[THO] Pope Paul VI on Power Evangelism

"Recognizing that the Spirit also works outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body, Dialogue and Mission argues that the Church is impelled to discern the signs of the Spirit's presence and to serve as its humble and discreet collaborator through a committment to dialogue in its many forms. (#24)"

Gregory Baum, Amazing Church, p.114.

Those familiar with Wimber's concept of Power Evangelism might seem a bit put out by the connection here. Likely not a lot of us who know Wimber's theology have also read too many Vatican documents. I oft times find the Vatican documents lacking and even frustrating. But there are some brilliant insights here. And while this document is about interreligious dialogue, I think there is a place to extend the insights of Wimber to this arena. In Power Evangelism we are called into a partnership with the Holy Spirit in our efforts to bring the gospel to the world. Over the years I have had my understanding of the arena of this work expand to include the whole world. I have also come to realize, as did Wimber, that God is already at work in the lives of people. The best thing we can do as evangelists is watch for the signs of the Spirit's already present work and partner with what we already see God doing.

This is not that attractive for those wanting quick and clean conversions. There is a false expectation in the evangelical church that folks should "clean up" nice for Christ. But life rarely works out in nice tidy ways, so why should we expect that from conversion.

I think the term Power Evangelism is a misnomer. Yes it is a powerful mode of evangelism and yes it does make room for a real power encounter with God. But this isn't the heart of it. The heart is God is at work, so why are we working against God?

My experience of conversion has been messy. I have seen lots of folks come to Christ, but that is really where the work just starts. It isn't about cleaning them up as much as protecting them from all the BS expectation that will let the already "saved" continue to feel comfortable in their places of worship. I would prefer to call it Messy Evangelism. Messy in that it has no pretense that this is easy, quick or even going to work out. Rather it is entirely dependent on God and it calls us to watch carefully for what the Spirit is doing and work there. Even if that isn't sharing a message that they need Jesus (or whatever is the evangelical message of the month these days).

Recently a fellow pastor emailed me about his understanding of the number one priority of God, that is saving folks from eternal damnation. I understood his heart, and I think we end up much in the same place. But this eternal language really misses that God wants to get into the mess of our lives now. God is a redeemer not a benchwarmer. God hasn't prepared a place on the bench for us to sit on an wait out the pre-show. That kind of thinking can maybe justify the horrid expectations placed on those interested in Christianity. This is the real show - and God wants in on it. In fact God wants in so much that the Spirit is already here at work.

Baum brilliantly draws this out of Dialogue and Mission, the Church is called to recognize that God isn't boxed in by "visible" boundaries of Church. God doesn't somehow give up when we screw up. But God continues to work by redeeming our failings, drawing us towards wholeness, showing us love and meeting us in the midst of all life throws at us. And what is most brilliant is that God most often does this through our participation as we look for and cooperate with the Spirit in the lives of others.

[THO] Jesus Camp

The other night Sharon and I watched the documentary film Jesus Camp. This film follows the ministry of Becky Fischer, a Pentecostal youth minister. I just noticed from her site that she is now connection with Patricia Cocking (now Pat King, but I knew her as Patricia Cocking and once ministered with her in Mississauga) of the Extreme Prophetic fame. I'm not keen on a lot of the directions the Prophetic movements have taken, but I'll reserve that for another post.



What was most interesting to me is how much of what was shown in the film is normative Pentecostalism. And I'll start by saying some of it is great. Praying over chairs, passion for God, passion for children and even praying for governments. But the good and the bad are thoroughly mixed together here. What I saw most was the unreflective Christianity that I spent my early Christian years in. There is something so good about grabbing the bull by the horns and going for it. But when there is no serious critical reflection it is easy to see, and this film shows this well, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well and doing well are not always the same thing. As Gary Best always tells us pastors, "it is not good enough to do the right thing, you have to do the right thing for the right reasons."

So from that film (which was at times very painful to watch) a few things are worth engaging here. Hopefully we'll pick up a conversation in the comments.

1) Kids and Politics

Despite Fischer's insistance that this is not political this film shows clearly how incredibly political Christianity is. It actually shows it from both sides. The counterpoint from Mike Papantonio is just as much a call to politics as the rest of the film. Mike insisted on a separation of church and state, I'm convinced that is a delusional position, almost as delusional as Fischer's denial of politics. I'm not doubting their convictions, just their lack of honest critical reflection. What we need to realize is that religion is always politically orienting. Haggard's comment that if the Evangelicals vote they win the election is true - but only because Evangelicals represent a directed voting block. To me that is patently wrong. We need to wake up and help people reflect through the issues and vote from their heart and minds.

Now having said that, the question I have is "how can we expect children to make that kind of assessment?" There is a reason we don't let children vote. But over and over this film showed the manipulation of children's political orientation without even giving them an honest amount of data to work with. When we present complex situations, like the whole issue of abortion, and only tell these children that God hates this act - how are we orienting this generation towards those make other choices?

2) Symbols and Kids

Related to that was the taping of the mouth. What a powerfully charged symbolic action. There is no reflection offered in this film. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Lou Engle really didn't encourage me to give him the benefit of anything but being an alarmist, and assume they unpacked the meaning of the tape before they placed it on the mouths of these kids. But what gets me is that they are calling these kids to take on symbols which have powerful meaning. The word 'LIFE' does not belong to a symbol of silent solidarity that emphasises the helplessness of the unborn. This dichotomizes the issue in ways that are completely offensive, no matter what our opinion of abortion. We need to be more careful. I hope Fischer is right that some of these kids will want to get into politics, but I hope that first folks like Fischer wake up and realize that we don't need more fear based unthinking politicians in this world. Similar problems could be identified with the identification of American military service and the tradition of martyrs.

