Now having dealt in our first
two sessions with the preacher primarily as a Christian man
in the presence of God and then in the presence of his family,
we began this afternoon to consider the Christian preacher as a preacher. And I hope we have found profitable
and will find increasingly profitable our consideration together this
afternoon of that very basic theme of the minister expounding
the word, and in so doing fulfilling the work of an evangelist as
well as a teacher to his people. We come tonight to the assigned
topic, the relationship between theology and methodology in evangelism. I want to say a few things by
way of introduction, then I'll tell you where I intend to go
in our study together, and then proceed to go as far as we can
along that road, time permitting. Now, realizing that this subject
is one that is a controversial subject in the present hour in
the Evangelical Church, and even more controversial in the circles
where most of you men move, I am not afraid of controversy. We
should never fear debate and controversy, since they have
often been the handmaidens of truth. You and I are heirs of
the fruit of those mature theological reflections that have come out
of intense debate and discussion in the history of the Church.
Thank God that men like Athanasius and those few who stood with
him did not have this kind of spiritual cowardice or this anemic
kind of so-called love for the Brethren that made him wholly
averse to controversy. Thank God for those who are willing
to let blood for the sake of God's truth. Thank God for the
loosers who face the X and the whole imposing structure of Rome
and say, my conscience is held captive to the Word of God. Here
I stand, so help me God, I can do no other. Amen. Now brethren,
if we have any sense of historical perspective, we realize that
if there is a continuum of God's purpose in history for any length
of time, we have a responsibility to our generation and to unborn
generations to stand where necessary in the circle of controversy,
that we might articulate aspects of God's truth that come under
attack, and allow that controversy to sharpen our perspective, and
then to define that perspective with greater precision, work
it out in the flesh and blood of our own ministries, and under
God leave a legacy for unborn generations. Of course, the real
problem whenever you enter the realm of controversy is that
you allow the devil and your flesh to stir up in you unchristian,
controversial attitudes and dispositions. From such may the Lord himself
deliver us. So as we come to the subject,
all I ask from God for myself and for you is what we've prayed
together that God would give us, that spirit of childlike
teachableness that is prepared to receive the word with readiness,
but then to examine the scriptures daily to see whether these things
be so. Hence we come tonight then to
this very sensitive subject, the relationship of theology.
I think it's been announced in your subject as the relationship
of reformed theology to methodology in evangelism. The first thing
I want to do is to underscore what I'm calling the foundational
assumption of this paper. I'm coming at this subject from
a very well-defined presuppositional position, and I want to describe
what that presupposition or foundational assumption is. Having done so,
I want, in the second place, to state a general principle,
illustrate it in specific ways, and then, if time permits, I
want to demonstrate the application of that general principle in
the ministry of St. Paul, and then really, if you're
still awake and I'm still standing and have any voice left, I will
then seek to conclude with five questions by which we may evaluate
the consistency of our theology and our methodology in the realm
of evangelism. All right, first of all, then,
the foundational assumption of this paper, and this is a paper,
it's not a sermon, it's not a lecture, it'll have a little bit of everything
from soup to nuts in it, so I'll cover the whole thing with a
blanket term, a paper, and I'll be sticking quite closely to
my notes. Turn, please, to 2 Timothy, chapter
3. And may we come to the passage
in such a way that the familiarity does not hinder us from receiving
with freshness something of its tremendously comprehensive statements
concerning the subject before us. Paul has described to Timothy
the function which the Holy Scriptures had in his life from the time
he was a child These scriptures which have made him wise unto
salvation, 2 Timothy 3.15, from a child or a babe thou hast known
the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired
of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete
furnished completely unto every good work." Now, can you think
back to this afternoon when they looked at those four, and then
we added to it that fifth that was the focus of our study, great
responsibilities of Timothy as a minister. He was to ground
the people of God in sound doctrine. He was to instruct them in holy
living. He was to lead them into proper
church order. He was also to secure the perpetuity
of the teaching ministry by committing things to faithful men. He was
to do the work of an evangelist. Now for all of those tasks, Paul
says to him now, Timothy, the very scriptures by which you
were made wise unto salvation are sufficient to thoroughly
furnish you unto every good work. The Scriptures are sufficient
rule not only of faith, but also of life, also of practice. I love the way it's stated in
chapter 1 of the Confession, the whole counsel of God concerning
all things necessary for his own glory. And certainly you
wouldn't put evangelism as outside the sphere of things necessary
for God's glory. Man's salvation, faith, and life
is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto
which nothing—and I like these next three words—at any time
is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or
traditions of men. And those traditions need not
be 1,500 years old like some of those of Rome. They can be
50 years old. Evangelical traditions, barnacles
that have attached themselves to the hull of the ship of evangelicalism
as she sails through the sea of history. She can fail to scrape
them off. He says, no, no. Nothing is to
be added, and there are some circumstances concerning the
worship of God, government of the Church, common to human actions
in societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature
and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the word
which are always to be observed. I say it is confessionally proper
to take the position, as well as exegetically sound, to state
that any approach to the subject of methodology and evangelism
that does not start exegetically is doomed to come under the indictment
of God. There is this constant bifurcation
between theology and methodology in the minds of people, and you
hear people say, you go to the book for your message, And you,
as it were, go to the current moods and patterns of thought
and what works for your method. I remember talking one time with
a very, very important evangelical leader, and we were discussing
the subject of message and method in evangelism. Every time we
tried to discuss it, he would look at me and say, now my brother,
What we have works. If you have something that works,
better use it. I won't bother you, you don't bother me. And
I kept saying to this man, I said, Sir, we're not discussing what
works. My concern is, will you please
sit down with me, someone else arranged the meeting, and will
you discuss with me from the Scriptures the content and the
method of evangelism in which you're engaged. And all he would
keep saying is, what we have works. Leave us alone, we leave
you alone. Finally, I said to the man who
arranged the meeting, I said, I'm sorry, we have no common
basis of discussion. Discussion is fruitless. He's
a pragmatist, I'm a biblicist. We'll have to part ways. Now
that was a rather unusual manifestation of this principle, but nonetheless
it is one that is cursing us in our day, a refusal to approach
the subject from an exegetical standpoint. Well, my foundational
assumption in this paper and in this whole discussion tonight,
and I hope it is yours, is the absolute sufficiency as well
as the perspicuity of the Word of God. Now the biggest hindrance to
this, of course, is not only that of pragmatism, but that,
as I mentioned, of traditionalism. It was the problem in our Lord's
day. He made void the word of God by your tradition. How well
I can remember when I was in I don't like to use the term
evangelistic ministry because it conjures up all kinds of images,
so I usually throw a curve at people and I say, I was in the
itinerant ministry, and they say, what do you mean by that?
