Ray Comfort’s “180” film can be seen at the end of this post.

It’s nicely produced, its conclusion is definitely worth advocating, and some of its methods may be worth emulating. I pray that the Lord will use this film in some way to stop the holocaust of abortion in America and around the world.

I agree with pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf, who evaluated the film from an apologetics-content standpoint, and concludes with this accolade:

Despite these concerns, the film is worth seeing and Comfort gets huge accolades for his courage in confronting abortion head-on. Say what you want, at least he’s doing something about it and for that I am immensely grateful. Before ripping him, his evangelical critics need to ask themselves what they are doing to stop the bloodshed. Are they taking this holocaust as seriously as Comfort does? I can only pray that one day they will.

I should confess at the front-end that I have mixed feelings about documentary-type films. On the one hand, when done well (here’s looking at you, Ken Burns!) they can be enormously entertaining and a vehicle for learning. On the other hand, you don’t have to be a film expert to know that the genre can be a conclusion in search of a film narrative (here’s looking at you, Michael Moore!). If you ask 100 people a question, it’s easy to edit it down to the 5 people who responded in the way that you wanted. And you can take those 5 people and edit their answers to advance the narrative even further. I say all of that by way of general principle, before diving into any specifics of this film and its editing.

Before even watching this film, it’s interesting to make an observation or two about the intense marketing that is being attempted with the hope that the video will go “viral.” The promotional materials imply that “8 people changed their mind about abortion in a manner of seconds.” Comfort himself told The Christian Post that he asked a question that was “so powerful that it not only changed the people’s minds about abortion, and made them do a 180 (degree turn in viewpoint), but it made them do a 180 when it comes to their own eternal salvation.” This suggests a silver-bullet, one-question approach to abortion and salvation, and I don’t think the actual film really bears this out. The promotional materials also refer to the film as being “award-winning,” but I haven’t been able to find thus far what “awards” it has won. [Update: I’ve been told now that the the film, when it was called “Hitler’s Religion,” won the bronze prize in the Religion/Spiritual category of the Telly Awards.] I think overselling a project like this actually tends to work with the public, but for me it creates a bit of suspicion from the get-go.

Comfort’s goal in this project is to change America by God’s grace. Listen to Comfort’s logical progression in the following quote—I added some brackets to identify the point—for how he thinks this film will change America:

We’d like to see this film go viral because [a] if you can change what a person believes about abortion [b] you are going to change the way they vote, and [c] that can change the direction of this nation and [d] this nation surely can be turned back to God. A lot of people have (already) said this will turn the nation back to God with His help.

The desire is commendable but naive, especially if it sees changing of voting patterns as the linchpin. In Comfort’s line of questioning in the film, that appears to be the end-goal.

The film begins with Comfort asking several people “Who was Adolf Hitler?” Most of the interviewees—at least the ones shown on film—don’t know who he is or what he did. At this point I suspect many who answered correctly were edited out. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but it sets up the film in a strange way as if no one in America remembers who Hitler was or what he did.

The ignorant respondents are contrasted with a couple of contemporary neo-Nazis who spew their hatred.

Comfort then runs a thought experiment: It’s 1939, you have a high-powered rifle, and you have Hitler in your sights. Would you pull the trigger? (Respondents—including a man whose family died in the Holocaust—say “yes.” This man goes on to say that he would have not only killed Hitler but all of his friends and all of his relatives!)

Comfort then asks: If it was 30 years earlier, would you have killed Hitler’s pregnant mother knowing what you know now? (Again respondents say “yes.”)

This was a strange part of the film for me. I don’t know how Comfort himself would answer those questions. I suspect he would advocate killing in both cases—but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure if he is implying a utilitarian ethic on behalf of life, or if he is merely “priming the pump” to get these folks thinking ethically through moral dilemmas related to life. This line of reasoning is never developed and makes the film’s logic seem disjointed.

From here Comfort explains (rightly) that Hitler not only hated Judaism but also Christianity, and he briefly describes some of his horrific acts.

At this point we’re one-third of the way through the 33-minute film.

Now Comfort moves to his third thought experiment: It’s 1943, and a Nazi officer points a machine gun at you, forcing you to drive a bulldozer  toward 100 Jewish families who have been shot. Many of them are dead, but some are still alive. Driving the bulldozer forward would bury them alive. If you do what the Nazi says, he’ll let you live; if not, he’ll shoot you dead. Would you do it? (The response here is evenly mixed, yes and no.)

