Two questions vs. ten cannons vs. what... (part 2 of 2)
Several months ago, in part 1 of this post, I wrote about the difficulty of calling men to follow Christ in an age which has reduced discipleship to constant repetition of the mantra, "I believe in Jesus." Though Scripture warns, "Without holiness, no man shall see God," modern evangelism leaves out the call to holiness or obedience.
In part 1 I mentioned the problems of using Evangelism Explosion's famous "Two Questions," to call men and women to Christ. Modern evangelism stresses belief and ignores obedience, leaving us without response when those we're seeking to evangelize claim to know Jesus as Saviour, yet show no fruit of the faith they claim.
In part 2 my intention was to introduce a system I grew acquainted with years ago when it went under the name, "The Ten Cannons of the Law."
Taught by Ray Comfort, a man I respect, the Ten Cannons approach seeks to rehabilitate the Law of God as a primary tool in evangelism. I believe Ray Comfort's "Ten Cannons of the Law" now goes by the name "The Way of the Master."
The problem with the Ten Cannons/Way of the Master approach is that though it begins with the Law and thus is far superior to the average Evangelical call to salvation, it doesn't end differently.
My nephew Joseph Bayly, pastor of ClearNote Church Indianapolis posted a comment earlier today about "The Way of the Master" that says everything I was going to say about the "Ten Cannons" and more. And so I happily place it here as the long-delayed conclusion to my initial post.
(DB)
_______________________________
First things first. The "Way of the Master" material is good in many, many ways. Most significantly, it correctly identifies the need to proclaim the law of God before offering people grace and salvation. Grace is graceless, and salvation is meaningless unless we see our guilt before the Holy God. And the 10 Commandments is ground zero for declaring God's law. This is something that has been lacking in many evangelistic "techniques" for some time. The 180 movie is also an excellent resource for ideas of how to interact with people and show them the horror of abortion. It gets at many truths, makes people think about difficult questions, and I'm quite thankful that it is available. I could spend more time talking about the good things, but these clearly demonstrate that I am serious when I say it is good in many ways.
Now we come to the hard part. There are also a couple of big things about this movie that are problematic. First, let me outline the Way of the Master technique, as seen in this video.
1. Ask people about particular commandments, and whether they have broken them.
2. They of course admit they have.
3. Ask them what somebody is called who has broken that commandment.
4. They of course, come out with the proper labels of, thief, liar, and maybe fornicator.
5. Help them with a few more labels, like murderer-at-heart, adulterer-at-heart and blasphemer.
6. Now tell them that they have admitted to being a lying, stealing, blasphemous, murderer at heart, and that they are going to face God at judgment day.
7. Ask them whether they are concerned about the fact that if they died today, and God gave them justice, they would end up in Hell.
8. They of course, say, "Yes."
9. Tell them to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and they shall be saved.
10. Ask them if it makes sense, and/or if they've changed their mind, and/or if they have a Bible at home and will read it, and/or if they will think about what you've said.
11. They say, "Yes."
12. Leave.
Of course, there are variations possible, but that's the way it goes if you are good at this technique. Why? Because the whole thing is setup to be a highway without exits. There are no choices in this. Once you've started, each step follows inevitably from the previous one. There is no avoiding answering the questions that are asked with the expected answer. If somebody dares to, you just go back and show them how logically it is unavoidable. To quote one young girl excited by this material, "It actually works!" But here is the first hint of a problem. We like the fact that this is all so predictable and inescapable, but "The man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
It is abundantly clear that many (not all, but many) of the people in this film who answer "yes" at the end, do not agree *at all* with the position they've been forced to. I'm not opposed to forcing people with logic, to see the conclusions that they must accept. But to claim that these people have done a 180 is either disingenuous or culpably naive. They haven't changed. They are lying through their teeth, because they see it is pointless to argue, and they want the conversation over. So they have become compliant to get it over with, so they can get on with their life of fornication, adultery, and murdering-at-heart. Very few of them show any indication that they are genuinely convicted of their sin.
Granted, we cannot force people to be convicted. Only the Holy Spirit can bring people to true conviction and repentance. But it is always tempting to claim "decisions for Christ" by people God is not working in, and this movie is a sad example of that.
However, there is one problem that is even more troubling. What of those people who are truly convicted of their sin and are being sincere in their responses? They are sent home alone to read their Bible. To put it bluntly, this is not fulfilling the Great Commission, even if you simplify the Great Commission to just "making disciples". This is not making disciples, because the definition of a disciple is "one who is being taught." They aren't being taught. But Jesus doesn't even stop with "make disciples". He goes on in the Great Commission and puts meat on the bones. He explains that it must include: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you". Baptism is entry into the local church. To send people away without letting them know that they need to join themselves to Christ's body, is to send them off with a death-sentence.
