Theology and Methodology in Evangelism By Albert N. Martin

We come tonight to the assigned topic, the relationship between theology and methodology
in evangelism. I want to say a few things by way of introduction, then I'll tell you
where I intend to go in our study together, and then proceed to go as far as we can along
that road, time permitting. Now, realizing that this subject is one that is a controversial
subject in the present hour in the evangelical church, and even more controversial in the
circles where most of you men move, I am not afraid of controversy. We should never fear
debate and controversy since they have often been the handmaidens of truth. You and I are
heirs of the fruit of those mature theological reflections that have come out of intense
debate and discussion in the history of the church. Thank God that men like Athanasius
and those few who stood with him did not have this kind of spiritual cowardice or this anemic
kind of so-called love for the brethren that made him wholly averse to controversy. Thank
God for those who are willing to let blood for the sake of God's truth. Thank God for
the Luther's who face the axe and the whole imposing structure of Rome and say, my conscience
is held captive to the word of God. Here I stand, so help me God, I can do no other.
Amen. Now, brethren, if we have any sense of historical perspective, we realize that
if there is a continuum of God's purpose in history for any length of time, we have a
responsibility to our generation and to unborn generations to stand where necessary in the
circle of controversy that we might articulate aspects of God's truth that come under attack
and allow that controversy to sharpen our perspective and then to define that perspective
with greater precision, work it out in the flesh and blood of our own ministries and
under God leave a legacy for unborn generations. Now, of course, the real problem whenever
you enter the realm of controversy is that you allow the devil in your flesh to stir
up in you unchristian controversial attitudes and dispositions. From such may the Lord himself
deliver us. So as we come to the subject, all I ask from God for myself and for you
is what we've prayed together that God would give us, that spirit of childlike teachableness
that is prepared to receive the word with readiness, but then to examine the scriptures
daily to see whether these things be so. Hence, we come tonight then to this very sensitive
subject, the relationship of theology. I think it's been announced in your subject as the
relationship of reformed theology to methodology in evangelism. The first thing I want to do
is to underscore what I'm calling the foundational assumption of this paper. I'm coming at this
subject from a very well-defined presuppositional position, and I want to describe what that
presupposition or foundational assumption is. Having done so, I want in the second place
to state a general principle, illustrate it in specific ways, and then if time permits,
I want to demonstrate the application of that general principle in the ministry of St. Paul,
and then really, if you're still awake and I'm still standing and have any voice left,
I will then seek to conclude with five questions by which we may evaluate the consistency of
our theology and our methodology in the realm of evangelism. All right, first of all then,
the foundational assumption of this paper, and this is a paper, it's not a sermon, it's
not a lecture, it'll have a little bit of everything from soup to nuts in it, so I'll
cover the whole thing with a blanket term, a paper, and I'll be sticking quite closely
to my notes. Turn, please, to 2 Timothy chapter 3, and may we come to the passage in such
a way that the familiarity does not hinder us from receiving with freshness something
of its tremendously comprehensive statements concerning the subject before us. Paul has
described to Timothy the function which the Holy Scriptures had in his life from the time
he was a child. These scriptures which have made him wise unto salvation, 2 Timothy 3.15,
from a child or a babe, thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee
wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired
of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which
is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto
every good work. Now, can you think back to this afternoon when we looked at those four
and then we added to it that fifth that was the focus of our study, great responsibilities
of Timothy as a minister. He was to ground the people of God in sound doctrine. He was
to instruct them in holy living. He was to lead them into proper church order. He was
also to secure the perpetuity of the teaching ministry by committing things to faithful
men. He was to do the work of an evangelist. Now, for all of those tasks, Paul says to
him now, Timothy, the very scriptures by which you were made wise unto salvation are sufficient
to thoroughly furnish you unto every good work. The scriptures are sufficient rule not
only of faith but also of life, also of practice. I love the way it's stated in chapter one
of the confession, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own
glory, and certainly you wouldn't put evangelism as outside the sphere of things necessary
for God's glory. Man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down in scripture
or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture unto which nothing,
and I like these next three words, at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations
of the spirit or traditions of men, and those traditions need not be 1,500 years old like
some of those of Rome. They can be 50 years old. Evangelical traditions, barnacles that
have attached themselves to the hull of the ship of evangelicalism as she sails through
the sea of history. She can fail to scrape them off. And he says, no, no, nothing is
to be added, and there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, government
of the church, common to human actions in societies which are to be ordered by the light
of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules which are always to be
observed. I say it is confessionally proper to take the position as well as exegetically
sound to state that any approach to the subject of methodology that does not start exegetically
is doomed to come under the indictment of God. There is this constant bifurcation between
theology and methodology in the minds of people, and you hear people say you go to the book
for your message, and you, as it were, go to the current moods and patterns of thought
and what works for your method. I remember talking one time with a very, very important
evangelical leader, and we were discussing the subject of message and method in evangelism.
Every time we tried to discuss it, he would look at me and say, now, my brother, what
we have works. If you have something that works, better use it. I won't bother you,
you don't bother me. And I kept saying to this man, I said, sir, we're not discussing
what works. My concern is will you please sit down with me, someone else arranged the
meeting, and will you discuss with me from the scriptures the content and the method
of evangelism in which you're engaged. And all he would keep saying is, what we have
works, leave us alone, we leave you alone. Finally, I said to the man who arranged the
meeting, I said, I'm sorry, we have no common basis of discussion. Discussion is fruitless,
he's a pragmatist, I'm a biblicist, we'll have to part ways. Now, that was a rather
unusual manifestation of this principle, but nonetheless, it is one that is cursing us
in our day, a refusal to approach the subject from an exegetical standpoint. Well, my foundational
assumption in this paper and in this whole discussion tonight, and I hope it is yours,
is the absolute sufficiency as well as the perspicuity of the word of God. Now, the biggest
hindrance to this, of course, is not only, the big hindrance is not only that of pragmatism,
but that, as I mentioned, of traditionalism. It was the problem in our Lord's day. He made
void the word of God by your tradition. How well I can remember when I was in, I don't
like to use the term evangelistic ministry because it conjures up all kinds of images,
so I usually throw a curve at people and I say I was in the itinerant ministry and they
say, what do you mean by that? Then I can tell them what I meant, and then I put my
own meaning on the word. Well, during that time, I was wrestling through this whole subject
of methodology and having no children and no pastoral responsibility, just preaching
every night, week after week, and spending the days in study and in prayer. I can remember
when I first began to scour the New Testament with this question in mind, what is the apostolic
message and what was the apostolic method in evangelism? For I reasoned this way, if
I can't play games with God, then if I'm to ask his blessing upon what I'm saying and
doing, I must know that what I'm saying and doing has his authorization. I can't come
up with my little schemes and then ask God to stick his imprimatur on them, much like
the person at the local swimming pool puts his stamp on the back of your hand to say,
you've paid your fifty cents for the day, now go have fun. You can't deal with God that
way. So when I began to wrestle through this, one after another, certain methodology as
well as certain aspects of content began to drop out of my ministry, and then I began
to get flack from the pastors where I'd be preaching. Why aren't you doing this? Well,
let me be explicit. I remember meetings when it was obvious that the Lord was present.
