As Dr. Sanford demonstrates, taken together, all of this evidence indicates that every man and woman on earth today is a direct descendant of one man—“Y Chromosome Adam”—and one woman—“Mitochondrial Eve”—who were created in a state of genetic perfection, less than ten thousand years ago, just as God revealed in the sacred history of Genesis.

Part I
(LifeSiteNews) — A recent article in the journal Scientific American by Allison Hopper entitled “Denial of Evolution is a Form of ‘White Supremacy’,” managed to pack an enormous amount of scientific, historical and theological misinformation into a brief attempt to convince her readers that an acceptance of the “science” of human evolution would destroy the traditional Christian reading of Genesis which, she alleges, is and has been used to promote “white supremacy” for hundreds of years. In this series of articles, we will show that the pseudo-scientific molecules-to-man evolutionary hypothesis has actually been used and continues to be used to justify racism and to destroy faith in the only firm foundation for a culture of universal brotherhood: The Catholic doctrine of creation and the traditional Catholic reading of the sacred history of Genesis.
Genesis and the Myth of White Supremacy
Hopper begins her article by alleging that the Mosaic account of the creation of Adam and Eve and history of their descendants Cain and Abel has long been used to justify “white supremacy.” Without citing any evidence from the Bible or from Church Tradition, Hopper claims that Genesis has led Christians to believe that Adam and Eve were white-skinned and that “dark skin” was a consequence of the curse that befell Cain after murdering his brother. According to Hopper, recognition of the “fact” that the first humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees in Africa would redound to the glory of dark-skinned people in Africa and throughout the world and help to dissolve the myth of “white supremacy” that the Christian reading of Genesis has promoted for so many centuries.
It is a sad testimony to the extent to which contemporary western intellectuals receive indoctrination rather than education that a contributor to Scientific American was allowed to publish libels against the Mosaic account in Genesis without any serious “fact-checking” by her editors. Where, we would like to know, do the Scriptures or the Fathers of the Church, tell us that Adam and Eve were “white-skinned”? Where does the Bible or the Tradition of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church teach that Cain acquired dark skin as a consequence of murdering his brother Abel?
These falsehoods may have been bandied about by some anti-Catholic members of the KKK, but they have no basis in the Word of God as understood in God’s Church from the beginning. The mere fact that a writer for Scientific American would publish this libel, with the full permission of the journal’s editors, shows that the first prejudice that all of them need to overcome is the myth of molecule-to-man evolution’s “supremacy” over the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation as a coherent account of the origins of man and the universe that fosters universal brotherhood.
Genetics, Paleoanthropology and the End of the Evolutionary Hypothesis
In recent decades several excellent books have been written refuting the alleged evidence for human evolution. In a short article like this, we can only summarize the most important evidence against the hypothesis of human evolution and refer our readers to the sources of that evidence.
Read More

If the Christian church is to have any hope of reversing this decline in biblical beliefs, it must make solid biblical theology a central focus of its preaching. Biblical theology is not something that can be absorbed via osmosis – it must be taught, intentionally and incrementally. 

A newly released American study draws attention to a “striking decline” in traditional biblical beliefs among those who claim to be evangelicals. The study by Probe Ministries discovered that 60% of those claiming to be ‘born again’ Christians in America, aged between 18 and 39, believe that Buddha and Muhammad are equally valid paths to salvation. Furthermore, 30% say that Jesus was not perfect and probably sinned.
Similar erosion of traditional beliefs was also noted in regard to morality. Only 16% of evangelicals surveyed indicated a belief in the objective, absolute nature of biblical morals.
What is particularly disturbing about these latest findings is the decline that is apparent when the current results are compared to an identical study conducted by the same organisation ten years earlier. When their 2010 study is compared to this latest study, a marked decline can be seen across all major aspects of traditional evangelical beliefs and values.
For example, belief in the accuracy and inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ and the perfect nature of God fell from 47% in 2010 to 25% in 2020 – and this is among supposed born again Christians. Similarly, adherence to traditional Christian moral standards fell from 32% in 2010 to a mere 16% in 2020.
The authors of the study stated,
“This result is a startling degradation in worldview beliefs of born-again Christians over just 10 years.”
What implication does this have for churches?
Significantly, it means that ministers and preachers can no longer assume that the people attending services and listening to their sermons have a biblical worldview. The fundamental biblical beliefs that once defined evangelical Christianity are no longer a ‘given’ among those attending evangelical churches. When a preacher stands to teach from God’s Word, he or she must now contend with a mish-mash of conflicting worldviews among the congregation and a ‘take it or leave it’ approach to biblical theology.
What has led to this dramatic decline in traditional Christian beliefs and values in such a short period of time? There are several factors that are at play here.
Firstly, the decline in fundamental Christian beliefs has occurred hand-in-hand with the decline in solid theological teaching from the pulpit during the same period of time. The typical sermon over the last few decades has shifted away from the exposition of meaty biblical theology to a more ‘me-focussed’ pop gospel that centres around finding one’s fulfilment and living a successful life.
Read More

