Christ in the Age of Compromise

A Book Analysis On and Response To:

CHRISTIANS IN THE AGE OF OUTRAGE : Written by Ed Stetzer

     We are in the middle of a culture war here in America. And within this war, Christians find themselves in one of three groups. (1) Those who believe we have already lost the war. (2) Those who believe we are in the middle of the war. (3) And those who are ignorant of the war altogether. Ask yourself....which category are you in?

     This paper is a response to a book written by a well known theologian named, Ed Stetzer. He is part of the first category of people. Upon reading his book and hearing of its popularity, I decided that a quick review from a historically orthodox and philosophically conservative Christian was in order. For the individuals who have yet to start reading this book, section one of this review is directed towards you. For the people who are in the middle of, or have finished this book, the entire article is for you. We must be vigilant in this day and age of misinformation, progressive beliefs, and compromise.

“We have, for more than one hundred years, been under sustained attack in the United States in our Theological Seminaries, Church related schools, and our Churches: a sustained attack by people who have the form of godliness and work within the structure of the Church and have, wherever they’ve been permitted the opportunity, diluted the gospel and destroyed the faith. They occupy, today, the chairs in our major Theological Seminaries and the rulership of our major denominational structures. They maintain boldly and boastfully, ‘This is the church!’ But it is not the Church if it denies the power of the gospel.”  - Dr. Walter Martin

INDEX

• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• SECTION 1: Questions that Should be Asked Before Reading the Book
• SECTION 2: Can a Follower of Jesus Christ Be Outraged?
• SECTION 3: The Author Argues that We Are In a Post Christian Culture
• SECTION 4: The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!" 1 Corinthians 12:21
• SECTION 5: Letting the World Define What Being Christlike Is
• SECTION 6: Positive Points from the Book
• SECTION 7: Very Important Points / Conclusion

About the Author of the Book

         “Ed Stetzer, Ph.D., is the Dean of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University and Scholar in Residence & Teaching Pastor at Mariners Church. He has planted, revitalized, and pastored churches; trained pastors and church planters on six continents; earned two master’s degrees and two doctorates; and he has written hundreds of articles and a dozen books. He is Regional Director for Lausanne North America, is the Editor-in-Chief of Outreach Magazine, and regularly writes for news outlets such as USA Today and CNN.” (https://edstetzer.com/about)

• Abortion: AGAINST
• BLM: SUPPORTS =
• Critical Race Theory (CRT): SUPPORTS with some reservations
• Systemic Racism: Will not deny, but makes the following statement:
  • “I firmly believe that if we are to work toward racial reconciliation, we need to admit that the history of racism in the United States (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) has left us with problems that need to be addressed at the heart level AND at the structural level.”
• Social Justice Warriors (SJW): Supports
  • So where do I stand on the “debate” of social justice and the Gospel? I stand with Jesus in Luke 4:18 said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.” Click here for link.
• COVID Vaccine: Pro
  • In September, Wheaton College dean Ed Stetzer interviewed National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins on his podcast, “Church Leadership” about why Christians who want to obey Christ’s command to love their neighbors should get the Covid vaccine and avoid indulging in misinformation. Click here and here for sources

Section 1: Questions that should be asked

I have compiled a list of questions that should be taken into consideration when reading this book.

1. Did Jesus ever experience and act upon anger?
2. Were people always receptive to what Jesus said?
3. Did the Jewish leaders think that Jesus was annoying?
4. When Stephen addressed the Jews, was he seen as passionate, angry, offensive, unkind, or annoying in their eyes? (Before they martyred him, of course).
5. Did the Jewish leaders think Jesus cared for them when they had Him crucified?
6. Did Jesus ever cause outrage?
7. Did Jesus ever drop one liners that completely shut down the opposition?
8. If Jesus is Love incarnate and Jesus was outraged when he purged the temple… and if outrage is the antithesis of love (as this author claims on page 58) then is Jesus therefore unloving?
9. Did Jesus ever insult someone?
10. Was Jesus ever divisive?
11. Can the gospel be divisive?
12. Should the church of Germany have been more involved in confronting Nazism?
13. Would this book have encouraged the German church to speak out or to remain silent at the outset of Nazism?
14. Did Jesus hate anything?

Section 2: Can a follower of Jesus Christ become Outraged?

Outrage Defined

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is disproportionate. Outrage often unleashes on people in smothering waves of anger. There is little or no thought to the level of intensity; all offenses are treated the same. Even when anger begins in response to a real offense, it quickly snowballs. One of the principles of a just war is that combatants must think in terms of proportionality. This discipline is completely lost on many social media warriors and cable news talking heads” (81).

Criticism:

If you were to look at the Jesus of the Gospels, He unleashed his anger both on specific individuals and on groups of people. Many people of this generation wish to paint Jesus as a quiet, meek, gentle man whose voice was never raised. However, this is reading into the Gospels what you want Jesus to look like rather than taking Him for Who He is.

When it comes to Biblical interpretation, there are two approaches: Exegesis and Eisegesis. Exegesis the correct form of interpretation because it allows the Bible to interpret/speak for itself. Eisegesis, on the other hand, allows the reader to read his/her own bias into the text and make it say what he/she wants it to say. This is the method of interpretation that progressives often use to make the Bible say what they believe.

In this instance, we must accept the fact that Jesus did get angry, and He did, in fact, act on that anger. Within a given context, regarding specific topics, people will be justifiably outraged. Remember Question 12 in Section 1 (Should the church of Germany have been more involved in confronting Nazism)? What would you think of the individual who was not outraged at what was happening to the Jews during the control of Nazism?

