And of course, I was interested in this clip because the headline talks about Matthews going after Obama. I don’t particularly like Obama’s politics either.

But take a look at the video, because I want to make a point about the ministry from something Matthews says about politics.

The big point Matthews is making is that politics is a people business. You have to talk to people, build relationships with people, spend time with people. His big complaint about Obama is that Obama is keeping his distance from the Congressmen of his own party.

I don’t know how valid Matthews’ complaint is against Obama, although it sounds true. But as I was thinking about it, I thought about our own ministry and how it is built and sometimes how it is hindered or torn down.

The Christian ministry is a people business also, or maybe, ‘moreso’. Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” He commissioned us to “make disciples”.

I have found that its really hard to make disciples by e-mail. You need to sit in coffee shops with them. You need to visit in their homes. You need to get involved in their lives.

You need to find ways to do the same kinds of things to initiate evangelistic outreach. People to people contacts. Spending time.

I love spending a lot of time with my interests, or even simply studying out passages for sermons or articles. Study time is important. But I’ve found that people time is more important.

And the e-mail counseling route often leads to disaster! You’ve seen flame wars online, no doubt. Whew! Wait till someone in the church starts going to it with you by e-mail. I’ve learned that it is crucial to stop e-mail ‘counseling’ sessions before they can get too personal. You can use e-mail to set up appointments. You can use it to distribute encouragement or generic devotionals. But if you have an issue you need to discuss… don’t do it online. Person to person – that’s the ticket.

It’s a people business.

The question reveals, I think a faulty view of salvation and assurance of salvation. In light of our recent discussion of revivalism here, I thought the article asked an interesting question.

The whole idea of a “decision for Christ” is largely a revivalistic phenomenon. As the article says:

Much of American Protestantism has been influenced by revivalism, which places great emphasis on "making a decision for Christ" in a public, definitive way. These "moments of decision" often become the crucial evidence that one is saved. Other Protestant traditions, less influenced by revivalism (including some Reformed and Lutheran churches), may be content to leave the conversion experience unclearly identified, putting the focus on identification with the church. Both of these traditions have benefits, as well as potential problems.

In a recent comment, our e-friend Tracy makes a good point, I believe:

If I’m preaching to lost folks, I preach Christ crucified and call for them to close with Christ immediately and publicly. Before I close, I tell them if they have any questions, either they can come to the front at the invitation time or they can see me after the service. I always stress that Christ desires their immediate salvation. So I declare the gospel, spell out its terms, and call them to close with it.

I agree with that. We need to call folks to decisions.

But what about some who can’t remember the specifics of their decision? (Perhaps it was a long time ago, perhaps it was when they were very young, perhaps they remember bits, or perhaps they remember nothing at all.)

Sometimes we have the phenomenon of people (often young children) doubting their salvation ‘decision’. Did I really trust Christ then? Am I really saved? This can lead to multiple decisions – where someone suggests that there is nothing wrong with making sure of one’s salvation right now, so a new prayer is prayed and a new hope of assurance is formed based on a new decision. Or it can lead to someone assuring the concerned based on a past decision: Don’t you remember that prayer you prayed? Did you mean it then? Did God hear your prayer?

Both of these approaches, though well meaning, may lead to other problems. Some believers become very confused over multiple decisions and fail to progress because of a very unsettled mental state about their salvation. Others rely on their prayer as if it is almost a magic formula. As long as they ‘said the right words to God’, they are good to go.

The CT article concludes this way:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one’s life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God’s saving work in one’s life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

This is reasonably good advice, but I think more should be said. One searching question to ask is this: What are you relying on in order to have salvation? To put it another way, “If you were to stand before God right now and he were to ask you, ‘why should I let you into my heaven’, what would you say?” (To coin a phrase!!)

Why is this question relevant?

It is relevant because if one’s assurance is based on his works – his character, his visible love for God, his love for the brethren – is he relying on Christ or on his own works?

