Does mass evangelism really work?

[JimB]

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.

Yes it does. Thanx for the resource.

~Jim

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

 

[ECHELON]

The work of the evangelist is to plant the seed, the job of the other 4 offices of the church is to make that seed grow!

 

[Always in His Presence]

Jim, perhaps you should be in the Baptist forum?

 

[JimB]

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.

I have explained the “better way”—the NT way—in several previous posts, most recently this morning. It is simple …

And as I have said over and over again (in case you have missed it), there is a better way—the NT way: sow and water seed, let our light shine, be the salt of the earth and ready at all times to give anyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. It’s worked for two thousand years and it will work today, in our age of mass evangelism. It works for us.

No, the point of evangelism is not to get people in church—although the other alternative is to leave them out in the cold—and I love your observation that all the ministries of the church, not just the five you mention, are to work in concert with one another. That’s the ideal. But crusade evangelism is largely the invention of evangelistic organizations, beginning in their present form with D.L. Moody, and, since they set the program, if they are to work in concert with other ministries, need to better help churches do crusade follow-up. My concern is that adequate follow-up is not being offered.

We need to tweak this whole crusade evangelism idea.

~Jim

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

 

[JimB]

Jim, perhaps you should be in the Baptist forum?

Why? Baptists love crusade evangelism. P/C’s just emulate them.

I know that me being in the Baptist forum would make your views less objectionable but I’m staying right here.

~Jim

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

 

[probinson]

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

Yes, they do, and if my reputation comments, blessings and PM's are any indication......

Perhaps it would help the discussion to not say there is a "better" way to evangelize, as it would be to state that there are many different ways to evangelize. Not everyone receives the same way, and mass-evangelism has just as much validity as does the one on one evangelizing, as does the drama skits.... who the heck are we to limit God's saving grace to a single method, or call one method "better" than another?

I would concur that there are serious follow-up issues with a "mass-evangelism" type event, but that doesn't mean we should up and chuck the whole system out the window.

 

[ECHELON]

I have explained the “better way”—the NT way—in several previous posts, most recently this morning. It is simple …

Sorry, I didn't read anything but the first post and the last few before I posted. I'll start reading further though.

No, the point of evangelism is not to get people in church—although the other alternative is to leave them out in the cold—and I love your observation that all the ministries of the church, not just the five you mention, are to work in concert with one another. That’s the ideal. But crusade evangelism is largely the invention of evangelistic organizations, beginning in their present form with D.L. Moody, and, since they set the program, if they are to work in concert with other ministries, need to better help churches do crusade follow-up. My concern is that adequate follow-up is not being offered.

We need to tweak this whole crusade evangelism idea.

Yeah, if those numbers are correct I agree something has to be done. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and act like nothing is wrong and in the process argue with each other about it. There are many lost souls out there and it's our job to reach them and then build them up.

Thanks for bringing this discussion!

 

[JimB]

Yes, they do, and if my reputation comments, blessings and PM's are any indication......

Perhaps it would help the discussion to not say there is a "better" way to evangelize, as it would be to state that there are many different ways to evangelize. Not everyone receives the same way, and mass-evangelism has just as much validity as does the one on one evangelizing, as does the drama skits.... who the heck are we to limit God's saving grace to a single method, or call one method "better" than another?

I would concur that there are serious follow-up issues with a "mass-evangelism" type event, but that doesn't mean we should up and chuck the whole system out the window.

But I firmly believe that there is a better way. And I have added (IMO). It is not necessary (IMO) to complicate the simple process that is exemplified in the NT which (IMO) does not include mass evangelism. The simple process is not to organize what we fell is a more productive way of doing it but to simply be tha light of the world, salt of the earth and be ready at all times to give anyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. It has worked for centuries.

I will admit that some are plucked by the fire in mass evangelism projects and, I suppose, the residual damage it also produces is open for debate. But there is evidence, even from my own personal experience, that some whose hopes have been raised by walking the aisle then left to founder on their own causes people great discouragement. I can’t count them times I have heard people say to me, “Well, I tried it and it didn’t work for me.” We can lay the blame for their lack of discipleship on them and continue to do it as we always have but it does not hurt to step back and take a look at the way we do what we do and wonder if, perhaps, there is a better way.

~Jim

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

 

[JimB]

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.

I read the article and it was enlightening and it is obvious that either the source I found was based on this article or the quote came for the article I mentioned.

The gist of the article “The Modern Invitation System Examined” is the poor retention rate in our way of doing evangelism (yes-I-see-that-hand-do-I-see-another), in our case mass evangelism, is that most of the conversions are false conversions with a “fall-away” rate of 85-97%.

The reasons for such a retention failure rate, the article speculates is “'decisionism,' [which means] the practice of calling people to ‘make a decision for Christ’ that in itself is purported to secure their salvation” and is often the result of psychological pressure.”