3) Directional Prophetic and Kids

Lou Engle called up the young boy Levi and prophesied over his life. He was careful to give himself some outs. But this is quite common in the prophetic movement. Everywhere you go God has some big plan for your life. I find this so disturbing. Not that I don't think God wants to do great things, even great things through our lives. But what is done here is that unrealistic expectations are being given. The other problem is that when you start to realize that everyone who is "prophetic" and speaks over you has some big vision (not often the same as the others) then you start to become cynical about the whole prophetic project. I think in the long run this will force the prophetic to the fringes (this is a historically recurring trend). Let me go out on a limb and say I believe in the prophetic. But I believe the prophetic types should shut up, listen and reflect a heck of a lot more than they do. It was so obvious that Lou was Levi as fulfilling what Lou wants in his political agenda - so he projects that, gives it the weight of his "prophetic" title and now you have a recipe for disaster. Folks develop the prophetic within your community and stop bringing in the "prophets". If they are really prophets then they will train your people, not hear for them.

4)Over Simplification of Life

The other thing that sets up these kids for a fall is the over simplification of life presented. God has a wonderful plan for your life. God will protect you from the harshness of life. God will take care of you. While there is some truth in this, God doesn't promise us an easy life, but rather in this world we have trouble. I'll leave the promise of heaven stuff out of this for now, it didn't get much treatment in the film anyway. But the life we live in the world means getting our hands dirty. It means kids like Levi have a rough road ahead. Life is ultimately worthwhile and good. But that is a trajectory that is not always apparent in the day to day living. Fischer loved to oversimplify things. Her object lessons were cute, but really could use some unpacking and reflection. We were watching her tactics as she preached at the camp. Fear and shame are not God's tools. This is always where over simplification leads. It has to. When God is painted as the one that makes everything hunky dory, then adversity has to rest on our shoulders. Life is not as simple as all that. Give kids strenght to face life on life's terms and not fill them with false hope.

4) Evangelism and Kids

I didn't realize that people still used Jack Chick tracts. The only thing worse that Chick tracts are Westboro Baptist placards. Ok, so don't get me started on their ill choice of literature. What really bugs me is that these kids are trying to do what they were told to do, which is proslytize everyone, but they were so obviously ill equipped for the task. At one point the kids start to question if maybe it looks like they are trying to sell something (watch for that moment, it is very interesting), that's good reflection, that should be encouraged. Evangelism isn't just spouting some cute rote statements at folks, it is engaging with people and partnering with God's own efforts to bring them to God's self. But these kids aren't given the tools for that sort of work, they are sent out with cuteness hoping that will win the day.

5) Parenting of Kids

My last critique is about the way we parent our kids. I have my oldest in a Bible club (AWANA). And it drives me nuts at times. I want my kids to be equipped for life in this world. They see our love for Jesus. They ask really good questions and I make of point of not giving them simplified answers. I want to encourage them to think deeply about their faith. I want them to know that there is something good about Christianity, but that they need to choose for themselves. To be honest I'd rather they lived fully and honestly out of their conclusions than to fake being a Christian for the sake of mom and dad. Having said that I am so blessed with how Elyssa's faith in Jesus has been growing, and I want encourage that. I think Christian groups are a great touchstone for kids, but what about when they get into the real world? Not everyone is going to have the same convictions in the real world. That is a tough lesson to learn when you are so sheltered by your parents. Christian schools (or homeschool), a plethora of Church activities, Christian camps, Christian TV and radio (exclusively), the parents in this film live in a bubble! The problem with bubbles is that they burst. What was worse was that the homeschooling was focused on developing a polemic against the rest of the world's thinking. Here you have the chance to develop a real intellectual wealth - seriously homeschooling could be an awesome opportunity to strech a childs mind and develop great habits of thinking. But it is such a wasted opportunity when it is just used to indoctrinate and inocculate children.

I recommend this film to all my Pentecostal and post-Pentecostal friends. It made me really think. It frustrated me but at the same time helped me see that there is work to do. Thank God that not all Pentecostals are like this. Becky Fischer has a great heart, and I'm sure we'd get along. But I hope that folks who follow in her footsteps might read this and pause to think. We want to give the kids great tools for the works God has for them. That is noble and I'll definitely pray for her important ministry. But this is a call to step it up a notch and bring in some needed critical reflection in all we do in the name of Christ.

[THO] Location of the Divine

In Varieties of Religion Today Charles Taylor explores the shift in religious sensibility we inherit from modernity (Chapter 3 is brilliant!). With the age of reason the natural world was pulled down into the realm of comprehension. We could now measure, desconstruct and pull apart the created order. It belonged to the dominion of man, or so we now assumed. What was lost was the mystical connection with the world as created. The world became more and more mechanistically understood and God became more and more distant. We might remember that the deists came to believe in a divine watchmaker, winding up the world to let it run of its own accord.

In this Newtonian atmosphere we began to elevate the notion of law. After all laws are what govern the created order, and laws represent the enduring connection of the Creator to creation. It is not a wonder then that when Western humanity began looking again for the location of God we looked not to the world but to the lawfulness of society. It is from here that Kant makes his great contribution. No one of that age is unaffected, morality becomes the dominion of God. Understanding this is it really any wonder that we have evangelists who introduce us to the law instead of the person of Jesus Christ?

But all is not lost. More and more people are realizing the incredible poverty losing a sense of divine in the created order has meant. So many are longing for the authenticity of mystery. It also shouldn't surprise us that many in the West have turned elsewhere to feed their souls. For me I believe we face a time of incredible opportunity. Are we to continue to offer a morality based religion or will we introduce the world to a Jesus who holds all things together. Will we continue to preach a destructive message divorced from our lived reality, or will we call for believers to love the world Jesus died to save?

[THO] First Impressions of 'What Did Jesus Do?'

