Thoughts On The Gospel "Checklist"
The Obligatory Service
It has not escaped my notice, this checklist, as I've noticed it before even in myself. This feeling of... obligation. An obligation to make sure one checks off all the boxes on the list of "How to preach the Gospel." Each box representing the theological point to hit, the extreme points to clarify, and the examples always used whenever we present the Gospel. This checklist isn't as obvious as it may seem, but rather finds itself stuffed into the back of our conscience, in the same spot where any hesitation to preach the Gospel at all comes from as well.
.jpg)
That is to say, when given the opportunity to share the Gospel, when we hesitate, and finally make up our minds to do it, at the same time we also make sure we've got our checklist out. The figurative piece of paper in our minds, making sure we hit on all the needed points, such as justification, sanctification, works, faith, bad preachers, good preachers, how to pray, and ultimately, the obligatory prayer of repentance.
The difficult part about this is that we have nothing in our minds to say otherwise. Nothing else to free us from that nagging feeling that we need to check off all the points, otherwise we haven't shared the Gospel. After all, how can we tell ourselves "No, you don't need to hit that point."
I know now, however, that this feeling is not 100% pure in its intention.
I go to Acts 17:22-31:
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
It wasn't until I covered this passage during chapel service at the City Rescue Mission of Lansing that I realized a part of my mindset was off, concerning how I shared the Gospel. It wasn't that my preaching of the Gospel was incorrect, but that my mindset coming into it was off.
The issue is that we too often come into these opportunities feeling as though we need to hit every single point, otherwise we are not preaching the Gospel "effectively." However, as I saw with the passage above, there isn't as much an obligation to finish the "checklist," but rather, to actually preach the Gospel.
Look at where Paul is standing here in Acts 17...
He is surrounded by very religious people. Gentiles who no doubt had multiple "gods," and as was seen clearly, they even tried to cover their bases for the "gods" they may not know about. And yet there were so many of these religious people around him, surely Paul would be careful how he presented the Gospel. The "Areopagus" was the religious circle where the most zealous of the religious leaders and teachers would gather, and as seen, this was around where they had all their altars for their various "gods." Paul therefore would have to present the Gospel in a very logical, acceptable fashion for these men, if he planned on getting a good deal of believers to come out of it. He would have to deal with the errors of the gods at hand, the lies they presented, and then deal with the virgin birth, the perfect life of Christ and all the miracles He did, the messages He preached (at least one), the persecution from the Jews, the cross, death, resurrection, and ascension. This pattern was was what flowed through my mind whenever I was going to preach the Gospel, feeling the need to hit on at least 70% of these points. And yet, if this were the standard, Paul did not do very good. What points does Paul hit on in his message?
He acknowledged that they were "very religious."
He points out that they covered their bases with an altar to the "god" they didn't know about.
He declares to them that he will tell them about this God they are ignorant of.
God is Creator
He therefore does not need anything.
All men come from Him, which their own poets admitted.
We cannot thus see God as a visible, physical thing, as though He were created Himself.
God has "overlooked" our ignorance and is now telling everyone to repent, because He is sending Christ (who the only righteous One) to judge the world, since the resurrection proved Him to have this right of judgment.
Based on these points, surely Paul could have explained better what "repentance" was, or "justification," and worse than these, he forgot to tell them that they need to pray a prayer in order to be saved, and thus, he also forgot to pray for them, show them how to repent and pray, and explain all the blessings that come with being saved. These, among many points, Paul missed. But what if this was not the point? Paul clearly did not have a checklist, since he previously told the Philippian Jailor that he needed to "believe" in order to be saved just a chapter ago (Acts 16:29-34). So why does Paul fail to cover the same points every time?
As I've seen a lot recently, preachers today constantly cover the exact same points every time they share the Gospel (albeit in their own fashion and layout). They always cover the same points, use the same general examples, and always show the men how to pray for repentance, by telling them how they did it. At the end of each sermon, there is always an invitation, as the preacher prays for the souls of all the men present, asking for hands for those who want to "come forward." Though there are variations of how this checklist is fulfilled, it always maintains these points.
And yet Paul offers no official invitation by praying over the people who heard. He does not tell them how to "pray the prayer," nor even to do this at all. He tells them to repent, and yet does not truly explain what this means. There is a whole lot of explanation lacking on Paul's part! His sermon was relatively short, and likewise, quite absent of certain theological points, that if neglected in our day and age, would be considered void of the Gospel. It was also an unpopular sermon, since some of the audience began to "sneer" at him (vs. 32). Some believed and began to follow him, but it does not indicate that he was largely successful at all, since it only names two people in particular who followed.