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is selfish. We often vent and rage against others because in the end, it feels good. We believe our anger puts others in their place. Whether it’s a politician we despise for his or her economic policy or a journalist we perceive as anti-Christian, we unload our anger, deriving pleasure from the perception that we are fighting back. In this way, outrage functions as an odd catharsis for our insecurities, fears, and sense of powerlessness. Such anger becomes about me; my needs, wants and desires rather than about injustice” (81).

Criticism:

The problem with this statement (and many others that the author makes throughout the book) is that, in many instances, his statements are too generalized. Self-defense should not automatically be labeled selfish, nor should the derision of pleasure be proof of selfishness. If I do something good and derive pleasure from that action, is it then selfish? No. We are told in the Bible to rejoice in good. Similarly, you can be outraged over the treatment of other individuals or even your own self. On page 251 the author says, “Showing grace doesn’t mean that Christians must be doormats.” One must ask… if we are not to be doormats, are we therefore supposed to look out for OURSELVES?  No doubt if I were to give the author some examples of when someone should defend themselves and fight back, he would agree. However, this then makes him the arbiter of what is and is not considered selfishness, when Jesus should be that arbiter. This is what happens when you paint with such broad strokes. As a result, the author is unable to give exceptions without contradicting his previous statements.

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is divisive. In this era of cultural polarization, outrage bends anger to serve a spirit of tribalism. Outrage rants and raves about them, their group, their ilk; about the injustice and evil of those politicians or communities, journalists or even pastors. Conversely, when we are outraged, we can accept no criticism of our own team and are quick to explain or justify the same behavior in ourselves. Because of this, outrage will always ring hollow over time” (81).

Criticism:

Divisiveness, in and of itself, is not bad. John Gresham Machen writes: “It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors when once they exist.” Division is good when it is in line with Scripture. There are countless examples of dividing false from true, good from bad. Remember questions 10 and 11 from section 1(Was Jesus ever divisive? And can the gospel be divisive)? In this day and age, we have a political, societal, and ethical climate that forces individuals to choose between good and evil—gay marriage, transgenderism and homosexuality in school, the legalization of prostitution, sex changes for the youth, antisemitism, racism, the list goes on. Should Christians remain silent or should they speak? If they speak, there will be division amongst co-workers, friends, and even family. Should Christians cling to tribalism if the core of that tribe is the Gospel and if our leader is Christ? Consider this passage of Scripture when asking yourself if division is objectively sinful: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luke 12:51-53).

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is visceral. In the digital age of rapid reaction, outrage is often produced by our uncritical, gut reaction to things, people, or ideas we perceive to be wrong or offensive. When we aren’t thinking critically, we do not consider context or try to understand the why or what. Instead, we simply lash out. As the pace of our world increases, it can feel that we need to comment as things happen or risk being left behind. This lack of careful reflection inevitably transforms anger into outrage” (81).

Criticism:

What he says here is another broad statement and a false dichotomy. He claims that people don’t think before they speak, but his claim is completely subjective. There are some who can say the right thing quickly, but if one says it too quickly, according to his standards, that person didn’t think first. Thus, the author has, once again, made himself the arbiter of whether or not the response was made rashly or wisely.

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is domineering. Because its aim is to shut down, silence or shame those who disagree, outrage is not interested in truth or nuance. The world is binary and defined solely by winning and losing. Often when we encounter pushback, warning or calls for moderation—even from friendly voices—we respond by trying to berate others into submission. Hyperbole, insults and even profanity become justifiable tools to ensure the battle lines are clearly drawn” (81).

Criticism:

Yet again, the author’s statement is too broad, acting as an absolute statement. Truth can be domineering at times. The light destroys the darkness. Remember Question 9 of Section 1 (Did Jesus ever insult someone)? Go and read Luke 11:45 (One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”) and ask if Jesus was ever insulting or domineering. The Greek word used in this verse is “Hubrizo” (Strongs 5195). Now, this doesn’t mean that you are supposed to seek out every opportunity to insult someone. What it does tell us is that you cannot demonize the act of insulting without, in the same breath, saying that Jesus sinned when He insulted someone.

Ed's Statement:

“Outrage is dishonest. Outrage often cares only about scoring rhetorical points, not about giving fair and honest treatment. We use terms and descriptors to disparage and reject others rather than their ideas. Complementarians are defenders of the patriarchy while egalitarians are militant feminists. Those who vote differently from us are unpatriotic. And those who call for tightening U.S. immigration policies hate all immigrants. While there may be legitimate reasons for disagreement and reasonable people continue to have substantive discussions, outrage cares more about getting good sound bites that disparage the opposition than affirming the dignity of others” (81).

Criticism:

The author’s statement implies that scoring rhetorical points means you aren’t being fair or giving honest treatment. I believe the author is dishonest in his dealings with people who get passionately angry for justifiable reasons; he doesn’t believe the reasons are justifiable, so he must attack their passion. In this section the author uses examples of differing sides making blanket statements, completely ignoring the irony that he is simultaneously making similar statements about people experiencing outrage. He decides that his interpretation of the motives of the outraged individual are fact rather than opinion. He then writes, “invariably, outrage will digress to an attack on a flawed misrepresentation of an opponent’s true position or argument in order to knock it down more easily…” Interestingly, his entire book does just this. He picks and chooses instances that make passionate & outraged people look bad. Yet I would argue that if outrage stems from the Holy Spirit in the presence of evil, you can’t make unfair rhetorical points about those who respond to those evils.

