Twenty years ago when I began my journey from Atheism to faith in Christ, nearly all conversations about God included debate or at least a discussion of evidences for the rational foundation for faith.  American cultural postmodernism has altered the way most younger people view the role of debate and discussion.  While Christians need to be “bi-lingual,” speaking both the new language of postmodernity while still able to defend the faith with traditional dialogical processes, when it comes to postmodern witness, a new emphasis on wonder is needed. 

In the past such words as “mystery, wonder, the unknown, and awe” immediately raised red flags for hearers.  Such concepts were seen as holes or limits on one’s ability to demonstrate the rationality of propositional claims.  Subjective experiences that express mystery and wonder today are not only welcome elements of Christian witness but are now often seen as evidence for the personal relevancy of faith to our hearers.

True wonder, or the state in which a person is filled with a sense of awe, comes from experiences with the Divine, albeit an inescapably subjective experience.  In fact, it is this articulation of wonder and its associated outward expressions (e.g. fear, immobilization, spontaneous worship, brokenness, demonstrative repentance…) that mark the unique experiences of women and men throughout the Scripture when confronted with the Divine.  Two great examples of this come from Mark 5 in the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac and the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter.

Our experience of God may not always be as acute as our mountain top or defining encounters with God but true Christians should be marked as people of wonder for we relate to God in an on-going fashion.  Our relationship with God should go beyond rituals such as prayer, Bible study, and fasting and should include actual encounters with the Divine.  This is the one universal thread that draws the Biblical narrative together across characters from Genesis to Revelation.  This should come as no surprise since God is in the business of encountering His creation.  Such encounters are inherently “alien” and produce the kind of reactions we see in the Biblical narrative (again, fear, flight, spontaneous worship…).  While it is true that we are God’s offspring, He is our Father, there is something so terrifying about the Divine presence that we are left with few voluntary, rational responses in the immediate moment.

When it comes to relating our understanding of and encounters with God to others, there is great value in our transparency in this area.  In fact, the current cultural milieu is so desperate to mystically connect with the Divine, the hunger to hear such encounters amongst crowds and individuals is palpable.  While this opens the door to all kinds of deceptions and potential manipulations, authentic wonder and delight in mystery within the Christian faith is an asset, not a liability.  Seeking to root our experiences and the interpretation of such experiences in Scripture cannot be overstated but such authentic, transformative encounters with God are not confined to Scripture reading.  We cannot manufacture such experiences but hope and wait for God to ‘condescend’ and connect with our hungering hearts.

Whether through film, television, music, or on-line and platform gaming, pop culture is riddled with illustrations of a desperate generation trying to manufacture encounters with the Divine.  Such attempts to connect with God through the mundane and even through debauched behavior illustrates just how hungry this ’mystic generation’ really is.  Christians ought to have much to say in this area.  We have authentic, transformative encounters with a God who is intimate with us and longs to love us.  We have the means (community, prayer, fasting, Bible study, worship…) to make ourselves available to God and thus encounter the Divine.

Whether through re-telling and applying testimonial encounters to others or inviting others into Christian disciplines and practices where encountering God is likely, evangelism today needs to include much more emphasis on wonder.  Apologetically, when it comes to sharing Jesus relevantly with postmoderns, we need not run from or hide the fact that our faith, while an historic faith first, is also a faith of mystery.  Unlike the pagan mystical religions of Jesus’ day, our faith is a faith in an historic person, which makes authentic mystery possible!  We leave room for and appreciate wonder and mystery simply because of God, while familiar, is also the awful God of dread, alien, and full of wonder.

The culture at large appreciates wonder and mystery as can be seen in the hit television show, “Lost” or the console game, “God of War.”  Within the often avoided grotesqueries and debauched expressions of American culture is a deep soul cry for the transcendent and we connect with such a cry through the story of the cross, the resurrection and with our on-going story.  In the past, classical composers, expressionist painters, and gritty philosophers expressed this soul cry but today it is the film maker, the poet/singer, the manipulator of pixels and sprites, and those who clamor to consume such shadowy expressions of another world.  While such value is not universal and may be unique to the N. American cultural context, it is nonetheless real and represents a real open door for the brave new world of evangelism.