We can see ourselves in the Israelites, who are inspired by David’s victory to join in the fight and plunder (1 Sam. 17:52–53). Not only are we meant to be recipients of the great substitutionary work of the man “in between,” we are also meant to join in his fight.

With apologies to Malcolm Gladwell, the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 is not intended to offer a lesson in how underdogs can defeat heavily favored opponents. Nor can we find corporate-leadership strategies or advice for tackling life’s giants ranging from debt to weight problems to addiction. Nor is the lesson “use the armor that’s authentic to you.”
So how then is the story of David and Goliath relevant?
A more useful approach is to ask what God is up to in Scripture as a whole, beginning in 1 Samuel. When we read this story in its canonical context, we can begin to see how it connects to Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ to us.
Seeing Jesus: David, Goliath, and the Bible’s Big Story
In 1 Samuel, God is transitioning his people from rule by chieftains to rule by kings, and raising up a monarch with whom he will make an eternal covenant (2 Sam. 7). Because that covenant line spills over outside of 1 Samuel, our interpretation should probably follow suit. And it turns out there are a number of clues in the text that invite a whole-Bible, Christ-centered interpretation.
By mercilessly waging war against the people of God, Goliath and the Philistines have aligned themselves against the Creator and his purposes. But in Genesis 3:15, God had promised that the great enemy of his people would be brought to heel. God puts enmity between the woman and the serpent, between her offspring and his offspring. He promises that her offspring will crush the tempter’s head even though his heel is bruised. Goliath becomes a part of the serpent’s warfare against God’s purposes and people, and thus it is fitting that he dies from a head wound (1 Sam. 17:49, 51; cf. Gen. 3:15). (The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are obsessed with head wounds. Even those who escape beheadings get their hair or beard caught on their way to their demise.)
Another Genesis 3 hint is Goliath’s armor. The NASB and NET Bible translations reflect the Hebrew well: Goliath has “scale armor” (i.e., chain mail). In the Philistine context this recalls Dagon, their “merman” god who is half fish, half man. But a biblical reader with a modest imagination can see a link to the serpent of Genesis 3.
Finally, Goliath is known as a “champion”—the common rendering of what is more literally “the man of the space between [two armies].” He is a substitute, the “man of the space between” who battles on behalf of his people. He does what they cannot or should not do. And that’s also what David does: he stands between his people and their enemies and strikes the decisive blow.
Read More

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Friday, September 10, 2021
Being overwhelmed by a vision of a great God at the center of all things is ultimately the only antidote to confusing the needs of ourselves as creatures with the meaning of life. While the pathologies of our culture—from materialism to sexual confusion—each have their own distinctives, the solution is ultimately the same: a vision of God that makes every problem, challenge, or question seem like a passing momentary affliction compared to the eternal weight of glory that is to come.

