I must confessed that I too jumped when I read about your 'wham bam, thank you ma’am, you’re done' statement especially when you are talking about conversion and cheap grace. Even here in Asia where English is a second language, the 'wham bam, thank you ma’am, you’re done' does have this impact. As I read on, I begin to understand what you are saying- that in making conversion just a simple act of prayer without true understanding of the gospel and grace and without repentance, we are 'consumerising' conversion and prostituting a Jesus made in our own image. That may or may not be true.

Conversion or just saying 'a prayer and inviting Jesus into your life' is a recent church phenomenon. During most of church history, getting baptised (or converted) takes months or years of baptismal classes and instruction. Even so, I believe that a conversion event is under the sovereignty of the Lord. We may have accepted a false Jesus as we understand Him to be. But, with God's grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, we gradually come to know Him as he really is. We are basically talking about sanctification. If someone who understand salvation to be a walk down the aisle, a prayer, and wham bam, thank you ma’am, you’re done, then the church would have failed in its teaching of what salvation really is.

If I could attempt to boil down your thought collage here, you seem to be essentially indicating that when we urge, “‘Say this prayer and you’ll be saved’...We pimp out a fake Jesus to meet the need. The problem is that it is the wrong answer.” And unfortunately, I am aware of people—some of whom I would even consider thoughtful evangelicals—who actually do reduce the Gospel message to such cold, mechanistic terms (“Do ‘A’ and you’ll get ‘B’”). This is a true saying and worthy of all acceptation: such a “Jesus” does not exist.

At one time this approach was known as Sandemanianism, after Robert Sandeman (1718-1771), who held that bare mental assent to the Gospel qualifies as “saving faith.” This view has informally taken over various segments of evangelicalism today, although it doesn’t help anyone to become a genuine Christian.

The imagery of Jesus as a cosmic vending machine who dispenses “salvation” when we pop in the proper spiritual coin is no less grotesque (though perhaps less startling) than the imagery you have chosen. For many of us who are products of 20th century evangelistic methods, the “sinner’s prayer” was that spiritual coin.

If you begin with a false theology of conversion, it should come as no surprise that your theology of the Christian life will be severely (perhaps fatally) skewed. All our problems are, in some sense, ultimately theological in nature.

ok, I am breaking my new year's resolution of not posting here because I feel strongly about this topic. I feel like I could've written this article. In general, (please note that phrase) I feel that we have whored Jesus with our "outreach marketing" and "evangelization events" and "witnessing workshops". If you have been in the church for a while, you know what I'm talking about. Yes, God still works through sinful man and his frail efforts, but where is our love for the lost? I am constantly convicted of my need to have my heart broken for those around me who need Christ. If I have not love but guilt as my motivation for sharing Christ, then I end up doing the "gospel vomit" and turn people away from His love. I am a resounding gong, an object of curiosity and amusement to the world, but not an agent of change. Oh, how I long for (in my life and the Church's) a focus on quality and not quantity. A focus on making disciples, not Christian clones.

That said, I am well aware, as I'm sure the author is, that many people have experienced quick conversions (Hello Saul), but that is not what this article is about. It is about the way in which we share the gospel message with others, and I think we would do well to examine our ways. I repent.

Wow... you definitely got my attention. And then you said something meaningful. You described a reality that we, as the church today, definitely need to wrestle with. Thanks.

Well said! And frightening! As a minister in a large evangelical denomination, I see this all the time and have always had a problem with it, yet have been unable to place a finger on it until the last few years. It has never sat well, but I couldn't figure out why until about four years ago. In my own experience, I walked the aisle at 11 years old and didn't change.

When I was 15, after we moved, I started attending a new church against my will (my parents made me). For two years I began to see what Jesus wanted and for about six months, the Spirit began to convince me that I had not committed myself to Christ. I argued for six months, and finally gave in with both joy and fear at what that meant. I have never had those kind of arguments again (okay, fleeting momentary doubts, quickly assuaged).

I have been a student pastor for about 17 years and have seen the difference in ABC gospel presentations and the "take up your cross and follow me" gospel conversations. There is a counting of the cost among those who say, "I want to be a Christian, but I don't want to be a hypocrite" or "I want to follow Jesus, but I don't have what it takes." These are the people who I don't see fall away after years. They become stronger and more humble. They ask questions and wrestle with them.

