In course of my current path of repentance, I’m studying the book of Job. It is not that I see my life as a trial, or that I have experienced any particular hardship. Rather, what I find is that Job suffered for two chapters and for the next forty chapters we learn nothing more about the trials and suffering of Job. It is difficult for me to believe that the book of Job is about suffering when I see that forty chapters of the book recount nothing about his suffering, but rather are a collection of arguments about suffering, the nature of God, the nature of man and assorted other topics. At first blush, there seems to be a lot one could garner from the book of Job about counseling; particularly Christian counseling. For, if I remember correctly, Job’s three friends are that helpful in their well intended efforts to assist their wounded friend.

Accordingly, what I endeavor to do now is to examine the arguments of the book of Job, in turn and with an eye to applying them in my own life. I am not a counselor, but I am a friend, and a son, and a father. Perhaps there is something to be learned from these in-artful counselors of one of the most famous biblical characters.

The color of submission suggests that Scripture presents itself in a form which was designed by God. Thus, I submit myself to Scripture and begin at the beginning, rather than what I wish to do – which is to jump to chapter four and begin with Eliphaz’s arguments.

Chapter 1:1

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. NASB

Introductions in the Bible are various and curious. We’re introduced to Paul – Saul at the time, as a footnote during the stoning of Stephen, the main character. We’re introduced to David in 1 Samuel 16 as the least of his brothers out taking care of sheep whom the Lord had not yet filled with his spirit. We’re introduced to Abraham as one called from Ur. And here we’re introduced to one of the most famous men of all time, for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and Atheists all know the name of Job. In introducing Job, the writer tells us that Job was in he land of Uz. No one knows for sure, but many suggest that the land of Uz was located to the East of Israel and south of Edom. Today this is a desolate place, but history also suggests that this was not always so. If this is the patriarchal time, then the date would be between 1400 BC and earlier.

And so we meet a man not living in Canaan, who was blameless. And we was turning away from evil. The juxtaposition of these two statements about Job encourages me. For Job was not perfect in being, but perfect in direction. His life isn’t blameless in every account, but rather the author is accounting for Job’s life with a static forward/present looking perspective. It is not that Job has lived perfectly, but rather, that Job is turning away from evil. The NET and ESV versions translate the Hebrew as “turned away from evil.” The NIV reports that Job “shunned evil” and the NLT says that Job “stayed away from evil.” I am illiterate in Hebrew and rely upon the translators to provide an accurate meaning. The idea that Job repented, and turned away from evil is realistic in experience; consistent with Scripture – all men must repent. Job is not blameless because he has lived a perfect life. Rather, just as Abram had to obey God through faith and leave behind the worship of the moon; just as Moses had to repent of murder; just as David had to repent of adultery and murder; just as Paul had to repent of murder and hate – so we now find Job repenting.

He shuns evil, he hides from evil, he is turning away from evil. Proverbs 22:3 teaches us that the wise man, the prudent man sees danger and hides himself from it. A wise man anticipates trouble. The heart of trouble begins with temptation.

Addicts are taught to recognize their own frailty by examining themselves and learning their own nature. The acronym H.A.L.T. is helpful. Hungry – Angry – Lonely – Tired. A man who senses that he is hungry knows that his body is weak, his constitution compromised, his mind distracted, his defenses down. A wise man sees that hunger and anticipates trouble, he anticipates temptation. Further, a wise man treats the hunger, in an appropriate way, so as to defeat the enemy before even experiencing the temptation. If he is angry, he knows that his heart is troubled, his emotions stirred and turbulent, his rationality diminished. He humbly recognizes the weakened state and shores up his defenses by addressing the anger in an appropriate way. If a man is lonely or tired, he will again have his defenses compromised. And a wise man anticipates this and responds accordingly. Job hid himself from evil. Job turns away from evil.

Job was both a wise man, and a repentant man. This makes for an “upright” man. Almost all translations use the term “upright” here. The NLT says Job was a man of “complete integrity” and the MSG interprets the Scripture to say that Job was “totally devoted to God.” When I hear the term “upright” I cannot but help think of the evolution charts I saw constantly as a child in school. You see the monkey to man chart and all but the last one are bent over. They are not upright. I also think about tent poles. Having camped a lot in my life, more than almost anyone I’ve ever met, I know a few things about tent poles. I know, for example, that if the tent pole isn’t upright – you’re going to have problems. A tent pole at any angle creates imbalance and instability. They are difficult to stabilize with lines. They are practically useless.

So, when I think of a man who is not upright, the image in my imagination is that of a monkey – or a creature who is less than man – an instable, imbalanced creature. I don’t believe in the theory of evolution and find the idea remarkable on any level. So, these are images that are fantastic. But even in art we see the devious portrayed by the one hunched over. We imagine the criminal mind hunched over his papers scheming and hiding.

Recently I had occasion to meet two young boys of 15 and 16 years old. They each wanted to date one of my friend’s daughters and each left a distinct impression upon me by their stature. The older was taller than the other, but his height was diminished by his stature, for his was shifty, sneaky and devious in presentation. He did not look you in the eye and if you were successful in soliciting a handshake, it was one of those limp feminine handshakes without eye contact. In contrast, the younger boy approached me, made an introduction which while presumptive was bold and strong. He shook my hand heartedly with good eye contact. The impression was made and will not be easily undone. The one is upright – the other less than upright. And less than upright is not good.

Job is an upright man. We get the sense that he’s direct, forthright, honest, able to look anyone in the eye because he has dealt fairly with all men. He walks straight and tall because he has nothing to be ashamed of, he is hiding nothing. What he has done wrong, he has already repented of, and he’s familiar with his fellow man – he knows what is in the heart of man and knows that no one is perfect. Having repented he can walk straight.

But walking upright and repenting doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There is within this one verse a raison d’étre. For Job is not an upright man if he does not fear God. Job does not repent if he does not fear God. Job is not blameless if he does not fear God. In fact, all that Job is, is due to his fear of God.

