A last defense of the WotM

Suppose you argue, as I did, against the evangelistic technique of leading people to Christ by 1) convincing them they've sinned; 2) presenting them with the threat of eternal hell; and 3) sharing with them the way out of Hell: becoming a Christian.

Suppose you reasoned, as I did, that such a technique, while often effective at getting people to convert (who wants to go to Hell, after all?), presents an image of God that's strikingly unlovely. Indeed, it presents God as a kind of divine tyrant who dangles you above the flames of Hell for violating even the least of God's impossible-to-follow-perfectly commandments and then, after snatching you away from that Hell, demands not just servitude but grateful, heart-soul-mind-and-strength love.

I think that's a fairly serious set of allegations to lay at the feet of one of the most widespread evangelizing narratives currently in circulation. It behooves me, therefore, to explore the Case For this Technique (a technique best exemplified in Ray Comfort's system, "The Way of the Master"). To that end I'm trying to make the best, strongest counter-arguments I can make from the perspective of a hypothetical Way of the Master evangelist.

Yesterday, I argued that the Case Against the Technique was unfair in that it shortchanged the reality-shattering love that God (who is infinitely beyond humans) shows to humanity even in reaching out at all, let alone dying for us as we shake our fists in God's face.. The day before, I argued that the Case Against mistakes as human pique or irritability the natural consequences of human sin. God is holy, which doesn't mean self-righteous in the human sense. It means that unholy things (i.e., humans contaminated by sin) cannot exist it God's presence any more than light can escape from a black hole. It's just the Way Things Are.

One last attempt, then [again, I take on the "voice" of a WotM evangelist]:

So you don't like the idea of judgment. You say it makes God petty, like that bossy kid you knew as a child who forced everyone to play tag exactly according to his rules.

But think of this: what's the alternative you're offering? What is life without the judgment of God?

Say someone steals something. Maybe they're caught; maybe they're not. If the thief isn't caught, does it make the act of stealing OK? Bernie Madoff seemed to think so. Or what about adultery? If the cheating spouse isn't caught, is it still cheating? It's like a variation on the tree falling in deserted woods question: what makes wrong things wrong?

One answer, perhaps: human laws, a social and civic network of tacit or explicit guidelines and prohibitions define what's right and wrong, permissible and non-permissible.

But think, in times before the 13th and 14th Amendments, before the Emancipation Proclaimation, before the Civil War, before the abolitionist movement even had much steam--in times when slavery was considered OK, even supported by scripture--was slavery wrong then? Or what about female suffrage? Was it just optional prior to 1920? Or was it always wrong to deny women the right to vote, even when the rest of society (including, it must be said, many women) believed it was proper and right to do so?

The answer, for many Christians, is that a standard of right and wrong exists that transcends specifics of time, place, and culture. Admittedly, there's a great deal in civic morality that is context-specific (e.g., "pay your internet bill on time" makes sense only in societies that have commercial internet). But some things--lying, stealing, murdering, raping--these things are always and in all times/places tinged with un-rightness. Though some acts--like untruthfulness--may be required due to extreme circumstances, these are "necessary evils," and their existence doesn't make lying in general any less wrong. Others acts, like rape, are always wrong--even if no one catches the rapist, and even if the society in question doesn't recognize the wrong as such.

Where does this standard come from if not from society? What does it depend upon if not society? For many Christians, the answer is found in Romans 2:15, where Paul writes that God's transcendent law is written on the human heart, and that every person's conscience bears witness to it. Even someone who has never heard of Christianity has a sense of right and wrong. Insofar as any society is just and fair, it derives its notions of justice and fairness from that inner, God-given standard. God is in this sense the Justice in unjust times, the eternal Demand for Mercy in a merciless world.

So you complain about the judgment of God against wrongdoing. But your own inner sense of right and wrong should tell you that you want--you need--there to be judgment. Wrong things must be judged as such, if not in this world than in the next. Else, where is justice? And no, judgment never feels good when it falls on us rather than working for us; we hate to be caught in a fib or indicted for stealing or viewed as guilty. But I accept that my lies against others would cost me in exchange for considering it good and right for others not to lie to or about me. My expectation of honesty depends upon a knowledge that I would be judged by that standard as well.

But what's the alternative? A cold, dog-eat-dog world of private justice? A world where self-evident truths of life and liberty are fabrications to that can be tossed aside (or legislated out of existence)? Without God-given standards of justice as First Principles (or Ultimate Concerns--whatever), life becomes literally unlivable. Society collapses. Humanity's flame gutters and goes out. Goodness requires standards. Standards require judgment. The only right judgment comes from the Ultimate Judge--and even that judge has provided a way to be declared "not guilty"

More tomorrow!

JF