Does mass evangelism really work?

[JimB]

How do you know that? What scriptures are you using? What's the difference between Paul preaching in the Amphitheater in Ephasis (and that is proven) Peter speaking from the Temple?

*****

The Holy Spirit.

So, what's the next straw you want to split?

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?​

 

[Tamara224]

The Apostles didn't have electricity and sound projection so they were very limited in what they could do, weren't they. (In terms of using large arenas and speaking to oodles of more people at a time) Plus, Christianity didn't have as much of a stance back then as it does today.

I think you mean Christianity wasn't as widely known back then... The stance is the same (or should be). But, that would suggest we do less now than the Apostles because since Christianity is more widespread in our culture there is less need to reach so many people at one time as there was when Christianity was a "new" message.

We can use the invention of these things to God's glory.

I don't dispute that new inventions can be used to God's glory. But the use of technology isn't really the issue here.

I'm sure if the Apostles were given the same chance they would have taken it.

Pure speculation. You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

When hundreds of thousands of more people are added to the equation, things have to change. Safety issues will insue if things are unorganized.

There were hundreds of thousands of people in Jerusalem during the Feast days. There were hundreds of thousands of people in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth...

Besides, why would the numbers change anything? You think we're supposed to utilize a different method simply because the world is more populous now?

And, safety issues? Um... How does gathering everyone into an auditorium present less safety concerns than one-on-one witnessing, or even street evangelism?

I believe that the overall system could use a bit of shaping up, but as of now the numbers are outstanding--we are talking about thousands of people--and with more help it can become even more outstanding. God is using mass evangelism as a tool for His Kingdom regardless of its superficial or profound nature at the moment. Praise God through which all blessings come!

I agree that God is able to call people even at a mass evangelistic concert. That doesn't make it the best, or even right, approach.

And, imo, I wouldn't call the numbers "outstanding".

 

[JeCrois]

Peter was a deciple Paul was a deciple and your a deciple and yet your using a computor at this very moment. Peter did not paul did not but that doesnt make what your doing wrong just different. different times different methods same purpose

 

[Always in His Presence]

There's an abundance of proof that Paul preached in this little place:

If you are trying to say, that this amphitheater was filled as described - with NO planning. Well.....

 

[JimB]

There's an abundance of proof that Paul preached in this little place:

If you are trying to say, that this amphitheater was filled as described - with NO planning. Well.....

So what? If you will stop your rant long enough to listen—I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PREACHING TO LARGE AUDIENCES. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PREACHING IN AN AMPHITHEATER IF A CROWD DRAWN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WARRANTS IT.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?​

 

[Tamara224]

How do you know that? What scriptures are you using? What's the difference between Paul preaching in the Amphitheater in Ephasis (and that is proven) Peter speaking from the Temple?

What's the next straw you want split?

Let me get this straight... You're asking me to provide a Scripture for something I'm claiming the apostles DIDN'T do? Uh, yeah, logic 101 - you can't prove a negative.

Furthermore, pay closer attention to what I wrote. Let me quote myself:

But you never saw the Apostles organize mass events, rent out the local amphitheater, fill it with mostly believers, put on a performance and then have an alter call.

Now, you prove me wrong with Scripture. Show me where the Apostles ever:
1. organized a mass event (months or even years in advance, including advertising it);
2. Rented the local amphitheater for their exclusive use on a particular day;
3. Put on a performance (by this I mean a concert with a band, and/or a professional "worship team")
4. Had an alter call

NO? Really? How small a vision is it when we degrade Praise and Worship to a performance?

I've been a part of a "worship team" many times in my life. And many many times it is not "worship" or "praise" it is a performance. There is a place for that and I enjoy Christian rock concerts very much. But just because we call it praise and worship doesn't make it so.

I'm just calling it like I see it. Not because my vision is small - but because I've begun to think outside the modernistic box and started questioning whether our practices actually match Scripture. Guess what? They don't, in most cases. So, my vision has expanded past the little box of Pentecostal/Evangelical rituals most people never even think about, much less question.

How do you know who organized the four mass events mentioned in Acts? How do you know how many believers there were there?

The Holy Spirit organized them, Balance. They were spontaneous. The Apostles didn't advertise and tell everyone "There's going to be a Revival meeting in town, everyone invite a friend."

That, imo, is the main problem with mass evangelistic meetings - too much man-planning. Too little reliance on the lead of the Holy Spirit. The more things men (and I mean 'men' as in 'human', not necessarily male) plan, the less likely they are going to be listening to the HS. They want it to go the way they planned it.

I'll grant you that we know there was an altar call.

You'll grant me? I said they didn't do an alter call.

Really, which Scripture are you using to base the conclusion that there was an "alter call"?

Just because people made a decision or were "added to the number" doesn't mean there was an "alter call".

 

[Tamara224]

There's an abundance of proof that Paul preached in this little place:

If you are trying to say, that this amphitheater was filled as described - with NO planning. Well.....