Ray Comfort has been a hot topic here and on my Facebook page. I couldn’t help but take a quick look at one of the books Chris Curry sent me, “What did Jesus do?” I began sharing some of what I had gleaned from the first couple chapters and Sharon stopped me asking if I was talking about a cult. While the aspect that Comfort proposes a private truth is troubling, I am not convinced he goes beyond the pale of popular evangelical notions. But what is clear to me is that Comfort is operating almost exclusively out of a propositional theory of revelation – that is the notion that revelation is communicated to a specific people through a series of truths often collected into a text (Lane, The Experience of God, 34). Adherents to this view of revelation insist on a literal reading of their text(s) in order to preserve the truths contained within them. This is a very common paradigm for the evangelical world, at least in North America.

Before we look at why this view of revelation is flawed, I would be remiss to gloss over Comfort’s confusion of the Law with the Decalogue (p.25). This is very evident in his writing and thinking and it is an understandable confusion knowing that within the Protestant church there is a long tradition of using the Decalogue as a touchstone for Christian moral teaching. But when we look at the New Testament there is more of a tendency to reduce the Law to two propositions instead of the Decalogue. This is significant if you buy into Comfort’s insistence that the Law must come before grace then your understanding of what constitutes the Law matters gravely. But I’m sure I will have more commentary on this after I finish this book.
The second important omission is any sense of ongoing justice. On page 16 there is a list of what the fruit of salvation should look like (in Comfort’s mind of course). While half of this list is questionable, what is more startling is what is not listed. The list is completely devoid of any sense of justice. Where is the fruit of justice or has Comfort completely discarded the prophetic tradition that he claims to lean on so heavily? Where is the fruit of mercy? Love towards neighbours is reduced to getting along with Christians (which is easier for Comfortians who have narrowed greatly the definition of who is actually a Christian) and evangelizing the lost (obviously only with the ‘right’ method of evangelism). This list is what caused Sharon to conclude that Comfort has cult potential.

Those particularities fall out of Comfort’s flawed view of revelation. This theory of revelation often buys into the myth of unmediated access to divine truth, meaning that adherents actively resist the self-examination and self-criticism that is part of any healthy theology. (Interesting enough Comfort wants to undermine confidence in salvation but not in his propositional view of revelation?) Comfort definitely resists such activity, while he mentions that others oppose his views, there is no chance for examining their complaints as his work does not permit us the courtesy of proper footnotes and references. Obviously Comfort has no intention of defending his particular position, rather he wants to bolster the troops and convert the uncritical to his way of thinking. Academically these texts are useless, except as an example of how not to do a theology of mission.

I would encourage you to read with your eyes open.

[THO] What is the Gospel?

My buddy Byron posted a series on this recently. Byron started off with a challenge to write down in a sentence or two exactly what is the gospel. I've been thinking about that a lot lately as I have been engaging in a debate with the Living Waters Canada Rep, Chris Curry. Chris has generously sent me a few of Ray Comfort's books which I will endeavour to review here. I've endured a few of Ray's videos and I find him quite offensive actually. Which begs that question - what is the gospel?

Byron does a great job of defining the gospel in terms of the Kingdom of God. Where I want to go is to look at the implications - how do we live out what the gospel is? If we believe that the gospel is essentially only about your personally getting right with God then perhaps Ray Comfort is not so far off in his thinking. But if the gospel is the good news of the Kingdom, as Jesus claims, then it has far greater implications than merely getting folks saved and in the waiting line for heaven. A lot is at stake on our understanding of the gospel.

For me it comes down to what Jesus did. If we want to follow the true way of the master, then it definitely isn't going to boil down to a modern formulaic representation such as Comfortians often employ. As long as it is missing the heart of the gospel - that is good news that the King has come - then it is nothing more than what the Pharisees did when they searched out converts to become twice as good at converting others as they were. Jesus wasn't impressed. Neither should we be impressed. The King changes everything.

So what did Jesus do? Well he healed the sick, drove out spirits, mended relationships, restored dignity, stood for justice, called for repentance, fed the hungry, taught the masses (inside and outside the synagogue!), loved the children, freed prisoners, gave people purpose and meaning... In short Jesus changed everything. So how can we call gospel anything that compartmentalizes a small bit of this? We can't, it is all or nothing. But isn't that What Jesus did for us? He gave everything for us. Paul aptly responds that our only reasonable response is to give our whole selves as living sacrifices.

I was watching one of those videos yesterday, where Ray is berating a young man who dared to admit he believed in evolution. I kept thinking, "what is your point Ray?" I think there is a place for even the law in evangelism. But when that is your only option then you miss the bulk of the richness of what the gospel really is. Why would I believe God loves me after you've just treated me like shit? How can that thought not go through the minds of those accosted with such a stark misrepresentation of God's good news? Maybe I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something and the books will help me with that. Then again... what is the gospel?

[THO] Ray makes me UnComfortable (4)

Mike's final installment, maybe his best too. Enjoy!

In part 1, I recounted the rather unfortunate story of my experience back in the summer of 2005 in publically administering the "good person test" with a group of 'street preachers' here in Ottawa. In part 2, I tried to show why I thought using the 10 Commandments the way Ray Comfort and his movement uses them was at best, misguided. At worst, an abuse of Holy Scripture. In part 3, I tried to show again how the "good news" offered in the tracts and preaching of Ray Comfort definately leaves something to be desired. This brings me to part 4 and the challenge of counting the cost of true evangelism. I must be honest, this part is what I have been wanting to say from the beginning. I felt however that I needed to lay the groundwork and context of the first 3 parts in order for part 4 to make any sense. So, in light of the first three notes, where does that leave us?

