Trish Reels in a Big One
You may be familiar with the television and radio ministry of evangelist Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (aka “Mike Sever” from Growing Pains) called Way of the Master [warning: here there be loud audio , busy flash and dubious theology.] I usually refer to it as “Way of the Ambush” because it’s built around walking up to unsuspecting folks on the street and letting them know how sinful they are and, if they haven’t followed the “Roman’s Road”/Sinner’s Prayer version of conversion, that they are on their way to Hell.
Because there are a lot of Catholics (practicing and non) on this planet, they are often targets for this treatment…all the better if they are poorly catechized or lapsed.
One feature they have on their radio show is “Fish with Trish” where a lady named Trish Ramos goes around with a cellphone finding non-Christians or people who “think they’re good” who will agree to talk on the air with Ray, Kirk and/or radio host Todd Friel to find out how wrong and lost they are.
This time, I think Trish reeled in a fish that wouldn’t fit in their live-well: Fr. Jim McGhee.
Fr. Jim McGhee is a convert to the Catholic faith AND a Catholic priest at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Forth Worth, Texas. He was raised as a Methodist and was a Methodist minister for about seven years before becaming Episcopalian and serving as a priest in that communion for about 20 years. He entered full-communion with the Catholic Church in 1992. He’s also married (which amazed Trish and caused her to wonder out loud if it was “some sort of liberal thing.”)
Well, Fr. Jim can quote scripture as well as they can and he knows their language. He presents the Catholic faith in way that I think they could understand, even if it wasn’t in a way that they liked. Here’s an excerpt:
Comfort: But, if I’m a Roman Catholic, I’ve been sprinkled as a baby, I’m adult and I’m Catholic by name but I haven’t repented and my faith is not in Jesus am I going to heaven?
McGhee: No.
Comfort: So I’m going to Hell?
McGhee: Because you have to cooperate with the grace of God in knowing the faith, living in hope according to your will and learning how to love the good by presence of the Holy Spirit. There has to be a sanctification, a growing up in the Faith.
Download an mp3 of the Program here
(Fr. Jim’s segment starts at 37 mins and 56 seconds into the mp3*)
Anyway, I think Fr. Jim did a great job of presenting the Catholic faith and traditional, sacramental Christianity in a winsome way to a hostile audience that espouses a more novel version of the Christian faith. He really contrasts the nuances of the Apostolic Faith with the “fits on business card” presentation that seems to be par for the course at Way of the Master.
Trish also posted photos and her account of the encounter on her blog as well this video:
*Note: There are some other Catholic-related jewels earlier in the episode: a recording from a 60 Minutes interview with a Catholic former-hitman talking about confession and an incredibly shallow and ham-fisted review of the statement by Avery Cardinal Dulles about the universal scope of the plan of salvation that gets brought up in Fr. Jim’s segement. That’s why Todd Friel says “it’s not beat up on Catholics hour.” There’s also a clip from a sermon by Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper about making sure Christ is first in your life that I thought was well stated.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
April 7, 2008 at 9:42 am
Reminds me of conversations I’ve had with aggressive salesmen. I can just see Comfort scribbling figures and diagrams upside down on a yellow notepad.
April 7, 2008 at 9:55 am
Chad:
“Look, what’s it gonna take for me to get you in this Heaven today?”
To me, the most frustrating thing about Way of the Master ISN’T their use of Scripture as a mirror to show that we’re sinners, it’s the way the run roughshod over 1800 years of Christian faith and practice and damn folks to Hell if they don’t conform to their very new, very small, very truncated version of Christianity.
The whole thing just has this “Well, folks, you WON’T believe what these dums-dums are saying now” vibe to it that turns me off. I don’t like that kinda of things when Catholics do it, either.
April 7, 2008 at 10:48 am
That church is a whopping 5 miles from my house. I’ll have to make a point of shaking Fr.’s hand when I see him next.
April 7, 2008 at 11:11 am
I had never even heard of this show. It is fascinating, but also kind of scary!
I watched some of their videos, and I find them interesting, mainly because their materials give us a glimpse into the minds of the producers, and the thoughts of non-Christians. However, I don’t know if interviewing people at random, telling them they are sinful using the Bible, and then telling them Christ died for their sins is too effective. First, they assume people actually hold the Bible as an authority, when many people do not. Second, speaking of a person dying for our sins, while true, might be mystifying outside of a proper context (I think if I were a non-Christian, I would ask, “why does someone have to die for our sins??”). I can’t imagine this technique is too effective, but it is entertaining.
