Problem Method, Problem Message, or Both? Another look at “Easy Believeism”

Last Sunday night there was a verse in Hosea that promoted a short discussion about the “Easy Believeism” mindset. I thought a few more reflections might be helpful. I think this might be one of those cases that shows us the complexities of discerning between the methods used and the messages conveyed.

There is a need to start with some definition. When I speak of “Easy Believeism”, I am speaking about ministry that wants to make converts by means of intellectual assent alone. If they can get a person to profess belief in Jesus, then their job is done and salvation is attained forever for that person.

We spoke of various methods that generally are found with that type of ministry. Some that were mentioned were alter calls, reciting the sinner’s prayer, truncated gospel explanations, decisions for Christ, and massive rallies.

Here is where I wanted to give a little more reflection and hopefully demonstrate both the divisions and the unity of method and message.

First, we have to say that “Easy Believeism” is a faulty message. In Scripture, the gospel is clearly seen to be a message that creates new life. Following Christ in repentance and faith will bear the fruit of a changed life. The good news is that Christ died so that you can be born again and made a new creature in Christ who loves holiness and treasures the glory of God above all else. “Easy Believeism” says that is not needed. However, if you don’t love holiness, hate sin, and follow Christ then it is clear that you haven’t experienced what is good in the good news.

Turning now to method, things get a little more complicated. First, let’s say that there is an inextricable link between method and message. You can’t say absolutely that the method can be completely changeable and moldable, while the message remains unchanged. No, your method will be a reflection of the message. The method can change, but it cannot change into something that contradicts or confuses or obscures the message. Some methods will do that. You just can’t be silly and trite in your method, while trying to convey a message with seriousness and gravity.

So what about the methods of “Easy Believeism”? I think this is a case where many of the above mentioned methods fit very easily into the faulty message, but the method itself doesn’t necessarily have to be seen as faulty. The alter call will be an example here. If your main goal is to get professions of faith, then the alter call will be a go-to method for you. The alter call capitalizes on the emotion of the moment, it is caters to speed because you can’t spend lots of time with one person up front, it makes the one coming down feel like something highly significant is happening, it cements crowd approval when it is announced that one has been saved.

Does this mean that the alter call should be condemned along with the faulty message of “Easy Believeism”? No. I think an alter call can be done in a way where the gospel is protected, the person is informed, and the event is not seen as a salvation activity. However, this is difficult. I said that it “can” be done, not that it would be easy to do. Nor that it can be done without problems. You may try to do it as carefully as you can, and people will still think that their coming down and profession actually attained salvation for them.

It should be understood that there is no method that a sinner can’t pervert and use in their self-deception. There has to always be vigilance. But some methods are prone to be perverted. Just because a method can be used, doesn’t mean it is a best-practice method. It may be one filled with pitfalls.