Jesus calls salvation being "born again." Birth comes after a period of gestation. The seed (of the Gospel) grows and forms in a pregnancy period, months for some, years for others, before they are ready for birth. We ought to be aware and watchful of who God is stirring. Share Jesus? Absolutely! Push for acceptance after a reciting a quick formula? Absolutely not!

Well said!

One of the problems with this post is that you accuse but offer no solution. That makes you mean, not prophetic. It makes you harsh, not wise and profound. You take well-meaning people and tell them they are pimping out a Jesus who may indeed have changed their lives.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few other prominent leaders occasionally embarrass Christianity by the things they say. “Tinky Winky is a Gay Icon” or “Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he gave away God’s land.” Your words embarrass Christianity because they only give a sliver of the issue.

Let’s not use Hosea to justify your crassness. In that book God is not the whore, Israel is. Let’s not use the Bible to justify our verbally poor choices and images.

The Gospel of Consumerism takes many forms. Televangelists selling prayer cloths, the positive thinking, product driven movements, the prayer of Jabez. The list could go on. It's all about putting the cart before the horse. People living in desperation want a quick fix, a magic pill. Anything as long as it does not include self-examination, repentance, and orthodoxy.
And some well meaning believers want so desperately to see others saved that they will compromise the message of the Gospel allowing others to think they are saved when they are not, thus carrying out a process of mutual deception.

I guess the issue of removing intimacy from salvation for many people is fear. As a preacher I know that I always live in the tension of wanting God to seem approachable and salvation easily available without compromising the Gospel. I was struck, however, last Sunday as I preached on Jesus' rebuke of Peter doing the same thing in Mark 8. Jesus then goes on to explain the way of the cross that he must follow and all of those who call on his name must follow also. Our fear of people not responding because of the difficulty of following Christ is correct. It is supposed to be hard and it is supposed to cost everything. And because of that plenty of people will reject it. But, we can't let that influence our presentation of and adherence to the gospel.

I choked on my dinner when I read the first lines of this post. I was caught really off guard by it, and I thought, Good heavens, what have I walked into?
But the more I think about it, the more I realize that some of us evangelicals (and I'm guilty of this as well) present the Gospel in kind of vending-machine terms: put in a dollar (say the "sinner's prayer"), and get conversion. This mechanistic approach to faith is far too simplistic, and misses something huge.
What it misses is the whole idea that one's conversion is really the start of his or her journey with the Lord, not the destination itself. We need to present our faith in terms of a vibrant, living relationship, not just terms of correct belief. As we present this living relationship both in how we talk about it and how we live in it, it will inspire people to want to be part of it, and draw disconnected souls into the Body of Christ.
That kind of intimacy, and tapping into people's unrealized longing for it, can only help us. It reaches into people's hearts where it can do the most good, not just into their minds, where the theology we preach is just information that they forget after a few minutes. Great article.

As usual, Out of Ur has given us another provocative and insightful commentary on the state of the Western church today. The problem: cheap grace.

Okay.

So, what do we do to address this cultural malaise? It's good to raise the issue, but where does this take us now?

Do we insist on better preaching? Who will convince the preachers? Is it a matter of productizing the gospel to satiate the desires of the dues-paying church-members? If so, how do we de-productize the message? Do we write off the current generation(s) of preachers, close the seminaries, and insist on a new curriculum? Do we pray for revival a-la Brownsville and Toronto?

Or do we ditch the church and embrace the Emergent paradigm?

Personally, I feel we've lost the heart of Romans 12:1-2: spiritual transformation. In light of this, my current heroes are Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, John Ortberg, and others, who are calling for a renewal of the heart.

But, okay, I ask myself. So what? I get it. The editors of Leadership and Out of Ur get it. Jonathan Yarboro gets it. Everybody, it seems, gets it.

So what needs to change?

I ask as a frustrated fellow pilgrim. Not a critic.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

Great stuff...

This is why the culture is so indifferent to Christianity and the church these days. They have encountered the jesus we have created. We've made Jesus over into a caricature and turned His love into apathy. That is really what the consumer version of the Gospel is. God's love is about redemption, change...deep radical change. We've turned His love into an excuse to stay as we are.

That's what cheap grace is all about. We use it to justify ourselves rather than understanding that real grace doesn't justify us, it convicts us. It convicts us but it doesn't condemn us. It rather calls us to rise up and change knowing that mercy is there and we need not fear condemnation.