Evangelism always has to be done in the context of the local church. To evangelize people to a faith that they can live on their own without fellowship, discipline, exhortation, and all the rest of the things that the bride of Christ provides, is to evangelize them to a different faith.
In summary, we can and should use this material, but we must be careful. In particular we ought to point out as we use it and teach it, that the end of our conversations with people should not look like the movie. We must do two things differently:
1. Fight the temptation to pretend as though people are actually being changed who clearly aren't. How?
2. By calling them to a faith that bears fruit in keeping with repentance, and this starts by joining the local church. If God is truly at work, the evidence will be manifest. It won't be "Yes, I'll promise to go home and read my Bible if you'll leave me alone." It will be "Brothers, what must we do to be saved? or Teach us more about these things!" And if they refuse to become a part of Christ's church, don't leave them with a promise that God is merciful. Leave them with a promise that they will one day face the Living God, who is justly displeased with their sin, and they will pay the penalty that their sin deserves--eternal punishment and torment in Hell.
I hope that this is helpful to you. I don't want you to be discouraged by this, but rather to grow in discernment of what the good, bad, and ugly are in each of the many Christian resources available today. Please feel free to respond with arguments or questions about what I've said.




Comments
This is very helpful. Thank you. I had a similar sense after watching this video that the people were answering "yes" to the question as to if they had a change of heart without sincerity. Your exhortations here helps to clarify how we should handle these situations.
Some thoughts:
* there's little or no sense of a prospective convert being told to "count the cost!" (Luke 14:25ff). Given that this what Jesus /Himself/ told the people who were at least hanging round him, it is something that we must also make clear.
* Ray cites Charles Finney as a strong influence, and Finney's great miscontribution to evangelism was the invention of the altar call. This might mean that Ray goes out there expecting to see an on-the-spot response to the message. In contrast, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, when he would preach the Law, would not expect a response on the spot; he gave God's Spirit time to work, and then would see who was waiting for him in the office the next morning.
Very gently and wisely put. Good points all around. I am, with respect to my own failures in evangelism, mindful of that wise saying, "I'm more impressed with his way of doing it than your way of not doing it.
#3
/I am, with respect to my own failures in evangelism, mindful of that wise saying, "I'm more impressed with his way of doing it than your way of not doing it"./
Ditto!
>> Please feel free to respond with arguments or questions about what I've said.
Something I'm confused about is when discussion is in order and when it isn't. Sometimes (as here) we invite discussion, but other times (as with "Mr. Standfast", http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/10/rev-coffins-views-on-church-and-state.html ) we refuse it. Is it that we discuss with those who desire to learn but not with those who just want controversy?
(I hope it's obvious that I'm not accusing of inconsistency, as if no matter what our kids do we should either always spank them or always give them candy, "for consistency". I'm just trying to learn when we spank and when we give candy. :)
Dear Daniel,
Joseph originally wrote this to a couple we know well who, before moving away, were members of the church I served. This post started as a private e-mail to them following up on a previous e-mail exchange--hence the invitation to further dialog.
When privately requested to do so, Mr. Standfast stood fast in refusing to identify himself to our readers. We don't waste time on men or women like that. There were other contributing factors but I'll leave it at that.
This blog requires and brings in quite a bit of private e-mail and many of the posts have a subtext most readers can't know.
Love,
>> many of the posts have a subtext
Most of the New Testament is the same way, right? A series of open letters set in a pastoral context which we don't know all the details of, rather than contextless essays written in a vacuum.
It's messy and awkward sometimes to speak the word that is most needed at the moment (which cannot be completely severed from its context), isn't it? This affects how I think about my own writing.
Yes. Something about a speck and a plank... Please pray that I will be more faithful in the work.
Related: this recent article, from a Fundamentalist source admittedly, summarises a lot of what is wrong with modern approaches:
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/7a36085de74c597d070255a5d224a8a0-914.html
I have had reservations about this method of evangelism for quite some time. I have a a couple of friends who actually teach the WoM method all across the country in evangelism workshops, and they go out regularly to use it. They travel to Super Bowls and NASCAR races and spend hours preaching the Law and going through the WoM scripts. I respect the fact that they give up many weekends and evenings to go preach on street corners and have those one-to-one conversations, and I have gone out with them a few times and participated myself. What I am about to say is not meant to reflect negatively on anyone else, but is something that I have had to consider and I think it should be considered.
