Will Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel Be Lost?

Something to ponder on a controversial question... Will Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel Be Lost? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Jim Estabrook [EDITOR’S NOTE: In the November 1999 issue of Reason & Revelation, we published the first of several articles by Sam Estabrook, who at the time was serving as our Operations Manager (and who since has been promoted to the position of Manager of Information Systems). In this issue of R&R, it is my pleasure to introduce to you Sam’s older brother, Jim, who is our dedicated, hard-working General Manager. Since joining us in September 1998, Jim (who turns 28 this month) has become an invaluable part of our work. He is not only an extremely talented, amazingly versatile jack-of-all-trades (who has become my indispensable “right-hand man”), but a serious and careful student of God’s Word as well. I have asked Jim to take the lead author’s position on this month’s feature article. I commend to you both him and his research efforts. Look for more to come from his pen in the future.] We live on a planet populated by approximately six billion people. Six billion! And most of those, it probably would be safe to say, never have been afforded the opportunity of hearing the gospel message about the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ. Therefore, obviously, they cannot respond in obedience to that saving message—even though they might be willing to do so if presented with the prospect. What will happen to these people? Will they be lost eternally? Or will God make some kind of “special allowance” so that they can be saved and thereby enjoy eternity in heaven with Him and His Son? As we examine these kinds of questions, it is vitally important that we remember two points. First, “the Judge of all the Earth” will “do right” (Genesis 18:25). God is every bit as infinite in His mercy and His grace (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13) as He is in His justice and His severity (Hebrews 10:31). Second, since it is the Word of God that instructs us regarding man’s eternal destiny, and since all men eventually will be judged by that Word (John 12:48), it is to God’s Word that we must go to find answers to inquiries concerning mankind’s ultimate destiny. Fortunately, in His wisdom, God has not left us to our own devices concerning matters that relate to our salvation. As Jeremiah wisely observed: “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (10:23). WILL A “LOVING GOD” CONDEMN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THE GOSPEL? There are those who suggest that surely God would not banish from His presence for eternity those who never had an opportunity to hear and obey the gospel message in the first place. Consider the following examples. In his 1909 volume, Systematic Theology, A.H. Strong wrote: Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in the flesh.... We have, therefore, the hope that even among the heathen there may be some...who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way to life and salvation (p. 843, emp. added). Approximately fifty years later, popular evangelical theologian Karl Barth defended such a concept via what he called his “biblical universalism.” He wrote: “We have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the lovingkindness of God” (as quoted in Dyrness, 1983, p. 105). In commenting on Barth’s viewpoint, apologist Cornelius Van Til wrote: For Barth, man, as sinner, is, to be sure, under the wrath of God, but this wrath is, itself, a form of the all-overreaching grace of God. There is no eternal punishment for those who are in Christ [because] there are no men who are not in Christ (1965, p. 38, emp. added). Another modern-day evangelical, Neil Punt, invoked Barthian ideas in his book, Unconditional Good News, wherein he rejected the idea that sinners actually must believe and obey the gospel in order to be saved because “It is an error to think that there is anything that must be done to inherit eternal life” (1980, p. 135, emp. added). In What the Bible Says about Salvation, Virgil Warren wrote: Even some two thousand years after the Great Commission, more people in the world have not heard the gospel than have heard it. The secret things do belong to God, but Christians and non-Christians alike cannot help wondering about the justice as well as the compassion of a God who assigns to eternal torment people who, for reasons beyond their control, never heard about fellowship with him through Jesus Christ.... Our opinion is that scripture does not automatically assign the unevangelized to endless hell (1982, pp. 104-105, first emp. in orig., last emp. added). In their book, Answers to Tough Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart stated: Although the Scriptures never explicitly teach that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, we do not believe that it infers [sic] this. We do believe that every person will have an opportunity to repent, and that God will not exclude anyone because he happened to be born at the wrong place and at the wrong time (1993, p. 137). Statements such as these certainly could cause some to conclude that God simply will not judge the lost, but instead will deem them worthy of eternal salvation merely (or solely!) because they never had an opportunity in their lifetimes to hear the “good news” made available to humankind through the gospel of Christ. While at first glance such a notion may appear comforting, and may appease our human sensitivities, the truth of the matter is that it has