Groaning Pains

Ugh.  This is clear evidence that some Christians should have no access to lost people (or fruit). 

As you are watching this ridiculous excuse for apologetics, ask yourself, "What about the coconut?" or "A pineapple doesn't fit comfortably in my hand.  Where are the ridges and the 'easy-off' lid?"

Comments

[Tim Ellsworth]

Hot dogs don't have the natural curl of bananas. Guess that means I shouldn't be eating them.

[jason woolever]

that is surreal man

[iMonk]

We've had two preachers already to this at OBI.

One of them so (unwittingly) emphasized the sexual subtext that the kids almost lost it.

In my essay on doubt, I say that mosquitoes sometimes bring me close to atheism.

[Chris Hubbs]

And this is the guy my dad keeps recommending for his excellent evangelism techniques. :sigh:

[matt]

"Banana's are kinda like stoplight. Green means hold on, yellow means go, and red means where the f*%# did you get that banana"
- Mitch Hedberg

[erik raymond]

i dig the Olan Mills photo-background...like they are really at a lake....

i cannot imagine using this to 'prove' God..."a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them"...unless you spiritualize a piece of fruit.

[david]

WAIT A MINUTE!

i didn't even watch the video... i had no idea there was such a place as "GodTube"???!?!!!

now i have a place to go anytime i want to get a little more frustrated about my fundy past!

[Justin Buzzard]

At first I thought the guy was gonna give a sex ed. lesson with that banana. That would have made for a better video.

Sad stuff.

[BCHatcher]

Dude, I just think it is so awesome that we finally have a christian alternative to YouTube called God Tube because we wouldn't want anything like that getting out there and possibly telling someone about Jesus. Yessir, best to just keep to ourselves than try to share the love of Christ with those hippy pagan You Tube users...

Man I'm feeling sarcastic.

[Joe Kennedy]

Well, at least all the crap will be confined to GodTube and maybe less will leak into YouTube. This could be a good thing.

[Joe Thorn]

First I was going to point out that the atheist's worst nightmare is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But then I went back and saw the title of the video. "Athiest's Nightmare." Since I have no idea what an "athiest" is I should give them the benefit of the doubt here.

[Tim]

Uh. Wow? I guess.

Couldn't the evolutionist do and say kind of the same things? I mean monkeys are supposed to eat bananas and we're supposed to be descended from monkeys...

But comeon!! He's a Creationist. And he's got an Australian accent! That's immediate cred!

[Dan Barnett]

Does this mean lefties are condemned to hell? Since the grooves in the hand are reversed I don't think it would hold true for them. Also, ditto on the monkies.

[Mark Grapengater]

Actually, gorillas eat bananas from the other end.

I'm not sure what that does for his argument.

[Michael McMinn]

Ha, I blogged about Godtube awhile back and about the ridiculous tendency of so many believers to create a Christian subculture that diffuses the power of the Gospel to redeem culture. But I would like to thank BCHatcher for pointing out the one positive to the 'Christian Ghetto.' It hopefully keeps guys like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in the closet to most of the world.

This video is just sad, funny, silly, laughable, all rolled into one big Christian cheese-fest. This video might just be "Hells Best Kept Secret."

[Joel Johns]

Steve, for someone who is so open minded I would expect you to be a little more accepting of other forms of evangelism. For too long we have criticized the coservatives for their intollerance, now I guess it is our turn to act like jerks. May God bless anyone who share the gospel no matter how silly they are in our opinion.

[Amera]

I'm allergic to bananas. Am I still part of the elect?

[Steve McCoy]

Joel, what does "open minded" mean to you? And in what way do you consider me "open minded?"

I'm very aware that there are people doing evangelism in ways I don't like and I should still be accepting of them. But my frustration with this video has nothing to do with "other forms of evangelism." My problem is that it's intellectually and scientifically dumb.

If we want those without Christ to hear us, we must be willing to say that sometimes Christians say stupid, anti-intellectual things and we don't agree with them.

[johnMark]

What do you think about Comfort witnessing in NY?

Do you really think Godtube.com is such a terrible thing?

Mark

[Steve Janz]

First - love your blog.