There can be little doubt that we live in an age where the individual is sovereign. Whether it is commercials selling products on the basis of how they will make us feel or parents suing schools for refusing to allow their children to attend class dressed in any way they choose, ours is a world where individual rights and demands carry a peculiar weight. And the result is that our institutions, particularly our voluntary institutions, are more like boutiques competing for customers in the marketplace of self-fulfillment. Colleges sell themselves on the basis of allowing students to find themselves and reach their potential. And churches promote their programs as sources of personal happiness and well-being. Religious and irreligious, we are all expressive individuals now, seeing the purpose of life as feeling good and anything that hinders that as being evil.
The question of how to counter this and to recapture the New Testament’s vision of the Church as a body of believers who find their identity not in themselves but in love of God and of each other is a pressing but difficult one, made more so by the fact that our problem is in part the result of something we all consider good. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing. Who wants to live under a regime where simply gathering together in the Lord’s name might merit prosecution, incarceration, or even death? It is good to worship without fear of reprisals.
Yet, when there is religious freedom, there is religious choice; and where there is religious choice, congregants are always in danger of tilting towards being customers, and churches towards being spiritual boutiques, presenting themselves as the answer to particular needs or desires. Add to that mix a normative notion of selfhood that places the individual and his or her needs—”felt” needs, to use the modern phrase—at the center of life, and the stage is set for precisely the kind of religion we have today.
A Vision of God in His Glory
If the problems of consumerist Christianity are so deeply entwined with the pathologies of the wider culture, from its cult of the independent self to its imperious belief that personal happiness is the great criterion of truth, then it is easy to despair. How, as Christians, do we break from this seductive cage in which we find ourselves and in which too often we enjoy being confined? And how do we persuade the rising generation that Christianity is not simply one possible option available for finding happiness and satisfaction in this life but rather is the very meaning of life itself?
I would like to suggest that one vital part of the answer is to be found in that most difficult and yet glorious of Christian teachings, the doctrine of God, particularly the doctrine of God as he is in himself. If patriotism leads individuals to see themselves (and if necessary, sacrifice themselves) in light of a larger, greater reality, that of the nation, so Christians stand or fall by whether they see the God they worship as truly greater than themselves. A God who is simply man writ large is no more worthy of devotion, and no more captivating to the imagination, than a sports hero or a movie star. Only as our imaginations are taken captive by a vision of God in his glory will we see any change in the wider malaise of modernity which afflicts our religious institutions.
I have some personal grounds for believing this can be done. Each year I teach an undergraduate course on the doctrine of God, and each year I am delightfully surprised by the effect it has on many students.
Read More

If elders and ministers are to rule the church in the name and with the authority of Christ, treating their fellow sheep as divine image-bearers, then it should be perfectly clear that their primary job is to ensure that God’s word is properly preached, that God’s sacraments are properly administered, and that in everything they seek the blessing and power of God through prayer. When elders and ministers are focusing upon these things, disciples will be made, and God’s people will grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Mars Hill/Mark Driscoll debacle is well known. Many have listened to Christianity Today’s excellent podcast series, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. The fall of Mars Hill is but another incident in a long series of scandals plaguing American evangelicalism. Why do such things happen over and over again?
My response . . . A bad or non-existent ecclesiology. Throughout contemporary American Christianity there is little if any regard paid to the biblical model of church government (Presbyterian/Reformed), which is rule by a plurality of elders, approved by the congregation, whose role is, in part, to keep watch upon the life and doctrine of the pastor and their fellow elders.
I wonder if there was ever a moment in the early days of these entrepreneurial churches when the founding members asked themselves, “how did the church in the New Testament govern itself?” Probably not, or else the subject was quickly dismissed as an appeal to mere tradition, something too cumbersome or unnecessarily inefficient. Start-up church groups like this often view its charismatic leader as taking on (even if indirectly) the role of an apostle. He leads, they follow, so there’s no real discussion of church governance. No one sees the need.
The leader appears to have a direct link to God, which allows the group members (better—“followers”) to let the leader unquestionably assume the role of arbiter of the group’s doctrine, the gifted one who determines the group’s mission and “casts its vision,” as well as the primary decision maker should there be differences of opinion. Without a biblical ecclesiology in place, the visionary leader is able to get his way through manipulation and guilt, and if necessary, will remove any and all who oppose him. Yet nobody blinks. In the end, the once loyal followers are left embittered and wonder, “how did God let this happen?” Many leave the church. We have seen this story play out over and over again, often in the media.
As the Mars Hill series demonstrates, Mark Driscoll did indeed appoint “elders,” (who really didn’t function as biblical elders) but then fired them whenever it suited him. Many of these Driscoll appointed elders were sincere and godly men, committed to an exciting new vision for a church effectively reaching the largely un-churched Seattle area. They didn’t sign up for what they got in the end. The wide-eyed energy of youth often comes without the experience, wisdom, and battle-scars that older men and established churches possess. After what they went though at Mars Hill, they now have the wisdom and scars of grizzled veterans, and Lord willing, without the cynicism such an ordeal often produces.
While listening to the series, a comparison to life in Stalin’s politburo came to mind—the continual purges of anyone who crossed or disappointed him, or who no longer had value in achieving Driscoll’s vision. No, Driscoll did not send people to their death or the Gulag. Rather, I’m referring to what political philosopher Hannah Arendt described as the fate of many opponents of a totalitarian regime, they become “non-people.” Not only is their dignity stolen (in the prison or the Gulag), but what happens to them (their loss of humanity and purpose) serves as a frightening example to others of what happens if you do not wholly embrace the leader’s agenda. The cruelty recounted by Mars Hill survivors of continual removal, shaming, and bullying of worship leaders, fellow pastors now seen as rivals, and the removal of hand picked-elders who decided they could no longer tow Driscoll’s line or further his own personal aims, reflects a level of authoritarian abuse much like the politburo. His narcissism should have kept Driscoll out of the pastoral office from the get-go. But narcissists are quick to size people up. They are skilled manipulators. Not long after one of these followers first entertains the thought of being unwilling to go along with his agenda, Driscoll was on to them, and callously pushed them off his stage as a “non-person.” And the purges kept coming. No one would stand in his way.
For some time it looked as though Driscoll humbly sought the wise council of noted church leaders. But those highly respected evangelical and Reformed leaders whom Mark Driscoll brought to Mars Hill, ended up being unwittingly used by Driscoll to give him respectability, along with an open door to the Reformed-evangelical publishing and conference circuit. It looked as though the young buck was genuine in his willingness to follow the better path of church government explained to him. But only as long as it suited him. His subsequent actions demonstrate he never learned (if he even listened). Public perception of credibility through rubbing elbows with respected evangelicals is what mattered.
In rejecting a biblical ecclesiology, Driscoll was free to “make it up as he went along”—until his sheep and co-laborers had nothing left to offer him. Then he went too far, abused too many, and he was out, for a time. Several years of self-imposed exile later, he was able to swing a move to Scottsdale, Arizona, and start all over again, this time with a revised vision (Calvinism was now out) and he found a new group of followers who were all-too willing to ignore his well-known track record. Caveat emptor.
Read More