monstrous theological and spiritual implications. Consider these facts. CHRIST’S GREAT COMMISSION AND MAN’S ALIENATION FROM GOD BECAUSE OF HIS SIN First—in light of the commands inherent in the Great Commission given by the Lord Himself prior to His ascension back into heaven—how can we entertain any suggestion that the “unevangelized” will be saved? Christ’s instructions were crystal clear: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you...” (Matthew 28:19-20). If the view is correct that the unevangelized peoples of the world will be redeemed without ever having been exposed to (and obeying) the gospel, then potentially we could be doing them great harm if we carry out the Lord’s command and teach them the truth. By introducing them to the gospel, we might well be condemning those who otherwise would have been saved. When R.C. Sproul wrote his book, Reason to Believe, he expended considerable effort in explaining why such a position is unscriptural. He prefaced his discussion with the following statements: The unspoken assumption at this point is that the only damnable offense against God is the rejection of Christ. Since the native is not guilty of this, we ought to let him alone. In fact, letting him alone would be the most helpful thing we could do for him. If we go to the native and inform him of Christ, we place his soul in eternal jeopardy. For now he knows of Christ, and if he refuses to respond to Him, he can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. Hence, the best service we can render is silence (1981, p. 50). Ponder the situation of a person who never has the opportunity to hear the gospel. If the ideas expressed in some of the above quotations are correct, then that person will be saved necessarily. But what about the person to whom we present the gospel message, and who then, of his or her own personal volition, chooses (for whatever reason) to reject it? Having spurned God’s offer of salvation through His Son, can such a one then be saved? Not according to God’s Word! The writer of the book of Hebrews noted: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins” (10:26). In Luke 13:34-35, Christ Himself lamented the rejection of the gospel message by His own Jewish brethren (who had been presented with the gospel message, but had rebuffed it repeatedly). Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Luke 13:34-35, emp. added). Consider, too, the important spiritual principle set forth in Hebrews 6:4-6, which, although admittedly speaking about people who once had accepted Christ as their Savior and then had abandoned their faith in Him, nevertheless mentions those who at one time were “enlightened” about Who He was and the salvation He offered—only to reject both Him and that salvation. Would it not, then (if the views discussed above are correct), be better simply to keep the Word of God “a secret” from the heathen and the unevangelized so that they—as a result of their ignorance—can be saved and not be put in the position of knowing the gospel message and possibly rejecting it? In their book, I’m Glad You Asked, authors Kenneth Boa and Larry Moody correctly observed: Those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it are doubly guilty—they have rejected not only the Father but also the Son. And the Scriptures are clear about the judgment which awaits those who have refused God’s offer of salvation. The wrath of God abides on them (John 3:36; cf. Heb. 2:3; 10:26-31) [1982, p. 160]. Second, those who suggest that the heathen and unevangelized will be saved “as a result of their ignorance” of God’s law have failed to realize that such people are lost, not because they are ignorant of God’s law, but because they have sinned against Him. Almost all humans recognize (albeit begrudgingly, at times) that ignorance of the law does not excuse us from the law’s penalties and/or punishments. [“But officer, I didn’t know the speed limit was 15 miles per hour in the school zone.” “Yes, sir. The courthouse is open 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. You may pay the $150 speeding citation at any time during those hours. Have a nice day.”] One must distinguish between knowledge of a law and the existence of a law. If one must know the law before he can transgress the law, then there would be no such thing as a “sin of ignorance.” Yet the Bible speaks plainly of that very thing (Leviticus 4:2,22, 27; Acts 3:17; 17:30-31). Ignorance of the law is neither a legitimate excuse nor an effective guarantee of salvation. Paul wrote in Romans 2:12: “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law.” In his commentary on the book of Romans, R.C.H. Lenski discussed Paul’s statement about those who “perish without the law” when he wrote: The only difference will be that those without the law will merely perish without the law, while those with law will be judged by means of law—two routes that lead to the same goal. Justice will be prominent in both instances; for the Judge will not apply law to those who ended as nothing but sinners without using anything like real law—that would be unfair. Nor will he need law in the case of these—they merely perish as the sinners that they are. The only fair thing in the case of others who made law their boast will be that the Judge uses this means when he pronounces judgment on them; and the fact that this judgment will be one of condemnation is plain: “they did sin” exactly as those “did sin” of whom Paul just said “they will perish” (1961, p. 158, emp. added). When people are lost, it is due to their having sinned against God. Isaiah wrote: Behold, Jehovah’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear (59:1-2). Boa and Moody commented: Sin is a universal human condition (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 51:5, Romans 3:9,23; 1 John 1:8), and it causes a breach between man and God (Isa. 59:2). Sin leads to death (Romans 6:23), and the wrath of God abides on all who are separate from Christ (John 3:18,36). All have sinned, and those who have not been “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24) are under divine condemnation (Romans 3:10-20; 5:16-19) and must stand before God in judgment, because apart from Christ we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10).... People are not lost because they have not heard. They are lost because they are sinners. We die because of disease, not because of ignorance of the proper cure (1982, p. 147, emp. added). Man is lost as a result of being afflicted with the horrible “disease” of sin—a condition that, unless treated, always is fatal (Romans 6:23). Because God is depicted within Scripture not only as loving (2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 John 4:7-16) and merciful (James 5:11), but also as holy (Psalm 22:3) and just (Psalm 89:14; Isaiah 45:19; Revelation 16:7), He cannot (and will not!) overlook sin. It must be (and will be!) punished. But is there a remedy for this terminal disease known as “sin”? And if so, what is it? Yes, fortunately there is a remedy for mankind’s otherwise lethal condition. He can have his sins forgiven. The great Old Testament prophet Isaiah wrote: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool, if ye be willing and obedient” (Isaiah 1:18-19). The key phrase, of course, is “willing and obedient.” But willing to do what? And obedient to what command? To be washed in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ as God has decreed! The blood of bulls and goats never was able to take away man’s sins, no matter how unblemished the sacrificial animal(s) may have been. But the blood of Christ can (Hebrews 10:4-18). And it is the only thing that will! The Scriptures speak clearly to this fact when they state that Christ shed His blood on the cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; Romans 5:8-9), and that He is the “lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Furthermore, it is only through Christ that a person can be saved from the wrath of God (cf. Romans 5:1, 8:1, and Hebrews 10:31). The inspired writers of the New Testament placed great emphasis upon the necessity of being “in Christ.” In the American Standard Version of the Bible, the phrase “in Christ” appears 89 times in 88 verses. The New Testament makes it clear that it is only when a person is “in Christ” that he has “redemption” (Romans 3:24), “eternal life” (Romans 6:23), “every spiritual blessing” (Ephesians 1:3), “forgiveness” (Colossians 1:14), and “salvation” (2 Timothy 2:10). Those who have been baptized “into Christ” (which is how the Bible tells us we get into Christ—Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-4) will not be condemned (Romans 8:1). What is the logical implication? Those outside of Christ will not have forgiveness, salvation, or eternal life, but will be condemned for their sins. Whether a person has never heard of Christ or whether he simply has heard of Him but not obeyed Him, that person is outside of Christ. According to the apostle Paul, any person who fits into either category will be lost eternally. He said that Jesus will render “vengeance to them that know not God” and to those who “obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). He further described these unbelievers as those “who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). While it is true that knowledge of both God’s existence and His “everlasting power and divinity” may be gleaned from the general revelation He has provided of Himself in nature (cf. Romans 1:19-20, Psalm 19:1, Acts 14:17, and Hebrews 3:4), that revelation is limited, and cannot explain to man what to do to be saved. As impressive, as powerful, and as pervasive as general revelation is, it nevertheless is deficient in and of itself. For many, nature has ceased to be a perspicuous revelation of God. It may have been so before sin entered the world, but even if it were, man’s nature now has become so polluted that he steadfastly refuses to read the divine script around him. General revelation simply is not enough. It never was intended to be. It does not afford man the reliable knowledge of the nature of God, of his sin against God, of his need for Jesus Christ as his Savior, and other important spiritual information that he absolutely must know in order to be saved. It therefore is inadequate (by itself) as the sole foundation of a person’s faith. From nature alone, man never would be able to infer the need for a personal Savior. That fact—that from nature alone man never would be able to infer the need for a personal Savior—is critically important in the present discussion. As J.I. Packer noted: “The Bible says that God’s general revelation, even when correctly grasped, yields knowledge of creation, providence, and judgment only, not of grace that restores sinners to fellowship with God” (1973, p. 115, emp. added). This assessment is correct. If a person does not know that he stands in need of a personal Savior; if he does not know Who that Savior is; if he does not know how to be “willingly obedient” to that Savior; and if he does not know how to appropriate the salvation that comes only through that Savior, then how can he possibly know how to get rid of his sins in order to stand sanctified before God? Jesus Himself said in John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” (emp. added). In a discussion of this verse, Gene Burgett noted: The phrase “no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” is clearly a universal negative which states in positive terms, “all men who come to the Father, come by me.” If the only ones who come to the Father are those who come by way of Jesus Christ, then it is apparent that all who do not know Jesus will be lost. There can be no salvation in Buddha, Mohammed, Hari Krishna, or any other name other than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12) [1993, p. 176, emp. in orig.]