Please take a moment to read our church's statement of faith, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. Our pastor is Gordan Runyan. If you are in need of spiritual advice or encouragement, or just need to pray with someone, please call toll free 1-888-JESUS20.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

On Giving Your Testimony, part 1

One tradition that has developed especially in conservative Baptist circles, is that of Testimony Night. It's customary on that occassion for folks who are not normally preachers or teachers, or even pulic speakers, to rise and "give their testimony." The theory is that as we come together to share "what Christ has done for me" then this re-telling of our individual conversion story serves as a vehicle for spreading the Gospel. Meaning, when people hear our testimony, and how Jesus came and set us free, they themselves will be induced to be converted to faith in Christ.

Before we begin to analyze this practice of "testifying" in the light of the Scripture, let me say at the outset that I absolutely love hearing the stories of how people came to saving faith. I find it terribly thrilling and encouraging. In fact, my favorite Christian radio program ever is one that we heard routinely when we lived in Idaho, but sadly have not been able to find again since. It was called "Unshackled," and the concept was to create radio theater, complete with actors and sound effects, to dramatize real-life conversion stories.

I find that each conversion story from a genuine believer is like a fingerprint that says, "God has been here." Conversion stories (done rightly, as we'll discuss below) are like snowflakes. At one time, they are uniquely individual, and yet they share enough in common that they are all unified in kind. Each snowflake differs from snowflake, but they're all easily recognizable as snowflakes. There are common elements that demand we group them together.

What gets me thinking about Testimony Night specifically these days is the sad, nay, frankly depressing, story of Ergun Caner, the former President of Liberty University, a Southern Baptist seminary that has enjoyed something like celebrity status since its founding by the late Moral Majority honcho, Dr. Jerry Falwell. I will not go into details of the story here, but any internet search will make these available to you instantly.

Basically, the incontrovertible evidence is that Ergun Caner invented a fictional former life for himself, for the apparent purpose of making his own conversion story seem more robustly dramatic. This is reminiscent of the case of Mike Warnke back in the 80's. Warnke made a name for himself, and raked in quite a load of cash along the way, by also inventing a conversion story. Warnke spun a tale that had him completely immersed in the shadowy, enigmatic world of secret Satanic occultism and witchcraft. His mythology was eventually uncovered, and the name of Mike Warnke is now only invoked as the modern model of the Hyper-Inflated Testimony. When somebody invents an outlandish "back story" for the purpose of duly impressing folks on Testimony Night, they're doing what Warnke did. And now, they're doing what Ergun Caner has done. Warnke falsely claimed to be Satanist. Caner has claimed (but only after the events of 9/11, note well) that he came to America as a teenager, having been fully trained as a muslim Jihadist, and prepared to prosecute acts of terror on American soil. All of which is patently false. He came to America at the age of 3, and though his non-custodial father did his best to raise Ergun and his brothers as muslims, the evidence is that they actually lived pretty normal, boring American lives in Ohio.

Why would a man do this, invent this sort of story? I think the answer is pretty easy. Within the Christian world, an exciting conversion story can take you places, if that's what you want. It can sell books, and get you invited to speak at conferences all over the place. It can even get you employed as the President of a seminary, in spite of the fact that you may demonstrate merely the most tenuous grasp on Bible doctrine.

But we do this. We, Christians, who enjoy Testimony Night and find conversion stories rightly thrilling and inspiring. We set this environment in place. We make it possible, and even easy, for a charlatan to come up with a piece of pulse-pounding fiction and get fame and fortune for his trouble.

Now, having said all of that, I repeat: I love hearing conversion stories!

But here is where we have gone wrong. We have lost sight of the true miracle it is, when God turns the heart of any sinner to repent of their sins and trust in Him. That's become commonplace and frankly boring to us. And the reason for that, demands a whole 'nother post; but, it hinges on the Evangelical obsession with the lie of Decisional Regeneration. We have dumbed down the Gospel so much, and found so many ways to manipulate and steer our listeners, that getting people to make a decision for Jesus is no miracle at all. Deciding for Christ is no longer a case of a rebellious, poisonous God-hating heart being miraculously raised to new life: it's about convincing this rebel that he can have Jesus (or, really, all the benefits of Jesus) without inconvenient things like genuine repentance getting in the way; and, having raised his hand during the Revival Meeting, may walk out of said meeting completely unchanged, and yet completely assured of a glorious eternal life in heaven.

"Getting saved" has become an anti-climactic event in many Evangelical circles, therefore. So we look for something more, something that still has the power to thrill and entertain us. Satanic High Priest, you say? Wow! That's great! Childhood victim of Ritual Satanic Abuse? Marvelous! Mafia enforcer? Cool! Former Presidential cabinet member, privvy to the inner workings of government? Nice. Islamic radical bent on destroying America! Well, praise God!

We see this sort of thing on a smaller scale in our own, local Testimony Nights. Hopefully no one's making things up, of course, but still, you find many Christians who are convinced their testimony is too boring to share with anyone. They were pretty normal before Jesus saved them. Or, they were even a goody-two-shoes. How lame!

We have come to despise the miracle of being Born Again through the sovereign grace of God in Christ.

5 comments:

  1. Great post! I couldnt agree with you more on this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Alan. I see you're in Mequite, TX. Where is that in relation to, say, Amarillo?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Getting saved" has become an anti-climactic event in many Evangelical circles, therefore.'

    You know Gordon, I have yet to see a party thrown when someone is baptized in recognition of their conversion. But, you also know, that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. I know that has eschatological import. Then again, just think about it. How much do we celebrate the birth of child? Why not the birth of a child of God?

    I am with you. I don't mind testimonials. However, I do mind it when the center of it becomes the person and not Christ.

    So, how do we mark the entrance, or should I say the translation into the kingdom? To me it would seem that a celebration is in order. Now it is true, we often celebrate with fellowship dinners and the like, and they have actually taken precedence over such a grand event as conversion. Isn't there a festal sense that accompanies one born into the kingdom? Then why not at least a bit of cake to go along with all the water?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, Thomas, nice to see you here.

    I agree with the celebration idea. I seem to remember reading of a time in the ancient church in which they only baptized people once every three years (the interval years being used to catechize new converts) and then they really did it up big when that day came.

    I like that, except for the fact that the NT always placed conversion very close to baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ya, the NT does place them close together, usually. But are we to regulate based upon what may not be a regulative passage? Our church governments are not really founded upon any explicitly regulative statements, which accounts for the great disparities among even the most orthodox, yet we form them the best we can based on implicit statement. Baptism is really like that. While baptism is an ordinace for which we have explicit regulative language, the form and timing are not. While it appears to be implicit in that when we read the historic narative of Acts (Gospels too, and a tiny bit in the epistles as they appeal to the historic happening) that baptism happened generally (not always though) close to the time of conversion, the historic narative is not explicit regulation, by definition. It only becomes so when in the historic narative, a command is recorded. As it affects the timing of baptism, that doesn't appear to be the case. I may be wrong. In any case, I rather prefer the baptism following some form of catechesis. It is simply this: baptism is the testimony of Christ, and we should expect that that is truly understood and articulated by the testifier- the candidate for baptism.

    You know, the practice of paedobaptism in some churches, at least historically it was a big thing, though I do not agree with it, shows this solemness of celebration in ways that we don't generally show any more. I just believe that the event is a mounumental one and should at least reflect that celebration the angels engage in. Wonder if they serve Angel Food Cake? Or, in the sense that the prodigal's father viewed the return. Want a celebration that must have been.

    ReplyDelete