We must not ignore the Old Testament and think it unimportant. Moses and Elijah, and the rest of the Old Testament, are the background for Jesus. If we want to understand Jesus better, we need to know the Old Testament. It is there we read of creation and sin, of sacrifice, of covenant promises, of God’s presence, and so much more.

The Old Testament is rich and full of useful things for Christians to think about. We see how God relates to his people, his faithfulness to the promises, and instructions about how to live. All of that is true. Yet there is a real danger that we don’t see the Old Testament in the right light. The transfiguration of Jesus helps us to avoid a few fundamental mistakes that it is easy to make.
In the transfiguration, Jesus was transformed with his face and clothes glowing. And while he was in this transformed state, Moses and Elijah appeared beside him.
(As an aside, this raises all kinds of issues for us. How did the disciples know they were Moses and Elijah? Were there nametags or subtitles or something? Were they really there or some kind of vision? This is one of those passages we wish we had more detail in, but we are told what we need to know.)
Why Moses and Elijah? Well, together they symbolise the Old Testament. Jesus often referred to the Old Testament as the Law and the Prophets (as in Matt 5:17, 7:12). Moses wrote the Law, the first five books of the Old Testament. Elijah didn’t write any books, but he is the greatest of the prophets in the Former Prophets. So these two men represent the Old Testament.
Read More

As the country gears up for another possible series of lockdowns in response to the delta variant, it is worthwhile for parents on the fence about Christian education to give it a second look. The data is unmistakable: In a panicked, trying year, Christian school parents and their children fared far better than their public school counterparts.

Among last year’s other lessons, none may be more important than this: Our taxpayer-funded education establishment cares more about adults than children.
Consider the evidence: public school union bosses pressured officials to close schools and keep them shuttered beyond what medical authorities recommended. In spite of the obvious harm to children of school closures, unions throughout the country lobbed threats and issued demands. In Chicago, the union went so far as to sue the Mayor to keep schools closed; in San Francisco, the city had to sue its school board.

A public education system that failed to do right by our children has kept union bosses empowered and politicians cowed. Thankfully, our country offers an alternative—one that proved its mettle this past year. In a recent survey of public school and Christian school parents, the Herzog Foundation found that parents of children who attended a Christian school were vastly more satisfied with their school experience.

