The Narrow Path Ministries

"Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you'll go to Heaven"

This is the most common phrase I hear Christians give to unbelievers and people that are curious about the gospel. It's everywhere.... television, bumper stickers, books, articles, etc. While the statement itself is true, I feel it has absolutely no meaning to the ears of most modern people. Again, I believe the statement is true, but I doubt I'll ever utter those words to an unbeliever. This short essay will explain why.

When I study the way Jesus and his apostles ministered, they took a very different approach and it varied depending on who they were speaking to. The way Jesus spoke to the woman at the well was different than when he spoke to the rich young ruler. The way Paul witnessed to Festus was different than the way he spoke to the Athenian philosophers. It seems obvious from these examples that a "catch phrase" is not what's needed. However, we live in a society inundated with Christian catch phrases and I think it does a disservice to Christ.

Telling someone they need to accept Jesus into their heart as lord and savior does several things that could potentially be dangerous. For example, I've been a student of the bible and a Christian for 15 years and even I have no idea what it means to accept Jesus into your heart. Does it mean we should obey all his commands? I definiately see Jesus saying that. Does it mean we are to put him first in our lives? I see that too. Does it mean we admit our sins to God and ask forgiveness. That's biblical as well. Accepting Jesus into your heart is a rather aloof statement that doesn't really say anything about the gospel, yet it's become a mantra of sorts.

I did not always feel this way but I see great value in using modern language to explain the gospel. Most people have no idea what a "lord" is because they don't live under a kingly government. People understand the word savior but I doubt they could articulate what we're being saved from or why a savior is even needed. Is there something mystical or holy about these words? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply tell an unbeliever that we've offended God by our selfish actions and Jesus volunteered to take our punishment? That's not a great catch phrase though so it'll never stick.

Also, I think we need to relate to people more when sharing the gospel. Paul did this all the time. When he spoke to the Jews he used their own beliefs and traditions to make a point. He also did this with the Athenians by quoting a popular piece of poetry. Now, I'm not trying to say we should conform our teachings to the culture.... far from it. But we are still called to relate to our culture and it's very difficult to do this when we insist on using archaic (though correct) language to express the gospel to them. I've been told this is "cheapening the message" but I fail to see why. I think the opposite is true. I, for one, have dropped my Christianese in favor of relating to the experience of the pesron I'm speaking with.

I guess this boils down to: There's a right way and a wrong way to share the same gospel. Where I live it's embarrasing to see how Christians express their beliefs to others. They completely disregard any cultural differences between them and the unbeliever and then break out with various catch phrases. Whatever happened to "let your conversations always be full of grace and seasoned with salt?" Perhaps this is more of a rant than anything but I'd very much like to hear other opintions on this (very broad) topic.

JC wrote:I guess this boils down to: There's a right way and a wrong way to share the same gospel. Where I live it's embarrasing to see how Christians express their beliefs to others.

I think you might like "Hell's Best Kept Secret". You can listen to it here.
D.

djeaton, I just finished the first sermon in that series. Mr. Comfort's style of sharing the gospel is very refreshing and I like his use of humor to break the ice. He seems to believe that all Christians should be evangelists yet the bible makes distinctions by saying some are called to be prophets, some teachers, others evangelists, etc. Am I missing the context of what Paul was saying?

Yeah I've heard that too...Made me rethink my whole witnessing style.

JC wrote:djeaton, I just finished the first sermon in that series. Mr. Comfort's style of sharing the gospel is very refreshing and I like his use of humor to break the ice. He seems to believe that all Christians should be evangelists yet the bible makes distinctions by saying some are called to be prophets, some teachers, others evangelists, etc. Am I missing the context of what Paul was saying?

Is the Great Commission limited to those with specific Spiritual Gifts, or are we all to be salt and light?
D.

JC,

You have a good point but I would add a word of caution. I think the New Testament was written in Greek for a reason. I have seen it described as the most precise language known to man. We then translate it into English, with a chance some of the original meaning is lost. With the English then phrased or paraphrased into the latest street language the chance for error is multiplied.

If I read or hear a term in English I form in my mind an idea of what that word means. If I then relate this idea to someone else in my own words, they again form their own idea of what I meant. Each step may add erroneous meaning to the original. That's why it is good to speak of biblical things in biblical words. This does not mean you have to start there, but should move back there as soon as practical.

I have heard worse than "invite Jesus into your heart" (what is He, like a fishing buddy?). I think often the Gospel is "softened" from fear of rejection. Jesus seemed to be up front about the cost of following Him.

"The Message" is to me a prime example of going too far toward everyday language. To me it is an abomination but perhaps it does some good.

Just my two cents (that may be more than its worth).

Blessings, Homer

JC, your post about Christian lingo really witnessed to my spirit.