. If people could be saved in times past—and can be saved today—without the sacrifice of God’s Son (and they cannot—cf. Hebrews 10:4-10 and Acts 4:12), then why would God have sent Him to Earth in the first place?! The fact of the matter is, God promised salvation only to those who hear the gospel message (Romans 10:17), believe on His Son (John 3:16), confess Christ’s name (Matthew 10:32-33), repent of their sins (Luke 13:3), have those sins remitted through baptism (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21), and remain faithful (Revelation 2:10). Subsequent to the Day of Pentecost, Peter called upon his listeners to: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). The word for “blotted out” derives from a Greek word meaning to “wipe out, erase, or obliterate.” The New Testament uses the word to refer to “blotting out” the old law (Colossians 2:14) and to “blotting out” a person’s name from the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5). One of the great prophetical utterances of the Old Testament was that “their sin will I remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). There was no happy solution to the justice/mercy dilemma. There was no way that God could remain just (since justice demands that the wages of sin be paid) and yet save His Son from death. Christ was abandoned to the cross so that mercy could be extended to sinners who stood condemned (Romans 3:23; 6:23). God could not save sinners by fiat—upon the ground of mere authority alone—without violating His own attribute of divine justice. Paul discussed God’s response to this problem in Romans 3:24-26 when he stated that those who are saved are ...justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood...for the showing of his righteousness...that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. Mankind’s salvation was no arbitrary arrangement. God did not decide merely to consider men sinners, and then determine to save them via a principle of mercy and grace. Sin had placed men in a state of antagonism toward God that was so severe, men were referred to by inspiration as God’s “enemies” (Romans 5:10). Mankind’s sin could be forgiven, and men once again could become God’s friends, only as a result of the vicarious death of God’s Son. CONCLUSION Some have suggested that Christians are narrow-minded when they suggest that mankind’s salvation can be found only in Jesus Christ. Truth, however, is narrow! In addressing this point, Kurt DeHaan wrote: Would you call a nutritionist narrow-minded if he said that a human can’t survive very long without food or water? Is an aerospace engineer pigheaded to propose that the only way to fly to the moon is by spacecraft, not by hang glider? Is it scientific bigotry to say that gasoline can burn but water cannot? Is it mathematical prejudice to claim that two plus two equals four, not three, five, or twenty-two? The issue is a matter of truth, not a matter of bigotry or prejudice (1988, p. 4). Truth is a precious and priceless commodity—which no doubt explains why the Proverbs writer admonished: “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (23:23). Jesus Himself said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32, emp. added). But what about sincerity? Does it count for nothing? While sincerity certainly is important in a relationship with God, the fact of the matter is that God does not want just sincerity; He wants obedience. Saul (who later would be called Paul) was “sincere” in his persecution of Christ’s church, and even did what he did to oppose it “in all good conscience” (Acts 23:1; 22:19-20; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9), yet God struck him blind (Acts 9:3-9). Paul later would admit in his own writings that he was sincere, but sincerely wrong. DeHaan observed: Isn’t it enough to be sincere? No, it’s not. Sincerity is important, but it’s not an adequate substitute for knowing the truth. Sincerity doesn’t pass a college entrance exam. Sincerity doesn’t win an automobile race. Sincerity doesn’t repair a broken washing machine. Sincerity won’t bake the perfect cake. And sincerity won’t pay your rent or mortgage. Sincerity will not fill the gap when there is a lack of skill or knowledge, nor will all the sincerity in the world transform error into truth (1988, p. 8, emp. added). While the Lord certainly wants us to be sincere, He also requires something else, which is why He instructed: “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The truth of the Lord is narrow, as Jesus made clear in His beautiful Sermon on the Mount (read specifically Matthew 7:13-14). In fact, Christ observed: “Not everyone that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Jesus later commented on the attitude of the people of His day when He said: “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:8-9). Consider, for example, the account related in 2 Samuel 6 about Uzzah. God had given the Israelites explicit instructions about the construction of the Ark of the Covenant (see