The Hebrew word here (yare’) means to fear, revere, be afraid, stand in awe of, be awed, honour, respect, be dreadful, to cause astonishment and awe, be held in awe, to inspire reverence or godly fear or awe. I’ve heard teachers suggest that God is not someone we should fear, but rather revere with honor and respect. Certainly, the word allows such a limited interpretation. I believe, however, that when we see how people respond to being in the presence of God – or hearing God call them to account – we will see that the word is more accurately held to mean awe and fear. One cannot be in the presence of the divine and not be unchanged. And Scripture teaches us that the most common response of people from Adam to the Apostle John – from Genesis to Revelation – is that a man is overcome with his own sin and want to hide his face. No one in this world rushes into the presence of the Father like a 2 year old and hops in his lap. That’s just not Scriptural reality. We are encouraged to call upon the Father with a Daddy like name – Abba Father. We are encouraged to see his love and his tenderheartedness. We are pointed to his mercy and his grace. But these all exist within the power and the being of the most High, the most powerful, the only pure, the only righteous God. Those teachers can rush into his lap – I’m probably cognizant of my sin enough to hide.

I’m not suggesting that those teachers are wrong – I just believe it to be a super-human ability to know all of our sin – to see his righteousness, justice and power – to see Jesus’ propitiation and still stand on our feet, much less hop into his lap. John the Apostle fell before an Angel! I agree that we have the right – because of Jesus’ propitiation to enter the throne room of God and call upon him as Abba Father, but I also recognize that until such time as my sin is done away with completely in whole in perfect sanctification here on Earth – I’ll hide, I’ll fear, I’ll stand in awe of God. Rather, hopefully I’ll do these things. If God grants me repentance; if God grants me fear; then I will be blameless too. Then I will walk upright.

Job is not Superman. Job is not a movie super hero. He’s a man, chosen by God, to walk in righteousness. He is what any Christian can be, and what all Christians are called to be. When I read Job 1:1 I am reminded that I should be able to write in my journal for my son:

There was a man in the land of Pennsylvania whose name was Kevin; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. JoK (Journal of Kevin)

Later we will examine Job 1:2.

Well, I’m not moving the blog, just adding another address using the blogger.com service. The new address is http://www.stilltoday.com

For the foreseeable future I’ll copy posts to both blogging sites.

I am recently moved in heart and mind to the topic of submission. Submission necessarily involves the act of submitting; usually surrendering ones power to another. To submit is to yield to the control of another. In the case of submitting to God it is then to yield our will, our direction, our belief, our passion, our intellect, and our freedom to the control of God. To accomplish such we require three things requisite. First and foremost we must be cognizant to some extent of our own will, our own predetermined direction, our own chosen beliefs, our own passions, our own intellect, and our own favored freedom. With regard to each, but with particular attention to our will, I do not mean to suggest that a complete and accurate information of our own will is necessary, but rather that we must be familiar with and aware of our own will before it can be submitted to another. Secondly, in order to submit, we must be cognizant of the will of the one to whom we are to yield our will.

To illustrate, let us examine the case of an enlisted soldier of inferior rank receiving a lawful order from a higher ranking soldier. In order for the soldier to obey the order and yield his own will to that will expressed within the order the soldier must be aware of the will expressed within the order and his own will. Further, in order to yield control there must be a dissonance between the soldier’s will and the will expressed in the order. For if there is no disagreement, no dissonance, no lack of harmony, then the soldier will be able to accompany the terms of the order without yielding control. In this case the inferior soldier will be cooperating with the superior officer. There is harmony, there is agreement and there is obedience; but there is no submission in that there is no necessary yielding of control.

In review we see that before submission can be effected there is required: a knowledge of our will; an awareness of the will of another; and, a dissonance between the two. At this point submission requires an act. The act required is that of yielding and yielding requires change. Our will and intention has predetermined a course of conduct or non-conduct and to yield is to adopt a different course. If we are predisposed to sit and we rise in yielding to another, we are said to submit. If we are running and we stop in deference to the will of another, we are said to submit. But if we are running and we find ourselves in agreement with the will of another, we are not submitting; rather, instead we are cooperating. It is no sin to cooperate and agree with the will of God. But reality and creation teaches us that our wills rarely coincide with the will of God, and our nature is opposed to the will of God without direct intervention by God himself. While cooperation is possible, submission is rather the norm in the experience of most.

It might be argued in opposition that to yield control does not require dissonance. It might be suggested that to yield control does not even require information and awareness, but can be the sort of yielding that a soldier exhibits when that soldier enlists in the service in the first place. I will admit that this is an expression of the intent to yield. I will admit that when the armed forces had the power and will to enforce orders under penalty of being shot, that the choice to enlist required a much deeper sense of yielding control. However, the counter argument is that an intention to yield is not yielding until a dissonance arises. The soldier may be said to have submitted upon enlistment, but the character of that submission will not be seen until such time as the soldier receives instruction and direction which is contrary to that soldier’s own will and persuasion. If the soldier at that time regrets the decision to enlist and chooses not to yield control and follow the order, the initial enlistment can no longer be characterized as submission. If the soldier serves the entire term of service without having received an order which creates disharmony but rather serves out the term with complete harmony of purpose and direction, can that soldier be said to have submitted? Rather, I believe the soldier has cooperated in purpose and direction and provided service. However, there is no reason to believe the soldier has yielded any control.

With regard to the three requisites, the first – an information and awareness of our own will – comes about by intelligent meditation and consideration. A haphazard life distracted by the diversions of entertainment and society will not allow for such an intelligent meditation and consideration. For this reason alone it would be wise to spend some time each day soberly with a mind to know our own intention, bias, predisposition and will. However, as I hope to demonstrate, this is not necessary to the extent one might suppose if one will spend time daily in a sober reflection upon the will of the one to whom we are to yield control. For the second requisite is that we have an accurate information and awareness of the will of God. It is a peculiar aspect of humanity that when we learn the will of another, our own spirit will reveal quickly the extent and breadth of our own will’s agreement with that being revealed to us.

In order to understand the will of another we must first be aware of that will. Subsequent to becoming aware of the will, we must understand accurately the content, import, intention and force of that will. The content of the will is simply that instruction and character of the will. The import of the will involves that applicability of the will to our own circumstances and direction. The intention of the will reflects the purpose behind the will or the expression behind will. The force of will comprehends those elements of direction such as timeliness and energy. An awareness of the will of another is rarely complete without some appreciation for the character of the one to whose will we are to submit. When a hospitable man requires an empty room, his will is reasonably seen as quite markedly different than when a covetous man requires an empty room. For the intention of those two wills is so diverse that while the appearance of the will of each is similar on the surface, knowing the character of the different men makes the intention, import and force of the wills quite different. For the covetous man we might appease his will by supplying a simple room for another and opulent room for himself. For the hospitable man we might appease his will by supplying an opulent room for another and a simple room for himself. It is in the knowledge of the character of the man that we learn the character of the will.