Seriously though, I was into Ray Comfort for a short period of time. Watched "Way of the Master" and read "Hell's Best Kept Secret". I quickly began to have a "lack of peace" about his approach, which seems to be to make God the mean guy ("Have you ever stolen a paperclip? You're gonna smoke a turd in Hell!") and then when the witnessee is beaten down with guilt, er... conviction, he presents the good news ("Jesus will protect you from His mean Father who wants to fry you"). It troubled me because I don't really see that approach used in the New Testament on Gentile unbelievers. Jesus was hard on the Pharisees and Sadducees, as was Peter in Acts 2, and Paul elsewhere, but I don't see them using the "Law as a schoolmaster" on unsuspecting pagans. Paul's address at the Areopagus, for example, is gracious and respectful. I just don't buy Comfort's premise or methodology.

BTW, I hope my facetiousness didn't cause offense.

I've been intentionally trying to shed the Christian lingo for some time now, especially when speaking to "unbelievers" (or is that "pre-Christians"?). For example, I generally don't refer to myself as a "Christian" anymore, but as a "follower of Jesus". The word "Christian" can mean almost anything nowadays, and often the baggage it carries is not productive.

Anyway, I think a more appropriate title for Ray's lessons would be "Way of the Old Testament Prophet". The Master (Jesus) on the other hand was known as a friend of sinners.

I appreciate Mort's observations.

Ray Comfort is a personal friend of mine of many years (though not extremely close, by any means). I love the brother. He has been very kind and generous to my oldest son, in particular, and he sent me his condolences when he heard about my wife leaving.

However, I do not think he is quite accurate in trying to find a presentation of the ten commandments in every witnessing situation in the Bible (In fact, I don't think the ten commandments are the summary of God's requirements upon man, as he does). I do not find Jesus or the apostles reciting, nor often mentioning, the ten commandments in their evangelizing.

My recent studies in the book of Acts have brought to my attention several surprising aspects in which the apostolic preaching differed from that of modern evangeicals—in ways different from those brought out by Ray's teaching on the subject.

For example, in reading the sermons in the book of Acts, I found:

1. None of them ever mention heaven or hell, and few mention the second coming;

2. Though they all mention Christ's death, they do not mention the atoning effects of His death (though Paul must have preached this in unrecorded sermons, as in Corinth—1 Cor.15:3);

3. All associate Christ's resurrection with His enthronement, not with its specific effects with reference to our redemption;

4. None of them give anything like an altar call

The elements common to almost every sermon are:

1. Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises God made through Moses and the prophets (this point is primarily in sermons preached to Jews)

2. God endorsed Jesus

3. The people put Him to death

4. God raised Him from the dead

5. Jesus is now Lord of all and the future Judge

6. People need to repent

7. If we believe in Christ, our sins will be forgiven

I just thought these observations were interesting. I had never, I guess, studied the sermons in Acts with a mind to do this kind of analysis. I was surprised.

Ray Comfort is a very charasmatic guy, and I don't mean in the Pentecostal sense. I can see how people warm to him very quickly and God is obviously using him to reach the lost. But like Steve, I don't see Jesus and the apostles preaching quite the same way. I could easily be wrong because Ray is twice the Christian I'll ever be, but his method strikes me as somewhat of a parlor trick. He uses magical illusions to hand someone a gospel tract and then goes forth with a rehearsed spiel. I know he's genuine and certainly gets results but my conscience would beat me up over those tactics, even though they aren't sinful at all.

What I loved about Ray's lecture was his teaching on false conversions and alter calls. This should be required listening for all new pastors. But getting back to the original topic, does the use of modern language when sharing the gospel water it down? Homer made a good point about the Greek language that I've never considered. I'm sure it's no accident that the New Testament was written in Greek but when the texts were first translated into English, the use of English was far different that its present usage.

If more modern people were well read and trained in theology then this wouldn't be an issue. But if I'm ministering to the average joe on the street he won't have a clue what the biblical language actually means. I'm not in favor of dumbing anything down, but words like salvation, glory, exhort, sanctify, etc conjur up memories of Sunday school for most people and the actual meaning of the words is not considered. I don't want to give someone a vocabulary lesson every time I share the good news with them. And speaking of the good news, the word "gospel" is used incorrectly by most people I've met. They take "gospel" to mean something is true.... which is good in a way. But it means good news or good tidings, which is something very different.

The way Ray Comfort witnesses is to give everyone the same song and dance, no matter the situation. It seems to work for him and he stays away from religious lingo so I give the man credit. I think he's correct to present the gospel in a way a person can identify with. But like I said, I'd have trouble doing what he does.... and I'm not as witty.

One question I have for Steve or anyone else who wants to take a crack at it is: why wasn't heaven and hell preached in the book of Acts?

... why wasn't heaven and hell preached in the book of Acts?

Because the Gospel isn't about heaven and hell. The Gospel is the proclamation that Jesus is King, that He is the image of God, that He has conquered death & sin and that He is reconciling the world to Himself. (IMHO)