So why did Paul preach this way, leaving out some points many would consider to be vital to preaching the Gospel effectively?
One word: conviction. If we were to take the time to share the entirety of the Gospel, the whole of our lives could not supply enough time, since the Gospel is not only the act of Christ's saving work, but the events beforehand, and the results after it. The Gospel is more than the actual act of grace, but what led up to it, and even what has yet to come, since this "judgment" that Paul speaks of is a future event that has yet to even take place! Rather, the motive behind Paul's method, I believe, is rather clear: to give out enough Truth for people to want more.
It is like food samples at places such as Meijer and Sam's Club. They offer little bits, and if the subject likes the taste, they will desire more. Likewise, those who are truly being led by the Spirit will desire more Truth when they hear samples of it. (Since without the Spirit no one can come to Christ in the first place.) It isn't as though we are "baiting" people into Christianity, but rather, we are giving out the Truth in general, and those who are meant to follow will. The sheep will know their Master's voice when they hear it, and so our job is not to come up with our own version of the Gospel, to preach the Gospel as it was given by God. Does this mean we preach it in its entirety? No. It means that we preach it with whatever time we are given.
Paul mentions repentance, and yet does not clarify what it is. This is because those who are truly convicted and interested in knowing more will come to him and inquire of it further. Those who truly seek to be saved, such as the Philippian Jailor, will take the likes of Paul and Silas in Acts 16 into their house to hear more, which ultimately resulted in baptism (the outward sign of belief).
The point being that we ought not to have a "checklist" in sharing the Gospel, but rather the mindset of sharing the Truth when given the opportunity. For in telling people about the justifying work of Christ, they may inquire about more, and thus we tell them about repentance and sanctification, and many other points. Those who are truly His sheep will hear and hunger for more, and those who are not will not budge, were the whole Gospel preached them in perfect clarity, since it isn't by our words that they are saved, but through the working of the Spirit.
And so we must take note of Paul's approach. He has no checklist, save for one point: share the Word. Share it accurately, and if they are hungry, teach them all the more.
Note: When it comes to "pray this prayer to be saved," I do not believe this is the Gospel. Rather, it is very much counter to it. Because "praying a prayer to be saved" is essentially "salvation through works." Because we wouldn't be saved lest we pray that prayer. Not only this, but those who constantly tell people how they were saved, and the prayer they said to God "on their knees," so loudly and so boldly, are proclaiming their own righteousness before men. Were it only once in a long time, this would be seen as an example, and yet being so consistently used as an example, one cannot help but wonder why they place so much stock in this method of repentance...
It has not escaped my notice, this checklist, as I've noticed it before even in myself. This feeling of... obligation. An obligation to make sure one checks off all the boxes on the list of "How to preach the Gospel." Each box representing the theological point to hit, the extreme points to clarify, and the examples always used whenever we present the Gospel. This checklist isn't as obvious as it may seem, but rather finds itself stuffed into the back of our conscience, in the same spot where any hesitation to preach the Gospel at all comes from as well.
The difficult part about this is that we have nothing in our minds to say otherwise. Nothing else to free us from that nagging feeling that we need to check off all the points, otherwise we haven't shared the Gospel. After all, how can we tell ourselves "No, you don't need to hit that point."
I know now, however, that this feeling is not 100% pure in its intention.
I go to Acts 17:22-31:
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
It wasn't until I covered this passage during chapel service at the City Rescue Mission of Lansing that I realized a part of my mindset was off, concerning how I shared the Gospel. It wasn't that my preaching of the Gospel was incorrect, but that my mindset coming into it was off.
The issue is that we too often come into these opportunities feeling as though we need to hit every single point, otherwise we are not preaching the Gospel "effectively." However, as I saw with the passage above, there isn't as much an obligation to finish the "checklist," but rather, to actually preach the Gospel.
Look at where Paul is standing here in Acts 17...
He is surrounded by very religious people. Gentiles who no doubt had multiple "gods," and as was seen clearly, they even tried to cover their bases for the "gods" they may not know about. And yet there were so many of these religious people around him, surely Paul would be careful how he presented the Gospel. The "Areopagus" was the religious circle where the most zealous of the religious leaders and teachers would gather, and as seen, this was around where they had all their altars for their various "gods." Paul therefore would have to present the Gospel in a very logical, acceptable fashion for these men, if he planned on getting a good deal of believers to come out of it. He would have to deal with the errors of the gods at hand, the lies they presented, and then deal with the virgin birth, the perfect life of Christ and all the miracles He did, the messages He preached (at least one), the persecution from the Jews, the cross, death, resurrection, and ascension. This pattern was was what flowed through my mind whenever I was going to preach the Gospel, feeling the need to hit on at least 70% of these points. And yet, if this were the standard, Paul did not do very good. What points does Paul hit on in his message?