Outrage: Antithesis of Love

Ed's Statement:

“These non- or nominal Christians often respond with outrage because they don’t have the spiritual gifts and biblical tools to exhibit Christian love. Without the indwelling Spirit, they inevitably devolve to expressions of outrage” (58).

Criticism:

Do you see what he said right there? His implication is that Christian love does not correlate with outrage. Remember Section 1 question 8 (Jesus is Love incarnate. If Jesus was outraged when he purged the temple, and if outrage is the antithesis of love, then was Jesus therefore unloving?). What was your answer to that question? By making the above statement, the author forces you to translate every action of outrage into something that is completely non-Christian. As a result, any instance in Scripture where Jesus or an apostle exhibits outrage must now be re-interpreted into something that it is not.

Living like Christ

Ed's Statement:

“We are living in a day—and this is indeed our moment—when we need to live like Christ, as gospel Christians in the midst of shouting, anger, and hatred” (Introduction XV).

Criticism:

It is statements like these that make it impossible to accept what this author is trying to communicate. What he is saying here is that “gospel Christians” do not shout, get angry, or hate. Do you see the structure of the sentence? When pressed, the author may claim that it is not a sin to shout, be angry, or to hate something, yet based on this blanket statement, he has separated “gospel Christians” from people who shout, get angry, or hate. Again, what was your answer to Section 1 Questions 1 and 14 (Did Jesus ever experience and act on anger? Did Jesus hate anything)? If your answer was yes to either of these, then you have to disagree with the author as well.

Causing Outrage

Ed's Statement:

“In this respect, we need to understand not only what causes outrage in this culture, but how Christians have contributed to, if not led the way, in perpetuating it” (Introduction XV).

Criticism:

If causing outrage is a sin, as the author purports, then did Jesus, therefore, sin when he caused and contributed to the outrage that led to multiple stoning attempts from the Jews and His eventual crucifixion? What about the outrage caused by Stephen, the first martyr? Or Paul when he was thrown in jail? The early church caused and contributed to constant outrage that led to their inevitable martyrdom. A Christian’s contribution to outrage does not necessarily mean that the Christian has done anything wrong. The World’s response to us does not define good and evil—God does.

Caring for Others

Ed's Statement:

“How do we care for others when people see us as uncaring?” (110-111).

Criticism:

Is it possible that the act of caring is not defined by the one you are caring for? Did Jesus care for the Jews that crucified Him? If yes, did they think He was being caring towards them? How did you answer questions 5 and 9 (Did the Jewish leaders think Jesus cared for them when they had Him crucified? Did Jesus ever insult someone)? This is not to say that Christians can’t be uncaring or that they have always been caring. Nevertheless, whether or not a person is caring cannot be solely contingent upon the impressions or opinions of the receiver. If that were the case, then the only caring Christians are the ones who act exactly as the world would have them behave. This is antithetical to Christ’s teachings.

Division and Polarization

Ed's Statement:

“The challenge is sorting the wheat from the chaff; seeking those godly, pastoral voices who will build up rather than those who sow seeds of division and polarization” (157).

Criticism:

Please refer to Section 2 under “Outrage Is Divisive”. Division, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong.

Quips

Ed's Statement:

“We naturally enjoy those moments when we catch someone off guard. Those quips of Reagan helped him win those elections and the affection of much of America….The tendency to deflect criticisms and trip up opponents has exploded with the introduction of social media and cable news. Every politician and journalist, every tweeter and blogger, is on the hunt for the witty ‘gotchas’ to discredit and defeat others” (210).

Criticism:

The author demonizes Reagan’s debate tactics, and he claims that those tactics are the main reason that the American people fell in love with him. Yet, is it possible that it wasn’t those quippy tactics, but rather, that the American people actually agreed with what Reagan said? Or does he think the American people are just sheep? What was your answer to Section 1 Question 7 (Did Jesus ever drop one liners that completely shut down the opposition)? Jesus was the best Jewish Rabbi to have ever existed, and Rabbis are masters of quips, usually in the form of questions. This questioning technique is referred to as Rabbinic Dialogue. Theologians and apologists alike use quips as a form of defense and offense. Yet this author would discourage a method that has been used by many defenders of the faith since the time of Christ.

Defending Christianity

Ed's Statement:

“When this thinking invades the church, it results in apologetics whose aim is not to present rational defenses of Christianity, but to defeat and humiliate other faiths and moralities. We justify this PRIDE and EGOISM, baptizing it in Christian language such as ‘defending Christianity.’ In reality, however, we are more interested in stomping on others with witty sound bites” (210).

Criticism:

There are several points I want to make here. First, the author is subjectively interpreting the actions of the apologists and assigning his own interpretation of their motives as fact. To claim that the apologists are full of “pride and egoism” and only aim to “defeat and humiliate other faiths” is an incredibly arrogant statement. Claiming that they are “more interested in stomping on others with witty sound bites” is claiming to know the thoughts and intents of another person, which he cannot possibly know. Only the Lord knows the heart, and if the author is, in fact, wrong, then he is attempting to stifle the moving of the Holy Spirit as Apologists use logic, reason, and argumentation to dismantle the faulty logic and reasoning of worldly ideologies.

Secondly, by the author’s logic, if Jesus used quips and left people speechless, then He was being prideful. What the author seems to be doing is conflating joy over one’s dismantling of an argument with pride. You must ask, should a Christian have joy when an atheist’s arguments are destroyed and, as a result, someone becomes a believer? How did you answer Section 1 Question 7 (Did Jesus ever drop one liners that completely shut down the opposition)?

