by Ken Blue

church signA church sign reflect who we are, and the kind of people we are trying to attract. Therefore, it should be clean, easily read, and interesting. It is the church advertisement. Bad advertisement is worse than none at all. I looked on the web for “stupid church signs,” and could not believe my eyes. The above is not the worst one, but one glance and you can see what is wrong.  I’m sure the lost will flock to find out just what it means.

Macedonia Missions Ad

Seriously, we need to get the lost inside the church, get them saved, and then begin the teaching process. If someone comes in with a Sears Catalog, we should be thankful they are there. If we can get them saved, in time, they will trade the catalog for the Bible.

The name of the church should be bold and in clear font. The hours should also be easily read by those who drive by. If your sign will permit you to post your sermon title, it should be clear and interesting.

Personally, I would not put the following on a sign: Independent, Fundamental, Premillennial, King James Version, Dispensational, and Old Fashion. It is proper and right to hold these convictions, but those words have no meaning to unbelievers, and will send them down the road. Many Christians don’t even understand their meaning.

If you are trying to reach the unreached, make your sign simple and interesting. Now, if your church is not trying to attract sinners, you could write everything in the original Greek. Perhaps an original Greek will drive by and you will snare him. You will get what you go after.

Original article can be found at http://www.kenblueministries.com/2013/10/17/things-not-to-put-on-a-church-sign/

  • I think you’re on point with the signage, but I don’t think our mission is to get the lost inside the church, then get them saved. I think it’s to get them saved, then get them in church to learn and grow. Bringing the lost inside the church is inviting wolves to the sheep’s gathering. No, we must “go out” to the world before bringing them in.

    • So we are not to have any unsaved people visit our church? yes i agree we need to go out but I have had unsaved people visit our church and then get saved. Must they get saved before they visit or we invite them?

  • Robert, I agree that we are to bring in the saved. We have a bus ministry and weekly visitation every week to win the lost. However, we never failed to invite them to church if they didn’t get saved. If your belief is correct, do you and your church ever invite unsaved people to attend? If not, yours is the first church I have heard of that takes that approach. Your fear of the “wolves” is unnecessary.
    Most of the people who make a profession of faith at our church do so each Sunday. Our members bring the lost, and the sermon and invitation results in professions every week. Concerning the church sigh, I agree with Paul. “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. I agree with you, we must to out to the world. But to refuse to bring in the lost is a little much.

  • this is really debatable,but nothing can scare a lost soul , if that very moment is the appointed time for redemption,

  • Stephen, I must assume that you believe every person is predestined to salvation or to hell, and there is also an appointed time for their decision. If that is your view, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. If what you say is true, a sign is a waste of time, and so is all mission work. Are you sure that nothing can scare a lost person? Your train has jumped the track somewhere along the line.

  • I agree with this mostly. What I don’t agree with is “we need to get the lost inside the church”. I love to see the lost come in, but as a pastor I gear my preaching for the saved. The church is the training camp and the field is where we reach the lost. The mega churches has gotten this confused. The Rick Warren mentality of being “sinner friendly” has weakened the preaching in our pulpits.

  • A good article. I’m glad to hear someone making the point so many of us have known all along, that our churches need to be concerned about how we advertise to the community. To speak to a comment made above, the day we relinquish our responsibility to bring the lost into the church – which those of us who know Christ all were at one point – is the day we relinquish our commitment to the Commission. We need to reach both the saved and the lost alike, not because the Megachurches do it, but because Christ did it, and because He commands us to do it. We can’t give up on the world we live in, in the name of simply “holding the fort.” That mindset is what’s isolating the Fundamental Movement, and making it ineffective for evangelism today.

  • Jim, why must you attack another church’s ministry? The mega churches are ministering to the lost and many are meeting Christ for the first time. How dare we Christians cast stones at each other?

  • Silly me, I thought the church was for the perfecting of the saints. That being the case, someone saved should be able to handle some terminology. The purpose of the church is to equip US to GO out and COMPEL THEM to come in — not by our sign. The sign is for us.