He acknowledged that they were "very religious."
He points out that they covered their bases with an altar to the "god" they didn't know about.
He declares to them that he will tell them about this God they are ignorant of.
God is Creator
He therefore does not need anything.
All men come from Him, which their own poets admitted.
We cannot thus see God as a visible, physical thing, as though He were created Himself.
God has "overlooked" our ignorance and is now telling everyone to repent, because He is sending Christ (who the only righteous One) to judge the world, since the resurrection proved Him to have this right of judgment.
Based on these points, surely Paul could have explained better what "repentance" was, or "justification," and worse than these, he forgot to tell them that they need to pray a prayer in order to be saved, and thus, he also forgot to pray for them, show them how to repent and pray, and explain all the blessings that come with being saved. These, among many points, Paul missed. But what if this was not the point? Paul clearly did not have a checklist, since he previously told the Philippian Jailor that he needed to "believe" in order to be saved just a chapter ago (Acts 16:29-34). So why does Paul fail to cover the same points every time?
As I've seen a lot recently, preachers today constantly cover the exact same points every time they share the Gospel (albeit in their own fashion and layout). They always cover the same points, use the same general examples, and always show the men how to pray for repentance, by telling them how they did it. At the end of each sermon, there is always an invitation, as the preacher prays for the souls of all the men present, asking for hands for those who want to "come forward." Though there are variations of how this checklist is fulfilled, it always maintains these points.
And yet Paul offers no official invitation by praying over the people who heard. He does not tell them how to "pray the prayer," nor even to do this at all. He tells them to repent, and yet does not truly explain what this means. There is a whole lot of explanation lacking on Paul's part! His sermon was relatively short, and likewise, quite absent of certain theological points, that if neglected in our day and age, would be considered void of the Gospel. It was also an unpopular sermon, since some of the audience began to "sneer" at him (vs. 32). Some believed and began to follow him, but it does not indicate that he was largely successful at all, since it only names two people in particular who followed.
So why did Paul preach this way, leaving out some points many would consider to be vital to preaching the Gospel effectively?
One word: conviction. If we were to take the time to share the entirety of the Gospel, the whole of our lives could not supply enough time, since the Gospel is not only the act of Christ's saving work, but the events beforehand, and the results after it. The Gospel is more than the actual act of grace, but what led up to it, and even what has yet to come, since this "judgment" that Paul speaks of is a future event that has yet to even take place! Rather, the motive behind Paul's method, I believe, is rather clear: to give out enough Truth for people to want more.
It is like food samples at places such as Meijer and Sam's Club. They offer little bits, and if the subject likes the taste, they will desire more. Likewise, those who are truly being led by the Spirit will desire more Truth when they hear samples of it. (Since without the Spirit no one can come to Christ in the first place.) It isn't as though we are "baiting" people into Christianity, but rather, we are giving out the Truth in general, and those who are meant to follow will. The sheep will know their Master's voice when they hear it, and so our job is not to come up with our own version of the Gospel, to preach the Gospel as it was given by God. Does this mean we preach it in its entirety? No. It means that we preach it with whatever time we are given.
Paul mentions repentance, and yet does not clarify what it is. This is because those who are truly convicted and interested in knowing more will come to him and inquire of it further. Those who truly seek to be saved, such as the Philippian Jailor, will take the likes of Paul and Silas in Acts 16 into their house to hear more, which ultimately resulted in baptism (the outward sign of belief).
The point being that we ought not to have a "checklist" in sharing the Gospel, but rather the mindset of sharing the Truth when given the opportunity. For in telling people about the justifying work of Christ, they may inquire about more, and thus we tell them about repentance and sanctification, and many other points. Those who are truly His sheep will hear and hunger for more, and those who are not will not budge, were the whole Gospel preached them in perfect clarity, since it isn't by our words that they are saved, but through the working of the Spirit.
And so we must take note of Paul's approach. He has no checklist, save for one point: share the Word. Share it accurately, and if they are hungry, teach them all the more.
Note: When it comes to "pray this prayer to be saved," I do not believe this is the Gospel. Rather, it is very much counter to it. Because "praying a prayer to be saved" is essentially "salvation through works." Because we wouldn't be saved lest we pray that prayer. Not only this, but those who constantly tell people how they were saved, and the prayer they said to God "on their knees," so loudly and so boldly, are proclaiming their own righteousness before men. Were it only once in a long time, this would be seen as an example, and yet being so consistently used as an example, one cannot help but wonder why they place so much stock in this method of repentance...
Comments
Post a Comment