Are Judgement House Ministries a Viable Means of Evangelism? A Response to Russell Moore by Norman Miller

An official at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Russ Moore reprised on Oct. 28, 2011 a 2008 Baptist Press editorial wherein he decries his perceived deficiencies of Judgement House ministries. Below is his editorial, and then my response to it.

Norm Miller

FIRST-PERSON: 7 reasons Halloween judgment houses often miss the mark 

Russell D. Moore

Posted on Oct 28, 2011

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP -- 1. They're not scary enough. To speak of hell, Jesus used the imagery of a garbage dump overrun with worms, a place where babies were once scarified to demons (Mark 9:43-48). Teenagers in plastic red devil masks and Styrofoam pitchforks usually don't convey what it means to "fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). The answer isn't better technology, though, since nothing we could conjure up can convey the anguish of the damned walled off from relationship with God.

2. They assume people's problem is that they don't know about judgment. But the Bible says they do. All of us have embedded within us a conscience that points us to the Day of Judgment (Roams 2:15-16). We have a"fearful expectation of judgment" (Hebrews 10:27). The problem is we block it out of our minds, diverting ourselves with other things. The problem isn't that lost people don't hate hell enough. It's that they don't love Christ. Hell is the Abyss they run into in their flight from Him.

3. They abstract judgment from the love of God. I know most "Judgment Houses" present the Gospel at the end. But in the Bible the Good News doesn't come at the end. The prodigal son leaves the father's house, but the father is eager to receive him back (Luke 16:11-31). The awful news of God's judgment is always intertwined in Scripture with the message of the Gospel of a loving, merciful God. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:17).

4. They abstract judgment from the glory of God. The prophet Isaiah doesn't see that he's "undone" first by the horror of judgment. He sees it in light of the glory of God's presence (Isaiah 6:1-6). The Apostle John tells us the glory Isaiah saw was Jesus of Nazareth (John 12:41). When we preach Jesus, the glory of God breaks through (2 Corinthians 4:6). Some people recoil at that light; some people run to it (John 3:19-21).

5. It's hard to cry at a Judgment House. But Jesus does when thinking about judgment (Matthew 23:37). And so does the Apostle Paul,pleading with sinners to be saved (2 Corinthians 5:20). These evangelistic tools, though, are meant to take on the feel of a "haunted house," a place of thrill-seeking and festivity. It's hard to convey the gravity of the moment in such a way.

6. The Holy Spirit doesn't usually like to work that way. Pop quiz: How many people do you know who came to know Christ through the witness of a friend? How many do you know who came to know Christ through faithful parents? How many are in Christ due to the week-to-week preaching of Christ in a local church? Probably a lot, right? Okay, now answer this: Howmany people do you know who came to know Christ through a Halloween "Judgment House" or "Hell House"? If you know one, you're outpacing me, and everyone I've ever talked to about this. The Holy Spirit tends to work through the preaching of Christ (Romans 10:17). That's how Hepoints the world to sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8).

7. They're easier to pull off than talking to people. Can people be saved through Judgment Houses? Sure. I have a colleague who was saved at a Stryper heavy metal concert in the 1980s. Are the intentions behind them good? Absolutely. If you have a Judgment House and it's enabling you to share Christ, have at it with blessings on you.

But the fact remains that most lost people in your neighborhood are going to be saved the same way people have always been saved, by Christian people loving them enough to build relationships, invite them to church and share the Gospel. The problem is that for many Christians that's scarier than a haunted house.

--30--

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at www.russellmoore.com. A version of it appeared in Baptist Press in 2008.

===================

Russell:

When in 2008 a permutation of your current Baptist Press opinion article on Judgment Houses appeared in Baptist Press, I jotted a quick email to you that has never been answered.

If memory serves, you noted in 2008 that you had never met anyone who had come to faith in Christ through a Judgment House ministry. I think my emailed response to you was that you should "get out more."

Check this citation from Baptist Press, posted Oct 22, 2001.

Judgement House effort 'absolutely worth it'

by Janice Backer

CLEARWATER, Fla. (BP)--Tired of planning the same type of alternative Halloween youth event for Bethel Baptist Church in Moody, Ala., Tom Hudgins decided use the paganholiday to present a gospel drama message. In 1983, the first production of"Judgement House" opened for two nights, with 500 people attending and 50 people making professions of faith (emph. added). "I couldn't believe it. We had revival meetings in the past, but not this kind of response," Hudgins recounted. Since that production, Judgement House has been produced in more than 220 churches in 27 different states and five foreign countries, with more than 63,200 people making first time professions offaith or recommitments to Christ (emph. added).