Evangelism has always been an inexact science to say the least. How to count who made what kind of decision to which kind of call is a difficult issue. Often, critics of proclamation evangelism use this difficulty as a basis to discredit evangelistic preaching or other forms of public evangelism. Others insist on standards for counting that are too strict, standards that are not modeled for us anywhere in Scripture. Still others give up altogether and do not try to assess decisions for faith, leaving it up to “the Spirit.” All of these mistakes are intensified by the ambiguity of the definition of “decision.” What is a decision for Christ? How does “decision” differ from “conversion?” Can we have any certitude in either a person’s decision or their conversion this side of Heaven? How do we count, celebrate, follow up, and shape a decision maker’s profession of faith? These are all live and legitimate questions.

The first post-resurrection evangelistic sermon was preached by Peter in Acts 2. A stirring message in itself, the end of the message and subsequent message commentary give us some initial footing in addressing the counting/decision/conversion issue. In Acts 2:40-41 we read, “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” A few observations are helpful to us struggling with the messiness of evangelism today.

First, the count: The count was 3,000 added to their number that day. The text does not say 3,000 people were converted or that their names were written in the lamb’s book of life or that they were saved-simply that they were added to “their number.” The text also doesn’t say that the 3,000 were first verified as legitimate or there was an assessment period to see if their decisions bore fruit. What does the phrase “added to their number” actually mean? Prior to this message, in chapter one, the female disciples along with the 11 apostles were together with a larger group-all totaling around 120 “Jesus followers.” What is interesting is the repetition of the phrase “was added” and the emphasis in chapters 1 and 2 on numbering. Numbering appears in 1:13,14,15,17,21,26 and 2:39,41,47. In 2:47, the Lord “added to their number” and then the phrase appears “those who were being saved.” It would appear that the way in which the counting of the 3,000 and those “added” daily who were being saved is used in the same manner. Luke throughout Acts records numbers of people who are “added” to the community of the “saved” in a way that may be bothersome to many today. Luke records the “add” as the total number of those being “saved.” How can he be so sure? What about those who turn their back on Christ and the Way? To be sure, this happened all the time and of those being added daily or of the 3,000 added after the first evangelistic message, we can be almost certain that some of them eventually rejected their decision.

Second, the warning: The second important observation in the text is the fact that Peter warns the crowd to “save themselves from this corrupt generation.” The evangelistic call had a sense of urgency, of drastic separation from an already condemned generation of which the hearers were a part. He did not try to give an assurance of salvation or calm the fears of those perishing, he sternly warned them to save themselves. Obviously, Peter did not mean that they, in and of themselves, could literally save themselves, but in the context of his larger message, the call to repent and place faith in Christ’s finished work was the means by which they would be saved. His warning demonstrates what we are calling people to and what we are calling them away from. We are calling them to change allegiances, to recognize sin, to leave their identity and become a part of Christ’s new community of repentant and faith-filled believers (the grand picture of which is provided for us at the end of Acts 2). This is important in what we count. Often, counting decisions gets corrupted because the call to Christ is not clear. This is where legitimate criticism can be aimed at much evangelistic preaching as often the call is so ambiguous, so watered down that we cannot be sure what people have responded to. In such cases, we are almost always left to allow the respondent to self-assess what happened before we count. This was not the case in Peter’s message. He called for repentance, people demonstrated their response by coming forward to be baptized and the community took at face value the legitimacy of all 3,000 who came forward. There was not a re-assessment after the follow-up team had meetings with the 3,000, there was an immediate celebration and recognition of full membership in the “they” Luke refers to as the entire community of faith throughout chapters one and two. The warning, however, places the burden on the decision maker. Peter’s instruction is in the present tense and throughout the epistles, the warning to “be” saved, or walk according to the grace given us remains a source of challenge for all who follow Christ to re-examine continuously our allegiance to Him.

Third, the baptism: Water baptism is so much more than a mere physical indication of a person’s inner decision but it is at least that here in the text. In my evangelistic preaching I’ve used various physical mechanisms to give the decision maker an opportunity to visibly demonstrate her faith. Whether they’ve been items like glow sticks, water, sand, fire, marbles, free-standing doors, coloring on walls, receiving an empty glass to be filled, or simply coming forward, securing some visible and often external item to express faith is important. It is important for two reasons. A visible appropriation of faith (see my larger article on “Re-Thinking Alter Calls” at www.tellthestory.net) allows us to see who and how many people have responded to the call to repent. Second, a visible appropriation of faith is a powerful experiential component to an otherwise personal and inner experience. It would appear from Scripture that there was almost always some visible way, whether miraculous or through human volition, for decision makers to be counted as “added to their numbers.” Water baptism in this passage served this function, though it was certainly not limited to a mere visible appropriation of faith.

