But what if you are wrong?

Yesterday, the youth group I help facilitate watched a presentation where the speaker challenged his audience to ask 4 questions when engaging people (with an optional 5th, if the conversation moved toward the gospel). These questions are designed to disarm arguments against Christianity and can be used in various discussions. The key, of course, is to use these questions with a meek and humble heart, not just to win an argument, but to open the door for the gospel.

Here are the questions:

1. What do you mean by ____________? This question forces people to define their terms. Probably everyone sees the value in this. An example the presenter gave is when talking to someone about the gospel. If the person you are talking to says they're a Christian, the answer to this question clarifies the issue.
2. How do you know?  This question can have twin affects. One is to make a person stop and think about a position they hold. We have all had thoughts, ideas, beliefs that we ascribed to just because. Then, when confronted with the prospect of actually have to defend that belief, it crumbles in the dust. The second aspect of this question is that it introduces the concept of ultimately reality. Many people deny the existence of an ultimate reality, but this question, just in the asking, allows the concept to be gently introduced.
3. What difference does this make? Often arguments are based on preference rather than strong fundamental differences. This question exposes whether this is true.Consider someone who would say there should be no prayer in school. This question would force them to say that it is really about their preference over someone else's
4. What happens if you are wrong? This question is based on Pascal's Wager. While Pascal's Wager is intended specifically for the theism / atheism debate, the question it poses is legitimate to ask at many levels. The bottom-line with this question is that if a Christian is wrong, the worst he or she is doing is making this world a little more bearable and trying to spread hope and love, but if the non-Christian is wrong...
5. What evidence would you accept? This question would only apply if someone is pushing back and asking these same questions in return. As the speaker said, God may use these questions to push a person to the edge of their view of reality and they may begin to see the emptiness and being asking, perhaps defensively, what's difference about Christianity. This question should help us see their seriousness.

 So, I share this with two thoughts in mind.  One is that these questions can really be slid into most conversations, if and when we have them in our minds and are not afraid to actually ask them. The other is tied to the "Rob Bell - Is there really a Hell" debate. I wholeheartedly agree with much of the defense of the doctrine of hell that has been articulated in the last two weeks. However, I would want to ask Mr Bell just one question: "What if your wrong?"

To God Alone be the Glory

Orthodoxy in the midst of Controversy

I, for one, hate conflict. I may engage in it more than I ought, but I have never enjoyed it. And, as a Christian, it is doubly troubling. Now I have my internal dislike/distaste combined with the external command: "Love your enemies" However, with that being said, there are times and seasons when conflict is the God-honoring, Christ-exalting, gospel-proclaiming thing to do.

It seems we are near (or approaching, or well into) one of those times. Over the past few days there has been a debate centered around a forthcoming book by a prominent church leader that calls into question not only the reality of hell, but also the eternal destination of those who reject Christ and his gospel. My point here is not to weigh-in, although my primary question would be "If there is no bad news (ie no hell, no eternal conscious torment) why is the good news good? Why can't I just live according to my own morals, rationalize my own 'small, respectable' sins and just not worry about God or Christ or church?" If you want to dive in, here is the initial response from Justin Taylor. Also, follow the links, especially Kevin DeYoung's 2 thoughtful responses. Additionally, watch the promo video from the book. The style is very good and one can see how a distorted, heretical message can be delivered in a way that people simply consume it and in turn believe it.

My purpose here, however is tied to Kevin DeYoung's second response. You can read the full entry here, but I wanted to share the crux of it because 1) its core Christianity and 2) it is an awesome reminder that often conflict and controversy, rightly handled, can be the best way of proclaiming the truth of the gospel.

"Will God save everyone? Does everyone go to heaven no matter how bad they were and no matter what they believed? Is Hitler there next to Bonhoeffer enjoying the same eternal bliss? What kind of God would that be? How would we make sense of Jesus’ strong language about hell or the chilling scenes in Revelation? Would that God still be holy and just? 

And what would that do to our understanding of the gospel? Would Jesus’ death still be necessary? Would faith in him really be that important? Why would we still send out missionaries and evangelists? What would be so good about the good news if, in the end, there is no bad news? And if there is no hell, or we can’t really be sure anyone is there, why have almost all Christians in all of history believed there was such a place of eternal suffering? Have we found something that historic orthodoxy has missed all these centuries? 

What if the things you’ve heard recently are not the truth about Christianity? What if the warnings in Scripture are real warnings? What if God is purer than we thought, we’re worse than we imagined, and hell is as real as the nose on your face? What if the “only way” means the only way? What if God is glorified in salvation and judgment? What if the God of love and the Father of mercies is also a righteous Judge, a holy Sovereign, and a conquering King?"

To God Alone be the Glory