They also seem kind of amateurish. For example, accusing Avery Cardinal Dulles of universalism, and suggesting Fr. Jim is married because of a “liberal thing.” To me, these guys seem sincere enough, but they really haven’t done any homework about what Catholic believe and who we are.
By the way, Fr. Jim went to the same grad school I did, Emory University, so that was cool.
April 7, 2008 at 11:28 am
Joseph:
If you do meet him, shake his hand for me, too, and tell him he made the home-team proud!
***
David:
There must be something in the water at Emory. He went the Methodist/Episcopal/Catholic route, too.
Another thing that frustrates me about Way of the Master (besides the things I’ve mentioned above and,as you pointed out, their ignorance about the views they so vehemently oppose) is their goal to turn EVERY Evangelical into an “in-your-face” street evangelist. They ship out training materials to churches and give pointers on their shows about how you can and should apply this method to win souls.
First of all, even if there is a legitimate case to be made for street evangelism, not everyone is called to or equipped to do that. Second, I’m not convinced that their techniques are sound even for people who are so called and equipped, for the very reasons you pointed out. The net effect could well be an army of well meaning street-preachers further alienating folks from Christ and the Gospel.
April 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The more I listen to this interview, the more I am convinced that the British guy is pretty arrogant, even though it is disguised somewhat by his seemingly innocent-sounding questions. He is obviously interviewing Fr. Jim on the pretext of being open and simply curioys, but in reality, he is really there to grill Fr. Jim, and to show that Catholicism is certainly not “biblical” (based, of course, on the British guy’s very modern understanding of biblical interpretation). This show is troubling on multiple levels (especially in its surface handling of Catholic theology) and, slick production aside, is pretty much the type of stuff you find on some Paltalk rooms. Tactics like these that give Christians a bad name. Nonetheless, I think Fr. Jim came across as a charitable, reasonable, Christian in the midst of the obvious grilling by the hosts.
April 7, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I became angry when they ridiculed the “baptism in blood” bit. They put the words, “Baptism in blood??” on the screen as if to say, “what kind of wacko idea is that?”
It’s the wacko idea that sent thousands of martyrs through flame and torture into heaven and I get a little riled at weak, comfortable upper-middle class Americans smirking at the idea.
There, now I’m going to go be angry somewhere else.
April 7, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Rob: That’s one of the great tragedies here: the poverty of most of Evangelicalism when it comes to experiencing the heritage left for them by the fathers and martyrs who have gone on before us. To trample underfoot the blood of the martyrs, who gave their lives for Jesus Christ so we could have the Faith, while running after the some “-ism” that will fade time is a great poverty and tragedy indeed.
April 7, 2008 at 7:37 pm
…also kind of scary!
The responses here are pretty predictable, but I think you’d be well served not to act like WOTM is frightening. Come on. Disagree, talk bad about them, fine. Say they’re scary? Let’s not act like ACLU members here, can we?
April 7, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Rhology:
Funny seeing you here. Thanks for dropping in!
Although it was David that made the “kinda scary” comment, I’m pretty confident I understand what he’s referring to and it’s not WOTM itself. That statement fits into the context of many conversations we’ve had and the over-all philosophy of our site.
I think what David finds scary is the organization itself but the negative impact on both how Christians present their faith and on how non-Christians receive it.
I don’t expect we’d align closely in our philosophies in this area, Rhology, but I just wanted to try to add some context to the statement.
David, you’re certainly free to post that I have no clue what I’m talking about and it’s really Ray Comfort’s mustache that keeps you up nights!
April 7, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Rhology,
Like Jason said, I think their techniques are scary, although by scary, I mean odd and unhelpful. Maybe I am off here, but as I listened to it, I couldn’t help but think the show reminded me of a tamed-down version of shock jock shows. If Catholics acted the same way, grilling non-Catholics on the street, or grilling a Protestant minister under the pretext of open discussion, I would definitely say that was scary too.
April 7, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Yeah, they seemed to have done the typical “This is what he said, now let’s quote scripture was out of context.” And with that, those scripture quotes were put on the screen *after* he was interviewed, so he had no chance to really debate the quote or explain his reasoning which the quote was meant to counter. And I believe he said “Baptism by blood” and not baptism IN blood like they put it. Yeah, being baptised in a pool of blood does sound gross, but that’s not what he meant. The tactics of people like this really upset me.
April 7, 2008 at 9:51 pm
The post on Trish’s blog had some interesting discussion on it–it seemed like there was one Catholic defending the faith against a mob of other people. They were doing a very good job of defending the faith, too.