Well,...let me say right off the how much I actually like Ray Comfort Tracts! Sounds unbelievable right? Despite all of the objections I have raised and will raise here, I find his tracts incredibly creative and rather innovative. Ray Comfort has a wonderful imagination and comes up with some truly unique materials. We should also give credit where credit is due. At least the people devoted to Ray and his methods are serious about their faith and are doing something. So, what's the problem? Well, there are many I wish to outline briefly.

The first is simply that the message is, I think, theologically and philosophically unsound. Since I have already explained my concerns in parts 2 and 3, I won't go into them again here. I will add this though. I do not believe for a second that there is any malice whatsoever in the heartrs of Christians who use the methods of Ray Comfort and Living Waters. I certainly do not believe that they are trying to purposefully misrepresent or distort the Gospel. I do think however that they have not thought through their propositions and that their zeal is misguided.

Secondly, the aggresive tone of the approach is more than a little troubling. It reminds me of James and John whom Jesus nick-named the "sons of thunder." ( St. Luke 9:51-55). James and John thought that surely God is displeased with the Samaritans and perhaps would like to destroy them. Jesus assures the two disciples however that they know not what manner of spirit they are.

Thirdly, and this is closely linked to the second, the Ray Comfort approach is intrusive and disputatious. How many of us appreciate ininvited intrusions? Do we like telemarketers phone calls during dinner? Do we appreciate canvasers ringing the door-bell after we have put the children to bed? How about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons showing up at inopportune times in the day? Do we like spam? Do we carefully pour over every pop-up window that shows up on our computer screen? Do we like these things or are they annoying to us? If our Lord exhorts us to love our enemies, ( St. Luke 6:27-36), and St. Paul lays down a criteria of gentleness in dealing with those who oppose the Gospel, ( 2 Timothy 2:24-26), what in heaven's name would make one believe that people would respond positively to the rude intrusion and entrappment that is the "good person test" publically administered?

"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on it's own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (St. Paul to the Corinthians 13:4-7 RSV CE).

Love believes and assumes the best about people, not the worst.

Fourthly, I find it all to be sheer spiritual arrogance! It is the "we/they" mentality at it's worst. We are the "saved," they are the "lost." Nothing but presumptious arrogance would lead a person to think such a thing. I can say that with confidence because I used to think exaclty that way. Prideful, presumptious arrogance is the only motive I can come up with to explain it in me. If you decide you are going to venture out into the public domain and engage people at random with something like the "good person test" and the Ray Comfort approach to evangelism, you are going to inevitably meet people from a WIDE variety of backgrounds both culturally and spiritually. How can we assume that everyone is going to hell and they are all obvioulsy sinnng in the most despicable ways possible and often as possible? In my experience this was and is the assumption. The problem is that there is no way to know that. Only God knows the hearts of people. Our Lord in this context Commands us not to judge others, not to assume to know their spiritual status and standing before God. ( St. Matthew 7:1). What about all the people out there who belong to other faith traditons? It is only arrogance of the worst kind that announces to people that they are in fact going to hell! We ought to remember that we are all , ALL OF US created in the image and likeness of God. We are all one human family descended from our first parents. God's goodness extends to all humanity. (Wisdom 8:1; Acts 14:7; Romands 2:6-7; 1 Timothy 2:4; Luke 6:35-36). God has not left Himself without witness in the world of religion outside of the Christian faith. (Romans 1). Why should we assume that other faiths are all bad? There is much wisdom in the religions of mankind. If we were to ask God for His opinion of the religions of the world, I don't know what He would say. I know it would surprise us all though!!! :-) Mankind's religions can and should be seen for the most part as representing what is best in humanity. These faiths are the expression of our brothers and sisters grasping after God and seeking answers to life's questions and mysteries. Some of them may have been prepatory for the Gospel. Since all truth is ultimatlely God's truth, after many years of "bashing" other faiths, I am convinced that the Holy Spirit of God is working in and through them. Confucius sustained the civilization of China for 2000 years. Do we really have nothing to learn from this man? Buddhism, India's great contribution to the world testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way for people to attain liberation and illumination through self-effort or with divine help. In Hinduism men and women explore the mystery of God through rich mythology and sound philosophy. In Islam, which speaks to approx. 1 billion people on this planet, we hear faint echoes of the Gospel in the Qur'an. (A Book for which I have found a new respect and admiration). I'm not saying that everything in all religion is always good, but it certainly isn't all bad! There is much we can learn as Christians through dialogue and interraction with fellow believers. As Christians, we are of course bound and obligated to proclaim Jesus Christ as the Way the Truth and the Life through whom alone is granted access to the Father. ( St. John 14:6). There is no other Name whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12). The other religions are not alternative paths to salvation. However, that does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved either. Many will be of course! Again though, it will be because of Jesus Christ and His saving work, even if that knowledge remains unknown to them.

Fifthly, and lastly, is the key problem in my estimation. Ray Comfort seems to make a fatal error in interpreting the Gospel in light of the Law rather than the Law in light of the Gospel. ( St. John 1:14-18). In Matthew chapters 5-7 Our Lord's famous "Sermon on the Mount," He teaches with authority, adds to and explains the true meaning of the Law. The passages dealing with this are far to numerous to list here. The entire book of Hebrews sets Jesus Christ in His nature and Priesthood as superior to Moses, superior to the Levetical Priesthood and over and above the Angels. It is the Gospel which illuminates the Law, and reveals it's true meaning and application. The Incarnation and all that it entails, seems to be lacking entirely from the Ray Comfort teaching and methodology.