Christian parents reported their schools were open even as nearby public options closed. While only 8 percent of public school parents could report that their schools never closed, a quarter of Christian school parents did.

Read More

There is a time coming very soon that any Christian not willing to lie about gender, and not willing to perpetuate this lie against transgender individuals, is going to be fired for their stand. That’s both a shame and an opportunity. If God’s people are stuck in companies that hate God and promote homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, feminism, and more, how freeing it will be, and how much louder we will be, when we’re cut loose from these companies!

It had seemed a regular Monday morning before co-worker Steve arrived. Now his outfit had everyone buzzing: instead of his standard slacks/dress shirt combo, he’d paired black pumps with a floral print dress. In the morning staff meeting, the supervisor informed everyone that Steve was now “Sue” and we should start calling him her.
It’s a scene playing out in offices across the West, and for Christians in these companies, it can seem like our choice is between compromising on God’s Truth (Gen. 1:27) by going along with the transgender lie, or compromising on our winsomeness (Col. 4:5-6) by confronting the lie.
So what’s a Christian to do?
I think a middle road of sorts can be charted, one that doesn’t compromise on God’s Truth, but which also shows a willingness to try to get along in as far as we are able. It involves using a person’s chosen new name, while avoiding any use of pronouns for them. So, in the case of Steve/Sue, even as it is odd to call him by a girlish name, we all know names that have gone from being boys’ names to girls’ names and vice versa. It doesn’t need to be our place to designate a name too girlish for a boy to have it. We can show our willingness to get along by agreeing to call our coworker by his new name of Sue.
But if that were all we were to do, that approach might lead to confusion about where God stands on the issue of gender. If we, as Christians, call transgender folk by names that align with their adopted, but not actual, gender, then we would be sowing the seeds of confusion if that was all we were to do. The reason we can go along with using “Sue” is because we’re doing so as part of a package treatment: we’ll explain that we will also be trying to avoid any mention of Sue’s pronouns. It is one thing to call a man by what would be an odd first name for a man, but it is something else to call a him her.
Though it might not be perceived as such, we would explain that this is us doing our best to get along. Sue would see any use of male pronouns for him as offensive. We would understand it to be a denial of God’s revealed truth about gender to use female pronouns for him. Therefore to minimize offense, and yet not lie, we will agree to speak of “Sue” and “Sue’s presentation” and how “Sue did a good job.” It’ll be “Sue this” and “Sue that” but never she or her.
It would be good to make this clear at the start, rather than have it be discovered by coworkers wondering why we seem to be using Sue’s name to excess. Getting ahead of it makes sure that our Christian witness is clear.
Will that satisfy our employers? Perhaps. But whether it does or does not, it shows our willingness to do what we can. In extending ourselves as far as we can go, we speak the Truth as winsomely as it is in our power to so speak it. This approach may or may not please Man, but it does glorify God.
1. Words Have Power
A strange form of encouragement for this approach can be found in the words of those we oppose.
In a recent position statement proposing “chestfeeding” as a possible alternative to “breastfeeding,” the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM) began by stating, “We affirm that language has power.” They want to adopt “chestfeeding” to be sensitive to new mothers who don’t identify as being women and who, therefore, might not like to be reminded of their breasts, as those are exclusively female body parts. Language has power, so the ABM’s fix for a woman who doesn’t want to be a woman is to stop reminding her that she is a woman.
Now, as people of the Book, and followers of the Word made Flesh, we agree that “language has power.” Where we differ with the ABM is on how that power should be used.
Read More

The First and Second confessions and the Catechism originating from Particular Baptist authors and churches, themselves share common ground, for they consistently teach the same system of theology. Though expressions are different in each, there is fundamental agreement between them. Together they present a summary of the faith of their churches for a period of fifty years and beyond.

