THE FAILINGS OF "MODERN" EVANGELISM

An evangelist is one who brings the "glad tidings" of Christ. His work was very important in the first century church, and continues to be so today. Paul pointed to this fact in his letter to the Roman brethren. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, `How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!'" (Romans 10:14-15).

The need for qualified, dedicated evangelists is probably even greater now than it was in Paul's day. The fields are indeed white for the harvest. But I am afraid that we are not getting the production from our evangelists today that we should. It's not that I question the motives, sincerity, or dedication of these men. But I believe the way in which evangelists work today often leads to poor results.

What does the modern evangelist do? Normally he travels around the country, from congregation to congregation, staying there only long enough to hold a "meeting." What are the benefits of this? Usually few, if any. I'm sure that many will be quick to disagree with this. Many people can probably cite several "success stories" to counter the assertion that the modern system is ineffectual. And yes, I too have heard of men coming into a congregation and baptizing ten or twenty people during a weeks meeting. And while that seems so wonderful on the surface, usually the final result is much less exhilarating. What becomes of the vast majority of people who are part of these success stories? Sadly, most will soon find themselves back in the world from whence they came.

I realize that there have always been many who have turned their back on God and retreated back into sin. But I believe that those who are converted during "meetings" are much more susceptible to this than others. Why do I say this? Because their response is usually based on emotion, and not on a clear rational decision. While I realize there is always a good deal of emotion present when any person obeys the gospel, I feel this is an even greater factor during meetings. High-powered preaching gets everyone revved up. And after one person goes forward others will often follow. They are caught up in the "emotion of the moment," rather than being truly convinced of what they are doing. Then when the meeting is over, and all the excitement begins to wane, so does their faith.

Christ described this type of thing in the parable of the sower. "And some (seed) fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture...They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:6,13). When people respond because of emotion, rather than knowledge, they are not deeply rooted and are easy prey for Satan. We must put more of an emphasis on teaching people, rather than trying to see how fast we can baptize them.

Does a farmer go out into the field in the spring and just begin scattering seeds on the ground? No, he must first prepare the ground to receive the seed. He may plow it a couple of times, spread fertilizer on it, and then plow it again. Then, only when the ground is prepared, and the weather conditions are suitable, will he begin to plant the seed. Why then do we attempt to plant the spiritual seed, the word of God, in unprepared soil. The seed is much more likely to sprout and grow if the person is conditioned to receive it. This is done through studying with the person. Teaching them more than the plan of salvation. Proper preparation of the field is essential to reaping a good harvest.

Many of our evangelists today tend to act more like salesmen than gospel preachers. They have an exciting, emotional, high-pressure sales pitch for selling the gospel. And although this method is somewhat effective as far as baptizing people, it's effects are usually temporary. True conversion is accomplished through instruction, not through pressure. And just like a salesman, their job is done once the sale is made. They are through with that customer and ready to move to the next. Again let me say, I do not question the integrity of these evangelists, but rather it is the church as a whole which is to be blamed. After all, we have espoused this system, and most still support it wholeheartedly. The evangelists are simply doing what they can find support to do.

We have come to the point where we are practicing something we so adamantly teach against. We now have a sort of pseudo-pastor system. What I mean by this is not that we actually have this system in place, but that we are trying to reap the benefits of it. What are the advantages that members of a congregation enjoy when they hire a full time minister? Besides doing most, if not all, of the preaching, he is also expected to do most, if not all, of the visiting of the sick, the visiting of members who have fallen away, and the converting of new members. Why it practically frees the members from every christian duty except attending services. And all this for only a few dollars in the collection plate. What a bargain! The members can go home with their consciences at ease, knowing that they have done their duty for the week.

But how does all of this compare to the modern day practice of evangelism? Most congregations will have one primary meeting during the course of a year. The evangelist is brought in to talk to those who have left the church since last year's meeting. To try to convert a few new people in order to make up for those who have left and don't come back. And the least he is expected to accomplish is to baptize a couple of the member's children. At the end of the meeting the evangelist is paid for services rendered, and sent merrily on his way. Everyone is now satisfied. The congregation's evangelical effort is over until next years meeting. The congregation has paid him to come in and do something for a week or so, that they have neglected to do for a whole year. In short, we pay a man to do our work in a week, whereas those who have the full-fledged located minister system pay him year round to do their work.

Most evangelists may never see those whom they convert unless they are asked to hold another meeting in the same location. They must go where they are called to hold meetings. But this was not the spirit expressed by the Apostle Paul. "Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do" (Acts 15:36). Today's evangelist could not afford to have a similar attitude. He is only paid to preach and hold meetings, not to visit and strengthen those he has already converted. Many would certainly feel it a waste of time for an evangelist to do such. However, Paul thought it to be a very good idea.