There are generally recognized two reliable sources of the character of God, and one reliable witness to the will of God. With regard to the will of God, that will is expressed reliably in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. With regard to the character of God, that character is revealed accurately in both the Scriptures and his creation unspoilt by sin. If we agree with these three sources and admit no others as authoritative, then we will confine ourselves to the study of God’s Word (Scriptures) with reflection on his creation as well. If we admit other sources, such as feelings, emotions, experiences and other writings, then we will find ourselves in doldrums; in irons; or even in a circuitous eddy which throws us round about without direction and assurance.

This last point is critical. We can hardly be said to accurately understand the will of God if our sources do not admit an objective understanding. Accuracy is lost as well if the sources of understanding are contradictory in nature. Accuracy is impossible if the source of understanding is enmeshed in subjective and transient emotion. Accuracy is meaningless if the source of understanding hides within the contradictory, subjective, transient, and oft-misinterpreted experiences of others or ourselves. Accordingly, when one sets out to understand and comprehend the will of God, one must reject all sources as authoritative except Scripture and creation. To the extent that other sources do not disagree with Scripture or creation, that source might be accurate – but it is impossible to know with authority the accuracy of that revelation.

Having defined the source of information of God’s will we can look at the nature of divining God’s will from Scripture. This is not as mysterious as some might make it out. First and foremost we must subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture. We have not the right to take Scripture piecemeal in order to support our own will. Scripture is a reflection of the mind of God… indeed it is the very mind of God communicated to men. To hear only parts of the mind of God, disjointed and taken out of context is to do more than misunderstand God, it is to do violence to the authority of Scripture. And, it is to disregard the will of God.

I doubt that the will of God can be understood without reading it first in context and in whole. For God begins a thought, God begins an expression of his will; and we read it in part and stop where we believe appropriate and move on to conclusions that may or may not be accurate. In doing so we risk misunderstanding God. In doing so we reject the authority of Scripture. We reject the authority by determining in and of ourselves when and where we will start reading and when and where we will stop reading. We determine where God begins to express his will and where God has stopped expressing his will. The authority for this determination is no longer Scripture itself but our mean methods and intents.

When we come to Scripture with the intention of finding an analogy or story to illustrate a sermon, we show the utmost disrespect to Scripture for we presume to take it piecemeal in support of our own ideas and conclusions. This is quite different from divining different analogies and stories from our independent study of Scripture as scripture – verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book, as it was revealed to humanity.

And herein, is the beginning of submission. God has revealed his will to humanity. His method of revelation was through the written words of his prophets and apostles. These words were not given piecemeal and hodgepodge but rather, each was given in the form of a history book, a compilation of songs, a chronological record of genealogies and histories, an oral recitation of civil and religious law, an exhorting epistle, or a revelatory prophecy of future judgments. While the whole may seem disjointed to the casual observer, one who endeavors to read the whole sees a unity of purpose, a unity of story, a unity of character – indeed a unified message. This is the will of God. When we yield control to that will, we study the Word of God as given to us – book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, thought by thought. We take it as we find it – wholly and completely. The control we yield is how we read Scripture.

When we study scripture intently on a daily basis without regard to our circumstances, resisting the temptation to use book studies and topical studies, we begin to know the mind of God. But when we limit ourselves to searching through a concordance finding verses which contain disjointed thoughts about the topic we feel is appropriate in our lives at that moment, we do violence to the will of God. We presume to know his will by taking parcels of his thoughts and building them into a house of our own making. We presume to know what the Spirit will say to us when we limit our reading to that which interests us alone. And in the end, we may very well conclude whatever we like about the will of God.

And in the end, this is what we observe in reality. Those who reject the teaching of Scripture regarding authority, divination, sexuality, morality, worship or some other teaching do so by limiting their exposure to Scripture. They begin with the concordance and call it serious bible study. They incorporate historical writings of other men to interpret the natural reading of Scripture against itself. They appeal to modern sensibilities to interpret scripture against tradition. In this sense, those who would do violence to scripture use the same tools as those who submit to the authority of scripture.

For when one submits – yields control – they too will use concordance, historical writings, natural observation and the study of the original languages. However, these are tools that help them understand what they are already reading and are subject to the natural understanding of the text itself. They appeal to these extraneous tools when the meaning is unclear, not when they dislike the natural meaning. To be sure, a study of the original languages assists in understanding any word, sentence, phrase and meaning. The study of ancient cultures provides context. The reading of philosophers reveals information that is helpful in applying scripture. Reading the writings of other theologians challenges us to re-read scripture in a new light, with new understanding. But in the end, the one who submits and yields control reads scripture and yields to scripture.

A basic illustration is that of the issue of homosexuality. There are today those who would reject that scripture reveals God’s will opposed to that act and lifestyle of homosexuality. To do so they have to reject many explicit directives in the old and new testaments. Additionally, they have to reject declarative statements about the judgment of God and the character of saints. In order to accomplish this they resort to two methods. First, they take scripture piecemeal. They appeal to particular verses about the love of God, about the freedom in Christ, about the new covenant. Secondly, they appeal to ancient writings about culture to limit the import and force of the otherwise declared will of God. They make the will of God subject to cultural expressions determining beforehand that God’s will changes depending upon the culture of the time. At some times homosexuality is wrong, at other times it is no longer wrong. With this relativistic view of God’s will they interpret scripture in the way that best suits their predetermined conclusions.

While most of those who call themselves Christians will see the obvious violence to scripture and the understanding of God’s will with the above illustration, I mean to point out my own failing; a failing I fear is pandemic in today’s church culture. For the meanness of approaching scripture piecemeal, topically with the assistance of a concordance is the norm, not the exception. I rarely begin with an intent study of scripture as revealed to humanity other than my daily reading of Proverbs. My own experience affirms the value of studying scripture in a more submissive posture – verse by verse, chapter by chapter. I have undertaken this endeavor with the books of Romans, 1 John, Hebrews, James, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Revelation, John, Genesis, Proverbs, and a few others. My understanding of God’s will from these books alone have changed from the intent verse by verse study. As an example, I spent years attempting to understand 1 John 3:9 and found my understanding materially different after a few years of reading the whole book through on an almost nightly basis from that understanding I had upon an initial reading of that one isolated verse.

