The "blood on your hands"/watchman concept (Ez 33:6)

[ALAYMAN]

Some of you know of Todd Friel (Wretched TV/Radio).  I really like his show, mostly like his theology, and respect his ilk for their adamant persistence in confrontational open air evangelism.  With that said, I have somewhat a peeve against him.  Not calling him a heretic or anything close, but it really gets under my skin when he does public surveys to ascertain whether somebody knows their Christian faith, and how they are saved, but doesn't attempt to properly correct the ones who clearly have a "be a good person to be a Christian" view of Christian salvation.  He often poses as an unbeliever who just wants to know why he should become a Christian.  He asks these unsuspecting religious (nominally Christian) folk to tell him the essence of why he should accept their view of salvation, rather than some other (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc).  Usually they just stumble all over themselves, unable to express with any precision, the doctrine of sin, atonement, forgiveness, and grace.  In many cases, after probing them, and trying to lead them to the right answer, he just thanks them for their opinions (which obviously display their works-based humanistic views of a false Christianity) and lets them go on their way.  So...


Why take all that time to talk about spiritual matters, only to essentially prove they are at least grossly misinformed as to how salvation occurs, if not blatantly deceived into thinking their works and goodness save them, and not then take a minimal amount of effort to plainly share the proper view of the gospel?  It seems like displaying their ignorance for the watching TV/radio audience is the goal, rather than genuine evangelism.  What do you think?

 

[ALAYMAN]

bumping

 

[Izdaari]

I've never heard of Friel, never seen the show, and I'm not a fan of confrontational open air evangelism. But so far as the surveys and failing to correct really screwed up views of Christianity, I agree with you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've never heard of Friel, never seen the show, and I'm not a fan of confrontational open air evangelism. But so far as the surveys and failing to correct really screwed up views of Christianity, I agree with you.

Wretched Radio

Knowing your bent, he wouldn't be your cup of tea.  He leans Puritanical, but he's not like your typical scream-in-your-face sanwich-board toting street screecher.  His appeal is more apologetic and contemporary/relational, in general.  He partners with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (Living Waters), if you're familiar with them.  His theology aligns with folk that you have said you disdain (Al Mohler, Macarthur, Piper, etc)  He rails on the seeker sensitive mentality, claiming our evangelical trend is too saturated with the imminence of God and not filled enough with His transcendence.  He's big on preaching repentance, not as a change of mind, but more in the Lordship vein.

Having said all that, and finding much agreement with him in those areas, I still HATE the way he deals with obviously deluded false Christians in his witness encounters.

 

[Izdaari]

I've never heard of Friel, never seen the show, and I'm not a fan of confrontational open air evangelism. But so far as the surveys and failing to correct really screwed up views of Christianity, I agree with you.

Wretched Radio

Knowing your bent, he wouldn't be your cup of tea.  He leans Puritanical, but he's not like your typical scream-in-your-face sanwich-board toting street screecher.  His appeal is more apologetic and contemporary/relational, in general.  He partners with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (Living Waters), if you're familiar with them.  His theology aligns with folk that you have said you disdain (Al Mohler, Macarthur, Piper, etc)  He rails on the seeker sensitive mentality, claiming our evangelical trend is too saturated with the imminence of God and not filled enough with His transcendence.  He's big on preaching repentance, not as a change of mind, but more in the Lordship vein.

Yeah, I know Comfort and Cameron, and I think they do at least as much harm as good. I bet a lot of people walk away from them thinking "If Christians are like that, I want nothing to do with them", people who might have been won over with a different approach. And you're right, I wouldn't like his theology either.

Also, and this must happen as much as they do on college campuses, I would really like to see some of their unsuccessful encounters, the ones they don't show. Like, they interview a grad student in philosophy, and get their heads handed to them in the debate. They are not really very good debaters.

Having said all that, and finding much agreement with him in those areas, I still HATE the way he deals with obviously deluded false Christians in his witness encounters.

Of course I haven't seen it, but as you describe it, I would totally agree with you on this point.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Yeah, I know Comfort and Cameron, and I think they do at least as much harm as good.[/quote]

Why do you believe that?

I bet a lot of people walk away from them thinking "If Christians are like that, I want nothing to do with them", people who might have been won over with a different approach.

I'm guessing that you wouldn't make the claim that one-size fits all in the realm of evangelism, so if you concede that public proclamation  (to strangers) of the gospel is not only acceptable, but warranted/commanded, then what is wrong with their "approach"?

And you're right, I wouldn't like his theology either.

Anything specific?

Also, and this must happen as much as they do on college campuses, I would really like to see some of their unsuccessful encounters, the ones they don't show. Like, they interview a grad student in philosophy, and get their heads handed to them in the debate. They are not really very good debaters.

Maybe you're not familiar with their materials, but they rarely show a conversion in their witness encounters.  Matter of fact, they have shown numerous occassions where the crowd was hostile to the message, and in doing show they demonstrate how to deal with difficult and challenging scenarios.  Their point is not to "debate" per se, but to proclaim the <law and> gospel.  Generally speaking, their target audience is Average Joe Public, not elite intellectual philosophers.  Friel is more likely to engage that demographic, or Ravi Zacharias (and Ravi wouldn't get his head handed to him by any professor of philosphy, let alone student).  Each person has their unique style and place, much like some Messianic types have a heart for the Jewish demographic.  I don't knock them for selecting their own kinsmen to evangelize, for as Paul said, whenever the gospel is preached I rejoice.