In 1616, Henry Jacob, a puritan minister of the Church of England forced into exile in the 1590s, returned to London to gather an independent congregation of believers. This church is often referred to as semi-separatist since Jacob maintained positive relations with many ministers serving within the established Church. Little did Mr. Jacob know that his flock would give birth to a movement that would ultimately become known as the Particular Baptists.
Just over two decades later, after Jacob had emigrated to Virginia and been followed in the ministry by John Lathrop and then Henry Jessey, stirrings in the congregation led to the formation of a new congregation, organized on the principle of believer’s baptism. By 1644, there were seven young assemblies in London, each holding a strong commitment to credobaptism within the covenantal framework of predestinarian theology.
These churches bore a superficial resemblance to the Anabaptists of the European continent, simply because they rejected paedobaptism. While there was no influence or connection with these groups from across the Channel, the misdeeds of some Anabaptist sects during the previous century raised fear and suspicion among leading politicians and theologians in London. The presence of separatist congregations formed without authority or recognition from the Church of England was a novelty, by some considered to pose danger to the status quo. Perhaps these seven congregations would repeat the past and foment rebellion or worse.
Matthew Bingham, in his book Orthodox Radicals tells the story well. The Westminster Assembly, meeting at that time to move forward the reformation of the Church of England, demanded that the leaders of these “baptistic congregational” churches provide evidence of their orthodoxy. The situation was tense and dangerous, the result being the publication of a confession of faith, released in the final quarter of 1644. From the perspective of the seven assemblies, this confession was an attempt to find and express common ground with each other (since representatives of each church openly signed the document) and also with the paedobaptist puritans in the national church. It was important to demonstrate orthodoxy in order to relieve the stress of the situation.
Notable observers, including several participants of the Westminster Assembly, examined the published confession. While they found minor faults with it, they begrudgingly acknowledged its orthodoxy, though at least one suspected that it was only an attempt to hide more nefarious doctrines and practices. In response to some of these critiques, the representatives of the new churches revised their document and released a new version in 1646. The changes reflect the original purpose—finding common ground. In many cases, words and phrases were altered directly in response to the appraisals of the paedobaptists. Even their language about baptism was softened! This First London Confession became the basis for the spread of their views around the kingdom. It was adopted by many congregations as they sprang up in different places.
The original seven London churches were outward looking, desiring to spread the good news of Christ to others in the nation. Around 1645, the church frequently identified with its long-serving pastor William Kiffen sent a man named Thomas Collier to the West Country (counties such as Devon, Wiltshire and Somerset). His task was to preach and plant churches, and he was quite successful in doing this, becoming the most prominent leader of the baptized churches in the West. In the early 1670s, Mr. Collier began to exhibit serious doctrinal deviations, and Christians in the churches he planted became deeply concerned.
Read More

God plans to rescue and redeem people from every culture: from Iran to China, from ancient Greece to ancient Rome, right down to people from the secular post-Christian West. And the beautiful thing is that rather than do it himself, which he has the power to, God chooses to work through us, despite our fears and our inadequacies. God delights in using the weak things of the world—because it’s when we realise we don’t have the ability, we’re forced to rely on him, as we’re supposed to.

