Fallen and Flawed

I actually agree with 99% of this post. I keep hearing Christians and other theists tell me that their personal testimony alone somehow confirms or validates their faith.

Once, I was discussing religion with three of my friends: one pagan, one Muslim, and one Christian. All three of them were trying to tell me that their faith had to be true because that’s what they felt! It was mildly frustrating for me.

While I believe all Christians should be grounded in the Historical evidence of the truth of scriptures. To suggest that personal testimony has no place in evangelism strikes me as flawed. After all, isn’t personal testimony exactly what people used to spread the good news about Christ in the New Testament? Referencing John 9, the story of the blind man… who didn’t argue historical facts, but testified what Christ had accomplished in his life. Or the woman at the well, who upon believing went back into town and said “Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” They came out of the town and made their way toward him.”

There are more examples, but I don’t believe that evangelism…good solid evangelism can be devoid of personal testimony. Good evangelism is a tension between Spirit and Truth. Truth spoken brings out feelings and response (spirit).

One can not fully rely on spirit (feelings) or truth (intellectual) to completely communicate the gospel of Christ. Christ isn’t a mix of dry facts and historical evidence. He was and is a living breathing being who lives in relationship with his creation…loving each in unique and individual ways, producing emotional experiences and intellectual growth in his disciples.

I personally knew the truth of scripture for many years, but it wasn’t until that truth produced feelings inside me (through the Holy Spirit) that the enormity of what Christ had done for me sunk in and I surrendered my life to Him.

I do fully agree that we cannot rely solely upon feelings, because our faith needs to remain grounded in the reality of who God is and the Truth he has revealed to us… but in my view (and one I believe is backed by scripture) there is absolutely nothing wrong with introducing a Christ to a non believer through personal testimony. Every believer has to begin their journey of sanctification someplace… some begin in the intellectual realm, some through emotional encounters with God. To say there is only one legitimate or honest way to introduce someone to Christ, suggests that God cannot use personal testimony (read mountain top experiences) in changing peoples lives, which flies in the face of the historical record of the Gospels.

I believe a better way to say what you’ve written is to state that, “Pure emotional appeals are not enough to bring someone to Christ.” pure being the necessary distinction. To appeal only to emotion and always to emotion and experience at the expense of the truth should never be promoted among the Christian faithful. Our faith is based on Truth and we must be on guard to maintain the preeminence of scripture in our theology.

I would also suggest as Christians that we should not abandon certain methods of evangelism if other religious movements or charlatans co-opt them. People do what works, just check out Simon the Sorcerer. What we do need to be certain of is that if a person believes that person grows in the knowledge and truth of the scriptures, and doesn’t live for a continuation of emotional highs. Our faith is based on truth, truth that produces feelings and life changing experiences. To promote one over another is to veer to one ditch or another on the narrow path to heaven.

Lastly, I mourn for those who won’t be argued into heaven, ignoring the inconsistencies and illogical leaps of their religion. There are some, in fact many, who will never be convinced of the truth of our message, no matter how many times we present them honest facts or personal testimonies. They are like the Pharisees who demanded a sign, one has been given, and if that’s not enough for them no amount of pleading, logic, or emotional testimony will do… their hearts are hardened; only prayer and the Holy Spirit can change them.

I used to do little personal surveys on other people by asking certain questions. One of these questions was “Why are you a Christian?” It’s amazing how overwhelming the response was “Because that’s what I believe.” I think testimonies are good in certain settings, but not so good for making a case for Christ. There is a time and place for testimonies, and in the public square one must judge critically the particular testimony he is about to share if indeed he is going to share his testimony. I can see a testimony such as Lee Strobel’s fitting because it has to do with proofs and evidences.

Interesting to discount the personal impact of Christ on an individual life so strongly. What is our faith except a powerful life-change brought on by God-given faith in our Savior Jesus Christ. True, the argument for Christianty goes far beyond each individual’s experience, but I have seen the impact of personal testimony on numerous occasions for the gospel. It brings truth to life. It is Biblical in example (Paul used it regularly). it shows people that there is substance to the truth proclaimed.

I will agree, it is not always the best evangelism tool. But, to relegate it to a private status only and not worthy of public discourse is to discount the way God transforms lives one person at a time to build His chruch universal.

I normally track with you strongly, but on this one I feel you have left too much out to the equation on this argument.

thanks for your ministry of writing. Keep bringing the word to bear on our lives.
-Adam

I agree with Adam’s praise and concern.

If the previous post about Christ, and Him being real stands, than it seems this post undercuts that one. Unless I am reading you wrong, which could be the case.

-Steve

It seems as if Isaiah 53 might be a good place to take someone who asks why you are a Christian considering it was written more than 700 years before the birth of Christ. This would help establish the credibility of Scripture. Then perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:6 in which Paul tells of Jesus appearing in his resurrected body to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom were still alive at the time as if to say, “If you don’t believe me, ask them.” Christianity is founded on historical fact–the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an “event” that not only took place in history but one that was predicted by the prophets hundreds of years before it happened.

Demian,

This is a good post. Good to see a Christian acknowledge that emotion and personal anecdotes do not amount to useful evidence.

As others have said, it does seem to undermine some of what you’ve said previously. My experience is that during these types of discussions, even if you start on objective historical grounds, once the Christian realises the atheist has looked at the available evidence and is not convinced, it always falls back to something intangible – personal feelings, or a story about what happened to a friend.