In your current BP opinion piece, you say Judgement Houses are "not scary enough." Have you been to one of these evangelistic efforts, Russ? See the same article noted above from Baptist Press:

Hudgins ... explained that Judgement House is an eight-scene walk-through drama which tells the story of the death of two young people. Currently there are eightdifferent scripts dealing with cancer, abusive family situations, automobile or plane crashes or some other calamity. At the end of the 45-minute tour, the gospel is presented (emph. added)http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=11987.

I've attended a number of these events, and the scenes are graphic. Further, I have seen genuine fright, fear and terror on the faces of many attendees.

"They assume people's problem is that they don't know about judgment" is your second point. Are you not also making an assumption, here? Personal assumption is a willful act. Unless you have talked with the Judgement House creators, then you have no basis in fact to say what they may or may not assume. If you refer to the ministry itself, then you are welcome to your opinion.

You wrote that Judgement Houses "abstract judgment from the love of God" noting that the "Good News doesn't come at the end." Just how big is your gnat? As a minister of the Gospel yourself, you ought to be pleased that such a ministry has wrought thousands into the Kingdom rather than to denigrate the ministry for an improper format as you see it.

You wrote that Judgement Houses "abstract judgment from the glory of God. The prophet Isaiah doesn't see that he's 'undone' first by the horror of judgment." Do you not think, Russ, that, if God had given Isaiah a view of his lostness in hell that Isaiah would not have repented? It was a sermon on hell preached by my father thatdrew me to God, not Isaiah 6.

"It's hard to cry at a Judgment House" you wrote. This statement alone tells me you have never been to a Judgement House presentation. I have seen countless people shed tears, and they do so easily at such an event. It may be hard for some to cry, but it is not hard for others. Note this BP citation: "Registered nurse Pam Beverly was moved to tears when she went through Higher Ground's Judgment House in 1994" http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=3936.

The above-cited 1997 article by Ken Walker notes that Pam Beverly came to Christ that very night. Said article casts a different light upon your opinion piece. Reading it may help you moderate more toward the use of means to help bring people to Christ.

"The Holy Spirit doesn't usually like to work that way" is your next presumptive statement. Pop quiz: How many people do you know who came to know Christ through the witness of a friend who read to them Isaiah 6? Next question: How do you know how it is that the Holy Spirit "likes" to work? Baptist Press reported that, as of 2001, 63,200 people had made first time professions of faith or recommitments to Christ. Later in that same article, the percentage of those confessing faith in Christ at such events is 7 percent. Odd, isn't it, that people are coming to know Christ and recommitting their lives to him in a manner that the Holy Spirit "doesn't usually like." (Hmmm?... "doesn't usually like ..." So He sometimes likes it and sometimes doesn't. And here I thought God was immutable.) As far as relationship evangelism is concerned, countless thousands of Christians bring their lost friends to Judgement House ministries every year. Is this not a form of relationship evangelism?

Indeed, people do come to Christ through foolish ways, whether through a Judgement House or through week-to-week preaching in a church. However, the latter doesn't seem to be so successful as of late. I'm counting on the Great Commission Task Force Report's implementation to remedy that situation. Meanwhile, 7 percent of folks seeing a Judgement House ministry will still keep coming to Christ. Wonder what the percentage of people coming to Christ is who hear preaching week-to-week? If it were 7 percent, I daresay we'd need the GCR at all.

"They're easier to pull off than talking to people," you opined. Now, really, Russ, can you say this with a straight face? Are you not aware of the logistical and theatrical preparation necessary to "pull off" a Judgement House ministry? But, if you are saying it's easier to use theatrics than it is to have a face-to-face conversation with someone about their lostness, my response would be two-fold: 1. Tell that to the folks at Sherwood Baptist Church, and 2. When is the last time you had such a face-to-face conversation with someone about their lostness? I suspect your honest answer is at the root of your assessment that such is difficult.

