Book review — Marks of the Messenger, by J. Mack Stiles

by Dan Phillips

Marks of the Messenger, by J. Mack Stiles
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2010; 128 pages)

I requested a review copy of this book specifically on the strength of D. A. Carson's endorsement: "I do not think I have ever read a book on evangelism that makes me more eager to pass it on than this one—better, that makes me more eager to evangelize than this one." Recently I was shaken when my boss, whom I like very much, spent a long spell in ICU, unconscious and in grave condition with septic pneumonia... and I realized in all our talks I had never told him the Gospel. So the promise of this book, with that fresh in my mind, sounded as if it might address that failing.

Stiles works, worships and witnesses in the United Arab Emirates, a very hostile environment for the Gospel. As Mark Dever promises in his Foreword, it is engaging and easy reading, like listening to Stiles talk about the Bible and his experiences.

One no longer looks to IVP for reliably Biblical, Reformed books, which makes Marks of the Messenger a very pleasant surprise in both regards. His stance is equally rigorously evangelistic and Biblical, which is to say Calvinistic.  He issues a ringing warning against the bane of pragmatism, which he regards as "the greatest obstacle to healthy evangelism" (19). The Gospel is not a product to be peddled. He also stresses God's sovereignty in salvation, and sweeps aside the un-Biblical notion of "free will" (77).

While Stiles recognizes the need to be mindful of one's context, he insists that the message must not be changed, citing Galatians 1:8 (30). Guy could be a Pyro.

I also appreciate how Stiles relates the Gospel to social change. He insists that "the gospel brings social change in and of itself" (63). He inveighs against programs which aim to feed the hungry and then hopefully maybe get around to the Gospel. Specifically, Stiles rejects the axiom, "The hungry man has no ears" (63ff.). He cites evidence that the Gospel itself ends up doing more to feed the hungry than starting with food and maybe bringing in the Gospel later, after the free giveaways.  "Do the hungry have ears?" Stiles asks. "You bet they do" (64). Clarifying further: "Caring for others represents the gospel, it upholds the gospel, it points to the gospel, it's an implication of the gospel, but it is not the gospel, and it is not equal to the gospel" (69).

Chapter 8 is "Worldly Love and Its Fruits" (91ff.), a really bracing set of contrasts between "pop culture's" notions of love on the one hand, and Biblical truth on the other. To wit:

• Pop culture believes that God's love is sentimental
• Pop culture believes that God's love is universal and unconditional
• Pop culture believes that God's love is me-centered

It's a terrific corrective.

So, what is the book? I frankly thought it would be some kind of a how-to on evangelism. It really isn't, and I was disappointed in that, though I was not disappointed in the book. Stiles' emphasis actually is not on evangelizing, but being the kind of person who should and does evangelize. He starts off in the first chapter with his boss' question to him, "Mack, who do you want to be?" (15). This is the book's launchpad and focus.  Stiles thinks very poorly of trying to "guilt" people into evangelizing, or just setting out a mechanical program. His emphasis is on our heart, on being sure that we ourselves understand and have embraced the Gospel, before taking another step. 

So the book treats of the realities of conversion, of being sure to hold fast the Gospel rather than assuming it, of being bold due to fear of God rather than of man, of being Gospelly counter-cultural, and of joining ourselves to a local church. Each chapter begins with a story, and then gets right into the Word.

Do I have gripes? A few. For instance, endnotes. 'Nuff said?

Also, I found a couple of things Stiles said a bit brain-snaggy. I'd like to ask him a few questions. For instance, he starts off chapter 3 telling about a treacherous unbeliever who deceived Liberty students into thinking he was a Christian so he could write a book about them. Stiles' point is that the unbeliever was able to "fit in" by keeping to certain rules of behavior. This concerns Stiles, understandably.

Is Stiles saying Christianity isn't defined by rules? If so, I'm right there with him. But is he saying that Jesus doesn't have any rules for His people, that He doesn't issue commands which He expects Christians to obey? That you shouldn't be able to look at those red shiny globes and say, "That's an apple tree"? You know I wouldn't agree. I don't think that's Stiles' point at all, but I found that discussion incomplete and a tad annoying.

If we can only identify other Christians by seeing their hearts, then we'll never have any reason to think anyone is a Christian, because we can't see others' hearts — except as revealed in their words and deeds. Trees are known by their fruits. This treacherous "tree" just taped plastic fruits on its branches and fooled kids. Shame on it.

Also, Stiles tells a story in chapter four about a Christian suing a Christian employer. Stiles meets with both, and tells the Christian to drop his lawsuit. Yay, and duh (1 Corinthians 6; my "duh" directed at the hordes of Christians who don't seem to get this). But then Stiles also tells the employer simply to give the suer (suitor?) hundreds of thousands of dollars, regardless of the merits of the case — all of this in the name of sitting at the foot of the Cross. I'm not so sure about that one. I don't see Paul saying only that in 1 Corinthians 6 (cf. vv. 1-3, 5).

So, like all books except the Bible, it's imperfect. I'm sure if I reviewed my own books when they come out, I'd have gripes about them, too. But these gripes hardly affect the value of Stiles' book, which I do recommend. It's short, eminently readable, yet solid and thought-provoking. It isn't the book I was expecting, but it's a good book.

In fact, now I want to read Stiles' previous book, Speaking of Jesus.

---