So today I observe that the beginning of submission to God begins with submission to scripture; in how we read it, and how we study it. I note that submitting to scripture means comprehending scripture and revelation generally – how it is given and how it is meant to be received. I note that submitting requires yielding my will to that of another – yielding control. Indeed, we forfeit all control when we yield to our own temptation to use scripture for our own means rather than approaching scripture humbly with intent to be taught whatever scripture would teach us, whenever scripture would teach us, however scripture would teach us.

In short, to submit to God is to stop using scripture trivially for our own ends, our own messages, our own philosophies, and our own endeavors. To submit to God is to bend the knee and read scripture, study scripture, meditate upon scripture as it was revealed to us – book by book, chapter by chapter. We cannot expect to understand the will of God before we are willing to begin here. And we can hardly submit to the will of God if we are unintentionally, willfully, negligently or recklessly ignorant of that will.

I am a member of one of those churches that believes its mission is to save everyone. They have adopted the mentality that the purpose of the Church is to seek and save the lost – every one of them. They have taken one command of our Lord, a very important command at that, and determined that the last commandment is the most important. More remarkably, they have determined that the last commandment is the only one that shows us our purpose. As if our Lord hid the purpose of the Church from the disciples and apostles until the very last minute. For no where else can I find anything that even approaches limiting the purpose or the primary purpose of the Church to evangelism.

Scripture tells us many things. We are told true religion is to minister to the poor, to the widows and to the orphans. We are told to give to the saints. We are told to love our brothers and sisters. Consequently, we are never told to love the world – in fact, we are told that to love the world is to NOT love God. We are told that if we do not love our brother, we do not love God.

This past sabbath, I heard a good partial message on giving and generosity. The teacher gave a four point message on generosity, pointing out that generosity reflects God, glorifies God, tests our spirits, and blesses each of us. The teacher took as inspiration II Corinthians 8 and 9. It was a good session of teaching but it was incomplete. For in II Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul is specifically speaking of giving to the saints. This is brought out multiple times in each chapter. But the conclusion of this teacher was that our generosity is to be towards unbelievers. Remarkably, the whole point of the object of our giving is missed – rather more than missed in that it is noted incorrectly. An omission would have been better than an incorrect conclusion.

And herein is the point of all our love. If we do not love our brothers and sisters FIRST; if we do not love the saints MORE; if we do not love the Church BETTER; we do not love God. Jesus came to give his life for his Church. Jesus, in his most earnest hour of need refused to pray for ANYONE other than the church. It is not that Jesus didn’t have compassion for others – rather, it is that he loves the Church FIRST, MORE and BEST. Should we love differently?

We have taken one command of our Lord and replaced all the commands to love one another with this other command. Our cautionary statement should be found in Jesus’ warning words. To those who were being judged – to those who were to imminently face hell’s fire and God’s rage he says: “To the extent that you did not do it to the least of these my brethren, you did not do it to me.” Let us stop. Let us please stop. Please stop. Consider what is it to visit the ones in prison, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked. Jesus wasn’t talking about the reprobate sinners in Haiti – he was talking about our brothers and sisters in Haiti. Jesus wasn’t talking about unwed mothers in Seattle – he was talking about unwed mothers who are our sisters in Christ in Seattle.

We live in a country of excess. I believe that no other people in all of human history has had more excess than the United States of America in 2010. If one were to argue to me that our excess allows us to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters AND the unsaved – I would say “amen.” And if I saw my brothers and sisters doing just that I would have no reason to be alarmed. But be honest. This is NOT what is happening. This is NOT what is being taught. And this is NOT what our brothers and sisters experience generally. Generally speaking, Christians are second class citizens when it comes to church giving – it is the world they stand behind hoping to gather crumbs from the table. How far we have moved from Jesus’ teachings. How far we have removed the love of Christ from his children. How sad it is to see our churches refuse to love Jesus instead loving those who are at war with God.

Today I am pressed down. On all sides there are those who believe, who teach, who forcefully declare that the singular purpose of the Church is to pronounce the Gospel and save souls. Broad evocations of parables and allusions to the so-called “Great Commission” are all used to support what is seen as an inescapable and universal conclusion. In fact, if one questions this teaching one is considered suspect from the very start. The question is not open to debate.

However, I am a child of the evangelical generation. My generation is unique in that a larger percentage of my generation was involved in para-church evangelism during our formative years than any other generation before us or after us. No other generation of Christians has been so separated from the local body while simultaneously growing in doctrine, in understanding, in worship and in fellowship with our fellow believers. No other generation has spent more time outside the local church body than inside the local church body.

Some will be quick to defend the para-church organizations by pointing out that where two or more are gathered, there Christ is with them. They will infer that a para-church organization is a type of church. And if we do not look deeper we may be tempted to agree.

While I do not mean to criticize any particular para-church organization, I do want to distinguish between a para-church organization and the local church as established by the apostles and church fathers. I do not mean to refer to the universal Church as established by Christ, but I do mean to speak to the quality of the universal Church as expressed in the form of the local body of believers as taught by the apostles, by the church fathers and by Christ. This local body was not homogeneous in any way other than location. There is no indication that believers were separated by doctrine, by age, by race, by socio-economic status, by gender, by education or by any other factor other than distance.

Contrast that with the para-church organization which exists solely for the purpose of focusing on something less than the total needs/purpose of the local church body. Whether it be a para-church organization for building homes, ministering to college students, promoting a social agenda or simply providing a unique outlet for worship – they are by their very charter and existence and purpose a means of dividing the local body of believers one from another.

Many para-church organizations will defend this division by encouraging their members to attend a local church in addition to their activities. They will refrain from any type of activity on the sabbath. They will promote attendance by example and persistent encouragement. But in the end, they will divide the attention, the energy and the love of their members from that attention, energy and love they should be giving to the local church.

Other para-church organizations will defend the isolation as necessary due to some deficiency within the local body or some inability for the local body to meet a certain need. However, there is usually a complete lack of evidence of attempts to obtain to their goals within the local body.

