From the Archives: 10 Mistakes We Make with the Gospel
Image
1. Referring Rather than Declaring
It’s one thing to say “the gospel is central to all we do.” It’s another thing to declare that Jesus Christ died for sinners and rose again. It’s yet another thing to integrate the gospel into how we look at every part of ministry. Note the difference between these statements:
Statement 1: We have a children’s ministry to further the gospel in the lives of children
Statement 2: We have a children’s ministry because we all come into this world as sinners in need of rescue by a living, sinless Savior. It’s never too soon to start learning this freeing truth (Matt. 19:14, John 8:32).
Statement 3: God’s gracious plan is to transform bearers of guilt and shame into genuinely holy bearers of His name. Our church exists as a tool of God for that gospel purpose, and our children’s ministry exists to fully extend the church’s efforts to the youngest among us.
Statement 1 merely refers. Statement 2 declares. Statement 3 integrates. “Children’s ministry” can be replaced with any number of local church efforts, with details adjusted. The point is that we too often settle for reference when we ought to go all the way to integration.
2. Not Going There at All
Of course, an even greater problem is failure to get to the gospel even by reference. I’ve seen this happen even on occasions when an audience very likely to include multiple unbelievers is sitting right there ready to hear! I can’t begin to comprehend why a believer would pass up an opportunity like that. Romans 1:16?
3. “By the Way…”
More commonly, I have seen the gospel tacked on to the end of messages on occasions where it ought to have been the topic because the audience consisted mostly of the religious-but-confused.
Funerals are a typical case. It isn’t the time for homilies on the uncertainties of life, with an “Oh by the way, Jesus died for sinners,” in there somewhere. Most nursing home or assisted-living facility services are in this category as well. By all means, wrap the essentials of the gospel in a theme that has broad appeal, but we should devote the bulk to explaining and illustrating the gospel point by point.
It’s been my experience that believers never tire of this sort of preaching either. I can’t tell you how many times in 13 years of full time pastoral ministry I saw mature Christian audiences come alive visibly while some corner of my mind reflected, “I’m just preaching the gospel … again!”
4. Using Inaccurate Language
I probably cringe visibly every time I hear any variant of “ask Jesus into your heart.” The slightly more adult “invite Christ into your life” is really no better, nor is “make a commitment to Christ.”
It may be overstatement to say users of these terms are teaching a false gospel—but not by much. The Scriptures are clear that unbelievers do not become Christians by asking Jesus to relocate in some way. Nor do we pass from death to life by means of “a commitment.”
Yes, humans use language imprecisely. Genuine conversions take place in response to sloppy gospel appeals and people who are truly in Christ often express their faith in incomplete and inaccurate terms. They are no less accepted in the Beloved for all that.
But people who love the gospel and are leaders in preaching and teaching it can do better than to use sloppy language.
5. Isolating It from Its Implications
There is a kind of gospel reductionism that plagues many ministries. While they are good about including the essential core principles of the gospel (sin, judgment, Christ’s provision, the response of repentant faith), they are not equally good about asking “why?” and “so what?”
Why? God’s purpose in saving isn’t just to relieve a few from the consequences of Adam’s sin and their own. His purpose is to transform (Eph. 2:8-10, Rom. 8:3-4, 18-19). A transformed life here and now (yes, even a “victorious life,” in a manner of speaking) is a necessary implication of the gospel.
So what? That being the case, no ministry is sufficiently gospel-honoring if it doesn’t aim to grow disciples who are increasingly distinct from the lost. The result is a strong expectation of change, not ministry that encourages believers to bask in the blessings of the gospel without heeding the demands of the gospel.
6. Overuse of Jargon
Well-meaning gospel preachers often overuse terms only familiar to experienced believers. “Are you saved?” doesn’t mean a thing to many of those most in need of the gospel message. “Do you have a clear testimony?” sounds like courtroom proceedings. And “You don’t know Jesus,” sounds like a truism—how can anybody know a person who died thousands of years ago?
And “personal Savior”? I suppose the idea is that we don’t get to heaven by being in a crowd of people who claim the faith. There must be personal faith, and Jesus saves one sinner at a time. But the shorthand … I don’t think it works.