Or if one’s assurance is based on the prayer he prayed (the decision, or the memory of a decision), is he relying on the fact of having said the right words to God (a work) or is he relying on Christ?

For myself, I remember praying for salvation from sin on a certain occasion. My father told me that it came after weeks of spiritual turmoil and an inability on my part to understand that I was a sinner and needed to be saved, just like anybody else. (I wasn’t old enough to be that bad, or so I must have thought.) But at some point, I came to understand that I, even I, was a sinner and had no right to stand before God. I understood that I needed the work of Christ alone to save me from my sin, so I prayed to receive it.

Following that decision, I at times doubted my salvation. This usually came at points where I found myself under conviction for the presence of ongoing sin or under the periodic depressions associated with growing up.

Personally, I found assurance of salvation in two sources. First, in the promises of God in the Bible. The Bible says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Did I call? Yes. Then God’s promise is salvation. I depend on God’s word, not my own experience. Second, in answer to the question posed above, I would say I am trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, nothing else for my salvation. My answer to God’s hypothetical entrance examination is, “Jesus died for me.” I have no assurance based on my own experience. I have seen too many failures in my life and others to have much confidence in that route.

To answer the question of the CT article, “How can I know I’m a Christian if I can’t remember when I first responded to the gospel?” my answer is: Jesus Christ and the promises of God. Are you trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you from sins? Then rest assured. The promises of God say you have eternal life.

HH: As we speak, marriage is up, it’s a knockout punch that is being aimed at marriage in California.

PH: Yes.

HH: The consequences of that, do you have any opinion?

PH: Well, I think it’s immensely serious, and it’s also rative of a fight, because those who fight it on the grounds on which the left have chosen to make it a battle, can very easily be portrayed as bigots and intolerant and cruel, because it’s always an issue of allegedly giving something to somebody, and why are you against giving something to somebody? Are you a cruel person? Are you a nasty person? Are you a vindictive person? And it’s turned into that development. And this is partly, of course, because the battle over divorce, which both in your country and in mine, was made so ridiculously easy in the 1960s. The battle over divorce has already been conceded, and therefore marriage among heterosexuals is so weakened, that this assault on it is not seen for what it is, namely a further blow at what I regard is the constitution of private life, that the marriage contract is the basis on which private life can be lived. And the moment the state becomes more important, and the moment big corporations become more powerful than the marriage bond, then private life is over, and we’re all slaves. And this is the difficulty. You need to find, and the conservative movement on both sides, I think, need to find a language in which to fight this war without it being easy for the other side to portray them as bigots.

(Quote comes about 2/3 of the way through the interview)

Most of my readers are probably aware that this is a present battle for the essential building blocks of human society.

Recently, I conducted the ceremony for my sister and her husband. Two comments highlight how much on the front lines of the battle real Christian marriage is.

• The unsaved acquaintances of both my sister and brother-in-law were astonished that they wouldn’t live together first. I think cohabiting first is the norm in our west coast Canadian culture. That is where we are.
• In the ceremony we used (with very little modification) the original of Thomas Cranmer’s wedding ceremony from the first Book of Common Prayer. Notable in that ceremony in particular is the promise of the wife ‘to obey’ her husband. One of my sister’s friends came to her after the ceremony with the wish that the submission be ‘mutual’. That is where we are.

One blog that regularly comments on matters matrimonial and male/female issues is that of the Bayly brothers, David and Tim, called “Out of our minds too…” (The name is in honour of a column the Bayly bros’ father, Joe Bayly, used to write, ‘Out of my mind…’). I would encourage you to be a regular reader. You may not agree with everything (they’re Presby’s, for one thing), but you will gain some understanding of the seriousness of the issues we face.

Every Christian marriage is a victory in the face of an onslaught against mankind at the very foundation of human society. This campaign is waged by the evil one who hates God and all that God has made. May we have the courage to promote true Christian marriage and guide those who come to us seeking marriage in the scriptural principles upon which it rests.

