An opening gambit may be to point out the obvious logical flaw in the argument. The statement ‘all opinions are equally valid’ is itself an opinion which can be countered with an opposing one (‘all opinions are not equally valid’). This creates the dilemma that our friend must then logically respond by saying our expressed opinion is not valid, thereby contradicting himself.
The above approach may gain us some traction, and should not be lost sight of. But it might easily be perceived as engaging in mind games. Our hearers can dismiss us as academic. It also suffers from a lack of actual gospel content.
So I want to suggest another approach. The idea is to realize that our friend’s point, in actual fact, is rather intellectual, and take a different tack by getting downright practical. We all distinguish in practice between two classes of opinion: those that can be acted upon and those that cannot. By highlighting the difference between the two types of opinion (seen in everyday life), we can capitalize on the ‘it’s just your opinion’ line to point to Christ.
We need to start with the empirical observation that in life generally, it is clear that not all opinions are equal. It depends on who holds them. Some opinions have force, and others do not. I may have my own opinion about how to run the country, but because I am not Prime Minister, I cannot actualize it. John Howard, on the other hand, not only has an opinion, but can also implement it. It is not only the holding of an opinion that matters; it is also the ability to carry it out. A plan that cannot be carried out, or an order that cannot be executed is, at the end of the day, largely academic.
In the same way, opinions that remain just that—opinions—end up making no difference if the holder of the opinion has no power to carry them out. By contrast, opinions held by those who can make them reality are in a different category altogether. The statement ‘all opinions are equally valid’ sees only one class of opinion, but we know from experience that there are actually two types of opinion: those that are backed by real ability to act and those that are not.
By raising the matter of opinions, our friend has, in fact, introduced the subject of politics, for politics is the means by which we sort out whose opinions matter in the long run. This is where Christianity has something important to say on the matter: it announces God’s politic, and says that in the final wash up, there is one person who has the capacity to fully implement his opinions. So all opinions, according to the Bible, are not equal.
It follows that the issue is not your opinion versus mine; it is each person’s opinion versus Christ’s opinion. But our non-Christian friend doesn’t yet recognize this Christ, or attach any weight to his opinion, so what do we do next?
We tell them of him. This is our opportunity to bring in gospel content. The Bible looks forward to a Day when each individual will see Christ for who he really is. This lies at the heart of the gospel and will be clearly displayed at the Second Coming. The present individualistic relativism must therefore be challenged by the absolutism of that Day. This requires us to talk about judgement if we want to share the gospel with postmodern people.
One of the central themes of Scripture—perhaps the central one—is the ‘kingdom of God’. Hand in hand with this is the kingship of Christ. Every kingdom has a king, and the whole movement of biblical thought points towards his kingship, with human history moving inexorably towards an appointment with Christ the king. In turn, this means each individual is moving towards a date with Jesus, and evangelicals have always rightly stressed the individual’s rights and responsibilities under the call of the gospel. This appointed Day of Judgement, the Bible makes clear, is the moment when the kingship of Christ will be finally displayed in all its fullness, for God has made this Jesus King and Judge of all the world (John 5:22, 2 Cor 5:10).
When we tell of this, we are declaring the gospel. We often think of the cross and salvation when we think ‘gospel’, yet there is a very real sense in which the gospel is the message of Christ’s coming judgement, and Christ’s judgement constitutes the gospel. Without personal, individual judgement, there is no force in the notion of personal, individual salvation.
Accordingly, Matthew 25:31-32 describes the gospel this way:
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
From early in Matthew’s Gospel, this is an important teaching. Indeed, the issue of who Jesus is, of his identity and whether he is ‘the One’ the Old Testament spoke about is not only constantly in view, but also turns on the matter of judging the world. In Matthew chapter 3, when John the Baptist is preparing the way, he says of the Christ, “His winnowing fork is in his hand and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (3:12). This echoes Isaiah 30:24, which speaks of the one who will ‘winnow’, and Malachi 4:1, which talks of the Lord’s consuming fire upon the wicked. Accordingly, in Matthew 11, John is in prison and sends messengers to Jesus asking, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” Seen against the background of chapter 3, John is effectively wondering if Jesus is the one who will bring the ministry of judgement he prophesied back in chapter 3. Immediately following, Matthew reports that Jesus “began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent”, and Jesus uses the phrase ‘the day of judgement’ several times in the space of that paragraph.
