SYNOPSIS

There are at least six approaches people use in determining what they choose to believe:

1. The RELATIVISTIC FAITH PATH: Truth is what you make it. But relativism doesn’t work in any other area, so why trust it in the spiritual realm?

2. The TRADITIONAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what you’ve always been taught. What you were taught might be right-if your parents happened to be right. But you won’t know until you test your traditions.

3. The AUTHORITARIAN FAITH PATH: Truth is what you’ve been told to believe. Everyone has authorities in their lives, but before we keep submitting to them, we should examine their credentials and their message.

4. The INTUITIVE FAITH PATH: Truth is what you feel in your heart. The heart can be a source of insights, but it can also lead us down blind alleys.

5. The MYSTICAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what you think God told you. God can still speak. But not everything that seems to be from God really is.

6. The EVIDENTIAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what logic and evidence point to. God gave us these two faculties for discovering what’s true. We need to help our friends employ these to discover spiritual truth, and ultimately to meet God through Jesus Christ.

It is important to understand how our friends come to their beliefs so we may better communicate the truth that God really is who He says He is and that His Word can be trusted.

EVERYONE HAS FAITH IN SOMETHING

Buddhists believe that enlightenment can be found through the eightfold path. Muslims follow the five pillars of Islam. Christians live their lives trusting that Jesus is the unique Son of God who died for their sins. We’re all convinced that what we believe is correct, and we stake our futures on it. But it’s faith just the same; none of us has absolute proof. This might surprise you, but atheists live by faith, too. They operate in the belief that there is no creator, no higher moral law, no divine judgment, and no afterlife. They can’t prove any of these things. In fact, most people in the world believe that denying them goes against the evidence as well as human experience, and therefore requires even higher levels of trust. So everybody lives by some kind of faith-that is, beliefs and actions that are based on something they consider trustworthy, even though they can’t fully prove it to be true-and usually their beliefs run pretty deep. Therefore, if we’re going to be effective in reaching them, we’ll need to do more than tell them what we believe or try to badger them into changing their minds. Rather, it’s important to first understand why our friends believe what they do-how they arrived at those beliefs. Then we’ll be in a better position to speak to them in ways they can understand, and to point them toward the many reasons they should consider putting their trust in Christ. Have you tried talking to friends about your faith, but felt like you were speaking a foreign language? Maybe you were! Perhaps the appeal you made didn’t appeal to them because they value and put their trust in different factors than you do. For example, many Christians speak out of their experience. “I asked Jesus into my life,” they say, “and He filled me with such peace and joy.” But their friend isn’t motivated by testimonies. He wants reasons to believe something is true. Or we may face the opposite situation. Perhaps we’ve read great books like Reasonable Faith, Scaling the Secular City, or The Case for Christ, and we try to convey a mountain of logic and evidence to a friend, but she’s not interested. “You can go on about all of that academic stuff, but I already know what I believe because my heart tells me what’s true.” If we don’t find out what criteria our friends are relying on and somehow address those, then we really might be, in effect, speaking a foreign language to them. The apostle Paul modeled the importance of knowing our audience so we can more effectively relate our faith to them. To Jewish people he deliberately communicated as a Jew “to win the Jews.” To “those under the law I became like one under the law…to those not having the law I became like one not having the law” and “to the weak I became weak, to win the weak.” Paul concludes by explaining, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:20-23¹). In this article we’re going to explore six primary ways people decide what to believe-what I call the six faith paths.² These are different approaches they use to reach what they consider to be trustworthy spiritual beliefs. Once we understand these approaches and identify which of them our friends currently are on, we’ll be better prepared to point those friends toward a biblical faith. Now, I know this can sound a bit academic-and most of our friends won’t use the word-but the issue we’re dealing with here is epistemology. That’s the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and beliefs-or, as my late friend and mentor Bob Passantino used to put it, “how you know you know.” Lots of thick, dusty textbooks have been written about this subject, and the debates go back centuries-including the classic conflicts between the continental rationalists such as René Descartes (of “I think, therefore I am” fame) and the British empiricists, especially David Hume.³ But, as we’ll see, these issues are relevant for today and important to consider as we seek to be effective witnesses for Christ.

THE SIX FAITH PATHS

1. The RELATIVISTIC FAITH PATH: Truth is what you make it.The first of the six approaches people take to choosing their faith is the relativistic faith path. People in this view choose what to believe by deciding what they want to believe-and then thinking that somehow mystically, magically, reality conforms to those beliefs. It’s like they’ve got a private timeshare on truth. That’s why people who take this approach often say things like, “I’ve got my truth; you’ve got yours-let’s just get along.” I’m all for getting along-as Christians we need to be strong advocates of tolerance, in that we support people’s right to choose their own beliefs. But that doesn’t mean everybody is right. Tolerance and truth are two entirely different issues. I’ll support the rights of groups to say, for example, that Jesus was actually an exalted mushroom (people really do teach that)-but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. An important aspect of tolerance is the freedom to disagree and debate about spiritual ideas-and not pretend that everyone’s beliefs are equally valid. How can we reach out to our relativistic friends? Don’t just start throwing evidence for Christianity at them-they’ll just dismiss it as “your truth.” Instead, address their whole approach to truth. How? One way is by showing them that relativism doesn’t work in any other area of life-so why trust it in the spiritual realm? You could suggest, for example, that they go to Hollywood to try driving on Highway 101-as a relativist. Specifically, they should decide that the sign by the road that says “101″ is, for them, the speed limit. Then if they happen to meet a California highway patrolman they can simply explain, “My truth is that my speed limit is 101, so you should just let me be.” How do you think that will work out for them? Probably not so well. With incredulity the officer will reply, “Look, you can play word games with your friends, but when you’re out here on the highway there’s no ‘your truth/my truth’-just real truth. And the real truth is that the speed limit is 65, and you’re going to pay a hefty fine!” Or maybe your friends are in college-perhaps taking classes from relativistic professors. So next time they take a final exam encourage them to put down their own answers-their truth-instead of the answers their professors taught them, and see what happens. Needless to say, relativistic test taking won’t work out much better than relativistic highway driving-or relativistic dieting, relativistic dating, or relativistic anything. The truth is that in real life we need to discover and deal with…the real truth! It’s not what we want things to be or think they ought to be. Truth is what really is. Therefore our job-if we’re interested in survival-is to discover what really is, and adjust our lives accordingly. Imagining or wishing things were different has no effect on how things really are. That’s true in the physical world, but also in the spiritual world. If atheists are really right and there is no God, then our studying about God, praying to God, and worshiping God will not cause Him to suddenly appear-poof! On the other hand, if we’re right and there really is a God, then the denials and denunciations of the atheists are not going to get rid of Him. The real question is this: What reasons are there to believe or not believe in God? Relativism can’t answer that question; it can only lead one to choose a belief and to act as if it were really true. That’s a roll of dice I don’t want to take with my life-and one we should try to convince our friends that they don’t want to take with their lives, either. Instead, we need to urge them to find a more reliable faith path, one that will lead them to a trustworthy faith based on real facts. I’d especially recommend the sixth path, which we’ll discuss below.

2. The TRADITIONAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what you’ve always been taught.The second approach is the traditional faith path. This accepts beliefs as hand-me-downs. Your friend on this path might not ever even think about what he believes or why-he simply accepts what his parents and others taught as he was growing up. This person says, “My grandparents were Hindus, my parents were Hindus, and I’m a Hindu-and always will be one.” So what can we say to someone with this mindset? We can ask how they know their grandparents and parents were right, because they could have been wrong-mine could have been; yours could have been. Clearly someone’s parents were wrong-since they don’t all agree with each other. So how do we find out whose parents, and whose belief systems, are correct? Not by blindly clinging to traditions. You might encourage your friends to think of the last holiday they had with their wider family. Urge them to consider the people around the dinner table, especially the older ones, and to ask themselves: “Which of these relatives do I respect enough to entrust my eternity to?”-because that’s what they’re doing when they unthinkingly perpetuate hand-me-down beliefs and traditions. I love my relatives and enjoy being around them, but there is not a single one of them I’m going to let do my thinking for me, or decide on my behalf and on behalf of my children what we’re going to believe throughout future generations. Instead of supporting a blind journey down the traditional faith path, the Bible tells us to “test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). And Jesus cautioned His listeners about the dangers of letting tradition stand in the way of obeying what God has said (Mark 7:5-13). The traditional path is a natural way to begin as children. But at some point we need to grow up spiritually and think for ourselves, examine the reasons behind the traditions we’ve been taught, and seek truth with God’s help until we’re confident we are on the right path. Jesus promised that if people will ask, seek, and knock then they will find not just truth, but the God of truth Himself (Luke 11:9-13). If you’re a Christian who has been relying on your upbringing to carry you through life, let me urge you to reinforce your faith with sound reasons and evidence. Paul warned that we must “no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching” (Eph. 4:14). You’ll never be mature or confident in your faith until you’ve studied it for yourself and know why you believe. Only then will you also be able, with conviction, “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

3. The AUTHORITARIAN FAITH PATH: Truth is what you’ve been told to believe.Similar to the last approach, the authoritarian faith path is also passive, but this one can come with much more force. It says: You WILL believe this! I saw this one day when I took a church group on a trip to a mosque. The imam, or teacher, had us all sit down so he could give us an overview of the tenets of Islam-and while he was at it he decided to teach us a few things about Christianity as well. He adamantly declared that “God is not divided; he does not have a son.” I knew Muslims also deny that Jesus died on the cross, and therefore reject claims about His resurrection, too. So I raised my hand and said, “I’m curious about something. Jesus’ followers walked and talked with Him for several years. They also reported that He repeatedly claimed to be the Son of God, that they watched Him die on the cross, and that three days later they saw and talked and ate with Him after He was resurrected. They wrote down detailed accounts of what they heard and saw. These have been preserved in thousands of manuscript documents. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but what Islam teaches us about Jesus seems to be based on the words of one man, Muhammad, who, six hundred years after the time of Christ, was sitting in a cave when, he claimed, an angel spoke to him and told him these things weren’t so. What I’m curious about is whether you have any historical or logical reasons for why we should accept that viewpoint over and against the actual historical record?” The imam glared at me and then declared, “I choose to believe the prophet!”-and the discussion was over. For him, the authority of his religion was all he needed. If he had deeper reasons backing up his faith, he chose not to share them. It’s interesting that the original meaning of the Arabic word “Islam” is “submission,” and it seems fair to say that many Muslims accept their faith primarily through the influence and authority of their parents, teachers, government, or society. They are boldly told that Allah is the true God, the Qur’an is his revelation, Muhammad is his messenger, and that they need to submit to these claims. This strong appeal to authority can be seen in a number of other religions and religious groups as well. What can we say to people who are on this faith path? First, we need to make it clear that we’re not antiauthority-we all will be influenced and led by authorities in our lives. But we need to emphasize the importance of making sure we submit to the right authorities. How? Here are two areas to check out: the credentials of the authority and the credibility of their message. First, the credentials. When my children get sick, I naturally want to take them to a doctor. But what kind of doctor should we go see? We could go to a medical doctor, or we can visit a witch doctor-both have “doctor” in their titles. Call me narrow-minded, but I have a strong preference for the one who has the certificates on the wall. I want to know that my kids’ doctor went to a great school that taught the best of medical practices, and that he or she showed up for class, got good grades, and graduated with the right degree. Similarly, if I’m going to follow a religious authority, I want it to be one who passes all the tests of character, moral integrity, truth-telling, accurate teaching, and consistency. Jesus has all of these, plus the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, miracles done in the presence of eyewitnesses, and He rose from the dead. All of this gives me confidence that He is the one with the real credentials, and therefore worth following wholeheartedly. And the credibility of the message? It needs to be based on facts, not fables. It needs to square with the real world, and not some make-believe place. (For example, when Jesus warns in John 16:33 that “in this world you will have trouble,” it’s a message that rings true, over and above the feel-good philosophers who say everything is beautiful, and evil is illusory.) It must also square with what we know to be true from God’s Word-so when Muhammad and his followers tell you that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God, we know from Scripture that this message fails the test. If anything is clear in the historical record of the New Testament, it’s that Jesus was the Son of God-and He demonstrated this through his life, teachings, insights, and miraculous powers.

