Which adjective in the title more closely aligns with your predisposed way of thinking about and speaking the gospel to yourself and others? Are you more likely to present a gospel that is heavy on the convicting realities of sin, righteousness and judgment? Or do you find yourself more readily appealing to the benefits of following Jesus? If you think about it, neither adjective fully encapsulates the message of Jesus. It’s right to compel people using the promises of God and the joy filled benefits of a life submitted to Jesus. But it’s also right to warn of the consequences of rejecting Him.
Since we’re all naturally inclined to emphasize one, we need to allow the other to constrain us, to balance us from taking our natural disposition to the extreme, which may confuse the gospel and the Jesus we wish to present.
Let me attempt to illustrate one example of an unconstrained leaning toward each in turn. A compelling gospel that isn’t constrained by a convicting gospel can end up sounding like the good news is what I get out of believing in Jesus. It can end up being a me-centered gospel that equates to a cost-benefit analysis and a sales pitch. I’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain because Jesus is so wonderful and all-sufficient. He changes lives and fixes circumstances and he’ll never let you down. Taken to the extreme, this can be a therapeutic, self-help kind of message because it ignores the God-centered reality of the gospel and overemphasizes what the person stands to gain.
A convicting gospel that fails to consider compelling reasons why following Jesus is worth it can end up sounding like a legalistic, Pharisaical, cold-hearted word. This style is especially apparent between cultural (or subcultural) groups who make value judgments of other groups based upon observable behaviors. We present a “gospel” that simply condemns another’s behavior but fail to offer hope (and often failing even more fundamentally to understand the undergirding heart and motivations of observable behavior). What happens if we use this approach with a person who is already dealing with major amounts of guilt and shame? In an effort to convict, we may very well condemn. For those keenly aware of their failures, the gospel can provide a compelling solution…a release from the captivity of condemnation.
I find myself “pendulum-ing” depending on context, but more often than not I lean toward the convicting side of things. I tend to focus on the reality of current condemnation apart from Jesus and the need to be reconciled to God while often failing to provide compelling reasons why submitting to Jesus really is a game changer that is presently AND eternally worthwhile.
Though this has been a brief exploration of two approaches to thinking about and speaking of Christ crucified and resurrected and the Good News surrounding these events, I hope it is a helpful exercise to consider. The relationship between compelling and convicting ought not be a competition but a cooperative effort to speak faithfully of the Good News about Jesus.
I wonder which adjective tends to be your default. And how might the other inform your thinking about and speaking of Jesus?
Comments
Post a Comment