Finally, let me leave you with a story about the famous theologian and apologist Dr. Walter Martin. While debating a Mormon professor of Philosophy from Columbia University, the professor peppered Dr. Martin with a plethora of statements and questions that attacked Scripture. After an hour and a half of discussion, Dr. Walter Martin came to a realization and prayed the following prayer:

“Lord, there is a number of ways I could answer him, but I will lose the audience. The main thing I want to do is hang on to the audience. I don’t care about this joker because he’s in here to just fight the gospel. But I’ve got to reach these people out there, Lord. Just give me an answer please. I, just at this moment, don’t know what to say!”

In this crucial moment, Dr. Walter Martin realized that the audience—an audience of approximately 13 million people spanning 43 states—was the priority.

When discussing/debating theology with others, you have to discern whether or not the person you are debating is actually searching, or merely attacking the faith. So many Christians, upon realizing that the person is merely attacking the faith, become silent and walk away, quoting Christ when He says to “knock the dust off your feet.” However, I think this is used too often as a cop out, a cowards way out. Christ is talking about giving the Gospel, not defending it. So, the next time you run into someone, while in the midst of an audience, who wants to just attack the faith, you give them both barrels! Don’t concern yourself with the person you are debating; rather, focus on the individuals who are standing by and actually listening. Those are the hearts that the Holy Spirit is softening.

Section 3: The Author Argues that We Are in a Post Christian Culture

Tribalism

Ed's Statement:

“When we become primarily identified with any tribe outside the body of Christ, especially when we are identified to the point where others are repelled by us, we’ve traded our Kingdom-based identity for a world-based identity. It’s burning a bridge. It’s building a wall. The most damaging example of Christians at their worst is when someone claims a Kingdom-based identity but pursues some world-based end. Trying to use Christianity to achieve political, economic, or social objectives only increases the outrage directed toward us” (15).

Criticism:

Or is it that the tribe is primarily identified with the Christian faith? Christian beliefs are being challenged within politics, and they are pressing the American people to make a decision. This decision is removing the nominal Christians and forcing them to make a choice—non-Christian or Christian. Now the question is, if the World wants Christians to stay out of politics… are we to accommodate them for the sake of spreading the Gospel? Do we have an obligation to vote in accordance with the faith or stay out of it?

Christianity in Politics

Ed's Statement:

“Trying to use Christianity to achieve political, economic, or social objectives only increases the outrage directed toward us” (15).

Criticism:

Are we using the Christian faith for politics, or is the world attacking the Christian faith through politics? Is it possible that the Christian faith can be attacked through politics to the point that Christians will have to make a choice? Essentially, the author really wants Christians to stay out of politics. If politics touch base on homosexuality, drugs, prostitution, transgenderism, pedophilia, etc. and the Bible says something about these topics, are we therefore supposed to put the Bible aside when discussing these things and when we go into the voting booth? I actually know believers who voted in favor of gay marriage because they believed it was an individual’s right, and they believe that religion and politics should be kept separate. The devil wants the faith to separate itself from politics.

Christian Culture is Dead

Ed's Statement:

“Christians can try to make their stand by turning back the clock. We can try to reclaim a cultural norm that is dying if not already dead. Or we can grasp the central truth of the moment in which we live, understanding the challenges and opportunities Christians face in this new culture. We have to consider both the moment we are in and the mission we are on” (29).

Criticism:

Do we stand firm in this cultural shift that is becoming more godless, or do we keep giving up ground? The author is saying that we should sacrifice the culture for the sake of spreading the gospel, and yet it’s because of the gospel that the culture is shifting. He wants to blame the Christian people for the shift away from the Gospel. You see this every time that he refers to the opinions of non-Christians to determine what is Christ-like. Scripture says that the world will hate us because of the Gospel… so why is this author so set on being loved by the world?

Consider when Germany in the 1930’s was shifting to Nazism. Have you ever wondered why the Christians in Germany stayed silent? In his book, Letter to the American Church, Metaxes writes, “The idol of evangelism—which is of course really an idol of ‘false evangelism’—was a great part of what silenced the Church in Germany in the 1930’s. We only want to preach the gospel, many pastors said. So rather than potentially be thrown into prison for speaking the truth of God, they kept their mouths shut, hoping the Nazis would leave them in peace” (80). The Gospel message is important, but so is Truth. We cannot sacrifice one for the sake of the other. We must uphold both.

Being Silent On Politics

Ed's Statement:

“Maybe one story will help to illustrate the path we will walk in this book. A friend on social media shared with me about his interactions with his brother-in-law. He explained, ‘I am conservative, and my brother-in-law is very left socialist. He is quite aggressive on Facebook, so I started replying—trying to refute his arguments. Some of his Facebook friends (whom I did not know) casually said I had some points. This made him angry. He told me my next post was demeaning, and he unfriended me. That is when I realized my priorities were all wrong. The next time I saw him in person, I sincerely apologized. Since then I refuse to talk politics even when he baits me. I am trying to build our friendship so our discussions of spiritual things, which are now sort of shallow, can grow into something more meaningful’” (50).

Criticism:

If politics correlate with Scripture and it offends the non-believer, are you supposed to be silent on Politics? Is Truth altered based upon how it is received? Is this still a Christian nation? If we are, and we have the ability to continue the faith in this nation, is it our obligation to speak up and utilize the tools available to us?