4. The INTUITIVE FAITH PATH: Truth is what you feel in your heart.The fourth approach is the intuitive faith path, exhibited in the person who says, “Why do I need evidence when I have Oprah? She and her spiritual teachers say we should look within ourselves and listen to our spirit. So that’s how I figure out what to believe.” This one reminds me of the classic scene in Star Wars where Obi-Wan Kenobi is training his young apprentice, Luke Skywalker, how to use his light saber. Obi-Wan instructs Luke to stop using his senses. “Don’t trust your eyes. Your eyes will deceive you,” he said. Instead, he puts a hood over Luke’s face so he can’t see anything. Then he says, “Just feel the Force.” This all sounds so spiritual. But when you talk to your friends who think this way ask them if they’ve ever tried following their heart or trusting their feelings to guide them in making investments. They’d be broke in almost no time flat. Or ask them if they’ve attempted to drive to some side-street address in the heart of a major city based on instinct alone, without a road map. Sure, they might have gotten lucky and found their way on occasion, but usually they’ll become frustrated and begin to realize that their senses-and road maps-were created for a reason. God can and sometimes does give us an intuitive sense about things. We should pay attention to what our heart seems to be telling us or, as the saying goes, do occasional gut checks. But we, and our friends, need to be careful. The heart, according to the Bible, is deceitfully wicked and it can quickly lead us astray. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, warned us in Proverbs 14:12 (NLT), “There is a path before each person that seems right, but it ends in death.” Intuition is like a flashing yellow light in a dark intersection-it signals to pay attention, but it doesn’t tell you everything you need to know. You still need to look both ways, figure out what the real situation is, and act accordingly. Spiritual intuition is similar to that. It might give some clues, but you still need to search for solid truth and reliable evidence in order to be confident you’re really on the right track.

5. The MYSTICAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what you think God told you.Friends who take this fifth approach, the mystical faith path, choose what they believe based on experiences they consider to be transcendent. They are therefore supremely confident in what they believe. “Why should I pay attention to you and your academic arguments,” they wonder, “when I already know what God has shown me?” I most commonly see this approach in Mormon people who testify that they know their beliefs are correct because they once prayed and asked God if the Book of Mormon was true-and they’re convinced He showed them that it is. So for them, it’s “case closed”-and they can’t understand why you’re so hesitant to become a Mormon as well. There’s an old saying, “It’s hard to argue with experience.” While that’s true, it’s also dangerous to form beliefs on experience alone. So what should we say to our friends who are on the mystical faith path? First, we shouldn’t deny that God can speak today. He didn’t lose His voice two thousand years ago! Jesus said in John 10:27, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” So we should be open to God speaking, including in extraordinary ways, as we see Him doing occasionally in the pages of the Bible. But we must also be careful. The Bible warns in 1 John 4:1, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” And 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 cautions, “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” So the message of Scripture is, first, be open to hearing God’s voice, but, second, be careful about what you accept as being from God. How can we test such things? By applying the pattern in the Bible, which is to test alleged new revelations against what we already know to be from God. For example, Paul warned in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” In other words, don’t automatically put stock in a message you receive through a mystical experience unless it passes the test and brings a message consistent with what you already know to be true from God’s previous revelations in the Bible. Mormonism? Its message that there are many gods contradicts the clear monotheistic teachings of both the Old and New Testaments. So if your Mormon friends say God told them it’s true, show them that according to the Bible they need to “test all things,” and not to believe every spirit-even if it’s an angel standing right in front of them-if it contradicts what God has already revealed.

6. The EVIDENTIAL FAITH PATH: Truth is what logic and evidence point to.The sixth approach, the evidential faith path, relies primarily on logic and evidence to show what should be believed. Even though logic and evidence can be ignored or misused, I believe these are two inescapable, God-given tools for determining what is true and trustworthy in the world around us. First, logic. We can’t think, evaluate ideas, or make decisions without it. Yes, some will claim that they don’t trust logic-but they use logic to try to make their point. When people tell you they don’t trust reason just ask them why-and they’ll start giving you reasons against reason. Or sometimes they’ll say that our use of logic is “Western,” and therefore not accepted by the other half of the world that lives in the East. But as Indian-born apologist Ravi Zacharias says, “Even in India if you step out in front of a bus it will kill you!” And need we argue for the importance of evidence, experienced through the five senses? All scientific research relies on it; it’s the foundational tool of our justice system; it’s what we use every day to figure out what is true. Logic and evidence are inescapable-so we might as well employ them with excellence. More than that, the Bible-which is itself supported by reason and evidence-tells us to test truth claims using these tools, as I’ve been illustrating throughout this article. Jesus often pointed to the evidence to verify His claims, including fulfilled prophecies, miracles, His consistent character and sinless life, His role as the Messiah and His nature as the unique Son of God, and ultimately the supernatural exclamation point of His resurrection from the dead. He also warned us to examine the words and work of others who claim to be prophets, to see whether the evidence substantiates their claims. Now, I’m not saying we can rely on our own intellects alone, or that humans have the capacity to figure out their way to God by themselves. God had to reveal Himself, and His Holy Spirit has to draw us to Him. Ultimately our faith and confidence needs to be in God and His wisdom-but logic and evidence help us and our friends in knowing which God to put our faith in and which book we can be confident is God’s revelation. Looking back over the other faith paths, it’s also this mix of logic and evidence that helps us to evaluate the relativistic faith path, determining it is faulty because truth needs to square with what is real. It provides the tools to test our traditions to determine which ones are worth holding onto, and to assess the credentials and messages of the authorities in our lives. It also helps us to size up our intuitive instincts, and to confirm or disconfirm our mystical encounters. More than that, it helps us to assemble an ensemble of reasons for accepting the Christian faith, as I and many other apologists have done in our books and articles.⁴ Studying these arguments will strengthen your own faith, and it will give you the confidence and compelling information you need to effectively communicate that faith to others-as we “become all things to all men…for the sake of the gospel.”

Mark Mittelberg is an international speaker and bestselling author of Choosing Your Faith … In a World of Spiritual Options (Tyndale); Faith Path: Helping Friends Find Their Way to Christ (David C. Cook), and coauthor with Lee Strobel of The Unexpected Adventure (Zondervan) and with Bill Hybels of Becoming a Contagious Christian (Zondervan).

NOTES

1. All Bible quotations are from the New International Version, except where otherwise noted.
2. I present these in detail in Mark Mittelberg with Foreword by Lee Strobel, Choosing Your Faith: In a World of Spiritual Options (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Publishing House, 2008), and in the complementary eight-week training course Mark Mittelberg, Faith Path: Helping Friends Find Their Way to Christ (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2009).
3. For discussion of these topics and the philosophers who represented the various schools of thought, see Frederick Copleston, S. J., A History of Philosophy, especially volumes 4 and 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1994 [original copyrights: 1959-1960]).
4. See, for example, my sections on the twenty “Arrows of Truth” in chapters 9-11 of Choosing Your Faith, and in sessions 6-7 of the Faith Path study course. Also, every Christian should read classics such as Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ (Zondervan, 1998), William Lane Craig’s updated Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008), and J. P. Moreland’s Scaling the Secular City (Baker, 1987).

At the end of a long day at the newspaper where I was an editor, I was packing up to leave when I felt the gentle nudging of the Holy Spirit. I sensed God leading me to go into the business office and invite my atheist friend to come with me to an Easter service at my church. The impression was so strong that I figured something dramatic was about to happen.

I walked into the office. The place appeared empty except for my friend, who was sitting alone at his desk. Perfect! I reminded him that Easter was coming and asked if he would come to church with Leslie and me. He turned me down cold. I asked if he was interested in spiritual matters, and he emphatically said no. I asked if he had any questions about God, and again he said no. I explained why the resurrection was so important, but he wasn’t interested.

With all of my evangelistic overtures being instantly shut down, I began to feel embarrassed. If God really had prodded me to talk with him, then why was he so uninterested? Finally, I stammered as I backed out of the office, “Well, uh, if you’ve ever got any questions, um, I guess you know where my desk is.”

What was that all about? I couldn’t understand why he was so resistant. I finally concluded that maybe I was going to be one link in a long chain of influences that would eventually lead him to Christ. Yet, as far as I know, he remains a skeptic to this day.

Skip ahead a few years. By this time I was a teaching pastor at a church in suburban Chicago. After I spoke one Sunday, a middle-aged man walked up, shook my hand, and said, “I just want to thank you for the spiritual influence you’ve had in my life.”

“That’s very nice,” I said. “But who are you?”

“Let me tell you my story,” he replied. “A few years ago I lost my job. I didn’t have any money and I was afraid I was going to lose my house. I called a friend of mine who runs a newspaper and said, ‘Do you have any work available for me?’ He asked me, ‘Can you tile floors?’ Well, I had tiled my bathroom once, so I said, ‘Sure.’ He told me, ‘We need some tiling done at the newspaper; if you can do that, we can pay you.’

“So one day, shortly before Easter, I was on my hands and knees behind a desk in the business office of the newspaper, fixing some tiles, when you walked into the room. I don’t think you even saw me. You started talking about God and Jesus and Easter to some guy, and he wasn’t interested at all. But I was crouching there listening, and my heart was beating fast, and I started thinking, ‘I need God! I need to go to church!’