When we don't tell people that they are EXPECTED to change (i.e. grow spiritually in understanding and living) then we peddle the Gospel. It's interesting that Jesus never tailored the call to make it easier to swallow. Take for example His response to the rich young ruler. If anything, Jesus made a point to make the call so big you had to choke on it and die to get it down.

The language Mr. Yarboro used was perfect for the message he has conveyed. Growing up in a religious community abundant with the aforementioned 'wham-bam gospel prostitutes' initially generated disgust in me towards all things "Christian". It is refreshing to watch Mr. Yarboro explore and challenge this wham-bam theology which still exists in our communities today.

Anyone looking for a solution to this problem must be careful not to fall prey to its logical fallacy. We should avoid the 'Do A To Get B' mentality altogether. That is the gospel accodring to cookie cutters.

But we can ask questions. We can talk. We can learn.

It looks like the majority of respondents are in agreement with Mr. Yarboro and I hope his article gives impetus to keep the instant rebates away from any approach to salvation.

Pat wrote:

« Anyone looking for a solution to this problem must be careful not to fall prey to its logical fallacy. We should avoid the 'Do A To Get B' mentality altogether. That is the gospel according to cookie cutters. »

Why is it fallacious to seek solutions to problems? Isn't the gospel message, itself, a solution to a problem? Is it enough to simply note that there's a problem and nod our heads sagely in agreement?

If church culture is on the wrong course, we need more than tour guides acknowledging we're off the beaten path. When the sheep have lost their way, shepherds abdicate their duties by refusing to "Do A to get B."

Or am I somehow missing your point?

Rich
BlogRodent

You know, I gave your article a chance and read through it and I cannot agree with the use of the language used to express a yet very profound point. You can call it legalism if you like, but I will tell you that I got "checks" in my Spirit about the words chosen. Let me tell you that I discerned that the "colorful" phrase used in the 200 member church was a genuine "slip-up" but it seems you are now justifying using this type of language in an effort to "get the point across". Are you feeling condemned after all this time for making that statement and now convincing yourself that "I'm ok, it's just all those religious church folks with the problem"? 1 Peter 1:15 says "because as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation". Does this mean we, as Christians, will always speak holy ALL the time (wouldn't that be great)? Our flesh nature may get in the way at times, BUT we are to strive toward it; making the effort through the power of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and CHANGES US from the worldly to being Christ-like. I know you mentioned Hosea being full of prostitution language. Well, the Old Testament also has murder, rape, and lying in it, too. Does this make it ok to do these things?? No! It just shows how sinful man is and how great God's mercy is. Finally, I will note that I see a lot of opinions in your article and the other comments but not any specific Scripture to back-up what is being spoken. We should always refer back to the Book...Amen!

leoskeo:

I appreciate your remarks, and let me first say that you are right. I am not wise. I wish I was wise, and I wish I could say profound things, but the truth is that I am far too lacking in my understanding of the ways of God to ever assert that I am wise or profound. And I agree with you that people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say embarrassing things because they only understand a "sliver of the issue." And frankly, I would make good company with people who only understand a "sliver of the issue." I, as you stated, "am not wise."

But concerning the post you critiqued, I need to clarify some things. Maybe you were offended by the metaphor and stopped reading with your heart. Maybe my ability to express what I am thinking is lacking. Maybe the way Leadership and Out of Ur edited it created some gaps in my argument. Who knows the reason, but the fact is that there is apparently a gap in what I am trying to say and what you are comprehending.

Toward the end of your critique, you stated:

"Let’s not use Hosea to justify your crassness. In that book God is not the whore, Israel is. Let’s not use the Bible to justify our verbally poor choices and images."

If you read carefully, I never refer to God as a whore. I never say it explicitly, and I hope I never say it implicitly. Rather, the whore language is reserved for a version of Jesus that is not real. The whorish Jesus is something we, as ineffective evangelists and effective pimps, have created out of thin air. Okay, maybe he is real. Business, after all, is good. But this whorish illusion is not the Jesus of the Bible. I am sorry that you came away from reading this post thinking that I was calling God a whore.

Secondly, you stated:

"You take well-meaning people and tell them they are pimping out a Jesus who may indeed have changed their lives."

It's true; many of these people are well-meaning. After all, I included myself in the mix. I have been guilty of pimping out the same version of Jesus. But there came a time in my own ministry when I discovered that I had a poor understanding of the biblical Jesus. There came a time when I realized the so-called Jesus I knew so much about was not the Jesus I thought he was. He was a seductive imposter.