Dr. Custer starts his article this way:

Many people use Scripture for their own purposes. I am referring to sincere Christians who use the Scriptures to reinforce their own private interpretations of the Bible and of life. Many of these people are very godly individuals. I know of preachers whose personal dedication to the Lord is unquestioned, but who have certain doctrines for which they are notorious. They plug these things as though they were the great truths of revelation, when they happen to be of private interpretation.

Most fundamentalists would say they have a handle on the idea of holiness. Dr. Custer points out there are approximately 600 references to the word ‘holiness’ in the Bible (leaving aside passages that don’t specifically use that word). How many of those passages would you say you have thoroughly studied? What kind of grasp do you have on holiness, according to the Scriptures?

Our culture is filled with media, as Dr. Custer points out. All kinds of noise blares at us, demanding our attention. We live fast paced lives. We are ‘Martha’ Christians. We need to learn to be ‘Mary’ Christians, and sit at the feet of Jesus.

Turn off our televisions and our computers. Turn off our ipods and iphones. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Mt 11.29)

I can tell you that I was mightily convicted by this little article this evening

A key quote:

Because religious patients often trust in God’s sovereignty and an afterlife, “one might expect them to be more accepting of death and let nature take its course at the end of life, rather than pursuing very aggressive treatments,” said Dr. Andrea Phelps, lead author on the study and senior medical resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Such a view, she said, reflects a commonly held assumption about how religious patients approach the prospect of imminent death.

But, Phelps added, a few reasons might help explain why religious cancer patients commonly opt for aggressive care in their final days. Among the possibilities:

—faith leads to optimism, even when a prognosis is bleak;

—faith gives purpose to suffering, and in turn helps patients muster stamina for invasive treatments;

—beliefs about sanctity of life may give rise to a quest to prolong life at almost any cost.

“We were concerned” by the study’s findings, Phelps said. “We are worried because aggressive care, at least among cancer patients, is a difficult and burdensome treatment that medically doesn’t usually provide a whole lot of benefit.”

My question: should Christians ‘fight’ when it comes to disease? Often when someone gets very ill, believing family members will talk about ‘let’s fight this’ or ‘you’re going to fight this, aren’t you?’

In recent months I have witnessed, directly or indirectly, well-meaning family members encouraging terminally ill believers to keep on fighting, even in cases that are virtually impossible of survival (from the human perspective).

• The recurrence of a very aggressive cancer where treatment involved the very nauseating chemo therapy treatments and debilitating radiation, only to end in death after a miserable last 10 to 12 months of life.
• The death of an elderly believer who led a full and fruitful life of ministry, but in dying days was encouraged by a zealous doctor to ‘have hope’ and ‘fight’ for one or two more years of life. This gave false hope to family members only to end in death after about eight weeks.
• A dying saint who was urged by family members to just fight, and keep trying, even though a debilitating cancer simply sapped her of energy and will to live – a cancer that was untreatable by any therapy, and ended with the saint in heaven.

I realize that there is a culture of death in the medical profession in some circumstances. I am not talking about some kind of ‘quality of life’ issue here, i.e., arguing that we shouldn’t be aggressive simply because so-and-so doesn’t have good ‘quality of life’ prospects. I am talking about cases where the actual prognosis is death, even with heroic measures by doctors and vigorous attempts to prolong life at all costs. Should our ‘pro-life’ beliefs include a fanatical attempt to defy the odds by medical means?

Certainly God can cure anyone. But in the cases I mentioned, it clearly was not His will to do so. It was His will to bring these saints home.

Suppose the individuals in these cases, rather than pursuing radical treatments, simply left the case in the Lord’s hands. Suppose they lived a while longer? Well, praise the Lord, if so. But suppose they died without anguish and suffering in the last months of their life? Wouldn’t that be better for them and their families?

These are not easy questions and I am not proposing a ‘one answer fits all’ for any individual case. But we must use wisdom in our own decision making and counselling ministries.