So, how then do we evangelize??? What do we do? Let's remember that even though many will prophesy, cast out devils, and do many might works in the Lord's Name, we may still be rejected by Him and told to depart! ( St. Matthew 7:21-23) It is those who "do" the will of My Father in Heaven who will enter His kingdom. I encourage here the reader to read the parable of Our Lord told in the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 25:31-46. We evangelize our world and promote the Kingdom of Christ by entering into His work of redemption. If we would see others come to faith in Jesus Christ, we must model Him to those with whom we have direct and intimate contact. Our family, our friends, our co-workers, our next-door neighbors. These are the people we must evangelize. How do we do that? By living sacrificially for their sake and for love of them. We serve Christ by serving Him in the people we see every day. As Thomas Merton says, the will of God is manifested to Christians above all in the Command to love. Our love must must first be extended to those who are closest to us, but eventually it must reach out to all people. All people are potentially members of the Kingdom of God. Who among us can say with certainty that the non-Christian is not in some way, some hidden way, justified by the indwelling Spirit of God and though not visibly, a true brother or sister in the Lord? Our evangelism should be zealous of course, but a zealousness born of joy and peace, and God's love for all people. It should not be aggression acted out of a misguided sense of duty. Our relationship with God should always be growing and maturing. In God's grand design, our knowledge and wonder of Him depends to an extent upon our experiencing His love in the process of someone else's salvation. Our relationship with God can never be truly fulfilling in my opinion until we learn to love as He loves. ( St. Matthew 22:37-40; Philippians 2:1-5). Real evangelism requires time, effort, prayer, sacrifice, investing in people, for the sake of God's love for them. Ray Comfort's approach doesn't really require any of that. You simply walk up to strangers, chastise and offend them, then walk away.... No investment, no sacrifice. It seems rather carnal to me. A clever way to avoid the labor of love that is true evangelism, but satisfying your own flesh and pride that you have. Our evangelism should always spring from our hearts as spontanious acts of love and joy in serving others. The opportunity to share what is most precious to us, our faith, should be by invitation from people with whom we have a relationship of love and trust established through our evangelism. That as I have said takes time, effort and sacrifice. Investing into the lives of other people. If our faith is truly precious to us, and I pray that it is, why then cast it before swine? Why berate people in the street, perfect strangers no less, who may openly mock it anyway? I'm sure the people we see on the streets, the strangers to us, have someone in their lives who should be we pray modelling Jesus Christ to them. We should concern ourselves with those God has placed on our sphere of influence.

In conclusion, I feel that after having lived it in the past, Ray Comfort's approach to evangelism lacks wisdom, lacks truth, and requires no commitment whatsoever. I wonder if people who are following Ray today use his method's such as the "good person test" on family and friends. Or, like I did, do they reserve it for strangers?

[THO] Ray make me UnComfortable (3)

So, once you have gone through the "good person test," and after having been berated with the 10 Commandments, it's finally time to hear the "good news" according to Ray Comfort. What exactly is that "good news?" I'll let Living Waters speak fo themselves.

"Does the fact that you have sinned against God scare you? It should. You have actually angered Him by your sin. The Bible says His wrath abaides on you, that you are an 'enemy of God in your mind through wicked works.'

-"Gospel" Tract "Are You Good Enough to go to Heaven?"

Again,

"To make clear what an incredible thing He has done for you in the Gospel, let's look again to civil law: You are standing in front of a judge, guilty of some very serious crimes. All the evidence has been presented and there is no doubt about your guilt. The fine for your crime is $250,000 or imprisonment, but you haven't two pennies to rub together. The judge is about to pass sentence...he lifts his gavel, when someone you don't even know steps in and pays the fine for you. The moment you accept that payment, you are free to go. Justice has been served, the law has been satisfied, and what's more, the stranger who paid your fine showed how much he cares for you. His payment was evidence of his love.
That's what God did for you, in the person of Jesus Christ. You are guilty, He paid the fine 2,000 years ago. It is that simple."

"Gospel" tract "Are You Good Enough to go to Heaven?"

How exactly did Jesus pay this fine? I'll let Living Waters Canada answer that.

"If you've admitted to breaking one commandment you are falling towards God's judgement and will end up in hell when you die. God doesn't want that to happen to you! He provided a way for you to be saved when Jesus Christ took the punishment for your sin upon Himself."

"Gospel" tract "CN Tower Collectible" Living Waters Canada.

Did Jesus Christ our Lord pay the price for our sins? Did He satisfy the the letter of the Law and take upon Himself our punishment? Was Christ punished for our sins, in our place? The Ray Comfort movement certainly thinks so. The way I see it though, there are two things wrong with these two propositions. The first proposition simply isn't true, and neither is the second. I'll attempt to deal with them one at a time. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to two authors whose work over the years has proved very helpful in the study of moral and philosophical issues and or pitfalls involved in researching the Atonement. One is the 19th centruy revivalist Charles Grandison Finney, the other is Frank J. Sheed.

Did Our Lord Jesus pay the fine? In other words, did He in His atonement actually satisfy the Divine retributive justuce? Did He pay exactly the penalty of the Law in order for us to be released form our debt? Remember the $250,000 payment mentioned above? The simple answer is no, He did not. HE DID NOT!!! Why?????? Because it would be naturally impossible. It would require that satisfaction be made to "retributive justice." It would require that Jesus pay exactly the requirement of the Law. Paying exactly what every sinner ultimately deserves and will recieve. This type of justice can never be satisfied, NEVER BE SATISFIED. Legally you could justly punish a sinner as long as he or she remained guilty. Unfortunately that is forever! Once we break the Law, we are forever guilty. There would never come a time when we would cease to be guilty and become innocent once again. Divine retributive justice will indeed be everlasting. Those who are ultimately lost will be lost forever and forever and forever. Everlasting separation from God and His Glory. So, in order to satisfy the letter of the Law and "pay the fine" as Ray Comfort would have us believe, Jesus Christ would have had to suffer eternal separation from God His Father multiplied bythe number of people who have ever lived, are living, and will live. That, quite obviously is impossible, and did not happen.

