The gospel of Jesus Christ not only saves sinners in eternity, but it rehabilitates them here on earth as well. Radical things happen when God saves a sinner. Thieves stop their stealing and instead begin giving. Liars stop their lying and become advocates for the truth. Even the rich stop their hoarding, instead turning their focus on spreading what God has given them.

And when sinners with a great reputation for sinning come to Jesus in repentance and faith, no doubt they are eager to share the story of their rehabilitation. Though testimony sharing is a good, biblical, and edifying practice, even the best of personal testimonies do not carry with them the power of the gospel. The gospel is His-story, something that culminated 2000 years ago in the tiny nation of Israel. And this story concern the testimony of only one Man: the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and what He accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection.

But in considering personal testimonies, I find it easy to become weary of hearing these stories of radical conversions to Christ. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that these testimonies aren’t often very glorious and uplifting to Christians (and to me as well). But I can’t help but recognize that the world and many false religions bear witness these radical ‘conversions’ as well.

I’ve heard of adulterers embracing Mormonism and becoming radically faithful. I’ve heard of drunkards saved from their drunkenness by Alcoholics Anonymous. I’ve heard of selfish, hedonistic rich people turning their lives around to become loving, giving, serving people as a result of some spiritual experience.

And since these conversions are not unique to Christianity, many unbelievers also get fed up with us Christians acting like we hold a patent on radical transformations. As someone who has a pretty radical testimony myself, I’ve been cut off (by sighs, rolling eyes, scoffs) more than a few times with the plea “Not another ‘I Found Jesus!’ story!”

The fact remains: though the gospel rehabilitates sinners in outward areas of morality, this is in no way unique to the gospel, and so we shouldn’t treat these radical testimonies as if they are the gospel.

But is there no place for sharing our testimony? Yes- I do believe there is an appropriate place for them, but with a few qualifiers:

1) Focus more on the inward than on the outward

In other words, what religion can expose the hypocrisy of a moralistic, unselfish, upright and loving man? What religion can cause a goody-two-shoes to fall on their face crying ‘woe is me’ when enlightened by the holiness of God? What religion can convince a man who has all the money, power, comforts, and family he’d ever need that he stands condemned as a rotten sinner before God?

The most amazing power of the gospel is not that it rehabilitates the outwardly wicked, but that it rehabilitates the outwardly good but inwardly wicked! Emphasizing how God saved you despite your inward corruptions hits far closer to home than emphasizing your outward corruptions. Outward corruptions are recognized by all religions as undesirable; only Christianity and the gospel expose our true, inward self-righteousness.

2) So as not to sensationalize, get a firm understanding of the fact that radical testimonies are actually less astonishing -in God’s eyes- than ‘boring’ testimonies

Matthew 21:31 “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.”

Jesus, in speaking to the religious elite, the moral majority of His day, proclaims that it is actually more common for an outwardly wicked person to enter heaven, than it is for a person of moral and religious uprightness.

How is it, Christian, that you think that the worse you were before coming to Christ actually makes your testimony that much more astounding? If you let scripture be your guide, the better of a person you were before coming to Christ is what would make your testimony that much more improbable!

So friends- the word of God makes it plain that the gospel is a foolish message to those who are perishing. Let’s stop acting like it isn’t foolish, dressing it up in self-improvement as if it will somehow impress the world. Trust me. It doesn’t.

Instead, let’s place our trust in the power of the message itself: the testimony of Christ and what He accomplished. And should a time or place lend itself to sharing a personal testimony, do not neglect the inward over the outward. Proclaim the depths of sin and how it has permeated every fiber of your being, and demonstrate the power of the gospel to even save the successful, moral, and satisfied sinner.

Under point 5 below, you will read where Mead distinguishes between a troubled conscience and the conviction wrought by the Holy Spirit. And typical of Puritan theology, he points out that the work of the Holy Spirit leads to and points us to Jesus Christ. Thus, in this particular subject, when we are convicted of sin, we can look at the effect and determine whether it’s simple conviction of conscience (which leads to a false repentance), or if we are cut to the heart by the Holy Spirit.

Speaking from personal experience, I can certainly attest that I have often attributed conviction and or other work in my life to the Holy Spirit, when instead, according to scripture, the Spirit leads and points us to Christ each and every time, and ending up anywhere else besides a running to and resting in Christ proves that it is our fancy and not the Spirit who is at work. A sobering thought indeed.