However, again my intention is not to deride the para-church in general, but point out that my generation grew up more in the para-church than in the local body. Is it any wonder then that they have adopted the mentality of the para-church when addressing the purpose of the local body? Most all para-church organizations are focused on evangelism. Whether the evangelism is promoted through face to face meetings, through indirect ministries of love, or through worship – the intention is to evangelize. And how, my generation has adopted that mentality wholly into their hearts and minds and having outgrown their para-church organizations have now brought this evangelical focus into the local body.

But is this right? Is this Godly? Am I crazy to question this assumption?

For over six months now I’ve been working my way through Proverbs on a daily basis reading the chapter corresponding to the day of the month. An unexpected consequence was the sorrow that inevitably accompanied such an endeavor to which I was naively indifferent. The man who sits in the life raft in the midst of the ocean crying “water! water! everywhere! and not a drop to drink!” knows the peril of learning a proverb. For in the revelation of wisdom there is the stark contrast between what ought to be, and what is in my heart. Shock sets in, inevitably followed by despair unless one of two things is accomplished first.

There are those who will invariably have not a little success through the efforts of their own will. These self assured souls might persist steadfastly for years and years, if not a lifetime, in the work of becoming a more wise person. And then there are those who will see something different in the proverb which escapes the natural man. The heart of the man is revealed in proverbs; that is, the heart of a humble man looking into the mind of God. I have looked into the mind of God and it is a fearful thing. And I have been humbled.

For this reason I revisit my frustration with Haiti and those who love sinners more than brothers and sisters. While my frustration has not subsided, rather it is more hot than ever, I see the rashness of my words and understand now that fools will not hear wisdom; lovers of the world will not recognize correction. My words are wasted if I intend to change the heart of one who loves the world more than they love God within their brother. Yet, sadder than this is that I have left myself open to criticism by unnecessarily including harsh language. My speech has not been seasoned with grace and love and patience. I regret this.

And so, after respite I see that energy spent in frustration at fools is energy wasted. After repose I understand that regardless of the rightness or wrongness of an invocation or exhortation – including harsh words risks undermining the efficacy of the encouragement by allowing smaller minds to be diverted into criticism instead of listening. Proverbs has humbled me yet again. I have seen wisdom and played the fool. Shame on me.

I’m mad about Haiti, but maybe not the way you’d expect.  This week I’ve been deeply saddened by the so-called Church’s incessant disregard for the needs of our brothers and sisters in favor of ill-suited feelings of love for the world.  I’m speaking of the tragedy involving Haiti.  Although the tragedy I’m thinking of may be different that one most of the world is lamenting.

People the world over are decrying the injustice, the inhumanity, the lamentable suffering the people of Haiti are enduring at the hands of nature this past month.  An earth quake has been blamed for the death of thousands.  People in my church are praying weekly for those suffering in Haiti.  And yet, I’m unmoved.  Why am I unmoved?  Am I heartless, mean-spirited, fanatical?  Indeed, I am none of the above – and I might suggest that those of my so-called brethren who are spending so much time on those in Haiti are all of the above.  They are heartless, they are mean-spirited and they are fanatical.

1. How so?  Quickly, they are heartless because even the most wicked can be moved to sympathy by thousands of dead people in a very short time.  It is no demonstration of sympathy or compassion to feel the loss and the tragedy.  I mourn as do all sensible people – wicked and righteous alike.  It is no credit to so-called Christians that they pray for the people of Haiti.  But it is heartless to only pray for them when really bad things in this temporal world happen.  This world if fleeting away like a whisp of smoke and the only thing important to these so-called Christians is this life here on earth.  They are not lamenting that the vast majority of the dead are now at this very moment in hell.  They are not lamenting the injustice of those who blame God for this tragedy.  They are not lamenting the blatant refusal to acknowledge God as God even after this tragedy by the vast numbers of Haitians.  They lament that life was lost.  They are life-worshippers -and not the life that God gives that is eternal, but rather, they worship the life of this world.
2. They are mean-spirited, in that they are right now ignoring the needs of their brothers and sisters whom they know and see every day in favor of strangers whom they neither know nor are related to.  I’m speaking of the tragedy that these so-called Christians love heathen strangers more than their Christians brothers and sisters.  Rather than being known for their love for one another, they are now known for their love for the world, and truly this world is perishing.  They are the most mean-spirited in the sense that their spirits are poor, or insubstantial worth and of suspect quality.
3. They are fanatical in their pursuit of universal salvation.  In their hearts they decry the injustice in God in that He only chooses a few.  They would do it differently and choose everyone.  And so they work toward that end.  Instead of feeding the sheep, the feed the goats.  Instead of loving the brethren, they love the world.  Instead of praying for their brothers and sisters, they pray instead for strangers.  Instead of loving their neighbors, they love strangers.  They are everything that Christ was not, and they are so passionately.  They blaspheme the name of Christ by associating his name with indiscriminate compassion.  They change the nature of God and exchange it for a santa claus god that loves everyone and is powerless to help them – therefore he needs our help.

I am sick of them.  They are useless and vile.  If some of them were not my deceived brethren I would be done with the lot of them.  They are, for the most part, a glob of senseless unthinking religious zealots who worship Pan and hedonism.

On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, on the dawn of victory, stopped to rest and resting died.

What We Have Noted Thus Far:

In this fifth and last installment I will endeavor to conclude the examination of the competing evangelistic approaches by highlighting the comparisons we have noted; summarizing the effect the competing approaches have had on the church; and calling for a more academic study and comparative analysis.

Decisional evangelism and faith evangelism differ more in their approach and emphasis than their content, however, decisional evangelism often attempts to evoke a response from the consumer of the Gospel message in the form of an intellectual decision affirming the truth of the Gospel.  Faith evangelism, on the other hand, is more concerned with the communication of every element of the Gospel message and leaving the response up to God often looking for more of a change in behavior or heart than a change of mind.  This is not to say that one is superior to the other, that is the basis of a different treatment.  What I have attempted to do is to highlight the different results of the approaches.

The first consequent effect is the eternal salvation of the respondent to the competing messages.  I noted, and suspect that each school of thought agrees, that salvation is by faith and faith alone.  Decisional evangelism attempts to mark that faith by memorializing it in a decision.  Faith evangelism leaves the marking of faith up to action and change in the life of the purportedly new believer.  In any case, whether one makes a decision or not is not determinative of their salvation, rather whether they have faith or not is.

The second consequent effect following from the competing sales pitches touches upon the sanctification of the purported new believer.  I now use the term purported because of lately we have seen many false converts to the Christian faith similar to how much of the world was of the Catholic faith prior to the Reformation.  It seems as though one can almost be a Christian if one is born in America.  Sanctification, however, is unique to those whom God has chosen.

I noted the competing approaches to sanctification flowing from the competing gospel messages.  Indeed, this point was recently underlined at my home church where a Godly minister preached about the possibility that one could be saved and yet never have any part of her life change, she would be simply carnal.  While those who teach faith evangelism would readily admit the possibility of a believer acting carnal for a time, they would reject whole-heartedly the concept, abhorrent to their hearts, that a believer would never realize any sanctification in their lives.  For the faith evangelist sees sanctification as a process that God is in control of, as God acting on us.  Indeed, we do agree with, cooperate with, submit ourselves to this process.  Indeed, the faith evangelist argues, we can hamper this process, frustrate this process, slow this process, but in the end we are the objects of this process not the authors.

Decisional evangelists see salvation and beginning with God and ending with our decision.  In their doctrine, we are both the object and subject.  We are the object first and foremost in that Christ died for us while we were still yet sinners.  We are the subject in that we have to “do something” as my Pastor recently preached.  The something which we must do varied upon the messenger, such as receive, accept, pray, make a decision, repent or join the church and be baptized.  This view of the sinner as cooperating with God in salvation, something theologians call synergistic salvation, permeates into their doctrine of sanctification.

Put more shortly, the decisional evangelist and those who believe they are Christians because they did something, believe they are sanctified principally because they did something.  They are first and foremost the subjects and only secondarily the objects of sanctification.  Thus, it is entirely possible for someone to be a Christian and have absolutely no fruit apparent in their lives at all, other than the claim that they once did something to become a Christian.

Even more importantly, however, the decisional evangelist treats his brothers and sisters in Christ much differently.  This is the singular more distinctive consequence of decisional evangelism as against faith evangelism.  The decisional evangelist is so convinced of their ability to effect their own hearts, and accordingly through wilily argument and persuasive messages, stories and music the hearts of others, that they will sacrifice nothing to the end that they pour all of their energy and import into the evangelism of those whom God has called them our from among.

Put more succinctly, the decisional evangelist loves the world more than he loves his brothers and sisters in Christ.

Next we looked at the consequences of decisional evangelism opposed to faith evangelism in the realm of worship and glorification of Jesus Christ and God the Father.  We noted how any attention to our part in the process of salvation detracts from and reduces in quality, kind and glory that work of God in our salvation.  We also noted that a delusion of the Gospel message, changing the Gospel message, distorting the Gospel message can never glorify God.  Consequently, no one who fails to present the truth of the Gospel as revealed in God’s Word can be said to worship God in truth and deed.  And we noted that to worship God is to give all worth to him but to give worth to a decision, indeed to make it the sine qua non of salvation is to give worth to man instead.  Decisional evangelism’s great failing is that it lifts man’s purported free will above God’s election, predestination, calling and saving work. 

Finally we examined the different approaches to the Church and to living among the brothers and sisters in Christ.  We saw the different views of carnality and so-called second blessings.  It became apparent that discipleship was sorely lacking and that in the decisional evangelism church, discipleship was reduced to the same kind of carnal means whereby the convert was drawn in.  We saw how the emphasis on obedience was markedly different among the competing messages.  And we noted how disparate the message of forgiveness is today within church buildings in America and how this might arise from our soteriology. 

I do not, for a moment, expect complete agreement with my observations.  First, they are simply that, observations.  I have not conducted any methodic surveys among the various evangelists or churches.  There has been no formal analysis of the life styles of congregations from the competing views.  Consequently, I expect there to be disagreement and my prayer is that people with different observations will make them known to me.  In the light of Solus Christus et Soli Deo gloria, this work cannot glorify God and Christ unless there be truth in it, permeating it, filling it as a sponge is filled with water to overflowing.  I have no interest in perpetrating a fraud and therefore welcome any competing observations, whether supportable or not, to the end that God’s Church is edified, God himself is glorified, Christ is put above all.

To that end, I call on my Christian brothers and sisters in academics, particularly the sociological and ecclesiological studies to come to my assistance in denying or affirming the veracity of the claims I have made herein.  I call on Pastors and Elders to note the severity of the consequences I have drawn out.  This is not merely a case of “we can agree to disagree” but a case that effects the very ability of a man to worship and glorify God, to love his brethren, and to be sanctified from sin.  This is not an issue on the periphery of our lives, but rather, the central and determinative issue which affects the quality of the so-called church in America and its efficacy, its honor and its purity.  We have allowed the Devil a strong foot-hold in our front pews in the name of reaching the lost and expect there to be little to no consequence.  I am calling on all Christians everywhere who read or hear of this to wake up.  Arise oh sleeper from your slumber.  As the Pope once reproached a Godly man, there is a fox in the vineyard, yet this time it is competing Ideologies, Theologies, Christologies, and Soteriologies that are so different from one another that we can hardly be said to have the same religion.

If, however, I am mistaken and have polluted the minds of readers with exaggerated claims and observations, then rebuke me kindly but forcefully as a brother.  For to stumble into error through faulty thinking and meditation is neither my gain nor yours.  As the writer of Hebrews calls us to exhort each other today, I echo that calling to everyone who might read this – exhort me by affirmation or by contradiction or by encouragement or by education.  But do not ignore this most important of discussions – the implications of these competing messages. 

Years ago I was challenged by one who loved me much then, to explain why it matters.  She asked me to account for my passion for how a person becomes saved.  She questioned whether it matters in the long run which doctrine is taught.  She inferred that both churches love God, both are filled with Christians, both are good people.  Is it not then, a small matter, a decisive matter unworthy of Godly men?  Are we not called to put away endless genealogies and legal technicalities?  Are we not called to be at peace with all men, so much that it depends on you?  This small work is my attempt to answer those questions.

Regarding the Church

In the last section, we explored the ramifications in a believer’s life regarding the glorification and worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.  We looked at the false god of man’s free will.  We looked at the purpose of man in light of God’s word.  And we examined the inability to bring glory to both God and man at the same time.  This section will inspect the ramifications of the two competing forms of evangelism with regard to the church.  I note the use of a lower-case ‘c’ when spelling church.  This is to distinguish the local group of people calling themselves believers from that Church which Christ is calling to himself, saved for himself, prayed over, and is in the process of perfecting for his own glory.