Then I can tell them what I meant, and then I put my own meaning
on the word. Well, during that time, I was wrestling through
this whole subject of methodology, and having no children, and no
pastoral responsibility, just preaching every night, week after
week, and spending the days in study and in prayer. I can remember
when I first began to scour the New Testament with this question
in mind. What is the apostolic message,
and what was the apostolic method in evangelism? For I reasoned
this way. If I can't play games with God,
then if I'm to ask his blessing upon what I'm saying and doing,
I must know that what I'm saying and doing has his authorization.
I can't come up with my little schemes and then ask God to stick
his imprimatur on them. Much like the person at the local
swimming pool puts his stamp on the back of your hand to say
you've paid your 50 cents for the day, now go have fun. You
can't deal with God that way. So when I began to wrestle through
this, one after another, certain methodology, as well as certain
aspects of content, began to drop out of my ministry. And
then I began to get flack from the pastors where I'd be preaching.
Why aren't you doing this? Well, let me be explicit. I remember
meetings when it was obvious that the Lord was present. Sometimes
people were visibly moved by the Word. And then I would urge
them to seek the Lord, and I'd say to them things like this.
If you have questions and you need more light, I'll stay up
till midnight to give you light. But if the issues are clear and
you need to close with Christ, go to God through the high priest
whom He's appointed. I'm not a priest. I'll pray for
you, I'll pray with you. But I have no magical power,
and I would seek to shut people up to the Lord. And then would
come and say, how come you didn't call people to the front tonight?
How come you didn't? And I'd say, brother, God's been
dealing with me. And I'm beginning to question whether or not I
have biblical grounds. Ah, but you've got to strike
the iron while it's hot. I says, that's good if I were a blacksmith,
but I'm not a blacksmith. Ah, but brother, the Lord is
on. I said, sir, I'm young. And at the time I was really
young. I was in my early twenties. And I'd say, there's a lot I
don't know, but I know one thing when I stand before God to give
account of the stewardship of my ministry, he's going to say
to me, my child, what did you do with what I gave you in my
book? And, sir, I've been studying the book in this area. Will you
please show me from the scriptures either precept or precedent for
this particular method? Well, brother, we... I'd say,
sir, from the book. Well, you know, we must... I
said, sir, from the word. That wasn't being smart, Alec.
I hope I probably would say it a little more graciously now
than I did then. I can't look at myself accurately in retrospect.
None of us can. But you see, this was the great
issue. Do we really believe that the Scriptures are what the Confession
says? An embodiment of all that is
necessary for faith in life and practice? Well, if so, then we're
going to come to it in that way. And then the second underlying
assumption is that the Westminster Standards are the most accurate
human statement of that system of doctrine found in the Word
of God. Now, of course, as a Baptist,
I'm committed to the first form of the Westminster Confession
of Faith, the London Confession of 1689. And though I'm not attached
to the mother I am glad and unembarrassed to say I am attached confessionally
to the firstborn of that great mother of all subsequent confessions. As we proceed, then, I will be
making reference to the Scriptures and to the Westminster Standard,
so much for the underlying assumption. The general principle I wish
to state and then illustrate along several lines is this.
Our methodology in evangelism is simply an extension into life
and practice of our true theology. Let me give it to you again.
Our methodology in evangelism is simply an extension into life
and practice of our true theology. In other words, the views a man
has of God, of sin, of grace, of the method of grace, of calling,
all of these things are the things that will affect his methodology
in the work of evangelism. Let me state that general principle
from a few historical examples, and then I'll try to apply it
to some specific areas and illustrate. When your theology of the sacraments
puts saving merit in them, then your methodology of evangelism
will be that of the Catholic missionaries who would, as it
were, go into an area and get as many people as soon as possible
under their wet fingers. And that was evangelism. Why? Saving merit was in the water
applied properly and by the proper medium. And if that is your theology,
your methodology in evangelism will come up with what we might
call sacramental evangelism. when your theology of the autonomy
of the human will is that of the Pelagian Phinney?" And what
an eye-opener I got. And I read through every word
of Phinney's so-called lectures in systematic theology. Back
when I was really in the woods trying to find my way out, I
plowed through everything I could get my hands on of Phinney. And
when I came to his treatment of Romans 5, I said, whatever
I end up of, I can't end up bad. If I've got to treat a passage
the way he's treating that passage, that must be it. Well, then I
began to understand Finney's Revival Lectures. I had read
his Revival Lectures and re-read many sections as an early Christian.
Then when I read Finney's theology and saw that here was downright
Pelagianism, not even semi-Pelagianism of an evangelical Arminian, outright
Pelagianism, every man his own Adam. Well, it's no wonder then
that he came up with his method of the anxious seat. where he'd
say, if you're anxious about your soul, gather at this place
in the church, and then when you read his directives to the
anxious, basically reducing it to common 20th century idiomatic
speech, it's this. By the power of autonomous will,
by one great big act of the will, surrender to God, that becomes
the new birth. And when you study the theology
of Finney, this is the conclusion you come to. Well, it's obvious
that his methodology was simply an extension into life and practice
of his theology. Another illustration, when you
have a theology which has a view of man that says that multitudes
are ready to receive Christ if he's only rightly presented,
then you come up with a flicked sales pitch that presents a very
simple Christ in a very simple way. I quote now from one of
the leading evangelical leaders in our day. These are quotes
taken right from an official magazine. Quote, men are hungry
for God. Quote, millions are hungry to
know God. Not because the word has come. and brought them to some knowledge
of the true God and of their true state as sinners. No, no.
There is this some kind of a nebulous existential hunger for God. Now, it doesn't say men are spiritually
hungry and don't know that that hunger is because of their alienation
from God. No, no. The statement is they're
hungry and all they need is somebody to come along and present Jesus
in a very attractive garb and they'll run after Him. Well,
I'm not surprised then that a man who has that theology of the
nature of man comes up with a slick kind of sales promotion technique
to bring men to embrace his so-called Christ for whom their hearts
are already hungry and longing. Well, these are examples from
the past and from the present that I trust in some measure
demonstrate the validity of my statement of this principle.