When you suggest that the false Jesus may have changed their/our lives, you miss the point entirely. The point is that the whore changes nothing. It is inconsequential to the movement of God. Rather, it makes would-be followers of the Christ into complacent narcissists bent on meeting their own needs. Once again, I apologize if my poor writing led you to believe I was saying something I was not.

Rich wrote:

Why is it fallacious to seek solutions to problems? Isn't the gospel message, itself, a solution to a problem? Is it enough to simply note that there's a problem and nod our heads sagely in agreement?

If church culture is on the wrong course, we need more than tour guides acknowledging we're off the beaten path. When the sheep have lost their way, shepherds abdicate their duties by refusing to "Do A to get B."

How is a personal relationship with God established?

The shepherd may preach the gospel relentlessly but if the sheep do not internalize its message, what have they accomplished? Mr. Yarboro points out the problem: "Say this prayer and you’ll be saved." (Do A to get B) We demand: “Tell me the solution to fix the problem.” (Tell me A so I can get to B) Can a personal relationship with God be transcribed in step-by-step instructions? To what degree is our relationship with God completely personal?

Let’s throw out the sagely head nodders and keep the tour guides, as long as they acknowledge that there are no shortcuts on our beaten path toward salvation.

Rich,

You stated, "Or do we ditch the church and embrace the Emergent paradigm?" As an Emergent participant and supporter I guess I would ask you to explain your statement more clearly. To embrace emergent isn't to leave the church? How is that even possible? If Emergent is made up of believers, isn't Emergent part of the church? Some in Emergent are trying to ditch institutionalism and explore new ideas for how the church can work, but this too is not an abandonment of the church. I am part of the Emerging Church and I pastor in a large, evangelical, mainline church.

Thanks-
Greg

Sorry, Greg, no offense intended. What I meant was not "Ditch the [C]hurch" but, as you speculated "Ditch the institutions."

Regards,

Rich.
BlogRodent

Pat asked:

"How is a personal relationship with God established?"

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?

That reveals, to me, one of the primary duties of the shepherds: creating opportunities for faith to flower by preaching Christ and his Word.

To me, that still smacks of "doing A to get B," but others may disagree.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

Does Faith only come from hearing? One of our Protestant issues is our absolute love of the preaching of the word of God often as the highest form of worship, evangelism, and purpose of our roles as pastors. I would counter that we gain faith by experiencing the reality of the Gospel, not just by hearing. Some of the most powerful witnesses of the Gospel, which have generated faithful transformation, are acts of mercy, grace, and love done in the name of Christ. By your definition how would a person who could not hear obtain faith?

Amen. As I have read the scriptures I do not see one time in which Jesus says, "Now pray this prayer and you will be saved," rather, Jesus says, "Come follow me." I grow impatient people who want to be saved, but who do not want to follow.

Jonathan, I think your message is amazing. I think that christianity is so watered down nowadays and people are expected to act tolerent of everything that Jesus, the real one...not the pimp, has been severly distorted. I wish more people could grasp the severity of the situation at hand but that might mean stepping outside their comfort zones. I have to admit that I too have previously been roped into the whorification of christianity, preaching until I was blue in the face only to realize that I'm trying to sell myself. I'm trying to get my point of view across. I preached what I believed rather than lived it. Earlier this evening, a guy I know said "maybe it's good to be uncomfortable" and I completely agree. I think people, including myself, have been so accustomed to this simplified message that we are numb to the reality that other people are missing out. People are getting to know the complete truth. I wish more people were concerned with this issue rather than get their "panties in a wad" because something makes them uncomfortable. If you are uncomfortable with something, then maybe you will pay more attention to it. Thanks Jonathan!

I would caution those attempting to lay the blame at the feet of the seeker. Make no mistake, we as the church have failed them. In our (maybe at times misguided) zeal to 'go into all the world' we have failed to remember the rest, that is to 'make disciples of all nations'. Disciples are not made on Sunday morning. They are not made on Wednesday night. They are made over coffee on a Tuesday morning. They are made over dinner on a Friday night. They are made through relationship. The question must be asked, 'Who am I actively discipling?' Initially we are all drawn, like children, to God--based on what He can do for us. God created a need for Him in each of us. There is 'problem to solution' dynamic at work, however we as the church fail them when we allow them to stay there by withholding the hand of fellowship, and denying them that which was given to us.