UPDATE: I promised an update in the comments below. On the CT blog (all disclaimers apply!) a member of the research team mentioned in the article responds. It is worth reading, but here is a quote:

Based on this, we hypothesize that there is a gap about formation of death for religious communities. It would appear that Christians as a pattern do not talk about death, model a good death, or articulate the characteristics of faithful dying. Terminal patients and their families are left alone in making these decisions — and there is a significant minority (we are guessing between 10-30%) who are receiving aggressive care at the end of life because they do not know how to navigate the spiritual intersection involved in the complexities of medical decision making.

Arms review was interesting but I think he misses the boat.  I’ve read all of the Adams, Bobgans, etc. type books. Very helpful stuff, but to them, fear, anxiety, depression, etc. are always due to a spiritual problem. I disagree. Berg comes the closest to my position by recognizing that there can be a physical component.

Arms says, "For Welch, depression can be caused by… our own bodies…" While I don’t subscribe to his "low self-worth" mantra or have any affinity for the psychiatric profession, Welch is correct about the body factor. If Spurgeon’s physician knew more about gout, Spurgeon would not have needed to cry in his wife’s lap after the services every Sunday evening or take extended trips to the south of France for his health and sanity. In the same way, I firmly believe depression can be organic in nature especially as we often observe, in many, many cases, such a strong familial, genetic connection.

"Annie" continues:

So Arms is somewhat right and somewhat wrong when he says, "None of these things can cause depression, they are only occasions for depression."  There can be both a cause and effect. I believe diet can be a huge cause. Lester Roloff proved that over and over again.  Why is it that a believer can pray diligently, read his Bible, fast, receive godly counsel, have no unconfessed sin in his life, etc., etc., and yet struggle with debilitating depression or some other mental malady? [Another preacher] wrote to me some time ago and said, "It’s hard to be ‘spiritual’ when you’re feeling lousy all the time!"  Is it possible that some material deficiency or short circuit in the brain can make someone feel lousy?  We still groan, whether physically or mentally  in these bodies, but I’m thankful, due to medical advancements, that I probably don’t groan as much as the Apostle Paul did.

Now, in and of itself, no change of diet or anything else can ultimately change the heart. But what if the believer found he had an organic deficiency or changed his diet, and then that allowed him to feel better so he could focus more clearly on the scriptural prescription. Prayer and surrender are still the ultimate key to the spiritual problems but I strongly believe that the medical community is going to discover more and more that many of these mental/emotional problems definitely have a physiological basis. A number of preachers are beginning to realize it’s not all due to just sin… well, fear  or anything else is sin but even the OT speaks of provision for sinning unawares. Okay, I’ll stop my ranting!

I guess I would say, especially counselling believers who don’t seem to be helped by our counsel (granted our counsel is adequate), "Find out first if there is some specific, unconfessed sin in their lives and if there isn’t, look at the organic."

All of that, is good, helpful commentary. To clarify, I asked "Annie" this:

I agree that physical problems cannot be ruled out. So I am not totally buying Adams viewpoint, but I have noticed some things in Welch’s books that give me a little concern. It seems that your conclusion is that  if there is no spiritual cause (no ongoing unconfessed sin problem), then look for physical causes, whereas Welch and his colleagues seem to emphasize rule out the physical, then consider the spiritual. Or am I missing it?

Last word to "Annie", who replied:

Your summarize it correctly. In my opinion, Arms and Welch represent two unbalanced factions of the spiritual counselling movement. They both have some good things to say and some philosophy that is not so good.

In this conversation, I agree with my friend. We can’t ignore the physical, but be careful of those writers who say "check the physical first" and give a good deal of credence to the instruments of psycho-babble. On the other hand, those suffering debilitating conditions can also suffer depression. And they can also compound their debilitating conditions and depression by reacting sinfully (irritable, angry, etc.) and spiral into real spiritual difficulty unless they choose to walk by the Spirit in spite of their circumstances.

I have been positive of Welch in the past, especially for his book on addictions. I have read several of his other books as well. However, if this review is accurate, Welch is basically an integrationist and an unreliable guide for Christian counsellors. Arms is quite severe in his criticisms.