Your methodology in evangelism is an extension into life and
practice of your true theology. Now let's break it down into
some biblical application and illustration. A, or one, if our
theology declares that the glory of God is the goal of all the
works of God in creation, in providence, and in grace, then
our evangelistic methods must reflect this. Now, I hope there's
no one here who would debate with me on the premise—I think
I'm in good Reformed tradition when I state—our theology declares
that the glory of God is the goal of all the works of God
in creation, providence, and grace. Romans 11, 36. For of
him, and through him, and unto him are all things to whom be
glory forever and ever. Amen. Well, if that's true, now do
you see how it affects our methodology? Let me give some illustrations.
God cannot be glorified where he is not known. Therefore, our
method in evangelism will be one in which we're concerned
that God shall be known by sinners. So what does Paul do when he
goes to Mars Hill? He says, you people don't know
God. That's why you don't glorify him. That's why you're found
dishonoring, worshipping these stupid idols. So he says, when
I passed by and saw this inscription to the unknown God, he said,
I want to tell you about the true God. And so he begins to
speak to these people about who, the God who made heaven and earth,
who dwells not in temples made with men's hands as though he
needed anything, and all of the basic ingredients of a vigorous
biblical theism are declared in an evangelistic context. These Athenians had overheard
Paul in the synagogue and in the marketplace reasoning with
the Jews and the proselytes concerning Jesus and the resurrection, and
they said, come, tell us some more of this thing. And Paul,
as much as says no, before we get to Jesus and the resurrection,
there must be a declaration of some basic theistic perspective,
so that when I say Jesus is sent from the Father, Jesus died to
reconcile us to God, You know the starting point, so that everything
else has reference to that. I say his methodology in evangelizing
the Athenians was a reflection of the theology, that the glory
of God in the works of creation, providence, and grace was the
goal of all things, and God cannot be glorified where he is not
known. Therefore, evangelism is concerned with making God
known to men. Look at Our Lord with the woman
at the well. He says to her, ye worship ye know not what.
Salvation is of the Jews. And in evangelizing a harlot,
Jesus gives some of the most profound statements on what the
theologians would call the essence and nature of God. He did that
in evangelism, not a lecture in systematics. He says, woman,
God is spirit. They who worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth. He proclaims the nature and the
character of God in the context of evangelism. Why? Because the theology, may I say
it reverently, of our Lord was one in which the glory of his
God was the supreme end, and that God could not be glorified
where he was not known. God is glorified when all his
counsel is declared to men. Therefore, in our evangelism,
we will have what J. I. Packer calls not the minimizing
mentality, but the maximizing mentality. Paul, the missionary
evangelist, says, I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole
counsel of God. Acts 20 and verse 26. Why? Because he knew that God was
glorified in every facet of truth. that was there in his council.
Therefore, he said, I want to hold up the whole diamond of
God's redeemed mind and turn it until every facet glowed and
sparkled, that God might be glorified. God is glorified when his purpose
in salvation is realized. And what is that purpose? To
deliver people from the guilt and the practice, the defilement
of sin. Whom He did foreknow, He did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. Will
you see if that's real to me? that the end for which God saves
the sinner is His glory, that glory secured by the sinner being
brought into conformity to the Lord Jesus, then my methods in
evangelism will take account of that, and I won't huckster
off Jesus to get people fire-proofed. I will seek to be an instrument
of God through which they are laid hold of by God's effectual
call, brought out of the bondage and dominion of sin. initially
sanctified in that radical cleavage with sin, and then set on the
way of progressive sanctification and biblical holiness until one
day they are resplendent in reflecting the very likeness of the Son
of God. You see, my methods will reflect
an intelligent, fervent desire for that goal to be realized,
and I'll never be content until I actually see sinners brought
out of the bondage of sin, into the way of holiness, and being
made into the likeness of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the glory
of God is the dominant passion in my evangelism. And God is
glorified not when sinners stick a pardon in their pocket and
go back to the hog pens, But when sinners kiss the harlots
and the hogpens goodbye and set their face to the celestial city,
and begin to press on to know him at any cost. Well, you see,
those are the positive illustrations of the principle, but it has
some negative implications. And this is what gets you in
trouble, the negative. But I must say it. If the glory of God In
our theology is the goal of all the works of God in creation,
providence, and grace. We will therefore resist all
means and methods which make man's good the chief end in evangelism. We're not indifferent to man's
good. No, no. I didn't say that. But when we
make man's good the chief end, you know what we'll do? We'll
begin to pare down the offensive elements of the message to make
it more palatable to man. We'll begin to cut corners on
biblical methods to come up with some more slick methods of our
own. But we'll resist all such methods
which do this. That's the negative implication.
Let's move into a second line of application. First was the
glory of God, if that's the dominant confession of our theology. It
will be shown in our methodology. Secondly, if you have a theology
in which the word of God, authoritatively preached, is the primary means
ordained of God for the calling out of his elect, your methods
will reflect it. Let me give it to you again.
If you have a theology, and we dealt with the exegetical materials
this afternoon, if you have a theology in which the Word of God, authoritatively
preached, is the primary means ordained of God for the calling
out of His elect, your methods will reflect this. Has God ordained,
1 Corinthians 121, by the foolishness of the thing preached to save
them that believe? Has God ordained that by the
sent ones men should call upon the name of the Lord and be saved?