Now the fourth thought experiment: if the Nazi gave you a machine gun in the same situation, would you just finish them off? This would be more merciful, Comfort says. (Again the response is mixed.)

Comfort for the first time raises the issue of abortion. Observing that his interviewee seems to value human life, he asks what they think about it. Most responded that it’s a tricky situation.

Then he asks if it’s a baby in the womb, or when the baby becomes a life. He takes the helpful tactic of making them flesh out their moral beliefs on abortion: Finish this sentence: It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when ________. He also asks what justifies killing a baby in the womb.

To a respondent who says that she doesn’t know, Comfort rightly responds: If you had the opportunity to detonate a building and you weren’t sure there was human life inside, would you still blow it up?

For a young man who says it’s important to “give it some thought” before an abortion, Comfort asks if he sees that that’s like saying it’s important just to “give it some thought” before burying those Jews alive. (The respondent senses the contradiction.) A few more clips are shown where Comfort circles back to earlier answers: they would give their life to save the Jews but are okay with allowing a baby to die in the womb (which for some reason Comfort calls “the safest place on earth,” despite the statistics on non-elective abortion pregnancy loss).

On the answer of rape, Comfort again asks a good question: Why would you kill the baby for the crime of the father?

To another person Comfort asks when life begins. She doesn’t know, so he asks whether or not she thinks God knows. She thinks he does. Comfort then points out the sixth commandment: you shall not kill. Hitler declared Jews to be non-human, and that’s what you’re doing if you declare it’s not a baby until three months.

Comfort also make the Nazi Germany analogy in response to those who say abortion is okay but they don’t agree with it. It’s at this point that Comfort asks the respondent feeling the contradiction if he is changing his mind on abortion, and he says that yes, it’s definitely making him think.

Two other respondents see the problems when Comfort asks, “Abortion is okay when ______?” and say that abortion is now wrong. A third says he has a valid point.

Two-thirds of the way through the film now,  Comfort returns to Hitler’s view of the Ten Commandments as a segue to his method of evangelism. Unfortunately, the quote from Hitler at 23:23, while something Hitler might have said, is actually from a a novel. (Hitler’s views on Christianity are well-known and can be shown through actual quotes, as Erwin Lutzer demonstrated years ago.)

It’s at this point that Comfort transitions from abortion to his well-known method of evangelism. He asks folks a series of questions: Have you ever lied? (Yes.) What do you call someone who lies? (A liar.) He does the same with fornication and adultery of the heart, taking the Lord’s name in vain, stealing. He also asks if they are good enough to go to heaven, to stand before God on judgment. Most (though not all) suggest they are good enough, and he points out that by their own profession they are lying, thieving, blaspheming fornicators. The line of questioning helps the listener to confront the contradiction between sin and acceptance by a holy God. Comfort then says that Jesus paid the penalty for sins and that we must repent and put on Christ (not just look at Jesus like a parachute but actually put it on to save us).

It’s hard for me not to think here of D.L. Moody’s quip when his ministry methods were questioned: “I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it.” But I think it’s still worth pointing out for those who would like to utilize or adapt Comfort’s method of evangelism: perhaps the most important book to read here would be John Piper’s God Is the Gospel. I get nervous about evangelism results that are mainly motivated by and predicated on avoiding judgment and hell and not also seeing the beauty and glory and joy of Jesus Christ.

Here are my simple big-picture take-aways from the film:

  1. Comfort’s end-goals are commendable and necessary: seeing the logic and horror of abortion and seeing the need for salvation from judgment (even if the latter is relatively one-sided).
  2. Comfort models courage and the power of asking questions. He wisely seeks to make his respondents defend their moral claims. Comfort asks some good questions (especially on rape and in response to those who don’t know if it’s a life in the womb). But he also asks some bad questions: I still don’t know why you’d ask about using a high-powered rife to kill Mrs. Hitler and abort her son!
  3. As evangelicals and as Americans we have been conditioned to get excited about silver-bullet approaches. But there’s no “one question”—despite the buzz—that will turn someone from pro-choice to pro-life in “seconds.” The same is true with regard to salvation.
  4. The conversations in the film are essentially one-way: Comfort asks all the questions, they have to defend their beliefs. This probably works better with man-on-the-street interviews—especially with a microphone and a camera—than in actual conversations and especially in relationships. Again, there’s certainly nothing wrong with doing this. But I think we should be realistic in seeing that asking good questions is a transferable tactic—the “silver-bullet” interview-style dialogue probably is not.
  5. I’m concerned that the way in which Comfort backs someone into the corner morally and logically may be good for reaching quick decisions, but I’m not sure it really equips them to understand the ultimate issues, especially when they are confronted with an intelligent pro-abortion advocate. I think that the tactics developed by Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf—which may not produce as many ostensible 180’s—will produce more lasting fruit.
  6. To quote Klusendorf again: “Thank you, Ray Comfort. I’m thankful you care enough about abortion to do something about it. I’m grateful for the resources you personally invested to make the film. I’m glad you take abortion seriously.” Amen. I am virtually certain the film will not change our country. But if the Lord uses it to change some minds and hearts—and thereby save some lives—it will all be worth it.

Print Friendly
View Comments

Comments:


57 thoughts on “Ray Comfort’s “180” Film on Hitler and Abortion”

  1. Theologian says:

    S JT,

    Quick clarification please. You say that you get nervous with Comfort’s type of evangelism. Is it because you do not believe that he talks about the beauty of the Lord? Or because you feel like he puts an emPhasis on a different sylLable? Also, can you clarify how it makes you nervous?

  2. Terry says:

    I saw the video a few nights ago (and shared it on Facebook). I had not seen the hype about the video. In fact, I didn’t know what the video was about until I watched it. I found it to be powerful. There were a few weaknesses that I noticed also. For example, his questions about whether you would have killed Hitler in the womb–it left open the possibility that abortion would be justified for kids who are likely to grow up to become menaces to society. But it was still a powerful pro-life film. It was challenging intellectually for those who have never really thought through the issue.

  3. donsands says:

    I saw this on Wretched last night with Todd Friel. Have not watched the film yet. But will do so now. Thanks for the post.

    Have a wonderful Lord’s Day in our Savior’s presence and peace and joy!

  4. Courage. That’s what it takes to expose the unthinkable depths of self-centered cruelty of one’s own culture.

  5. Reg Schofield says:

    While I appreciate Comforts courage , I don’t think that these questions he ask will change the mind a atheistic , moral relativists who knows how to ask questions back or challenge Comforts views. One who is settled in their mind concerning the issue of God,abortion ,the nature of evil etc.. would be much harder . Most of these people looked like deers in the headlights.

    Plus I have never cared much for his approach on the street of 90 percent law , throw in a little gospel and bam , you got conversion .I think his heart is in the right place but after watching Hell’s Best Kept Secret , I’m sorry but it was was like saying , do this and you will have guaranteed results.Too formulaic. I do agree the law is neglected when preaching or sharing the gospel but when you apply it thick , it really doesn’t take much for someone to go , yeah I know I’m a sinner if that’s what you want to call me but whats the big deal about Jesus.Been there and done that.

    The good that could come from this a new conversation about abortion and I do give him props for doing something.

    1. Bradley Hill says:

      If you understand the ministry and power of the Holy Spirit, you will have to acknoledge that only a person who is equiped, as Ray Comfort is, that the Holy Spirit is the one who changes the minds of people.
      Ray is only the catalyst for what the Holy Spirit will reach these people. Ray is not the only one with the gift to evangelize as many people have been enlisted by God to bring this same message to the ears of those they come in contact.
      Ray has a special gift for going out in the middle of a group of young people and say what the Lord has place on his heart.

      So, to make comment on what you said in your first sentence in that people will not be able to change the minds of an Atheisit..This is very true, but it will be God to change their minds. He is the creator of their body and mind and only He can get through to their inner soul.