Exodus 25:10-22). It was to be made of acacia wood and covered with gold. It was to have two gold-covered, acacia-wood rings on each side, through which two gold-covered, acacia-wood staves could be placed in the event that it had to be moved (Exodus 37:1-5). But He also had given the Israelites explicit instructions about the transportation of the Ark. It was to be carried only by those from the priestly tribe of Levi, specifically the Kohathites (Numbers 7:9). [The Kohathites descended from Kohath, the second son of Levi; the other two groups were the Gershonites and Merarites (cf. Numbers 3:17ff.). The members of the tribe of Levi also were charged with carrying other items of religious significance, including the altars, lampstand, sanctuary vessels, etc., associated with the Tabernacle (see Numbers 3:31).] The Ark was to be moved only after it had been appropriately covered by a blue cloth. And the Israelites (even the Kohathites) were commanded—upon penalty of death—never to touch the Ark (Numbers 4:15,19-20). King David had ignored each of God’s commands in regard to the transportation of the Ark. God had not commanded that the Ark be moved, and it certainly was not being moved in the manner prescribed by His law. The Ark had been placed on an ox cart being tended by two brothers—Uzzah and Ahio (the latter of whom, apparently, was driving the cart). The text says simply: “the oxen stumbled.” Uzzah—no doubt believing that the precious cargo was about to tumble from the cart and be dashed to bits—reached up to steady the Ark. And the moment Uzzah touched the Ark, God struck him dead! Was Uzzah sincere in his attempt to protect one of the Israelites’ most priceless and treasured possessions? Undoubtedly he was. But his sincerity was for nought because he disobeyed. Note specifically the Bible’s statement that “God smote him there for his error” (2 Samuel 6:7). God’s commands were explicit; His truth was narrow. Uzzah ignored that truth—and died for having done so. Will those who never have heard the gospel be lost—even though they might be “sincere”? Indeed they will be! Their separation from God throughout eternity will have been caused by two factors: (1) they sinned against God; and (2) they had not been taught—and thus were not able to take advantage of—the gospel plan of salvation that was offered to all men as the free gift of God (Romans 5:15-21; 6:23b) to restore them to a covenant relationship with Him. For those of us who do know the truth regarding what men must do to be saved, the burden to share that truth with those who do not know it presses down with unrelenting fury. When Philip stood in the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch who had been to Jerusalem to worship, he asked: “Understandest thou what thou readest?” That Ethiopian gentleman’s response still burns in our ears over two thousand years later: “How can I, except some one shall guide me?” (Acts 8:30-31). That is the Christian’s job—to gently guide the lost into “the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). In 2 Corinthians 4:5-7, Paul wrote: For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.... But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves. A chapter earlier, the apostle had reminded those first-century Christians at Corinth: “Ye are...an epistle of Christ...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh” (2 Corinthians 3:2-3). What a blessed opportunity—and onerous responsibility—to be the “earthen vessel,” the “living epistle,” used by the Lord to bring another soul back into His fold. Realizing that “he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20), and knowing the “goodness and severity of God” (Romans 11:22), dare we countenance failure? No! Speaking on God’s behalf, the prophet Ezekiel warned: I have made thee a watchman.... Therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, “Thou shalt surely die,” and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul (Ezekiel 3:17-19, emp. added). Those who never have heard—and thus never have obeyed—the truth of the gospel message will be lost! And if we do not do our utmost to get that message to them—so will we! While the unevangelized may be lost, they do not have to remain lost. And we may be all that stands between them and an eternity of separation from God. REFERENCES Boa, Kenneth and Larry Moody (1982), I’m Glad you Asked (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books). Burgett, Gene (1993), “What About Those Who Have Never Heard?,” Whatever Happened to Heaven and Hell?, ed. Terry M. Hightower (San Antonio, TX: Shenandoah Church of Christ). DeHaan, Kurt (1988), What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Grand Rapids, MI: Radio Bible Class), [a tract]. Dyrness, William (1983), Christian Apologetics in a World Community (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart (1993), Answers to Tough Questions (Nashville, TN: Nelson). Packer, J.I. (1973), “Are Non-Christian Faiths Ways of Salvation?,” [Part IV of a series titled, “The Way of Salvation”], Bibliotheca Sacra, April. Punt, Neil (1980), Unconditional Good News (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Sproul, R.C. (1981), Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Strong, A.H. (1909), Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press). Van Til, Cornelius (1965), Karl Barth and Evangelicalism (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed). Warren, Virgil (1982), What the Bible Says about Salvation (Joplin, MO: College Press). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2001 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