Teleprompter: That last paragraph sounds like a joke – did the four of you walk into a bar?

All, I’m sorry. I’m not dismissing personal, emotional appeals altogether. This post totally comes across as if I am. [No wonder some of you are scratching your head!] That wasn’t my intention.

My intention was simply two-fold:

1. Know what you believe and why, cause it’s WAY more than how your life’s been changed. We need the steel architecture of a historical risen Savior to sustain us, support us AND separate us from experiences that some would brush off as mere behavior modification.

2. And JUST sharing your personal testimony isn’t evangelism nor is it the gospel. And that’s important.

Romans 10:14 tells us why:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Mark Dever speaks to this well in a sermon called 5 Things That Aren’t Evangelism. As does Michael Horton in a recent podcast called Question of Tolerance.

Bottom line: Emotions are important. Our story is important. Our intellect is important.

But the biblical record trumps all. Especially when it comes to sharing your faith.

As most of you know, my own personal testimony is a great compliment to my articulation of the gospel. So in practice I use it. But not to defend my faith or prove what I believe to a public audience.

That’s all I’m saying. Does that make sense? Let me know. I appreciate everyone’s feedback and thoughts.

Demian, that makes much more sense. Although I would suggest you’re mixing up Evangelism with Apologetics.

You’re usually much more precise in your choice of words, so I knew something was amiss.

Great clarification. Right on.

Demian:

This is sort of how I understood your post to be, as I didn’t think at all you would consider throwing our testimonies out the window. I watched a debate against Matt Slick (Christian Apologetic Resources Ministry) and some Atheist professor concerning the existence of God. If Matt were to use his testimony as a tool for debate, he would have totally lost his credit. Instead, he used a great argument; the origin of logic. Now, after the debate, he did address the audience and used a bit of testimony of how the God he had done a great job proving can impact their lives. I would consider this the public square.

Now, when I’m in church, I want to hear testimony sometimes. Actually, I include testimonies sometimes in the messages I preach. But this is a different kind of setting; one I would not include in the “public” square.

For what it’s worth,
—Jonathan

The post is totally clear and factual. The objectivity of the Gospel doesn’t need the help of the subjectivity of the human experience. The most spectacular personal human experience cannot add anything (objectively) to the wholeness, glory, beauty and sovereignty of the Gospel of the cross and the empty tomb. In the public square, objectivity, in the communion of saints, both (objectivity and subjectivity), always remembering that the second must always be subjected to the first. Great comment of Demian and Jonathan.

I like what Rev. 12:11 has to say on the power of personal testimony when it is joined with Christ’s sacrifice. It may not be evangelism, but the Bible says it is critical for defeating the accuser. That’s not a terrible goal, either.
Grant

[...] ought to shape our understanding of how we engage in prayer (an area in which I lack), the difference of testimony and the Gospel, and the ideas behind popular books. —Jonathan Photo by florriebassingbourn [...]

Great point, Grant.

Jonathan wrote,

“One of these questions was “Why are you a Christian?” It’s amazing how overwhelming the response was “Because that’s what I believe.””

Interesting, that seems like an utter failure to answer the question. Being a Christian means believing something, right? Saying “that’s what I believe” is not an explanation, but a restatement of their Christianity. Perhaps a more honest answer would be, “I don’t know”.

Jon wrote,

It seems as if Isaiah 53 might be a good place to take someone who asks why you are a Christian considering it was written more than 700 years before the birth of Christ. This would help establish the credibility of Scripture.

Presumably the people who wrote the NT had not already read the “prophesies” of Isaiah? They had? Well, then it’s hardly surprising that their stories (whether true or not) about an alleged messiah would include similar ideas. To write a piece of fiction that didn’t gybe with existing traditions would surely cause people to ignore it. If the scripture is in some places consistent with other parts of the scripture this does not establish its credibility. Isaiah’s prophecies are discussed in detail by Deacon Duncan at Evangelical Realism.

Demian,

It seems this is a dilemma. On the one hand you’re right to say that personal testimony is of little use for establishing the truth. As you point out, if it was you’d need to accept the truth of every religion with an enthusiastic believer telling you how their life has been changed. Which I’d guess is most of them.

On the other hand I don’t think many people are converted simply by being left alone with a Bible and maybe some apologetics books. It could be regarded as believing for the wrong reasons, but I think people are converted by personal testimony, although probably not a single personal testimony. I just don’t think they should be. However, many people clearly feel that their personal testimony should be enough to convert anybody. Witness “Lady Two” in Steve Butterfield’s experience of the Alpha Course.

It probably depends on the person, but of the 2.2 Bn Christians in the world, I’d guess few have investigated the history of their beliefs, yet most have experienced some form of personal testimony from another.

I had a bad experience with personal testimony a while ago. A Christian friend of mine told me how his brother started spontaneously speaking a foreign (modern) language at a Christian festival. He did so well enough that native speakers could understand him and in spite of never having taken the time to learn it. When I heard this story I am left in the awkward situation of saying either:
1. Well that proves it – your beliefs must be true!
OR
2. Sorry, it seems your brother is a fraud.

[...] answer.Then there’s the problem with the fact that you or I can never make someone believe. We cannot rely on testimony alone, but we can give them knowledge of the truth and reasons to believe.Some, however, will not believe [...]