Now onto Mead: note here that he is explaining why so many profess to be Christians when in fact they’re not truly converted, and then he goes on to distinguish between natural conscience that can accompany any natural man versus that conviction that comes from the Holy Spirit. All emphasis mine:

Why is it that many are but almost Christians when they have gone thus far? What is the cause of this?

First, it is for lack of right and sound conviction. If a man is not thoroughly convinced of sin and his heart truly broken, whatever his profession of godliness may be, yet he will be sure to miscarry.

Question [objection]: Suppose I am at any time under conviction; how shall I know whether my convictions are only from a natural conscience or whether they are from the Spirit of God?

Answer:
1. Natural convictions reach chiefly to open and scandalous sins, sins against the light of nature, for natural conviction can reach no further than natural light. But spiritual conviction reaches to secret, inward, and undiscerned sins such as hypocrisy, formality, lukewarmness, deadness, and hardness of heart, etc.

2. Natural convictions deal only with a man�s conversation, not with his state and condition; with sins actual, not original�but spiritual conviction reaches all sins�to the sin that is born in us as well as the sin that is done by us.

3. Natural convictions carry the soul out to look more on the evil that comes by sin than on the evil that is in sin. So that the soul under this conviction is more troubled at the dread of hell, wrath, and damnation than at the vileness and heinous nature of sin.

4. Natural convictions are not durable; they are quickly worn out�the convictions of the Spirit are like a deep wound�When it is healed, it leaves a scar behind, that, when the patient is well, yet he can say, �here is the mark of my wound which will never wear out�.

5. Natural convictions make the soul shy of God. Guilt works fear and fear causes estrangedness. Thus it is with Adam; when he saw his nakedness, he ran away and hid himself from God. Now, Spiritual convictions do not drive the soul from God, but unto God.

Till the sinner is convinced of sin, he can never be converted from sin�slight and common convictions, when they are but skin deep, are the cause of much hypocrisy.

I know no other rise and spring of hyprocrisy like this of slight convictions; this has filled the church of Christ with hypocrites. Nay, it is not only the spring of hypocrisy, but is also the spring of apostasy.

How the last words cut so deep! Even in Mead’s day the chief spring of apostasy and hypocrisy was shallow convictions and shallow, empty professions. How much more so in our day!

A misunderstanding and confusion on law versus grace? Works versus true faith? That might be a good place to start, but there seems to be something just a little deeper.

A misunderstanding and error regarding the sovereignty of God and the sinfulness of sin which leaves men dead in their sins and unable to save themselves? Again, a great place to start –for arminianism and a belief in free will has indeed infected this country like a deadly plague. But there seems to be something just a little deeper.

The glory of God as the end of the gospel
A good way to sum up where the church in our culture has largely abandoned the gospel would be to say that we’ve made Christianity all about us and our needs instead of all about God and His glory. We seem to have turned our backs on a holy and perfect God who cannot overlook sin and still be just, and have instead looked first and foremost at ourselves, that is, at our needs, our wants, our desires, our anything here and now. Jesus has turned into our means to get what we want, both now and in eternity, instead of the end to which we abandon everything to obtain.

As I read David Brainerd, I am struck dumb with how deeply he recognized sin within his own heart, and how he had such a beautiful view of the glory of God. Again and again we read of him praying, reading scripture, attending church, indeed all the religious duties you could think of, and yet he repeatedly comes back to his journal and laments of his self-righteousness and how he is simply trying to commend himself to God. There is no doubt, reading Brainerd’s journal is like stepping into another world.

I read Brainerd and am often left wondering how my prayers could be so self-centered instead of Christ-centered. I read Brainerd, and the countless ways I have attempted to commend myself to God over the years becomes painfully clear. I read Brainerd and I see such a love and a passion for the glory of God –and that alone, that I am humbled to the dust because of my own self-righteousness.

I would humbly propose that you read Brainerd’s words below and search your own heart as well. There has been such a corporate and superficial church built up in our culture, that meditating on the depths of one’s sin is very rare indeed. May you search your own heart, and may God be glorified in you humbling yourself before His mighty hand.

Quotes taken out of The Hidden Smile of God, by John Piper:

David Brainerd quarreled with the fact that there was nothing he could do in his own strength to commend himself to God.

“…all of my good frames [i.e., devotional states] were but self-righteousness, not bottomed on a desire for the glory of God.”

“There was no more goodness in my praying than there would be in my paddling with my hands in the water…because [my prayers] were not performed from any love or regard to God…I never once prayed for the glory of God.”