“As soon as you left, I called my wife and said, ‘We’re going to church this Easter.’ She said, ‘You’re kidding!’ I said, ‘No, we are.’ We ended up going to your church that Easter—and my wife, my teenage son, and I all came to faith in Christ. And I just wanted to thank you!”

I was dumbstruck! This was a new form of outreach: ricochet evangelism, where the gospel bounces off a hard heart and zips around the room until it hits a heart that is more receptive. Who could have foreseen that—except the amazing God of grace?

There is nothing more exciting than letting God use you to reach out to others for Him. This is the antidote to a dry, boring, vanilla Christian life. When you’re living on the evangelistic edge, that’s when your prayer life is the most fervent, because you’re asking God for His help and guidance in talking to your friends about Him; it’s when your worship is the most heartfelt, because you’re praising the God of the Second Chance, who loves your spiritually confused friends even more than you do; it’s when your Bible study really comes alive, because you’re not just looking for abstract theological truths, but you’re searching for insights that might help you reach your neighbor; it’s when your dependence on God is at its greatest, because you know that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there’s nothing you can do to bring anyone into the kingdom.

This is where the spiritual action is! So how can you participate in the unexpected adventure? Let’s examine three important elements: we need to be available, prayerful, and authentic.

First, be available. In the story I just recounted, about all I had to offer God was my availability. Think about it: I didn’t even know who I was really talking to. I spoke as I sensed the Holy Spirit was leading me, but I did so filled with doubt and confusion about why my words weren’t connecting—yet God used me in unexpected ways.

My ministry associate Mark Mittelberg, coauthor of our book The Unexpected Adventure, tells about wanting to reach out years ago to Kyle, a friend he’d gone to school with. At the time Mark was new in his relationship with Christ, and he had not yet become a serious student of theology and apologetics. As a result, he felt intimidated in trying to share his faith with Kyle, who had been one of the smartest people in their class.

Despite his feelings of inadequacy, Mark made himself available. He sensed he was in over his head, but he did his best to explain the difference Jesus had made in his life. More than that, he invited Kyle for a long car ride, during which he played a tape of a teacher who made the gospel clear. And when the recording ended, you guessed it: Kyle understood the message and was ready to receive Christ. Mark pulled the car over to the side of the highway and led Kyle in a prayer of commitment— amazed at how God was working.

Again, the key was availability. If you want to be used by God in the lives of others, make yourself available to Him each day—and watch for the opportunities He’ll bring.

Second, be prayerful. I was reminded of the power of prayer a few years ago when I was just about to baptize a woman. Feeling a nudge from the Holy Spirit, I turned to the woman’s husband and asked, “Have you given your life to Jesus?”

What happened next shocked me: he burst out sobbing. “No, I haven’t,” he said. “But I want to right now.”

I was stunned—but right then and there, I prayed with him to receive Christ and then I baptized the two of them together. As I walked off the stage, another woman ran up, threw her arms around me, and kept sobbing, “Nine years, nine years, nine years!”

“I’m sorry,” I said, “but who are you, and what do you mean?”

It turned out she was the man’s sister, and she and the man’s wife had been praying for him for nine long years—seeing no glimmer of spiritual interest. But they persevered and kept praying, and look what God did!

Maybe you’ve been praying for a friend or loved one for a long time, but you’ve started to lose heart. Bring that person to mind. As those two women would wholeheartedly tell you— never give up hope, and never stop praying.

Third, be authentic. The importance of this became clear to me when a young nurse named Maggie, who had experienced abuse at the hands of people who claimed to be Christians, began attending our church. Soon she was part of a small group of spiritual seekers who were meeting with a Christian couple to investigate faith issues. Maggie ended up writing this poem about those two leaders:

Do you knowdo you understandthat you representJesus to me?

Do you knowdo you understandthat when you treat me withgentleness,it raises the question in mymindthat maybe He is gentle, too.Maybe He isn’t someonewho laughs when I am hurt.

Do you knowdo you understandthat when you listen to myquestionsand you don’t laugh, I think,“What if Jesus is interested inme, too?”

Do you knowdo you understandthat when I hear you talkhonestly about arguments andconflict and scars from yourpast that I think,“Maybe I am just a regularpersoninstead of a bad, no good littlegirlwho deserves abuse.”

If you care, then I think maybeHe cares—and then there’s thisflame of hope that burns insideof meand for a while I am afraid tobreathebecause it might go out.

Do you knowdo you understandthat your words are His words?That your face is His face tosomeone like me?

Please, be who you say you are.Please, God, don’t let this beanother trick.Please let this be real.Please!

Do you knowdo you understandthat you representJesus to me?

A few days after sending me that powerful poem, Maggie told me, with great joy and excitement, that she had given her life to Christ. When I asked her what prompted her to step across the line of faith, her reply was simple. “Well,” she said, “I just met a whole bunch of people who were like Jesus to me.”

Here’s the encouraging news: you and I can do this! We don’t need a doctorate in theology. We can make ourselves available, we can pray, and we can live authentic Christian lives. Do these things—and watch for opportunities to experience the unexpected adventure of a lifetime.

—Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs. Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg’s latest book, The Unexpected Adventure, is a devotional designed to help people seize opportunities to talk with others about Jesus (www.theunexpectedadventure.com).

Christians, in their witnessing, are accustomed to giving a presentation of the gospel and offering their personal testimony. What if, however, the reaction of our evangelistic audience is something like this: “I know what the gospel message is. I once believed it myself, but not anymore” or, “I once had a testimony like yours, but I am no longer a Christian.”

These troubling responses, regrettably, are becoming more commonplace. Support groups for ex-Christians, such as Fundamentalists Anonymous (FA), are gaining prominence; the FA Web site receives tens of thousands of visitors each month, and the Internet is rife with “antitestimonies” of those who once confessed belief in Christ but have abandoned their faith. A few have joined cults or other religions, but the majority have retreated into some form of skepticism. How is the witnessing Christian to respond to the “ex-Christian” for whom the Good News is “old news”?¹

Intellectual Objections. An informal survey conducted by a Web site support group for ex-Christians indicates that two-thirds of respondents began to question Christianity because of some intellectual difficulty. The largest portion (28.5 percent) cited “theological/doctrinal problems” as their reason for questioning their faith; another 27 percent claimed that their faith “no longer made sense” or that they “grew out of it.” Ten percent cited “Bible contradictions” as their reason to initially question Christianity.²

All three of these areas are concerns of Christian apologetics, and the sort of intellectual problems these persons faced, as related in exemplary antitestimonies from the same Web site, reveal familiar questions; for example: Is free will compatible with God’s sovereignty? Is eternal punishment just? Is the theory of evolution compatible with Genesis? In one sense, therefore, preparation for encounters with those who have fallen from faith is no different than preparation for those who have never professed Christ. The intellectual objections we encounter will usually be the same, and the importance of providing sound answers is magnified by the fact that some antitestimonies cite the provision of unsatisfactory answers as a factor in deconversion. One such story relates what happened when the author wrote to a radio ministry seeking resolution to a common claim of biblical contradiction: “Instead of an intellectual [sic] satisfying apologetic, they merely admonished that some things could only be answered through the eyes of faith. I pretty much got the same answer everywhere I went.”³ Having adequate answers (or knowing where to get them) clearly should be one of our priorities as Christians. It will not be sufficient to tell seekers to “have faith,” while ignoring their questions.

The Attitude Factor. We will sometimes encounter ex-Christians who manifest extremist reactions toward those who present the gospel message. Those who react this way will often have a sense that they have been relieved of a burden of deception when they forsook Christianity, and will come to the discussion with the attitude that they will not be “fooled” again. They may dismiss even sound or scholarly arguments as “excuses,” or as biased or insufficient, either without rational justification or with a preemptive ad hoc argument. They may assume that their “liberation” is a sign of advanced reasoning skills, and thus presume themselves to be the intellectual superior of any person still in faith; thus, they automatically think a Christian will have nothing of value to say to them. For such persons, the years that they spent as Christians are looked on as time wasted going in the wrong direction, and evangelists are merely perpetrators of the lie that originally ensnared them.

This attitude manifests itself in a variety of ways. Some ex-Christians are openly hostile and gratuitously profane. Some become “anti-evangelists” who attempt to deconvert others. One of the most popular examples of an anti-evangelist is Dan Barker, a former preacher who now heads an activist group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker authored his own antitestimony titled Losing Faith in Faith, which contains his story of leaving the Christian church, and several chapters of standard “Bible contradictions” and problems. Today he speaks widely and publicly debates prominent Christian apologists in furtherance of his organization’s agenda; yet the quality of many of his arguments makes it clear that he is an example of an ex-Christian whose hostility has overcome his better judgment.⁴

Those persons who wear their “ex-Christianity” on their sleeve pose a serious challenge to Christian evangelists. If we present the truth in love, and it is rejected with open hostility or even profane derision, there will come a point after which we are obliged to heed Jesus’ counsel to shake the dust from our feet and move on (Mark 6:11). We may keep a door open for later discussion, but Jesus clearly indicates that we are not required to indulge those who harbor irrational resentment at the expense of those who seek honest intellectual resolution.

Minimal Investment. The hostility of some who call themselves former Christians may emerge in direct correspondence with the level of personal investment they had in their faith when they were professing believers. Some who once professed Christianity may not have had what we would regard as a serious commitment and may be more receptive to our evangelistic efforts. This category of persons who “grew out of it” may include those who attended church weekly and would have called themselves Christians, but because they never took the time to learn more about Christianity, they simply abandoned it. It may be effective to politely question these persons about the nature of their former beliefs and uncover any misconceptions they may have had about difficult doctrines. A reasoned and intelligent defense of any particular point about Christianity can open the door for them to consider that perhaps Christianity deserves a second look. We may also find it helpful to bring into the discussion someone who was once a skeptic but became a Christian, and can thus provide direct guidance along the same path.

Subjective Objections. In the survey noted above, approximately 6 percent cited “actions of other Christians” as their reason for questioning their faith, while 5 percent cited “personal tragedy.” The balance of respondents either were not Christians when they started questioning Christianity or cited some other reason, such as, “wanted to start sinning” (1 percent).