Some of my favourite places to speak at are venues like coffee shops, workplaces, or universities. After one such university event, where the Christian Union had asked me to talk on “Why did Jesus have to die?” we had an amazing time of Q&A after which I felt the Spirit nudge me to end the event by leading people who wanted to in a prayer to commit their lives to Jesus. It was an incredible evening and God was very much at work. But I remember that one particular evening not for how powerfully the Lord moved, but for a conversation afterwards. As we were packing up to leave, a campus ministry leader came up us and asked: “How did you do what you did there?”
“What do you mean?”, I replied.
“You just preached the gospel very openly then prayed, very publicly, and invited people to respond to Jesus—and you did that in a university meeting room. I didn’t think evangelism like that was possible in this day and age. How did you and your colleague do that?”
That’s not the first time I’ve heard that sentiment expressed: that evangelism simply isn’t possible. That a workplace, campus, group of people, or even our culture is so secular and so post-Christian that evangelism just doesn’t work anymore.
I confess I’ve occasionally fallen into the same way of thinking myself. A few years ago I became friends with Peter, a Christian GP. And I remember being very surprised when one day he casually remarked “I love being a GP, it creates so many fantastic opportunities for evangelism”. Without thinking, I said words to the effect of “Really? I thought the health service was so secular and any expression of religious faith so frowned upon, that evangelism just isn’t possible?” Those three little words just slipped out: evangelism isn’t possible.[1]
Why did I instinctively respond with incredulity? Why was that campus minister baffled by seeing evangelism take place on campus? Why do many of us (if we are honest) worry or doubt that evangelism is really possible in “this day and age”? I think it’s because there is a massive temptation to buy into the myth that the secular UK (or the West in general) is simply too difficult ground for the gospel. But is this actually true? And if we’re in danger of thinking this, how can we overcome the Impossibility Gap?
Challenging the Myth of Impossibility
Because the Impossibility Gap is so deep rooted in many of us (we haven’t deliberately adopted it, but we’ve become quietly and subtly infected by it), I want to hit it and hit it hard—so here are six powerful pieces of counter-evidence that taken together will, I hope, form a powerful corrective.
First, however tough a context for evangelism the secular West may be, Christianity has grown (and grown rapidly) in equally tough (or even tougher) contexts in the past. For instance, look at the growth of the Church in the first century. The first century Greek and Roman world was not easy, far from it. Yes, it was very religious, but religiously pluralistic—the pagan world had little time for the idea there was one God and that every other god was a false one. Add to that the ever daily threat and problem of persecution, as the young Church was seen as an increasing threat to the authorities. Yet despite those challenges—a hostile culture and hostile rulers—the Church grew from 120 people in AD33 to 31 million by AD350; or to put it even more dramatically, from 0% to 52.9% of the Roman Empire in 300 years.[2] The early Church didn’t look at the culture and think “impossible”, they looked at it and thought “What a challenge! Let’s follow the Spirit’s lead and see what happens”.
From the past, we can also look to the present. For today, Christianity is growing like wildfire in far tougher contexts than the West. Look at China, where the Church is growing exponentially despite the best attempts of the Communist Party to stamp it out, that there are probably about 120 million Christians in China. Indeed, China is on track to become the world’s largest Christian nation by the 2030s.[3] That growth has all happened in the past few decades. Or consider Iran, where a totalitarian Islamic regime rules with the iron fist of Sharia Law and has made conversion from Islam illegal. But despite arrests and torture, the Iranian church now numbers over a million and is the fastest growing church in the world.[4] There are similar stories across the Middle East. Christians in these terrifically difficult settings could easily say “Evangelism is impossible; it can’t be done!” but they haven’t and God is at work in amazing ways. Let’s be encouraged by and learn from their courage, faith, and example.
Third, sometimes the Impossibility Gap grows because we have a tendency to romanticise our own past. We imagine that churches were full to bursting in Victorian times (and before) and we pine for the lost Golden Age of Christianity, when our country was so thoroughly Christian it was like living in heaven on earth.[5] But that is far from the reality. In Victorian times, surveys of religious attendance show a very mixed picture. For example, Horace Mann, commenting on the 1851 Religious Census remarked that ‘a sadly formidable proportion of the English people are habitual neglecters of the public ordinances of religion’.[6] One can read contemporary reports of ministers grumbling how ‘There were only a dozen people in church on Sunday, and three of them were drunk’.
A little earlier in time and Wilberforce, that famous Christian MP and reformer, was so upset by the spiritual state of the country that in 1787 he wrote in his journal that ‘God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of Manners’[7] (he meant by the latter the spiritual reformation of his country). A few decades earlier still, John Wesley was so concerned by the religious state of the UK that he threw himself into the re-evangelism of the UK, covering over 250,000 miles on on horseback and preaching over 40,000 sermons as he sought to share Jesus.
It is clear: the past was not a Christian utopia, but as tough then as it is now, yet that didn’t hold back Wesley and others from faithfully preaching the gospel. And I’m thankful that they did: it’s because of that Great Chain of Witnesses which stretches down through the centuries that you and I eventually heard the gospel ourselves.
Fourth, it’s helpful to remember that the West is highly unusual. The secularism that we see in places like the UK, Europe, and North America are a cultural blip both historically and geographical. In most parts of the world today, religion is growing—humanity is becoming more not less religious and worldwide, atheism is in decline. According to the latest research from the well-respected Pew Research Centre, by 2060 the number of people identifying as atheists or agnostics will have declined to 12% (from 16% today).[8] And those patterns are increasingly being reflected in the UK through factors like immigration. Many of the largest churches in cities like London are now immigrant churches—and there’s a beautiful sign of God’s long-term provision in the way that those immigrant churches are now helping to re-evangelise the nation that evangelised them through the missionary movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Fifth, remember that the UK and the West are not Christendom. Sometimes we can have such a myopic view of culture and history that we begin to assume that God’s plans and purposes for his Kingdom have the UK, or the US, or the West at their centre. And no wonder we then get distressed when those countries undergo seismic cultural shifts.
Read More