Sometimes people were visibly moved by the word, and then I would urge them to seek the
Lord, and I'd say to them things like this, if you have questions and you need more light,
I'll stay up till midnight to give you light. But if the issues are clear and you need to
close with Christ, go to God through the high priest whom he's appointed. I'm not a priest.
I'll pray for you. I'll pray with you. But I had no magical power, and I would seek to
shut people up to the Lord. And then we'd come and say, how come you didn't call people
to the front tonight? How come you didn't? And I'd say, brother, God's been dealing with
me, and I'm beginning to question whether or not I have biblical grounds. Ah, but you've
got to strike the iron while it's hot. I says, that's good if I were a blacksmith, but I'm
not a blacksmith. Ah, but brother, the Lord is hot. I'd say, sir, I'm young, and at the
time I was really young. I was in my early 20s, and I'd say there's a lot I don't know,
but I know one thing when I stand before God to give account of the stewardship of my ministry,
he's going to say to me, my child, what did you do with what I gave you in my book? And
sir, I've been studying the book in this area. Will you please show me from the scriptures
either precept or precedent for this particular method? Well, brother, I'd say, sir, from
the book. Well, you know, we must. I said, sir, from the word. I wasn't being smart,
Alec. I hope I probably would say it a little more viciously now than I did then. I can't
look at myself accurately in retrospect. None of us can, but you see, this was the
great issue. Do we really believe that the scriptures are what the confession says, embodiment
of all that is necessary for faith and life and practice? Well, if so, then we're going
to come to it in that way. And then the second underlying assumption is that the Westminster
standards are the most accurate human statement of that system of doctrine found in the word
of God. Now, of course, as a Baptist, I'm committed to the firstborn of the Westminster
confession of faith, the London confession of 1689. And though I'm not attached to the
mother, I'm glad and unembarrassed to say I am attached confessionally to the firstborn
of that great mother of all subsequent confessions. All right. As we proceed, then I will be making
reference to the scriptures and to the Westminster standard. So much for the underlying assumption.
Now, the general principle I wish to state and then illustrate along several lines is
this. Our methodology in evangelism is simply an extension into life and practice of our
true theology. Let me give it to you again. Our methodology in evangelism is simply an
extension into life and practice of our true theology. In other words, the views a man
has of God, of sin, of grace, of the method of grace, of Pauling, all of these things
are the things that will affect his methodology in the work of evangelism. Let me state that
general principle from a few historical examples, and then I'll try to apply it to some specific
areas and illustrate. When your theology of the sacraments put saving merit in them,
then your methodology of evangelism will be that of the Catholic missionaries who would,
as it were, go into an area and get as many people as soon as possible under their wet
fingers. And that was evangelism. Why? Saving merit was in the water applied properly and
by the proper medium. And if that is your theology, your methodology in evangelism will
come up with what we might call sacramental evangelism. When your theology of the autonomy
of the human will is that of the Pelagian fini, and what an eye-opener I got. I read
through every word of Fini's so-called lectures in systematic theology. Back when I was really
in the woods trying to find my way out, I plowed through everything I could get my hands
on the fini. And when I came to his treatment of Romans 5, I said, whatever I end up of,
I can end up that. If I've got to treat a passage the way he's treating that passage,
that must be it. Well, then I began to understand Fini's revival lectures. I had read his revival
lectures and reread many sections as an early Christian. Then when I read Fini's theology
and saw that here was downright Pelagianism, not even semi-Pelagianism of an evangelical
Arminian, outright Pelagianism, every man his own Adam. Well, it's no wonder then that
he came up with his method of the anxious seat, where he'd say, if you're anxious about
your soul, gather at this place in the church. And then when you read his directives to the
anxious, basically reducing it to common 20th century idiomatic speech, it's this, by the
power of autonomous will, by one great big act of the will, surrender to God, that becomes
the new birth. And when you study the theology of fini, this is the conclusion you come to.