These three points represent the most common nonrational (emotional/sensual) objections to Christianity, and as with intellectual objections, they certainly are not unique to ex-Christians. The first two are simply variations on standard arguments such as, How can a religion of love perpetrate something like the Crusades? or, How could a good God have allowed 9/11? When argued by an ex-Christian, however, such questions add certain complications to our response. Though we would certainly approach these objections with a concerned and sympathetic ear, the ex-Christian may say that he or she has personally suffered too much pain or emotional distress to consider Christianity again. The logical point that the truth of a religion’s claims is not determined by the actions of its followers may seem empty and hollow to this sort of person. Our evangelism may become as much gentle counseling as it is presenting the truth in love. In other cases, however, “actions of other Christians” may refer to political or moral stances by leading Christians that the person has found offensive (e.g., reactions against homosexuality or support for a particular military action), which means that we once again may enter into the realm of evidential apologetics.

The last reason given, “wanted to start sinning,” requires cautions against two extremes. First, we must not make the mistake of assuming that a desire to sin was the real reason behind a person’s deconversion. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some will use philosophical or other reasons as a cover for this sort of desire, (particularly where something like sexual freedom is concerned); nevertheless, unless invited to do so, it is best to avoid becoming a “spiritual psychologist” and instead stick to discussing tangible issues as much as possible.

Multicultural Motivation. One final factor to consider, especially in our age of postmodern thought, is the presentation of religious diversity as a factor in deconversion. Ex-Christians may cite differing views of various Christian denominations as a reason for their dissatisfaction, reasoning that a body that does not have its own house in order certainly cannot be trusted to put others’ houses in order. On a larger scale, they may argue that humanity itself has too many differing religious orientations, making it more likely that none at all are correct.

This argument is problematic on many points; but we may illustrate its unreasonableness by appealing to an area in which the person who is making it is committed. If the person is a political activist, for example, we might point out that differing views between political parties, and even within parties, certainly should not compel someone to reject being a political activist or standing for a political cause in which he or she believes! In the final analysis, an argument like this is not a search for truth, but a case of surrendering because searching for the truth has proven to be more work than was desired. A person who cites diversity of religious faith as a reason for having no faith at all is merely cutting off his nose to spite his face.

The professing ex-Christian poses a significant challenge for the Christian evangelist, but it is a challenge that can be met successfully. Intellectual and emotional preparation remains much the same as for an encounter with any other person. The difference lies in the need to be sensitive to the specific needs of those for whom faith and practice in Christ is either a painful recollection or an imperfect reflection.

— James Patrick Holding

NOTES

1. The question of whether a Christian is “once saved, always saved,” and the salvation of purported Christians prior to their deconversion, is beyond the scope of this article.

2. Survey results originally posted at vanallens.com, http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1272 (Accessed October 15, 2004).

3. Dave VanAllen, “’A Sabbatical?’ or ‘My Anti-Testimony,’” Exchristian.net, http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/04/sabbatical-or-my-anti-testimony.php.

4. For example, he criticizes the Golden Rule (“Do to others as you would have them do to you) on the absurd grounds that a masochist could use it as justification to “do to others” the same things the masochist does to himself! Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992), 347–48.

Implicit in Jesus’ command to make disciples of all nations is the command to evangelize. Carrying out that command invariably brings us into contact with a wide variety of people whose beliefs and lifestyle may seem quite foreign to us. Often we may find ourselves feeling uncomfortable with such encounters. The temptation is to take the easy way out and leave any evangelism to someone else. It can be too easy to shelter ourselves from the world and shirk our God-given responsibility to reap the fields as they become “white for harvest” (John 4:35). Those feelings of discomfort may be a signal that it is time for us to become more informed both about our own Christian worldview as well as the worldviews and religions of others. We need to do so in order to “always be ready to give a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15) to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in us. As the religion of Wicca¹ becomes more mainstream in America, the chances become greater that we will encounter in our normal course of events a practitioner of this faith. Being prepared in advance is the best way to take advantage of witnessing opportunities that God, in His sovereignty, may bring our way.

The task of sharing the gospel has both universal elements and specific strategies. In an important sense, witnessing to Wiccans is no different from witnessing to anyone else. It requires a comfortable knowledge of the gospel message and a preparation to defend that message with the measure of faith that God has given. The specific strategies create an additional challenge. I would like to suggest some specific strategies. Do not expect to be able to get through all these steps in just one encounter. Be prepared to invest enough time to become informed of the Wiccan worldview and be willing to develop a relationship that will enable you to engage Wiccans in fruitful dialogue.²

Creating Credibility. There is no substitute for being informed about the belief system of those you are attempting to reach. This is no less true for Wiccans. There are several reasons for this. First, being informed goes a long way in creating credibility. If you come across as being ignorant, they might dismiss your rejection of their views as being the product of that ignorance, thinking that if you only knew more about the issues, you would embrace their views just as they did. Demonstrating an understanding of their viewpoint signals that you care about these matters and may lead them to consider that you perhaps deserve a hearing.

Overcoming Obstacles. Second, being informed can go a long way in overcoming obstacles to fruitful communication. Many Wiccans are hostile (in attitude, not actions) to Christianity (at least as they perceive it). They resent the notion that they need to be converted and reject the idea that there is anything morally wrong with them. There is no real concept of sin in their worldview; instead, they think in terms of ignorance and enlightenment.

Wiccans will expect you to be hostile (in attitude, not actions) toward them. Try not to contribute to any stereotype that they may have of Christians. You can avoid coming across as condemning without compromising the Christian stance of the seriousness of sin and the danger of judgment. Only the Holy Spirit can convict of sin and enable one to see one’s need for a Savior. This is not to say that He does not use other means in bringing one to this awareness; but it is to say that it is easy for us to become an impediment to that awareness. Try to be disarming by being kind and respectful; but do not feign kindness. Most people (including Wiccans) can see through phoniness. If your attempt to reach out to them is not attended with a genuine Christlike love and kindness, then it would be better for you to find someone else to witness to. To be kind and accepting in the manner of which I am speaking does not mean that you approve of their beliefs, but treating them with dignity and respect can go a long way. After all, they are humans before they are Wiccans. Being willing to be a friend can begin to tear down unnecessary obstacles. If you display this kindness and respect, then they are more likely to consider your Christian perspective on life.

Minimizing Misunderstandings. Third, being informed can go a long way in minimizing the chances of being misunderstood. Do not assume that Wiccans are familiar with Christianity. In fact, the chances are that many Wiccans have a distorted view about the Christian faith. This is particularly true concerning the gospel. Many Wiccans have a misunderstanding not unlike that of other people in that they assume that becoming a Christian means trying to be as good as one can. This leads to many Wiccans believing that they themselves are more “Christian” than many Christians, since they pride themselves on their belief in the sacredness of all life, their conscientiousness about the environment, and their adherence to other Wiccan values. They will undoubtedly be aware of the failings of the institutionalized Christian church in these and other areas. They may even have an exaggerated perspective about the harmful effects Christianity has had in history, believing that the church is at the root of many or most of the world’s problems. They may express contempt for what they see in Christianity as an unhealthy patriarchy, an overemphasis on private property, an unjustified allegiance to capitalism, and more.

Should you respond to these or other points? There is no one answer that will apply to every situation. It is a judgment call you will have to make. On the one hand, dealing with such weighty topics might be problematic if you are not informed enough to give a reasoned response to their concerns or misperceptions. Further, it could cause you to alienate yourself from them, and pursuing such topics could become a distraction from getting at the heart of the matter—the gospel. On the other hand, if the Wiccan truly has a problem considering the claims of Christ because of these or other issues, being ready to engage thoughtfully and respectfully might signal that Christians can be informed about such matters too. Sometimes it will not be possible to discern in advance which is the wiser course. Pray for wisdom and learn from your experiences.

All in all, there is no reason for you to shy away from your own failings as a Christian or the failings of the Christian churches. Being able to admit to our own hypocrisy will further undo many misunderstandings that Wiccans may have of Christians and Christianity. In fact, owning up to one’s own failings will help move the conversation along the path of why we all need a Savior in the first place.

Developing Dialogue. Fourth, being informed will make it easier for you to pose the right kinds of questions. Your goal will be to develop an open dialogue that entitles you to share your faith freely. Many Wiccans will be happy to share what they believe. If you have conducted yourself in a Christlike manner up to this point, you should have opportunities to present and defend the gospel.

Occult expert and Christian apologist Marcia Montenegro suggests a number of questions you can pose to engage a Wiccan in a fruitful discussion.³ Wiccans regard all of life as sacred. Questions about whether humans should be regarded as more special than insects or other life forms can press the issue of the uniqueness of human beings. Some Wiccans may try to maintain consistently that all life forms are equally sacred, but many will recognize that human beings are unique. Such questions can establish a connection with the truth that resides within all humans concerning objective morality. Romans 2:14–15 tells us that the moral law of God is written on the heart. Here, the Wiccan’s own sense of morality can work to your apologetic advantage.

Most Wiccans will hold that the universe is either indifferent or is benevolently disposed toward humans, and yet they have no real hope about their own destiny. Inquiries about death, reincarnation, and the afterlife can sometimes bring to the surface the concerns many humans have about what happens after death. Ask them what the goal is to living many lives, how many lives they think they will need to live in order to achieve that goal, and how certain they are that they are on the right track. The hope that is in the gospel will stand in sharp contrast to the uncertainty of self-improvement.

Questions about the origin of the universe can give you an opportunity to show the intellectual superiority of the theistic worldview over the pantheism of Wicca. Against their backdrop of an ultimately impersonal universe you can contrast the reality of a loving personal God who stands ready to embrace them with His love.

There are, of course, many more issues that can serve as points of dialogue for you to compare and contrast the Christian worldview and gospel with Wicca. Try not to chase too many issues at once. Stay focused and be prepared to engage in lengthy conversations. With practice, you can become increasingly skilled at bringing the gospel to bear on most topics of conversation. Let your defense of the truth be attended with love.

— Richard G. Howe

NOTES

1. I use the terms “Wicca” and “Wiccan” throughout even though there are distinctions to be made between Wicca, witchcraft, and paganism (or Neo-Paganism). For the most part my comments here should apply to the practitioners of any of these occult groups.

2. For a Christian discussion of the belief system of Wicca, witchcraft, and paganism, see Richard G. Howe, “Modern Witchcraft: It May Not Be What You Think” Christian Research Journal 28, 1 (2005) and Brooks Alexander, Witchcraft Goes Mainstream: Uncovering Its Alarming Impact on You and Your Family (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004).

3. Marcia Montenegro, “Witchcraft, Wicca and Neopaganism,” CANA, http://cana.userworld.com/ cana_wicca.html.

“Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious” (Acts17:22KJV).

“It is doubtful whether Caesar will come forth today; For he is superstitious grown of late” (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act2, scene1).

The July 12, 2004, issue of Newsweek displays a picture of pop star Madonna in concert, twirling on stage, her left arm stretching high above her head. The photo calls attention to a red-string bracelet on her wrist. What’s that? It’s a kabbalah bracelet, and its strings, said to be imbued with the protection of the Hebrew matriarch Rachel, are prayed over to guard wearers against the evil eye. The Newsweek sidebar by Lisa Helem notes that Demi Moore and Britney Spears have them as well.