Let’s get practical:

There are a number of different “decisions” that can be made when the call to repent is clear.  They include:

•First Time Decisions: A decision by an obvious or self proclaimed non-Christian to follow Christ or a “nominal/cultural Christian’s” decision to become a true Christ-follower.

•Rededicated Decision: A decision to re-affirm one’s salvific faith, to repent of patterns of sin, and re-commit to following Christ as Lord.

•Journey Engagement Decision: Often confused as a salvific decision, people will often respond to a call to repent but not intend to give their lives to Christ as Lord. Such decisions often mark a pivotal point in a faith journey but are short of full trust in Christ.

•The Confused/Unintentional/Insincere Decision: Almost without exception, some will respond to a call to repent because they misunderstood what was being asked of them (no matter how clear the call was) or; they did not intend to respond but were interpreted as doing so or; their response was intentionally insincere. The insincere decision maker responds for all kinds of strange reasons-“I wanted a glow stick,” “I wanted to see what the stage looked like,” “I wanted my picture taken with you,” “I didn’t want you to look bad when nobody came,” “I just wanted to lead the way for others.” These and many other reasons I’ve heard over 20 years of evangelistic preaching.

Some Clarity:

Let’s make some observations about each of these decision makers. The first time decision makers are more obvious and readily accepted for “the count” when they are known or self identifying non-Christians but the count gets messier when a worship leader stands, or an elder or clergy member or life-long church member. Often, event organizers immediately conclude that such respondents are confused/unintentional/insincere decision makers. However, frequently these are nominal/cultural Christians who are authentically making a first time decision. Whether we refer to these as Lordship decisions or 1st time decisions really is immaterial, the decision maker in this category through her response has chosen to “save herself” and she should be counted as being “added” unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

A “nominal Christian” is a Christian in name only, not in fact. Because of this, a Lordship decision of this type is really a 1st time decision because the nominal/cultural Christian has never been converted, merely religious. Socialized Christians are not converted though they often appear so through their habits and interest in Christian community. They often find themselves serving in leadership roles because they know the culture and language of community but have never repented of sin and placed their trust in Christ. Using this definition gives us permission to include in the count people who have experienced a “spiritual awakening” or “adult decision” and who now consciously follow Christ.

This definition is admittedly very broad; however I think there are 3 reasons why this broad definition for counting is indeed appropriate.

1) The lack of gospel clarity in the church: Many churches in America do not preach the true gospel message or do so unclearly. Also, they rarely call people to faith. Thus, many people who think they are making a recommitment to faith are in fact responding to the gospel for the first time or are making their profession public for the first time. In either case, we should include them in our “count.”

2) The lack of Biblical literacy outside the church: Most people lack the conceptual framework and language for explaining what is spiritually going on inside them. They cannot articulate often what kind of decision they are making are what the implications are when they do so. Again, the precedent in Scripture is to count all responders at face value, to celebrate them and begin enfolding them into community. The rule of thumb should be we count unless there is extant evidence not to do so (admission of confusion, unrepentant life-styles of sin…).

3) Decisions are measurable, conversions are not: Even though we are often still using conversion language (saved, converted, new Christian), we can never truly know whether a person has been saved. We are left with merely the visible representation of people’s decisions and the subsequent spiritual fruit or lack thereof. This means that there will always be ambiguity along the way toward maturity in Christ for people who indicate a decision and even seeming maturity in Christ can be deceptive as many fall away later in life.

Illustration:

Let’s say un-churched Anna makes a visible decision at a conference as a result of an alter call but a year later wants nothing to do with Christ while Hassan, a cultural Christian, makes a visible decision to “recommitment himself to Christ” at a meeting and over the course of the next several weeks begins to bear fruit for the first time in his life. Let’s say Jill makes a decision to follow Jesus as Lord in every area of her life after a life-long tradition of attending church. Jill has significant areas of her life that have never been submitted to Christ including areas of deep sexual sin and relational brokenness but now has been set free and is beginning to joyfully serve in Christian community. Finally, let’s say Tom indicates a “first time decision” on a response card at an evangelistic outreach but later realizes he came to Christ long ago and is only now making a public adult profession of faith. I’ve dealt with these and many other confusing scenarios over the years. Such circumstances make counting a very difficult issue.