Of course Paul preached there. But to a crowd that was already gathered. It was the cultural custom for people to go to the amphitheater and listen to people debate and/or discuss different philosophies. Paul didn't "rent" the amphitheater (he didn't pay for it) in order to have an exclusive meeting. He showed up and started preaching.

 

[Always in His Presence]

So what? If you will stop your rant long enough to listen—I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PREACHING TO LARGE AUDIENCES. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PREACHING IN AN AMPHITHEATER IF A CROWD DRAWEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WARRANTS IT.

it's like hitting myself in the head with a hammer.

Paul - organized a huge assembly in Ephasis - has praise and worship - gave a message - gave an altar call - people accepted Christ -

Do we know how many met your guidelines two months later?

Billy Graham - organized a huge assembly in different cities - has praise and worship - gave a message - gave an altar call - people accepted Christ -

And you say it's a useless venture.

Why is it like hitting myself in the head with a hammer? Cause it feels so good when I stop.

I'm out, for the specific reason that you are completely close minded on the subject. you cited one source that's questionable in the realm of integrity at best (IMO) - you say there's no scriptural proof of mass gatherings as an evangelistic tool - four are clearly shown and you degrade those.

 

[JimB]

There's an abundance of proof that Paul preached in this little place:

If you are trying to say, that this amphitheater was filled as described - with NO planning. Well.....

BTW, Where exactly does it say that Paul preached in an amphitheater, much less the one you showed? Not saying he didn’t, just saying I can’t find it.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?​

 

[JeCrois]

I think you mean Christianity wasn't as widely known back then... The stance is the same (or should be). But, that would suggest we do less now than the Apostles because since Christianity is more widespread in our culture there is less need to reach so many people at one time as there was when Christianity was a "new" message.

What I meant was that government authority didn't allow as much liberty to the Apostles as we have today. They couldn't waltz into any country they wanted and take over some amphitheater without some persecution. Not that we don't face these things today...but it is not nearly as pressing.

I don't dispute that new inventions can be used to God's glory. But the use of technology isn't really the issue here.

Many a post ago Jim alleviated his thoughts on the use of technology in mass crusades, so yes, it kind of is part of the issue. --the whole "ambiance" scheme adding to disillusionment...

Pure speculation. You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Well, you have absolutely no way of knowing this either: EDIT: knowing this scriptually:

But you never saw the Apostles organize mass events, rent out the local amphitheater, fill it with mostly believers, put on a performance and then have an alter call.

I said that on the same grounds you said the above statement.

There were hundreds of thousands of people in Jerusalem during the Feast days. There were hundreds of thousands of people in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth...

But do you really think they spoke to those hundreds of thousands at one time. Unlikely. Maybe...I don't know...but you don't know either. There is no way of knowing.

Besides, why would the numbers change anything? You think we're supposed to utilize a different method simply because the world is more populous now?

Basically, yes. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "different method," because preaching to mass crowds is mentioned in the Bible, but since there are vasts amounts of more people today, things need to be adapted to handle that.

And, safety issues? Um... How does gathering everyone into an auditorium present less safety concerns than one-on-one witnessing, or even street evangelism?

If I am witnessing to my cousin at my house and my kitchen caught on fire, we could get to safety relatively easy. But if hundreds of thousands of people in a crusade tried to flee out of a superdome that was on fire, things would not be quite as easy. Safety measures have to be taken care of with mass crowds. Disorganization could be fatal.

I agree that God is able to call people even at a mass evangelistic concert. That doesn't make it the best, or even right, approach.

And, imo, I wouldn't call the numbers "outstanding".

Who cares if it was right or wrong if someone was saved in the process?

And fine, that is your opinion. But IMO, those numbers are far greater than I will probably be able to acheive in my lifetime, along with a lot of other Christians.

 

[JimB]

it's like hitting myself in the head with a hammer.

Paul - organized a huge assembly in Ephasis - has praise and worship - gave a message - gave an altar call - people accepted Christ -

****

And I am asking you to 1). prove he preached in an amphitheater and 2). he organized it.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?​

 

[Tamara224]

it's like hitting myself in the head with a hammer.

Paul - organized a huge assembly in Ephasis - has praise and worship - gave a message - gave an altar call - people accepted Christ -

LOL, it doesn't matter how many times you claim it Balance, it doesn't make it true.

So, keep hitting yourself on the head with that "I just made it up" hammer, if you want to. But we're not going to believe it just because you said it.

Show us in Scripture where Paul ever:
1. Organized an event
2. Had "praise and worship"
3. Gave an alter call


Just because there were a lot of people there doesn't mean they were there because Paul invited them. They were there because they ALWAYS went there to hear people discuss philosophy. They were already there and Paul just showed up and started preaching.


[Oh, and BTW, it's spelled Ephesus. I wasn't sure if spell check was not catching that for you, or what.]