Superstitious belief is nothing new. The apostle Paul, while awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy, meandered around Athens and viewed its many impressive religious temples, statues, and monuments. He was “greatly distressed” (Acts17:16 NIV) to see the renowned university city’s widespread false religious beliefs. The Greek word he used to describe the Athenians is translated “superstitious” (Acts17:22 KJV) or “very religious” (NIV, NASB).

The modern age offers countless certainties courtesy of science; yet people still desire more control over their lives, and superstitious belief may provide them with a sense of that. It has been said that Wade Boggs, one of baseball’s best hitters, believed that eating chicken every day brought him good luck at the plate. Lesser mortals may believe in lucky numbers and play the lottery by them. Some think that walking under a ladder brings bad luck, or that Friday the thirteenth is an unlucky day, so they carry a rabbit’s foot on their key chain hoping to change all that potential bad fortune into good fortune. Even those who quite innocently say, “God bless you!” after someone sneezes have no rational basis for it. They are simply repeating an old catchphrase rooted in a belief that people who sneezed had expelled evil from their bodies; so “God bless you!” became a customary congratulation. In other traditions, saying, “God bless you!” after a sneeze was believed to prevent the heart from stopping, or to keep the spirit from leaving the body, or to keep the devil from entering the body.

The strength and appeal of a superstition may not be easily rejected, for its power and appeal is often deep seated, arising from the person’s familial or cultural upbringing. Superstition, being a form of irrationality, can be a formidable barrier when trying to help some people to think clearly about the gospel; yet Christians are called to offer the superstitious the alternative means of grace, prayer, and trusting God for facing life’s contingencies. How may Christians help people break through this spiritual barrier to think biblically about the gospel?

The apostle Paul’s approach to the superstitious Athenians is instructive. He didn’t shoot them down with a heavy-handed theology. It’s true that when addressing the Corinthians he explained the relationship between pagan gods and demons (1Cor.10:20), but when addressing the Athenians he didn’t bring up the dark side of that relationship. Instead, as any good cross-cultural missionary would do, he found a point within their worldview by which to build a communication bridge from their superstitious beliefs to the gospel. Lesslie Newbigin stated the principle as follows: “The communication has to be in the language of the receptor culture”; but that alone is not enough. If it is truly the gospel that is being communicated, then “it will call radically into question that [culture’s] way of understanding.”¹

Paul used the language of the Athenians’ own beliefs to reveal what was not obvious to them about God. With patience and tact he made it clear that their own poets, who were praising the Greek god Zeus, were close, but not quite there. After getting their attention, he explained the way to reach God. This opened up some listeners to hear more and some to repent and believe in Jesus and the resurrection. Paul presented the gospel by using language that fundamentally altered their understanding of their altars without attacking their beliefs.

This approach will, by God’s grace, work for reaching the superstitious today. It affirms that the person is, no doubt, religious—someone who believes that there is more to life than physical reality—and uses that assessment to move the person closer to the truth of the gospel. It is an approach that relies chiefly on straightforward Christian witness.

A different approach rescues the superstitious through critical thinking. Many superstitious people have never learned how to think critically about their beliefs, to judge their value. They just accept a superstition as if it were true. Critical thinking, therefore, often holds the key to helping them understand what they have bought into and how to get free of that ritualistic burden on life and relationships.

A proven way to evoke critical thinking is through asking wise questions; for instance, deeply superstitious people may not understand that their belief suggests that this is how they think the world works. Carefully asking questions such as “Is there any evidence for this belief?” or “Is this the way you think the world really works?” will help them grapple with their belief at a foundational level that they may never have considered. At some point it could be suggested that since their belief is unfounded and restrictive, is there any point in hanging on to it?²

Another critical topic is control. Superstition gives people a feeling of being more in control of an upcoming event or situation through imaginary laws of cause and effect. The great irony is that, since superstition has nothing to do with natural laws—the very laws that grant us some control over our lives—superstitious belief actually reduces one’s amount of real control. One may point out that superstitious belief actually leaves a person less in control of his or her life.

Magic and its dynamic within superstitious belief is also a powerful topic to address with critical thinking. Magic is based on the assumption that a causal relationship exists between the ritual manipulation of certain objects (e.g., amulet, rabbit’s foot), symbols (e.g., five-pointed star, upside-down cross), or words (e.g., incantations, superstitious sayings) and events in the real world, such as good heath, protection from evil, prosperity, or love. There is no scientific evidence for such a relationship; the “correspondences” are made only within the mind of the person who wants to believe them. This principle of correspondences is a basic law of all magic. These are blind leaps of faith, and strength of belief is the key.

Strong belief in astrology is a prime example; for instance, someone who believes that Taurus (the Bull) symbolizes stubbornness, or that Gemini (the Twins) indicates a split personality, may in time take on those characteristics, perhaps becoming someone he or she never wanted to be. This is how all superstitious belief begins to rule a person’s life. It may lead to the kind of oppression experienced by Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, who eventually became so bound that he wouldn’t leave his palace for the Capital without first having a good omen.³

The key to unwinding magical thinking is to explain “the principle of magical correspondences” (just noted), adding that there is no empirical evidence that, say, the number 13 is unlucky, or that if you knock on wood you will keep the good fortune flowing. The only linkage is the irrational leap of faith made in one’s mind.⁴

Other dynamics, of course, also may be at play. Some people simply don’t like working hard for things. They want shortcuts to success, such as a magic formula or a lucky rabbit’s foot. Some individuals may have difficulty admitting doubt about a superstitious belief for fear of being declared an outsider by peers for expressing such doubt. Others cling to a false belief because to let it go would bring a sense of loss, and they are wondering how they will deal with that aspect of life, or a relationship, without having anything as a replacement to fill the newly created void.

Despite all this, the superstitious have something going for them, and this should be the ultimate goal of the Christian’s conversation with them. The superstitious believe that there is something more to life than meets the eye, something beyond or above natural laws. “Voilà!” we may say to them. “You’re on to something, and here’s the good news. Superstition ain’t the way, as sang Stevie Wonder; but Jesus is, and your belief in him will be the best ‘God bless you!’ you will ever receive.”

— Charles Strohmer

NOTES

1. Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks (London: SPCK, 1990), 5–6.

2. See Charles Strohmer, The Gospel and the New Spirituality (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), chap. 16, for a fuller discussion on asking good questions. See also “Transforming our relationships with Seekers: Breaking Down the Barriers,” Christian Research Journal 25,1 (2002): 32-40.

3. This was not unlike former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s fear. After her husband, President Ronald Reagan, had been shot in 1981, Nancy resorted to astrological guidance to control the president’s schedule. In his book, For the Record, former chief of staff, Don Regan, revealed how annoying it was to keep Nancy’s color-coded calendar on his desk, detailing the good, bad, and “iffy” days for moving the president around the country and the world.

4. For a more in-depth examination of how the principle of magical correspondences rules a superstitious person’s life, see Charles Strohmer, America’s Fascination with Astrology (Greenville, SC: Emerald House Group, 1998), chap. 5.

The deep cultural divide between theological conservatives and liberals has led to a variety of challenges for anyone who wants to witness to a liberal friend. Rather than first approaching these people with intellectual arguments, we must dispel hostilities and quell misunderstandings about evangelical Christianity. What follows are simple suggestions for jumping over some hurdles while leading a liberal person to faith in Christ.

Complaint Department Open. An angry customer received a “crystal” bowl in a Nordstrom box from her tightfisted Aunt Betty. It has a clearly visible seam down one side. She can’t believe how poorly made the bowl is — and from Nordstrom! So she comes to you, the employee at the complaint counter at Nordstrom — the company that sets the standard for retail service excellence. The bowl might not even be a Nordstrom product; yet, what would you say?

A. “Your Aunt Betty must be really cheap! She didn’t get this here. It’s from Junk Mart. Any idiot can see that! Don’t blame us for somebody else’s mistakes. We’d never screw up this bad, but those idiots at Junk Mart screw up all the time! Take it to their customer complaint department. What are you complaining to me for? I didn’t do it!”

B. “So? What’s the big deal? Who says we’re perfect? For crying out loud! You hold such high standards! You probably couldn’t blow a perfect glass bowl. What makes you think we can? You think that by touting customer excellence and not delivering, we’re being hypocrites? Well, you couldn’t do any better! You’re a hypocrite for calling me a hypocrite, you hypocrite!”

C. “Oh, I’m so sorry! That must have really disappointed you. We’ll need to see if this type of bowl is in our inventory. If it is, we’ll replace it immediately. If it came from another establishment, and someone inadvertently put it in a Nordstrom’s box to give to you, we’ll help you make arrangements to return it to the appropriate place. While I’m checking on this, here’s a coupon for a free latte in our restaurant. When I have an answer for you, I’ll have you paged.”

When witnessing to liberal people, there are times that we must function as evangelical Christianity’s complaint department. Liberals have often perceived actions of conservative evangelical Christians as harmful to vulnerable groups of people. Because of the strife, division, and misunderstanding that have plagued relations between conservatives and liberals over decades, effective evangelism to liberals often begins on an emotional level rather than on an intellectual one. Let’s take the above scenario and place it in the context of a liberal person complaining to a Christian about a gang of angry, shouting Christians picketing a gay man’s funeral that he or she has just attended. I hope most of us agree that this sort of behavior is outside the bounds of good taste, let alone the bounds of Christian concern and charity. You could respond:

A. “How can you possibly believe that could be Christian behavior! You’re wrong! Christians don’t do that sort of thing. We don’t hate the sinner. We just hate the sin. That’s Group X’s problem — not my problem. Don’t you stereotype me, Bub!”

B. “By telling me that you disapprove of that intolerant behavior, you are being intolerant. That makes you not only intolerant, but also a hypocrite yourself.”

C. “I’m so sorry. That must have really frightened and hurt you. It hurts me to hear about that kind of insensitivity, too. Trust me on this: the behavior of the people at your friend’s funeral isn’t the kind of behavior Jesus expects from His followers. I’m truly sorry it happened. As a Christian, I apologize. Please, tell me more about what that was like for you.”

I have heard all of these types of responses when Christians witness to liberal churchgoers. Which one do you think is most likely to lead someone to further investigate a saving relationship with Jesus Christ? Statement A is guaranteed to end your conversation. Statement B might make us feel smugly justified in our beliefs, but it usually does nothing to bridge the divide between the liberal who might face a Christless eternity and the forgiving love of Jesus Christ. Obviously, Statement C will lead to discussion, clarification, and a relationship with you that could lead to an openness to the gospel.