If so, then our methodology will reflect this. This means you
will not be sympathetic to any method in which dialogue with no reference to
fixed canons of biblical authority is considered evangelism. And
I've chosen my words carefully. Is it legitimate to evangelize
by dialogue? Of course it is. Dialogue is
just a transliteration of one of the very words used of Paul
in Acts 17. He dialogued what the Scripture
says from the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Jesus was the
Christ. This idea we're just going to get together and rap
a little bit, and that's evangelism. That's not evangelism. That's
just rapping. That's just rapping. Well, you
see, if you're convinced in your true heart theology God is ordained
by the proclamation of that Word, you'll have nothing to do with
dialogue that is not rooted to a fixed canon of authority, namely
the Word of God. Now I'm going to even cut a little
closer to home. You'll have nothing to do with quasi-Christian music
being a means of evangelism. this whole craze for music evangelism
because some half-converted rock star, or some guy who could never
make it in the theatrical world or in the secular world, but
the Christian public is silly enough to make a big gospel folk
hero, because he comes along twanging his guitar with a little
flavor of Jesus and God and the Bible in it, everybody says,
isn't it wonderful that we're capturing this means for the
gospel? Now this is not a critique of
whether or not there's a place for twanging guitars and tapping
your feet in certain situations, none of them. But I'm saying
when this is looked upon as a means of evangelizing, I say no. My theology of evangelism states
that it is the verbal proclamation of the fixed message of God. He's ordained by the foolishness
of the thing preached. I'm not going into the issues
whether there is pre-evangelism and all the rest. I'm not going
into that. I'm simply saying we'll be very, very reluctant
to call this evangelism. Also, we'll be very reluctant
to call testimony and experience-sharing evangelism. So some 6 foot 5,
280 pound tackle on such and such a team got converted. Now
he's a big hero in the church. What makes him a hero? The fact
that he's 6 foot 8, 235 for 85 pounds? That doesn't cut any
mustard with God. Where do you find in the Bible
that a man whose reputation was gained in the world would carry
that over so that he gains stature in the church? Where do you find
that in the Bible? I don't find that. I find just
the opposite. God takes the weak and the things
that are despised and the things that are not to put to naught
the things that are mighty that no flesh should glory in his
presence. Isn't your heart stirred when
you see people manipulated like this and made big evangelical
heroes because they had a name in the world? There's no biblical
grounds for it. There's only one thing that warrants
any man to come before the attention of the Christian public as a
Christian minister. That's that he gains stature
by a consistent godly life and proves himself to be a trusted
guide in the preaching of the Word of God. They didn't make
a hero out of Paul. God let him go back to his hometown,
give his testimony, slip down to Jerusalem to show him what
he'd done, and then he stuck him out in the wilderness for
at least three years. Then he puts him down in a church with
a bunch of other teachers, so he's just one of five. And now
God says, maybe you're ready to do a job for me. And the Holy
Ghost will separate Paul and Barnabas for the work run until
I've called. We'd have had a rally the day after he was saved and
got his sight back. Four days later it'd have to
be. And parade him all around, a former this, this, this, this,
this, this, this. No, no, no. God's ways are not
our ways. If our theology is such that
we see this principle, our methods are going to reflect it. If this
is your theology, you'll be concerned that you don't set up this unscriptural
antithesis—we touched on it this afternoon—between lay and clerical
witness. You'll see the beauty of the
fusion of these two things as at Pentecost. A hundred and twenty
are in the upper room. The Holy Ghost descends upon
them. They all are speaking the mighty works of God. God uses
the corporate witness to attract attention and to gather the crowd.
Then Peter stands up and preaches in the power of the Spirit. And
here you have the fusion of lay and clerical witness bringing
about the increase of the Church of Jesus Christ. Third area in which we'll see
a theological principle in its application. If you have a theology
in which the truth applied to the understanding is the means
of begetting divine life, your methods were reflected. Having been born again, 1 Peter
1.23, not of corruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth
and abideth forever. James 1.18, of his own will begat
he us by the word of his truth. Well, you see, if my theology
says it is the truth applied to the understanding by the Spirit
that is the means of begetting divine life, or if you don't
like the term means, and I'm aware of the theological debate
in this whole area, I'm not ignorant of that thing, But I'm using
it in a loose, non-technical sense. If you believe that, then
your methods are going to reflect it. The first thing there must
be is the opening of the eyes. Acts 26, 18. Look at it for a
moment. This text has been a great help
to me in seeking to hammer out this matter of the theology and
methodology of evangelism. Acts chapter 26 and verse 18. Paul is giving a record of his
commission, and here's what his Lord told him. 16. Arise, stand upon thy feet, for
to this end have I appeared unto thee to appoint thee a minister
and a witness, both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and
of the things wherein I will appear to thee." Great test on
the fact that there is nothing static in the preacher's own
knowledge of God and the truth. He bears witness to what has
been revealed and shall yet be revealed. delivering thee from
the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee to do what?
To open their eyes. There must be that work of illumination
that they may turn, I'm sorry, that they may turn from darkness
to light, from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive
remission of sins and an inheritance among them that is sanctified
by faith that is in me. Now if that's my theology, that
the truth applied to the understanding by the Spirit is the means of
a man being brought into saving relationship, then all my methods
will major on what is the content of that which is going forth
as gospel. I won't start with saying, is
this method successful? Are its propagators sincere?
The first question I'll ask is this. Is it sixteen ounces to
the pound biblical truth that is being proclaimed as gospel?
That'll be my first question. My first question. Is the content
pure gospel? My next question will be, is
the method calculated to disencumber the free access of the truth
to the mind and to the conscience, or is the method calculated to
sow way down the truth with other things that it never quite reaches
the understanding and the conscience? We've got to ask those questions.
Does this method address people as thinking creatures? Let's trace out a fourth area.
If we have a theology of man's spiritual impotence to do any
saving good, this will be reflected in your methodology. If you believe
Romans 8, 7, the carnal mind is empathy against God, it is
not selfish of the law of God, neither indeed can it be. If
you have a theology of man's spiritual impotence to do any
saving good, as expressed in John 6.44, no man can come to
me, a word of ability, except the Father which has sent me
draw him. That's going to reflect in your
methods. If you have a theology that says the new birth is necessary
that a man savingly perceive the kingdom of God, that he might
enter it, John 3.3 and 3.5. If you have a theology that says
1 Corinthians 2.14, the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, why? Because they are foolishness
unto him, neither can he know them, word of ability, because
they are spiritually discerned. I say this is going to be reflected
in your methodology. How? Let me give some specifics.