Arguably, all of these terms have their place, but there are other biblical (often more biblical) ways of referring to the basic need of the natural man, the solution God offers, and the necessary response. And pretty much any terms we use need illustrating and explaining, not just repeating.
7. Solving the Wrong Problem
This one is a cousin to “inaccurate language” above. The famous evangelical evangelists of the last several decades preach a “gospel” that solves the wrong problems. Rather than presenting human beings as fallen creatures who have offended a holy and just God, and who cannot fix that problem on their own, these pulpiteers present human beings as depressed, aimless, hurting from the misdeeds of others, grieving terrible losses, etc. These are all real human problems, but Jesus didn’t primarily die “for those tears.”
God became flesh, endured temptation, suffered at the hands of the chief priests and scribes, bore the wrath of the Father, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended to glory to solve the problem of sin and no other.
Yes, other things being equal, life is more “effective” and purposeful for believers, but these are secondary benefits to being reconciled to God. Let’s not confuse a subset of results of redemption with redemption itself. Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well He was the answer to her difficulty forming lasting relationships, nor did Paul tell the Philippian jailer that Jesus was the answer to his out-of-control job stress.
I wish I could say this problem is unique to popular evangelical evangelists, but I’ve also heard many a fundamentalist preach a “gospel” that solves the wrong problem.
8. Neglecting Repentance
It probably goes without saying that so-called gospel preaching that aims at having “your best life now” tends to omit any kind of call to repentance. When you’re invited to “make a commitment to Christ” so you won’t be so sad anymore what could you possibly repent of?
But a sense of conviction that we have indeed done wrong—and are people of the sort who do wrong, even by our own standards (much more so by God’s)—is integral to conversion. Hence, the calls to repentance that we find in gospel preaching in Scripture (Acts 2:38, 3:19, 8:22, 17:30, 26:20).
9. Too Little Worldview
Increasingly, we can’t assume people possess foundational ideas. These were already in place in the predominantly Jewish, first-century gospel audience and continued in the culturally-Christian audience that used to be the majority in the West—but they are often not in place in audiences today.
It’s possible to take the whole “back to Genesis” concept too far, but the trend is that teaching the gospel will require us to at least clarify Who we mean when we say “God,” and what sort of being we’re talking about when we refer to “Jesus Christ.” The savior concept requires understanding first that there is a holy God we will all answer to and that He is entitled to judge us.
10. Desperation
The consequences of rejecting Christ are eternal, and those who believe are indeed called to seek to persuade human beings to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:11, Acts 18:4), but in the power balance, God has more than enough to draw and convert and we have none at all. We shouldn’t resort to trying to shout the gospel message (literally or metaphorically) to folks who are not listening, much less manipulate them into a response through dramatic stories or high-pressure tactics.
The Calvinist Jonathan Edwards famously preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” But he did so because He believed it was his responsibility to declare the truth vividly and emphatically (and logically) not because he believed the sinners were somehow actually in his own hands.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 57 views
I get what you’re saying. I also appreciate the stand you’ve always taken about how a large church isn’t “evil.” There is a stereotype in fundamentalism that a large church must be theologically compromised, or borderline apostate, in some form or fashion. That isn’t necessarily the case, and you’ve been right to point that out.
To my point about corporate worship:
- If you believe the primary goal for corporate worship is for professing, covenant believers to worship their Lord, then you will not be focused on erasing so-called “impediments (in its methodology, preferences, attitudes, priorities, etc.) that can keep unbelievers at bay.”
- If you’re referring to extra-biblical attitudes and traditions, they I’m with you. If you’re talking about orchestrating church so that it is more welcoming and comfortable for “seekers,” then I disagree. I don’t care if “seekers” are comfortable at church. They should be very uncomfortable. Thus, we’ve circled right back around to, “what is the goal when the church gathers?” I believe it is worship, not evangelism.
- I preach the Gospel in every sermon I do, because unbelievers are likely always present, even among the professing “believers.”
To your point about making people happy:
- I get that you don’t write to make people happy. No worries. I think your comments about a perverse pride about “smallness” in fundamentalism is probably more commonly found among those further to the right. Depending on whose fundamentalist taxonomy charts you look at, these are the so-called “imperial fundamentalists” or “hyper fundamentalists.” These are the men who seek to build empires, and/or are heavy into identity politics - Christian-style. These people, generally speaking, would probably fit your description (above).