The Gentle Answer: Proverbs 15:1. When dealing with liberal people, the evangelical Christian should be prepared to be stereotyped. Many liberals paint evangelicals with a very broad brush (and, I might add, we often do the same to them). They may have learned who we are only through what they’ve heard on the radio and seen on television (often Christian radio and television!), and they have found it offensive. Rather than launching into apologetics from the start, it’s best to ask, “What has been your experience with evangelical Christians?” Not only is this question likely to help your liberal friend let down his or her guard, but it also is likely to give you a revealing picture of how evangelicals are being perceived by liberals.

The next step in talking with your liberal friend is often an apology. John Ortberg, teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, talks about opening doors to people’s hearts using the empathetic statement: “I’m so sorry.” Like the customer service rep at the Nordstrom counter, we can gain a hearing with our liberal friend by the heartfelt utterance of these three simple words. Even if you didn’t cause their pain, an apology from an evangelical opens doors to conversation. The next phrase is just as important — “Tell me more.” Not only does this tell your liberal friend that you are interested in him or her, but also it gives you more information about his or her objections to evangelical Christianity.

We are often quite ready to jump in with our beliefs and ideas about God. At best, this leads to a lively discussion about Christianity. At worst, it leads to a degenerating argument about Christianity. Liberals might come away from such a discussion with a bad taste in their mouths. The best way around a degenerating argument is to ask questions. Practice the art of “bracketing” — of keeping your own position to yourself while you try to understand where your liberal friend is coming from. If you ask questions well, you are likely to elicit this wonderful response: “What do you think?” At this point, your liberal friend actually cares about your thoughts and doesn’t feel forced into listening to your agenda. If that question doesn’t come, ask: “Can I share with you my thoughts on this?” Follow your thoughts with a question to your friend: “What kind of sense does that make to you?”

Do Not Judge: Matthew 7:1–5. We often assign evil motives to liberals that aren’t necessarily true. They do the same to us, of course, but this does not let us off the hook. Many Christians assume, for instance, that gays and feminists are out to destroy faith and family, that people active in the environmental movement are tree-worshiping pantheists, and so forth. We amply demonstrate our own ignorance by touting such attitudes. If we bothered to ask them, we’d often find that we are far from accurate in our assessments of liberal causes. While we might disagree with their ideas and methods, their motivations are not necessarily worse than ours. Indeed, they can sometimes point us to issues concerning which we are either insensitive or unaware.

Contending for Truth: Galatians 2. Galatians 2 describes the pain over controversial theological issues that can wrack the body of believers. While we have put the circumcision debate to rest, dozens of other controversies rage within the family of Christ. Many liberals are bewildered by our controversies on old Earth/new Earth, premillenialism/postmillenialism, and a host of other theological issues.

Admit controversy where it exists, and when there are clearly biblically defensible arguments to both sides of an issue, admit that the other side of the controversy might hold some truth. Liberal women, in particular, will have reservations about the “complementarian view” of gender roles. If you are a complementarian, could you admit to her that other people might have well thought out, scripturally based egalitarian understandings of women in the church? A life, an eternity, could hang in the balance. Are we willing to let our own views on admittedly controversial topics take second place to a liberal’s discovering the bedrock — the saving grace of Christ?

Living at Peace: Romans 12:18. Imagine a battlefield — smoke, noise, confusion, carnage, and pain. Somebody is going to get hurt, and hurt badly. On one side of the battlefield, every cannonball is painted with a cross or a crown of thorns. The other side is represented by a wild array of imagery — black power fists, women’s equality symbols, the rainbow flag, the ecology flag. Bullets are flying in every direction. Guns of both armies are trained on the enemy.

Now imagine Jesus standing on a hillside saying, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth!” A cannonball whizzes past Him from the evangelical side. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God!” A hand grenade from the left flies past Him. Jesus says, “I come that you might have life, and have it abundantly!” and yet another missile shrieks past, destined to detonate on the liberal camp.

In the midst of the carnage, can anybody hear Him? It is easy to be shrill — to make self-righteous declarations. I know. I’ve been shrill myself. It is harder to lay down the guns of self-righteousness at the feet of the Master and listen to what He would have me do. Certainly I’ve been called to defend the faith, but I have a choice. I can defend through diplomacy or through war. It is much more effective to lay down my arms, walk across the battlefield, take the hand of someone far from Christ, and lead that person quietly and humbly to the Prince of Peace.

— Kate Maver

Rastafarianism presents Christians with a challenging evangelistic opportunity. The popular Afro-Caribbean religion is centered on devotion to Haile Selassie I, the deceased emperor of Ethiopia. Dreadlocks, ganja, reggae music, a rejection of “Babylon society” (political, economic, and cultural imperialism), and the promotion of “I-ness” (black pride) often (stereo)typify Rastafarians. What is most typical of Rastafari, however, is an incredible diversity of religious beliefs that crowd under its umbrella.

Part One of this two-part series described this modern phenomenon as a decentralized black consciousness movement with no universally acknowledged leaders and no universally agreed upon defining religious principles. In fact, the roots of this popular front can be traced to the Ethiopian consciousness movement of the late 1800s and 1900s, which involved a looking back to Africa as the “motherland” and a promulgation of the hope that out of Africa would come a black Messiah.

When Ras Tafari Makonnen became emperor of Ethiopia and took the name Haile Selassie I in 1930, he was lauded with the titles “Lion of Judah, Elect of God, King of Kings.” Many believed the Messiah had arrived.

Throughout his life, however, Selassie persisted in denying that he was divine and directed people instead to his Lord — Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, devotion to the emperor continued to grow and has increased since his death in 1975.

Today, there are two primary tracks within Rastafari. One sees Selassie as the second coming of Jesus Christ. The other, more Hinduistic in its theology, views Selassie as an avatar of sorts. This second track embraces a pantheism that looks for the Lion Spirit or Christ Spirit in all. In addition, coexisting along with these two tracks are a dizzying array of beliefs on the nature of the divine.

The movement’s greatest continuity lies not in doctrine but in the sociological threads running through it. These include the movement’s Afro-centrism; its rejection of Western imperialism; its hope for a black Messiah; its desire to provide adherents with a positive self-identity; and its will to effect change in social and political structures, in the natural environment, and in each human being. All of these principles need to be kept in mind when presenting the gospel to the individual Rasta.

There are several other points to remember in witnessing. Rastas often believe salvation in witnessing. Rastas often believe salvation to be earthly (in terms of systemic change) and have a sketchy theology of the afterlife. Rastafari’s appeal often centers in its social consciousness rather than in its religious principles, and the prime purveyor of Rastafarian theology is reggae. Reggae music “speaks” to people outside of Jamaica, William David Spencer says, because it is a music of protest. “Those who are experiencing oppression within their respective countries relate.”¹

Some members of the movement have a deep antagonism toward those they view as the oppressors. Rastafari is a post-colonial phenomenon that can trace some of its roots to Christianity. In fact, many who have embraced this system of belief came out of the churches and see Rastafari as a reform movement within Christianity.

When sharing the gospel with Rastafarians, one should view each Rasta as an individual and not as a “member” of a system. The first step, therefore, is to embrace the Rasta as a friend and to ask questions to discern who the person is and what he or she actually believes. What will count is your own authenticity and your willingness to share yourself.

A presentation of the gospel to a Rasta must be divorced from any Western definition of the gospel. In Defending Black Faith, Craig S. Keener and Glenn Usry address the question, “What do you say when someone claims that Christianity is a white religion?”² They cite Philip’s presentation of the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, as recounted in Acts 8:26–36, noting that the first Gentile Christian was an Ethiopian. In this book and in Black Man’s Religion, Keener and Usry trace the movement of Christianity in Africa prior to the arrival of the European missionaries. Because Christianity is for everyone, that means it is a black person’s religion as well. It is a faith that is “contextual to each of our cultures…yet [is] supracontextual in Christ in that we enter a new context: the transcultural reign of God.”³

One should also avoid trying to defend or excuse the evil done in Jesus’ name in the past. William Spencer advises, “When evangelizing Rastas, move to the parable of the wheat and tares: the farmer plants the field and weeds spring up in the midst of the wheat. Simply say, ‘This is what happens in the Christian church. The evil one has put false people in who engage in lying, cheating, stealing. These weeds are not Christians…’”⁴

We must also admit that genuine Christians have not always behaved in ways that honor the Savior. We must not defend the indefensible.

Many Rastas are open to a consideration of the Bible and to discussions of Jesus Christ. In fact, one branch of the messianic track of Rastafarianism — the Twelve Tribes — appears to have moved in a more biblical direction in recent years. As was noted in Part One, the more these particular followers have delved into Selassie’s writings and his life, the more they realize that he was a follower of Jesus. Spencer insists that the best opportunity for evangelism is with such people and that the work involves “moving them from worshipping Haile Selassie as God to worshipping Haile Selassie’s God — Jesus.”⁵

Tommy Cowan, one of Jamaica’s foremost reggae concert and record producers, was baptized in Kingston’s Family Church on the Rock (an independent charismatic church) in 1998. At that time he said, “The supreme being is God Almighty. His Majesty (Haile Selassie) pray to God Almighty and I know that has always been a part of his undertaking’…[a local Ethiopian Orthodox Church] spokesperson Tessa Mikeal Poyser said, ‘He (Emperor Selassie) is not God, he is defender of the faith…a Christian just like I am, a normal man like me.’”⁶

Many within Rastafari also look to Marcus Garvey as a prophet of the movement. When witnessing, it might be helpful to share the following from an address Garvey delivered in 1928 at the Century Theater in London:

I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; I endorse the Nicean Creed; I believe that Jesus died for me; I believe that God lives for me as for all men; and no condition you can impose on me by deceiving me about Christianity will cause me to doubt Jesus Christ and to doubt God. I shall never hold Christ or God responsible for the commercialization of Christianity by the heartless men who adopt it as the easiest means of fooling and robbing other people out of their land and country.⁷

In contrast to such confessions of the Christian faith, many Rastas are, as I’ve noted, more New Age or Hindu in orientation. Consequently, the approach with these people should be to counter the concepts of pantheism (or self-divinity). One approach is to take the individual through the Bible to demonstrate the inconsistency of pantheism with the Scriptures. Another is to use the “world-view-independent principles of evaluation” posited by David K. Clark and Norman L. Geisler in their Apologetics in the New Age.⁸ They suggest that philosophical ideas be tested to see if they meet reasonable standards of consistency, coherence, comprehensiveness, and congruity.

