Evangelism Gone Wrong, Pt. 7: Sign Guys: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly



I’m not a sign guy and probably never will be.  But believe it not, I’m not against those who choose to hold signs when they share their faith, just those who do it with the wrong attitude or signage. Granted, there are many ways to preach the Gospel but some are better than others. My question for you this day is: How effective do you think the sign is below? (Start the series at part 1 by clicking here.)

I think this sign is in extremely poor taste, but I’d like to hear your perspective. Does an image of a bloody, flayed, pulverized man on a cross say anything to you? Does this really help to get the Word out in public settings? Click here to see a close up of this entirely gross, and I think pointless, way to proclaim the beauty of God’s Savior. WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!

These sign-holders have their reasons for doing this. In all fairness you can read those reasons by clicking here.




  1. Yes, I find it in extremely poor taste (but you probably guessed that). It’s more like he’s reveling in brutality rather than evangelizing. My impression is that it’s all about him being a big man for Jesus rather than about spreading the Gospel to the lost.

    I see this sometimes on other blogs from so-called believers. They seem to love the idea that everyone who disagrees with them will roast in Hell. One person, in trying to insult an atheist, bragged that sometimes he just couldn’t live up to Jesus’ standard of loving his enemies. That’s what this type of evangelizing makes me think.

    On a related note, sometimes images that may seem okay to you guys can be unsettling for those in the out-group. Couple examples- I used to work in a small office with a majority of evangelicals. One guy had this screen saver that just turned my stomach. It was a blood red background with a bloody hand print. I originally thought it had to do with some slasher flick even though I knew this guy would never watch anything like that. Two seconds and I got the imagery – blood of Christ, washed in the blood, etc. But still, that initial moment was of disgust. Another woman had a screen saver of ‘sand castle crucified Jesus’. Same disgust reaction because it looked like a dead body washed up on the beach.

    (Well, that was a bit rambling.)

    • perdita,

      I agree with you completely on this one. The Gospels left out the gory details for a reason. It’s not about the goriness of the sacrifice, that isn’t what we focus on, it’s the preciousness of the sacrifice, the person of Christ Himself. Very good points!

      I also disagree with those who feature aborted babies on signs as a protest to abortion.

      The Gospel is offensive enough without the preacher being this way also; thus the reason for this series.

      Thanks for your thoughtful words; you were not rambling.

  2. Really great points made on both sides guys! Very interesting I like this series. God bless!

  3. In other words does the end justify the means.

    I take it you disagree with them because you have no way of measuring their effectiveness. So Steve if you knew these signs were effective in converting people, would you use them?

  4. So then is it fair to say not only do you need to convert people to your religion, but you need to convert them in a way that glorifies the GOD of your religion?

    If so, can you define what you mean by glorify?


  5. Thanks, I’m still not really understanding though, which one is it?

    1, 2 3 or 4?

    Is there a biblical reference on how to correctly glorify in Christianity?

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.