Does mass evangelism really work?

[DiscipleWhomJesusLoves]

Pete, Pete, Pete,

The condescending tone belies your supposed purpose.

You guys (Balance, Pete, Disciple) need to get off your high horses. Jim hasn't done anything but respond to you all's tones. His testimony has been called into question but when he does the same thing, you all pretend like you've gotten your feelings hurt or like you're so much better than he is.

You can dish it but you can't take it.

BTW, mass evangelism is not "apparently and obviously" (despite that redundancy) working for some people.

Well all I know is that we don't go around saying that we are very happy and fulfilled doing what God has called us to do, and then spend half our time here tearing down other ministries that are not patterned after our own.

I've debated with Jim for many years. He's still bitter as ever since he got 'played out' (so he says) by BH ministry.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time in this thread anymore. Cheerios.

 

[JeCrois]

Pete, Pete, Pete,

The condescending tone belies your supposed purpose.

You guys (Balance, Pete, Disciple) need to get off your high horses. Jim hasn't done anything but respond to you all's tones. His testimony has been called into question but when he does the same thing, you all pretend like you've gotten your feelings hurt or like you're so much better than he is.

You can dish it but you can't take it.

BTW, mass evangelism is not "apparently and obviously" (despite that redundancy) working for some people.

No....the only reason they have those tones if there are any is because Jim came along and punched down their beliefs because they were different than his. If anything it is Jim who can't take what he dishes out. That is the impression that is being made.

And we never said that evangelism works for everyone. But some people are actually getting saved because of them. Despite the experience Jim has, these crusades work for some people--not all--definitely some. So those people should be credited and rejoiced for, not looked over and pitied because we may feel that there are better ways to have reached them.

 

[JimB]

Well all I know is that we don't go around saying that we are very happy and fulfilled doing what God has called us to do, and then spend half our time here tearing down other ministries that are not patterned after our own.

I've debated with Jim for many years. He's still bitter as ever since he got 'played out' (so he says) by BH ministry.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time in this thread anymore. Cheerios.

“Played out” by BH! What are you talking about? I have never been involved in BH—ever! I’ve never sent them a dime, I seldom watch him on TV and I don’t give a flip about his “ministry”.

Apparently you have misread me for “years”.

That explains a lot.

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[probinson]

Pete, Pete, Pete,

The condescending tone belies your supposed purpose.

You guys (Balance, Pete, Disciple) need to get off your high horses. Jim hasn't done anything but respond to you all's tones. His testimony has been called into question but when he does the same thing, you all pretend like you've gotten your feelings hurt or like you're so much better than he is.

You can dish it but you can't take it.

BTW, mass evangelism is not "apparently and obviously" (despite that redundancy) working for some people.

Says the person who is a staunch advocate that 2 wrongs do not make a right, which, apparently and obviously only applies to those you disagree with.

My feelings are fine, not hurt one bit, and Jim is doing a fine job of showing people his heart without any help from me.

 

[JimB]

Oh...we were doing just fine discussing the original topic until no one but you made things very personal:


How can we openly talk about the OP and voice our opinions if you're going to come along and chastise us for disagreeing with you? You asked a question and people gave you answers from their own personal experience. But because they differ from what you want to hear they are bogus? Nonwithstanding? We are stupid because of how we interpret this thread?

Things were civil until you abandoned that by dragging everyone else through the mud.

I know you think you are right, so I don't know if pointing all of this out to you will change anything. You need to stop and think how you are glorifying God when you say things that derail another person's veracity.

Keep the attacks coming [JeCrois,edited]. I know you are just “defending” yourself—I feel the same way—and I am as sick of it as you are.

Now can we drop the tit-for-tat and trying to one-up each other and discuss the OP, which was:

Makes me wonder if we are doing evangelism right? Do mass rallies really accomplish what we imagine they do and, most importantly,

Are we doing evangelism the right way, the biblical way?

Sigh.

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[JimB]

*****
My feelings are fine, not hurt one bit, and Jim is doing a fine job of showing people his heart without any help from me.

What, exactly, is “Jim’s heart”, Pete? Can you tell us without prejudice?

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[probinson]

Keep the attacks coming Pete. I know you are just “defending” yourself—I feel the same way—and I am as sick of it as you are.

Now can we drop the tit-for-tat and trying to one-up each other and discuss the OP, which was:

Sigh.

That post, my friend, was from JeCrois, a fairly new member that's just getting to know us, and is able to see clearly that you were the one that derailed your own thread.

Good grief. You're so far gone now that you're not even paying attention now to WHO you're talking to anymore!

 

[probinson]

What, exactly, is “Jim’s heart”, Pete? Can you tell us without prejudice?

I don't need to, Jim. As Tamara helpfully pointed out yesterday, out of the abundance of your heart, the mouth speaks (or fingers type).

Unlike you, I don't think most people are gullible "suckers". In fact, quite to the contrary, I believe that most all people are capable of thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. So like I said, I will let your posts speak for themselves.

 

[JeCrois]

That post, my friend, was from JeCrois, a fairly new member that's just getting to know us, and is able to see clearly that you were the one that derailed your own thread.