We’ve seen that Rastafari speaks to the desire to bring about justice and equity in society and political structures, as well as to the desire to heal the planet and heal the self. Christianity is about nothing if it is not about transformation — through Jesus Christ. In recent years, however, Judeo-Christianity has been blamed for the world’s environmental crises as critics have misread the biblical mandate of Genesis 1:28 to subdue the earth. Christians also have been faulted for their part in the spread of Western imperialism, and individual Christians have not always presented the best witness for Christ.

Again, all of these failings must be acknowledged and overcome. First, Christianity should not be blamed for the abuse of the world’s resources. Rather, sinful human beings have disobeyed the Lord’s command to be stewards of the earth. Second, we must admit that some missionaries were “blind to their own ethnocentrism” and were thus “predisposed not to appreciate the cultures of the people to whom they went” and subsequently “developed them according to Western standards and suppositions.”⁹ Of course, this has not been true of all missionaries. The vast majority were well-intentioned, desiring only to share Jesus Christ.

As we admit the imperfect outworkings of the faith through the past centuries, we can also admit that we are not perfect ourselves and this is why we all need the Savior Jesus Christ. Only through Him is true transformation possible, and only through Him can we have eternal salvation.

— Donna F.G. Hailson

Donna F.G. Hailson is a researcher, writer, and speaker on contemporary culture, new religious movements, Christian apologetics, and church renewal. Currently a visiting professor at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, she has edited, coauthored, or authored several works, including The Goddess Revival (Baker) and a volume on radical spiritual feminism, From Truth to Myth, forthcoming from Bristol House.

The word “Rastafarianism” often calls to mind the stereotypical images of dreadlocks (long braids or natural locks of hair), ganja (marijuana), the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, and the reggae rhythms of Bob Markley, Peter Tosh, and Bunny Wailer. But, according to William David Spencer, coeditor of Chanting Down Babylon: The Rastafari Reader (Temple University, 1998), and author of the forthcoming Dread Jesus (SPCK), all or none of these elements may apply to the religious reality of individual Rastafarians, as Rastas may also shave their heads, eschew marijuana, and live in a locale far removed from Jamaica.

“Rastafarianism is decentralized,” notes Spencer, “so there is nothing that defines (in toto) what Rastafarianism is. There are no universely acknowledged leaders, no universely agreed-upon defining principles. It is a black consciousness movement — Afro-Caribbean — and there is a bifarcation between the religion and its accompanying social consciousness so people can appreciate what Rastas are trying to do socially while not embracing the religion.”¹

The movement “has been recognized not only as one of the most popular Afro-Caribbean religions of the late twentieth century, gaining even more popularity than Voodoo, but also as one of the leading cultural trends in the world…. A June 1997 estimate puts the number of practicing Rastafarians worldwide at one million, with more than twice that number of sympathizers and many million more reggae fans.”²

The movement takes its name from the title “Ras Tafari.” In the Ethiopian (Amharic) language, ras means “head, “ “prince,” or “field marshal,” and tafari means “to be feared.”³ Within the system of Rastafarianism, the term is a reference most particularly to Ras Tafari Makonnen (1892–1975), who became the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I (his Christian baptismal name) upon his coronation in 1930.

One essayist from Jamaica, Seretha Rycenssa, defines a “true Rasta” as “one who believes in the deity of the Ethiopian monarch’… sees black liberationist Marcus Mosiah Garvey as his prophet… sticks to [his] path, does not shave, cut or straighten the hair, rejects the customs of ‘Babylon society’ [which refers to political and economic domination and cultural imperialism], and ‘looks on his blackness and sees that it is good and struggles to preserve it.’”⁴ While Spencer would challenge the universality of much of this definition, he would agree that Rycenssa’s characterization is certainly accurate for much of Rastafarianism.

Spencer notes that Rastafarianism traces its roots to the Ethiopian consciousness movement in the United States, Africa, and the Caribbean in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This popular front involved a looking back to Africa as the “motherland” and a focus on the biblical promise that out of Africa would come princes: “Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God” (Ps. 68:31; KJV). Spencer asserts, “Lots of folks started saying they were the Promised One including (the self-styled) Prince Thomas Makarooroo, Prince Shrevington Mitcheline, and the Prophet Bedward. All failed.”

Then Marcus Garvey, a devout Christian, came along in the 1920s, promoting an Afrocentric view of life that incorporated the decolonization of Africa and a “Back to Africa” resettlement movement. Garvey also sought to bring a black alternative to dominant Eurocentric interpretations of Scripture. Many view him as “a forerunner of Haile Selassie [and] Rastas regard Garvey as a prophet in the same light as the biblical John the Baptist,”⁵ even though Garvey challenged the view of Selassie as divine and disavowed association with Rastafarianism when it emerged in 1930.

In that year, on November 2, Ras Tafari Makonnen was crowned emperor of Ethiopia and was lauded with the titles: “Lion of Judah, Elect of God, King of Kings” (see Rev. 5:5; 19:16). “This sent a shock wave through Afro-Caribbean culture,” Spencer says. “In the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, preachers like Joseph Hibbert, started declaring that he (Haile Selassie I) was the long awaited Messiah, the second coming of Christ.”

Thus was born one track of Rastafari, that looked to Selassie as the living God and black messiah who would overthrow the existing order and usher in a reign of blacks. Selassie rejected this worship and denied that he was divine. Yet, despite his denials, when Selassie died in 1975, some Rastafarians viewed the event as a “disappearance,” and the movement only gained in influence and popularity as it capitalized on the elements of mythmaking and mystery. Nevertheless, this “disappearance” precipitated some changes in Rastafarian theology (“Rastology”). Nathaniel Samuel Murrell writes:

For example, brethren have reinterpreted the doctrine of repatriation as voluntary migration to Africa, returning to Africa culturally and symbolically, or rejecting Western values and preserving African roots and black pride. The idea that the ‘white man is evil’ has become less prominent in later Rastafarian thought, and the concept of Babylon has broadened to include all oppressive and corrupt systems of the world… [Also] under the influence of some articulate sistren… many brethren and Rasta camps have had to reevaluate their patriarchal view of sexuality. Rastafari sistren are becoming more vocal and active in the movement, especially in the Twelve Tribes of Israel [one of the largest and most influential groups in Rastafari].⁶

Through the messianic track has continued to focus on Selassie as the second coming of Jesus, the Twelve Tribes sect⁷ has moved in a more biblical direction in recent years. The more these followers have delved into Selassie’s writings and examined his life, the more they have come to realize that he was a follower of Jesus. Spencer insists that the best opportunity for evangelism is with such people and that the work involves “moving them from worshipping Haile Selassie as God to worshipping Haile Selassie’s God: Jesus”

There is one particularly hopeful sign found within the Twelve Tribes. For many years, this sect — founded by Vernon Carrington, the ‘Prophet Gad” — held to the belief that Selassie was Jesus Christ returned. But, on July 13, 1997, in his first public interview over IRIE-FM, the largest independent reggae radio station in Jamaica, the Prophet Gad declared that the movement had shifted to faith in Jesus Christ. Gad declared, in the distinctive Jamaican patois, “Christ is to return and sit on the throne of David… Christ the same yesterday, today and forever. And even after his majesty say, him saved not by the man character but by the blood of Jesus Christ.”⁸

Spencer says most members of the Twelve Tribes still believe Haile Selassie was at least a prophet, but “the better followers they are of Haile Selassie (Selassian Christians), the better Christians they are. There is one catch here, however: the emperor was a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which holds to monophysitism (mono physis, one nature) — believing that Jesus’ humanity was filtered or subsumed through His divinity. They believe His divinity takes precedence so they are Nicean but not Chalcedonian. Thus, it is important to keep the movement going past Selassie.”

Spencer notes another track that has sprung up alongside the messianic track. This Rastafarian group traces its roots to Leonard Percival Howell and has definite Hindu elements. Some time in the early to mid 1930s, Howell produced a 14-page pamphlet, The Promised Key, in which he posited Haile Selassie I as an appearance of God the Father. Spencer claims this laid the groundwork for a second track within Rastafarianism that is more “Hindu-influenced with lots of Rosicrucianism in it. A lot of the leaders in this track have also been Masons.” The result has been a sort of Rastafarian pantheism that looks for “the Lion Spirit in each of us: the Christ spirit.”

In 1973, Joseph Owens, one of the first nonblack scholars to pursue ethnographic research among the Rastas in Jamaica, published a summary of Rastafarian theology as he saw it. These points included, as summarized by Nathaniel Samuel Murrell: the belief that “God is man and man is God” (as evidenced in the pantheistic track); that “salvation is earthly… that human beings are called to celebrate and protect life… that the spoken word as a manifestation of the divine presence and power can [both] create and bring destruction… that sin is both personal and corporate…[and that Rasta] brethren are the chosen people of Jah to manifest God’s power and promote peace in the world.⁹

Though Rastas may differ in their religious beliefs and through scholars may differ in their views on what Rastas believe, all Rastas are in agreement as to the Babylonian nature of life in the African diaspora, and all declare their psychological and cultural rejection of the values and institutions of Babylon. In “reasoning sessions” (through which Rastology and philosophy is debated), in the lyrics of reggae music, and in the “livity’ (the Rasta lifestyle of healthy dietary practices, preservation of the environment, adherence to doctrinal teachings and ceremonial practices), Rastafarians seek to grow in “I-ness” or “somebodiness,” that is, in self-confidence.

“I-ness” is an important concept in Rastafarianism wherein “iration” is a synonym for creation or production; “i-ssembly” is a meeting of Rastas for reasoning and “groundation”; “itations” are meditations and reflections on life in contemporary society; and “iyaric’ is dread talk that favors the use of “I.”

Rastafarianism is not a reform Christian movement. Nor is it a Christian or an African traditional religion. Nathaniel Samuel Murrell concludes:

[It is] a different kind of religious species among New World (if not New Age) or nontraditional religions, one that is distinctly Caribbean. Like its antecedents within the Africa diaspora… Rastafari is a modern Afro Caribbean cultural phenomenon that combines concepts from African culture and the “Caribbean experience” (social, historical, religious and economic realities) with Judeo-Christian thought into a new sociopolitical and religious worldview. So while Rastafarian beliefs and practices are influenced by such Africanisms in Jamaican culture, Rastafari’s rise and ethos are driven by social, economic, and political forces in the region.¹⁰

The significance of these theological, sociological, and psychological distinctives will become clear in Part Two as we consider how to effectively share the Christian gospel with Rastas.

— Donna F.G. Hailson

Donna F.G. Hailson is a visiting professor at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. She has edited, contributed to, or coauthored several works, including The Goddess Revival (Baker) and a volume on radical spiritual feminism, From Truth to Myth, forthcoming from Bristol House.

1. William David Spencer, personal interview, 13 April 1999. All quotes from Spencer are taken from this interview. Spencer’s forthcoming Dread Jesus will provide an extensive study of the place of Jesus Christ in Rastafari.
2. Nathaniel Samuel Murrell, “Introduction: The Rastafari Phenomenon,” Chanting Down Babylon: The Rastafari Reader, ed. Nathaniel Samuel Murrell, William David Spencer, and Adrian Anthony McFarlane (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1998), 1.
3. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3d ed.
4. Murrell, 2.
5. Clinton Hutton and Nathaniel Samuel Murrell, “Rastas Psychology of Blackness, Resistance and Somebodiness,” Chanting, 43.
6. Murrell, “Introduction: The Rastafari Phenomenon,” Chanting, 6.
7. Most Rastafarian intellectuals have been involved within this expression of Rastafarianism, which included the late reggae musician Robert Nesta “Bob” Marley.
8. Messian Dread, trans., “The Beloved Prophet Gad,” inter. Andrea Williams, IRIE-FM, Jamaica, 13 July 1997.
9. Murrell, “Introduction,” 5-6. Note: Rastafarianism has a weak theology of death. In Part Two, we will consider how this provides an opening for the Christian gospel.
10. Ibid., 4.

David labored from the early hours of the morning through the heat of the noon­day sun. Gradually the sand castle began to take shape before his very eyes. He had crafted magnificent moats to protect the sand castle from invaders; there were huge fortresses with flying buttresses; and there were tall, stately towers with brightly col­ored flags furled in the breeze above them.

David was so engrossed in his labors that he was completely unaware that the sun was slowly sinking. He was oblivious to the dark clouds forming on the horizon and was completely blinded to the tide that was moving inexorably closer and closer.

Finally, the inevitable occurred. In the growing crescendo of waves, there came that mighty torrent of water that leapt his carefully crafted mote and overwhelmed the castle of his dreams. David stood there with sand and water dripping from his fingers, looking down in utter disbelief and dismay as his magnificent sand castle disappeared into the sand around it. The towers had crumbled, the motes were full of water, and the flags laid muddied in the sand.

A sad story? Perhaps. But not nearly as sad as the fact that this is a perfect analogy of the post-Christian era in which we live. Like David, we are busily engaged in build­ing our dream castles. And we are unaware — like David was — of the “sink­ing sun,” of the “dark clouds” moving toward us, and of the inexorable “drawing nigh of the waves.”

Three significant waves have crashed upon the shores of America. The pilgrims rode in on the first wave and brought with them the Judeo-Christian tradition. God was honored as the sovereign Ruler of the uni­verse, and America became the greatest missionary-sending force in the world.

But then there came another wave. This wave brought in the concept of secular humanism, and with it, science was hailed as the new “god.” Americans became intox­icated by their own abilities to solve prob­lems through science and human effort. Man became the master of his own destiny. Evolution became the central pillar on which this society was founded. No longer accountable to a sovereign God, Americans began to live by the dictates of their own wills. Suddenly, America was engulfed in a sexual revolution which brought with it a pandemic of AIDS, broken families, abor­tions, and alcohol and drug abuse.

And then a final destructive wave crashed upon the already eroding sands of the Ameri­can shores. This wave swept America out of the Piscean Age — the supposed age of Christianity — into the Age of Aquarius. Without a single shot being fired, America had been converted to a new religion in which man deified himself as “god.” Where­as in mechanistic evolution man was said to have evolved physically, in the New Age movement man is expected to take the ulti­mate evolutionary step toward “godhood” as he raises his “Christ-consciousness.”

One can scarcely forget Shirley MacLame in the television series, “Out on a Limb,” arms thrust skyward on a Malibu beach shouting “I am God.” And lest she be dismissed as part of a lunatic fringe, one might consider the sales of her materials and the popularity of her seminars. By 1987 her books had sold eight million copies, generating an estimated $40 million annually.

Over the past few years, cults, eastern mysticism, and the occult have gained an alarming level of credibility in the United States. From the mind sciences to the New Age movement, Americans are being bom­barded by the bottom line that “all is one, all is God, and man is God.”

While many church leaders boldly pre­dict revival, America is clearly drifting far­ther and farther from its moorings in the Judeo-Christian tradition. True revival can indeed take place, but it will not happen unless and until committed Christians once again see it as their responsibility to be salt and light in a lost and dying world.

In the midst of turmoil, Christians alone have the answers for a country (and indeed a world) literally out of control. In this environment we have been commanded to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

If America is to return to its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it will only happen as God’s people are equipped to effectively communicate the gospel. Only as a person’s heart is transformed by the power of the gospel will he or she turn away from the pagan practices of the New Age movement.

That is precisely why I developed a pro­gram called “Personal Witness Training: Your Handle on the Great Commission.” In twelve memorable sessions, Christians can become equipped to be effective witnesses for life. By using enjoyable memory associ­ations, participants experience firsthand that learning can be fun.

What might you expect as a participant in PWT? In PWT you will meet Evangel the Good News Bear, who functions as a key to remembering how to communicate not only what you believe but why you believe it. You will discover:

· How the features of a person’s face will always remind you of the keys to developing a relationship and “earning” the right to share your faith.

· How to develop a testimony into an effective tool for communicating the gospel.

· How the parts of the gospel can be associated to parts of the body so that when­ever you see people they will remind you of how to communicate the Good News.

· How to lead someone in a response to the Good News and to the assurance of salvation.

· How to communicate the basic steps of discipleship and growth to new believers in such a way that they will never forget them.

· How to handle objections and turn them into opportunities for sharing the gospel.

The Great Commission is not an impas­sible dream, but rather one which can be fulfilled in our lifetime. If each Christian alive today would lead just one person to faith in Christ each year, in six years they’d literally run out of people to evangelize.

Truly there can be no greater joy in this life than that of being used by the Holy Spir­it in bringing others to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only through the effective propagation of the gospel can America again be regrounded in the faith “once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Only then can we truly stem the tide of a nation mired in the shifting sands of the so-called Aquarian Age.

(1) Unlike orthodox Christianity, members of the United Pentecostal Church and other Oneness groups do not believe that Jesus existed as the Son of God from all eternity. Since they deny that there are three eternal persons in the Godhead, the only sense in which Jesus could have existed prior to His human birth in Bethlehem is either as God the Father or as an idea in the Father’s mind (viz., as an aspect of God’s foreknowledge).

This position is central to Oneness theology, but it is easily refuted by pointing out to Oneness believers that there are many places in Scripture that clearly speak of Jesus as existing with (not as) God the Father prior to His earthly existence, and not as a mere idea in God’s mind! For example, John 1:1 explicitly identifies “the Word” (Jesus Christ, v. 14) who is God and who from eternity is with God. This could not refer to a mere idea in God’s mind since the Word is God (and God is certainly no mere idea). Moreover, the same one who was “in the beginning” and who is creator (can a mere idea create?) is said to have come to His own world and to have been rejected by it — an unambiguous reference to the real Jesus Christ (vv. 10-14).

In this same context we find John the Baptist referring to Christ’s real preexistence (John 1:15, 31), as well as Jesus Himself making reference to the same thing. Jesus notes how He shall ascend up to the Father where He was “before” (6:62). He says, numerous times, that He has “come forth” from the Father, is “going back” to the Father, has “come down from heaven” and “come into the world” — all statements which clearly presuppose that He really existed with the Father prior to His earthly birth (John 3:13, 31; 6:33, 38, 41, 46, 51, 57-58; 8:42; 13:3; 16:27-28).

In conjunction with these verses one should lead the Oneness believer through a careful reading of such passages as Colossians 1:16-17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Hebrews 1:2-10 which clearly speak of Jesus as the Son of God creating the world. From my own experience as a Oneness believer, I can assure you that these verses are extremely troublesome to the Oneness position.

(2) The most forceful response to the Oneness claim that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son is to simply point out how contrary this belief is to the general teaching of the New Testament. Help your Oneness friend to see that, while Jesus is never once explicitly called “Father” in the New Testament, He is explicitly referred to as “the Son” (of God, of man, etc.) over 200 times. What is more, the Father is referred to as distinct from Jesus the Son throughout the New Testament over 200 times. And over 50 times, Jesus the Son and the Father are juxtaposed within the same verse. Ask your Oneness friend why there is this overwhelming (indeed, unanimous) emphasis on Jesus being the Son of God and being distinct from the Father if in fact Scripture also wants to teach us that Jesus is Himself the Father? Why is Scripture so clear on the first point and yet so silent on the second?

It is also helpful to point out to a Oneness believer why the arguments they have for the “Fatherhood” of Jesus simply do not hold water. Oneness believers have splendid arguments for the deity of Christ, and this they believe also proves that Jesus is the Father. Reassure your Oneness friends that you fully accept the position that Jesus is Himself God Almighty, but remind them that this does not itself prove that He is therefore God the Father. What is more, the verses that Oneness believers misuse to demonstrate that Christ is the Father simply speak either of His parental (“fatherly”) love (Isa. 9:6; John 14:18), or of Christ’s unity with the Father, not His identity as the Father (e.g., John 10:30; 14:7-9).

(3) The Oneness belief that baptism must be “in Jesus name for the remission of sins” can be refuted by four brief considerations. First, at least 60 times the New Testament speaks of salvation by faith alone without mentioning baptism. If baptism is in fact necessary for salvation, why is there this emphasis on faith for salvation but not on baptism in Scripture? Second, the phrase “for the remission of sins,” used by Peter in Acts 2:38, is also used to describe John the Baptist’s baptism (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4), but no one supposes that his baptism literally washed away people’s sins (why would they need to later be rebaptized? Cf. Acts 19:1-6). The word “for” in the Greek (eis) need only mean “with a view toward,” for we know that the Jews baptized people “for” such things as “freedom,” “God’s justice,” etc.

Third, the Oneness insistence that the words “in Jesus name” have to be said over a person while he or she is being baptized is also without scriptural justification. When this phrase is used in Acts (e. g., 10:45-48), it only means “in the authority of” or “for the sake of.” It is not a formula (which is why it never occurs the exact same way twice in Acts). We are commanded to do all things “in the name of Jesus,” but this obviously does not mean we have to say “in Jesus name” before we do anything (Col. 3:17). Again, the Jews baptized people “in the name of” many things (Mt. Gerizim, a rabbi, etc.), but they placed no significance on saying these words while performing the ceremony.

Finally, Jesus tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), and there is simply no reason to think that Jesus was here cryptically referring to Himself. The fact that next to no one throughout history has understood Jesus to be doing this itself shows that either the Oneness interpretation is wrong, or Jesus is a very poor communicator (and on a point which supposedly affects our salvation!).

It was arguments such as these that led me out of Oneness Pentecostalism, and — when combined with a loving, nondefensive approach — I have found them to be very effective in helping other Oneness believers as well.