The CHILDREN'S Garden

This chapter was a wealth of information, and I felt as though it brought everything together that we have read within the textbook previously. I found interesting that the author discussed the interrelation of the subcontents within the substantive contents which are taught. To me, this directly correlated with the research that shows that all areas of development are interrelated. If all areas of development are interrelated, and we are aiming to reach every area, it would make sense that the subcontents be interrelated as well. “Authentic religion is holistic, not fractioned.” The phrase that came to mind the most while reading this chapter was ‘teacher training.’ “Teaching as prediction means that the early childhood religious educator has mastered a wide repertoire of instructional procedures so that she can easily move from one procedure to the other as the dynamics of the lesson unfold.” “Such skillful and aesthetic fashioning requires that the early childhood religious educator maintain constant and intimate contact with the research in her field.” These statements emphasize that teacher training is crucial to the learning taking place within the classroom. If effective teaching is not taking place, then no learning is taking place. This is very important to recognize as I believe most Sunday school models are filled with volunteers as teachers. Volunteers are a wonderful thing, but it is important to make sure that those volunteers have the tools necessary to effectively bring about learning within the classroom. I believe that many volunteers would even welcome the knowledge, and it is stated in the text that an abundance of training and skills makes a teacher more confident with themselves as well. As Children’s Ministers, we should not take this content lightly, but realize that it is just important for us to stay immersed in current research and teaching theories and practices so that we can effectively communicate and train the teachers and volunteers within our ministry. We cannot stay stagnant in our understanding of Children’s Ministry and teaching foundations, processes, and procedures, but we must constantly be growing ourselves in order to grow those around us and in turn our ministry to children. I also found the statement, “in actuality, attitudes are caught because they are taught,” very encouraging. It reminded me of how I was processing this phrase in my post after reading Chapter 6: “I agree that actions speak louder than words, but I would argue that modeling and teaching are both necessary components in a true understanding of the Christian faith, and that the combination of the two would breed the most powerful response. It is true that a child can catch attitudes, behaviors, and rituals, but without the explanations of ‘why,’ these are the still somewhat meaningless. Adults are to live their lives and guide their children and the explanation and reasoning behind our behaviors is just as important in leading them as the behaviors themselves. “ The section on ‘self-concept’ is what tugged at my heart strings the most. I wrote ‘Amen’ in my book next to the phrase, “The best vantage point for properly understanding and effectively dealing with the young child’s behavior is the internal frame of reference from the child.” I have cringed far too many times at the way that people within the church have dealt with children that are either in the program or that are visitors. I think it is vital to remember that many behaviors are driven by something internally. Some behavior is a result of lack of training or attention within the home and others may sadly be driven by horrendous situations that are taking place outside of our church walls. Developing a relationship with these children and understanding these children is imperative. It is here where I feel the teaching of self-concept and the teacher as counselor should collide. I would go into my extreme passion of level of expectations and intrinsic motivation, but I could probably write a small book, so I will suffice to say that I agree with the author on these points and am glad that they were touched upon within this section. This chapter provided so much information, but I think it all boils down to the meaning of the German word for Kindergarten: the children’s garden. What a beautiful mental picture! Classrooms inside and outside of the church are the children’s garden. They are not classrooms that are teacher-centered, but should be child-centered, and everything that takes place within them should be meant for the growing of the whole child, not just a stem or a single petal, but for a whole flower to emerge that is a result of gentle nurturing, watering, shielding, feeding, and the self-sacrifice of those caring for it. A true garden cannot grow without these patient attributes of the one tending the garden, and the best gardens emerge from those who are constantly refining their craft, evaluating the elements, and sacrificing their time for the sake of those tiny seeds in the ground. It is our job to continually grow ourselves to be able to make sure that every flower in the garden that God has entrusted us with has at least the chance, to become a flower. Reading Response to Chapter 7: How to Teach: Foundations, Processes, Procedures

