Proclamation and Response Today: Foundational Concepts

Proclamation and Response Today: Foundational Concepts
As we address the question of proclamation and response today, we should use the Biblical example to guide our approach. After all, the apostles were not only tasked with taking the gospel to all nations, they were personally equipped for this task by Jesus.

There are several general observations we should make about the Scriptural evidence. These should be incorporated into whatever approach might be used.

The proclamation and response are simple enough to require but a day, yet substantial enough to last a lifetime
The proclamation focuses on the person of Jesus and his Messiahship/Lordship
The proclamation addresses questions as needed, but does not place these questions or more thorough understandings above the basic issue, which is the identity of Jesus Christ and faith in him

Religious Temptations to Be Avoided
From its earliest history, the church has wrestled with the question of how to present the gospel to the lost in an environment where false teachings exist. Along the way, it has sometimes burdened the gospel with well intentioned but regrettable appendages. Some of these things linger on to this day and merit specific discussion.

Allowing the Errors of Others to Corrupt the Process
Often, the process of proclamation and conversion is colored by the "errors of others." The idea is that because of this or that "bad thing," the process gets changed to prevent this or that "bad thing" from happening. Consider the words of the 3rd century Roman bishop Hippolytus:

But now, moved by His love to all His saints, we pass on to our most important theme, “The Tradition,” our teacher. And we address the churches, so that they who have been well trained, may, by our instruction, hold fast the tradition which has continued up to now and, knowing it well, may be strengthened. This is needful, because of the lapse or error which recently occurred through ignorance, and through ignorant men. And the Holy Spirit will supply perfect grace to those who believe aright, that they may know how all things should be transmitted and kept by them who rule the church (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 1:1, emphasis added) (He goes on to discuss the conversion process for new converts in his time. )

The point is that the post-apostolic church often dealt with false teachings or practices by adding something in addition to the gospel. This is similar to the American legislative process today. For example, suppose certain laws exist to govern behavior in a particular area, and then someone takes an action that is questionable but not specifically illegal under the current law. After considering the behavior, the legislature may modify the law or pass a new law to make this new thing illegal. Thus, law is a reaction to wrongdoing.

But we must ask an important question: Did the apostles approach false teachings and practices in this way? Did they modify the gospel in light of false mutations of it?

Consider the first challenge to the doctrine of the apostolic church, which was the question of circumcising the Gentiles who had become Christians:

But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. [7] And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. [8] "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; [9] and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. [10] "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? [11] "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:5-11)

The apostles did not re-define the gospel to address this false teaching. However, they appealed to the core of the gospel and its implications to evaluate the false teaching. They answered the question of the day adequately, and simultaneously preserved the priority and integrity of the gospel.

Thus, the apostles evaluated false doctrines in light of the gospel and not according to an ever-expanding bank of situational resolutions and judgments. If any false teaching could cause the gospel to be altered, it would no longer be the gospel that was given in the beginning. Consider these references that place a priority on holding to the original gospel:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; [7] which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)
For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, [8] but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, [9] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (Titus 1:7-9)

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

If anyone is truly serious about proclaiming the gospel to a lost world today, the gospel must be liberated from all of the reactionary attachments that have glommed onto it over the years.

Artificially Induced Delays and Hurdles
From time to time, churches have introduced delays in the conversion process whereby candidates for conversion must "prove" themselves. It might seem noble to create a hedge against people making hasty or shallow decisions, and at first glance a few references from the Scriptures seem to support this idea.

Cost-Counting
Some point out that Jesus once told potential followers to "count the cost" (Luke 14:28) of following him, and therefore people should "count the cost" before becoming Christians today. Yet the reason for Jesus advocating this cost-counting is apparent when the context is considered. He is warning his hearers that his fate will not be that of a Davidic king who will expel the Romans (the dominant Messianic expectation of the day, ref. John 6:15, 12:34), but rejection by the leaders and crucifixion. Remember, Jesus spoke about this very thing on many occasions and still the apostles did not understand what he meant (ref. Mark 9:9-10, Luke 9:44-45). Thus, those who would physically follow him during his earthly ministry would end up faced with the cross themselves, just like him. So when Jesus speaks of cost-counting and cross-carrying, this is what is referring to.

Proponents of this idea of "cost-counting" generally fail to recognize this context for these remarks by Jesus. We might also observe that none of the apostles engaged in any "cost-counting" prior to following Jesus themselves; they did not really know what to expect when they started following him. While the apostles were committed to accompanying and following Jesus, they did not follow him to the cross when the time came but instead abandoned Jesus in the garden (Mark 14:50). And most importantly, the apostles did not make "cost-counting" part of the conversion process in the early church.

Proving Repentance
John the Baptist spoke of "producing fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matthew 3:8, LUke 3:8). John's observations have to do with valuations concerning the hearts of the recipients. John was expecting people to have hearts accepting of God's standards, not to go through some gauntlet of actions (e.g. sharing tunics or food, ref. Luke 3:11) prior to baptism. Thus, people confessed their sins-- failures according to God's standards-- at the time of their baptism (Matthew 3:6).