One thing that bothers me about the WoM approach--and I have shared this with my friends who use it all the time--is that in a sense it makes me feel like an "evangelical prostitute". I am not committing to anyone that I engage with. I can go out there and present the gospel and maybe have 4 or 5 conversations that last anywhere from 10 or 15 minutes to well over an hour, but I do not really make a commitment or experience the 'messiness' of a real relationship with them. I can go home feeling satisfied that I've done my duty, that I've shared my valuable treasure with these complete strangers... and by that I mean people who were not just strangers to me, but strangers to Jesus. But in the end, it is sort of like having a one-night stand. It may make me feel good, but there is really no cost to myself.
In contrast to that, there are probably four or five people in my life that I have really invested in. I didn't have the scripted conversation WoM style with them about the law and their sin and their need to repent. But over the course of weeks to years, we had repeated conversations. I prayed for them, had meals with them, and in a couple of instances opened my home to allow someone to live with my family during a hard season and battles with addiction.
Now, just to be clear--I am not tooting my own horn here because I will be the first one to admit that I am a lousy "evangelist". But with the limited experiences that I have to draw from, and my own reflection upon them, the conclusion that I have drawn it seems to me that too many get caught up using the WoM 'technique' in an effort to 'convert' people. Rarely if ever do they follow up with them to actually 'disciple' them. Jesus did not commission his 'converts', but his 'disciples'... and he did not commission them to go and make 'converts', but to make 'disciples'. I believe people that the people we share the gospel with need to hear that there is a *cost* that must be condisdered when it comes to *following* Jesus (Kyle Idleman's 'Not a Fan' is a great resource for this, by the way). In the same way, though, I think there is also a *cost* in real disciple-making evangelism that *we* ought to consider when we follow the command of our Lord to go and share His gospel. I think we may actually cheapen the gospel when we don't.
For a much better and more tangible contrast to these two different approaches to sharing the gospel, I would like to suggest another Abortion-focused documentary to compare with Ray Comfort's 180. It is called "Unplanned" (Abby Johnson's story). She was a director at a Planned Parenthood clinic who actually experienced a true change of heart as the result of some truly *gracious* Christians who made the commitment to invest. Here is a link to the DVD on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Unplanned-Abby-Johnson/dp/B004MEBHJI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1321376594&sr=8-2
Blessings ~
SM
#11
Thanx, that expresses well what I have thought for a while.
Dear Simple Mann
Although I agree with most everything you said, I've got to say that I found the Unplanned DVD even more frustrating than 180.
It *is* beautiful to hear the story of how God rescued Abby from the domain and deeds of darkness, bringing her to repentance. However, ultimately I found the DVD disappointing for two reasons. The first is that the whole thing talked about how "different" Abby was from other Planned Parenthood directors and staff. It made her into a victim of the "really" bad people who *actually* want to kill babies. She was always nice. She always actually cared about women. On and on. But in the end, I was left wondering why anybody is encouraged or given hope by watching the DVD. After all, Abby didn't change. She just finally saw that she was misled. But if Abby wasn't wicked and she barely got out, what chance is there for all the people working there who, misled or not, are actually wicked?
The second problem that I had with the DVD is closely related to the first point. Actually, it is the underlying problem. The whole DVD condemns the act of calling people to repentance. We aren't allowed to call abortion evil, just sad. We aren't allowed to show the truth of what is going on inside the slaughterhouse. We aren't allowed to talk about God's judgment on sin. All of that is just negativity, and it's counterproductive, we're told. Those who do those things are portrayed as the only real "bad guys". We're only allowed to pray quietly, and give (positive and encouraging) flyers and flowers.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with doing those things, but let's be honest. Nobody would condone the suggestion that slavery should have been handled in the same way--praying quietly and being nice and never calling to repentance those who were involved. Nobody would be foolish enough to suggest that the holocaust could have been stopped without calling it what it was--a great wickedness. I told my wife at the end, that it was as though nobody considered the possibility that those who were calling out for repentance had something to do with Abby leaving as well.
In short, the DVD completely did away with sin. But our work must not be this way, and I want to exhort each of us to not fall into that temptation. Especially if we are involved in trying to get more churches involved in something like "40 Days for Life", I see how tempting this sort of message is. It makes it an acceptable movement for *any* church to get behind, since we can all agree to be nice. However, it makes it acceptable to everybody at the cost of removing the central truth in the gospel message--the need for repentance. Remember Jonah. He proclaimed the judgment of God, and it was the most loving thing he could do. The people began to fear God and they repented.
Sincerely,
Add new comment