  6. David says:

    How do you get to the point of being comfortable dissecting a work that another has done when we do nothing? I know its supposed to be right to look at this video in depth and say, “i would have done this or that” but is it possible that its actually more to the glory of God to allow it to exist as it is and be moved by it to action in the name of the Lord since there was nothing actually wrong with what he did, just things that opinions would differ on? Im just thinking out loud. In a world where ultimate themes are needing focus (the end of abortion) is it even beneficial to say, “this is good but i would ask the question different?” Since there is nothing that runs directly against our theological framework, isnt it better to allow yourself to simply be moved and do something? And i mean this only in the realm of ultimate things, of course there is a place for breaking something down critically, but this just doesnt seem like the type of production to do that with. Pat Robertsons comments on the other hand…

    1. Bradley Hill says:

      David,

      Come down from the clouds…This video was very powerful and most people understood what Ray Comfort was saying. He just asked some very specific questions that “all” these young people could relate.

      The bible (God’s word) does say what Ray quoted to these young people by way of example (6th Commandment). There is a Heaven and Hell Revelation 19-20 and everyone will stand before the Lord one day.

      The ones who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation will be judged at the “Judgement Seat of Christ” for their deed (works) and the people who did NOT believe will be judged for their unbeleive at the “Great White Throne Judgement” at the appointed time.

      So, what do you believe David?

  7. Mark says:

    and the holocaust goes on while we nitpick our brothers…

  8. Richard says:

    I pray this changes people’s minds. Color me a little sceptical, though, that Christian films such as this wind up sounding like poor imitations of Michael Moore’s films.

    1. Bradley Hill says:

      You under estimate the power of the Holy Spirit!

  9. Justin Taylor says:

    David and Mark: I reject the idea that Christians should think critically only about “the world” and not things from within our own camp. Furthermore, I reject the either-or idea that we either think critically about a pro-life film or we “do something” about the holocaust of abortion. I’m trying to do both. I hope we’re not so defensive that we can’t see the many commendatory aspects of a film like this and yet ask a few questions at the same time.

    1. David says:

      I agree. Your point is valid. Lord, Help us to fulfill those words and not be either-or. Especially not to just comment without doing something, i think we would be better off doing something without commenting. This is the danger in being critical about a video like this…we must ACTUALLY not be either-or. And in this I am growing.

      1. Bradley Hill says:

        David,

        The only thing I can get from your comments is that you lack boldness and you are hidding behind your statements. “IF” you are a Christian you will want to tell someone about your faith in Christ and not just keep it to yourself.

        Matthew 28:19 was written by the Lord which says; Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and teh Son and the Holy Spirit. You can’t do that without making some kind of “comment.” As far as doing something, it will be the Holy Spirit who does something in you. Knowing the gospel and giving it to someone is doing something.” Right?

    2. Mark says:

      Certainly, Justin. I’m not a Ray Comfort apologist. I’ve never used his resources (not that I wouldn’t – just haven’t to this point). In other words – I have nothing to be defensive about here :-). I just find your piece a bit inappropriate and unnecessary given the gravity of this issue. There are bigger dragons to publicly slay with our keyboards.

  10. Steven says:

    Normally I really enjoy your posts Justin, but I found this one to be really nit picky. I found it to be like criticizing the way someone performed CPR to be honest.

    Someone has the guts to take on abortion in the streets and not from the safety of a blog or a pulpit and he gets nit picked because we don’t like the way he did it and his method “raises some questions”? Please.

    Not everything has to be dissected to death and this is the perfect example. You’re better than this and there are better subjects to pick apart than our brothers efforts to bring awareness.

    Thank you for all of your hard work though, I’m sure it took a while to type all of this out.

  11. John Samson says:

    Well said David (above)!

  12. Theology Samurai says:

    I have no comment on this film, but wanted to note the irony of Rob Bell working with the producer of “Lost”. I think they should call the new show “Lost Too”

  13. Glenn says:

    At the risk of being shot down as picky; 6th Commandment is quoted as “you shall not kill” where it should be “you shall not murder”

    1. David says:

      yeah…thats picky ;)

  14. Regarding the “award-winning,” I emailed them and asked–and received an answer back within a hour or so:

    Here’s the award they won:
    http://www.tellyawards.com/winners/list/entries/?l=living+waters&event=&category=2&award=3

    Here’s their FAQ site for the film:
    http://heartchanger.com/faq.php

    1. Richard says:

      Good old “Christian” marketing. Got to love it.

  15. David says:

    Interesting conversation. If you haven’t read Comfort’s biography, then you should check it out.

