Critique: The Romans Road

Introduction
I have wanted for some time to write out a reasoned critique of the popular "Romans Road" methodology of evangelism. This is one of the most prevalent approaches, from conservative fundamentalists to liberal evangelicals. It serves as the essential basis of many a child's Bible verse memory, including some of the most memorable verses in the Bible.

And yet. in many ways, it has come to frustrate me to no end in my evangelistic journey. In my own small community of close friends, a number of shortcomings have been identified in this now-traditional approach, but I have not found a strong critique available at large. Hopefully, this will serve as the basis for it.

The Romans Road
As a basic preliminary, I will describe the Romans Road model. The Romans Road is more than a mnemonic device -- it's a full, soup-to-nuts formula for sharing the Gospel with a (presumably) lost person. It consists of a series of verses, which are intended to build a case for the hearer to embrace the Gospel. The "semi-canonical" list of verses (in order) follow:

1. All are sinners: Romans 3:23
2. The wages of sin is death: Romans 6:23
3. The death of Christ demonstrates God's love: Romans 5:8
4. Confession with the mouth: Romans 10:9
5. Assurance of justification: Romans 5:1

Perhaps there are variations that include or exclude a verse or two, but this is the essential formula. I know some include verses from Revelation (such as 3:10) or the Gospel of John (1:12), but I think these five are the basic outline.

So, without further ado, I will commence with the issues I've collected with the Romans Road format. I don't think this is exhaustive, and more could certainly be written. But this is a basic framework I've found useful in reasoning around the method, and to explain some of the fruit of this approach.

No definition of sin
It has struck me especially of late that at the very start, the Romans Road announces that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. I have met many people who understand sin not a whit or only poorly, at best. This is of critical importance, because I will certainly not take any prescription to solve sin seriously until I know what the sickness is.

But which of the Romans Road verses defines sin? It is not Romans 3:23, which only asserts that all have sinned. 6:23 assigns the consequences of sin. If the sinner protests, there is little recourse but to insist that, "The Bible says you are a sinner, because you are one of the 'all.'" But this is nonsense to the hearer.

The Bible provides passages that define sin for us, but the Romans Road has taken care only to select verses that assert sin, rather than any that would define it. I would recommend 1 John 3:4 ("... for sin is the transgression of the law."). Of course, then you may have to actually talk about the law a bit too.

No mention of repentance
It was Jesus who said, "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospel." He also said that He came, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." The typical Gospel call in Acts is something like, "For God now commandeth all men every where to repent."

The theme of repentance is found throughout scripture as a common element in man's appropriate response to God, yet is essentially absent from the Romans Road. The closest that the formula gets is in Romans 10:9, reading, "... and shalt believe in thine heart." This is the single phrase in the entire sequence that suggests that saving faith is anything more than attestation to some theological ideas.

Especially in our modern day, the notion of belief has become so dissociated from action, that repentance must always be included. So many are willing to stipulate to Christian axioms without turning from the life of sin toward God in repentance.

Conclusion emphasizes profession with the mouth
The crescendo of the Romans Road is that the hearer must confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus Christ. Never mind that this is the only time in the whole Bible that salvation is described in terms of an oral confession. Never mind that 150 other times the New Testament describes salvation in terms of repentance and faith. Never mind that no example of a sinner's prayer is ever found in the pages of scripture.

Despite all these indisputable truths, the Romans Road rips two verses out of the deepest context in all of scripture to tell the hearer that he must use his mouth to get saved. This gives seemingly scriptural support for the "sinner's prayer." How many souls remain children of wrath despite repeating, "... these words after me?"

A Gospel presentation ought always to land on a biblical call to action. We have some great examples, such as "repent" and "believe," I'm not sure why we should choose anything else. Look at a few of the Gospel sermons in Acts and ask yourself if your conclusion looks like the Apostles' conclusions.

Assurance counts chickens before they're hatched
Often, verses like Romans 5:1 are used to tell the person after they've pronounced a magic formula with their mouth that they are undoubtedly saved. The recipient of this generous blessing is then sent on his way, not to think of these things again until I meet him on the street ten years later. He will then tell me how he got saved once or twice, but it didn't work, his life didn't change, and he's now jaded and unreceptive to the Gospel.

Unless you can see a mystical inward transformation with your eyes, don't take conditional promises from scripture and present them falsely and emphatically when the situation does not warrant. In Romans 5:1, Paul says we have been justified right after he just presented a condition in Romans 4:24.

Consider, instead, suggesting to the person you're talking with that the real way to know if they're saved is if they are gradually conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. The only other alternative is chastening. But if they go right back to where they were before -- assurance is only a hindrance.

Besides... if they're saved now for eternity, then failing to give them a list of assurance verses can't disturb their newfound salvation. Doing so for a false convert, on the other hand, only makes it harder for them to see what really happened when they look back on the event in question. See -- Pascal's wager-logic works alright sometimes.

A Better Way
How unfair it would be to rip the Romans Road out from under foot and have no replacement! Well, here is my suggestion for a more biblical methodology. Possibly the safest is to pick a Gospel presentation from the Bible, and use that! It seems so weird to take a theological treatise and pull four or five verses out of their context and quote them out of order to try to make your point. This is especially so, since we have some Gospel sermons to emulate right in the Bible, just waiting to be used.

Define sin for the person you're talking to. They may think of it as a common condition, and not their personal decision to rebel against God's law. Talk about God's law -- help the person understand that it was not their mother or God that made them sinners. It is their sin that makes them sinners.

Call the person to repentance and faith. These are the biblical verbs for salvation. Many are willing to repent from sin, but not to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Conversely, many are willing to agree to the facts about Jesus Christ, but wouldn't change their life for anything.

Finally, don't give someone else assurance of salvation. You don't know if they repented. You don't know if they've believed. Assurance should always be presented conditionally -- based on the biblical concepts of repentance, faith, the new birth, and God's promises.

Starting Out

Not long ago, I read a 19th century Baptist historian who chronicled the development of the modern missions movement. By this I mean the parachurch system of missions agencies, deputation, and the professional missionary class. This relatively unknown historian criticized the missions movement's deviation from traditional methods for starting and building new churches.

He contends that, prior to the 18th century, the churches advanced with one simple approach that worked just fine for 1,700 years. Namely:

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Consider, for a moment, how there happened to arise groups of duly baptized believers throughout Europe, North Africa, Central Asia, and who knows where else, for so long before the need for deputation, specialized educational degrees, and furloughs was recognized. Was it not so simple as believers, finding themselves wherever they were, bearing faithful witness -- advancing the Gospel as the Lord allowed?

Epsilon 2 is motivated severally: that repentance and remission of sins be preached among all nations, including my nation; that the industrial / commercial church structure en vogue today opposes true fellowship and evangelism; and that only biblical models are worth implementing.

So, we are starting with two or three and the Lord in the midst as He promised. Having been scattered abroad, we pray we will be faithful to preach the Word in these new highways and hedges, and that the Lord will give increase. I hope to record some of it here on this blog.