April 8, 2008 at 9:21 am
Howdy all,
I’m ’bout to listen to the clip itself, haven’t yet, so…
OK, so their methods are unhelpful. You’re not alone thinking that. I think, actually, their methods are quite useful most of the time. If you listen to them, they never lose their temper, never climb all over anyone’s case, never get mad, never raise their voices. And lots, lots of people hear the Gospel of Jesus. As we (should) know, the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). And they get it in there!
You guys seem to have trouble accepting that the WOTM approach might leave people feeling guilty or something. Why is that bad?
Here’s their response to these kinds of charges, BTW. Worth a watch.
Peace,
Rhology
April 8, 2008 at 9:47 am
Rhology:
I’m not sure where you got the idea that we would have a problem with people “feeliing guilty.” We’re Catholic…WE INVENTED GUILT! Well, ok, the Jews might claim to have invented guilt, but I think we’ve perfected it!
Seriously, though, that is not the issue, at least for me. This issues for me are ignorance and that I’m not convinced that most people would “get the Gospel” through that sort of encounter.
I don’t think the WOTM folks know much about the fullness of the Christian faith. They ridicule theological nuance. They dismiss out of hand things that Christians have believed for 2000 years because it doesn’t fit their new-fangled reading of scripture. They tell folks who may very well be in a state of grace that they are going to Hell because they don’t subscribe to the minimalistic WOTM view of soteriology.
I think that your average guy or gal on the street who had one of those encounters would be much more likely to come away with the stereotype of pushy, self-righteous Christians confirmed than the Gospel. The WOTM technique is evangelical bullying, IMHO.
April 8, 2008 at 10:19 am
Jason,
You said much better than I could. As we talk about on Paltalk a lot, *how* we present our message is just as important as our message. In a perfectly logical world, this wouldn’t be the case, but we don’t live in a perfectly logical world. As Mark Felix the early Christian said, “We don’t speak great things, we live them.” Many secular types already have a negative view of Christians, and if we confirm this, we are basically closing the door before even getting in.
Of course the hosts don’t get angry, because they set it up so they run the conversation; it is the expectation that those being interviewed get angry and/or flustered. When Fr. Jim went to explain the nuance of Catholic Teaching, the hosts just threw out Bible verses, and moved onto the next question. Trish implied that Fr. Jim was flustered because the hosts brought up justification, but I think he was flustered because when he wouldn’t respond in the way they liked, the hosts wouldn’t let him finish an answer! Of course, I am convinced that was the point of the interview, because it is more entertaining to grill someone and throw out a few random Scriptures than actually discuss something with him.
April 8, 2008 at 11:16 am
Hey Jason,
Just finished listening to the clip. If throwing together lots of out-of-context prooftexts is the way to go, then Fr McGhee hit a homerun. Sorry, I just wasn’t impressed at all. Oh well, anyway.
we would have a problem with people “feeliing guilty.”
It’s from the other commenters on this thread. They’re dripping with this implication, but maybe I’m wrong. That’s why I asked and didn’t assert anythg.
So are you saying that’s NOT your thinking? What IS the problem, then? Not with their tone, surely? What would be an example of mean tone on their part?
This issues for me are ignorance and that I’m not convinced that most people would “get the Gospel” through that sort of encounter.
What do you mean by “get” the Gospel?
They’re TELLING them the Gospel and try to explain it so they can understand, and asking for affirmation of understanding along the way.
How would it be WOTM’s fault if the ‘target’ doesn’t “get” it?
Unless you think WOTM doesn’t have the Gospel at all, and that’s not very Vatican 2 of you, but… I don’t know much about you, ’tis true.
I don’t think the WOTM folks know much about the fullness of the Christian faith.
Fine and good, but what about the Gospel? They’re not evangelising people to teach them the subtleties of the substitutionary atonement, you know?
They tell folks who may very well be in a state of grace that they are going to Hell because they don’t subscribe to the minimalistic WOTM view of soteriology.
See, this is another comment that makes me think you have a problem with their ‘targets’ possibly being made to feel guilty.
If that’s not the deal, what is the problem exactly?
to come away with the stereotype of pushy, self-righteous Christians confirmed than the Gospel.
Did you watch the video I linked to? I’d encourage you to - it overturns this objection.
DB said:
it is the expectation that those being interviewed get angry and/or flustered
It’s not that they repent before God for their sin?
Do you really think they meet a lot of faithful Roman Catholics on the street?
the hosts just threw out Bible verses, and moved onto the next question.