These psychological pressures may include:

• Music is played softly in the background while the preacher prays and talks to the congregation.
• Those who feel the pangs of conscience and know they need to respond to God’s work in their heart are asked to slip up their hands. All are reminded to keep their “heads bowed and eyes closed…no one looking around.”
• Those who slipped up their hands are possibly then asked to “look up” at the preacher so that he can talk directly just to them.
• If you have raised your hand and/or looked up, you are then asked to leave your seat and make your way down the aisle where the preacher or another counselor can greet you and talk with you further….“I don’t want to embarrass you; I just want to pray with you.”
• Designated counselors may at this time also leave their seats and make their way down the aisle to kneel or stand at the front (to prime the pump?).
• If you’ve come down the aisle, you are asked to go to a room off to the side where counselors are there to continue praying and talking with you.
• At any point in this approach, an invitation hymn may be sung (such as Just As I Am, I Surrender All, Have Thine Own Way, etc.). During this hymn you are invited to come to the front to kneel and pray, to rededicate your life, to receive Christ, to talk with the pastor or another counselor, or to join the church. (The altar call has many uses.)
• If several verses of the hymn have been sung, the minister may ask for the instruments to continue playing quietly. This gives those kneeling at the altar some time to finish, or those still resisting the Holy Spirit an opportunity to respond “before it’s too late.”
• Perhaps one final verse of the hymn is sung.
• If someone has “given their life to Christ” or has joined the church, they may be presented to the congregation at the close of the altar call.

The article traces this form of invitation back to Charles Finney (early 1800s). Then the article says,

“Toward the end of his life, Charles Finney, after reflecting on the many who claimed conversion but had since fallen away, had mixed thoughts about the genuineness of his work. In fact, his development of a doctrine of perfectionism (‘entire sanctification&#8217 came out of his attempt to answer the questions as to why so many of his ‘converts’ lived such godless lives. The use of an invitation system eventually leads to a two-tiered approach to the Christian life to explain the difference between those few who have been changed by their “decision” and the multitudes who have not.” [“Did You Know?” Christian History Vol. 8, 1988]​

~Jim

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

 

[charityagape]

Yes it does. Thanx for the resource.

~Jim

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

You're a Baptist?

 

[Always in His Presence]

But I firmly believe that there is a better way. And I have added (IMO). It is not necessary (IMO) to complicate the simple process that is exemplified in the NT which (IMO) does not include mass evangelism.

To which I showed a number of places in the book of Acts - that part of the NT evangelism very much indeed used mass evangelism.

Acts 5:3 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.

Can you say - city wide crusade?

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. 6 And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.

Phillip preached to the multitudes in Samaria - That's not a crusade?

Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.

Hmm... Almost the WHOLE CITY cames to hear Paul.

Acts 14:17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.

There goes Paul again preaching to multitudes -

Not only is the concept of mass evangelism necessary (while else would the Apostles do it>), but there is precedent numerous times, just in the book of Acts alone that substantiate it,

 

[Tamara224]

You're a Baptist?

Oh the horror!! The Baptists are coming, the Baptists are coming! Run for the hills all you loyal Pentecostals lest the Baptists overtake you!!

 

[Tamara224]

To which I showed a number of places in the book of Acts - that part of the NT evangelism very much indeed used mass evangelism.

And to which Jim and others have also already responded that what happens at evangelistic crusades in our day and age is a far cry from what the Apostles were up to. There is only one similarity between the two forms: lots of people being preached at.

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.

So, to suggest that they are the same is a stretch, to say the least.

 

[JeCrois]

And to which Jim and others have also already responded that what happens at evangelistic crusades in our day and age is a far cry from what the Apostles were up to. There is only one similarity between the two forms: lots of people being preached at.

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.

So, to suggest that they are the same is a stretch, to say the least.

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.

We can use the invention of these things to God's glory. I'm sure if the Apostles were given the same chance they would have taken it.

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

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!

 

[JimfromOhio]

Wow.. this is still active?

Can we just trust the Lord as the Holy Spirit evangelize others through us?

 

[millerrod]

 

[JimB]

To which I showed a number of places in the book of Acts - that part of the NT evangelism very much indeed used mass evangelism.

Acts 5:3 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.

Can you say - city wide crusade?

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. 6 And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.

Phillip preached to the multitudes in Samaria - That's not a crusade?

Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.

Hmm... Almost the WHOLE CITY cames to hear Paul.

Acts 14:17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.

There goes Paul again preaching to multitudes -

Not only is the concept of mass evangelism necessary (while else would the Apostles do it>), but there is precedent numerous times, just in the book of Acts alone that substantiate it,

But I disagree that this form of “mass” evangelism was in any way similar to what goes on in crusade evangelism today. Preaching to large audiences may have occurred but they were never organized—they were spontaneous. Wesley and Whitefield preached to large audiences, too, but they did it because the Spirit drew the crowds, not through promotion and advertising.

I also showed that these who were "increasing added" to the number of believers were not added through a single event (the text does not say that!) but as a result of the personal witness of Christians between Pentecost and Acts 5.

Philip did not rally the crowd, they simply showed up because the Spirit drew them. The same in Acts 13 and 14.

I am not against preaching to large crowds (have I ever sid that?)—far from it. But I am reluctant to endorse it the way they are promoted/hyped today.

~Jim

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

 

[JimB]

You're a Baptist?

I am a Christian.

~Jim

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

 

[Always in His Presence]

And to which Jim and others have also already responded that what happens at evangelistic crusades in our day and age is a far cry from what the Apostles were up to. There is only one similarity between the two forms: lots of people being preached at.

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.

So, to suggest that they are the same is a stretch, to say the least.

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?

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.

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

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

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

 

[millerrod]

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