There are two difficulties associated with this "payment of the fine" idea of the Atonement. There are many difficulties of course but I wish to highlight only these two here.

1. It should be noted that Universalism, (the teaching that because Jesus has paid the price for the sins of humanity and satisfied the requirements of the Law, then all men will be saved) stakes it's claim right here. It, Universalism, insists that it would be unjust then to condemn sinners to hell.

2. Closely linked to the first and of course the natural outflow of it's thought, is how, if Jesus paid the penalty of the Law for sinners, could God then repunish them in the end if their price has already been paid? Why would God punish Christ, and then still on top of it punish sinners, if Jesus had paid the fine?

I should also mention here that in general the idea that Our Lord 'paid the fine' for us is usually married to the idea that He also obeyed the Law for us as a covenant of works with the Father. It goes something like this, since we cannot obey the Law, Jesus obeyed it for us. Then, he 'paid the fine' for our disobedience on the cross, and His righteousness is then imputed to us. (It goes without saying I take serious issue with this teaching). The problem again should be obvious. If He, Jesus, obeyed for us, why then should He also suffer for us? This arrangement represents God as requiring:

1. The obedience of our substitute.
2. His suffering and death as though no obedience had been rendered.
3. Our subsequent repentance.
4. Our return to personal obedience.

On top of that, it would ascribe the whole thing to grace! Strange grace this is. Does God require the fine to be paid several times over before it is forgiven?

As for the second point, the idea that Christ was punished by the Almighty Father, again I say no! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!! How could Our Lord have been punished in any way whatsoever? Punishment implies guilt. In the case of Jesus Christ however, the Hebrew Prophets, (Isaiah 53), the Apostles ( 1 Peter 2:22), Our Lord Himself, (St. John 8:46) and even the world, (St. Matthew 27:54) are unanimous that Christ is without sin. An innocent being cannot, CANNOT be punished. It is a natural impossibility. Now an innocent being could suffer unjustly, as in the case of someone wrongly found guilty of a crime. However, they are not properly being "punished." They are victims of injustice. If the Father "punished" Christ in the Atonement, then He commited an injustice. He, God willed a moral evil. This should cause us concern. If God is capable of such things with His own Son, what might He do to us? Is this really and truly the Gospel of the Blessed God!? Ray Comfort's "good news" is not good news at all. It is the bad news of the arbitrary, capricious, and even dangerous God.

So, if Our Lord didn't obey for us, and He didn't 'pay the fine' for us and was not punished by His Father, then what did He do? What He did, is far more glorious than any of the absurdities proposed above.

The Atonement of Christ Jesus was intended as a satisfaction not to retributive justice, but rather to public justice. The Law of God is not arbitrary. It does not origininate in His will as a "My way or the Highway" command. It is founded rather in His self-existence and unchanging nature. God cannot change His Law. To the letter of the Law there may be exceptions. The the spirit and heart of the Law, never! Therefore, God could not set aside the execution of the penalty of the Law against sinners, (which was what He desired), without something being done to satisfy the spirit and heart of the Law. Listen to the words of St. Paul,:

"...they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus." (St. Paul to the Romans 3:24-26 (RSV CE).

In this passage St. Paul defines the grand design of the Atonement to have been to justify God in pardon of sin. Or, in God remaining true to His character nonetheless in setting aside the execution of the Law against sinners. The Atonement is about God. It vindicates His character and reveals His heart. It reveals in our God His merciful disposition. It was because God desired to pardon and forgive sinners that He consented to give His only-begotten Son. His motive?, and this is key, is what we have been discussing all the way through these notes. JOHN 3:16-17!!! "For God SO LOVED the world..." It does not say, IT DOES NOT SAY that" God was so poised to judge the world and to pour out His wrath upon sinners that He gave His Only-Begotten Son to be punished instead." The Atonement is not about the law of the angry God! It proclaims in glory that God IS LOVE!!!, and that in His imeasurable LOVE HE GAVE HIS SON, NOT TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, NOT TO CONDEMN THE WORLD!!!!!, but rather to save it!

It is the suffering and death of Our Lord that constitutes His Atonement. God does not punish Him. He lays down His life freely. Nobody took it from Him, He gave it! Our Lord offers Himself to the Father through the Spirit in sacrifice for our sins in the place of the execution of the Law. ( see Isaiah 53). The substitution is not God punishing Christ instead of us, it is God the Father accepting the suffering and death of Christ as an offering for sins instead of, INSTEAD OF the punishment. The letter of the Law is not satisfied directly. The spirit and heart of the Law IS! It is the relationship of Christ our Lord to the universe as Creator and God that makes His voluntary suffering and death to be of infinite value. God could have written off humanity and consigned everyone, every last one of us to hell, and been completely justified in so doing. But then, where would His mercy be? He could have forgiven the sins of our race without an atonement through a sovereign act of the Divine. But then, where would His justice be? He did neither. He chose rather that sin committed in human nature should be expiated in human nature. In Christ, the Word of God made flesh, humanity, in Him, gave it's all back to God, holding nothing back. There was total obedience, total self-surrender and the sacrifice of the Last Adam over against the self-assertion and sin of the First Adam. Because He was truly human, His sacrifice was human, so it could be set against the sin of the human race. Because He is God, His sacrifice is of infinite value and so compensated and outweighed not only all of the sins committed by humanity collectively, but all possible sin as well. Again, He could not suffer and be punished as a guilty member of our race having never sinned, and therefore He also could not have endured remorse since He was not guilty of any crime. He did however take the weight of our sins, and experienced the anguish and sorrow for our sins which we, sadly,...for the most part....do not.

The sin of our race afforded God the opportunity for the exercise of His highest virtues. Forebearance, mercy, self-denial for enemies, suffering for them even though they were always in His hand and He could have destroyed them. Suffering for them, for us, when there was no conceivable way for us to pay Him back...