 

[millerrod]

I think everyone in this thread has been in the head.
O opps thats me to this thread reminds me of picking dog hairs off the sofa

 

[Tamara224]

What I meant was that government authority didn't allow as much liberty to the Apostles as we have today. They couldn't waltz into any country they wanted and take over some amphitheater without some persecution. Not that we don't face these things today...but it is not nearly as pressing.

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point. Are you saying that because we have less persecution than the Apostles that we are freer to have mass evangelistic outreaches where they couldn't have?

I just want to understand you...

Many a post ago Jim alleviated his thoughts on the use of technology in mass crusades, so yes, it kind of is part of the issue. --the whole "ambiance" scheme adding to disillusionment...

As I understood it, Jim's problem was not with technology but with how it is used to create an atmosphere of emotionalism. There IS a difference.

Well, you have absolutely no way of knowing this either:

But you never saw the Apostles organize mass events, rent out the local amphitheater, fill it with mostly believers, put on a performance and then have an alter call.

I said "but you never saw" - So, I know we never saw it because it's not talked about in the Bible.

I said that on the same grounds you said the above statement.

No, sorry. But speculating as to what the Apostles would do if they were in our time period is nothing like saying something about what they did or did not do in their own time frame. One is speculation, the other is a factual claim.

But do you really think they spoke to those hundreds of thousands at one time. Unlikely. Maybe...I don't know...but you don't know either. There is no way of knowing.

They spoke to thousands at one time. So what?

Basically, yes. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "different method," because preaching to mass crowds is mentioned in the Bible, but since there are vasts amounts of more people today, things need to be adapted to handle that.

Why? What does the greater number of people do to change the method?

There are also many many more Christians today then there were back then...

If I am witnessing to my cousin at my house and my kitchen caught on fire, we could get to safety relatively easy. But if hundreds of thousands of people in a crusade tried to flee out of a superdome that was on fire, things would not be quite as easy. Safety measures have to be taken care of with mass crowds. Disorganization could be fatal.

This is an argument in favor of mass evangelistic events? It's safer at home doing one-on-one evangelism. So, let's just do that and obviate the need for "safety measures".

Who cares if it was right or wrong if someone was saved in the process?

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time believing you actually just wrote that. Thank you Mr. Machiavelli but I'm pretty sure God cares about right and wrong.

And fine, that is your opinion. But IMO, those numbers are far greater than I will probably be able to acheive in my lifetime, along with a lot of other Christians.

Well, that may be true. But it's also irrelevent to the topic at hand. This is not a comparison of you vs. Billy Graham. This is a comparison of modern mass evangelistic outreaches vs. the NT method (the "right" method).

 

[millerrod]

Another dog hair bites the dust

 

[Tamara224]

Another dog hair bites the dust

If you want the thread to die, quit bumping it up.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Crusades such as revival evangelism meetings were series of Christian services held to provoke those outside of it to become part of it. Throughout the New Testament, I cannot find a strategy for mass evangelism, literature distribution evangelism, media evangelism. There is no strategy other than a very simple evangelism how to capture the attention of each individuals who come to such events. Billy Sunday, D.L. Moody, and Billy Graham are other evangelists who contributed to the widespread acceptance and use of the altar call.

We cannot organize revival, but we can set our sails to catch the wind from Heaven when God chooses to blow upon His people once again.

G. Campbell Morgan

Which Method of Evangelism Is Best? None simply because we are dealing with special cases of different kinds of people and cultures. Methods of evangelism alone can't convince someone to repent and turn to Christ. Only God can do that by applying His truth to the person's heart. Your task is to faithfully proclaim His truth and be sensitive to His Spirit's convictions.

Are we doing that?

 

[jeolmstead]

If I’m not mistaken every time Paul had a mass meeting he wound up either in jail, stoned and left for dead, or running for his life.


John O.

 

[JeCrois]

Wow...that really made me tired.



Okay...it feels better to have a smile on my face!

Now, I don't know where to start in a nice way...

I am proud of everyone on here having their own opinion. And I am really impressed that you can all stand on it without getting exhausted. However, I am losing wind, I'm afraid...these wounds with words aren't healing fast enough for me to send out my next reply.

Ya'll are saying a lot of things. And you are telling us to provide scriptures for things that the Apostles do. (All of this "organizing events," "praise and worship," "altar call" stuff...) But I would like you to provide some scriptures for me where it says that we shouldn't do those things.--just to set my mind at ease.

If there is no scriptual allusion that implies that we should not do these things then everything else is personal opinion and conviction, which can be agreed upon or not. I've said it once and I'll say it again. There are different strokes for different folks. To each his own.

 

[JimB]

If you want the thread to die, quit bumping it up.

I know. It’s like buying a ticket to a boxing match and saying you hate boxing because it is too violent. No one forces anyone to come into this thread or post their displeasure with the rest of us for doing it.

Go gifure.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?​