Well, it's obvious that his methodology was simply an extension into life and practice
of his theology. Another illustration, when you have a theology which has a view of man
that says that multitudes are ready to receive Christ if he's only rightly presented, then
you come up with a slick sales pitch that presents a very simple Christ in a very simple
way. I quote now from one of the leading evangelical leaders in my day, these are quotes taken
right from an official magazine, quote, men are hungry for God, quote, millions are hungry
to know God, not because the word has come and brought them to some knowledge of the
true God and of their true state as sinners. No, no, there is this some kind of a nebulous
existential hunger for God. Now, it doesn't say men are spiritually hungry and don't know
that that hunger is because of their alienation from God. No, no, the statement is they're
hungry and all they need is somebody to come along and present Jesus in a very attractive
garb and they'll run after him. Well, I'm not surprised then that a man who has that
theology of the nature of man comes up with a slick kind of sales promotion technique
to bring men to embrace his so-called Christ for whom their hearts are already hungry and
long. Well, these are examples from the past and from the present that I trust in some
measure demonstrate the validity of my statement of this principle. Your methodology in evangelism
is an extension into life and practice of your true theology. Now, let's break it down
into some biblical application and illustration. A or one, if our theology declares that the
glory of God is the goal of all the works of God in creation, in providence, and in
grace, then our evangelistic methods must reflect this. Now, I hope there's no one here
who would debate with me on the premise. I think I'm in good reformed tradition when
I state our theology declares that the glory of God is the goal of all the works of God
in creation, providence, and grace. Romans 11, 36, for of him and through him and unto
him are all things to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Well, if that's true, now
do you see how it affects our methodology? Let me give some illustrations. God cannot
be glorified where he is not known. Therefore, our method in evangelism will be one in which
we're concerned that God shall be known by sinners. So what does Paul do when he goes
to Mars Hill? He says, you people don't know God. That's why you don't glorify him. That's
why you're found dishonoring, worshiping these stupid idols. So he says, when I passed
by and saw this inscription to the unknown God, he said, I want to tell you about the
true God. And so he begins to speak to these people about who? The God who made heaven
and earth, who dwells not in temples made with men's hands as though he needed anything.
And all of the basic ingredients of a vigorous biblical theism are declared in an evangelistic
context. These Athenians had overheard Paul in the synagogue and in the marketplace reasoning
with the Jews and the proselytes concerning Jesus and the resurrection. And they said,
come, tell us some more of this thing. And Paul as much as says no. Before we get to
Jesus and the resurrection, there must be a declaration of some basic theistic perspective
so that when I say Jesus is sent from the father, Jesus died, the reconcilist to God,
you know the starting point so that everything else has reference to that. I say his methodology
in evangelizing the Athenians was a reflection of the theology, that the glory of God in
the works of creation, providence, and grace was the gold of all things, and God cannot
be glorified where he's not known. Therefore, evangelism is concerned with making God known
to men. Look at our Lord with the woman at the well. He says to her, ye worship ye know
not what. Salvation is of the Jews. And in evangelizing a harlot, Jesus gives some of
the most profound statements on what the theologians would call the essence and nature
of God. He did that in evangelism, not a lecture in systematics. He says, woman, God is spirit.
They who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. He proclaims the nature and
the character of God in the context of evangelism. Why? Because the theology may say it reverently
of our Lord was one in which the glory of his God was the supreme end and that God could
not be glorified where he was not known. God is glorified when all his counsel is declared
to men. Therefore, in our evangelism, we will have what J. I. Packer calls not the minimizing
mentality but the maximizing mentality. Paul, the missionary evangelist, says, I shrank
not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. Acts 20 and verse 26. Why? Because
he knew that God was glorified in every facet of truth that was there in his counsel. Therefore,
he said, I want to hold up the whole diamond of God's redeemed mind and turn it until every
facet glowed and sparkled that God might be glorified. God is glorified when his purpose
in salvation is realized. And what is that purpose? To deliver people from the guilt
and the practice, the defilement of sin, whom he did foreknow he did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his son. Well, you see, if that's real to me, that the end
for which God saves a sinner is his glory, that glory secured by the sinner being brought
into conformity to the Lord Jesus, then my methods in evangelism will take account of
that. And I won't hamster off Jesus to get people fireproofed. I will seek to be an instrument
of God through which they are laid hold of by God's effectual call, brought out of the
bondage and dominion of sin, initially sanctified in that radical cleavage with sin, and then
set on the way of progressive sanctification and biblical holiness, until one day they
are resplendent in reflecting the very likeness of the Son of God. You see, my methods will
reflect an intelligent fervent desire for that goal to be realized, and I'll never be
content until I actually see sinners brought out of the bondage of sin into the way of
holiness and being made into the likeness of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the glory of
God is the dominant passion in my evangelism, and God is glorified not when sinners stick
a pardon in their pocket and go back to the hog pens, but when sinners kiss the harlots
and the hog pens goodbye and set their faces to the celestial city and begin to press on
to know him at any cost. Well, you see, those are the positive illustrations of the principle,
but it has some negative implications, and this is what gets you in trouble, the negative.
But we must say it. If the glory of God in our theology is the goal of all the works
of God in creation, providence, and grace, we will therefore resist all means and methods
which make man's good the chief end in evangelism. We're not indifferent to man's good. No, no,
I didn't say that. But when we make man's good the chief end, you know what we'll do?
We'll begin to pare down the offensive elements of the message to make it more palatable to
man. We'll begin to cut corners on biblical methods to come up with some more slick methods
of our own. But we'll resist all such methods which do this. That's the negative implication.
Let's move into a second line of application. First was the glory of God, if that's the
dominant confession of our theology, it will be shown in our methodology. Secondly, if
you have a theology in which the Word of God, authoritatively preached, is the primary means
ordained of God for the calling out of His elect, your methods will reflect it. Let me
give it to you again. If you have a theology, and we dealt with the exegetical materials
this afternoon, if you have a theology in which the Word of God, authoritatively preached,
is the primary means ordained of God for the calling out of His elect, your methods will
reflect this. Has God ordained, 1 Corinthians 1 21, by the foolishness of the thing preached
to save them that believe? Has God ordained that by the sent ones men should call upon
the name of the Lord and be saved? If so, then our methodology will reflect this. This
means you will not be sympathetic to any method in which dialogue with no reference to fixed
canons of biblical authority is considered evangelism. And I've chosen my words carefully.
Is it legitimate to evangelize by dialogue? Of course it is. Dialogue is just a transliteration
of one of the very words used of Paul in Acts 17. He dialogued what the Scripture says from
the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Jesus was the Christ. This idea we're just
going to get together and rap a little bit, and that's evangelism. That's not evangelism.