That was on both sides. Anyone can listen and hear that.
actually discuss something with him.
Fr McGhee, for one thing, hardly gave the hosts much room to say anythg. I thought he did a “good” (by which I mean skillful) job of barreling ahead unheeding of the hosts’ desire to cut in. He controlled the convo pretty well.
The show is for evangelising people, not longwinded theological debate. I guess I’d just encourage you to keep your eye on the context of the situation.
Peace,
Rhology
April 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
“Just finished listening to the clip. If throwing together lots of out-of-context prooftexts is the way to go, then Fr McGhee hit a homerun.”
I guess it cuts both ways - I feel the same about WOTM.
I guess the question is, when it comes to prooftexting - who is bringing water to the well on this one? And by that I mean, whose prooftexting is problematic as it starts with a flawed theology.
For that we may need to delve into the purpose of Scriptures and the workability of Sola Scriptura. No small matter, but finding truth never is.
April 8, 2008 at 11:57 am
We don’t come to the Scr with our theology searching for prooftexts; we draw our theology OUT OF what the Scr teaches. Just FYI.
Peace,
Rhology
April 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Have you guys heard the new Radiohead!?! Man, it *so* Vatican 2!
April 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Rhology: This combox (like most of the ones you and I seem to find ourselves together in these days) is drifting away from the original topic. But, I’m cool with that for now.
We don’t come to the Scr with our theology searching for prooftexts…
I think that’s nonsense, at least the bit about not approaching the Scriptures with theology. Without your theology you CAN’T approach the Scriptures. You approach the Scriptures as the Scriptures BECAUSE of what you believe about inspiration.
I will try to respond to your earlier post later as I’m short on time right now.
Pax.
Chad:
Vatican II is the new Old Mutual. :)
April 8, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I am confident you believe that. If you spend some time looking at the histories of our contributors you will come to note most of us are converts who used to genuinely believe that all of our explorations of Scripture were informed soundly by scripture itself, and we were otherwise impartial to theologies we brought to the table. Most of us discovered that just was not the case.
Looking at the errors of Sola Scriptura we realized that much of what we presumed Scripture told us, we were prooftexting into it.
At the heart of the issue lies the simple enough questions:
* Was Sola Scriptura the method used by the Early Church?
* Is Sola Scriptura supported by scripture itself?
* When using Sola Scriptura, how can we be confident we are right when so many others using the same criteria for scripture study and doctrine formulation come up with sometimes wildly divergent and competing theologies - using the same book!
So the foundation of your confidence that your prooftexts are clearly right, and his clearly wrong then comes from…?
April 8, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hey simplesinner,
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Ask yourself the same question and substitute “Scripture” for “CF writing” or “encyclical” and we can talk. :-)
But yea, this is off-topic so maybe I should just let it go. Anyone want to talk about WOTM? :-D
Peace,
Rhology
April 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Can’t really talk about WOTM without addressing the underlying dispute as to the merits or demerits of the arguments about Sola Scriptura - we may well be at an impasse.
I do ask myself the same of the Encyclicals and othe teachings that the living breathing Church that put that wrote and than codified the Scriptures today offers. I accept that it is seemless and in harmony, you do not. Again, short of taking this to the forum to look more closely at the merits or demerits or workability of Sola Scriptura (again, a system very heavily dependent on universal literacy, affordable copies of scripture, and free time - something that was just not found for the first 1500 years the Church existsed)…
Rhology, most of us here used to think of these things in this fashion, and it was in recognizing these errors that we ended up as converts or reverts to the Catholic Faith. We are well familiar with it, we have simply decided otherwise.
April 8, 2008 at 1:58 pm
That’s fine, simplesinner. I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things too, tasted the grass on the other side, and realised it was made of arsenic. I think it’s best just to discuss the issues rather than appeal to a greater degree of experience…
April 8, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Appeal to a greater degree of experience? Taste the arsenic?
Wow. Just wow.
April 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Rhology: I’m only responding to your early comment because I told you I would. I think the charity level is dropping in here, so it might be time for us to agree to disagree and move on.
What do you mean by “get” the Gospel?
They’re TELLING them the Gospel and try to explain it so they can understand, and asking for affirmation of understanding along the way.
How would it be WOTM’s fault if the ‘target’ doesn’t “get” it?
Unless you think WOTM doesn’t have the Gospel at all, and that’s not very Vatican 2 of you, but… I don’t know much about you, ’tis true.