Let’s consider why each of these four decision makers should be included as we count those “added” to our numbers.

Anna: Though it is heartbreaking, some decision makers do later go back on their decision, perhaps indicating that they never sincerely came to Christ in the first place. Regardless of how we theologically interpret the range of possibilities, at the time of Anna’s decision, illustrations from Scripture would indicate that we should count Anna, celebrate her decision, hold her to the spiritual expectations of Christian discipleship, and weep later when she turns from Christ, doing all we can to help her hold true to the word of life. In the beginning, however, we count her as a decision maker.

Hassan: Though Hassan has self-identified as a Christian all his life, he has never demonstrated the fruit associated with being filled with the Holy Spirit. He has likely never truly followed Christ though he may have been open all along to authentic discipleship. Hassan needed a clear explanation and call to faith and once he encountered Christ, naturally connected with Jesus and began to demonstrate salvific faith for the first time. Though we may be tempted to consider Hassan’s decision as a recommitment, perhaps he would even say so, in reality his decision is more likely a first time decision as it is associated with first time spiritual fruit demonstrating the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

Jill: Jill would likely never say of herself that she “became a Christian” since in her interpretation of her spiritual journey, she has been Christian all her life. The evidence of regeneration, however, and freedom from deep bondage may indicate she has become born again. The spiritual fruit emerging in her life is indicative of a person who has encountered Christ and given long-term patterns of bondage and willful disobedient to Christ, the likelihood is that she too has made an authentic first time decision and should be counted.

Tom: Tom’s a slightly different story. Tom’s decision is obviously not a salvific decision but rather an affirmation of previous spiritual realities and decisions made in the past. For young people emerging into adulthood, however, it is important that they own their faith in a conscious way. Tom has already been “saved” but has never truly owned this spiritual status for himself. Many Christian youth find an important right of passage by responding publically as adults. Many times when alter calls are made where emerging adults are present, people like Tom wish to publically profess faith to have confidence in the authenticity of their faith or because they’ve never been given such an opportunity to do so before. Either way, the likelihood is that they’ve not been counted before and the fact that they as emerging adults wish to be counted now should be honored.

“Don’t Count Me”

Finally, the question is who should not be counted as first time decision makers. Obviously the confused/unintentional/insincere decision makers with a little bit of interaction will rise to the surface, often immediately after the decision is indicated. Additionally, clear Christians who merely wish to rededicate themselves or repent of specific struggles and incidents of sin should not be counted either. Often, these are interpreted as “Lordship” decisions but true “Lordship” decisions are more often than not authentically first time decisions for what kind of faith can be saving faith that is devoid of submission to Christ as Lord? It would seem from each and every evangelistic message in the book of Acts that the apostles believed salvation necessitated the eventual confession of Christ as Lord.

A journey decision should also not be counted as a first time decision. This category often takes the most work to follow up with and gain certainty. This is particularly true since frequently journey decision makers lack the sufficient language and theological constructs to self-interpret where they are or what kind of decision they have made. These standards leave a wide latitude open for us to include many who indicate a decision for Christ. This seems to be the practice of the first Church and there really is no reason why we should depart from their practice.

All too often, the Church is rendered impotent due to the habitual drift of organized religion toward societal institutional identity.  In every society, God has established seven great culture-making institutions-government, commerce, medicine, the family, academia, entertainment/sport, and law.  These seven institutions not only generate the culture of any people group or nation but are themselves the conglomerate of how the various “tribes” or ethnic groupings within a people or nation express their culture-in other words, these are both the motors of culture and the vehicles for expressing culture.  Because of the decaying presence of sin in every people group, these institutions are often mere shadows, broken fragments of what God intends them to be.  Renewal can come to particular instances of these institutions as individuals and groups begin to follow Jesus Christ and apply Kingdom values and practices to their spheres of influence but the decaying cycle of sin in any given people group requires major, societ- wide renewal in order to protect these vehicles from not only eroding but morphing into tools which accelerate wickedness.

