One primary problem I have with Crusade Evangelism is that I am not sure the Gospel can be fully or adequately preached in a mass-evangelism setting.
In other words, I am not sure that the typical message which is preached at an Evangelism Crusade is actually the Scriptural gospel. The Gospel message of Evangelistic Crusades is not biblical.
The Crusade Evangelism Gospel
The Crusade Evangelism message usually focuses on these points:
- God loves you.
- You are a sinner.
- The penalty for sin is death and eternal separation from God.
- You can never be good enough to return to God.
- God created a way through the death and resurrection of Jesus for us to be restored into a right relationship with Him.
- If you believe in Jesus, you can be saved.
Point number six, of course, is stated in about a dozen different ways, with people arguing over what the actual requirement should be (repent and be baptized, confess your sins, say this prayer, etc, etc), but for the sake of this blog post, I don’t really care about that.
Here is my point: These six points, in this order, are not biblical.
By this, I do not mean that they cannot be found in Scripture. They can.
Each point is absolutely true. Without a doubt, God loves us, we are sinners, the wages of sin is death, and eternal separation from God awaits those who do not receive eternal life. And Scripture teaches everywhere that as a result of His death and resurrection, Jesus offers eternal life to everyone who believes in Him for it.
All of these ideas are found in numerous places in Scripture.
Nevertheless, the message is not biblical.
The Message is not Biblical
What do I mean? After all, all the points are found in various places, right? Yes. Absolutely yes. But that is exactly the problem. All the points are found in various places.
Has it ever seemed strange to you that when someone preaches an evangelistic message, they must take a verse or two from John, one from Acts, three or four from Romans, and then one or two from 1 Corinthians and Galatians? Some might throw in a verse from Matthew, Luke, James, and Revelation.
But nowhere in all of Scripture is there a passage where all six points above are present. Nowhere do we read of Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, or anyone else telling someone these six points as part of an entire package about what they must believe to be saved. The gospel message of modern Crusade Evangelism is simply not found in any one place in Scripture. To get the message, we must cherry-pick passages from numerous books and numerous authors.
Does this seem strange? Does this seem suspicious? I mean, why these six points? (Some would want to add additional points, but the question still remains–why?) How is it that we have decided that these points are the most important?
What about the Romans Road?
Some would point to Paul’s letter to the Romans, and say the message is all there. I do agree that all the points mentioned in the typical evangelistic sermon can be proof-texted from Romans. But in doing so, the evangelist must ignore the vast majority of the message in Romans, and focus only on a few verses from chapters 3, 5, 6, and 10 (Usually in this order: 3:10; 3:23; 5:12; 6:23; 5:8; 10:9-10). One wonders if Paul would agree that his letter to the Romans could accurately be summarized with this selection of verses. The more I study Romans, the more likely I think it is that such a selection of verses completely distorts the message Paul intended.
And while we are talking about Paul, it should be pointed out that 1 Corinthians 15 does not include the entire message either. As with Romans, this passage comes close, but the evangelist must arbitrarily cut off Paul in mid-sentence at the end of verse 4, and then must also go to other Scriptures in other passages to get some of the other key points which the evangelist wants to make. But are these the same points that God wants to make?
Did God forget to include the Gospel in Scripture?
So we are right back at this main problem of the modern Crusade Evangelism gospel. How is it that we decided that these points constitute “the Gospel” and not some of the other points in Scripture? And if this Gospel we have cobbled together from various passages truly is the one most important message in the entire world, which people must know and believe in order to be born again, why didn’t God deem it necessary to include this message all in one place, somewhere within the pages of Scripture?
It seems to be a strange oversight on His part.
Or on ours…
Could it be that in trying to summarize and boil down the Gospel to fit within a nice 4-point booklet, 3-point sermon, or 6-point message, we have actually missed the entire point of the Gospel? In charry-picking the Gospel, have we ignored the central message of the Gospel? And could it be that if we have missed the entire point of the Gospel, then our evangelistic appeals are not really evangelistic after all?
I’ve asked the same question myself and have had discussions about it with others. Looking forward to your development of these thoughts.
Scott,
I’m actually not sure how much more I’m going to develop this right now… I have written more on the Gospel in previous posts, and since I love this subject, I’m sure I will get back to it more in the future.
All of these points can be found in the Bible, but they exclude a lot of other things that are also part of the Gospel. Undoubtedly, whether it be the four spiritual laws, these six points or some other similar idea, the plan is to basically give a sales presentation that leads the listener to make a decision to “buy”, whether it be life insurance, a new dishwasher or Jesus. One must surely conclude at the end of such a presentation that only a total idiot would pass up such a wonderful opportunity.