And one of your concluding statements is this: "But the fact remains that most lost people in your neighborhood are going to be saved the same way people have always been saved ..." How is it that lost people "have always (emph.added) been saved"? You suggest that method is relationship evangelism. What sort of relationship did Jonathan Edwards have with those to whom he read, from horseback, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Those who heard that sermon claimed to have felt the heat and smelled the stench of very hell itself. What sort of personal relationship did Billy Sunday or Billy Graham have with the multitudes to whom they preached and witnessed? To say that relationship evangelism is what wins people to Christ, in my opinion, diminishes the power of the Word and casts doubt on God's sovereignty. That's a bit like Wade Burleson saying that his willingness to drink wine at a dinner prepared by a lost woman led to her salvation, and that of her husband. Rev. Burleson must not give much stock to God's sovereignty in the salvation of lost people. I guess grace may be even more irresistible after one drinks aglass or two of wine. (Note that when we say it is the Spirit's wooing thatbrings people to Christ, we must always include the apostrophe and use an upper case 'S'.)

Your opinion piece cited some Bible verses. I'll cite you some, though there are others in defense of JudgementHouse ministry:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people sothat by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Cor. 9.19-23.

My guess is that the apostle Paul would applaud Judgement House ministries.

If you write about Judgement Houses again, I trust you will celebrate, rather than denigrate a method that has a 7 percent success rate, and that you would challenge SBC churches everywhere to implement the ministry on an annual basis.

Non-judgementally,

Norm Miller

Comments

[Scott Shaffer]

Moore may be wrong, his argument is certainly weak, and Miller may be correct. Regardless, I have a hard time throwing my support behind entertainment evangelism.

Like the apostle Paul, I rejoice whenever the gospel is proclaimed and souls are saved. However, that doesn't mean I have to rejoice in the methods that are employed. That such activities work is irrelevant. Miller's comment about a 7% success rate highlights the pragmatism that has infected much of the evangelical church.

[CASEY]

SCOTT, what you call "entertainment evangelism", in this case, is a dose of 'reality', as close as we can discern, to help people think about eternity and 'their eternity'...which they so frequently they want avoid, avoid talking about or avoid even thinking about. I would think a more appropriate term here would be "confrontational evangelism"...

[norm miller]

Scott:
Then the Apostle Paul, who became all things to all people, was an evangelistic pragmatist, too. Do you think that the Holy Spirit, who led Paul to write what he did, "doesn't usually like" what you call "entertainment evangelism"? If standing on your head in the town square would bring 7% of those who saw you to Christ, would you do it? Remember that the Bible calls preaching foolishness, so those who live in glass houses ... should probably get dressed in the basement.

[norm miller]

Scott said: "That such activities work is irrelevant." Let's think about that. I really enjoyed the steak, but it is irrelevant that someone cooked it. If the activity is irrelevant, then what of preaching the Gospel and what of personal witnessing? To castigate what some deem as entertainment evangelism is to castigate the saving message within the activity. It is a false dichotomy or at least contradictory to say one is glad folks are saved but express disdain for the methodology. The angels rejoice over one, but nothing is said of their opinion about the means. Let's rejoice and not recriminate!

[cody]

I appreciated Moore's article.

[Scott Shaffer]

Sure, it is confrontational. It is also entertainment. I'm not sure it is a dose of reality though. I don't think their representation of hell fits what we read in scripture.

[peter]

Scott,

Just because an act is entertainment does not mean an act is also unusable as a means of evangelism by the Spirit of God. Even so, we're not referring to entertainment replacing worship. Rather "entertainment" as you call it as a hook or occasion toward which share the gospel.

With that, I am...
peter

[William]

I'm not a big fan of the things, partly because they are big moneymakers for churches these days, but am generally ambivalent.

I do think that when statistics are reported (63,200 decisions...) they have limited value. I put in the same category crusade evangelism stats, mission trip stats and the like.

Of course we SBCers love big numbers...

[Scott Shaffer]

Hi Peter,

It has been a while since we've chatted. I trust all is well with you.

Just because an act is entertainment does not mean an act is also unusable as a means of evangelism by the Spirit of God.

I agree. I would also say that just because the Holy Spirit uses an act as a means of evangelism does not mean the act itself is God honoring. Genesis 50:20 is just one example of this. (And no, I'm not equating Joseph's brothers evil motives with those who use Judgment houses!)

Even so, we're not referring to entertainment replacing worship. Rather "entertainment" as you call it as a hook or occasion toward which share the gospel.