Entertainment/sport as an institution of culture has often, in its eroded state, become a vehicle for accelerated societal evil.  When entertainment falls into eroticism (as it often does) and when sport falls into violence (which it often does), the good gift of sport and entertainment goes from a vehicle for cultural expression to the glory of God to an instrument causing accelerated societal decay.  Each and every one of the seven institutions of society has a corresponding broken expression with equally wicked and destructive demarcations.  Commerce falls to greed, government falls to power at the expense of the marginal, families become places of abuse and neglect….The reality is, because of sin, we have rarely seen expressions of whole and transformative institutions.  We need renewal as many of the institutions of our time have or are beginning to enter into the unsalvageable stages of erosion.  The de-evolution of the entertainment industry into eroticism is well documented but we also see irreversible damage to the notion of the family, to medicine, and certainly to commerce.  Corruption, a culture of death, acceptance of broken sexual paradigms are all the cumulative effects of a lack of much needed renewal.

Renewal is not merely the bridled restraint of such expressions of decay.  It is true that the Church has a preservative nature in culture.  The presence of the Church in the World slows the ramped downward spiral of society and the grotesque end stages of unbridled wickedness.  The Scripture’s use of preservative imagery, however, is often misused.  Preservatives do not bring new life, they merely prevent the decay of death from entirely ruining the food they preserve.  Only the blowing winds of God’s grace on a people through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in a unique, corporate way can actually bring new life.  Without this unique act of God, the best we can hope for is a slowing of the inevitable and at worst, when the preserving Church fails, the active judgment of God on a people-perhaps even their eradication.  Renewal is the unique resurrecting work of God through the corporate application of the Spirit’s power in bringing repentance and the subsequent Kingdom transformation of people groups in application to the culture-making institutions of their society.  Renewal is not mere mass conversion nor is it mere revival in the Church, though it may initially begin there, renewal is the macro-transformation of nations, peoples, tribes, and tongues expressed in their culture.

The Church often fails not only to preserve the culture but also fails to be able to receive renewal from God because it trends toward drifting in its identity.  The Church world-wide, when left un-checked, confuses itself as an institution of society.  We are to be “in the world, but not of the world,” says Jesus.  Applied societally, the Church is to participate and lead in every one of the seven institutions but not succumb to the temptation to be those institutions or to circumvent these institutions.  Sadly, we see the Church all too often failing to lead and transform these institutions but instead seeking to become or replace them.  How often have we seen the Church attempt to be a place of commercial enterprise with her ministers and evangelists peddling programs, conferences, products and the like?  How often have we seen well meaning Christian leaders attempting to use the Church as a vehicle for political manipulation and power?  How often have we seen the Church give up its ministry of prayer, evangelism, and the study of the Word of God for entertainment and programs of sport?  To sit in many prayer circles in today’s Church, one would think we are a hospital as we pray for strokes, heart attacks, cancers, and sicknesses at the expense of lost neighbors, broken families and injustices around the world of every kind!  The Church is not a hospital, though we are charged with caring for the broken hearted and the sick.  The Church is not the judicial system, though we are charged with loving the prisoner and visiting them in their hours of desperation.  The Church is not the academy but we are charged with bringing every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ and worshipping God with our whole mind.  The Church is not the family but we are a new family under God charged with caring for widows and orphans.

We are all of these things and none of them at the same time for we are something much greater.  A loftier, controlling identity shadows any particular missional charge, for we are the Bride of Jesus Christ, not merely the sum total of our functions.  As such, our primary passion should be to connect with Christ and to allow the regenerative flow of the Spirit fill us for His glory.  In the world, the Church’s passion should be to be the receptacle of the transforming power of God that can alone bring renewal to our society.  How sad that we drift away and settle for our secondary functions instead of our primary identity like a man who confuses his employment for his true identity.  The Church is to be just and the place for championing justice without being the hall of justice.  The Church is to be a place where the needs of the widow, orphan, sick and lame are addressed without becoming a hospital or place of respite care…The Church is to have no greater preoccupation than that of the person of Jesus Christ and being the receptacle of His renewing power.

The Church is to be in each and every institution, shaping and defining the trajectory of those institutions.  There is no place in society where the Church should not be seeking to bring renewal.  The high courts of justice, the culture-making centers of music and film, the great halls of academia, the research labs of science and medicine-it is all Christ’s.  We are not guests here, this is Christ’s world and He is in the process of reclaiming what is His through us.  When the Church abandons entire institutions, the society should expect to erode into debauchery.  When the Church leaves the university, we should expect godlessness to reign in the dorms, bars, and offices of faculty.  When the Church leaves the world of politics, we should expect unjust laws.  When the Church leaves the medical field, we should expect immoral research and practices.  Jesus will not break if we expose him to the real world but to listen to retreatists, one has to wonder if they have a cheap plaster Jesus picked up at some tourist shop of faith.  The real Jesus can withstand the challenges of brokenness and sin in all these places-He is more durable than we think!