By Gospel I mean the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and offer of eternal life. So, as far as that goes, they “have the gospel.” I just don’t know how well the communicate it.
They are going up to largely secular people who may have little or no understanding of Scripture or respect for it’s authority. I am sure more than a few of those people are so taken aback by the rapid pace and personal questions, that their might not be much chance for the Good News to sink in.
Did you watch the video I linked to? I’d encourage you to - it overturns this objection.
I’m watching it now. See you in bit…
…OK, I’m back. It was pretty well produced, but I don’t think this “overturns” any of my objections. I still don’t think they don’t know how to communicate to secular people in a meaningful way and that they display ignorance of the fullness of the historic Christian faith and serve up a sawed-off version of it.
To use the analogy from the video: I don’t think they have a license to practice medicine and I think they probably try to do improptu surgery on plenty of folks who don’t need it OR (even worse) give people medicine to which they are allergic.
April 9, 2008 at 12:42 am
Attempts to convert others by ambush are blunt, crude, haughty and indicative of the coarseness of our society in general.
WOTM’s tactics are unsophisticated and lack charity. Unsophisticated in the sense that they seemingly don’t or can’t comprehend that there are many abused, broken and psychologically weak souls who. upon being accosted, would relate the “Christian” ready to condemn them to hell for not having the required “eureka” moment in the street with past dealings of unloving, abusive persons.
Does anyone think the most wounded and tortured souls who are in need of the Lord’s mercy most (but for whatever reason don’t yet know Him) would benefit from the WOTM style of aggressive and on-the-spot judgemental outreach?
The blonde girl, cell in hand, does not seem capable of any understanding of such potential pitfalls in her brash dealings. That’s the scary part of WOTM.
Their approach is rude, simplistic and potentially damaging, to say the least.
April 9, 2008 at 1:04 am
Scott:
I think you make some insightful and valid points. Thanks.
April 9, 2008 at 8:11 am
Jason,
I didn’t think it was all that well-produced (the vid was very grainy) but the point is that these people are not going away feeling abused, used, angry, ready to punch the next Christian they see.
they don’t know how to communicate to secular people in a meaningful way
Telling them that they were made to serve God, they have rebelled, and that they need a Savior and Redeemer is not meaningful?
Seriously?
they display ignorance of the fullness of the historic Christian faith and serve up a sawed-off version of it.
You have repeated yourself, and I already responded to this.
Is their job to be theologians, a Pope, or to be evangelists? Is there not room for different parts of the Body of Christ? One, the mouth, the other, the hand, the other, the ear? You sound like the counterexample given specifically by Paul in 1 Cor 12 - “Because I am not an ear, I am not a part of the body…”
I don’t think they have a license to practice medicine
Is this medicine or is it sharing the Gospel with people?
Do I need some kind of advanced degree before I tell someone that Romans 3 says they’ve broken God’s law but Romans 4 and 5 say that God has provided a Redeemer to forgive you and give you eternal life?
I really am feeling frustrated here, like you have some unstated problem with them and so you’re trying to figure out other ways to criticise.
Is it just that they’re Evangelicals and you really dislike their theology? That’s all you need to say if that’s indeed your problem with them.
But these other objections are pretty wrongheaded.
improptu surgery on plenty of folks who don’t need it
By “people” I assume you mean more than one. Do you know of them talking to more than one person (ie, Fr McGhee is one, in your estimation) who didn’t need it?
Does it hurt someone like, say, you, to hear the Gospel one further time? Does it wrong you for someone to tell it to you on the street? Why not rather rejoice that this brother (which is how you are supposed to regard a Protestant) is bold enough in Christ to try to help save people rather than channel-surfing all day every day? Why aren’t you rather encouraged to be more bold yourself in your own witness, rather than dragging WOTM down?
Scott,
Where in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition (if you’re RC) are we called to be sophisticated?
Are we not rather called to be faithful and holy?
Could you give a specific example of how WOTM is being uncharitable?
past dealings of unloving, abusive persons.
Is that an excuse before God? Why not deal with people where they really are, rather than the excuses they give?
Romans 11:32 - For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
Does anyone think the most wounded and tortured souls who are in need of the Lord’s mercy most (but for whatever reason don’t yet know Him) would benefit from the WOTM style of aggressive and on-the-spot judgemental outreach?
What if it’s either that or never hearing the Gospel at all?
Is it the Gospel or “sophistication” that is the power of God unto salvation, Scott? Romans 1:16.