Good grief. You're so far gone now that you're not even paying attention now to WHO you're talking to anymore!

And what I'm getting to know scares me a little.

But I love ya'll all the same.

 

[JimB]

That post, my friend, was from JeCrois, a fairly new member that's just getting to know us, and is able to see clearly that you were the one that derailed your own thread.

Good grief. You're so far gone now that you're not even paying attention now to WHO you're talking to anymore!

You’re right. It is confusing when you’re being gang-banged (but I’m sticking with the OP) and my apologies to you for confusing the poster. I’ve gone back and edited it.

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[lismore]

I can't picture doing all that a second time, let alone 100 times, if we got no results, how would you get people to do it?.

Hi there

From my experience, many of the people who attend these rallies are Christian already.

Many people are taught that they can loose their salvation, so they go to the biggest names they can find and keep going out again and again at the altar call~ because they have no peace. They think God could send them to hell

If you think about it, why would a load of non-Christians want to come to something like that? If they wanted it they could go to church for free~no need to pay money to attend an evangelists crusade. Do Christians line up to go to Satanist conventions? Why would satanists line up to come to Christian conventions?

A lot of things that happen in these meetings put a lot of unbelievers off. Everyone getting a seed-faith envelope, being asked to put in a minimum amount and then and waving it in the air. I was a little surprised by this when I went to BHs meeting at the Excel Centre in LOndon, July 2006. For the evening service when the doors were closed at 4:30pm and a large crowd was still forming trying to get in, there were people carrying bibles in the group who stampeded, rammed the barriers, assaulted the policewoman and then were arrested.

These meetings are deemed successful if enough people turn up and if they make a profit (or at least down show a loss).

I think the OP is referring to getting people saved.

These rallies can get a lot of Christians together for a good time and often make a lot of cash, but the gospel preached in a tiny little place on a back street somewhere is as powerful unto salvation for all who believe. We should not limit God to working in a mass rally or working through a few superstars.

Sometimes the best way to get people saved is to keep them away from some of these people.

 

[JimB]

I don't need to, Jim. As Tamara helpfully pointed out yesterday, out of the abundance of your heart, the mouth speaks (or fingers type).

Unlike you, I don't think most people are gullible "suckers". In fact, quite to the contrary, I believe that most all people are capable of thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. So like I said, I will let your posts speak for themselves.

Nope, you brought this up. I would like for you to tell all of us, plainly, without being so cryptic, what my heart is, Pete. I would like to know how discerning you actually are.

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[JimB]

I can't picture doing all that a second time, let alone 100 times, if we got no results, how would you get people to do it?

That’s exactly the question I finally asked myself—why are we doing this? The only thing I can think of is that a mass crusade gives the appearance of success. I mean, look at all those people, look at all those hands that were raised, look at all the volunteers and lights and big names. But what I was not privy to was the results, the actual results of what was accomplished after the dust cleared. But some have done that … to wit (from the OP) …

· Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit.”

· In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could be found.

· In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be false converts.

· A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.

· In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.

· A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local church.

· In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.

· A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 6% retention rate (or, to put it another way, a 94 percent fall-away rate).

· In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ. Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”
​

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[probinson]

Nope, you brought this up. I would like for you to tell all of us, plainly, without being so cryptic, what my heart is, Pete. I would like to know how discerning you actually are.

(and here I thought you wanted to discuss the OP?)

You can ask me 15,000 times, and my answer will be the same.

I will let people draw their own conclusions from your posts.

See, I understand that my judgment of you may be wrong, and so I don't wish to taint other people's opinions of you with my input.

Out of the abundance of the heart...

 

[Always in His Presence]

Hi there

From my experience, many of the people who attend these rallies are Christian already.

I believe you might have misunderstood what I was saying. The people "who do it" I referring to were the church people who volunteer their time and effort to follow up on names received from the crusade staff.

Not those who attend the crusade.

From a pastors POV - you spend lots of time and effort promoting the follow up, training people for the follow up, having a special service just for the people who you follow up with, then get NO ONE to follow up with -

I wouldn't do it again - it would be a waste not to get any names after all that preparation.

 

[JimB]

(and here I thought you wanted to discuss the OP?)

You can ask me 15,000 times, and my answer will be the same.

I will let people draw their own conclusions from your posts.

See, I understand that my judgment of you may be wrong, and so I don't wish to taint other people's opinions of you with my input.

Out of the abundance of the heart...

Then you will not answer me, even if I ask you to 15,000 times. That's real courage, Pete. But I don’t blame you. It will make you appear as judgmental as your insinuation insinuates.

And people can draw their own conclusions—they do it anyhow. Even about you, Pete.

~Jim

I am master of my unspoken words.​

 

[millerrod]

Deciple up fellows !! Christ has taught us a parable concerning this issue. Luke 15:4-7

 

[JimB]

I believe you might have misunderstood what I was saying. The people "who do it" I referring to were the church people who volunteer their time and effort to follow up on names received from the crusade staff.

Not those who attend the crusade.

From a pastors POV - you spend lots of time and effort promoting the follow up, training people for the follow up, having a special service just for the people who you follow up with, then get NO ONE to follow up with -

I wouldn't do it again - it would be a waste not to get any names after all that preparation.