    In response about his method, consider this: the majority of people one meets are not going to be thoughtful atheists/relativist debaters. Most people are and have always been unthoughtful about matters of ethics and morals and God. They view the matters as important but not urgent – and therefore left unconsidered for the time being. Most people flow by their emotions and illogical foolishness, and so they hold contradictions in their hearts which are readily exposed. Comfort has always directed his attention to these people, because they are the ones usually willing to stand and talk and speak and be humbled. And, in those moments of humility God sheds His grace and exalts a man. (The proud atheist debater, however, is often hardhearted and unwilling to confront his illogical assumptions, and so Comfort spends time with them publicly as a means of explaining additional truths to the larger gawking audiences – like “let him who is without sin cast…”)

  16. Mark says:

    Mark 9:38-41

  17. mike c says:

    fantastic review. thank you.

  18. The whole marketing approach struck me as a Chrstian-ized version of all those Internet sidebar ads about “the one fifteen minute trick for teeth whitening your dentist hopes you don’t know about.” So, I reserved judgment until I’d read a review. Thanks for your graciousness in highlighting both the positives and negatives here.

    One of the many frustrations I have with law-based, gospel-minimalist approaches to the abortion debate is how it likely drives those who have already had abortions, or who work in the industry, away from the cross. If the emphasis is only, or even mostly, on God’s law and His wrath, and not the cross and the glorious offer of freedom from guilt and shame, and eternal adoption into God’s Kingdom, for even the most committed aobrtionist, it may keep as many people away from Heaven, even in the midst of saving human life in the here and now.

    1. Mark says:

      I’m sorry Rachael, but this just comes across as sanctimonious. So Ray Comfort emphasizes the law in his gospel presentation more than you would. That doesn’t make him wrong. It certainly doesn’t make him a “gospel-minimalist”. Mercy.

      There is no gospel of grace apart from some discussion of God’s law. There is no imputation of righteousness to our account apart from some discussion of the fulfillment of God’s law and the turning of God’s wrath in/through/by the work of Christ. Certainly we need balance, but just because someone doesn’t balance like we do doesn’t mean we should berate their approach.

  19. Steven, I do not agree that Justin’s review is nitpicky. The film is a public presentation and therefore open to public comment, both pro and con. Indeed, Justin’s remarks are an important part of a larger pro-life conversation–namely, how can we best communicate our message to a skeptical public? As a pro-life apologist, my own presentations are subject to that same question, so why not Comfort’s?

    1. Steven says:

      I wouldn’t even consider criticizing your work as a pro life apologist unless your work was heretical or your methods grossly problematic. I’m certainly not going to write a blog about how you could do your work better, but instead support you.

      The concerns Justin has presented are mainly speculative and do not in any way point out doctrinal error or even point to where Comforts methods lead to harm (just that they could), which is again speculative.

      I do see the need to raise questions, and have praised Justin in the past, but I just don’t see this documentary as so problematic you have to write a blog raising questions regarding it.

      Just my 2 cents.

  20. Robert says:

    Even though it’s a sensitive topic, my wife and I laughed during the documentary. It is so contrived; so manufactured; and so manipulative, it isn’t even funny. It’s just plain terrible. The interviewer is both pushy and sneaky at the same time. It’s like he uses psychological slight-of-hand to drive the pro-life position home. It’s kind of like, “Now that we bash you over the head w/ yet more WWII Holocaust guilt, only then can we move on and talk about abortion.” Moreover, nobody except God can permanently change somebody’s entire world view in 60 seconds. In other words, it’s this kind of crap that has become Evangelicals’ gold standard for both education and entertainment.

    1. David says:

      I wonder what you and your wife are doing to get so many people to think critically about such an abomination and, on top of that, the eternal implications it raises. I wonder what your gold standard is? Even in its imperfection, the message was presented so that multiple people will certainly weigh the importance of the topic. And it wasnt “Holocaust guilt” that was pressed upon them. It was to draw out of them a double standard that so many of us live with. Im glad you and your wife found humor though…

      1. Why is it incumbent upon him to get people to think critically before he thinks critically about something?

  21. henrybish says:

    How would we who subscribe to New Covenant theology think about Ray Comfort’s use of the 10 commandments?

  22. Megan says:

    Why Hitler? Why not Sadaam Hussein? We know his mother was talked out of an abortion.