The Church is a group of believers from all times, from all places, from all ethnic groups and without respect to age, gender, race or socio-economic standing.  A church too, is often a group of people proclaiming belief in Christ without respect to age, gender, race or socio-economic standing.  So, why do I make the distinction?

Jesus predicted, even foretold, that the world would know his disciples by how they treated each other.  Paul likened the Church to a body, with all members part of that body, different yet dependent upon one another and one although different.  The eye is not the ear but they are part of the same unity.

This body which is known to the world by its love towards one another looks very different from the local churches which are known in the best ways for the way they love the world.  Indeed, the Apostle John does teach us that to love the world is inconsistent with a love of the Father.  Yet, our churches today endeavor to do just that.  There is no excuse offered for this approach other than, we are to love our neighbor.

Faith Evangelism and the Church

A faith based Gospel emphasized the total depravity of the sinner, the identity and holiness of God, the sufficiency and perfection of the atoning work of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in renewing us, regenerating us, indwelling us, empowering us, and completing us in Christ.  A faith based Gospel emphasized the need, the requirement of faith in the believer, but the faith based Gospel goes further to acknowledge that this faith itself comes as a gift from Christ.

Evangelism to the faith evangelist is an act of glorifying God.  Every element of that Gospel points to the benevolence and glory of God.  Whether there is ever a response from sinners is irrelevant, for the preacher of that gospel will preach loudly and fervently in a desolate forest because it brings God glory.  He does not change the Gospel according to the consumer in mind.  He does not adjust the message to account for generation, gender, socio-economic stand, race, or station in life of the consumer.  To this evangelist, all hearts are the same, and the message of the Gospel is the message of Peace between God and sinner to everyone.

Having brought the same message to all, the faith evangelist sees all as the same in Christ.  There is a unity because all were able to bring the exact same things to the alter of God prior to salvation, that is, nothing.  The faith evangelist believes that the consumer, the sinner is equal on all footing regardless.  The same message is preached to a child rapist as is to the president of the local Rotarians.  The same heart is at stake.  And when the work of regeneration occurs, the same results are expected.

Carnality, Second Blessings, etc..

When the same is brought, the same work effected, and the same result obtained, there is an expectation of faith.  Just as James is flabbergasted that one would purport to have faith without works, the faith evangelist is assured in his heart that faith always produces the same results. 

Consider the impact of this expectation for a moment.  While we think about it let us consider the various doctrines that have cropped up to account for the apparent varieties in the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.  We have the doctrine of persistent carnality.  We have the doctrine that allows for the loss of our salvation.  We have the doctrine of the second blessing.  We have the doctrine of the subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit.  We have all the various doctrines which point to the abundant life and how to obtain that life.

However, the faith evangelist attributes the entire work of salvation to God.  The sinner brings absolutely nothing.  The works of the Spirit is the same.  The faith is the same because it is always a gift from the Son.  Accordingly, the faith evangelist expects every believer to start off the same, to have the same potential, to be complete in Christ and to need only one thing – further obedience to the word of God.

This is remarkable in its effect in this, that the faith evangelist encourages all and every Christian to do one thing – obey.  What is the principal command to obey?  To love each other.  They are not concerned with whether our investment portfolios are reflecting the abundant life.  They are unconcerned with our satisfaction with our marriage, or our singleness.  They are focused entirely on our obedience.

Decisional Evangelism and the Church

When one believes that one makes a decision for Christ, one necessarily believes that different people require different proofs, arguments, persuasive techniques, emotional appeals.  Because different people bring different gifts, sins, cognitive abilities, etc.. to the sale of Christ, they will require different messages and they will begin their walk with God at different points.

The decisional evangelist looks around him or her and sees such a variety of conversion effects that something is required to explain such a diversity.  They have variously introduced the doctrine of persistent carnality, the second blessing, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the loss of our salvation and the various means to obtain the abundant life.

Accordingly, after the conversion the principal message of the decisional evangelist is to bring the consumer into a alignment with what should be the effect of regeneration.  Always the decisional evangelist is working toward the regeneration of the old man.  For the decisional evangelist, every work is trying to get christians to act, feel, and look like Christians.  However, the appeal cannot be to obedience because they were not won with a message of obedience.

Paul Washer has said “if you win them by carnal means, you will have to keep them by carnal means” which goes a long way to explaining the sermons within seeker friendly churches today.  They are about everything but obedience.  And their principal aim is not that the world would know us for our love for one another, but our love for visitors and strangers and the lost.

Implications of the Loss of Emphasis on Obedience

To obey is better than sacrifice.  In other words, let us not sing songs of praise to the Father if we are not willing to and actively working towards obedience to that Father in all areas of our lives.  Many will say ‘amen’ and ‘amen’ to this charge, but how many of us spend our lives, our time, our energy in discovering how to obey, what rules to obey, and what we should be doing to cooperate with the Spirit towards obedience?  It is simply not enough to say “let us obey” without endeavoring to discover in which ways our Father wants us to obey.

Imagine the son who portends to obey his father but never asks his father what his father would wish him to do.  Meanwhile, that father has drafted detailed instructions to his son in a letter.  The letter goes unread, unattended to, and neglected.  Would anyone reasonably suggest that the son is obeying the father?  When we so neglect the Scriptures, we are neglecting the instructions of the Father.  When we spend all of our time in four or five different parts of scripture we can hardly be said to be obeying.

Primary Obedience

The first and greatest commandment is that we love the Father with all of our hearts, soul, mind and body.  This is the beginning point for anyone regenerated by the Holy Spirit.  We are given new hearts and minds.  And we are to present our bodies as a holy sacrifice, acceptable to Christ. 

However, can we be said to love the father with all of our heart and mind if we do not know who the father is.  This is a principal failing of decisional evangelism in that they fail to introduce the Father to the consumer.  The beginning point is to create a problem.  To be sure, the decisional evangelist does begin with the creation or revelation of the problem, the raison d’être or need for a decision.  And in doing so, they might introduce the holiness of God or the character of God, but the examination today is short and trivial.  I do not doubt that in times past when people had longer attention spans, that the character of God, the thoughts of God were examined in depth.  But today, the consumer is not interested and, therefore, the character of God is passed over in favor of that which will grab the attention of the consumer, herself or himself.