Engaging the Culture

Ed's Statement:

“Whether it’s the polarization in our culture, the creep of new technology, or simply the ferocity and volume of the shouting voices around us, the gospel lens through which we see the world needs to be adjusted. And it needs to be more than a temporary fix. Indeed, we need to rethink why and how we engage with our culture” (55).

Criticism:

I agree, but for different reasons. The culture wants Christians to compromise because they know how engrained Christianity is in America. Take, for example, the wedding cake incident. They chose that cake shop specifically because they knew the baker wouldn’t do it and they could bring him to court. They knew he was a Christian. There is truly a polarization in our culture today, and by what we have seen in the past decade or so, the culture is polarized between Judeo-Christianity and completely anti-Biblical philosophies. As a Christian, you must ask yourself, should we stay silent for the sake of unity, even if we will be unifying with that which is the antithesis of the Gospel.

Section 4: The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 1 Corinthians 12:21

Subsection Humility

Ed's Statement:

“Their entire worldview seemed to be grounded in trying to win a theological debate rather than winning converts to the love of Jesus” (208-209).

Criticism:

The author spends one sentence “attacking” progressivism/liberalism… then he spends 3 paragraphs attacking fundamentalism. “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’” (Corinthians 12:21). All are called to share the gospel, yet that is done in different ways. For some, it means going out on a missions field in another country. For others, it means serving in their communities and being a light in their own backyard. Still, others are called to defend the faith against those who would attack it. There are those who are searching for Jesus who don’t realize that their current beliefs are false. There are also those who are actively leading seekers into other false religions. It falls to apologist to lead these people to Christ and to reveal the flaws and holes in the arguments of those who would oppose Christianity. While this may not be the approach of the author, it is not his job as the hand to tell the foot/apologist/fundamentalist that his approach is wrong.

Culture and Crisis

Ed's Statement:

“We live in a world constantly and consistently outraged, and too many Christians are joining the outrage, which kills their empathy and compassion for those in need. Missionaries of grace should be known for laying their lives down for the poor and marginalized, not for showing aggression and outrage or for rejecting those who need our compassion the most” (270).

Criticism:

Can crisis be defined by the culture? Could someone be called by the Holy Spirit to confront evil in this culture? For many Christians today, we see a crisis in the church that is completely opposite to what this author is saying. This crisis can be summarized as “The stifling of the Holy Spirit.” There are some in the church who are constantly being told by pastors and authors like this one that we are not to be passionate, nor angry, nor bold, nor aggressive—that if moved by the Holy Spirit to confront evil, we should keep silent so as to not be offensive, annoying, or “unkind.” Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer was considered a hot-head by his contemporaries because of how “divisive” he was being when opposing Nazism.

The author and the current culture which we find ourselves in are more concerned with the here and now. More concerned with a heaven on earth. When he says, “Missionaries of grace should be known for laying their lives down for the poor and marginalized,” one must ask who he defines as “poor” and “marginalized”— especially “marginalized.” Our current political and sociological climate wants us to believe that certain groups of people are victims when, in reality, they are not. And you will get a lot of hostility if you don’t automatically accept someone’s claim to be a victim. You will be attacked for “Victim Shaming.”

There are individuals who call themselves Social Justice Warriors. In my experience, they care more about people’s current physical circumstances in this life rather than the circumstances that their souls are in. They are more preoccupied with making a heaven on earth than on whether or not heaven will be their final destination. I once debated a Social Justice Warrior and asked them if they cared about the souls that they were trying to help, but that question in and of itself perplexed and even upset them. He was only focused on fixing the worldly condition of the “poor and marginalized,” and not on their souls at all. “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32). What sickness is Jesus talking about?

Section 5: Letting the World Define What Being Christlike Is

Billy Graham

Ed's Statement:

“Graham had more than double the appearances of Oprah and won on [Gallup’s yearly poll listing of the ten most admired men] three times as often as Bill Gates” (6).

Criticism:

Throughout his book, the statement the author tries to make is that you should be loved by the world because the Gospel is for the world. The statement is a complete over-generalization and there is not a single verse in Scripture that says the World WANTS the Gospel. He is simply reading into the Scripture something that it does not say. If that same method of interpretation were applied to this verse, “And you will be hated by all for my names sake,” then one could easily claim that if you aren’t hated, then you aren’t giving the Gospel. Yet, this also clearly is not true. When you make blanket statements and over generalizations about what the Gospel says, you end up making the Gospel contradict itself. The world NEEDS the Gospel, and some in the world are yearning for the Gospel. Similarly, there are those in the world who will hate the gospel. Whether Graham was widely accepted by the world or not has no relevancy on his effectiveness as an evangelist.

The Public Perception

Ed's Statement:

“Few can doubt that public perception of Christianity, Christians, and Evangelicals has taken a big hit in the last few years. To be fair, Christians have done a lot to contribute to this decline. From unloving posts on social media to unwise political comments by their leaders, Christians have certainly earned some of the frustration. Indeed, this book is written in large part to encourage the church to think critically about how we can move away from this behavior, and toward fruitful gospel ministry. At the same time, however, the narrative has far exceeded reality” (57).