You make an important distinction between worship services and other ministry activities. May God give us wisdom in determining what is appropriate! My concern with some events is that the "hook" becomes the focus and what people remember, and not the gospel message. Is that the case with some events? Absolutely. With Norm Miller's Judgment House? I don't know.

[Scott Shaffer]

Hi Norm,

I trust you had a wonderful Lord's day and many opportunities to be a blessing.

Then the Apostle Paul, who became all things to all people, was an evangelistic pragmatist, too. Do you think that the Holy Spirit, who led Paul to write what he did, "doesn't usually like" what you call "entertainment evangelism"?

I think you're mistaken about the nature of Paul's so-called pragmatism and its applicability to this issue. His becoming all things to all people didn't change the message he delivered and apparently the manner in which he delivered it. For example, it meant that he followed the law when ministering to Jews so as not to be an offense. At other times he labored as a tent maker for his wages, even though as an apostle he had the right to ask for the church's support, so as not to be a burden.

If standing on your head in the town square would bring 7% of those who saw you to Christ, would you do it? Remember that the Bible calls preaching foolishness, so those who live in glass houses ... should probably get dressed in the basement.

Do you see what you've done with these two sentences? It isn't standing on my head that brings people to Christ. It never has been and it never will be the means God uses. He uses the preaching of the word, just as you mention in the second sentence. Here's how I apply that: evangelism activities should be centered around the preaching of the word. If your Judgment House does that, fine. Praise the Lord.

My concern with this type of activity,and I haven't seen yours so this is a general statement that may or nor be applicable to you, is that the "hook" as Peter puts it sometimes becomes the focus at the expense of the gospel. The evangelical church frequently mimics our culture by adorning the gospel message in the clothes of entertainment, often to the extent that the gospel message is diluted, compromised, or lost. Whatever Paul's "pragmatism" was, it wasn't that.

Grace and blessings,

Scott

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Scott. Yes it has been a while. I too hope you've been well.

I'm glad we agree on my assertion. Unfortunately, I cannot yet agree with yours: "I would also say that just because the Holy Spirit uses an act as a means of evangelism does not mean the act itself is God honoring." You cite as an example of your assertion, Gen. 50:20. I'm afraid that won't do. Joseph's brothers 'evil' act was meant for good by God. Or, we could say, God brings good from evil. And rightly we do not deduce it follows that the evil itself is good.

However, we are not speaking of a case when God brings good from evil. Entertainment itself cannot be judged evil. Surely there is such a thing as evil entertainment (e.g. playboy channel). But there is also such a thing as non-evil entertainment (e.g. Little House on the Prairie). Hence, unless you judge a priori Judgement House Ministries as evil entertainment, Joseph's brothers' evil that God intended for good just won't fit. Try another.

In the meantime, Scott, allow me: do you use illustrations in your sermons? Illustrations which have interesting aspects about them? Are your illustrations ever human interest stories? Are your illustrations ever humorous? Do your illustrations ever appeal to the emotions in any way? Now I know the classic definition of an illustration--to shed light on a biblical truth sorta like a window into a room. Nonetheless if the illustration has enough light to "hook" someone, there is always the danger you mention about too much light, a danger I too happen to be concerned about whether it's Judgement House, sermons, drama sketches, or any medium we employ to better understand God's truth.

Hence, from my perspective, a better approach to criticizing dramatic evangelistic mediums like Judgement House Ministries is to insist on wise pastoral oversight of the medium to ensure the "illustration" doesn't swallow up gospel message.

And, I'd bet a week's worth of Starbucks Norm Miller would give the hearty 'amen' to the wise council and insists upon it himself.

Grace, brother. And thanks for the participation.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Just a reminder. If you're going to use the html tags, make sure you cap them properly. I fixed your last two comments. You failed to put the "/" on the last "i" in the set. Hence, all words after that--including all words in other comments--are in italics.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaffer]

Norm,

You wrote,

Scott said: "That such activities work is irrelevant." Let's think about that. I really enjoyed the steak, but it is irrelevant that someone cooked it. If the activity is irrelevant, then what of preaching the Gospel and what of personal witnessing? To castigate what some deem as entertainment evangelism is to castigate the saving message within the activity. It is a false dichotomy or at least contradictory to say one is glad folks are saved but express disdain for the methodology. The angels rejoice over one, but nothing is said of their opinion about the means. Let's rejoice and not recriminate!

I do rejoice in those that are saved through this ministry. I believe I said that in my original post. If not, I'm saying it now!