Forgiveness

One of the remarkable fruits of being a child of God, that which is always present, is the forgiveness of others – particularly the brothers and sisters in Christ.  There was a time when I believed that forgiveness was as any other command, that I was to obey the command, but its absence or presence reflected nothing about my spiritual state.

Then I read the parable of the servant who is forgiven much and I became alarmed that Jesus taught that if we do not forgive others, God will not forgive us.  After struggling with this teaching I was tempted to arrive at a conclusion that the forgiveness Christ was talking about was temporal.  That is to say, that while I enjoy eternal forgiveness, that forgiveness which I experience here today is dependent upon how I forgive others.  In exploring this idea, the natural path was to make it all about me.  For example, I began to suspect that forgiveness was really an attitude about myself.  If I did not forgive myself I would not be able to forgive others.  And if I did not forgive others, I would not be able to experience the forgiveness of God.  That in the end, while I would be forgiven, I would not feel forgiven.

However, two scriptures prevented me from such a gross and erroneous conclusion.  Firstly I found in the epistle of 1 John the teaching that all have sinned, and that if we ask God will forgive us.  This forgiveness is not dependent upon our forgiving others.  There is immediately an apparent discrepancy between Jesus teaching that our Father will forgive us if we forgive others, and John teaching that our Father will forgive us if we ask.  Caution reminds me that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Caution reminds me that Christ is not double minded, and that the apparent discrepancy is in my mind, not in scripture.

And so I returned to the parable of the servant who was forgiven much.  And I asked the question, is this a story of causation or is this a story of characterization?  In other words, does my forgiveness of others cause God to forgive me, or do I forgive others as a reflection of – a characterization of – the fact the God has forgiven me?  Which came first?  If I read the story as one of causation, that we forgive others because God forgave us, then again, I still have a problem.  The servant who is forgiven much does not forgive his fellow servant.  But he is then turned over to the jailor and is tortured and punished until he should pay back what he owed.  Was the original forgiveness rescinded?  Or is this story saying that he was never forgiven, else he would have forgiven his brother?  Or is this story saying something else?

Before I was able to throw up my hands in defeat, I remembered the Lord’s Prayer.  In this prayer, the Lord gives an example of how to approach the Father in prayer.  And perhaps the most difficult part, the part that causes me to stumble most, is that I am to ask God to forgive me, as I forgive others, to the same extent as I forgive others, in the same manner as I forgive others, in the same quality as my forgiveness of others.  This is indeed a damning prayer.  Who can pray such a prayer?  What man is there about us who forgives others as much as he desires to be forgiven?

I have not arrived at any conclusion in this manner, but there are a few things that are inescapable.  First, that I, as a child of God, should be interested in being forgiven.  Indeed, one can hardly be said to have faith in Christ that Christ will remove our sins if we are not first interested in forgiveness.  Secondly, that this forgiveness is somehow tied to the way and the manner in which we forgive others.  In which case I should point out that forgiveness is of the utmost importance in a Christian’s life.  It is the only discipline mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer other than perhaps the acknowledgement of God’s preeminent will and our call to honor God’s name above all else. 

How does this touch upon our current discussion?  I believe that the forgiveness of our brothers and sisters is an absolute requirement in Christian life.  It is not optional.  In this case, how do the two competing evangelisms compare?

Decisional Evangelism and Forgiveness

If I am taught nothing about forgiveness except that it is free to any who should ask, as it is, without more I will become convinced that forgiveness is a once and done proposition.  I have been forgiven – again, this is true.  But I am to be forgiving, continually, as an act of worship.  For, are we we not bringing worth to God when we continually bring attention to the worth of God’s work in forgiveness?

However, a formulaic gospel looks only backwards and does not consider how this salvation affects the believer.  There is no challenge to question your salvation.  There is no cause to ponder, struggle with, or work out our salvation.  In failing to examine our salvation beyond asking ourselves whether we said the magic words, we fail to see the correlation between God’s forgiveness of us and our forgiveness of our brothers and sisters.  Whatever that correlation is, we miss it entirely.

Faith Evangelism and Forgiveness

The faith gospel begins with God and ends with God.  Man is an object in the process of salvation, not the author of his own salvation.  He is not the center of the story.  He is not the subject of the sentence.  God seeks, he does not.  Is it any wonder that the faith gospel lends itself to teaching about God’s forgiveness and how it is related to how we forgive others?

This is not to suggest that salvation is not of faith and faith alone.  Sola Fide.  It is to suggest that forgiveness is one of the indispensable fruits of salvation.  Jesus taught us that the world will know us by our fruit.  Jesus also taught that if we do not bear fruit that the branch would be cut away and removed.  My theology is incomplete in this area, but I believe today that Christians will always exhibit three fruits, otherwise they would not be Christians.  Firstly, they will exhibit the fruit of faith.  Faith is a gift of God.  Christ is the author of and he perfects of our faith.  Secondly, all Christians will have the fruit of repentance.  True faith leads to repentance.  This is sometimes referred to as Lordship salvation, but I believe that regardless of what it is called, repentance was preached by John the Baptist, Christ, Peter, Paul and John the Apostle.  Repentance was preached by Stephen and Jude.  Repentance was preached for thousands of years and only very recently did salvation come without repentance.

This again, is not to suggest that salvation is by repentance.  Salvation is by faith, Sola Fide.  However, a fruit of salvation which is always present is repentance.  We see repentance in the thief on the cross.  We see repentance in Saul on the road to Damascus.  We see repentance in every conversion story in the Bible.

The third fruit that I believe every Christian has is forgiveness of others.  We are not forgiven because we forgive others, otherwise grace is not needed.  We are not forgiven because of anything we do – even asking – but when we are forgiven, we do forgive others and we do seek out and desire forgiveness from God.  When we are forgiven, when we are transformed, when we are brought to life, we will forgive others and we will seek forgiveness from God.

Faith Evangelism does not necessarily teach the forgiveness of each other, nor does it follow that decisional evangelism omits the teaching.  It is apparent that faith evangelism lends itself more easily to teaching.  I suspect that when one begins and ends the salvation message with God, that forgiveness of others is more likely to be touched upon.  I do believe that churches that participate in faith evangelism put more emphasis on the fruits of salvation and therefore teach about forgiveness and its requirement in Christians.  Again, forgiveness of others is not optional.  Forgiveness is not a feeling.  Forgiveness is not easy.