It seems to me that every church places restraints upon how they communicate the Gospel–some good, some bad.  For example, most churches won’t engage in blatantly unethical practices to get people to listen to a presentation of the Gospel. We intuitively know it is wrong to engage in the practice of the cult known as the "flirty little fishers"–exchanging sexual intercourse with the promise of conversion.   

Some churches have placed excessive restraints upon how they communicate the Gospel.  Many Churches throughout American history haven’t allowe "people of color" to come hear the Gospel in their churches.  In addition, there have been preachers who have tagged on alot of extra moral retraints onto their presentation of the Gospel–"don’t smoke, drink, or chew, or date girls that do…"

One of the driving impulses of the seeker-sensitive approach is to remove as many restraints as possible, so that people will find it as easy as possible to hear the Gospel.  Out of this impulse, the seeker-sensitive approach advocates the following:

• People don’t like crossing ethnic or class lines, and are much more likely to respond to the Gospel if they don’t have to cross such lines…therefore, let’s have church that is focused on a specific demographic.
• People don’t like having the Gospel "pushed" on them.  Let’s make it as easy as possible for them to come to us if they want to, where they can hear a simple, clear, uncluttered presentation of the Gospel (or what we think is the Gospel), and then allow them to make their own choices.
• People trust things that look professional. Let’s have our meetings be as professional as possible, so that people can have trust in what we say. Let’s remove the barrier of mediocrity.  We know that God can work through humble means, but why use humble means if excellence is at our disposal?

Are these valid examples of removing restraints?  I don’t think so.  If we read the Gospels, we see that Christ challenges all three of these notions. Paul also challenges all three. I think that we have so refined our definition of the Gospel (it is a set of relatively simple propositions, that once agreed upon, open up a doorway to a relationship with God the father), that we’ve felt the liberty to peel away things that we consider to be secondary–ethnic reconcilliation, the centrality of discipleship, how we spend our money, the manner in which the Gospel is presented, etc.  I think it is time that we re-examine the retraints that the Gospel demands.  I know that we should avoid putting extras on the Gospel, but I’m unconvinced that most Evangelicals really know what the Gospel is.  Sure, there are snazzy statements in Scripture that seem to indicate that the Gospel can be boiled down to one key idea.  But, oddly enough, not all of those statements speak of the same idea.  Its as though those guys were talking about a mult-faceted Gospel or something.

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.