th and final incident in the Book of Daniel from the life of Nebuchadnezzar. As is the case with Daniel 2, this passage is also a single literary unit and best covered in one sitting. But the tyranny of space and the span of attention does not allow us to do this with any degree of depth, so I will devote several posts to go through this chapter, precisely because it is so rich in historical, theological, and psychological insights. To hurry through the entire chapter in one blog post, hitting but the high points, will cause us to miss much. So, we will turn our attention to the setting and background of chapter 4 (toward the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign), then take up Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of praise to YHWH (vv. 1-3), before turning to the king’s second disturbing dream (vv. 4-18).
The theme of God’s sovereignty over all things has been made clear by Daniel from the opening verses of his prophecy which recount Daniel’s capture and forced indoctrination into the ways of the Babylonian court and its pagan religion. Daniel and his three friends actually thrived while under Babylonian control, even as they subversively resisted all attempts to convert them into pagans. In chapter 2, we saw YHWH give the king a dream which troubled Nebuchadnezzar greatly, yet which neither he nor his court magicians could interpret. Only Daniel could do so, since Daniel had been given the dream as well as its interpretation by YHWH.
Then, in chapter 3, we saw YHWH’s power in preserving Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) who refused to bow and worship the king’s golden statue. In chapter 4, God reveals his power over Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, also revealing himself to the king, so that the pagan tyrant, now mellowed with age and illness, acknowledges YHWH as “the king of heaven” in the closing verse of the chapter (v. 37). The change in this man is dramatic, but not necessarily the sign of conversion from a pagan polytheist into a worshiper of the true and living God.
Nebuchadnezzar Grows Old
The historical setting for chapter 4 is important because these events occur well after the scene in chapter 3 (which can be dated about December 594-January 593 BC). This material recounts events much closer to the end of the king’s life than previous chapters. Daniel 4 recounts a time when Nebuchadnezzar is at home in his palace, while, as he puts it, was “at ease and prospering” (v. 4). One year later (vv. 26-29), the king is stricken with a loss of sanity for a period of “seven times,” often interpreted as seven years, but which is much more likely referring to a time of completeness (symbolized by the number 7), i.e., the time it takes the king to acknowledge YHWH’s sovereignty over all things and then regain his sanity.[1]
The historical record enables us to follow Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent career after the construction and erection of the gold statue in chapter 3. We know from Babylonian sources that Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year of his rule was 594 BC. He then laid siege to Jerusalem in 589-587, finally sacking the city and destroying the temple in 587. His motivation was likely the king’s realization that the vassal king of Judah (Zedekiah), had made an alliance with other nations against Nebuchadnezzar. So, whatever acknowledgments Nebuchadnezzar made previously regarding YHWH in the first three chapters of Daniel did not prevent him from destroying YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem.[2]
Next, the king laid siege for thirteen years to the coastal city of Tyre (from 586-573), and he engaged in a battle in Egypt in 568/567 so as to crush another revolt by a vassal state subject to the Babylonian empire. We do know that Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. So, if this chapter depicts a time at least one year prior to the king’s death in 562, one possible time frame for the chapter is somewhere between 573-569, with Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt in 568/67 well enough to lead his troops, being an indication that he had regained his health and sanity.[3]
No official Babylonian records mention the king’s illness (official state records end in 594 BC–about the time the king built his statue), but there are other accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness and recovery which have come down to us in the form of tradition and legend. One Christian writer (Eusebius of Caesarea) recounts a Babylonian tradition that Nebuchadnezzar cried out from the roof of his palace that great misfortune was about to befall his people (a Persian victory). The Jewish historian Josephus cites a similar legend to the effect that the king was felled by a mysterious illness and died in his 43rd year of rule.[4] So, while not ironclad as we would like, there is some external evidence to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar did have some sort of serious mental illness late in his life.
Why does this matter to us? The tyrannical king played a significant role in Israel’s history, equivalent to that of Pharaoh’s role in the mistreatment of the Jews and then in the Passover/Exodus. The king took Daniel and other Hebrew royals into exile, is the same man who destroyed the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple, and who took most of the population of Judah into exile into Babylon in 587. Despite his success in conquest, he proved to be a mere mortal, brought to his knees by YHWH’s mighty hand, his life and his empire now heading toward their inevitable ends. Although the king was repeatedly forced to acknowledge YHWH’s power and rule as superior to his own, he was eventually pushed to despair by this knowledge.
Read More
Related Posts: