Five Reasons Why We Don't Do Discipleship (Part 4)

In three previous articles, I offered four reasons why we do not engage in discipleship, despite Christ’s command to do so.

The fifth and final reason why we do not engage in discipleship is that our churches are too often ashamed of the Gospel and therefore do not preach it, but assume it.

Preaching the Gospel as a Key to Depth

I was recently invited to preach at a church near London. The church was experiencing a decline in membership, so they were making a big effort to attract young people. They added another meeting at a more convenient time, invited guest preachers from all over the country, spent money on advertising, and even invited a band from 100 miles away to perform.

I started a conversation with a wonderful church member about the reasons for the decline in the number of older people. «This may be a sensitive question,» I said, «but how does the preaching of the Gospel work?» He replied with an understanding of the process and a slightly embarrassed smile: «Well, we have to give the people what they want.».

This reminded me of the words of Martin Lloyd-Jones:

«"If we cannot fill the church with the preaching [of the Gospel], let it remain empty.".

Why? Because a church filled with methods, marketing, or music is not a church filled with disciples.

It is true that these things can bring short-term numerical growth. But as Mark Dever writes:

«The growth we see in the New Testament, spoken of, called for, and prayed for, is not simply a quantitative growth. If your church has more people now than it did a few years ago, does that mean your church is healthy? Not necessarily» (Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, 201-202).

«Growth» without regular and faithful teaching of the Gospel is growth without depth: wide as the ocean, but shallow as a puddle. If we seek not only breadth but also depth, there is no substitute for preaching and teaching that is saturated with the Gospel.

And one final note: There is a danger that even self-proclaimed «evangelical» or «gospel-centric» churches hold the Gospel so close to their hearts, so close to the center, that it is actually hidden.

We can mention the name of Jesus, mention the «Gospel,» and quote the Word of God. But we may never get to the point of reminding each other who Jesus is, what He did, and what it means for us. To our own detriment, we may only live in the shadow of the Gospel instead of actually proclaiming it.

Stuck on "consequences"«

I hope it’s just me, but I’ve seen this time and time again in churches that identify as biblically faithful and evangelical. On a recent vacation in Wales, I had the privilege of being at a small gathering of believers gathered in a large and ornate parish church. The greeting was warm and almost apologetic: «I’m afraid we don’t have many young people these days.» The pastor preached from 1 Timothy 3 on the deceitfulness of riches. What was said was true. But, oh God, what was not said.

D. A. Carson, Fundamentals for Believers, makes this wise observation:

«There is a disturbing tendency in some parts of Western evangelicalism to focus on the periphery. My colleague… Dr. Paul Hiebert… comes from a Mennonite family and analyzes his heritage in a way that he himself would admit is somewhat simplistic caricature, but nonetheless useful. One generation of Mennonites believed the Gospel and believed that there were certain social, economic, and political consequences. The next generation already assumed the truth of the Gospel but identified with those consequences of that belief. And yet another generation later rejected the Gospel itself, leaving only the «consequences» that became everything. If you apply this pattern to the evangelical movement as a whole, it seems that large parts of it are stuck in the second stage, and some are already drifting into the third.».

This is not a subtle appeal to the Gospel without any social implications. We intelligently reread the accounts of the Evangelical Revival in England and the Great Awakenings in America, and of the incredible ministries of Howell Harris, George Whitfield, the Wesley brothers, and others. We rightly remind ourselves how, in God's providence, their new converts fought for the abolition of slavery, the reform of the penal code, the formation of labor unions, the transformation of prisons, and the liberation of children from the mines. The whole society was changed because truly converted men and women saw that life must be lived before God and in a way that was pleasing to Him.

But almost without exception, these men and women put the gospel first. They rejoiced in it, they preached it, they saw to it that the reading and teaching of the Bible were centered on Christ and the gospel, and from that foundation they moved on to broader social programs. In short, they put the gospel first, and especially in their own pursuits. To fail to see this priority is to believe that we are no more than one generation away from rejecting the gospel.

If Carson's observation is correct, then we have a responsibility not only to our present church, but also to the church of the future.

In the 19th century, preacher Charles Spurgeon identified a similar problem:

«I believe that those sermons which are most full of Christ are the most blessed for the conversion of the hearers. Let your sermons be full of Christ, filled with the Gospel from beginning to end. As for me, brethren, I can preach nothing else but Christ and His cross, for I know nothing else, and long ago, like the apostle Paul, resolved to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified» (The Soul Winner, 35, emphasis mine).

Brothers and sisters, in our discipleship—whether from the pulpit or in everyday conversation—do we simply assume the Gospel? Do we talk about the Gospel without explaining what it is? Or are we, at least functionally, ashamed of it?

The deep and broad discipleship we seek in our churches will only come when we stop assuming the Gospel and actually preach it.