That's just rapping. That's just rapping. Well, you see, if you're convinced in your
true heart theology God is ordained by the proclamation of that word, you'll have nothing
to do with dialogue that is not rooted to a fixed canon of authority, namely the Word
of God. Now I'm going to even cut a little closer to home. You'll have nothing to do
with quasi-Christian music being a means of evangelism, this whole craze for music evangelism
because some half-converted rock star or some guy who could never make it in the theatrical
world or in the secular world, but the Christian public is silly enough to make a big gospel
folk hero because he comes along twanging his guitar with a little flavor of Jesus and
God and the Bible in it. Everybody says, isn't it wonderful that we're capturing this means
for the gospel? Now this is not a critique of whether or not there's a place for twanging
guitars and tapping your feet in certain situations. None of them. But I'm saying when this is
looked upon as a means of evangelizing, I say no. My theology of evangelism states that
it is the verbal proclamation of the fixed message of God. He's ordained by the foolishness
of the thing preached. I'm not going into the issue as whether there is a pre-evangelism
and all the rest. I'm not going into that. I'm simply saying we'll be very, very reluctant
to call this evangelism. Also, we'll be very reluctant to call testimony and experience
sharing evangelism. So some six foot five, 280 pound tackle on such and such a team got
converted. Now he's a big hero in the church. What makes him a hero? The fact that he's
six foot eight, 235 or 85 pounds? That doesn't cut any mustard with God. Where do you find
in the Bible that a man whose reputation was gained in the world would carry that over
so that he gained stature in the church? Where do you find that in the Bible? I don't find
that. I find just the opposite. God takes the weak, the things that are despised, the
things that are not, to put to naught the things that are mighty, that no flesh should
glory in his presence. Isn't your heart stirred when you see people manipulated like this
and made big evangelical heroes because they had a name in the world? There's no biblical
grounds for it. There's only one thing that warrants any man to come before the attention
of the Christian public as a Christian minister. That's that he gained stature by a consistent
godly life and proves himself to be a trusted guide in the preaching of the word of God.
They didn't make a hero out of Paul. God let him go back to his hometown, give his testimony,
slip down to Jerusalem to show him what he'd done, and then he stuck him out in the wilderness
for at least three years. And then he puts him down in the church with a bunch of other
teachers so he's just one of five. And now God says, maybe you're ready to do a job for
me. And the Holy Ghost says, separate Paul and Barnabas from the work one to I've called.
We'd have had a rally the day after he was saved and got his sight back. Four days later
it had to be. And parade him all around the form of this, this, this, this, this, this,
this. No, no, no. God's ways are not our ways. If our theology is such that we see this principle,
our methods are going to reflect it. If this is your theology, you'll be concerned that
you don't set up this unscriptural antithesis we touched on it this afternoon between lay
and clerical witness. You'll see the beauty of the fusion of these two things as at Pentecost.
120 are in the upper room. The Holy Ghost descends upon them. They all are speaking
the mighty works of God. God uses the corporate witness to attract attention and to gather
the crowd. Then Peter stands up and preaches in the power of the spirit. And here you have
the fusion of lay and clerical witness, bringing about the increase of the church of Jesus
Christ. Third area in which we'll see a theological principle in its application. If you have
a theology in which the truth applied to the understanding is the means of begetting divine
life, your methods will reflect it. Having been born again, 1 Peter 1 23, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. James
1 18, of his own will begat he us by the word of his truth. Well, you see, if my theology
says it is the truth applied to the understanding by the spirit, that is the means of begetting
divine life, or if you don't like the term means, and I'm aware of the theological debate
in this whole area, I'm not ignorant of that thing, but I'm using it in a loose non-technical
sense. If you believe that, then your methods are going to reflect it. The first thing there
must be is the opening of the eyes. Acts 26 18, look at it for a moment. This text has
been a great help to me in seeking to hammer out this matter of the theology and methodology
of evangelism. Acts chapter 26 and verse 18. Paul is giving a record of his commission,
and here's what his Lord told him. We could back up to verse 16. Rise, stand upon thy
feet, for to this end have I appeared unto thee to appoint thee a minister and a witness,
both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear
to thee. Great text on the fact that there is nothing static in the preacher's own knowledge
of God and the truth. He bears witness to what has been revealed and shall yet be revealed,
delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to do what?
To open their eyes. There must be that work of illumination that they may turn from darkness
to light, from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and
inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me. Now if that's my theology,
that the truth applies to the understanding by the Spirit as the means of a man being
brought into saving relationship, then all my methods will major on what is the content
of that which is going forth as gospel. I won't start with saying, is this method successful?
Are its propagators sincere? The first question I'll ask is this. Is it 16 ounces to the pound
biblical truth that is being proclaimed as gospel? That'll be my first question. My first
question, is the content pure gospel? My next question will be, is the method calculated
to disencumber the free access of the truth to the mind and to the conscience, or is the
method calculated to sew way down the truth with other things that it never quite reaches
the understanding and the conscience? We've got to ask those questions. Does this method
address people as thinking creatures? Let's trace out a fourth area. If we have a theology
of man's spiritual impotence to do any saving good, this will be reflected in your methodology.
This will be reflected in your methodology. If you believe Romans 8.7, the carnal mind
is enmity against God, it is not something to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.
If you have a theology of man's spiritual impotence to do any saving good as expressed
in John 6.44, no man can come to me, a word of ability, except the Father which has sent
me draw him. That's going to reflect in your methods. If you have a theology that says
the new birth is necessary that a man savingly perceive the kingdom of God, that he might
enter it, John 3.3 and 3.5. If you have a theology that says 1 Corinthians 2.14, the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, why? Because they are foolishness
unto him, neither can he know them. Word of ability. Because they are spiritually discerned,
I say this is going to be reflected in your methodology. How? Let me give some specifics.
You will spend much more time in prayer pleading with God for the supernatural operations necessary
to receive the truth than you will spend in clever planning looking for ways to be successful.
To manipulate men into a surface response to the truth. See the contrast? You will spend
much more time pleading with God to give that necessary assistance that men may embrace
the truth than you'll spend scheming and planning for clever ways to manipulate men into a surface
response to the truth. You'll spend more energy than in proclamation, than in promotion,
and you refuse to do anything to give the impression that the human will is autonomous.