You will spend much more time in prayer pleading with God for
the supernatural operations necessary to receive the truth than you
will spend in clever planning looking for ways to manipulate
men into a surface response to the truth. See the contrast? You will spend much more time
pleading with God to give that necessary assistance that men
may embrace the truth than you'll spend scheming and planning for
clever ways to manipulate men into a surface response to the
truth. You'll spend more energy than
in proclamation than in promotion, and you refuse to do anything
to give the impression that the human will is autonomous. You'll dare to tell men that
they must repent, and in due course and time you'll dare to
tell them they cannot repent. And Jesus did it almost all in
one breath. In fact, sometimes he did it
in one sentence. Oh, that the Father given me shall come. Clear
implication, if the Father hasn't given, he won't come. But him
that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out." Then he goes
on later, a few verses later, to say what? No man can come
to me. except the Father which is sent me, draw him. I thank thee, Father, Lord of
heaven and earth. Thou hast did these things in the wise and
the prudent, and revealed them unto beings. Even so, Father,
it seemed good in thy sight. No man knoweth the Father save
the Son, and no man knoweth the Son save the Father, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." And what are the
next words? Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest. You see, the idea that the despair
of the recognition of human ill-ability is a bad thing is totally unsound. You see, there is an element
of despair in every acting of true saving faiths. There's an
element of despair. Isn't it beautifully illustrated
in some of those commendations of great faith in the Gospels?
You remember that time when blind Bartimaeus, sitting by the roadside,
And he hears an unusual stirring of sound as a blind man whose
senses of hearing and of touch are keenly augmented. You've
met blind people and I'm sure you've been aware of this. And
he knew that something different was going on for that time of
day in that particular place where he sat begging. And so
he finds someone, reaches out, Sir, Sir, what is it? Didn't
you hear? The prophet Jesus of Nazareth
is coming to town. Oh, Jesus of Nazareth? The one
with you? You mean the one that they told
me? He opens eyes, opens deaf ears, raises the dead. That's
the one! He listens very keenly and he hears the trump, trump,
trump and feels the tremor of the multitude coming until he
gauges that the Lord Jesus is just opposite him and the scripture
says he cried out, Son of David, have mercy on me! And the people
say, shut up, you got no time for you. He's not here to bother
with blind beggars. The scripture says this man did
what? He cried the louder, saying,
Son of David, have mercy on me. And some of the most beautiful
words in scripture follow. What are they? And Jesus stood
still. That's it. What arrested the
Son of God? Not the cry of a man who said,
Son of David, have mercy. If you don't, I'll fix my eyes
up some other time. No, no. It was a cry of desperation.
The Son of God is passing by, and the key to sight is in his
pocket, not mine. And only if he's pleased to take
that key out and unlock my eyes will I ever see Son of David
have mercy! A cry of desperation! And the
Son of God says to him, What wilt thou that I should do unto
you, Lord, that I may receive thy sight? What did Jesus then
say? Thy faith. Thy faith hath made
me whole. Faith that had the element of
what? Desperation. You remember the Syrophoenician
woman? Lord my God! I can't come to you. No, I'm
not sent to the lights of you. This bread's for the children,
not for dogs! Ah Lord, but the dogs wiggle
under the table and eat the crumbs. Poor woman, great is thy faith. What's the element of desperation?
I don't have the key to my daughter's healing in my pocket. He does!
And oh, it becomes at the same time both one of the most pathetic
and beautiful things in the world when God strips a sinner down
to that place of desperation. And he knows, I must come, but
I can't come. Son of David, have mercy on me.
For you see, if your theology embodies the biblical doctrine,
of the spiritual impotence of the natural man to do any saving
good, to use the words again of the Confession, to prepare
himself thereunto. If you believe that, it's going
to be reflected in your methodology. We could spend a lot more time
on that, but I have, what, three other areas I want to touch quickly
on this whole matter of the application of this. If you have a theology
which confesses that the ultimate success of evangelism rests with
the will of a sovereign God, your methods will reflect it. How? First of all, you'll be
willing to be patient. 1 Corinthians chapter 3. Paul
says, one soaks another waters. See the element of time and patience,
but God give it the increase. Or we could take 2 Timothy 2,
the servant of the Lord must not strive, verse 24, but be
gentle to all men, patient, apt to teach in meekness, instructing
those that oppose themselves. If, Timothy, God, peradventure,
will give them repentance to be acknowledged unto the truth.
Timothy, why can you afford to be patient? Because you know
that the ultimate issue in terms of success is in the hands of
the living God. Not only will that reflect itself
in patient methodology, it will reflect itself in thorough methodology. Why? Because you say ultimately
success is with God, and I don't need the fear of keeping back
any part of the counsel of God, for if God has his hooks in a
man, he'll bring him on his turn. I don't need to water down God's
terms to make them more palatable to the unregenerate man. I can
preach an offensive statement. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians
1, he says, I know when I preach. What I preach is an offense.
Old A. B. Finkelstein over there, when
I tell him that Jesus of Nazareth is his Messiah, he says, I can't
buy that. That's a stumbling block to me.
My Messiah is going to come in a white charger, and he's going
to run the Caesar out of town scheming. Don't you tell me that
that man crucified on a Roman gibbet." And Paul said, I know
before I open my mouth that old A. V. Finkelstein, the minute
I start talking about Jesus of Nazareth, he says, there's a
stumbling block to him. And what about old Diocletes,
my Greek friend over there? The minute I start saying, look,
Diocletes, all the wisdom of God is embodied in Jesus Christ.
Your philosophers missed it! They were intelligent fools!
They missed it! He says, the minute I start talking
about Jesus of Nazareth being the embodiment of all wisdom,
and in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and
he is made unto us the wisdom of God, he says, I know what
Theotokos is going to say. He's going to stand there and
go, foolishness. He says, but that's all right,
though I know that old A.D. and old Theo are going to completely
turn me off, and then in my open mind mouth, he says, I also know
a third thing. that if Almighty God has purposed to save them,
something's going to happen to old A.B. He's going to start
hearing about this Jesus, and though he's going to turn me
off, suddenly he's going to find his mind riveted on what I'm
saying. And before long, his heart's going to be engaged,
and the Holy Ghost is going to open up to him that Jesus of
Nazareth was indeed his Messiah and his Savior. And before long,
a tear will break off the cheek of old A.B. And he'll come and
say, Paul, Paul, I see it. I beheld the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ. And all the biographies over
there, I'm standing there with this kind of a sneer in his lip.