    I’m sorry, but the minute a guy has to rely on pejoratives like Hitler, Nazis or holocaust, I generally conclude he doesn’t have a particularly strong case. And 33 minutes is way too long to expect someone to listen to an argument they don’t already agree with.

  23. Jeff Baxter says:

    I saw the 180 Video yesterday prior to your post. This is a great summary of many of the same thoughts I had about the film. Overall, good stuff!

  24. Jerry says:

    I think that this was a fair, even handed review. I have seen others that have not been as charitable, even those that have been on the fringe of Hyper-Calvinism: “How dare Comfort call on people to repent? Doesn’t he know that it is only the new birth that brings salvation?”

    When I read those I feel like getting into William Carey’s “An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens”.

  25. David Smith says:

    My primary question is, ‘now what?’ Some of these people were clearly distraught, as they should be, are they then helped to find a good church rather than just ‘are you going to think about this when you get home?’

    Maybe someone familiar with Comfort’s work could tell us if they really just leave it there?

  26. Mark says:

    One of many endorsements of this film:

    “I give my unflinching, joyful, trembling Yes to ‘180’. Unflinching, because it’s right. Joyful, because it’s good. Trembling, because this our defeated enemy is still vicious.”

    John Piper – Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bethlehem Baptist Church

  27. Theologian says:

    JT,

    I almost think you might want to post a new post on biblical criticsm. Also, it would seem you are a bit unopen to correction, which I know from experience is not true, based on your “I reject….” response. Naturally, it is good you are confident in your convictions, but maybe tone it down with the authoratative responses. Thank you for making us aware of this work and for you comittment to life aw I know you are a big proponent of adoption.

  28. AStev says:

    My main concern with the film was that it seemed to put a political message on par with the gospel message…

    1. It may seem that way because of our current cultural sensibilities, but the gospel is pervasive. That means it impacts every bit of our lives when we truly trust Christ. There is no saying that the gospel is over here in this box and politics is over here in this other box and they shouldn’t mix.

      Would it be perfectly acceptable for a Christian to walk by and ignore someone we see who is about about to be murdered without pursuing an appropriate solution for stopping the murder? When we see people being killed in abortion clinics, we correctly deduce that the appropriate solution is in the political arena. It is reprehensible for Christians to fail to act, and such action is every bit a part of the gospel of grace that was so dearly bought for us by Christ.

  29. Justin King says:

    “I get nervous about evangelism results that are mainly motivated by and predicated on avoiding judgment and hell and not also seeing the beauty and glory and joy of Jesus Christ.”

    I believe the author here has a pretty big misconception in Ray Comfort’s ministry. I’m to some degree a Comfort-ite but have not viewed ‘180’ yet. Maybe the author isn’t familiar with Ray Comfort beyond this movie, but Ray Comfort certainly doesn’t use judgement and or hell as the motivation to follow Jesus but shows them how much God loves them by sending his Son to die for them and uses that as the primary motivation for following Christ.

    Granted, Ray could do a better job of describing adoption and restoration in his Gospel narrative but I think he hits the main points pretty well.

  30. Glenn says:

    One point that Justin mentions strikes me as a criticism that I think we should consider. This documentary misses the mark IF it turns into just another reason to vote a certain way.

    The church, the Body of Christ, His Bride and therefore His Kingdom is His plan A, not a political agenda whose goal is to get card carrying, pro-life, born-again Christians into the White House. The church actually has ALL the power and authority it needs since its Head/President is Jesus!

    Changing hearts one at a time through the gospel of Jesus Christ should be the goal—yes? Ray is very gifted at this and IF he were to have ended this documentary with a few testimonies of faith in Christ, instead of people willing to change the way that they vote, I think that its message would be more meaningful! Decisions to follow Jesus as Lord should trump decisions to vote a certain way.

  31. Glenn says:

    Said another way, decisions to follow Jesus as Lord will result in living ‘and’ voting the way we should.