“I never once intended His honor and glory…I had never once acted for God in all my devotions…I used to charge them with sin…[because] of wanderings and vain thoughts…and not because I never had any regard in them to the glory of God.”

But the general tendency of historians is to glorify or ‘romanticize’ the past and its key figures as much more glorious than they were in actuality (especially in sports and other secular arenas). Sometimes this is understandable. Nobody really knew what Babe Ruth was accomplishing until well after he was dead, as baseball hadn’t been around very long when he burst onto the scene. The same argument could be given for the legacy of America�s founding fathers, some presidents down through history, etc. But keep in mind that the argument goes both ways: history, in general, is subject to who it is that writes the history books. Our perception of past events is largely subject to the accuracy of which historical reports we esteem the highest.

Shifting our focus to Christianity and its key figures down through church history, I am intrigued by the perception held by many of today�s Christians concerning certain things in church history. Close attention to history, just like close attention to doctrine, isn�t exactly encouraged in the professing church now days. Thus, it shouldn�t be surprising that many erroneous perceptions and misconceptions about church history abound in our day.

From my limited observation and experience, I see a few concerns with the modern church in evaluating history, including:

• A tendency to look down upon the doctrine/theology of church history, as if in all of the modern advances in other fields, we have somehow �arrived� to a higher/deeper/more accurate understanding of scripture than others did before us.

• A tendency to glorify certain figures of our own particular theological persuasions, while vilifying others who advocated doctrines which we disagree with. For example, John Calvin is loved in the Reformed Community, but despised and painted in a very negative light in the Arminian crowds.

• An ignorance of the errors, controversies, and heresies of church history. There is certainly nothing new under the sun, only repackaged goods. Thus, new doctrines and fads come along as nothing but repackaged errors fancied up to appeal in a different manner, and the tendency is to swallow them hook-line-and-sinker without considering how the same errors probably originated in a different form, many years earlier.

• A casual dismissal of �old truth� –the doctrines of scripture that have been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years, in favor of new fads and viewpoints. This sort of aligns with my first point, as in their pride, many look on the old truths as outdated and insufficient, while suggesting new ways of looking at things as if the church has �missed it� all along. Such arrogance is mind-boggling to me, but it continues to go on, even in my own Reformed community.

More could be said on the points above, but I have one more thought in mind that I�d like to focus on, and that is the *standard* of the Christian life then, versus now.

Remember the baseball illustration above? What if we applied the same sort of grid to the Christian life? What would a man like Jonathan Edwards look like living in today�s society? Would he have the same brilliant mind, the same hatred of sin, the same level of sanctification? Just how much does our culture influence holiness (either positively or negatively)?

A great example to help us consider this would be that of George Whitefield. Upon describing his life before salvation, Whitefield confesses that he was “a Sabbath-breaker, a theater-goer, a card-player, and a romance-reader.”

Personally, I find this statement utterly amazing. It’s like he is in a completely different world when he points to his ‘heinous’ sins with these examples!

Sabbath-breaker? The majority of Christians now days do not see this as a sin, much less as something that evidenced an unregenerate heart.

Theater-goer? Who isn�t now days, believer or unbeliever?

Card-player? Do video games, sporting events, and hobbies count the same? From his words, I believe so, for no mention is made of gambling.

Romance-reader? Secular narratives in books, T.V., movies, and magazines abound, for both believers and unbelievers alike.

First, I find it amazing that most Christians now days would have no trouble with any of the four things listed above. In fact, if we were to speak out against such things in any situation other than gross abuse, we would most certainly be labeled as legalistic and self-righteous!

Secondly, all of these have a specific reference to how Whitefield spent his free time. I know this because I am currently finishing up Dallimore�s famous 2-volume biography of Whitefield (I could not recommend it highly enough!), and Whitefield mentions again and again the Christian’s serious obligation to redeem spare time. In fact, if there is ever a re-occurring theme as I read the old stuff (Puritans, etc.), the use of our free time is always given a significant prominence in their teaching.

Thus, has the standard changed? I understand that cultures come and go. No doubt that something might have been a faux pas then that is not viewed in the same manner now. But clearly, sin as it was seen then, and as it is seen now, are sometimes completely different things.

Why has the standard changed? Should we just accept this without questioning it? Why is the use of our free time no longer a clear and precise indicator of our salvation/sanctification? Why are hobbies and entertainments only looked at as evil if they take up too much of our life, as if measuring ourselves by ourselves really gives us an accurate picture of what is acceptable?

I believe it is partly due to the changing nature of the gospel. Fear of legalism and turning people off to Christianity has led the message to be one of personal fulfillment rather than personal sacrifice. The message now days, slanted to the itching ears of sinners, consists of:

Were you a movie enthusiast as an unbeliever? Now you can go see movies to the glory of Christ! Were you a drunkard when you lived according to the world? Now you can drink as much as you want (in moderation) and give glory to Christ! Prideful before? Now you can be prideful in Christ! In a Rock and Roll band? Bring that guitar to church and do the same for Jesus!

Much more could be said, but Tozer sums it up much better than I ever could. Consider this as I bring this topic to a close right here:

�The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, �Come and assert yourself for Christ.� To the egotist it says, �Come and do your boasting in the Lord.� To the thrill- seeker it says, �Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship.� The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.�

Oftentimes it is difficult for me to come to grips with sports personalities and their behavior off the field. In fact, overall, I love sports, especially the Braves, Falcons, Bulldogs, and Dallas Cowboys, but I continually find that a wedge is thrust between reality and the make believe. This situation is one of those times. On one hand, I really like Vick as a football player, and will miss watching him play for my team, but his lifestyle has me extremely saddened. ‘Torn’ is a good way to describe how I feel.

But regarding this situation, and what we can learn from it, I want you to think about something here, something extraordinary:

If there was ever a man who had it all, by this culture’s standards, Vick was that man.

If there was ever a man who by all rational logic should strive to obey every letter of the law of this land, Vick was that man

If there was ever a man who was loved by people (especially here in Atlanta), Vick was that man.

If there was ever a man who had favorable circumstances in this life, to the point where rational logic should throw out any notion of getting ‘caught in the wrong situation’, Vick was that man.

If there was ever a man to honor his authority (in this case, the NFL and the owner who gave him a $130million dollar contract), Vick was that man.

But sadly, Vick threw it all away to gamble and illegally fight dogs. Did you get that? He had a $130 million dollar contract, the fame unlike almost any other, the love of a city and of Falcon’s fans all over the country, numerous endorsements, and he threw it away to fight dogs. To fight dogs.

Doesn’t make any sense, does it? Anyone with a brain realizes the unprecedented foolishness of such decision. To top that off, when confronted with the charges, Vick lied to the Commissioner of the most powerful sport in the world (NFL), he lied to the man (Arthur Blank) who gave him a $130million dollar contract, and worst of all, he lied to a Federal Judge (not-guilty) and the watching world.

What was he possibly thinking?
Now we�ve seen many athletes throw away their careers for drugs, abuse, alcohol, general law-breaking, etc., but this is unprecedented. Nobody in history was so famous, so rich, and had so much to lose, on something�well, so stupid.

What possible explanation can we provide for such a thing? Was it the fast manner in which he rose to fame? Was it our culture’s tendency to crown athletes as superheroes before they are old enough to handle it? Did his bosses fail to discipline him by just signing a blank check and turning their heads when he messed up (this was not his first incident)?

Sure, maybe some of that plays some kind of role in the situation. But there is a deeper element, a far more pressing concern. My friends, there is but one explanation for such a circumstance: Human Depravity.

If this story doesn�t serve as a wake up call to the sinfulness of sin, then certainly nothing else will. Sin is powerful, and it rules over ever aspect of man�s nature, even when all logical rational indicates otherwise.

You want proof that man without God is evil to the core and can do nothing but serve his master unless freed by the Son? Vick is a perfect example. No amount of outward blessings, favorable circumstances, love, money, fame, or persuasion can withhold the mighty bent to sin within the human heart, and the mighty bent to walk after the desires of our own heats.

To suggest that evil hasn�t touched the very core of man, as if there was a kernel of good that still remained within that has the �freedom� to choose to do good and repent and follow the Lord, not only defies the clear teaching of holy scripture, but it goes against all rational logic in personal experience as well.

Vick is proof, sad proof (as if we needed any) of man’s wicked heart in spite of all manner of unprecedented mercies, goodness, favor, love and provision of God.

What does the Bible say about the far-reaching nature of sin? It actually speaks very clearly:

-Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

- Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

-The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

-the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

- The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

-And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

-For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

-The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

-They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

-To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

-Jesus answered them, �Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

-For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

-Who can say, �I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin�?

-None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

-A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

-No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

-And he said, �This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.�

Well then you might ask, who then can be saved? Jesus’ reply to that is: �With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.�

May Christians fulfill our duty to the Lord and proclaim man�s need to be delivered from sin each and every time someone shakes their head and says, �how could Vick ever do such a stupid thing?