How would we view so called good news which is actually bad news. We would naturally consider it a lie. When someone tells us something is black when our eyes, ears, and heart recognize that it is white, we must conclude that the teller is either deluded or lying. That is exactly where most people are when hearing the church's so called Gospel message. The messenger claims to be excited about and committed to his message, but the hearer has to wonder why. When called to believe the unbelievable, what is a man to do? Avoid the messenger.
Of course, as far as the church is concerned, the problem lies with the hearer not their message. According to them, people naturally reject Good News because part of the news is the prediction that the Good News will be rejected. I needn't comment on where such circular logic takes you.
I don't know about your experience, but my observation is that people naturally enjoy good news. They may wonder sometime if the good news is too good to be true, but you can bet they at least wish it was true. If they reject good news at all, it is because it is too good, not because they cringe when they hear it.
There is an obvious difference between news which is bad and news which is just plain unbelievable. Unbelievable news can be unbelievably bad or unbelievably good. The church's Good News falls into the unbelievably bad category for me, and I am not alone in that conclusion. The folks who spend their Sunday mornings outside the churches apparently don't find the church's News to be particularly Good.
The perception of the human heart is the final arbiter of reality, i.e. what is individually true. The heart can be misguided in its perception, for sure; but that does not mean that the bad news which the church preaches will someday be recognized as the best God could do. That stretches the limits of plausibility way past where I can go.