  32. Mason says:

    It seems like this was a fair review for the most part. I guess my only issue is I wish Justin would have contacted Ray. He obviously didn’t have to but if he had he might have had a different review or at least put it out later. As I saw discussed on a recent GC video about disagreeing with someone(Not saying Justin totally disagreed either)featuring Michael Horton, Matt Chandler, and Tim Keller. They talked about how the internet makes reviews lightning fast. All the blogs posted about this will undoubtedly color some peoples feelings so much that they will now never even see the video much less think to give these away to people who need the Gospel. I think the abortion angle is only secondary to the Gospel message. I would have been surprised and dissapointed if Ray didn’t give a Gospel message. Of course he didn’t dissapoint. Since these are going to be available at $1 a dvd and it’s way better than anything myself or anyone else with resources like mine can put together, it is a great way to do something. I encourage folks to buy them, hand them out, to neighbors, family members, friends, co workers, anybody you feel led to. Remember as well that this really is a two in one. People get an anti abortion message but more important a Gospel message. It may seem short but it really is just an expanded message of the same one Jesus started it all with. “…Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Mk. 1:15

  33. Michael says:

    This reminds me of the Bell Curve. Were there is a minority for, a majority not sure, and a minority against. We should be aiming at reaching the not sure. We have locks to keep honest people honest, not to keep thieves out. The thief will just break your window. But the majority not sure will walk up to the door check it and if locked leave the house alone. The same with this film. Most people in America do not think about these things. They believe in natural selection and Darwin. This video did exactly what it was designed to do. It is not intended for a scholarly debate, but played on more emotion than logic and that’s okay.

  34. Dan Bartol says:

    Ray Comfort played a huge role in my life when I became a believer. It’s very true that we should evaluate what we’re doing before we criticize the methods of others (ala Moody), while not just taking things uncritically. I think Justin was spot on by referencing Piper’s “God is the Gospel” as a good way of balance, as well as the works of Koukl. I have found great fruit in reaching the lost by using the way of the master method (both in relationships and 1 to 1 encounters), as it helps put things into perspective in a very easy to understand manner, while addressing the common questions and objections people usually have to the gospel. But, to be honest, it can come off as fire insurance at times, which is why I think a balance of the bunch in your tool belt is much more beneficial than sticking to one exclusively.

    If anyone here has never done street evangelism before. I would challenge you to try it (even if you think it’s taboo). You never know what you might become apart of in what God is already doing.

  35. Bradley Hill says:

    I have professed faith in Jesus Christ for past 26 years and have always believed that God looks against any woman taking her babies life in the womb.

    Ray Comfort makes a very strong case in that there are no reasons to take a life in the womb. As I mentioned beforre, I take a Pro-Life stance, but this video has helped me see why I do.

    Ray asks a lot of questions in a rapid way, in order to get young people to really think about life’s issues. I know it was uncomfortable for these young people to answer Ray, but in the end, they were wiser and healthier in their minds to deal with the issues of abortion and better able to help others to make a decision to do likewise.

  36. Jim Grantz says:

    Ray Comfort uses logic, truth, and conviction to prove abortion is absolutely murder and just as evil as Hitler’s murdering of 6 million
    Jews, Christians, blacks, and the handicap. This film must be seen by all the skeptics and pro-choicers who want to support the woman’s right to choose abortions.

  37. Pastor says:

    To be honest, as a pastor I think this film goes over the line and would certainly not recommend it to either our youth group or my congregation as a whole. Whatever redeeming values it does possess are little in comparison to the way in which it marginalizes WW2 with the gratuitous film footage of bodies and killings in such a way as much of the modern American cinema relishes blood, guts, and skin. I’m not impressed and neither was the German person who watched it with me who felt the need to leave the room because of how the film was using the holocaust as a means to an end. We should never act as if knee-jerk reactions (which this film will undoubtedly receive) are the same as true changes of heart and mind.

  38. dreamer says:

    All I see is a rather crass, manipulative propaganda movie. As the reviewer says, we have no idea how many people he interviewed before getting the clips he needed. If it was ten, then that would be impressive, but if it was 200, then, not so much.

    Getting sound bites from “deer in the headlights” interviewees and then spinning them into the narrative you want to tell may be an effective method for getting your message across, but I hardly think it’s a particularly honorable or honest way to make a documentary.

    Give me someone as confident, eloquent and persuasive as Ray Comfort is in that situation, and I could easily come up with a set of leading questions that would have at least some interviewees (and probably some of the same ones Comfort uses) totally convinced that Ray Comfort’s concept of Hell is one of the most dastardly inventions in history. Easy.

Comments are closed.

Justin Taylor


Justin Taylor is senior vice president and publisher for books at Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books