Featured What did Jesus do?

Back to the OP, I suppose my question is whether or not the ends justify the means.

I have read “What Did Jesus Do?,” and throughout the book I cannot help but conclude that Comfort started with a thesis and simply tried to gather support wherever he could find it. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Ray Comfort to be a godly man who is being used greatly by God for Kingdom work. I think that his method can be effective, and I agree with many of his observations. But just like Jonathan Eldredge (“Wild at Heart”), Comfort is just left of biblical here (as John MacArthur points out, there are areas where WOTM theology needs to be strengthened). While in practice I applaud Comfort’s method, I cannot help but cringe at his misuse of Scripture. This is where, for example, Evan got the idea that Paul was convicting his audience under the Mosaic Law in Acts 17 (when you get through the smoke screen on pages 79-81, you quickly realize that Comfort has no support for his conclusions…this is why Evan could only repeat Comfort’s statement and not provide biblical support – there was none).

I know that our theology is not perfect (we are, after all, imperfect men and women). There is the potential for error in any of these works and programs. But how discerning should we be? As a church, do you believe we should use or allow “What Did Jesus Do?” be taught in study groups?

My opinion is that we can learn from people like Comfort, but that we are responsible for error that we introduce. While we may be right individually to consider Comfort’s words and views, it would be wrong to introduce them to a congregation. I do not know his (Comfort’s) educational background, but “What Did Jesus Do?” is poor theology and poor exegesis. But realize that his focus was on evangelism and not Scripture itself. So I can take what is said in the book with a grain of salt and appreciate Comfort for the ways in which God has used him, but at the same time I believe he has exceeded his gifts and written a book that never should have been published.

http://www.onemilliontracts.com/pdf/what_DID_Jesus_do.pdf

 

I think part of the problem is that Mr. Comfort projects his own underling agenda into Scripture. Instead of realizing that various sects within Judaism shared a preoccupation with righteousness under the Old Covenant, Mr. Comfort views Jesus’ mention of the Law as an external application (convicting them under the Law). Not, mind you, that this is necessarily a huge leap off the mark in terms of Israel (they were under the Law), but the error is magnified when applied to a Gentile audience. He stretches the text to come up with an intention that matches his own. I am thankful that many have been reached through his ministry, but I am also hopeful that those reached will come to a more mature faith and biblical understanding. I have to admit that, like blessedwife, I think adult studies need to be centered on Scripture rather than lessons. I am deeply concerned that biblical literacy has declined in our churches. So my own reaction to Comfort’s error may be exaggerated (I cannot fathom knowingly allowing error into the ministry).

I do find it interesting that WOTM methodologies are foreign to NT evangelism. It is even more troubling that someone would compose a book explaining how everyone in the Bible used the method. But at least the gospel is being preached.