You appear to think that any and all evangelism methods are acceptable as long as they lead to souls being saved. At least that's how I understand the paragraph I quoted above. We'll just have to disagree on this issue.

Please note that to disagree with the delivery method does not of necessity mean I disagree with the message. As I mentioned in my original comment, Paul didn't rejoice in the motives of those who preached the gospel in some twisted effort to add to his afflictions, but he did rejoice that they proclaimed Christ (Phil. 1:15-18). Similarly, I can criticize someone for preaching on a street corner in a pair of Speedo's, yet rejoice that souls are saved by his message. This is not a false dichotomy.

Blessings,

Scott

[Scott Shaffer]

Hi Peter,

You're right: entertainment is not inherently evil. (We'll have to ask Spurgeon to clarify his thoughts on this.) My point is simply that God can use our wrong motives and methods to accomplish His purposes. Consequently, we can't assume that just because good came out of a situation that everything causing it was good. Do you not agree with this?

As far as sermon illustrations go, we can add Easter and Christmas plays and many other events I'm sure. As you mentioned, there is a difference between the worship service and other ministry activities. What is appropriate for street evangelism or VBS may not be fitting for worship. And as I mentioned in my response to you, we need godly wisdom in these matters. At least I do. That goes for the "hook" or "illustration" swallowing up the gospel message as well.

Having said all that, I'm very concerned, so I try to watch with a discerning eye, that our entertainment soaked and infatuated culture is making headway into the worship services and ministries of many evangelical churches.

Blessings,

Scott

[Scott Shaffer]

Sorry about that. Too much cutting and pasting and not enough coffee.

[peter lumpkins]

"Consequently, we can't assume that just because good came out of a situation that everything causing it was good. Do you not agree with this?" Of course. After all, a Judgement House Ministry could have been a catalyst in many coming to Christ but could have also been financed with stolen money. But none of this is relevant to whether entertainment itself can be an appropriate means toward gospel evangelism.

I used to have a very difficult time with mass invitations at evangelistic rallies. As a critic I failed to realize that "walking the aisle" itself was a means God used to evangelize. That is, while arguably many--perhaps most (according to some)--who walk aisles in evangelistic crusades (we're not allowed to use 'crusade' any more except on my blog :^) do not walk because they are saved. They walk aisles for various reasons--from "pray for momma", "I'm sick", "somebody else is sick", "I'm lonely", etc etc to "I need a friend" and "I need Jesus." Even so, while they came for that reason, counselors are specifically trained to go through the gospel step by step and inquire into the person's spiritual life. Few occasions may be cited which offer a more personal, one-to-one conversation about a person's spiritual condition than a God-honoring gospel crusade.

Oh, btw, Scott, concerning pragmatism. For my money, far too many fling that term around in such a way as to suggest there exists a means to evangelism, worship, or any spiritual pursuit which is not pragmatic. This is prima facie nonsense. We're all pragmatic to a degree. If you don't think so, try having your main worship service every Sunday at 1AM. Why would you not do that? It wouldn't work. Or, try reading the Scripture always from your Greek New Testament and Hebrew OT on Sunday morning. Why would you not do that? It wouldn't work. We could go on and on about what wouldn't work. The truth is, sometimes the pragmatism card is played when mere personal preference or God-honoring common sense would do.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaffer]

I'm not sure what the issue is because I don't disagree with anything you wrote in your last comment.

[peter lumpkins]

Well, I don't know I wrote it with the backdrop of an issue between us on our present topic. If you like, I can make one ;^)

Actually my first paragraph was in answer to the question you asked me. The last two paragraphs were a bit of chattiness concerning 'pragmatism' which you brought up in your first comment and have continued to exchange about with Norm. That's all. No issue.

Have a great Monday, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaffer]

Okay. I mentioned pragmatism because it appeared to me that Norm supported this method of evangelism solely because it produced results. Any discussion about the appropriateness of the method was out of the question. I disagree.

[Scott Shaffer]

Speaking of entertainment and the church, have you read the latest from your favorite preacher Mark Driscoll?

http://pastormark.tv/2011/11/07/16-things-i-look-for-in-a-preacher

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I'm sure you'll be able to.

[peter lumpkins]

Actually I had not. But the practical points are fairly favorable. Too bad he frequently does not practice some of them himself.

With that, I am...
Peter