Let Them Be Little

Socialization

One section that I found troubling was Nelson’s position on the process of socialization within the Christian community and culture. The conclusion he came to was that, “if that culture is the community of faith, the children will become believers, “ and goes on to explain why. However, this seemed to me as bringing up religious children, but not necessarily children who have a relationship with Christ. Thankfully, Darcy-Berube shared my dissatisfaction with this theory. She argued that the “ socialization model can produce religious church members who lack a real faith experience,” and goes on to say that “children can be socialized into a system of beliefs, become good solid church members in the mold of their elders, and never be converted.” I would in no way say that as a result we should abandon the idea of religious socialization, but I do agree that caution has to be given to the idea of simply raising a child to be a Christian instead of intentionally teaching about the love of God, the life of Christ, and the personal salvation and faith experiences. I also agreed with the statements that “what the parents are is more important than what they say” and that “religion is caught, not taught.” I agree that actions speak louder than words, but I would argue that modeling and teaching are both necessary components in a true understanding of the Christian faith, and that the combination of the two would breed the most powerful response. It is true that a child can catch attitudes, behaviors, and rituals, but without the explanations of ‘ why,’ these are the still somewhat meaningless. Adults are to live their lives and guide their children, and the explanation and reasoning behind our behaviors is just as important in leading them as the behaviors themselves. The biggest question this chapter raised for me was: are we truly institutionalizing children? I do agree in most situations, children are “not allowed freedom to play or to be different or to have the power to impact their environments.” This truly has been a strong concern in my heart when teaching children within the school system and feeling as though more times than not we are molding kids to a school, and not molding our schools to fit individualized children and are shutting down the ability for them to impact or have input within their environments. I guess the same could be said for religious education. Some may argue the time, effort, and resources that go into creating a cohesive environment for a classroom in combination with an environment that reaches each child individually is simply not possible, but I believe that if you truly want to teach and reach each child, it is your responsibility to give that child, every child, every effort you can and find the resources needed. It is possible to have a cohesive classroom with individualized learning taking place. I have very much thought about this in regards to public schools, but this struck a chord with me in regards to religious education. Are we reaching the needs of each child or are we molding children, without regard to home-life, developmental levels, emotional and social development, etc. to fit what we envision a program should operate as? There is a need for creating a structured environment for guidance and teaching of social and emotional rules and boundaries; however, do we take it too far and neglect the individuality of each child for the sake of fitting the society deemed “appropriate mold.” This will truly be the prayer of my heart tonight as I lay down to sleep. What can I do to make sure that God is ultimately molding the children that pass through our church walls, with the loving guidance and instruction for those He has entrusted us with? Am I recognizing the individuality of each child and each situation as a unique gift from God and a unique ministry opportunity? “Children are necessary bearers of culture, linking past and future, as well as being agents of God’ s ongoing activity in the world.” Will we be handing down a culture of religion or a culture where religion is based on a relationship with Jesus Christ? Response to Chapter 6: Religion and Social Development

Moral Development

I very much agree that this chapter ended with some concrete examples of how to facilitate the moral development of children. I also love that the foundation to moral development is “a warm, loving relationship.” The chapter presented multiple examples as to how the guidance a child receives from their parent, caretaker, or other adult forms their moral compass. I especially appreciated the section on “Autonomy, Discipline, and Internal Control.” The role of the adult is to ultimately guide a child to have the ability of internal control, not just obedience. I found that the statement,” there is an enormous difference between ‘good’ behavior autonomously chosen and ‘good’ behavior as a result of blind conformity,” set off a chorus of internal Amens! In the very first chapter, it is stated that moral development includes the “ability to understand the difference between right and wrong and moral action and the ability to do the right thing.” The end goal is not simply obedience, but for a child to be able to internally negotiate and choose to do the right thing, which will ultimately result in obedience. Piaget suggested that parents can hinder a child’s natural heteronomy when they use reward and punishment without explanations of “why.” I will digress on my personal soapbox of the use of rewards and punishments as a book by Dr. Marvin Marshall comes to mind that I have on my bookshelf, and this is an area that hits a soapbox nerve. ;-) I do believe that teaching a child “why” there are rules and “why” obedience is necessary is so very crucial. The thoughts that I am left to ponder deal with the implications the basis of moral development has on the role of the church. It was stated multiple times that “what we learn about morality we learn from the environment in which we spend our time” and that “the primary responsibility of parents and religious educators is to establish a warm, loving relationship with each child.” Given these findings, I would argue the importance of the church in helping parents and caretakers with the very issue of discipline. I believe that all parents, for the most part, want the absolute best for their child and do want them to grow up to be “morally competent” individuals, but I do not believe that all parents are aware of how to foster that. I think we have an obligation to not only provide an environment within children’s ministry that helps a child in their moral development, but I think it’s equally important to partner with parents and be able to have an open dialogue, and even Bible study classes, that help parents know how to “train up a child.” Response to "Preschooler Moral Development"

My prayer for schools and churches...