Criticism:

You cannot let the “public perception of Christianity” define what it means to be a Christian. You cannot let the receptiveness of the crowd determine whether your methods and what you have said are true or false. What was your answer to the question 2 (Were people always receptive to what Jesus said?) and question 4 of Section 1 (When Stephen addressed the Jews, was he seen as passionate, angry, offensive, unkind, or annoying in their eyes?). And what is the definition of a “fruitful gospel ministry?” As I have said before, let not the hand criticize the foot. It is true that every Christian is called to give the Gospel, and some have more specific callings as well. Be it missionary, apologist, theologian, etc. Missionaries must not criticize the apologists for what they do. We are all are separate parts of the same body on the same mission.

LGBTQ Defining What is Christlike

Ed's Statement:

The author tells a story about his friend Mark Hausfeld who went to a coffee shop where the people there were “clearly hurting” from the Orlando massacre. “Leaning in rather than putting on blinders, my friend requested permission to ask several of the servers at the coffee shop about the shooting, their feelings of pain and anger, and their perception of how Christians were reacting. As he listened, he found five common themes in the messages they asked him to take back to his students:

• Do not single out homosexuality and ignore other sins
• Deal with your own sin before criticizing sin in others
• Ask questions and listen
• Protect us from hate and violence
• Live by words and actions

I was struck by the fact that people in the LGBTQ community at a coffee shop in Colorado were telling Christians to act more like Jesus. There was not one thing on that list that every Christian should not affirm” (103).

Criticism:

It is true that no Christian should look at this list and not agree with it. Yet, this is because the statements are so general. As soon as we were to ask some deeper questions for further clarification and definitions, there begin to be some things we must address:

First, the majority of Christians don’t single out homosexuals… we react to them. At the moment, the LGBTQ community is the loudest and the most in your face. They are Loud and Proud in their sin. This requires a response in the midst of this culture war. Will this author accommodate them for the sake of the Gospel? Is it still the Gospel at that point? When the LGBTQ community is actively pushing their agenda into public places, we are forced to respond and react. Are we supposed to ignore what they are pushing to teach our children in school and what they are trying to slip into our children’s tv shows? Are we supposed to support the laws being passed that allow underaged children to get sex change surgeries? We are not singling out the LGBTQ community as they quietly mind their own business. We are being forced to respond to their pressures and aggressive stances, and then called hateful for not allowing them to do so unopposed.

Furthermore, the Gospel does, in fact, protect homosexuals from hate and violence. I don’t know a single Christian who has actively hated and committed violence against the LGBTQ community. The only group who violently attacks them that I am aware of, who claim to be Christian, are the Westboro Baptists, and Christians are united in the demonizing of this group’s beliefs and actions.

Finally, the list asks Christians to protect them from hate, yet the LGBTQ community often deems hate to be anything that is spoken against homosexuality. They want their beliefs and actions to be accepted and condoned. So yes, Christians should protect the LGBTQ community from hate and violence, but if they continue to claim that our refusal to accept and celebrate their lifestyle is hatred, then we cannot do as they ask.

Christians Get On My Nerves

Ed's Statement:

The following quote refers to a poll by Lifeway Research:

“At the center of the discussion were two questions on cultural attitudes of unchurched Americans toward Christians and Christianity. The poll revealed that:

• 79 percent agree (somewhat or strongly) that ‘Christianity today is more about organized religion than loving God and loving people.’
• 44 percent agree (somewhat or strongly) with ‘Christians get on my nerves.’

Why, if the gospel of Jesus is so amazing and if Christians are called to love and serve, did a majority of Americans complain that the organized church was less interested in love than in ritual and that Christians are annoying if not unloving?” (198).

Criticism:

He keeps referring to polls of non-Christians and their opinion towards Christians…Why?? 44% agree (somewhat or strongly) with the statement “Christians get on my nerves”? I have a great idea, let’s get in our time machine and go to first century Judea and ask the religious leaders if Jesus gets on their nerves. Why did they Crucify Jesus?? Why have there been so many martyrs? Does this author realize that the world is opposed to Jesus and His message? Does he want to put these same people in charge of how to interpret Scripture and defining what it means to be Christ-like? I have a better question for these polls: “What is love? If the world can’t answer that, then they can’t talk about the church being loving or unloving. They don’t know the meaning of the word.

Not Supposed to be Offensive

Ed's Statement:

“So Christianity in a broken and rebellious world is going to be offensive. But we aren’t supposed to be. Even as there is genuine offensiveness to the gospel, we can never lose sight that Jesus and his message are equally (if not more) attractive to this world” (199).

Criticism:

“The world will hate you for my sake.” The gospel is attractive to those who realize that they are lost. If they don’t think they are lost… if their reality is not challenged, then of course the gospel is not appealing to them. The Devil wants the unbeliever to be as comfortable as possible. How comfortable is this author trying to make them feel? And he says that we aren’t supposed to be offensive? Please go read Luke 11:45 and tell me, what was your answer to Question 9 of Section 1 (Did Jesus ever insult someone)? If your answer was yes, then you cannot agree with the author.

The Attractive Gospel

Ed's Statement:

“We need to recapture just how attractive the gospel is and how central truth is to our witness” (200).

Criticism:

To make the Gospel attractive to everyone, you must water it down. The individual who doesn’t want to give up his reality will not be receptive to the gospel. The Gospel is only attractive to those who recognize their need for a Savior. The Gospel is divisive in that it forces the individual make a choice between a life enslaved to sin and a life lived subject to Christ and His Word. There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. Christianity rejects universalism, so, inevitably, not everyone will be receptive. Again, what was your answer to Question 10 of Section1 (Was Jesus ever divisive)? Many rejected Jesus, and many continue to reject His Gospel today.