I have been loosely throwing around the term "modern evangelist." I think it now appropriate to explain what I mean by this. I do not believe evangelism should be practiced any differently today than it was in the first century. If it was good enough for the apostles, it's certainly good enough for me. But unfortunately, that system is not the one being practiced today. Where, in the New Testament, do we find evangelists going from congregation to congregation holding meetings? I do not think it was done. Now I have no argument with a congregation inviting a man to preach for them for a weekend or a week. The more preaching the better, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't object to the man being paid for it. I feel that passages such as I Corinthians 9:14, and Galatians 6:6 provide for the support of preachers. But, I do feel that this should not be passed off as scriptural evangelism. Meetings can be a very effective way to study a particular subject, or to strengthen the members of a congregation. But I do not feel it is a very effective way, in the long run, of converting people.

One effect of the present system is that people often undergo a spiritual roller coaster ride. During the meeting everyone is on a spiritual high. There is a lot of activity going on, everyone gets caught up in it. It's just a real exciting time for everyone involved. But as soon as it's over, it's really over. People go from a spiritual feast to a spiritual famine. And I'm sadly afraid that in most congregations the members suffer from a severe case of spiritual starvation for most of the year. There is a lack of almost all spiritual activities. Everything from studying to fellowship is in short supply. It is a well established medical fact that a human body can undergo serious damage when a persons eating habits are like a yo-yo. Gorging for a while, and then starving for a while. Well how healthy can it be for us to be fed this way spiritually? We should have a balanced diet all year round. There should be evangelical activity from within the congregation all the time. Someone should not have to be paid to come in and do our job for us once a year.

When people are converted during meetings, without having had the benefit of much exposure to the truth, they often become victims of spiritual malnutrition. And most of the time this condition is fatal. After the meeting the emotional and evangelical fervor dissipates, and everyone settles back into their routines. The new christian is hungry for the word of God, but no one is willing to take the time to feed him. We should not expect new christians to be capable of feeding themselves. Would we set a carton of milk down next to a newborn baby and expect it to feed itself? Why then do we feel a newborn christian is properly fed just because he has a copy of the Bible? He will certainly need instruction and guidance.

Two or three services a week is not even close to being sufficient spiritual food for older christians, let alone babes in Christ. Do we only feed our bodies two or three times a week? Where are we really placing our priorities? We must give more attention to spiritual matters, and less to physical matters. We should feed our spirit daily through such activities as study, meditation, and fellowship. The more we do these things, the stronger and happier we will become. This is especially true for new christians. The apostle Peter pointed out the importance of spiritual food for those who are new in Christ. "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (I Peter 2:2). Without an ample supply of food and love a newborn will never survive. This applies in both the physical and spiritual realms. Just as the growth of a child can be permanently stunted if he is malnourished, the growth of a young christian can be permanently stunted if he is malnourished during the first few months and years of his christian life.

During most meetings the focus of the preaching is on the plan of salvation. While this is a necessary topic, it is usually not sufficient to truly convert someone. I once heard someone tell a joke concerning a Church of Christ preacher that I feel sums up many people's exposure to the truth. He said the preacher only had ten sermons that he had ever preached in his life. Nine of them were about baptism, and he had lost the other one. This is truly all that many people will ever hear. It is usually the case that a preacher during a meeting will just try to find several different ways of presenting the same subject, the plan of salvation. While this might motivate people to be baptized, what does it do for their long term spiritual survival? If the congregation was active, and worked with people after their conversion, they would certainly have a much better chance of survival. But when people are baptized knowing only the plan of salvation, and no one takes the time to study with them, they quite often fall away in short order.

Under the New Testament system of evangelism the church flourished and grew rapidly. I realize that circumstances are different today, but there is no reason the church cannot show significant growth. And if even one-half of the people who are baptized could be retained, there would be a great deal of growth in the church today. When God's methods are employed, positive results cannot help but occur. But when man's methods are used, anything can happen.

How was evangelism practiced in the church of the first century? We certainly do not find evidence of several men traveling around individually holding meetings. In almost all cases the evangelist was but one of a group who traveled around together. I believe Christ set the standard for this when He sent out the twelve. "And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two..." (Mark 6:7a). He did not send them out by themselves, but rather in pairs. He did likewise with the seventy. "...the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two..." (Luke 10:1).

Why would Christ send these men out in pairs, rather than alone. After all, they could go to twice as many places if they separated. But the matter of how many places they could visit was not the issue. Jesus knew they would accomplish more in pairs. Things that can be very difficult alone, can often be done easily by two people. It is always good to have someone to turn to and talk to for strength and encouragement. Experience has shown that two people are usually much more successful than a single person, when it comes to conducting a private Bible study aimed at converting someone. The Lord certainly had His reasons for not sending out His disciples alone. Why do we choose to reject his wisdom and do it our way?