One problem that I have seen time after time with such presentations is what I call “buyer’s remorse”. In the case of life insurance or perhaps a new dishwasher, the “buyer” finds a product a few days later that they would rather buy, or their friend tells them about problems with the product they bought (as in “Don’t you know that brand of dishwasher catches on fire?”), which the salesman neglected to mention.
In the case of Jesus, some people lose interest quickly, decide that they really don’t want to change their lifestyle (so they chuck Jesus), decide they’d rather be a Buddhist or whatever. How many people do we all know who “got converted” under one of those presentations who didn’t stick with it? Undoubtedly some do, but I think the retention rate is poor (and many of those who did not stick have little interest in giving Jesus a second look – “I already tried that”), and that this is not the best way to “present the Gospel”.
Sam,
That’s right. It’s not that the presentation is exactly “unbiblical” it is just not fully biblical, or biblical enough.
And I love that idea of buyer’s remorse. It is so true and I have seen it so often. People get caught up in the emotions of the moment, and go forward, or say a prayer, or whatever, and then later think, “What was I thinking?”
Long-term relationships almost never suffer from these sorts of things.
Greetings. Interesting article.
But what are the practical implications of all this? That we shouldn’t evangelize? Isn’t this what the apostles did in sharing the Good News throughout the known world? Or do you mean that we should only encourage folks to make a decision after studying the entire Bible? What about the early Christian church, who only had a subset (or, at times, none) of the Bible-as-we-know-it. Were they wrong to proselytize?
I’m also not sure what’s wrong with 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and what can be implied from it:
3 what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised 4 on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters 5 at one time, most of whom are still alive, 6 though some have fallen asleep. 7 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 15:8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, 8 he appeared to me also.
We have here that we are sinners, the implication that we were unable to account for that sin ourselves (otherwise, why would God have sent Jesus), that Israel’s God (ie, according to the scriptures) provided redemption for us in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus.
I have often thanked God that he provided such a beautiful summary of the Gospel message in one of the earliest books of the New Testament.
Again, I find the question itself interesting, I guess I am wondering how you would answer it.
Sorry, I should say, I recognize that 1 Corinthians 15 isn’t the entire “Crusade Evangelism Gospel” (something I had never heard of, until you mentioned it.) But it’s awfully close, and I don’t think, for example, that if you selected just one or two of Paul’s letters, you’d have a hard time establishing the most important essentials of the Gospel.
I also agree that we should do our best to present the Gospel in its entirety when we can, but I just can’t imagine there being something wrong with summarizing it, especially if you do your best to provide additional information along with your summary.
For example, one of the churches I love features an altar call at the end of nearly every sermon. Anyone listening is encouraged to come forward at the end. They say a simple but powerful prayer if they are moved to respond. Then, each person is joined with someone from the Church who spends a few minutes getting to know them, gives them a Bible, a study guide, answers any questions they have, invites them to return to Bible study, further sermons, exchanges contact information, etc. Clearly, that is better than just going through the original altar call, and ideally even more could be done. But there are times where logistics might prevent such an ideal approach.
I guess if I was more familiar with the “Crusade Evangelism Gospel” and the context, I might better understand what is wrong with what they/it is doing.
Jared,
1 Corinthians 15 is quite close. But it doesn’t include everything that most evangelists talk about in their crusades.
I would also argue that there are many crucial elements of the Gospel that are left out of 1 Corinthians 15.
But I would never suggest that we stop evangelizing. Instead, I am just calling for a more relational way, which looks more like Jesus. Making friends, serving others, loving others long-term is the beginning stages of evangelism.
I will talk more about this in future posts as I continue this series on evangelism.
Yes, yes, yes. I’ve become VERY frustrated with “gospel presentations” and the cherry-picking mess that it is. You’re saying the very things that have been running around in my head since 2007. I see the value in a “committment / decision”, but I think it’s bad preaching to imply that it all either starts or stops there. As well, I’ve often thought that it was rather mistaken of God to not take the Romans Road and put it all in one place 🙂 🙂 🙂 As well, it’s humorous to me that “how to be saved” is buried in letters that were written to people who were already Christians. Why isn’t there a “Letter to the Unbelievers” right after Acts?
In other words, most of the “Christianity” I see is based on taking what someone tells us is true and then finding Scripture to support it.
I’ve asked myself – and others – many times “if someone read the Bible and had absolutely NO preconceived notions about its meaning, what doctrines would they come up with?”
I’m not saying the things we believe are all wrong, but I think we often put what the “preacher” says FAR above what the Bible says.
Bernard,
You make a GREAT point about the primary audience of all the letters being people who were already Christians. This should tell us something about the content of these letters and their focus.
It sure would be nice to have that “Letter to Unbelievers.”