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/20/neurodiversity-the-next-frontier-for-civil-rights/

TODAY

Ongoing Assessment

Where do I begin? This week we read about the multitude of research studies that have been conducted with preschoolers on different biblical concepts and the concept of God. The study that bothered me the most, however, was a study conducted by Piaget on magical thinking and immanent justice. Magical thinking is defined as "the perception of two phenomena as having a direct influence upon one another, although no casual link exists between them, and that the supposed relationship can be controlled by a person to modify reality." Magical thinking is not only due to precausal thinking limitations, but also due to a partially "covert cultural process." Adults may acutally be promoting magical thinking instead of discouraging it. In Piaget's study, he told a story to the children where two boys stole apples. One boy was able to get away and the other fell into the water as he tried to cross a bridge. He then asked the children if the boy would have fallen into the water if he had not stolen the apples. Piaget's original results found that as children grow older they do not associate the fall with the theft. However, given different findings in the same study in different countries or other with other differing factors involved, Piaget found that belief in immanent justice increased as the children grew older. Piaget then learned that he had underestimated the result of environmental influences. Children do generally have the ability to show casual reasoning and abandon the belief in casual justice by the age of six, but if encouraged due to environmental influences, such as religious education, will actually increase their belief in immanent justice. How sad! Other studies showed various inconsistencies about the perceptions of God, Jesus, Heaven, etc. in the minds of preschoolers. There is so much more research needed because of how difficult the process is. For example, answers given can depend on the language development, children can often give answers that are guided by the one asking, etc. Even in using the use of drawings by the children, you are asking them to provide something concrete for an answer and this does not reflect the extent to which they may truly understand a concept. This week has really challenged me to think about the assessments we provide within a church setting about the topics that are taught in Sunday school. Are children leaving with the thought that if they do something good God will reward them and if they do something bad they should be frightened of the consequences? Is the message of our faith being truly understood to preschoolers and above to the level that they can understand it? We do assessments in various forms in a formal school setting to make sure that children understand concepts that are being taught, yet in a sense are leaving them to figure out something is much more complicated on their own within the church. Obviously, the ultimate source of the faith formation of a child is the heart, and assessing this is something I am not sure is entirely possible, but it is possible to assess in many ways the specific concepts and beliefs that we are teaching. This has left me to ponder the use of ongoing assessments in various forms within Christian education....even into the realm of adults. Are those that attend church, from children to adults, truly leaving with a better understanding of who God is, the truth of salvation, and the meaning of living a faith-based life? Hmmm....

Rise of Scholasticism

I have been fascinated in my Systematic Theology class by the rise of scholasticism. “Scholastic theology is to the world of ideas what those cathedrals are to the world or architecture.” I love this mental picture! I was drawn to the idea of the rise of scholasticism because of the lack of it I see, and I am guilty of being a part of that. Scholasticism “placed an emphasis upon the rational justification of religious belief and the systematic presentation of those beliefs.” I think all too often we know the basic theology of what we believe, but if we were asked to support it or where it originates or why, etc. we are not ready to give an answer. I think there is huge value in being able to fully grasp a huge picture of what this thing called Christianity truly is. Faith is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it can be used as a means for excusing needing to know the basis for your faith. “I believe it, that’s why.” A wonderful argument, however, if you do not truly know the origin for that belief or that method of worship or whatever it might be, then how do you know that in a world of many ideas, that one specific idea is what you truly believe? How, as Christians, are we to fully answer to those around us who have deeper questions that cannot be answered by a single line or word or the phrase, “Well, this is how I grew up and what I was taught to believe.” I absolutely love the quote on page 34 that “typical scholasticism at its best is the appeal to reason, the logical marshaling of arguments, the relentless exploration of the implications of ideas, and the fundamental conviction, that, at its heart, the Christian gospel is rational and can be shown to be rational.” God has used this passage to truly convict me of my own lack of “digging” into each and every ounce of Scripture that I read and the history of events and the denomination that I am a part of, to truly see the whole picture and be able to have a greater faith as a result!