Guys,
This is not just a rhetorical exercise; I really am confused, more by what you’re not saying than by what you’re saying. Your objections are so flaccid that there MUST be sthg else going on; I’d just like to know what it is so that it’ll be clear whether it can be interacted with in a combox or just left alone.
Peace,
Rhology
April 9, 2008 at 8:27 am
Rhology:
Please excuse all our wrongheadedness and flaccid objections. Might be a side-effect of all the “arsenic” in the grass.
I really don’t know what else to say. As you’ve pointed out, I’m already repeating myself. I’m honestly not sure where the disconnect between us in discussing this is.
Pax.
April 9, 2008 at 8:31 am
OK, thanks for the time. Hope you have a great day!
April 9, 2008 at 8:59 am
Rhology:
Though my original objections stand, some of your comments have made me consider that, when it comes to WOTM and similar groups, I may be suffering from “topical insanity” the same way some folks do when they discuss the Catholic Church or a particular political issue. I have seen ordinarily reasonable and charitable people turn into, well, something else when the “topic” that triggers their “insanity” comes into play. I pray that this isn’t the case here for me.
This topic was meant to be more about Fr. McGhee than WOTM and more positive than negative. I think I may have reversed that here in the com box.
For what it’s worth, I believe the WOTM folks are sincere and I pray that God will use them to draw people to himself. I believe they are trying to serve the same Savior I’m trying to serve and He’ll be the one we answer to on that Day, not each other.
Thanks for your participation. Have a great day, too.
April 9, 2008 at 10:01 am
Rhology,
As we have said, our problem is with the techniques they employ. Can I agree with most of what they are saying? Yes. Can I agree that I find it entertaining, like I find reality shows entertaining? Yes. However, since we are talking about the ultimate state of people’s souls, I think it is important to be careful that we are not driving away more people than we are bringing in. Most of us just don’t think this sort of confrontational evangelism is helpful in the long run, especially in a society that is becoming increasingly secular, where many people have no Christian background, and already have a negative view of Christians as pushy and out-of-touch. In the video on their site of the girl with the multi-colored hair, you can tell that while she is being polite, she really isn’t listening once the guy starts talking about Jesus dying for her sins. Maybe she did convert, but judging by her look, she is more annoyed than anything else. I am sure Christians will think the video is great, but what about those whom we are actually trying to reach? This has been my basic objection since comment one. Obviously, you are free to disagree with me that this is an actual real objection, but I think we have at least made it clear what our actual objections are.
April 9, 2008 at 12:08 pm
David Bennett,
No, I thank you for that.
A few reflections:
careful that we are not driving away more people than we are bringing in.
1) This implies you want to start a numbers game. Whom specifically did you have in mind in terms of comparing to WOTM’s conversion rates?
(This is answering you on your own terms - this is not my proposition in the slightest.)
2) How can those who do not know Christ be further away from Him than they currently are? No one seeks God, no one does good, you know? (Rom 3:10-12)
3) Is our calling in the Scr to proclaim Christ unless it makes people uncomfortable? Or is it not the case that the Gospel makes people uncomfortable precisely b/c of what it is - a call to repentance and faith in the Savior?
where many people have no Christian background,
Why isn’t that all the more reason to get more effort out there in telling them about the Savior?
a negative view of Christians as pushy and out-of-touch
Nobody said it would be easy.
Doesn’t the NT say explicitly numerous times that we are strangers and aliens in the world, that the world will not accept us? Is that a good reason not to share the message?
while she is being polite, she really isn’t listening
But this is moving the goalposts - nobody’s asking whether she’s LISTENING or getting saved. The point has been that WOTM is pushy and counterproductive, etc, not whether everyone they talk to repents.
she is more annoyed than anything else.
Again I must ask you to reconsider whether this is a bad thing.
I am sure Christians will think the video is great, but what about those whom we are actually trying to reach?
This isn’t an evangelistic video - it IS aimed at Christians!
Thanks for your thoughts.
Peace,
Rhology
April 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Rhology,
Yes, of course we’re called to be faithful and holy. Perhaps prudent is a better word to explain what I meant rather than unsophisticated.
Is it charitable to approach a non-believer in an aggressive and confrontational manner?
WOTM’s method of evangelization does not seem to account for an understanding that there are psychologically fragile souls who are unaffirmed and have no concept of a loving authority figure, never mind a benevelent God as Father. Using fear of going to hell with such persons would likely increase their anxiety, scrupulousness, etc.
Dealing with people “where they really are” sometimes requires nuance especially with regard to faith. This is just an example, though not a common one, of how obtuse WOTM’s tactics are.