I am not so sure “follow up” works as it is supposed to. I do not have an answer to this but then apparently neither crusade organizers. I am happy it worked for your city, Balance, but from the following reports (from the OP), your's may be the exception and not the rule because it doesn’t always go as planned.

· Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit.”

· In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could be found.

· In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be false converts.

· A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.

· In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.

· A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local church.

· In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.

· A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 6% retention rate (or, to put it another way, a 94 percent fall-away rate).

· In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ. Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”
​

As someone has said, people prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not.


There is a better way

~Jim

We prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not.​

 

[Always in His Presence]

· Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit.”

· In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could be found.

· In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be false converts.

· A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.

· In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.

· A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local church.

· In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.

· A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 6% retention rate (or, to put it another way, a 94 percent fall-away rate).

· In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ. Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”
​

Here's the source of that info

http://www.frontlinemin.org/decisionism.asp

I'd encourage you to go to the site - it will explain a lot.

 

[ECHELON]

Are organized and promoted mass meetings the pattern of evangelism that is pictured in the NT? I know Jesus drew large crowds but they were not “organized and promoted”, they just happened because, well, Jesus is Jesus. And Pentecost was a large gathering but it was neither organized or promoted (at least by men) but was spontaneous in the Temple on a High Holy Day.

No where else in the NT do we find the Apostles organizing mass crusades to win the lost and we are discovering that there is a very small percentage of those who “make decisions for Christ” at these meetings that are really genuine, lasting, life-changing conversions. One figure I read this week (and I can’t locate where I found it online) was that the average retention rate of “first-time converts” at mass crusades was around 1%. Billy Graham only claimed, at best, less than 10%.



Here are some figures I have compiled …

· Charles E. Hackett, the division of home missions national director for the Assemblies of God in the U.S. said, “A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit.”​

· In his book Today’s Evangelism, Ernest C. Reisinger said of one outreach event, “It lasted eight days, and there were sixty-eight supposed conversions.” A month later, not one of the “converts” could be found.​

· In 1991, organizers of a Salt Lake City concert encouraged follow-up. They said, “Less then 5 percent of those who respond to an altar call during a public crusade . . . are living a Christian life one year later.” In other words, more than 95 percent proved to be false converts.​

· A pastor in Boulder, Colorado, sent a team to Russia in 1991 and obtained 2,500 decisions. The next year, the team found only thirty continuing in their faith. That’s a retention rate of 1.2 percent.​

· In November 1970, a number of churches combined for a convention in Fort Worth, Texas, and secured 30,000 decisions. Six months later, the follow-up committee could only find thirty continuing in their faith.​

· A mass crusade reported 18,000 decisions—yet, according to Church Growth magazine, 94 percent failed to become incorporated into a local church.​

· In Sacramento, California, a combined crusade yielded more than 2,000 commitments. One church followed up on fifty-two of those decisions and couldn’t find one true convert.​

· A leading U.S. denomination reported that during 1995 they secured 384,057 decisions but retained only 22,983 in fellowship. They couldn’t account for 361,074 supposed conversions. That’s a 6% retention rate (or, to put it another way, a 94 percent fall-away rate).​

· In the March/April 1993 issue of American Horizon, the national director of home missions of a major U.S. denomination disclosed that in 1991, 11,500 churches had obtained 294,784 decisions for Christ. Unfortunately, they could find only 14,337 in fellowship. That means that despite the usual intense follow-up, they couldn’t account for approximately 280,000 of their “converts.”​

As a pastor, I gave up on these methods a long time ago for the very reasons expressed above—they just didn’t work the way they appeared to work (superficially).

Makes me wonder if we are doing evangelism right? Do mass rallies really accomplish what we imagine they do and, most importantly,

Are we doing evangelism the right way, the biblical way?

~Jim

People with nothing to hide hide nothing.​

The biblical way? I don't know what you mean here. In this day and age with the explosion of the population and as big as the world is now evangelism can sprout out into different avenues of approach. there are now technologies that we have now that evangelists never dreamed about during the first century. God had created these technologies, or for their potential, and we should use them for the benefit of proclaiming the Gospel. Again, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at but that is what I would say.

Also, about these follow ups after crusades. The whole point of evangelism is not to get people to go to your church, it's to bring people into the kingdom of God. Whether these churches see an increase in attendance or not shouldn't suggest that people really weren't saved or had a real experience with God. What it does suggest to me is that the other offices of the Church are not doing their job. Evangelism is to proclaim the Gospel to the lost, it puts the word out, gives the message and that is all. I don't believe that the way we do evangelism today is the problem but that the other offices of the Church; the pastor, teacher, prophet, and apostle are failing to do their job.

EPH. 4:11-13, It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

All of the 5 offices of the Church have to work in concert with each other. If they don't, the work of the evangelist may result in no effect. If the evangelist does his job and many make a decision for christ then the other offices of the Church have to then do their part.

Think of the 5 offices of the Church as a well oiled machine when it works as Jesus Christ intended it to work. I think with what you've said shows not that we are doing evangelism wrong but that we don't have a well oiled machine in operation.