You'll dare to tell men that they must repent, and in due course and time you'll dare to
tell them they cannot repent. And Jesus did it almost all in one breath. In fact, sometimes
he did it in one sentence. All that the Father giveth me shall come. Clear implication, if
the Father hasn't given, he won't come. But him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise
cast out. Then he goes on later, a few verses later, to say what? No man can come to me,
except the Father which has sent me draw him. I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
obviously, these things from the wise and the prudent, and reveal them unto babes. Even
so, Father, it seemed good in thy sight. No man knoweth the Father save the Son, no man
knoweth the Son save the Father, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.
And what are the next words? Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and
I will give you rest. You see, the idea that the despair of the recognition of human ill-ability
is a bad thing is totally unsound. You see, there is an element of despair in every acting
of true saving faith. There's an element of despair. Isn't it beautifully illustrated
in some of those commendations of great faith in the Gospels? You remember that time when
blind Bartimaeus was sitting by the roadside, and he hears an unusual stirring of sound
as a blind man whose senses of hearing and of touch are keenly augmented? You've met
blind people, and I'm sure you've been aware of this. And he knew that something different
was going on for that time of day in that particular place where he sat begging, and
so he finds someone, reaches out, sir, sir, what is it? Didn't you hear the prophet Jesus
of Nazareth is coming to town? Oh, Jesus of Nazareth, the one that, you mean the one
that told me he opens eyes, opens deaf ears, raises the dead, that's the one. He listens
very keenly, and he hears the trump, trump, trump, and feels the tremor of the multitude
coming until he gauges that the Lord Jesus has just offered us him, and the scripture
says he cried out, Son of David, have mercy on me. And the people say, shut up, you've
got no time for you. He not even bothered with blind beggars. The scripture says this
man did what? He cried the louder, saying, Son of David, have mercy on me. And some of
the most beautiful words in scripture follow, what are they? And Jesus stood still. That's
what arrested the Son of God, not the cry of a man who said, Son of David, have mercy.
If you don't, I'll fix my eyes up some other time. No, no. It was a cry of desperation.
The Son of God is passing by, and the key to sight is in his pocket, not mine. And only
if he's pleased to take that key out and unlock my eyes will I ever see, Son of David, have
mercy, a cry of desperation. The Son of God says to him, what will God that I should
do unto you, Lord, that I may receive by sight. What did Jesus then say? Thy faith, thy faith
hath made thee whole. Faith that had the element of what? Desperation. You remember the sire
of a Venetian woman? Lord, my God, I can't come to you. No, I'm not sent to delight to
see you. This bread's for the children, not for dogs. Ah, Lord, but the dogs wiggle under
the table and eat the crumbs. Oh, woman, great is thy faith. What's the element of desperation?
I don't have the key to my daughter's healing in my pocket. He does. And, oh, it becomes
at the same time both one of the most pathetic and beautiful things in the world when God
trips a sinner down to that place of desperation. And he knows I must come, but I can't come.
Son of David, have mercy on me. Well, you see, if your theology embodies the biblical
doctrine of the spiritual impotence of the natural man to do any saving good, to use
the word again of the confession, to prepare himself thereunto, even, if you believe that,
it's going to be reflected in your methodology. I could spend a lot more time on that, but
I haven't. Well, three other areas I want to touch quickly on this whole matter of the
application of this. If you have a theology which confesses that the ultimate success
of evangelism rests with the will of a sovereign God, your methods will reflect it. How? First
of all, you'll be willing to be patient. 1 Corinthians chapter 3, Paul says, once goes,
another waters, see the element of time and patience, but God giveth the increase. Or
we could take 2 Timothy chapter 2, the servant of the Lord must not strive, verse 24, but
be gentle to all men. Patient, apt to teach in meetings instructing those that oppose
themselves. If Timothy, God, peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledgement
of the truth. Timothy, why can you afford to be patient? Because you know that the ultimate
issue in terms of success is in the hands of the living God. Not only will that reflect
itself in patient methodology, it will reflect itself in thorough methodology. You'll be
thorough. Why? Because you say ultimately success is with God, and I don't need to fear
keeping back any part of the council of God, for if God has his hooks in a man, he'll bring
him on his terms. I don't need to water down God's terms to make them more palatable to
the unregenerate man. I can preach in offenses, say. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1, he says,
I know what I preach. What I preach is an offense. Old A.B. Thapelstein over there when
I tell him that Jesus of Nazareth is his Messiah, he says, I can't buy that. That's a stumbling
block to me. My Messiah's going to come on a white charger, and he's going to run the
Caesar out of town screaming. Don't you tell me that that man crucified in a robe and gibbet,
and Paul said, I know before I open my mouth that old A.B. Thapelstein, the minute I start
talking about Jesus of Nazareth, he says, this is something blocked in. And what about
old Dioptofides, my Greek friend over there? The minute I start saying, look Dioptofides,
all the wisdom of God is embodied in Jesus Christ. Your philosophers missed it. They
were intelligent fools. They missed it. He says, the minute I start talking about Jesus
of Nazareth being the embodiment of all wisdom and in him are in all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge and he is made unto us the wisdom of God. He says, I know what Dioptofides is
going to say. He's going to stand there and go, foolishness. He says, but that's all right.
Though I know that old A.B. and old Thapel are going to completely turn me off the minute
I open my mouth, he says, I also know a third thing, that if Almighty God is purposed to
save them, something's going to happen to old A.B. He's going to start hearing about
this Jesus and though he's going to turn me off, suddenly he's going to find his mind
riveted on what I'm saying and before long his heart's going to be engaged and the Holy
Ghost is going to open up to him that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed his Messiah and his
Savior and before long a tear will break off the cheek of old A.B. and he'll come and say,
Paul, Paul, I see it. I beheld the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. And old Dioptofides
over there, from standing there with this kind of a sneer in his lip, Paul says, I know
if God is calling him, Christ will become to him what? The wisdom of God. See, that's
what he said. You see, that theology, oh, how it affects your methodology. And I can
only say, brethren, how this thing released me. When I first started getting openings
in student circles, I'll confess to you, I was terribly self-conscious. Can you imagine
facing Ph.D.s at the University of Pennsylvania or from the University of Pennsylvania and
people in that stature and people introduced me, we're glad to have Pastor Albert Martin,
a graduate of Columbia Bible College. I felt as self-conscious as I did when I used to
have a bad case of acne and a girl would look at me and I was sixty. Oh, I felt it, see.