Actually turning secular folks further away from conversion by their pushy and aggressive methods would seem to be a far more common and probable outcome.
I don’t doubt WOTM’s intentions, but this is why I see their tactics, in certain circumstances, as being (unintentionally) uncharitable.
Rhology-
It is, of course, the Gospel and not sophistication that is the power of God unto salvation. However, the manner in which one is invited to know and live the Gospel plays a significant role which neither you or WOTM seem to take into account.
April 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi Scott,
Well, of course, I didn’t think you thought they were being intentionally uncharitable, but I question whether they are indeed uncharitable.
Is it loving to try by all means to rescue a person from a burning house while they are ignoring the house burning down around them? Even if they may be irritated with you for interrupting their soap opera on their soon-to-be-melted TV?
Do you really believe that there were no “psychologically fragile souls” in Jesus’ day? To whom John the Baptist preached? To whom Jesus Himself preached and warned more frequently about Hell than discussed Heaven?
Should we not DESIRE that the unrepentant have GREAT anxiety over the state of their souls? Anything that might jar them out of their deadly apathy?
Again I ask, how is it possible that he who hates God, who is a rebel sinner, who seeks neither God nor good could be turned FARTHER away from God?
Peace,
Rhology
April 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Again I ask, how is it possible that he who hates God, who is a rebel sinner, who seeks neither God nor good could be turned FARTHER away from God?
Some of us are of the thinking that it isn’t the case that those who have not yet come to faith are totally degenerate and reprobate - that inasmuch as the natural law written on the heart of man is a reality, our souls cry out to be completed and yearn for the True God and to be reconciled.
That as the case may be, those who through the Grace of reason and/or experiences of Christian love, might be on the cusp of embracing it… Well such in your face confrontation may well be the step that is NOT needed.
April 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Simplesinner,
I didn’t say “totally degenerate and reprobate”. I just quoted the New Testament.
James 4:4
1 Tim 1:9
Rom 3:10-12
Just FYI.
April 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hey Rhology,
Yes, it is loving and of good intent to try rescue the person from a burning house. But here again prudence plays a role.
One can go in and try to use reason with the soap opera watcher, explain that there is a fire burning, the TV will soon be a moot factor as well as the house and her life while offering one’s hand to safety.
Or, with the same good intent but with less prudence…
One could go in and start screaming GET OUT NOW, FIRE!, WHO CARES ABOUT YOUR DUMB SHOW! GET OVER HERE, I’M GOING TO BRING YOU TO SAFETY. My guess is that the lady would likely resist, thinking the person crude and not be amenable to his suggestion. He might grab her anyway and while on the way out, struggling all the way, the lady’s head fatally smacks into the china cabinet.
Silly analogy, of course, but I was trying to stick with what you put on the table.
I’m sure there were psychologically fragile souls in Jesus’ day. The Lord, however, spoke to different people in different ways. To some He showed compassion, to others He was stern and to a few, performed miracles. My point is Jesus anticipated (more than we can, of course) where people were spritually at the time using wisdom and prudence which often require nuance. In my opinion, that’s the model through which we should evagelize others.
Yes, we should desire the unrepentant have the appropriate amount of fear with regard to the state of their souls and that it should mature into a healthy filial fear of not wanting to offend our Father out of love.
There are some people who are overly scrupulous, not quite sure they’ve repented enough if they fall again, just like we all do, and are never able to be good enough for what they perceive as a harsh and demanding God. WOTM’s methods would be disatrous for people who suffer in that way and would cause them more anxiety and attempts at living a perfectionist lifestyle.
I would think most of the secular folks and late night partiers WOTM mostly comes into contact with don’t hate God if they even believe in Him at all. At the point they come into contact with WOTM, they’ve probably been taught in school and at home that religion is outdated, etc. Confrontational tactics could easily push people like that farther away from God.
Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, makes more sense with regard to your last sentence.
The underlying theme throughout this thread seems to be a Catholic vs. Protestant sensiblities.
April 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes Scott, but Jesus preached about Hell to all. What was the message from the very beginning of His preaching ministry? “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Repent. Of what? Well, of your sin. If that fractures your psyche, is it not better to enter heaven with a fractured psyche than to enter hell with a whole one? Where is your trust in God’s power? The Gospel is the power of God, remember?
