Chris​Hubbs​.com

My dad loaned me Hell’s Best Kept Secret by Ray Comfort back at Thanksgiving, and sadly it had set by my night table since then, still waiting to be read. Dad reminded me about it the other day, so I picked it up last night and read through it. It’s a short little book, maybe 150 pages in paperback, but contains a lot of good stuff.

I was not really familiar with Ray Comfort before reading his book. A quick online search shows that he is the main man at Living Waters ministry, and that he’s done a series of TV programs called “The Way of the Master” with Kirk Cameron. His website says that Living Waters “…has been equipping Christians across the world for more than 30 years. We train Christians who want to learn evangelism – by teaching them how to witness the way Jesus did.”

I will admit that a brief browsing of the Living Waters website makes me a bit queasy; products they have for sale include the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Board Game and novelty Million-Dollar bills that contain a Gospel presentation. I’m not sure I’m to keen on either of those ideas, but then this is supposed to be about the book, right, not about Ray Comfort’s ministry in general.

Mr. Comfort gets right to it in the first chapter. We find out that Hell’s best-kept secret is the message that our sins condemn us to hell unless we trust Christ for salvation. He says that the reason 80 - 90% of “conversions” from altar calls and crusades fail is that people are coming because they are promised something good, that Christianity will make their life better. Then when tribulation comes, people fall away because all of a sudden Christianity isn’t helping them out any more. He gives the illustration of two men on an airplane. If you offer the first one a parachute, telling him it will make his flight more pleasant, the guy will immediately take it off, because it’s heavy and bulky and uncomfortable. If you offer the second one a parachute, telling him to wear it because at any minute he’s gonna have to jump out of the airplane from 20,000 feet, he will thank you profusely and will keep the parachute on regardless of the discomfort, because he has a view of the danger that will come should he not have the parachute.

Comfort quotes profusely (and at times repetitively) from D. L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon, among others, to say that an understanding of our condemnation under the law is a key starting point to understanding the Gospel. In that message I can’t disagree with Comfort - he’s right on. The Good News of salvation through Christ isn’t really good news unless there’s something we need saved from. Where I wrestled with this book wasn’t in the particulars of the message, but was more with my reaction of the entire method he was proposing. The book itself is about 20 years old. I see him writing it to react against what he’d seen at big evangelistic crusades (Billy Graham, maybe?). Then several times in the book he talks about doing streetcorner preaching, or about stopping at a train station and just having the Lord direct him to people who he could sit and talk to. In all those cases, I see them being more prevalent and on-topic 20 years ago than they are today. Let me try to explain.

I think Dr. Tim Keller hit it right on back at the Desiring God 2006 conference when he noted that our world to day is post-Christian. He talked about a historical 20th century progression of evangelism techniques that started with the crusades of Billy Sunday, then later Billy Graham; later it transitioned to the personal evangelism methods found in Evangelism Explosion; then towards the very end of the 20th century and into the 21st we have “seeker services”. Keller postulates that we have three problems in reaching postmoderns: 1) a truth problem - they don’t like our exclusive claim of truth. 2) Guilt problem - it assumes they have a consciousness of guilt. 3) A meaning problem - they don’t believe texts can really get a meaning across.

Number 2 is the one that I think hits it - for many people these days, there is a lot to establish philosophically before we can get to the idea of an absolute standard and guilt before God. Now, I think most of them have an inner understanding of guilt but won’t admit it; they have been convinced that there is no absolute truth, no God to whom they are accountable, and thus their feelings of guilt are a product of some bad thinking on their part. So when we start the discussion, we may not be able to start with “do you understand that you’re guilty before God?”, we may have to start with “what is truth?” and go from there.

I wrote over a year ago that the place that makes sense for me to start the story is with this phrase: “Things aren’t right.” There is a statement we can all pretty much agree on. Yes, some hardcore types may want to argue that there is no “right”, so how can things not be right… but as C. S. Lewis argues in Mere Christianity, you only have to do something bad to that person to get them to start appealing to a universal moral standard. :-) Then we can talk about why things are wrong, and how God has a plan to set them right again.

I have over the past few years started tending towards the Calvinist side of Gospel presentation. Not that I’m going over into full five-point Calvinism; that’s a topic for another post. But it seems to me that we are called to proclaim the Gospel to everyone. Even as believers, we need to be reminded of the Gospel, of the good news that God has provided a way for us to be redeemed and to become a part of His kingdom. Non-believers need to hear it, too; how far back in the story we have to start will largely depend on where they are philosophically. For those who still have a Judeo-Christian mindset, we can probably start with Mr. Comfort’s approach and talk about our guilt before God. For those firmly entrenched in postmodernism, we’ll probably have to back up a few steps. Either way, we have good news to share, and we need to share it.

Finally I complete another entry on my reader-suggested reading list: Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Thanks Heather for the recommendation!

I’m having a harder time writing a review for this book than I have for any of the previous ones I’ve read. I’m not too sure what my conclusion is yet. Some general observations are in order, though.

First, I’m not too keen on the general writing style. The book is full of single sentences masquerading as paragraphs. Now, these aren’t long, Pauline run-on sentences; these are short, one line sentences with lots of white space between them. As a consequence, to me the book sounds less like a well-reasoned argument for something and more like a collection of little thoughts that don’t necessarily connect so well. Maybe I’m just too old to get it.

Second, I haven’t seen Rob Bell’s NOOMA videos. I’ve heard they’re pretty good, and they might clue me in on a little more of what he’s thinking. I haven’t heard any other of Bell’s stuff, either, so all I have to base my understanding of him on is this book.

There were a couple things that I disagreed with in there. First of all, towards the beginning of the book he goes through this extended illustration about how doctrines are like the springs on a trampoline - how they serve to propel us and our faith and our actions. Fine, I guess, OK. But then he goes on to argue that, hey, even if you’re missing a spring, that doesn’t mean that the trampoline won’t work. I’m starting to get a little queasy with the illustration at that point. Then he says, hey, so if the virgin birth doesn’t happen to be true, that spring pops off the trampoline, that doesn’t mean it won’t work. And at that point he has gone too far. To my reading, Bell is not denying the virgin birth of Christ; however, he’s clearly leaving the door open. This is a problem, a big problem. I think the virgin birth is one of the essentials of the faith that we simply must hold to. (Side note: Mark Driscoll addressed this pretty directly back in September at the Desiring God 2006 conference.) So Bell loses bigtime points with me on that issue.

Secondly, I have some queasiness with Bell’s discussion about interpreting the Scripture. His basic argument is that Scripture has to be interpreted; that much I agree with. He ridicules people who will say “let me tell you what the Bible says”, saying that they’re just trying to sell you their interpretation. I guess I’m OK with all that. Where I start to get uneasy is when he encourages his readers to continue reinterpreting everything. He seemed to come dangerously close to saying that there isn’t necessarily a “right” interpretation of any Scripture, that we should just use the interpretation that makes sense to us. I don’t think he actually said that, but he seems to be oriented that direction. That bothers me a bit. As Christians we can’t be so postmodern that we refuse to say there’s a “correct” way to view the truth… that just won’t work.

Other than that, I didn’t have any huge problems with Velvet Elvis, but at the same time I didn’t find it that compelling. Sorry, Heather, wish I could give it a better rating, but I just didn’t come away from it very excited. Maybe I’ll have to try it again another time.