Similarly, Paul once stated that people must prove their repentance by their deeds (Acts 26:20). However, this text doesn't demand any "pre-baptismal" proving. Paul's point was that one's subsequent lifestyle reflected one's repentance. In New Testament times, the expressed desire to repent on the part of the convert was taken on good faith.

The apostles easily faced these same concerns as us today, and yet did not add any of this sort of thing to the proclamation/conversion process. The biblical conversions in a single day prove that there were no mandated delays or times of proving that were part of the conversion process in the early church. Thus, any process that deliberately introduces a delay between hearing the gospel and responding to it cannot be Scriptural.

Am I suggesting there should be no evaluation of the ramifications of the faith on the part of the potential convert? Not necessarily. But if the gospel is true and God is "for us" (Romans 8:31), the ramifications of that faith are somewhat irrelevant: one must act according to what one believes, regardless of the ramifications. Thus, what is important is not recognition of these possible ramifications (who can predict the future anyway?) but true faith in the Savior. Once that faith exists, conversion may take place.

In addition, experience has shown us that delays and arbitrary hurdles are of no value in preventing hasty or shallow decisions. It seems that they only postpone such decisions. On the other hand, such delays and hurdles play a very real role in obscuring the grace of God. Is His grace free or do we have to earn it?

As Paul told Agrippa in discussing how long Agrippa might take to become a Christian, "short time or long." The length of time may vary depending upon the individual, but the important thing is that people respond to the gospel. Yet, if we are to have a Scriptural conversion paradigm today, it must surely be compatible with the brief, one-day conversion examples seen in the early church.

Over-Emphasis on the "Properness" of Conversion
Another risk the church has always faced is the idea of finding the "perfect conversion," trying to address every potential stumbling block as a part of the process. This is a natural desire, and certainly sounds good and noble at first thought, especially in light of various false teachings.

However, the more complicated the conversion process is, the more likely it is that these complications will end up contradicting some Scriptural example. For example, if one insists upon church attendance prior to baptism, what does one do with the many conversions that took place in the book of Acts where there is no evidence of prior church attendance? Like most issues that get attached to the gospel, church attendance is an important issue from a faithfulness point of view, but it is not a Scriptural prerequisite for conversion.

Proclamations and responses in Bible times were sufficiently varied and show that the essence of conversion was quite simple. Conversion meant that people from various backgrounds went from not believing in Jesus to believing in Jesus, from not regarding him as Master to regarding him as Master, from darkness to light.

In addition, the New Testament is silent regarding any discussion of whether someone's conversion was proper. When one considers the Corinthians, Simon the Sorcerer, the Ephesians involved in magic, to name a few, and that none of these ever had their conversions questioned-- this cannot be ignored. No one in the Bible ever has his Christian conversion questioned. But when too much emphasis is placed upon the faith and behavior of the baptismal candidate, Christians may spend their lives wondering if they were converted properly or think that they somehow merited their conversion. There is no evidence that the early church had this particular problem; their faithfulness and baptism testified to their legitimate conversion to Christ.

Canonizing a Catechism
Suppose for a moment that we come up with "perfect conversion process." If we were to come up with such a thing, is there any doubt that there would be attempts made to canonize that process? "Canonizing" is the act or process of making something "official" or a standard. Canonizing a particular conversion process would lead to the church saying (implicitly if not explicitly), "If you want to lead others to Christ (or conversely, become a Christian), this is the only way to do it."

We need to observe that the apostles themselves did not have a single rigid approach for teaching potential converts. Each instance of proclamation and conversion had several common elements as well as unique aspects that related to the individual situation. This makes sense intuitively: there is one Lord and one set of core doctrines about Him that are central to the faith-- hence the common elements. Yet, people are individuals and are coming from different perspectives as they approach faith in Jesus. Thus, the Biblical approach was flexible enough to accommodate these different perspectives while still imparting and emphasizing the core of the gospel.

No matter what process we come up with today, we must always look for ways to get closer to the spirit and practice of the apostolic pattern.

Where To Go From Here
Exactly where to go from here is not certain. But we must clearly pay far closer attention to the apostolic example. In doing so, I believe that we will find our future course.

Since the apostles were personally equipped by Jesus for proclaiming the gospel to mankind, we must be very careful not deviate from their approach in proclamation and conversion. This means that we must be flexible enough to allow for the meeting of individual needs, yet remain true to the core of the gospel. We cannot allow false teachings to modify the gospel, we cannot introduce delays that obscure the grace of God, and we should consider whether our concern with "perfect" conversion has genuine Biblical merit or is simply a part of age-old denominational battles. And rather than canonize the latest process, we must realize that our understanding of this is limited and we always need to be open to a better understanding of the apostolic pattern.

The gospel itself is simple: Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. If someone believes in him as the Messiah, he then makes Jesus the Master (or Lord), is baptized and begins to live accordingly. If this is how people became Christians in the time of the apostles, then it is how people should become Christians today. Human additions are not necessary and are not easily defended. Proper Christian training towards maturity coupled with God and his word of grace (Acts 20:32) will take care of all the rest that is truly important.