While I was a missionary in Japan, I read the beginning of Mark with a Japanese college student.
After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
The student looked at me. “What is this good news?” he asked.
I was suddenly stuck. “Christ died for your sins” came to mind, but didn’t make any sense when this is the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry.
I kind of mumbled something at the time. But that student’s question continues to lead me.
Jon,
It truly is amazing when we begin to read Scripture without all the “background information” which most of us in the West grew up with. I have read the Gospels numerous times with people in the same situation, and they always come up with great insights and questions that would never occur to the average church-goer.
I personally think that those questions come up a lot, but we’re not allowed to ask them openly.
I think the whole issue of “how to become a Christian” is overblown. He told Peter, etc. to “come follow me.”
One thing that is hard to settle in our minds is that our eternity is never in doubt with God. Sit on that for a while. He NEVER wondered for a moment if I will spend eternity with Him or not.
We’re saved by grace, through faith. And no, I’m not a Calvinist, even tho that sounds that way. I don’t think I am. I’m still working on all that stuff. I believe in a God with a monstrous love for EVERYBODY and double predestination doesn’t fit well into that.
A God with monstrous love for everybody. I love that. A God without monstrous love would be just plain monstrous.
Jeremy, I hate to throw a logical wrench into your argument, but the assumption that the message of the gospel has to be contained within a specific set of passages in order to be biblical is well… Not Biblical
Miguel,
You might be right. But if a few select passages can summarize the Gospel, which ones are they, and who gets to decide?
So we seem to be stuck. One passage doesn’t summarize the Gospel, and numerous passages cannot, and both approaches are not biblical.
Where then is the Gospel?
In thinking about this a bit more, what if the gospel, in its current fragmented form is necessarily so, allowing one to plow, another to plant, another to water, and others to harvest?
Still though, for me, I need time. Time and proximity to “share” the Gospel. And I’m ok, with not being to share it all myself. I expect the body to function bodily. Where it doesn’t then I have to do the best I can with what I have been given.
Miguel,
This is a great insight. I think you are on to something here. Yes, if there was a clear and concise gospel passage, it would enable one person to “do it all” which is not what Jesus intends for the church or for discipleship. We need each other.
I would also admit that Jesus didn’t tell Peter “how to be saved”. “Come follow me” was a START to the journey, so, yeah, the guys back then had to do a little digging, too – there apparently wasn’t a “new members” class for them.
Yep. I am planning on reading The Critical Journey, Stages in the Life of Faith, Second Edition
this year, which apparently deals with the stages of the life of faith. I think it might deal with some of this, showing that there is no “one size fits all.”
You know that I did not hold back from proclaiming to you anything that would be helpful, and from teaching you publicly and from house to house, testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus. – Acts 20:20-21
And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. – Acts 20:25-27
There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. – John 21:25
The Bible does not record everything everyone said in every instance (even the four Gospels differ in what they highlight regarding the same encounters), but we know that much more was said than was recorded, and the testimony is that they did not hold back anything.
What do we do when we do a topical Bible study or study systematic theology? We gather everything together that the Bible says about a particular topic to see what the whole counsel of God says.
Evangelism is a topical Bible study for the lost on what the Bible says about their salvation.
I was starving to understand the truth when I was lost. Thank God this woman who is now my wife didn’t hold anything back when we met.
I am not exactly sure what your point is here. I like topical Bible studies, and engage in them myself. The danger, of course, is that the Bible can pretty much be used to teach anything… so just because someone has a bunch of verses to “prove” something doesn’t mean that they have properly understood what the Bible says on that topic.
My point is that Paul, for example, spoke everything he felt necessary to try communicate the Gospel.
There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking if what it communicates is true. The Bible cherry-picks itself as people quote old testament scripture in the new when and where they feel necessary to communicate a point.
You string together verses in this blog or your books and sermons to try to “prove” something – how is that any different? We do this all the time in conversation, we quote things from different sources to illustrate a point. My point is that there is nothing wrong with this if what it is communicating is true.
Regarding “properly understanding what the Bible says on that topic” – How do you know your words are properly understood when you string together a bunch of ideas? They’re understood through a process of communication. Words have real meaning, and if what we’re trying to communicate is not properly understood, we attempt to clarify until it is.
There are things that are actually worthwhile to try to “prove”. Attempting to prove to someone their need for a Savior is the most important one I can think of.
When I witness to people, the Holy Spirit, prompts me “say this” and “say this” and “say this” – essentially a bunch of verses strung together to try to prove something. It’s powerful and compelling.
Jeremy, when you read Acts 17 and see how Paul taught the Jews then the Greeks… Do you think his messages are ‘the gospel’ in full?
No hell fire, I notice. Hmm