And so, not having understood yet what I understand now, I felt, well, you know, I've got to,
as it were, sort of eased the gospel in and I've got to make it respectable and I've got
And then what happened one day, I was ministering to a student group and I forgot all of that
and for a moment I got carried away and started preaching. And you know what happened? God
started riveting people to the seat and the word of God began to come through with power
and God began to teach me some things in this area. So now, if there are areas where I'm
not competent to speak, I say, I don't know, I've had to tell that to a number of you fellows
this week. What about this thing? I say, I'm sorry, that's a field I'm ignorant of,
I don't know. But when it comes to this matter of evangelizing, my theology says the success
rests not with my cleverness, not with my ability to convince the PhD that he can be
intellectually respectable and be a Christian. No, I preach Christ crucified. If he wants
to go out shaking his head like this and gnashing his teeth, I know one thing. If God the Holy
Ghost purposes to save him, that same head that shakes him deep will one day be bowed,
crying God be merciful to me a sinner. Hallelujah, for that kind of a gospel and that kind of
savior. Well, when you believe that, I don't mean something you wrote down in your senior
systematics, but it's there as part of the living principle of your life. Does it affect
your methodology? You sure does. You're patient. You can be thorough. And the third thing it'll
do, you'll be careful about where the credit goes when people do come. For what does Paul
say in 1 Corinthians 3? Neither is he that plankets, nor he that war with anything but
God who giveth thee in grace. One of the things that's still sticking to me when I go to ministers
meetings sometimes is to hear men sit around and glibly talk. I got three souls yesterday.
I got seven souls yesterday. Going around showing them notches in their rifle. Oh, that
reflects a defective theology. We'll be very, very careful. Speak guardedly about, quote,
our success. You see how the theology affects them, the methodology, even the way we give
our reports of what's happened. Well, there's another area I want to touch on. If you have
a theology which confesses that God accomplishes his works by his appointed means, then your
methods will reflect this. Any man who says, well, I'm Calvinist, and I believe God saves
his people, so I'm going to sit on my backside until he saves them. No, no, he's not a Calvinist.
He's a carnal wretch who's using Calvinism as a cloak for his own indifference to the
souls of men. Because our theology states that God has ordained the end, has ordained
the means thereto. Hence, there is no passivity and no inactivity. We realize that God has
woven into the fabric of his eternal decrees my prayers and proclamation and persistent
efforts, my tears and my entreaties. And if that theology is there, then I'll never
drift into the cursed, paralyzing effects of a hyper-Calvinism. Never. Let me touch
on one last area. If you have a theology which confesses the centrality of the church and
the purpose of God, your methods of evangelism will reflect it. What is the pillar and ground
of the truth? The church. 1 Timothy 3, 14 and 15. How is it that unto the principalities
and powers in the heavenly places is made known the wisdom of God? Through the church.
Ephesians 3, 10. Hence, my methodology will not bypass the visible church. My methodology
will not be indifferent to conserving the fruits of evangelism in true biblical churches.
I can no more think evangelism without church than I can think evangelism without gospel.
That's an inseparable trilogy in the New Testament. Evangelism, gospel, church. The gospel being
that which is proclaimed in evangelism with a view to the establishment of the church,
which in turn preaches the gospel in its evangelism with a view to increasing and multiplying
the church. And when people just talk about gospel and evangelizing and say, church, I
say it's unbiblical. It doesn't fall within the scope of our Lord's commission. Make disciples,
baptize them, whether we're pedobaptists or Baptist. On this we're agreed that baptism
is the mark of the visible community of the saints, whether he's confessors alone or confessors
and their children. On this we're agreed baptism identifies the visible community. Make disciples,
baptize, teach. When a man says, well, my only job is to make disciples, I said, who
gave it to you? Not the head of the church. That apostolic commission, which now has,
as it were, funneled into the church and is perpetuated through the church, is make disciples,
baptize, and teach. Can I just slip out two more without enlarging on them? If you have
a theology which confesses the antithesis between truth and error, your methods will
reflect it. People say, I'm so concerned about souls, I'm willing to join forces with questionable
men, big souls so much. No, no, wait a minute. Does your theology state without embarrassment
that there is a God-ordained antithesis between truth and error, Genesis 3.15, that God has
set enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent? If so, my method
will never relinquish that God-appointed antithesis, but I will evangelize within a context in
which that antithesis is marked and clear, or I'm proclaiming truth from the context
of a lie. And this was one of the painful observations made at that big congress of
evangelism in Berlin, and the only one who sounded this note was Dr. Francis Schaeffer
in a position paper. But all of the main speakers, from what I was able to read of the speakers
and the substance were totally silent on this. Now, I'm really going to get into hot water,
but I've got to speak. T-73, somehow let's get together. Yeah, somehow. Blur the antithesis
between truth and error. Get the cardinals and the bishops of the Roman church who want
to join in, and get the quasi-evangelicals who are more known by what they don't say
than what they say. Let's all get together. Let's deny this antithesis between truth and
error to evangelize. May God return the kind of leadership that has discerned and deceived
that our theology must confess this antithesis and must express it in our evangelism at any
cost. And if we have a theology, and this is the last thing I'm going to say on this,
which acknowledges the deceitfulness of the human heart, that the heart is deceitful above
all things and desperately wicked, and no more active is that deception than in the
realm of religion, because there are always false prophets. Paul said in Acts 20, coming
from without, rising up from within. If you believe that, that it's possible for the enemy
to use false teaching to, as it were, capitalize upon the innate deception of the human heart,
your evangelistic methods will reflect it. You won't be so quick to take every person
who prays a little prayer and give him what I call Protestant absolution, and put your
hand over his head and say, Thou art saved. And any doubts or questions which ever come,
treat them like some boogeyman out of hell. Even if the Bible produces them, even if biblical
preaching produces them, Thou must never doubt Thou hast made thine almighty decision, and
Thou art fixed up for eternity.
Oh, you say, Mr. Martin, you're being a bit cruel. No, I'm not. In five years of itinerant
ministry, and now in this ten weeks, a year or so of it, I meet people all over this country
who, when I press them as to why they think they are Christians, you know what they say?
Nothing about a relationship established to a person and to the righteousness of Christ.
I went forward such and such a time. I did something. I got my absolution. Oh, you say
with some, it just might be a careless way. I know that. I know that. And if I have reason
to believe that, I try to get them to state it in little better terms. But with many,
if you rip away from their memories the day of their decision, when someone pronounced
absolution over them, they have nothing left to give evidence that they were the children
of God, except the root church at hand. You see, if you believe the human heart's deceptive,
you'll have the burden of a Paul who, even to converts who came into the visible church
under his ministry, he writes back to them and says, Be not deceived, let no man deceive
you. You'll be like John, who says, Let no man deceive you with vain words. If you say
you know him and keep not his commandments, you lie and you do not the truth. If you say
that you know him and practice unrighteousness, you're of the devil. That's the way John writes
back. That's a reflection of his theology, the deceptiveness of the human heart.
Well, how is Paul an example of these things? When did I start?
Keep going.
We've had so many sessions today, I can't remember when.
Five minutes till he starts.
No.
Don't worry about it.
No.
You've got five seconds.
Let me just quickly, to suggest some lines of thought. May I challenge you to study the
life of the Apostle Paul and the ministry of Paul in the book of Acts as an application
of these principles in action?
1 Corinthians 9 is what I'd call the seedbed of many of these principles. In that chapter,
Paul says that as a gospel witness, he was willing to be flexible and to accommodate
himself to his hearers within certain limits. He had a fixed message, but within that fixed
message and a basic biblical method, there was sanctified flexibility.
Let's look at a couple illustrations of it. First of all, there was flexibility and sanctified
accommodation in his general appearance and conduct in order to secure an unprejudiced
hearing of the gospel. To the weak, I became this weak, that I might gain the weak. The
strong, I might gain the strong.
Acts 21, he takes a Jewish vow. People say, hey, Paul, you come to Jerusalem. And everybody's
been saying that you're going around kicking Moses in the shins everywhere you go. He says,
all right, to show you I don't kick Moses in the shins, I'll have my hair shaved. I'll
take a Jewish vow so when people see me, they'll say, hey, look at Paul, he's under a vow.
What was that? That was flexibility and sanctified accommodation in his general appearance with
a view to securing an unprejudiced hearing of the gospel.
Timothy's going to go out and be a companion in evangelism. He says, well, Timothy, better
go down and get you fixed up there, because the first question people are going to ask,
first question people are going to ask, is he circumcised? He says, when they ask it,
I'll be able to say, yeah, yeah, he's circumcised. Now let's get on with the business. And he
preached. Right? Sanctified flexibility in the general appearance. When Paul was coming
down the street, chomping on his ham sandwich, and his old friend A.V. turned the corner,
he quick put the ham sandwich in his pocket and covered it with his robe.
He don't want A.V. to be offended. What is this? This is sanctified flexibility in general
appearance in conduct in order to secure an unprejudiced hearing for the gospel. But,
now listen to me closely, if to gain that unprejudiced hearing, he had to sacrifice
a principle, remember Titus, recorded in Galatians, chapters 2, 1 to 5, what do you say?
You say, you know, you're really not in unless you're circumcised. Paul says Timothy, keep
your foreskin. Don't do it. To do so is to deny the gospel. You gave place to the known
man for a moment, that the proof of the gospel might continue with you. He said, if I bent
on this point, I'd be relinquishing the gospel. I'd rather have you turn away in your prejudice
than to give up the gospel. See? Flexibility, where there was no relinquishment of principle
to secure an unprejudiced hearing of the gospel. Always concerning things not only indifferent
in themselves, circumcision is indifferent. Timothy circumcised Titus is not, forget the
next point, things that are indifferent in the immediate context. And that's the part
that is often overlooked. Not only things indifferent in themselves, but things indifferent
in the immediate context. What's the present application of this? Well, it comes down to
things like beards, mob clothing, or more staid traditional clothing, your basic lifestyle.
There's all kinds of flexibility that's warranted here. Should you use such things as a nature
film or a travelogue with a group of young people in order to attract people, to let
them get a firsthand look at Christians, to see that their normal people use this on a
Saturday night or Friday, these are areas all indifferent in themselves. And in many
cases indifferent in a given situation. But you must carefully weigh the issue, you see,
if you're to follow the example of the apostle Paul. What we've done as a church, we've encouraged
the young men who can do so and look good to grow their beards. So if anybody comes
to the front door of our church who's bearded, he looks around and sees about a half a dozen
other beards, he says, well, I guess beards are kosher here, and he comes in here. Well,
you know, I don't know if it's an issue here, but you know what happened about three, four
months ago? I had a call on a Saturday night, and a young man called and said, Mr. Martin,
I heard about the church and your ministry from such and such, and I'm a student in the
area, and I'd love to come. Can you give me directions? I gave him directions. Nobody
asked me just before he hung up. He said, now, Mr. Martin, I must be honest with you.
My hair's a little longer than most people wear it, and I have a beard. Will I be welcome?
What a tragedy. That he should have felt an evangelical church might turn it away because
of some fuzz that God caused him genetically to grow up on his chin. What a horrible thing.
And yet he's been rejected in evangelical churches up in Yankee Land because he grew
a beard and had his hair a little longer. My answer to him was, I said, well, if this
will make you feel at ease, when you come through the front door, you'll spot at least
at that time three or four other beards. And I said, probably the man playing the piano
this morning will have a good three or four inch beard on his chin. He says, thank you,
and became no problem. And I've encouraged the fellows who've become de Grobens. Why?
Because here is that fact that a beard is a thing indifferent, and it's an thing indifferent
in our setting at this particular time. I would not have taken that position five years
ago. The beard was then a symbol amongst the college age. It is no longer a symbol. You
see, a beard is a thing indifferent, but not a thing indifferent in every circumstance.
You see the application? I believe it's a direct parallel to the thing we saw in the
first Corinthians nine, Galatians two passage with regard to how you contact peripheral
people who are afraid to come to church because they've never seen Christians and they've
got all kinds of weird ideas. What we do is from time to time, we have what we call a
family supper night. You see on a Friday night, we encourage all our church families to bring
the equivalent of food that they use for their own family, put it on the common table, encourage
unsaved friends, and many times it's people that they work with at the shop and they bring
the families along. And then we have a Walt Disney nature film. If you've not seen those
nature films, they're beautiful. I don't mean animated things. They're the things that are
all natural footage, white wilderness, African lion, many of these things. We don't have
any devotion. Some of my evangelical brethren, look at me. I mean, you've got to sanctify
the night by sprinkling the holy water with a devotional one. Christians gather together
and just eat and laugh at the antics of a polar bear? In the very building where they
worship God the next morning? Well, you see, we're making a statement. We're making a statement.
Watching a nature film is a thing indifferent. And in that setting, it is a thing indifferent.
And we're using it as a what? Sanctified, flexible accommodation to try to gain an unprejudiced
hearing for the gospel. Let people know that it's God's people. We can lick our chops and
enjoy it and laugh together and enjoy it. And all without one risque remark, without
people going around with sunken eyes, trying to loosen up themselves with high balls and
the rest. Just wholesome people who are being made whole by the power of the gospel. And
there are many other ways we can be innovative. I'm not calling for some return to something
that was the answer of God in the past generation. There is this flexibility. I see that first
principle in the life of Paul. Second one. There is flexibility and sanctified accommodation,
not only in appearance and approach, but in the particular emphases and content of the
message at any given time and place. Read Acts 17. Within that one chapter, you have
the record in the first three verses of Paul's normal approach as to content and emphasis
when he went to the synagogue. And it is contrasted with his approach and emphasis when he speaks
to the even philosophers. What is this but sanctified flexibility? This is why I'm against
these canned approaches of the gospel. In a sense, it dehumanizes people. It doesn't
take them where they are. And everything in me recoils against it, and I hope it's because
my attitudes in this are somewhat conditioned by the scriptures. I bring it into sharp focus
when I'm talking about this with people by saying, which is the right way to witness,
the way Jesus did to Nicodemus or the way he witnessed to the woman at the well? Here's
a one-on-one situation. In the first instance, a man comes to him at night, no indication.
Jesus even offered him a cup of tea, talked about common issues. Poor Nicodemus has hardly
gotten his hand off the doorknob and started to say, we believe thou art a teacher. And
the Lord says, in essence, Nicodemus, let's cut out all the foolishness. Let's get down
to brass tacks. You're blind than a bat, and until you're born from above, you won't have
a clue what I'm doing here. You say man come from God doing this. Nicodemus, the kingdom
of God is a monster. He's a person of the King, and you'll never know it, you'll never
see it until you're born from above. Brother, you talk about shock treatment. You talk about
tactlessness. But now there's the woman at the well. Now lady, would you mind giving
me a drink of water? I'm tired. Drink of what? You're a Jew. You're not being a good Jew
right now. Jews don't have any music. How come? Then the Lord begins to draw her out.
If you knew who it was that asked of you, you would have been asking of Him, and He
would have been giving. Tell me more about this. And she's all ready to make her decision.
Evermore give me this water that I come not hither to draw. Jesus said, call your husband?
And you see the red come up the back of her neck and into her ears, and she looks down,
and she begins to settle with the folds of her garment, but I have no husband. The Lord
says, I know all about that. When I told you that the water of life was to be had in my
person, I said it to you knowing you were a sinner. I didn't offer myself to a good
woman. I offered myself to a wicked woman who's living in adultery now, and it's been
the pattern of her life. But woman, I came to save the likes of you. But I'll save you
when you're ready and willing to face your sin on the street. What a different approach.
Now which was the right approach? Well, neither one was the right, and both were right. The
John 3 approach to the woman of the well would have scared that poor woman crazy. She probably
would have run back into the town not saying, I found the man who told me all that I did.
She probably would have run back into town saying, I found another prejudiced Jew who
thinks nobody's good but himself, telling me I have to be born again. You see? Flexibility
in the emphasis and in the content. Why? Because men are individuals whom God providentially
has hedged up to circumstances which have brought into their lives more or less understanding
and content of divine revelation. Third principle illustrated in Paul, not only flexibility
in general appearance and approach, flexibility in sanctified accommodation in particular
emphasis, but last of all, flexibility in sanctified accommodation in the particular
form or structure in which he communicated. Acts 20, 20, he says publicly, that's one
form, house to house, another. Acts 17, he starts in the synagogue and he reasons, he
dialogues, he alleges. Later on in Acts 17, I proclaim this God unto you. Sometimes he
gives his testimony before Felix, before Agrippa, but it is always within that general framework
of fixed canons of authority and authoritative proclamation. J. I. Packer in his book, Evangelism
and the Sovereignty of God, has a beautiful statement on this and he says, in essence,
that love will always compel us to be enterprising in seeking that form or structure in which
to evangelize within these general rules of scripture and theology that we consider. I
read something the other day, not the other day, sorry, last year in preparation for a
series of messages or lectures on preaching for a conference in the British Isles and
I think it was in James Stewart, James A. Stewart, who's not a good pattern for theology
in many areas, but who does know some things about preaching. He has an excellent book
on preaching and he says this, that man is mortally sick who will only speak in the approved
jargon of official ecclesiastical patterns, something of that nature. He said it should
be a joy to tear down the lath of traditional religious jargon to lay bare the granite walls
of biblical reality. Isn't that a beautiful imagery? Cut through the lath of terms that
no longer register on people's ears because they've heard them until the ears are dulled
into them. But within the framework of solid exegesis and a true theology and balance and
due proportion, let's dare to attack men's ears and hearts and consciences with that
flexibility both in the form and structure in which we communicate to them. Well, I submit
to you that these are some thoughts that at least I hope are worthy of serious reflection
and consideration in the general theme, theology and methodology in the great field of evangelism.