Paul says, I know if God is calling him, Christ will become to him
what? The wisdom of God. See, that's
what he said. You see, that theology, oh, how
it affects your methodology. And I can only say, brethren,
how this thing released me. When I first started getting
openings in student circles, I'll confess to you, I was terribly
self-conscious. Can you imagine facing PhDs at
the University of Pennsylvania or from the University of Pennsylvania
and people in that stature? And people introduced me, they're
glad to have Pastor Albert Martin, graduate of Columbia Bible College. I felt as self-conscious as I
did when I used to have a bad case of acne and a girl would
look at me and I was 60. Oh, I felt it, see. And so, not
having understood yet what I understand now, I felt, well, you know,
I've got to, as it were, sort of ease the gospel in and I've
got to make it respectable and I've got And then what happened
one day, I was ministering to a student group, and I forgot
all that, and for a moment I got carried away and started preaching.
And you know what happened? God started riveting people.
Deceit. And the word of God began to
come through with power. And God began to teach me some
things in this area. So now, if there are areas where I'm
not competent to speak, I say, I don't know, I've had to tell
that to a number of you fellas this week. What about this thing?
I say, I'm sorry, that's a field I'm ignorant of, I don't know.
But when it comes to this matter of evangelizing, my theology
says that success rests not with my cleverness, not with my ability
to convince the PhD that he can be intellectually respectable
and be a Christian. No! I preach Christ crucified. If he wants to go out shaking
his head like this and gnashing his teeth, I know one thing.
If God the Holy Ghost's purpose is to save him, that same head
that shakes and teeth that gnash will one day be bowed, crying,
God be merciful to me. Hallelujah, for that kind of
a gospel, and that kind of Savior. But when you believe that, I
don't mean something you wrote down in your senior systematics,
but it's there as part of the living principle of your life.
Does it affect your methodology? It sure does. You're patient. You can be thorough. And the
third thing it'll do, you'll be careful about where the credit
goes when people do come. For what does Paul say in 1 Corinthians
3? Neither is he that planteth,
nor he that watereth anything, but God, who giveth the address. One of the things that's so sickening
to me when I go to ministers' meetings sometimes is to hear
men sit around and glibly talk, I got three souls yesterday,
and I got seven souls yesterday. Going around showing them notches
in their rifles. Oh, my brothers, that reflects
a defective theology. We'll be very, very careful.
Speak guardedly about, quote, our success. You see how the
theology affects them, the methodology, even the way we give our reports
of what's happened? Well, there's another area I want to touch
on. If you have a theology which confesses that God accomplishes
His works by His appointed means, then your methods will reflect
this. Any man who says, well, I'm Calvinist, and I believe
God saves His people, so I'm going to sit on my backside until
He saves them. No, no, he's not a Calvinist.
He's a carnal wretch who's using Calvinism as a cloak for his
own indifference to the souls of men. Because our theology
states that God who has ordained the end has ordained the means
thereto. Hence, there is no passivity
and no inactivity. We realize that God has woven
into the fabric of His eternal decrees my prayers and proclamation
and persistent efforts, my tears and my entreaties. And if that
theology is there, then I'll never drift into the cursed,
paralyzing effects of a hyper-Calvinism. Never. Let me touch on one last
area. If you have a theology which
confesses the centrality of the Church and the purpose of God,
your methods of evangelism will reflect it. What is the pillar
and ground of the truth? The Church, 1 Timothy 3, 14 and
15. How is it that unto the principalities
and powers in the heavenly places is made known the wisdom of God? Through the Church, Ephesians
3.10. My methodology will not bypass
the visible church. My methodology will not be indifferent
to conserving the fruits of evangelism in true biblical churches. I
can no more think evangelism without church than I can think
evangelism without gospel. That's an inseparable trilogy
in the New Testament. Evangelism, gospel, church. The gospel being that which is
proclaimed in evangelism with a view to the establishment of
the Church, which in turn preaches the gospel in its evangelism
with a view to increasing and multiplying the Church. When people just talk about gospel
and evangelizing and say, Church, I say it's unbiblical. It doesn't
fall within the scope of our Lord's commission. Make disciples,
baptize them, whether we're pedobaptists or baptists. On this we're agreed
that baptism is the mark of the visible community of the saints,
whether he's confessors alone or confessors and their children.
On this we're agreed baptism identifies the visible community.
Make disciples, baptize, teach. When a man says, well, my only
job is to make disciples, I said, who gave it to you? Not the head
of the church. That apostolic commission which
now has, as it were, funneled into the Church, and is perpetuated
through the Church, is make disciples, baptize, and teach. Can I just slip out two more
without enlarging on them? If you have a theology which
confesses the antithesis between truth and error, your methods
will reflect it. People say, I'm so concerned
about souls, I'm willing to join forces with questionable men,
because I love souls so much. No, no, wait a minute. Does your
theology state without embarrassment that there is a God-ordained
antithesis between truth and error, Genesis 3.15? That God
has set enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of
the serpent? If so, my method will never relinquish that God-appointed
antithesis, but I will evangelize within a context in which that
antithesis is marked and clear, or I'm proclaiming truth from
the context of a lie." And this was one of the painful observations
made at that big congress of evangelism in Berlin. And the
only one who sounded this note was Dr. Francis Schaeffer in
the position paper. All the main speakers, from what
I was able to read of the speeches and the substance, were totally
silent on this. Now, I'm really going to get
into hot water, but I've got to speak. Key 73. Somehow, let's get together. Yeah, somehow. Blur the antithesis between truth
and error. Get the cardinals and the bishops.
of the Roman Church who want to join in. And get the quasi-evangelicals
who are more known by what they don't say than what they say.