I think "wham bam thank you ma'am" is an accurate description of the commonly held concept of being "saved". Sometimes it takes bold, shocking language to help religious people snap out of it (see OT prophets, John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth).

I agree with your sentiments and have no problem with the way you make your point. The concept used to be called “Easy Believism”. However, let's just assume for one moment that Joe Average doesn't pay any attention to the world of Christian media, and hasn't got a clue (not too great a stretch for the imagination, is it?). Do you really think the problem is that we're making it too easy for people to get saved? Is that what's keeping the world from knowing Jesus? We can "tune up" our message until we're blue in the face, but who really gets to hear our message?

Less is not more…

In the UK those of us who have an ear to hear have been abandoning the wam-bam thankyou maam whore-houses that many call church. In it's place we have started to live christianity for ourselves.

It's messy, it's raw but most importantly it contains the spirit of the message of the christ.

It is Love God, Love People. All the trappings are gone because we can no longer afford to support them.

The only way to live like this is a brutal form of honestym and an end to playing church.

Greg asks:

Does Faith only come from hearing? ... I would counter that we gain faith by experiencing the reality of the Gospel, not just by hearing. ... By your definition how would a person who could not hear obtain faith?

The passage I quoted doesn't state that faith only comes by hearing the Word. Otherwise, we would have no place in our communities for the deaf!

I am unclear as to the point you are trying to make here. The original assertion was that there is a fallacy in thinking "Do A to get B." I'm simply saying that the onus of evangelism is on those who have received the Gospel to preach, teach, live, demonstrate, and minister out of the faith we have received. As we do that, others come to faith. What you are saying now doesn't invalidate my point, only authenticates it. Clearly, in the Book of Acts, we see the miraculous serving as a beachhead for evangelism. The miracles serving as a catalyst for faith as much as the preaching did, I'm sure. But without proclaiming the Good news, as Christ did, and the apostles and disciples after him, there's not going to be much "making of disciples."

I fail to see where the fallacy resides.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent

Aren't we glad Peter just preached and baptised on the day of Penecost, and didn't spend his time "testing soil." A voice is just a voice -- it is the Spirit who brings repentance and life.

I have a question for you all. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for this. Our church is thinking of putting some kind of printed material in our pews that clearly explains the gospel and how to respond to it, or how one might receive Jesus as Lord and Savior. (This initiative is on the part of some of our parishoners who are concerned that we do not regularly have altar calls built into our services.) We are struggling with wording, not wanting to boil this down to a few steps and a prayer, but we would also having some kind of clarity. We don't want to use tracts...BUT would like it to be short and sweet - about long enough to fit on a large 5X7 postcard.
Has anybody done something like this in the Emergent community?
Looking forward to your thoughts!!

You're so right, our God wants the real thing with us too. Even though at 19 years old I accepted Him into my heart, and a few times of touching the surface, it's only now years later at 40, that I have that "real thing" with Him. It took much searching and longing for Him that it was He who also lead me back, for good.

Thank You for being 'real' with us.

It has always been my thought that there is evangelizing and then there is pastoring. We are, to a certain extent, doing an apples and orange comparison here.

The Bible exhorts us to evangelize, win folks to Christ and that formula IS doing “A” to get “B”. If the "A" isn't done with repentance and repentance isn't in your "A+B" formula I would indeed question it's validity! If that is the case, you need to re-examine your ministry!

Do I remember the topic of the sermon that brought me to know Christ as my savior? Most certainly not!! I'm NO spring chicken and it was MANY years ago! It very well could have been the slick presentation we are debating here today. I do remember being at the altar and repenting. and accepting Christ as my savior. To think that our Lord can't use these so called "slick" presentations for the good is to undermine the very power of God! Having heard the testamonies of ex-cultists, God even used their experiences for the good. That is not to say there is not a need for change. We have to concede that we all come into the knowledge of Christ from many angles but we need to focus on what we do after.

It's what is done after the conversion that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. That's when the role of being a pastor comes into play. It's the nurturing after the fact that is almost as important as the conversion itself. Very few that come to the point where they meet Jesus at Calvary understand the concepts of theology. They just know they have a need. It takes often years to train up a soldier for Christ. And we are obligated to do that very training. I believe that's were the distinction should be made!

There is another Jesus, one we have created, who is a seductive, slick-talking, trick-turning object of our self-pleasure.

If THIS is the Jesus you've been preaching then you need to get on your knees and ask God to forgive you and he will. Then you can proceed guilt free and repair the damage you have done.