I now seek to pose a question very fundamental to christianity. Are the assemblies of the church for conversion or for the converted? Now certainly it is good any time a person accepts Christ, regardless of where it happens to be. But should the assemblies be used as the church's main instrument for conversion as they so often are today? I find no example of where this was ever done in the Bible. So why do we do it today? Again it allows for the congregation to experience the benefits of a pastor system. The members needn't bother themselves with trying to teach and persuade others to accept the truth. All they have to do is invite them to the services. Then the preacher will take care of the rest. And this way there isn't even any additional strain on the preacher. All he has to do is preach his normal sermon, and then at the end throw in a few extra comments about the plan of salvation. This seems to be the prevalent method of "attempted" evangelism in the church today. The reason I called it attempted evangelism is that it certainly does not fit under the category of scriptural evangelism.

I cannot find even one example in the New Testament where a non-christian was invited to the assembling of the church. I'm not saying that it was never done, but if it was it certainly was of little consequence because it was never recorded for our benefit. I believe that if an outsider came in, it was because of their interest, and not because of the invitation of a member. Inviting someone to the services or a meeting is merely a way of trying to skirt around our real duty of studying with the person ourself. We would much rather get them to come to services and let the preacher do the converting. But our track record on this has shown it to be largely unsuccessful. We need to take the bull by the horns and get involved. Someone doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to direct a home study. After all, the idea is not for you to sit the person down and prove to them that they are wrong and you are right. The idea is to sit down together and learn together.

A person needs to learn a few basics about the Bible before they are a good candidate for conversion. If they understand about the creation, the fall of man, and God's promise to Abraham to redeem man through his seed. About Israel and God's purpose for them. The coming of Christ which fulfilled the promise to Abraham. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and the new covenant which God has given man to live by. Then they know enough to make an educated decision about accepting Christ. The "why" of being a christian should be first and foremost. The "how" will come in time. Patience is a virtue at all times, especially in conversion.

There are certainly other things which are important in a study as well. And no doubt there are many different ways to conduct a study, but the basics should always be involved. A few key items need to be taught to show where man came from and where we stand now with God. Once a person understands these things they will often ask of their own volition what they must do to be saved. Then the simple plan of salvation can be expounded to them and they should readily accept it. This will give the new convert much deeper roots at the start. This greatly increases their chance of survival.

You could get most anyone to believe Jesus is the son of God if you scare them badly enough. And this is what I believe many preachers unwittingly do. All the talk of death, hell, damnation and other horrible things, which are the normal fare at meetings, would tend to scare any sane person. There is one message that keeps coming out again and again during meetings. The message is loud and clear. Repent and be baptized or you will burn in hell forever. While it usually isn't expressed in such frank terms, the message is still the same. This is not the way to really convert someone. By sitting down with someone and studying the Bible together, the person is given the chance to make a clear rational decision about their life. The last way usually tends to produce converts who will remain faithful longer.

Christ gave the directorate to "Go...and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). It appears, however, that we have chosen to "go and hold meetings at all congregations, baptizing those who you can scare into coming forward." Is this what the Lord had in mind? Christ spoke of the very spirit of evangelism when he told them to go, to teach, and to baptize. I do not think we can rightly supplant it with go, hold meetings, and baptize. The evangelists go, and baptize, but are falling woefully short in the area of teaching.

Going one step further, Christ told the apostles to teach "them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20a). All the modern evangelist has time to do is teach them the plan of salvation, baptize them, and then he has to go hold another meeting. I believe the cited verse indicates a longer stay, and more thorough involvement than this. After converting someone the evangelist should take the time to instruct them in the basics of living as a christian, rather than abandoning them to fend for themselves.

Did Paul Hold meetings for a week and then move on? Definitely not! "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11). "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months" (Acts 19:8a). "And there abode three months" (Acts 20:3a). "And after three months we departed" (Acts 28:11a). Paul certainly did not practice the modern system of evangelism. He stayed somewhere as long as he was needed. He stayed until he felt the new christians he had converted were knowledgeable, and strong enough to carry on without him. And Paul he always had others with him. There would have been no need for these extra people if all he was going to do was invite people to the meeting and then preach to them. But what was actually happening was that they were all involved in teaching others both publicly and privately. This is an example of scriptural evangelism which we would be wise to follow today.

There are so many examples in the New Testament of men travelling in groups of two or more that it should leave no doubt in our minds that this is the best way to do it. If even the apostles did not work alone, why should we think our evangelists today can manage it? Peter and John often worked together. Paul had many with him at different times including such men as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Luke, and John Mark. Should not we follow the same pattern today? Why are we so careful to follow many other examples, but so lax about this one?