Maybe the problem here is that you think that WOTM is saying that their way is the only way. Not at all, but you seem to be saying that YOUR way is the only way and that their way stinks. Why not allow room for both? It’s not like one of your tortured souls for whom you express such concern will necessarily spend more than 10 minutes in their whole lifetime talking to one of the WOTM guys, right? They’ll spend far longer waiting in line for the next Rob Zombie CD…
never able to be good enough for what they perceive as a harsh and demanding God.
Honestly, this is ironic, coming from someone who believes (if you’re RC) that one can lose one’s justification, coming to someone who believes such is impossible (me, and WOTM too). Seems like it’d be th’other way ’round.
WOTM’s methods would be disatrous for people who suffer in that way and would cause them more anxiety and attempts at living a perfectionist lifestyle.
You don’t think that a WOTM agent ;-) would, if they discerned that, stop everythg and encourage the person on that very same topic? I think this is a bit of a smokescreen.
don’t hate God if they even believe in Him at all.
Fine, but the NT disagrees with you. I can’t help you if the NT doesn’t.
The underlying theme throughout this thread seems to be a Catholic vs. Protestant sensiblities.
Or Catholic vs biblical ones. I haven’t cited any Protestant distinctives (except just now [preservation of the saints] and you were the one who brought it up.
Peace,
Rhology
April 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Rhology - I am familiar with the Scripture you cite, I am just careful in the interpretation of it. Note which Scripture I quoted.
Perhaps a new or additional problem we are running into is that in some instances what is so obvious to you in your private interpretation simply does not resonate with us.
April 9, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Rhology,
Agreed, Jesus brought up Hell more than Heaven. While I think WOTM tactics are less than ideal, which is why I’ve brought up situations both common and uncommon to demonstrate why, I don’t think MY way is the only way. God works in many ways and through various people, WOTM included.
There are issues such as interpretation and justification where it’s obvious that a Catholic and a Protestant would and should respectfully disagree so it’s probably best to leave it at that.
That there would be a differences of opinion with regard to the approach and/or style of a particular ministry come as no surprise because of our different sensibilities. Healthy discussion is good so that we understand one another better even when we disagree in some areas. I’ve enjoyed the back and forth with you on this subject.
Scott
April 10, 2008 at 8:37 am
As have I. You guys (girls too?) are very courteous. See you around in some other combox. ;-)
April 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm
The only Way of the Master show I’ve heard was one that played a long, vicious anti-Catholic sermon by John MacArthur. There are people of good will who think Catholics are wrong, but MacArthur isn’t one of them– if he’s not misrepresenting the Faith he’s saying things about it that are flat-out wrong and even bizarre. If Kirk Cameron et. al. wanted to play an anti-Catholic sermon, it was incumbent upon them to check out its claims against what Catholics teach to make sure not to broadcast falsehood. They obviously didn’t do that. Dropped my respect for them pretty low.
April 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Disappointing to hear that Cameron’s show is so anti-Catholic. Just when you think evangelicals were making gains in mutual respect and understanding. :(
April 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Just so you know, John MacArthur and WOTM would both identify Rome’s message as a false Gospel. There’s not a lot of interest among conservative Reformed folks in a rapprochement with Rome. Although there’s tons of interest in having all Roman Catholics repent of Roman Catholicism, so it’s nothing personal.
April 14, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“Although there’s tons of interest in having all Roman Catholics repent of Roman Catholicism, so it’s nothing personal.”
Whew!
April 14, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Rachel:
I heard that, too, and lost the greater part of the respect I had for John MacArthur. Whether he spoke out of ignorance or was blinded by hatred, I can’t say as I don’t know his heart, I just gave him more credit than that. I thought a man in his position with his sphere of influence would be better educated or more prudent.
April 15, 2008 at 9:06 am
Jason,
What if it’s neither ignorance nor hatred but a conclusion to which he has come after examining the teachings of Rome versus the teachings of, say, Galatians in particular? Isn’t that a false dilemma, making good headway towards the drop in charity level you recently lamented? Setting up false dilemmas like you’ve done here usually qualifies as ‘uncharitable’, I should think.
Peace,
Rhology
April 15, 2008 at 9:54 am
Rhology:
If you think I’m saying the only way one can disagree with Catholic teaching is to be ignorant or hateful, then you misunderstand me. I don’t think that.
What I’m speaking of is some specific things he said in that sermon that was played on WOTM. He said things that were just flat-out untrue and inconsistent. I’m trying to be charitable by saying it was either ignorance or “topical insanity” that caused this and not dishonesty. I still think John MacArthur is trying to convey what he believes is true.
I don’t think I’ve set up a “false dilemma” at all.