- For the rest of us, I really believe there is no perverse pride in smallness. I think we just preach the Word, shepherd the flock, and don’t spend a lot of time pondering the identity politics of baptist fundamentalism.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Aaron,
I have found the jargon problem to be a big issue among volunteers at church. The well-meaning Sunday School teachers so often want to use those catch-phrases, and when you try to gently correct, some of them get angry. Many times they can’t really explain the Gospel without those terms, and then cannot explain what those terms actually mean when pressed. They’re worthless terms. What happened to “repent and believe the Gospel?”
I never figured out how to lovingly and gently convince people to stop using those phrases. I made a big mistake once, when I I asked a CEF trainer to come by and do some children’s evangelistic training. Big difference in theology there! I learned then that, if I want evangelism and doctrinal training done, I should just do it myself, or train somebody else to do it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Yes, the jargon is a big problem… not just in the crusade evangelism model, but IFB has its own special (though many would be surprised to know how similar IFB jargon is to, say, Assemblies of God jargon). As an example, in more than a dozen years pastoring, and a decade of ministry with youth before that, I never used the expression “get saved.”
Yes, I know, any terms we use have to be explained, but I want to explain the Bible not explain our in-house jargon. Yes, the term “saved” is in the Bible but it’s never something you “get.” And if you study the term comprehensively, it’s both something believers have and something they are growing in (Philippians 2:12) and something they are waiting for (1 Pet 1:5). So “get saved” is not the best way to put it. (It also sounds grammatically a bit backwater, which, other things being equal isn’t a virtue.)
We have wonderful terms like “born again” (yeah, it’s been abused, but it’s a Bible term) and regenerated and passing from death to life and being “in Christ” and reconciled and justified and standing in grace and so forth. The biblical terms provide great opportunities for looking at the wonder of it from different angles.
About Jesus’ crowds…
I know this might be hard to believe, Larry, but the crowd size was never the point. Often enough, He was trying to make them smaller. Mark 7:36, 8:30, 9:9. Compare Mark 4:11-12… and then whole John 6:22ff (“I am the bread of heaven”) sequence. Jesus knew He was turning off the crowds and was not surprised at the result. A few highlights…
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” (ESV, John 6:41)
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (ESV, John 6:52)
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. (ESV, John 6:66)
The Luke 14:26-33 sequence (and similar passages) are not example crowd-drawers either.
No, it was always about getting the truth out there for the benefit of the few who had “ears to hear.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I was 24; my younger sister & her future husband were both 22. He wanted to see Fourth Baptist, so I drove the three of us to Broadway & Fremont in north Minneapolis, where the old Fourth Baptist complex loomed over the neighborhood.
As we walked the halls, showing my now brother-in-law the various rooms & spaces, around a corner came a familiar face. Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters recognized my sister & I as graduates of Fourth Baptist Christian School, and stopped to talk. He was in his late 80’s, and was sharply dressed in a dark suit. He hadn’t been the pastor at Fourth Baptist Church since 1982, but that school year (1986 - 1987) was his final year (I believe) as president of Central Seminary. For whatever reason, he invited us to sit down with him–he had some time to talk. Perhaps he saw three young, eager faces, and he was willing to humor us. He had a reputation for having a strong temperament, but I remember his patience & kindness as he casually chatted with us for a brief time that afternoon.
My brother-in-law, currently a pastor in Illinois, lapped up every word. I remember he asked several questions about pastoral ministry, which Dr. Clearwaters answered in some detail. I even remember a self-effacing comment he made, which made the three of us laugh out loud.
Even in his late 80’s, he spoke with conviction, with passion, with vision. He could leave one with the impression that nothing was impossible. That mindset seems to be nearly extinct today within fundamentalism.
I disagree. You’ve been talking to some pessimistic people. :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I disagree. You’ve been talking to some pessimistic people.
HERE, it seems so much of the time……
I’m sorry I come across as cranky lately. It just seems that we get so bogged down in endless conversations about 1) music, 2) alcohol, 3) “Convergence”, 4) the extent of the Atonement (the latest thing), and other intramural squabbles that other things, like say the Great Commission, get downplayed.