Nominal Christians

Ed's Statement:

“Focusing on the United States for a moment may help, though similar trends are taking place across the English Speaking Western world. Most Americans, who identify as loosely Christian, are becoming less so—they are more frequently choosing ‘none of the above’ rather than ‘Christian’ when surveyed about their beliefs. In fact, each year about an additional one percent of Americans no longer identify as Christian. Put another way, the nominals are becoming the nones. And as they become nones, their mind-set is more aligned with secular-minded people and they have less affinity with the avowedly religious. At the same time, the percentage of the devout has remained relatively stable” (8).

Criticism:

This is not a bad thing. Even the Gospel talks about separating the wheat from the chaff and separating the Hot from the Cold. There will always be seeds sown upon he stones. Being nominally Christian is not something to strive for… that is exactly where the Devil wants you… in the shadows. Neither this nor that. The question is, why are people not choosing the faith? I believe that nominal Christians were created from the progressive Philosophy that you can play both sides of the field… the Devil created the ground work for the nominal Christians, but when the world is struck with political decisions that are clearly black and white from a Biblical standpoint, we see a choice that needs to be made… Christ or the World.

Anti-Intellectual

Ed's Statement:

“Christians have, for a long time, had an anti-intellectual streak” (23).

Criticism:

In a sense, he isn’t completely wrong. The church has focused too much on feelings in recent years and has lost some big battles in doing so.

However, this statement that the author makes usually comes from atheists who want to attack Christians for believing in a 4,000 year old book and for rejecting evolution.

Sola Academia is something being pushed by many progressive apologists today because it takes away from the authority of Scripture. It is the belief that only scholars can tell you what Scripture says, and it just so happens that scholarship is becoming more and more liberal as time goes on.

For intellectuals, unless you have a PhD, what you say holds no validity. And yet, we have a generation of people who don’t know what a good source is. You are laughed at and mocked if you don’t agree with their Ph.D. source. (Never mind that you can produce another Ph.D. source that can refute theirs). This inevitably breaks down into a battle of sources, yet we have strayed completely from the true source that we should be discussing—the scriptures themselves. Christians need to know their scriptures inside and out so that they can give a ready defense and answer for what they believe and why they believe it.

Political Obsessive

Ed's Statement:

“More troubling, sometimes they interweave their political beliefs with theology as a means to prove that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God” (47).

Criticism:

The author does this throughout. According to his logic, we aren’t supposed to weave our political with theological. If Christians are united in Scripture, then we are united in politics. He is rejecting reality if he thinks Christians aren’t supposed to be united politically, but now we have progressivism which creates this disunity. Throughout this book, the author is an apologist for the Progressive methodology. Be gentle, don’t offend, don’t be aggressive, don’t be black and white, don’t be polarized or divisive, etc. There are some things that are, in fact, black and white.

Westboro Baptists

Ed's Statement:

“Sadly, many people in the evangelical church believe what the Westboro is willing to say out loud” (216).

Criticism:

Really?! Many people in the evangelical church? That is a bold, unfounded statement. Also, it needs to be said that Christians do believe that Homosexuals will go to Hell without Jesus…don’t you? Anyone who lives a life of sin and does not turn to Christ in repentance will end up in Hell. The difference is that most Christians don’t want them to go to Hell. We want to point them to Christ, I don’t know a single evangelical, in person or on social media, that supports the Westboro Baptists and believes that what they say is true.

Worldly Love

Ed's Statement:

“Worldly love (licentiousness) seeks to endorse or embrace everything. It begins from the false dichotomy that we either accept without question people’s beliefs and behavior (unless it is obviously destructive to someone else) or we are unloving. As a result, we cannot address underlying sin or rebellion. Thus, love is set as opposite to judgement. Religious love (legalism) is based on the merit of others. Our love is conditional on their proper behavior. This type of love is far more common in Christian circles than worldly love but is equally problematic. We preach judgement and then claim that we have been ‘loving’ because we have confronted others with their sins. We pat ourselves on the back for how our love has perhaps spared them eternity in hell. This love is set as opposite to apathy” (220).

Criticism:

Worldly love is far more common in Christian circles than the author believes, and is also the type of love that he, ironically, encourages. He defines worldly love as a “false dichotomy that accepts people’s beliefs and behavior or we are unloving.” Kind of like how he says we need to accept people’s beliefs and behavior or else we are outrageous and un-Christ-like or simply not focusing on the mission.

Section 6: Positive Points from the Book

1. “Christians often have the same bad habits as everyone else, practices that damage not only their well-being and relationships, but also their spiritual vitality and witness. Despite these dangers, when was the last time your church taught on social media or proper media consumption? Substantive, disciple making teaching on how Christians can develop godly technology habits? Aside from youth pastors warning of cyberbullying, when have messages touched on the way technology is shaping our lives or how our online behavior relates to our faith? I have heard plenty of sermons that address the problem of pornography, but I can count on one hand the number of times a pastor or Sunday school teacher discussed a more comprehensive online discipleship” (33).

• • • He’s totally right that churches need to start taking social media more seriously. The youth are going to be going to be on social media no matter what and the youth are easily influenced. They are not being discipled or mentored, and they are leaning on their own understanding. Think about how influenced we were in regards to music. We would find songs that explained how we felt then dwelt on those emotions. Now its videos. We also have social media via video games. The Devil will use every platform possible to attack the faith. The spiritual war is full of spiritual battles that occur on numerous battlefields. By ignoring social media & technology, we are neglecting one of those battle fields.