We are to be in the world, acting as the preservative element that prevents it from eroding into darkness and despair.  However, we cannot content ourselves with mere incremental advancements of God’s Kingdom.  We long for it to break through in its fullness, for another ‘Great Awakening,” for mass repentance that gives way to new life!  We are to be waiting and calling on God for the unique work of renewal, of revival and awakening-the work that only God can send from Heaven.  The work of renewal, the breath of God on our land, is the only hope in escaping His wrath and seeing our society live again.  When the breath of God comes, it brings new life.  This new life in society looks like medical breakthrough, a passion for research and learning, just laws, resources for those in need, whole and joy-filled families, redeemed leisure and competition, breathtaking art, dance, film, music-all to the glory of God!  May it be so in our time Lord Jesus.

For ten years, I’ve been addressing the growing problem of human trafficking, particularly child prostitution. Frequently, those who are new to the grotesque facts of this growing global cancer are initially angered not at the facts themselves but at me and others who have brought these realities to their attention. Frequently the process of acceptance initially begins with deep disbelief and suspicion then moves to shock and horror and typically ends with a sense of being overwhelmed and disturbed.

This is to be expected when looking such a monster as child prostitution in the face. Addressing an issue like child prostitution holistically is the only way we can expect to have any impact on such a rape of humanity. If we merely articulate the economic/profit drivers of the problem and fail to address the overall realities of poverty and political instability, we will fail to fully realize and engage the issue. If we only address the geopolitical circumstances which allow the modern day slave trade to proliferate and fail to also address the complicity of those who participate through the remote consumption of sex slaves through internet pornography, we will fail to fully get at the roots of the issue.

Ultimately, a problem like child prostitution as a spiritual problem has many different manifest implications. Child prostitution has medical, economic, political, social, familial, and psychological ramifications but to address any one part of this complicated matrix without addressing the human soul as the controlling issue is a mistake.

In Escaping the Devil’s Bedroom: Sex Trafficking, Global Prostitution and the Gospel’s Transforming Power by Jewell, the author makes the case for the connection between the sexualization of society and the growing acceptance of a slave culture. Many resources on human trafficking focus entirely on particular case studies and overwhelming statistical facts but Jewell makes the necessary connection between a sexualized society, the growing appetite and acceptance of sexual exploitation, pornography and the remote consumption of victims with the spiritual brokenness of humanity. This matrix of causal factors is rarely explicated in resources on the issue. What Jewell has articulated is the heart of the issue we must address.

Before we ask how a place like Toledo, Ohio can become in 2009 the child prostitution capital of the United States, we must first ask the question, “How can a person’s heart get to such a state of destitution that she would commoditize a child sexually for financial gain?” Before we can ask the question, “How can sophisticated, educated people in major metropolitan nightclubs legally get away with paying for sex with under-aged slaves?” we have to first ask the question, “What has happened to the human soul to allow us to actually enjoy paying for the opportunity to rape a child?”

Quintessentially these and other questions are spiritual in nature. The real question to me as an evangelist is how have we gone so long without such an exploitation of humanity? We have been anaesthetized to the true horrors of our own sin and brokenness. Wealth, education, a long period of relative peace and the façade of personal satisfaction through indulgence have paved the way for a forgetfulness of the deranged depths of our own humanity.

The return of the global slave trade is not only a stark reminder of the brokenness of the human soul, it is THE moral issue of our day. The only way to retain the relevance of a Biblical faith in this modern milieu is to fully engage the issue of global slavery with the spiritual power of the gospel. To fail to act

against this preeminently spiritual problem with the only spiritual power capable of bringing justice is to ultimately abdicate our role as salt and light in the world. We must act.

We must also understand how the sexualization of society has led to the possibility of the commoditization of humans and that this commoditization has led to a growing acceptance of the consumption of this commodity-children, women, young boys and girls-people for whom Christ died. Our generation will be judged by our children by what we did or did not do to protect the least of these.