Up next, Part 4: Counting the Cost of True Evangelism.

[THO] Ray Makes me UnComfortable (2)

Second of Mike Samson's guest posts, should be some good points to discuss in this and the next one.

======

The 10 Commandments. Heb. " 'aseret hadevarim," literally the "Ten Words." (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4). "Decalogue," from the Latin for "Ten Words" is a more literal rendition of the original Hebrew than "Ten Commandments." What is their signifigance for us today? How should we understand them? How ought they to be interpreted and applied? Most important, can they be mishandled and abused?

The Decalogue shold never be removed from it's proper context. Historically, that context is the Exodus of the nation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt. This is the great liberating event of the 1st Covenant and the Hebrew Bible. The Decalogue is handed down to us in the 20th chapter of Exodus and the 5th chapter of Deuteronomy. In both cases they open with the words,

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Exodus 20:1 ( RSV CE)

The Decalogue points out the conditions of an existence free from sin, and a path to life. (Deuteronomy 30:16). One of the keys to understanding the signifigance of the Ten Words is the manner and time in which this gift was given.

In terms of timing, the revelation of the Law takes place between the proposal of the Covenant by God in Exodus 19:1 - 9, and it's conclusion when the people commited themselves "to do" all that the LORD had said, and to "obey" Him. (Exodus 24:7). The Decalogue takes on it's full meaning then within the context of the Covenant. As always is the way in sacred Scripture and in the economy of salvation, it is God who has initiated this Covenant relationship with His people. His love and mercy are clearly revealed here. The Commandments are secondary to this. The Ten Words spell out the implications of belonging to the People of God and the community of faith through the Covenant. Living out the Commandments then is our response to God and His love. This is key!!! They are a response to an already existing relationship. They are not, THEY ARE NOT!!!, a measuring rod to gage the worthyness of people to enter into the Covenant.

Secondly, the Decalogue is revealed by God through a "Theophany," an appearance of God. (Exodus 19:16 - 20:21). It must have been an absolutely unimaginable sight and experience. In revealing Himself in this way to Israel, and revealing the Law in such a fashion and under such circumstances, it should become clear that the Ten Commandments belong to the revelation of God Himself and His Glory. They are the gift of God, the gift of Himself and His Holy Will revealed plainly to His people. So much so in fact that it is God Himself who writes the Commandments on two stone tablets and gives them to Moses. (Deuteronomy 5:22). Understood in this way, we can say with confidence that our morality, lived out in obedience to the Decalogue is a response to the loving initiative of God and a response to an established relationship with Him. They are not, NOT a means of establishing a relationship with Him.

From all this is is obvious that the Ten Commandments can never be abolished. Indeed Our Lord said specifically that He had not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but rahter to fulfill them. ( St. Matthew 5:17). As Christians, we are invited to rediscover the Law in the Person of Jesus Christ who is it's perfect fulfillment. It is in the New Covenant that the full meaning of the Law is made known. (See St. Matthew 5 - 7). When asked which Commandment in the Law was the greatest, ( St. Matthew 22:34-36), ASTONISHINGLY, Our Lord does not, DOES NOT quote the Ten Commandments. Equally ASTONISHING though is that He does quote the Law! ( St. Matthew 22:37 - 40). Our Lord cites Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leveticus 19:18 respectively. This is a fatal blow to the Ray Comfort "Way of the Master" approach with all their emphasis on the Decalogue. Our Lord tells us that on these two Commands, to love God, and to love our neighbor depend all the Law and the Prophets. These two Commands are actually one in essance though two in form. They are identical in spirit although two in letter. If we love God, we will love our neighbor made in His image and likeness. It is impossible, IMPOSIBLE for it to be otherwise. ( 1 John 4:7 - 21) Love of God and love of neighbor are one in the same. The Will of God is manifested therefore to Christians above all in the Commandment to love. We are to love as God loves. Hear the words of St. Paul to the Romans,

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (St. Paul to the Romans 13:8 - 10 (RSV CE).

Our Lord stated clearly that if we love Him, we would obey His commandments, ( St. John 14:15), and that we ought to love one another as He loved us. (St. John 15:12). St. John was consummed with the teaching of his Divine Master as is evidenced in the passage cited earlier. ( 1 John 4:7 - 21). Our Lord and His apostles summon us to love, to Love God and our neighbor in response, IN RESPONSE to the God who first loved us ( 1 John 4:10, 4:19) Again in the New Covenant, as with the first, our obedience to God and His commandments is the response of children to the initiative of our God who is love. The law is not abolioshed, but the Holy Spirit makes it interior. Our obedience is one of love freely chosen, IN RESPONSE to His love freely given.

Now compare this to some of the street "evangelism" methods being employed today. I am refering in case and point to Ray Comfort and the "Way of the Master" approach. The Ten Commandments are wrenched right out of their Judeo-Christian context and used to measure the morality of perfect strangers on street corners through something called the "good person test" discussed in part 1. If the Decalogue belongs to the Covenant of God and His people, what sense is there in showing people whom you assume, whom you ASSUME... are Godless that they have in fact failed to live up to their relationship with God? Paintbrushing people on street corners with the Law like this accomplishes little or nothing. Using the Ten Commandments in this way is disgraceful. It is an abuse of Holy Scripture and an abuse of people. (More on this in part 4). It is the cart before the horse in the worst way. It is shameful...and ridiculous...

Up next, Part 3: Was Christ Punished? If He was, that is bad news for you and I...

To Be Continued...

[THO] Ray makes me UnComfortable

What follows is the first of a four part guest post on the evangelism strategies of Ray Comfort. These posts are by my friend Mike Samson, someone who lived in the evangelical world before finding his home in Rome. I know this came at a great cost to Mike and I really thought this story was worth sharing. He gave me permission to repost, I haven't seen the rest of the series yet, but I thought that it would get better visibility here than as a series of Facebook notes. Hope you enjoy the series and I do hope Mike will take the time to see our comments.