I try to suggest that we should think big, get bold, about spreading the Gospel to a larger, wider audience, and I get replies (for example) that tell me the age of mass evangelism is history, so we might as well just forget about it.
Larry:
Most of our churches don’t have the resources to do mass evangelism on the scale like you’re suggesting. It’s not that I, for example, am not interested. It’s just that the concept of mass evangelistic events is divorced from my practical reality. My best “big number moment” from my personal experience is when I planned and executed a evangelistic event in the town square, and 60 people came. Even then, I had to use a brass ensemble from Maranatha to get them to come. You live and minister in a completely different context than I do.
Many of us have a small budget, fewer volunteers, and do the best with what we have. Most us probably don’t spend time in intense discussions with church members about limited redemption or “Convergence.” We probably preach and teach the Word, pray less than we should, work every day at our jobs, try and remember to do devotions with the kids, then try and rest for an hour or so before we do it all over again.
Most of us will never make a “big” impact, or ever be written about in books, or ever be remembered by anybody after one generation. I’m just not interested in making a big splash. I’m content to be a nobody, serving the Lord anonymously in my little corner of the world. Isn’t that enough?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Most of us will never make a “big” impact, or ever be written about in books, or ever be remembered by anybody after one generation. I’m just not interested in making a big splash. I’m content to be a nobody, serving the Lord anonymously in my little corner of the world. Isn’t that enough?
Everyone should be serving where God leads them; I have absolutely no problem with that. (By the way: I’m a complete “nobody” by anyone’s measure.)
Perhaps it’s the recent “Home Church” two-parter that’s gotten under my skin. That article was rife with the “smaller is better” philosophy that’s taken hold in much of fundamentalism (and which I’ve pointed out, with examples, is a relatively recent development). Here are points taken from part one of that article:
- If doctrine matters to you, you might need a home church.
- If fellowship with like-minded believers matters to you, you might need a home church.
- If the study of the Word matters to you, you might need a home church.
- If yet another “awesome” program of dazzle and glitter makes you roll your eyes, you might need a home church.
- If you’re not interested in a multi-gazillion dollar building program, you might need a home church.
- If you’ve grown weary of perfect music by hired musicians or plastic-smiled primadonnas, you might need a home church.
- If you’ve been kicked out of your church (“Brother, we think you would be more comfortable somewhere else”) because you asked too many questions, you might need a home church.
- If your pastor doesn’t know your name, and never will, you might need a home church.
As someone who has been a member of a very small Baptist church (20 years) as well as a very large Baptist church (17 years), I hate to see such “us vs. them” attitudes promoted.
I understand. If it’s any consolation, Randy White (who wrote the articles) is a Southern Baptist and, therefore, likely wouldn’t “qualify” as a “real fundamentalist” by some people’s criteria!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’ve seen a lot of clear hints that a lot of people here—myself included to a certain degree—are people who have been hurt by various expressions of fundamentalism. A lot of the big arguments we get are when they come into contact with the proponents of those versions of fundamentalism (or at least what looks similar) who are also here.
But that said, I had to admit to myself when I read comments like “perverse pride in smallness” that I’ve seen that. There is a legitimate case to be made for keeping churches smaller—harder to eradicate, closer to the communities they serve, easier for pastors to counsel, lower costs for building—but there is a subset of people who seem to believe that chasing people away and staying small when you don’t have to is some kind of virtue. I knew of a church where it seemed they felt that expelling believers because of ancient or nonexistent sins was a mark of spirituality.
Gotta be a happy medium there somewhere, but all too often, God’s people don’t find it, that’s for sure.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Acts 17:30, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
Acts 26:20, “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.”
I have a hard time getting worked up about “smaller is better,” since I’ve just about always seen the opposite assumption. But I don’t see the NT identifying either one as particularly relevant. Jesus’ crowds, grow, shrink, grow, then shrink again… then grow dramatically in Acts 2… then scatter into many small congregations all over the world.
But as far as congregational scale goes, why not look at it practically—practically, but with NT objectives in mind. If we look at what local churches are directed to do in the NT, there just isn’t anything there that they have to be large to accomplish.
Gotta be a happy medium there somewhere, but all too often, God’s people don’t find it, that’s for sure.
I think the happy medium is for churches to focus on what they’re supposed to be doing, not on how many of them are doing it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion