Clarity about the gospel of Jesus Christ is a part of who we are in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. J. Gresham Machen and his associates organized our denomination in 1936 because they would not passively cohabitate in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. with those who preached a different gospel. Put another way, our forebears simply could not tolerate ambiguity regarding the gospel. Who Jesus is, what he did to rescue us, and how we must respond are far too important not to make clear.

 A passion for the clarity of the gospel remains a cornerstone of our denomination’s Christian identity today. In an age of rapid defection from the truth, in a day when the serpent’s whisper, “Did God actually say …?” is echoed even by many professing Christians, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church must be clear about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It isn’t just our heritage. It is our only hope—our only comfort in life and in death.

But the question I want to explore in these articles is not “Are we clear about the gospel in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?” Rather, the question I wish to explore is a related question: “Are we making the gospel clear to others?” The question I have in mind is not a matter of our confession, but rather of our communication.

The question of how we communicate the gospel becomes all the more urgent as we consider our shifting cultural landscape. Even within my relatively brief lifetime, the changes have been dramatic, rapid, and widespread. Whether or not the United States, Canada, and other Western nations were ever “Christian nations” is a debatable question, both historically and theologically. But regardless of bygone history, our present situation is far different. Whether or not we ever lived in “Christendom” in the past, the reality is that we now live on a mission field.

The fact that Western societies are now mission fields should encourage us. Why? Because we serve a missionary God! Yes, a secular culture presents various obstacles. But it also presents opportunities. Michael Green, a historian of the early church, has observed that pluralistic Greco-Roman people of the first century felt a desperate need for “cleansing, security, and immortality” (Evangelism in the Early Church, p. 22). For all our technological sophistication, are twenty-first century Westerners that much different? In every age, people are still people. And, more importantly, God is still God.

If we remember these two facts, then we have every ground for encouragement in evangelism. Now as then, the gospel will change life and destiny forever. Now as then, the church bears the same witness: “Here were men and women of every rank and station in life, of every country in the known world, so convinced that they had discovered the riddle of the universe, so sure of the one true God whom they had come to know, that nothing must stand in the way of their passing on this good news to others” (Green, Evangelism, p. 236).

Yet it is at this point—the point of passing on the good news to others—that our new missionary context presents us with a challenge. In a context where our surrounding culture no longer takes its moral or spiritual assumptions from the teachings of Christianity, how do we most effectively communicate the good news? How do we make the gospel clear? This is our challenge.

In facing this challenge, we can learn much from two earlier periods in the history of the church where the gospel faced extensive cultural barriers. The first of these was the early church—the centuries in which the gospel exploded into the darkness of Greco-Roman paganism. The second was the period of the Reformation—when the gospel was rediscovered amidst the darkness of Roman Catholic ritualism. Although both of these periods were different in many significant ways, they faced a similar challenge of communication: how can Christians proclaim Christ clearly to people whose notions of biblical truth are either completely lacking or seriously flawed? For the remainder of this article, let’s take a brief look at the period of the Reformation.

How did the Protestant Reformers seek to make the gospel clear in their day? Two things stand out. First, they translated and disseminated the Scriptures in the common language of the people. Second, they crafted confessions and catechisms that articulated the teachings of Scripture with clear definitions and real-life connections.

Have you ever noticed how extensively the Westminster Shorter Catechism employs definitions? Before getting too far along in telling us about what God has done (questions 7–38), the catechism tells us who God is (questions 4–6). Likewise, before going on to talk about the benefits of justification, adoption, and sanctification (questions 36–38), it pauses to give us a definition of each term (questions 33–35). The catechism always insists on defining its terms clearly.

Also, the Shorter Catechism isn’t shy about showing how God’s truth connects to the real issues of life. In a day when accrued tradition misled people into gross superstitions, the catechism taught that Scripture “is the only rule to direct us” (question 2). In a world where the papacy directed the faithful to trust in saints and the Virgin Mary, the catechism insisted that “the only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ” (question 21). The Westminster divines wanted even children to understand how and why God’s truth mattered to them.

Because the wording of our catechism has not been up-dated in 350 years, it’s easy to miss these points. Yet close examination demonstrates that clarity of communication is an integral part of our Reformed heritage. Have we lost some of that clarity today? If so, how can we leverage lessons of our heritage to help us make the gospel clear(er)? We’ll explore these questions in our next installment.

Making the Gospel Clear (Part 2)⤒🔗

When my children were young, one of the books that we enjoyed together was Doreen Cronin’s Duck for President. As the title suggests, the story is about a duck who got tired of farm life and decided to run for political office. As Duck campaigns, the narrator tells us that “he gave speeches that only other ducks could understand.”

In its own amusing way, this story raises a real problem. What happens when any person or group begins to communicate in ways that are intelligible only to the like-minded or their own members? They forfeit the opportunity to connect in any meaningful way with outsiders.

Meaningful connection in gospel communication is the subject of these articles. In Part 1, we observed that the culture around us no longer takes its moral or spiritual assumptions from the teachings of Christianity. Consequently, we are faced with a tremendous challenge: how do we make the gospel clear to people whose notions of biblical truth are either completely lacking or seriously flawed?

As a preliminary step in answering this question, we looked at how the Protestant Reformers dealt with similar challenges in their own day. In addition to Bible translation, we saw that the Reformers crafted confessions and catechisms that articulated the teachings of Scripture using clear definitions and real-life connections. We concluded that clarity of communication is an integral part of our Reformed heritage.

But is such clarity an integral part of our identity today in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? When we speak to non-Christians, or when they read our literature or surf our websites, does our content connect? When they listen to our preaching, do they hear an intelligible presentation of the gospel, even if they ultimately scoff? In short: is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church known for making the gospel clear or do we tend to communicate in ways “that only other ducks could understand”?

It’s not just non-Christians who may struggle to understand our message. Early on in my ministry in State College, a serious believer from a non-Reformed tradition pointed out to me that while all branches of the church use a certain amount of “Christianese,” Presbyterians seem to have a special love for technical terminology!

If we are willing to be honest and constructively self-critical, I believe we will find that this observation holds true. So what should be done?

The solution is not to sacrifice theological precision. Biblical distinctions are important. The differences between “inerrant” and “infallible,” between “justification” and “sanctification,” and between “temporal” and “eschatological” are all very important—and should be utilized in our ministry. Words like “covenant” and phrases such as “the means of grace” belong in our vocabularies. Yet we must recognize that precise terms mean precisely nothing unless people understand precisely what they mean. Theological precision is intended to make things clear, not make them more abstract.

Our own Reformed heritage shows us a better way than theological fuzziness. Rather than discard theological terms, we should define them. There is nothing wrong with using a precise, complex term, so long as we always couple it with a concise, simple definition. When we speak of “the covenant of grace,” we can immediately explain it as “God’s rescue plan.” When we teach on “the means of grace,” why not briefly re-mind our listeners that these are “the ways God works in us”? Even such an ominous-sounding expression as “the regulative principle of worship” becomes accessible when we explain that it simply means that “God tells us how to worship him.” Good definitions go a long way toward making the gospel clear.

Beyond definitions, we can again follow our Reformed heritage and labor to make real-life connections. In addition to being clear with others about what we mean, we should show them why it matters. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has said it well:

You have to show that this is not some academic or theoretical matter which may be of interest to people who take up that particular hobby, as others take up crossword puzzles or something of that type. You are to show that this message is vitally important for them, and they must listen with the whole of their being, because this really is going to help them to live.Preaching and Preachers, p. 76

How do we put these things together in practice?

As a first step, let me suggest that we all learn to share what we might call a “today” testimony. How would we answer if a stranger asked us, “What does Jesus mean to you today?” Let us learn to answer that question clearly—without resorting to any special terminology—and you will learn to make the gospel clear, both to yourself and others.

Beyond this, I regularly ask myself to consider how I would explain a Bible text to three distinct groups. First, how would I explain it to kids? This has proven immensely helpful in forcing me to use clear definitions. Second, how would I explain it to skeptics? How can I show respect for their objections, while challenging the underlying assumptions? Third, how would I explain it to pagans? Here I try to imagine what it would be like to be a missionary in the Dark Ages. How would I explain the gospel to a Viking? (This may seem far-fetched to some, but I have actually met a person in State College who professes to follow Norse pagan religion.)

Clarity of confession is part of who we are in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. May the Lord preserve this, while adding to us increasing clarity of communication. Who Jesus is, what he did to rescue us, and how we must respond is far too important a matter not to make clear.