====
Part I: Ray makes me UnComfortable


It was a bright and sunny August day in 2005. Myself, along with a whole group of "street preachers" were heading out to down town Ottawa for a day of "seed sowing" as we liked to call it. I'm sure as she began her day it would have never even entered into her mind what we were going to do to her. We started by passing out tracts and even using a microphone and amplifier to preach our peculier version of the Gospel. We liked to set up near patio restaurants because we figured people couldn't just up and leave. Whenever the owners of these establishments would "shoo" us away or call the police, we were sure it had nothing to do with our uninvited intrusion. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were simply trying to run a business and cater to their clientel. No, NO!!! It was persecution for righteousness sake aimed directly at us. We were the victims here. The devil himself was moving in and through these people to quiet our preaching. Yeah, OH YEAH!!! That was it for sure.

Late in the morning we launched our first campaign. Through a series of trivia questions with 1$ rewards for correct answers, we lured in our unsuspecting targets. Once we had a crowd, with a 20$ bill as reward, we got a volunteer to undergo the "Good Person Test." I never will forget that young lady standing there in front of everyone. Cornered...Thinking she was participating in some kind of street drama or something like that. Her face quickly changed though. It wasn't long before she began to sense that all was not on the level so to speak. She began to get very uncomfortable. It didn't stop us though. Through a despicable and deluded use of God's Holy Word and the Ten Commandments we proceeded to humiliate this young woman in front of a crowd of people in broad daylight on Sparks Street. "Have you ever lied?", "Have you ever lusted?", "Have you ever stolen?", and on and on it went. When we finally got to the part about grace, (strange grace this is indeed) it turned out that she didn't want the 20$. You see, even though you fail Ray Comfort's Good Person Test you still get the reward promised should you pass. This shows how Good God really is!! Looking back, the tears rolling down her face said it all. Her friends there with her were urging her to just "come on, let's get out of here." But in order for us to finish our little drama we needed her to take the money. Looking back, I'm glad I can say with honesty that I never administered a "Good Person Test" to anyone. I was never comfortable with the whole thing. Little did I know though that our encounter with this young woman wasn't over, at least not for me.

Later in the day, late afternoon to be exact, I saw her walking downtown. I felt terribly about what had happened that morning and wanted to let her know how sorry I was for the way we had treated her. As I approached her though, she spotted me. She stuck her arm out at me showing me her palm as if to say "stop right there." I did of course. What she said next I was not prepared for. She said,

"You stay the f#*k away from me! You people are sick in the head!"

WOW... There wasn't anything I could say. So ......I walked away. Later I recounted this turn of events to some of the team members in the group. To my surprise they seemed rather pleased!? "The Good Person Test had done it's work," I was told. "This was obviously the conviction of the Holy Spirit at work in her life." "She is on her way to 'gettin' saved'!!!" It suffices to say I wasn't convinced of that. In fact I thought we had accomplished little except to convince her that religious fanaticism was alive and well. Fanaticism of the undesirable kind. Does it make any sense to believe that she is out there now 'saved' and administering good person tests of her own to all her family and friends?

I have thought alot about that day. I have thought alot about that poor woman we abused so freely. We were so self righteousness in and through it all as well. To think that by intruding into people's lives and insulting them to no end we were doing something good for God. We were fulfilling the "Great Commission." Or were we?

This note will appear in 4 parts. Part 2 will be a brief examination of the 10 Commandments, their true application and how Ray Comfort abuses them. Part 3 will ask the question whether it is possible that Christ was punished by God His Father on the Cross, Ray Comfort's mistaken idea of the Gospel. Part 4 will be an invitation to engage in real evangelism, and all that it entails.

I won't apologize for this note. My prayer is that it will challenge the hearts and minds of those who engage in these types of practices.

As always, your comments are welcomed, whether sympathetic or critical. I will not delete any of them. :-)

To Be Continued...

[THO] Ash Wednesday Celebration

Our community celebrated Ash Wednesday this evening, it was a delightful service. I normally speak on the gospel readings, but tonight I spoke on the reading from 2 Corinthians 5:20-6:2. Here Paul calls us to question out of what core our ministry flows. I identified a different question for each of these four verses.

First, that any ministry we do must come authentically from our own being ministered to. That is evident even at the start of this epistle with Paul's discourse on comfort. He urges us to be reconciled to God because to minister from any other place is sadly lacking in authenticity.

Second, that our ministry is compelled by our recognition of the sheer greatness of God's love for us. The kenotic act of Christ becoming sin for us has only one reasonable response - total self-sacrifical worship. As Paul explains earlier in this same chapter, it is Christ's love that compels us to the ministry of reconciliation.

Third, that our ministry is a grace and not a legalism. This colours our ministry in the world, we are not coming in trying to impose a new legalism or process of salvation. No we are proclaimming the same grace we have received. To do anything else kills the grace aspect of it. We spoke about evangelism as our example. I didn't mention it to the group, but in my own reflection I was struck by just how different Jesus ministry looked to what passes for evangelism today. This is passionate and deliberate, but it is not goal oriented rather it is people oriented.

Fourth, that our ministry is grounded in a conviction that salvation is the imminant reality. God wants to step into history, and has. God is not willing that any should perish is not about lining up convert on benches, it is about God's desire to be real and present to all people everywhere. When we minister out of a lesser vision and a lesser conviction we not only rob the gospel of its power, we preach a whole other gospel than the one Paul is talking about here.

When I was reading through the epistle in preparation for this message I was struck by how passionate Paul's writing is. My excitement was renewed, and I was quite happy to share that with my congregation.