UNCG Outreach Report 8-31-2011

INTRODUCTION:  The campus was full of life and activity today at UNCG.  Students were everywhere and there were crowds of them just milling around and talking, enjoying the weather, etc., a perfect recipe for one-on-one evangelism and open-air preaching. 
I decided to do only one-on-one evangelism today since I had no one else with me to minister to those I would be preaching to.  I typically like to do open-air preaching when I have someone else with me who can go into the crowds and give people literature and/or reason with them from the Scriptures.  Before I highlight an interesting conversation I had with a headstrong young lady, let's consider what "the toxic trinity" is and the effects it has on students in particular.

The "Toxic Trinity"

Many students hold to what I call "the toxic trinity".  The "toxic trinity" has three essential components:

1.  Postmodernism.
2.  Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.
3.  Darwinism.

• Postmodernism has some good elements.  For instance, it recognizes that people can be very diverse and that diversity is not necessarily a bad thing because the beauty that is inherent in all cultures can enrich and enliven our culture.  That is certainly a praiseworthy thing (Rev. 21:24).  However, postmodernism also affirms that there's no ultimate transcendent purpose, meaning, or reason for existence since no objective, universal standards exist, or if they do, we can't know them.  For example, consider logical laws, the principles that we use to determine correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.  Many postmoderns would argue that basic fundamental logical laws (Law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, law of identity) are not universal (apply to all people, places, and times), invariant (can't be changed), and necessary (have to hold always) but are human constructs that can change from time to time, place to place, and from person to person.  To prove this they would appeal to the many competing and contradictory systems of logic and then assert that all can have equal truth value as long as they work to promote order and function in whatever society uses them.  Thus, logic wouldn't be universal and necessary; instead, it would be a culturally relative concoction of society.  The problem is that this is self-refuting, for to argue that there are competing and contradictory logical systems assumes that the law of non-contradiction necessarily holds when judging between those two competing systems.  Thus, to deny the universal necessity of this particular fundamental law of logic, you would have to use it in order to deny it.  Thus, the fundamental law of logic known as the law of non-contradiction necessarily and universally holds, even with examples of dialetheism or other such paradoxes; you will always have to utilize the law of non-contradiction to deny the universality of the law of non-contradiction.  But, I digress.

• For Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, see my treatment of that here under "1" of the heading "Types of Unbelieving College Students".

• Regarding Darwinism, I'm speaking of that well-known philosophical acid that has eaten through nearly everything since Darwin's Origin came out in 1859.  It is well known as the General Theory of Evolution. 

While I spoke with many professing Christians and out of the 10-12 or so I spoke to, I met only one that could articulate the gospel in any meaningful way (i.e., the problem = sin; the solution = faith and repentance in the cross work of Jesus).  As usual per my past outreach reports, most of them gave answers that related to the "toxic trinity" or simply were universalists or pantheists of some kind.  However, I do want to mention a noteworthy conversation I had with a female student.  

A sweet but hard-headed young lady

This young lady was the last detailed conversation I had of the day.  She attended a Moravian church, was very polite and willing to engage in a conversation about the things of God.  She noted early in the conversation that she had a problem telling people of other religions that they are wrong.  I asked her why she would say that, and she said that she didn't think it was her business to tell others that their religion was wrong.  I asked her why she would say this given the New Testament teaching about the exclusivity of Christ and then a conversation ensued about ultimate authorities.

A Battle of Ultimate Authorities 

She seemed to really struggle with the Scriptures and noted that different groups interpret those passages differently and I asked, "If a blind friend was about to walk off a cliff only to fall to a sure death below, wouldn't you do all in your power to stop him from walking over the edge of the cliff?  Wouldn't you be willing to tackle him if necessary to save him?"  She said, "I see where you're going, but its not the same."  I responded, "You're right, because not telling your unbelieving friends that they are wrong to not repent and believe in Jesus is worse than going over the edge of a cliff, because where they are going lasts forever."  She seemed frustrated at this point, and so I asked, "Why would you, a professing Christian disagree with me on this?" and she said, "I just don't feel like its my duty to go around telling people that their religion is wrong."  I responded, "I understand, but I'm not suggesting you necessarily go tell everyone, I'm talking about you speaking to your Buddhist friend about Jesus as God gives you opportunity.  After all, didn't Jesus say that there's no other way to get to God except through Him and that those who do not believe in the Son will perish?"  She admitted that the Bible said this, but didn't pursue that line of thought any further and I then changed subjects on her by stating, "The word of God calls us to submit to God's authority in His word whether we like it or not.  There are two ultimate authorities in the universe that you can bow down to; yourself or God.  It seems to me that you are essentially saying (though you have been careful to deny this in word) that you are the ultimate authority and that even if the Scriptures clearly say in context that believers are to lovingly share Jesus with others as God gives opportunity lest they perish forever in Hell, you are saying, 'No, I will not do that because I do not think it is right.'  In a nutshell, you are denying the sovereign authority that God has over you.  Why would a professing believer do that?"  She was stymied at this point.  I remained silent to attempt to give her a chance to respond and she finished with, "Well, that's just the way I see it.  Some people understand the Bible different than I do, and I'm okay with that."  I responded, "Even if your understanding contradicts the clear commands of Scripture, you're okay with that?"  She shrugged her shoulders, I thanked her for the conversation, and I was off to my car.  I hope that the Lord used my winsome attitude and Scriptural arguments to get her thinking in the right direction, for a denial such as this is indicative of a greater spiritual problem.

I need help!

Perhaps you live in the Piedmont-Triad area, are doctrinally like-minded, are in good standing with a local evangelical church, and you have a real heart for the lost.  If you have the time to come out and help evangelize for a few hours on a weekday I could sure use your help, for the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few (Luke 10:2). 

IN CONCLUSION, I praise the Lord for your prayers as I function as a missionary to the city of Greensboro.  My prayer is that God is glorified in our outreaches, the hearts of the lost are pricked by the work of the Spirit, and that God brings many souls to Himself.