“Do you think you are a good person?”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5602b/5602b28dc4012619bada07da2b3ceba9934b8af8" alt=""
That is a simplified version, but I think you get the gist
of it. The motto is “Law to the proud,
Grace to the humble” and the strategy is to use the Ten Commandments, aka
“Law”, as a mirror to show people that they are sinful before God. Since most evangelistic methods avoid sin and
judgment, the Way of the Master has appealed to many conservative evangelicals,
especially those in the reformed crowd.
This is why many people found it strange that Jesse Johnson
would give a negative critique of The Way of the Master. Johnson’s criticism focused on two aspects,
1.) An overemphasis on the Law, and 2.) The method is a single approach to
evangelism making it a divisive issue in churches. Under those two headings Jesse Johnson listed
about a dozen problems with The Way of the Master. Here’s his written critique:
http://thecripplegate.com/concerns-with-the-way-of-the-master/
Jesse has a lot to say, which I actually think is a
problem. Some of the concerns he brings
up are whether or not Martin Luther used the Ten Commandments in evangelism,
whether or not there is something you can do to be saved, and whether or not
people go to hell for breaking the Law or rejecting Jesus. These are important questions, but they can
be distracting. When you shoot a shotgun
of arguments against a position, your opponent will simply pick the weakest
arguments to refute. This is exactly
what happens. When Ray Comfort responds
he picks a bunch of Jesse’s arguments and shoots them down one by one. Jesse Johnson doesn’t respond (I suspect
because it was getting out of hand and was becoming divisive). This becomes confusing because it gives the
impression that Comfort has soundly won the argument. From the audiences’ point of view, Comfort writes
a long blog about how Jesse’s critique is incorrect and then Jesse Johnson
doesn’t respond. Unfortunately the
discussion ends there.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1ffb/a1ffbe35965a062ea1f07ffb4e9fc3ee61bdee30" alt=""
It should not be controversial for me to say that we are not obliged to follow the Mosaic Law today. Have you ever been insulted that your family eats hot dogs, shrimp, and seafood? Have you ever rebuked your sinning brother for wearing a t-shirt mixed with linen and wool? Ever objected to crazy Uncle Ben boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk? No? Why not? Because the Mosaic Law was given to Israel and we Gentiles are not under them. Moreover the Mosaic Law was done away with - Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:11-12, 8:13, so even Jews who recognize that Jesus is the Messiah are no longer obliged to follow the Mosaic Law.
If this is the case, then why do we act like the Ten
Commandments is still binding? The
answer is because there is something of an overlap. The Ten Commandments is not binding today,
but many of the values that the Ten Commandments advocate are still commanded
by the New Testament. Try this
illustration. When you are in California
you are under California laws such as stopping at a red light. If you run a red light in New York, are you
guilty of breaking California Law? No, you are out of that system. Of course, you are still guilty of running a
red light, just under New York laws.
The same goes for the Bible. Almost every one of the Ten Commandments is
repeated in the New Testament (eg. Lk 4:8, 1Cor 6:9-10, Romans 13:9, Ephesians
6:1-2). However there is at least one
commandment that is missing. The Forth
commandment of keeping the Sabbath holy (Ex 20:8-11) is nowhere repeated as
obligatory in the New Testament. If we
were to believe that the Ten Commandments are still binding, then we would have
to move church service from Sundays to Saturdays and stop all weekend
activities.
So as Christians we do not follow the Mosaic Law (which
includes the Ten Commandment), but we follow the New Testament. With that said, I actually do not have a problem with using
the Ten Commandments in evangelism. They
are helpful and concise and I think they can be used to point out the law that
we already have on our hearts. Moreover,
in my experience most people cite the Ten Commandments without me even bringing
it up. When asked if they think they
will go to heaven, a lot of people instantly start judging themselves according
to the Ten Commandments, “well, I’ve never murdered, I’ve never committed adultery,
I honor my parents…” and so on. All you
have to do is show them that their own standard will condemn them. The problem I do have with this sort of evangelism is that
some people really will act as if the Ten Commandments are still binding in and
of themselves which is false. But otherwise,
I find a lot of benefit in the Way of the Master and their form of evangelism.
p.s. watch the 180 movie! It's interesting and if for no other reason you can watch Ray Comfort evangelize at Cerritos College and Huntington Beach.