I believe the real root of the problem lies in the individual congregation. Where are the elders? Elders should be the ones shepherding the flock. If qualified elders were in place many of those who slip back into the world today might be saved. But the fact is the elders are not there, and the people do fall away. I feel this puts even more pressure on the evangelist. If there are no elders I believe the evangelist should take whatever time that is required to instill the necessary knowledge in all new converts before he departs. Paul did this. At one point he even left Titus at Crete while he went away to tend to other matters. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5). Paul's first concern was for the well being of the christians. He would not abandon them to fend for themselves. Although he could not remain he left someone he trusted would be able to handle the situation. Titus was to stay until he had appointed elders. Once he had done this the congregation would be on solid footing and could take care of itself. Paul was then freed of his obligation to them and could pursue work elsewhere.

I believe evangelists today bear responsibility for those they convert. I feel they are neglecting their responsibility when they leave a person, knowing only the plan of salvation, to fend for himself in a congregation that does not have elders or anyone else to look after the newborn christian. This is akin to a father leaving his newborn in the hands of people who are not capable of caring for it. A good father would never do this! When one begets another in Christ he should take responsibility for the early stages of that persons development. Whether this means doing it personally or insuring others who are qualified will see to it is immaterial. Just as long as it gets done.

The author of the Hebrew letter illustrated the problem which we find in far too many congregations today. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5:12-14). How can a new convert grow and mature when they are surrounded by those who have never progressed beyond spiritual infancy? This is why so many who are converted during meetings fall away so quickly. They know little more than the plan of salvation, and there is no one to help them along during the most important time of their growth. We all know babies must learn to crawl, and then to walk. But how can a baby ever learn to walk if all those around him are still crawling? A baby needs a good example to learn from. He also needs someone to pick him up when he falls. Unfortunately new christians today, are rarely afforded this luxury.

Paul gave the young evangelist Timothy this charge. "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (II Timothy 2:2). To do this, Timothy would have to devote a great deal of time with these men. Do our evangelists do this today? At best they may spend a couple of hours with someone while they are holding a meeting in their area. But often they are too busy inviting people to the meeting to spend quality time with other men who need further instruction to become good teachers. This is but one of the many failings of modern-day evangelism.

So what are we to do? The fact is most congregations do not have qualified elders, and for the foreseeable future this trend will continue. Someone must pick up the ball and run with it. Too many souls are at stake for everyone to sit idly by. In the absence of elders a congregation is usually led by the men of that congregation. While they are not elders, and should not be referred to as such unless they are scripturally qualified, they are all that there is. It is up to them to try to the best of their abilities to uphold the duties of elders. I do not mean they have the position, or the authority of elders, because they do not. However, they should make every effort to do what qualified elders would do to help the congregation. This includes helping along those who are babes in Christ. Paul said that "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak" (Romans 15:1a). That we should "Bear...one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). And he exhorted us to "support the weak" (I Thessalonians 5:14) I am convinced that if we exemplify the spirit of Christ as we ought to. And if we have the type of love Christ talked about in Matthew 22:37-40, we will do everything in our power to help nurture all of the newborn babes in Christ we come in contact with.

We would be well advised to take a good look at the Mormons. They could teach us a valuable lesson. Our brethren so often say today that you just can't get people to listen. That it's just so hard to convert people because of the way the world is today. But it appears someone forgot to tell the Mormons how hard it is. Despite the fact that the Mormons teach a false doctrine, they are experiencing very rapid growth. And the reason for this is simple. They work at it. And work at it the right way. They do not try to convert people by holding meetings. They send men out to conduct private studies with others in order to convert them. They also send these men out in pairs. They are following the scriptural plan for evangelism and are finding great success. We have tossed aside the scriptural plan for our own, and are meeting with failure. There are people out there who will listen. We've just got to start talking to them in the way God intended for us to.

Satan is gaining ground on us every day. What better way to kill the Lord's church than to stop it from growing. Eventually all of us will die off and that will be it. He has been able to render us almost totally ineffective when it comes to bringing others into the fold. I'm afraid that if we continue at this rate of decline there will be nothing left in a few more decades. Have our predecessors fought so hard for nearly two-thousand years, just to see us drop the torch now? God forbid! We must wake up and see what is happening to us before it is too late.

The bottom line is that the modern system of evangelism in practice today, is not the system used in the Bible under which the church flourished. The system today follows no scriptural patter or example, and besides that it has proven to be largely unsuccessful. The harvest truly is plenteous, but for so long all we have done is lay the sickle to the wheat. We have failed to then gather it into the barn where it is safe. The time has come that we must rekindle the torch of spiritual evangelism which has stood dark for so long. The souls of millions depend on it!