Let's all get together. Let's deny this antithesis between
truth and error to evangelize. May God return the kind of leadership
that has discernment to see that our theology must confess this
antithesis and must express it in our evangelism at any cost. If we have a theology, and this
is the last thing I'm going to say on this, which acknowledges
the deceitfulness of the human heart, that the heart is deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked, and no more active is
that deception than in the realm of religion. Because there are
always false prophets, Paul said in Acts 20, coming from without,
rising up from within. If you believe that, that it's
possible for the enemy to use false teaching to, as it were,
capitalize upon the innate deception of the human heart, your evangelistic
methods will reflect it. You won't be so quick to take
every person who prays a little prayer and give him what I call
Protestant absolution. Put your hand over his head and
say, Thou art saved, and any doubts or questions which ever
come, treat them like some boogeyman out of hell. Even if the Bible
produces them, even if biblical preaching produces them, thou
must never doubt thou hast made by an almighty decision, and
thou art fixed up for eternity. Now you say, Mr. Martin, you're
being a bit cruel. No, I'm not. In the five years of itinerant
ministry, and now in this ten weeks a year or so of it, I meet
people all over this country who, when I press them as to
why they think they are Christians, you know what they say? Nothing
about a relationship established to a person and to the righteousness
of Christ. It's, I went forward such and
such a time. I did something. I got my absolution. Or you say with some it just
might be a careless way of... I know that. I know that. And
if I have reason to believe that, I try to get them to state it
in a little better terms. But with many, if you rip away
from their memories the day of their decision, when someone
pronounced absolution over them, they have nothing left to give
evidence that they were the children of God. Except a little church
attendance. You see, if you believe the human
heart's deceptive, you'll have the burden of a Paul who, even
to converts who came into the visible church under his ministry,
he writes back to them and says, be not deceived, let no man deceive
you. You'll be like John who says,
let no man deceive you with vain words. If you say you know him
and keep not his commandments, you lie and you do not the truth.
If you say that you know him and practice unrighteousness,
you're of the devil. That's the way John writes back.
That's a reflection of his theology, the deceptiveness of the human
heart. Well, how is Paul an example
of these things? When did I start? We've had so
many sessions today, I can't remember when. Let me just quickly, to suggest
some lines of thought. May I challenge you to study
the life of the Apostle Paul and the ministry of Paul in the
Book of Acts as an application of these principles in action.
1 Corinthians 9 is what I call the seedbed of many of these
principles. In that chapter, Paul says that
as a gospel witness, he was willing to be flexible and to accommodate
himself to his hearers within certain limits. He had a fixed
message, but within that fixed message and a basic biblical
method, there was sanctified flexibility. Let's look at a
couple of illustrations. First of all, there was flexibility
and sanctified accommodation in his general appearance and
conduct in order to secure an unprejudiced hearing of the gospel.
To the weak I became this week, that I might gain the weak. The
strong, that I might gain the strong. Acts 21, he takes a Jewish
vow. People say, hey Paul, you come
to Jerusalem. And everybody's been saying that you're going
around kicking Moses in the shins everywhere you go. He says, all
right, to show you I don't kick Moses in the shin, I'll have
my hair shaved. I'll take a Jewish vow so when people see me they'll
say, hey look at Paul, he's under a vow. What was that? That was
flexibility and scientified accommodation in his general appearance with
a view to securing an unprejudiced hearing of the gospel. Timothy's
going to go out and be a companion in evangelism. He says, well,
Timothy, better go down and get you fixed up there, because the
first question people are going to ask, first question people
are going to ask, is he circumcised? He says, when they ask it, I'll
be able to say, yeah, yeah, he's circumcised. Now let's get on
with the business, and he preached it. Right? Scientified flexibility
in the general appearance. When Paul was coming down the
street, chomping on his ham sandwich, and his old friend A.D. turned
a corner. He quick put the ham sandwich in his pocket and covered
it with his robe. He don't want A.D. to be offended. What is
this? This is sanctified flexibility
in general appearance and conduct in order to secure an unprejudiced
hearing for the gospel. But—now listen to me closely—if
to gain that unprejudiced hearing, he had to sacrifice a principle—remember
recorded in Galatians, chapters 2, 1 to 5. What does he say?
You say, you know, you're really not in unless you're circumcised.
Paul says to Timothy, keep your foreskin. The good to do so is
to deny the gospel. We gave place to the known, not
for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you. He said, if I bent on this point,
I'd be relinquishing the gospel. I'd rather have you turn away
in your prejudice than to give up the gospel." See? Flexibility
where there was no relinquishment of principle to secure an un-prejudiced
hearing of the gospel. Always concerning things not
only indifferent in themselves—circumcision is indifferent, Timothy circumcised
Titus is not, but get the next point—things that are indifferent
in the immediate context. And that's the part that is often
overlooked. Not only things indifferent in themselves, but things indifferent
in the immediate context. What's the present application
of this? Well, it comes down to things like beers, mob clothing,
or more staid traditional clothing, your basic lifestyle. There's
all kinds of flexibility that's warranted here. Should you use
such things as a nature film or a travelogue with a group
of young people in order to attract people, to let them get a first-hand
look at Christians, to see that they're normal people, use this
on a Saturday night or Friday? These are areas all indifferent
in themselves, and in many cases indifferent
in a given situation. But you must carefully weigh
the issue, you see, if you're to follow the example of the
Apostle Paul. What we've done as a church,
we've encouraged the young men who can do so and look good to
grow their beards. So if anybody comes to the front
door of our church who's bearded, he looks around and sees about
a half a dozen other beards, he says, well, I guess beards
are kosher here, and he comes in. Well, you know, I don't know
if it's an issue here, but you know what happened about three,
four months ago? I had a call on a Saturday night,
and a young man called and said, Mr. Martin, I've heard about
the church and your ministry from such and such, and I'm a
student in the area, and I'd love to come. Can you give me
directions? I gave him directions. Nobody asked me just before he
hung up. He said, now, Mr. Martin, I must be honest with you. My
hair is a little longer than most people wear it, and I have
a beard. Will I be welcome? What a tragedy. that he should
have felt an evangelical church might turn away because of some
fuzz that God caused him genetically to grow up on his chin. What
a horrible thing, and yet he's been rejected in evangelical
churches up in Yankee land because he grew a beard and had his hair
a little longer. My answer to him was, I said,
well, if this will make you feel at ease, When you come through
the front door, you'll spot at least at that time, three or
four other beards, and I said, probably the man playing the
piano this morning will have a good three or four inch beard
on his chin. He says, thank you. And he came. No problem. And
I've encouraged the fellas who've begun to grow them. Why? Because
here is that flex that a beard is a thing indifferent, and it's
an opinion different in our setting at this particular time. I would
not have taken that position five years ago. The beard was
then a symbol amongst the college age. It is no longer a symbol.
You see, a beard is a thing indifferent, but not a thing indifferent in
every circumstance. You see the application? I believe it's a
direct parallel to the thing we saw in the 1 Corinthians 9,
Galatians 2 passage. With regard to how you contact
peripheral people who are afraid to come to church because they've
never seen Christians and they've got all kinds of weird ideas.
