I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.

Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response. I do not think the tracts in principle accomplish the same level of communication of truth that the Apostles or Jesus applied. In fact many of the tracts I have seen are formulaic, instead of constructed and delivered keeping in mind the audience. A well trained mature individual can also go in front of the person he or she is speaking to without “beating around the bush”. The staying on topic or on track to the message should not be an issue or a legitimate defense.

I agree what is taught is extremely important, but obviously you do not get my concern for the shallow believers that it produces. How we do things are important and to ignore that fact is to ignore regulative principle that many of us reformed keep to. God has ordained certain means and those means for making disciples is to proclaim the Gospel in boldness and love and then baptize them and continue to teach them all the Lord God has commanded. Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ. If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly. I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold.



I do not think you got my point here. We as Americans want everything fast instead of taking the time to let people process it. We are not giving a sales pitch. Tracts are formulated to be just that a fast way to do evangelism which requires little or no interaction from the one that gives it. The reason why I mentioned sensational or psychological means was because we take that as a short cut in our presentation instead of letting the Holy Spirit do he job.

One common acronym I have seen in some tracts regarding how to be saved is CALL.
Call upon the name of the Lord.
Admit you are a sinner, you are the one who deserves the judgment.
Let Christ bear the penalty for your sins.
Let your faith in him be your righteousness.

I am ignoring the issue of issue of works based righteousness by one’s faith instead of coming from God for this conversation and instead focus on one item. There no mention of repentance and daily continued repentance. It is not something that implied in these tracts. Quite a few of them are designed to pray that prayer, the Sinner’s prayer.

Another very common tract that used is called the Four Spiritual Flaws, woops I mean Laws. You all probably are familiar with it
1) God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life
2) Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.
3) Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life.
4) We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives.

First issue, can we say for sure that God has a wonderful plan for your life, does this not not act on the desires of carnal man?

Second, man is indeed sinful and separated from God, but sin and is hardly ever defined in relation to breaking the law of God, but instead defines as not hitting the mark, a literal translation that does not carry over its full meaning or impact,

Third, Christ is God’s provision for man’s sin, however are listeners or presenters using it to mean that Jesus actually paid for your sins or just provided opportunity so you can be saved? You know, limited versus unlimited atonement controversy. Before I am called as a heretic I do believe God has paid for the sins for all of his elect, not just provide opportunity for salvation. I am a five pointer.

Forth issue, what does it mean to the reader or listener for Jesus to be Savior and Lord? Is that something we should assume? No, it something we should explain the meaning there of.

The last issue with this tract same as the first formulaic tract we looked at and that is the lack of explaining repentance and what that means to a believer.

In regards to some sensational tracts, I have seen of chick tracts that were pretty sensational that act on fear of judgment; instead of explaining why something is sinful and use the mind that the Lord has given us in the process. The mind is a very important process in salvation, in fact the actual definition of repentance is a changing of the mind to one side or another. We need to let people think salvation through and count the cost.

You find passing out tracts helpful, why? Why cant you just lead the conversation without them? Or memorize key scripture passages that you like to use? What happens if you no longer have tracts to use anymore? For they do not always reasonable explain the gospel as I have just shown.

Like it or not experience over a period of time can prove to be trustworthy regarding a particular approach. You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print. People need to hear gospel, not have in be regruted to them from a blooklet or card. We cannot expect them to have the same vocabulary as us, so we need to teach it. The approach I am advocating is more flexible to meeting the needs of the hearer, and leaves it opens for questions; instead of a mindless acceptance.

I agree Gloria, it’s the response to the Gospel. Nor do we need to yell out that “God hate…” this group and has damned them or “God hates…” that group and damned them. We need to show are love to the people, which is why were out there to present the gospel. Gloria even though I said I agree with you that it is not the Gospel, but the response, I think it is necessary to include how we are to respond to the Gospel in our message, because otherwise were just leaving the people hanging and not explaining what God requires all men everywhere to do now that Christ has come and now at the right hand of the Father.

__________________
David Jolley
Currently SBC, may change
Confessions: 1680-SLBCF/ 2000-BFAM
Escondido, CA