Jesus’ first coming 2000 years ago, in other words, was the beginning of the judgement of the world. At the same time, although this judgement has begun, it is not yet complete. The final judgement will take place at Christ’s second coming. Looking at Matthew 25 again, at the passage mentioned earlier which describes Christ the Shepherd dividing the sheep and the goats, Jesus speaks of his second coming. He tells two parables: the parable of the ten virgins (five of whom are foolish and do not take enough oil to keep their lamps burning), and the parable of the talents (in which the man who receives one talent buries his talent in the ground). The common feature of these two stories is that there is a delay—in one case, a delay before the bridegroom arrives, and in the other, a delay before the master returns.
In both cases, we are meant to appreciate that this is the delay before Christ will return at his second coming. In both stories, when the time finally comes, there is a reckoning of sorts: we find out which virgins failed to maintain their lamps, and which employee failed to use his talents. These point to the nature of Christ’s future judgement: we are exhorted not to grow tired of believing that this Judge will return, but instead to base our whole lifestyle in this present age on that very fact. Significantly, in these parables, each individual is assessed on how they responded.
We need to be bold and courageous, and stand firm for the great truth that Christ is Judge. In keeping with this, I want to encourage you to talk to others about the certainty of Christ’s second coming—about the givenness of his Kingship over all humanity. As we rightly point people back in time to the pivotal events of his death and resurrection (which I hope we will keep on doing at every opportunity), at the same time, it is also vitally important we point people forward in time to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the one who alone has ultimate capacity to carry out his opinions.
This constitutes a third kind of general argument: the political apologetic. This does not mean we need to become democrats or enrol in a political party. The political apologetic spotlights the ultimate rule of God and points out that life is a theocracy. It requires us to be bold and forthright in putting the focus on the constitutional claims of Christ. We need to love others enough to confront them with the judicial supremacy of the Lord Jesus, and declare, in a simple manner suitable to our ability and circumstances, the message of the judgement seat of the Judge.
Ultimately, plainly stating the Lordship of Christ is the best way to meet the challenges of our pluralistic society. Rather than trying to reason people into the kingdom, we need to trust in the efficacy of the gospel, which we know is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:18).
There is biblical precedent for the use of political argument in apologetics. For instance, in Luke 21:25-37, Jesus simply declares the blunt reality of his second coming and judgement of the world, saying “[T]hey will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” and “Pray that you may have the strength to escape all these things that are going to take place and to stand before the Son of Man”.
Concluding comments
Over the past few articles, I have argued that we need to communicate three big ideas to people.
First, we need to make the logical case. This means debunking the myth that ‘all religions are basically the same’ by demonstrating that this statement is illogical, given the facts about the conflicting teachings of the major religions. This requires that we be armed with the data on comparative religions outlined earlier so that we are able to establish that Christianity is incompatible with other world religions.
Second, we need to make the empirical case. This involves challenging the suggestion that your Christian faith is merely an accident of birth. We can do this by demonstrating that in fact the Christian faith originated in the Middle East; that the fastest growing churches in the world today are not in the Anglo countries, but elsewhere; that, given the environment in Australia today, it is unlikely rather than likely that a person will become a Christian; and that the Bible maps out God’s grand plan which is to bless all nations through Christ (Zech 2:11).
And third, we need to make the political case. This means saying that each individual’s opinions, however ‘valid’ they may seem in some academic sense, are only as valid as our ability to carry them out. Ultimately, this hinges on who rules, and the Bible says that Jesus does. Whether others welcome this or not, we are called at this point to declare the supremacy of Christ as final Judge of all opinions. We should do this with gentleness, humility and respect, and yet with determination.
Let me conclude with a word about the implications of the supremacy of Christ for ourselves.
One implication is that it should motivate us all the more to evangelize the lost. The singularity of Christ as the only hope for sinners who are perishing means that our friends, relatives and colleagues who do not know him as their personal Lord and Saviour are hurtling headlong to hell. This should spur us to seek to share Christ with them.
The other implication of the uniqueness of Christ is that it should dispel any lukewarmness in our own faith that may have been creeping into our Christian life lately. In Revelation 3:16, the Lord Jesus tells the church at Laodicea they are neither cold nor hot, and that, because they are lukewarm, he will spit them out of his mouth. Like warm water, a double-minded Christian is unpalatable. When we grasp the full reality of Jesus’ singularity—his unparalleled person and work—it should produce in us a new single-mindedness of discipleship in which all else in life is, from now on, held cheap, and our Lord and Saviour is held all the more dear.