What we do is from time to time we have what we call a family
supper night. Usually on a Friday night, we
encourage all our church families to bring the equivalent of food
that they use for their own family, put it on a common table, encourage
unsaved friends, and many times it's people that they work with
at the shop and they bring the families along. And then we have
a Walt Disney nature film. If you've not seen those nature
films, they're beautiful. I don't mean animated things.
They're the things that are all natural footage. White wilderness,
African lion, many of these things. We don't have any devotion. Some
of my evangelical brethren, look at me. I mean, you've got to
sanctify the night by sprinkling the holy water with a devotional. Christians gather together and
just eat and laugh at the antics of a polar bear? In the very
building where they worship God the next morning? Well, you see, we're making a
statement. We're making a statement. Watching a nature film is a thing
in different And in that setting, it is a thing indifferent. And
we're using it as a what? Sanctified, flexible accommodation
to try to gain an unprejudiced hearing for the gospel. Let people
know that as God's people, we can lick our chops and enjoy
it and laugh together and enjoy it. And all without one risque
remark, without people going around with sunken eyes, trying
to loosen up themselves with eyeballs and the rest. just wholesome
people who are being made whole by the power of the gospel. And
there are many other ways we can be innovative. I'm not calling
for some return to something that was the answer of God in
the past generation. There is this flexibility. I
see that first principle in the life of Paul. Second one. There
is flexibility and sanctified accommodation, not only in appearance
and approach, but in the particular emphases and content of the message
at any given time and place. Read Acts 17. Within that one
chapter you have the record in the first three verses of Paul's
normal approach as to content and emphasis when he went to
the synagogue. And it is contrasted with his
approach and emphasis when he speaks to the heathen philosophers.
What is this? But sanctified flexibility. This
is why I'm against these canned approaches of the gospel. In
a sense, it dehumanizes people. It doesn't take them where they
are. And everything in me recoils against
it, and I hope it's because My attitudes in this are somewhat
conditioned by the scriptures. I bring it into sharp focus when
I'm talking about this with people by saying, which is the right
way to witness? The way Jesus did to Nicodemus
or the way he witnessed to the woman at the well? Here's a one-on-one
situation. In the first instance, a man
comes in at night, no indication, Jesus even offered him a cup
of tea, talked about common issues, poor Nicodemus had hardly gotten
his hand off the door knob. And started to say, we believe
thou art a teacher, and the Lord says, in essence, Nicodemus,
let's cut out all the foolishness, let's get down to brass tacks,
you're blinder than a bat, and until you're born from above,
you won't have a clue of what I'm doing here. You say man comes
from God doing this. Nicodemus, the kingdom of God
is amongst you in the person of the king, and you'll never
know it, you'll never see it, until you're born from above.
Brother, you talk about shock treatment. He talked about tactlessness. But now there's the woman at
the well. Now, lady, would you mind giving me a drink of water?
I'm tired. Drink of water? You're a Jew. You're not being
a good Jew right now. Jews don't have demons. How come?
Then the Lord begins to draw her out. If you knew who it was
that asked of you, you would have been asking of him, and
he would have been giving. Tell me more about this. And
she's all ready to make her decision. Evermore give me this water,
that I come not hither to draw." Jesus said, um, call your husband. And you see the red come up the
back of her neck and into her ears, and she looks down and
she begins to fiddle with the folds of her garment, and, but
I, um, I have no husband. The Lord says, I know all about
that. When I told you that the water of life was to be had in
my person, I said it to you knowing you were a sinner. I didn't offer
myself to a good woman. I offered myself to a wicked
woman who's living in adultery now! And it's been the pattern
of her life. But woman, I came to save the
likes of you. But I'll save you when you're
ready and willing to face your sin honestly. What a different
approach. Now, which was the right approach?
Well, neither one was the right, and both were right. The John
3 approach to the woman at the well would have scared that poor
woman crazy. She probably would have run back into the town not
saying, I found the man who told me all that I did. She probably
would have run back into town saying, I found another prejudiced
Jew who thinks nobody is good but himself. Telling me I have
to be born again. You see? Flexibility in the emphasis
and in the content. Why? Because men are individuals. whom God providentially has hedged
up to circumstances which have brought into their lives more
or less understanding and content of divine revelation. Third principle
illustrated in Paul, not only flexibility in general appearance
and approach, flexibility and sanctified accommodation in particular
emphasis, but last of all, flexibility and sanctified accommodation
in the particular form or structure in which he communicated. Acts
20, 20, he says publicly, that's one form, house to house, another. Acts 17, he starts in the synagogue
and he reasons, he dialogues, he alleges. Later on in Acts
17, I proclaim this God unto you. Sometimes he gives his testimony
before Felix, before Agrippa, But it is always within that
general framework of fixed canons of authority and authoritative
proclamation. J. I. Packer, in his book Evangelism
and the Sovereignty of God, has a beautiful statement on this,
and he says, in essence, that love will always compel us to
be enterprising in seeking that form or structure in which to
evangelize within these general rules of Scripture and theology
that we consider. I read something the other day,
not the other day, sorry, last year in preparation for a series
of messages or lectures on preaching for a conference in the British
Isles, and I think it was in James Stewart, James A. Stewart,
who is not a good pattern for theology in many areas, but who
does know some things about preaching. He has an excellent book on preaching,
and he says this, that man is mortally sick who will only speak
in the approved jargon of official ecclesiastical patterns, something
of that nature. He said it should be a joy to
tear down the lath of traditional religious jargon to lay bare
the granite walls of biblical reality. Isn't that a beautiful
imagery? Cut through the lath of terms
that no longer register on people's ear because they've heard them
until the ears are dulled to them. But within the framework
of solid exegesis and a true theology in balance and due proportion,
let's dare to attack men's ears and hearts and consciences with
that flexibility, both in the form and structure in which we
communicate to them. Well, I submit to you that these
are some thoughts that at least I hope are worthy of serious
reflection and consideration in the general theme, theology
and methodology in the great field of evangelism. There's more we could consider,
but I hope some of these things will come out when we talk. I
want to at least be able to stand in my pulpit Sunday morning.
If I don't preach, at least I want to be able to stand. All right?
Good.