2. On page 86, the author talks about rejecting “the impulse to right every wrong.” There is a positive and a negative side to this. Back in the day, I confronted every single possible wrong I came across. Nothing could keep me from speaking the truth and defending the faith. Now the Lord has brought me to a point where I am a lot more judicious in my battles. I have learned to see when someone is being genuine vs someone who just wants to start a fight. But with this knowledge, if you were to ask me if I could go back and time and perhaps change my original methodology… would I? My answer would be no because that is how I got to where I am today. And every time I had acted, it was because of the stirring of the Holy Spirit. We cannot tell those who are stirred by the Holy Spirit to ignore the Spirit. Just as we can’t tell those who are offended by meat offered to idols that they shouldn’t be offended by it.

3. “When leaders are confused by or scared of new technology, they tend to convince themselves and others that it’s not important. At its core, this mentality is similar to missionaries who go to a new country and don’t bother to learn anything about the culture and habits of the people. Jesus condemns this attitude in Luke 14:28-30, asking what kind of builder does not first sit down and count the cost to see if he has enough to complete a project” (248).

• • • This is very true. The older generation seems to be terrified by technology and so there is now this disconnect between the older and the younger. I mean, there is already a disconnect, but now even more so. The devil will, by any means necessary, try to attack the faith. If you are not familiar with technology, he may be using it right now, and you will be completely oblivious to it.

4. “Whether companies are trying to entice us to go from one show to the next, one article to the next, or on one blog post to the next, they will not let your attention go without a fight. The root of the issue is this: They are fighting for our discipleship, for our love” (143).

• • • We live in a culture where we can binge watch shows anywhere, anytime. Unless the church realizes the NEED for scripture, they may continue to put it on the back burner. Pastors need to preach conviction because there is no discipleship happening. We need to reiterate the importance of meditating on Scripture day and night. Knowing it well enough that we can spot the slight alterations & lies of the world. Too many give their minds to the world for most of the week and offer it to Christ only on Sundays.

5. “The answer for Christians in the age of outrage is not some silver-bullet study that will give a new piece of knowledge. Rather, it begins with looking at our habits, the things that we love every day through our choices and actions” (144).

• • • Absolutely agree. Everyone knows when they are out of shape. And everyone wants to be in shape. But do you know when you are spiritually out of shape? If you don’t know, you should be taught how to find out. Just as he said, You start by “looking at [your] habits, the things that [you] love every day through [your] choices and actions.”

6. “Reading the Bible is identity forming. Sadly, many Christians fail to grasp this crucial truth about discipleship. We think of Bible reading the way we might think about charging a battery; we expect time in Scripture to recharge our engines so we can face the world. We assume we need a little jolt once in a while and then we’ll be good. As a result, when our pastors or small group leaders encourage us to get into God’s Word for ourselves, we think of it as a way to gain knowledge rather than a means to form our identity” (147).

• • • This is a very important truth. The Church has a NEED that many Christians are unaware of. And even if they were aware of this NEED, that doesn’t mean they WANT to fulfill that NEED. Christians need to start taking the study of Scripture more seriously. It will take pastors to light a fire of conviction which the Holy Spirit will fuel to create the want to fulfill the need. Christians NEED to start being discipled and stop being so full of hubris in their lone biased method of interpretation.

7. On page 180, the author talks about the crisis of “chronic loneliness.” I think this would be a good section for people to read who feel alone and ostracized due to their political beliefs. This is a very hard topic because everyone, Christian or not, seems to be all over the spectrum. There are conspiracy theories all over the place. Some have proven to be true while others have proven to be false. There are numerous sources of information that contradict each other. Everyone’s source for information is scrutinized. Each person who holds a belief (aside from the Faith) really holds it deep into their bones. And if you don’t agree with them, many of these people will become hostile, or they will feel the opposite… they will feel like they are outcasts. So, regarding this chronic loneliness, we can’t lump everyone in together. Each person needs to be taken at a case-by-case basis. We can’t deal with everyone the same. And if you are a Christian who is dealing with the chronic loneliness, you can’t give up on the Christian brothers and sisters of the faith. There are still those out there who believe in the Essential Doctrines of the faith and have a personal relationship with Jesus. Neither side should make generalizations about the other.

8. Chapter 11 was a very good chapter on Neighborly Engagement. We need to start taking our witness to our neighbors more seriously and planning out the neighborhood is genius. Find out who is and who is not a believer. With the believers, maybe work together in sharing the Gospel.

Section 7: Very Important Points / Conclusion

1. The Devil wants the world to love progressive Christianity, and he has made it appealing for them. The polls show what kind of Christians the world wants.
2. There needs to be a balance. If we tell those who are emboldened by the Holy Spirit that they are wrong and that they need to stifle that passion… it is no better than telling baby Christians that they shouldn’t be offended by meat offered to idols and to neglect the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 8:13).
3. The American Church is at a very critical point in time. We either compromise to appease those who oppose the Gospel, or we stand firm in the word and do not shirk from defending the faith regardless of where the attacks are coming from. We are being attacked in Schools, the Media, the Scientific Community, in Politics, etc.
4. After reading this book, you should ask yourself if what the author says would have stirred up the German church to oppose Nazism, or would this book have solidified & encouraged their silence?
5. A book that I would recommend reading that seems to be the complete opposite of this book is “Letter to the American Church” by Eric Metaxes.
6. The author never says anything that is blatantly antithetical to the Bible. So, while I disagree with many of his points, I cannot disparage him completely. However, the implications of several of his assertions when followed to their logical conclusions are unfounded.