Second - I just get really disturbed when I see this kind of thing. Can't imagine Jesus would have picked up a piece of fruit to make such a lame and stupid defense for faith. What utter nonsense.

God help us in our endeavors to reach the lost. May we remember to renounce the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God...

[Lucas Defalco]

Ease up guys. I admit this is not one of Ray Comfort's brighter moments, but I've been following his ministry (wayofthemaster.com) for several years. His apologetic is for the basically epistomological and presuppositional. His evangelism technique of "law-grace" follows directly in line with Christ's techniques.

From everything I have seen, heard and read, his ministry in recent years has shifted away from fundamentalist to reformed (for the most part). If you watch his video Hell's Best Kept Secret you will see that he has grown tired of the seeker-friendly, revivalist, invitationalist atmosphere in today's churches (and gives some sobering figures to support his claim).

I am "openly Calvinist" and have no problems recommending Ray Comfort's material to folks. In fact, I just finished teaching a CLU course at my church on evangelism and used some of this video material in the class. IMO, Ray Comfort is one of the best friends that reform-minded people have when it comes to evangelism. I would challenge each of you to podcast or listen to his daily radio show for a week and tell me if you do not agree.

[Lucas Defalco]

Correction to the above.....His apologetic IS basically epistomological and presuppositional.

[ben]

I stumbled across the evangelizing tag-team duo recently, my only question is where's boner?
>>
LINK

[Joe Thorn]

I've stayed out of this conversation so far (though I will confess to pointing Steve to this video clip), but I'll jump in now. And let me say I am glad guys like Ray are working hard to preach the gospel.

Some Calvinists have been very receptive to Ray's approach. After all, his is pretty much the only popular, mainstream evangelism ministry pushing the the very Biblical law-gospel emphasis. I am pleased with this emphasis. Unfortunately he is not very discerning when evaluating different historic evangelists - He lumps Finney in with guys like Edwards when comparing evangelistic methods - and I think this creates some problems.

He has wisely aboided the issue of how to "close" the evangelistic engagement, but that leaves it open for people to fall back on the sacrament of the sinners prayer which can screw up the whole message.

But my basic problems with his approach is that, IMO, it is too reductionistic, formulaic, canned, and a bit cheesy.

I find it reductionistic in that a one size fits all approach to proclaiming the gospel does not take into account that people are in very different places spiritually. Some need to hear different aspects of the gospel/kingdom than what I have heard him present. The Puritans have a much better practice here.

It is formulaic and canned. Watch the videos, how he interacts with people on the street. People that follow his method typically follow his pitch exactly. This is not a real conversation with people, it is a pitch - and people can tell when you are pitching something. I know, I have been practicing evangelism since 1990, and have done the very thing I am concerned with here.

If I had to choose one popular method of formulaic evangelism, it would be this one. But I choose none of them.

I think it is more important to teach our people what the gospel truly is, how it brings redemption to people in various contexts, and how to diagnose people spiritually.

[Joel Johns]

Steve, I enjoy your blog, I see you as pretty progressive in your thought, my complaint was more that, we (believers) spend too much time picking one another apart. I happen to like Ray's stuff, and it is pretty clear to those familiar with his stuff that this is one of his more "light," "tongue in cheek" videos. So as I see it, I attacked you for attacking him. I gues that makes me the jerk, and for that I apologize. Let's just remember who the real enemy is here and lift up one another in prayer.

[Steve McCoy]

Joel, I appreciate your comment. I try to be very generous with the culture. Sinners do what they do and we should show them Jesus. I try to be generous with Christians who are under attack because they are misunderstood. But when Christians are wrong and hurt our witness, I think it's crucial to say something. I'm on the same team with Ray Comfort, but there are times to get in your teammates face because they are playing their own game. That's what I'm trying to do here.

[Rob]

Joe,

I appreceiate your take on Comfort here. I'm not a fan of canned approaches or gospel pitches. But one of the positives I see with what he's doing is that he provides people who are completely frightened or clueless about bringing up the gospel a pattern to follow. I think his "routine" can actually help Christians become more comfortable talking to unbelievers about the gospel so that they can eventually learn to interact over the topic and not just deliver a formulaic schpiel.

I'm speaking from experience here, since I first watched a Comfort video around 5 years ago and found myself immitating him soon afterward -- basically for lack of a better model. I'm embarassed about that now, but I look back at it as an important step for me.

Another thing I like about Comfort is that he knows how to get on your case for not being open or generous with the Gospel. That aspect of his ministry was a helpful rebuke to me.

Rob

[Tyler]

Tim et al,

I know this doesn't contribute much to this thread, but my wife (who is Australian) would appreciate this...Ray Comfort is from New Zealand. His accent is a dead give away. It's kind of like calling a Canadian a Texan and vice versa. :-)

[Micah]

I think the sad thing is that churches have to use a "canned evangelism" approach because there are not pastors and elders in their church who are living out the gospel among lost people. The church would not need a be afraid or need a video to tell them how to talk to their friends about the gospel if their leaders were living it in front of them.

[UberGoober]

Micah,
Thanks for your last post. I am a pastor and your words hit me between the eyes.

[JTapp]

I agree with Lucas DeFalco's post. Comfort does a lot of good. And while the banana presentation isn't great, his overall Biblical approach to evangelism and passion for it most definitely is. Comfort isn't what I would call a fan of "canned" evangelism methods either.

[Lucas Defalco]

Micah - This is especially true in large megachurches where the only impression most members have of their pastors/elders is that 20-30 minutes they see them in the pulpit on Sunday mornings

Joe Thorn - Thank you for posting those balancing sentiments. I agree wholeheartadly and taught my CLU class as much. I advised them that Ray Comfort's technique is basically and ice-breaker and a good way to present the gospel to a crowd of people you don't know. I do not believe it is a one-size fits all approach nor do I believe every saint is gifted or equipped for open-air preaching. But the broader directions that this approach points to are right ones. First, this "reductionism" is actually an excellent way of encapsulating the Gospel in basic, easy-to-remember ways. This is vital for the average lay person who flees witnessing in fear because the do not think they will be able to answer the questions of non-believers. Like I said, such pithy statements about the gospel are good ice-breakers and good for answering common objections. However, once the ice is broken and God allows you to get to know more about a person, more intuitive, thought-out responses are more appropriate.

Moreover, Comfort's method stands in stark contrast to what most churches calling themselves "evangelical" regard as evangelism. It debunks the synergistic, self-affirming, sin-deemphasizing verbage we hear from so many puplits today.

[Peter]

I'm really disappointed at the negative views of Comfort's presentation. His point is that design is so obvious in creation that only a fool would say that there is no God. This is comic, stylised illustration, brilliant for public communication, not serious theology.

Comfort's law-grace connection is great. I have found it too agressive a method for routine pastoral work, but it's great for street preaching and cold contact evangelism. Finally here's an evangelist putting the law into place as a way of revealing sin rather than rules for legalists.

Keep it in context, people.

[Steve McCoy]

Peter, you said, "This is comic, stylised illustration, brilliant for public communication, not serious theology."

Would you say Comfort's illustration is theologically correct? Incorrect?

I agree with you that his point is that all creation points to God as Creator, but NOT in the way he explains it with a banana. That's my point.

[Tim]

Tyler, I apologize. Had I listened a little closer I would have picked up that he was Kiwi not Aussie. Tell your wife I said "Sorry, mate."

I think the difference in accents between Kiwi and Aussie is less than Canadian to Texan, it is more like Canadian to Wisconsinian. But I'm really just trying to defend myself! :)

Everyone: I know very little of Ray Comfort and his ministry but I do know that this video is pretty lame. Our hand is designed to hold a banana and the banana for our hand? What about places that can't grow bananas? How did design fit in for them before globalization? A thinking person can poke a hole in that in a second and, as I pointed out earlier, turn it on its head and use it as a defense for evolution.

[Lucas Defalco]

Peter - Nail/head. This is not intended to be serious theology. In fact I have watched many of Ray Comfort's open air videos and may times he uses these kinds of comments just to get a smile or a laugh to loosen someone up or just to get their attention.

Steve, Tim, others - If you want to understand Ray Comfort's "serious" theology, check out the audio from his sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret" found here http://wayofthemaster.com/freeduplication.shtml .

[Joe Thorn]

Guys - Ray's point is good, his presentation is embarassingly bad - and technically wrong. I have heard the sermon being suggested, and many others as well. We all know that Ray's law/gospel presentation is a good thing. Though from my interaction with his material his reductionism of the gospel does not help people share the gospel. It trains people to share one aspect of the gospel to a certain segment of our culture. I think in the long wrong this creates a number of problems. His approach is better than nothing, and better than most other pop material, but I think we can do much better in training our people. Most will not be standing in front of 12 people on the street trying to grab their attention. Anyway, I am convinced it is a better approach to teach our people what the gospel truly is give the pricnciples to guide them in sharing the gospel without the "pitch." But that is really another post.

Look, I really have no interest in picking on Ray's approach here. Honestly, I am grateful he is preaching the gospel and that people are being saved. I am grateful that he has reminded many of the need to present law and gospel. The point of Steve's post is that this video is a bad presentation. It makes Christian's look ignorant. I do not believe it is "tongue in cheek." (Do you guys know what that means?)

[Cyle]

I'm a few days late on this, but I wanted to weigh in. We teach alot of different canned approaches at our church so that people can have lots of tools in their toolbox. To me it's like building cabinets. The more tools, the easier it is to do the job. I don't think Comfort's banana apologetics is very effective, but God can use anything to challenge unbelief. I do take exception with Micah's comment, though. He presumes that the reason we have canned approaches it that leaders are not living out in the world and are not sharing the gospel where they live. He also presumes that people feel comfortable doing what their pastors model. The people that watch my approach tend to do it "like me." It's not Roman Road, it's Cyle's Method. Look, people have to start somewhere, and canned vegetables are still vegetables. It's not the approach that saves. It's the gospel.

[Micah]

I am not presuming that pastors are not living out in the world and sharing their faith (Although many of my pastors throughout the years don't). My point is the need for canned evangelism is because we don't do discipleship. My point is exactly what Joe said, we need to teach the people what the gospel is (disiciplship) and they will be able to share it with their friends without a pitch or gimmick.
From my life and experience I have yet to meet anyone who was saved through someone handing them a tract and going through the romans road or 4 spiritual laws pitch. I am sure they are out there, I just haven't run across them. It seems to me the more logical thing is to LIVE the gospel in front of people and through those intentional relationships with lost friends and family SPEAK the gospel to them. No method or pitch, just real life.

[Lucas Defalco]

Micah/Joe -

I have to tell ya' that I'm also a stauch presuppositionalist (Van Tillian), which means evidence and analogies play a small, defined role in my apologetic. When I presented Comfort's video to my class I instructed them that his technique is not what I wanted them to focus on. I told them that his kind of pithiness is mainly useful when answering questions or objections. But at the same time this was an intro to evangelism class and I did not expect the members to all become little Greg Bahnsens overnight. So I left the option of utilizing the canned approach open to them.

There is going to be a part 2 to this class where we will be discussing the doctrine of the gospel in more depth and I do not expect to be invoking and canned approaches.

[Daniel]

Comfort's law-gospel contrast doesn't do justice to Paul's letters.

Comfort slaughters Gal. 3:28. When Paul calls the law a "tutor," he is talking about the role of the Torah in Israel's history. He's not talking about the law as a witnessing tool.

[Scott]

Not having seen the totality of the this video (just a clip), I can't pass judgement on it. From what little is available on the video site, it appears silly but there might be more to it. Perhaps not but it's worth waiting to pass judgement on until I see the entire piece as it was meant to be viewed.

A few years ago, I read the book "Hell's best kept secret" and was really impressed with its precepts and presentation. I look at it as another "tool" to put into my bag for use with just the right person at the right time. The reason most people complain about Comfort's style is that it brings about self-responsibility and the point where a person has to admit they're a sinner. That's hard in today's culture but it's still required for salvation. No matter how many methods you use, at some point a confrontation HAS to ensue where the lost person confronts their sinfulness and decides for/against Jesus. From the video's and material I've read from Comfort, this part is solid.

Just trying to give a fair shake to both sides.

Be blessed!