United2

United Proclamation Evangelism:

The Indigenous Principle

by J. W. Jepson, D.Min.

Life In Christ Center, 3095 Cherry Heights Road, The Dalles, Oregon 97058

(541) 296-1136

The Author hereby grants permission to reproduce the text of this article, without changes or alterations*, as a ministry, but not for commercial or non-ministry purposes.

*Permission is given for publication of excerpts and condensed versions.

* * * * *

THE CASE FOR UNITED PROCLAMATION EVANGELISM

In the history of God’s dealings with the human race, as recorded in Scripture, we find abundant evidence to support the necessity of specific times of concentrated, collective spiritual activity. The feasts of ancient Israel are a classic example. God knows us because He made us. He knows the influence of mass movements on the individual. For this reason God has endorsed revivals and mass evangelism. More than that, He is the prime mover in such movements.

"...from the beginning God has wrought prominently through revivals... Many scriptural utterances assume the existence of revivals and anticipate them [author’s emphasis]."⁷

"God’s providences are adapted to move people in masses [author’s emphasis]."⁸

It is not difficult to establish from Scripture that public proclamation has always been important in communicating God’s message and that it is one of the primary modes of evangelism prescribed by our Lord. This encompasses all modes of public proclamation. Ultimately, the city-wide crusade rests upon the same Biblical mandate as the Sunday evening evangelistic service and the Sunday morning kerygma.

For Biblical precedents for preaching to crowds one has only to think of Moses, Joshua, Ezra, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and Philip. Over them all towers the figure of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"On occasion the disciples wanted to dismiss the crowds, but Jesus never did. He ministered to them, and held them so spellbound that they forgot to be hungry."⁹

"We cannot reject mass evangelism without violating the Scriptures. We cannot deny its effectiveness without ignoring church history."¹⁰

Mass evangelism embodies several Biblical principles. It is a form of proclamation, which is certainly a Biblical imperative. It provides an opportunity for believers to act in concert, a fact in keeping with the principle of the unity of all believers. It is public evangelism, a form practiced by Christ and the apostles.

The life of the Church can be likened to the blade of a sword. The cutting edge is evangelism. This cutting edge extends along the full length of the blade and includes all forms of evangelism.

The tip of the blade is the thrust-point. For evangelism that thrust-point is public proclamation, especially united public proclamation. The tip is only a small part of the blade, but it is a vital one. It is the point of penetration. Without it the cutting edge and even the blade itself is missing something.

It is true that churches should be continuously evangelistic. It is equally true that if they do away with special evangelistic efforts and attempt instead to make all evangelism continuous, they will either fall short of achieving the desired penetration into the community or they will "wear out the saints," or both. Penetration demands periods of intensity. If intensity is prolonged, it loses its thrust and also creates an imbalance in the total life of the church.

J. Wilbur Chapman admonished his readers on this very point. Acknowledging that the soul-winning spirit must be always present in the church, he nevertheless believed that the constant use of heavy evangelistic methods might actually weaken the church, suggesting that too much "fire" could destroy the "force."¹¹

Intensity must be concentrated. The thrust calls for the mobilization and application of unified resources at a given time for a given purpose.

Using another analogy, we could liken the relationship between the on-going evangelistic efforts of the churches and the united crusade to that of growing and harvesting a crop. The crusade is a harvest vehicle.¹²

Long ago H. M. Morey made this pertinent statement:

"Impressions are often made on the Sabbath, and they are wiped out completely by the six busy days of the week. During special services this impression is repeated on Monday evening, and deepened on Tuesday and the following evenings. In this way...the attention is gained, and attention deepened into conviction, and conviction leads to decision and conversion."¹³

In this day of shorter crusades when many attend only one service so they can say that they heard a celebrated speaker, this statement has less meaning. Nonetheless, it is still valid.

So also are the insights of Faris Daniel Whitesell:

"The New Testament justifies mass evangelism both by precept and example. Those who hold to New Testament standards in matters of faith and conduct will not be in agreement with many who believe that mass evangelism is outmoded for our generation. That mass evangelism faces great difficulties in our day, none will deny, but that it is impossible or unproductive, New Testament Christians will not admit."¹⁴

John Wesley White observes tersely that "the generation gap closes in a crusade."¹⁵

And George E. Sweazey cites the following advantages of united efforts:

"(1) They set the whole community to thinking and talking about religion.

(2) The excitement of a large effort gets it supported by widespread enthusiasm and interest.

(3) Free publicity is easier to get and paid advertising is easier to finance.

(4) There is an inspiring demonstration of Protestant solidarity.

(5) ...Christians need to stand together in their witness to Christ and in their opposition to unrighteousness.

(6) In union evangelistic meetings the world can recognize Christianity as an imposing force for good.

(7) The social message of the gospel can be directed against evils which infect the whole community, or to the solution of social problems."¹⁶

The statements of Whitesell and Sweazey were made before the Billy Graham era came into full bloom. In view of subsequent events, they seem almost prophetic. They certainly have been confirmed.

Speaking of the Graham crusade in Los Angeles in 1949, Arthur P. Johnston wrote:

"Historians may well conclude that the contemporary demise of the deification of science, modernism and liberal Christianity began at Los Angeles."¹⁷

In the next chapter our attention will be directed to the evangelist. It is pertinent here to note that the prevailing assumption seems to be that city-wide, co-operative evangelism takes place because some evangelist providentially attains a high degree of recognition.

An evangelist’s reputation is important, of course. But are we to unite in evangelism because God has raised up a famous evangelist? Or should we do so because united evangelism is part of the total witness of the Church? By analogy, do we have a Christian education program because God has raised up a famous Minister Of Christian Education? Or do we build a Christian education program and train leaders in Christian education because Christian education is important in the life of the Church? The answer is obvious.

We should also keep in mind the teachings of Scripture concerning the unity of the Church and the implications of those teachings for evangelism. Every soul-winning church operates on the premise that more can be accomplished by everyone in the congregation working together than by everyone always working alone. On the same premise it follows that something can be gained by the churches themselves uniting regularly in evangelism that cannot be achieved by each congregation always working alone.

An objection raised by some is that contemporary efforts along this line are producing meager results when measured by current church growth criteria. But even if this objection were sustained by the data, instead of discarding the method we should research it more thoroughly to discover how it can be made more productive.

It would be a mistake to assume that the Billy Graham crusades and the great progress that they represent are the final word on crusade evangelism. On the contrary, we must build on the gains of the Graham decades an even better methodology, one refined by ever-advancing knowledge.

The Church must not discard a mode of evangelism that has provided much of the impetus for its own resurgence. Change means the improvement of the method, not its abandonment. Churches that are effective in evangelism per se should be effective in all forms of evangelism. Soul-winning churches should be just as able to unite for proclamation as they are to carry on effective congregational and personal evangelism. The one should complement the other. John R. Rice wrote,

"We had as well face the fact that radio evangelism, rescue missions, house-to-house visitation, soul winning, child evangelism, and soul-winning in colleges all flourish when there is powerful mass evangelism... and diminish when mass evangelism diminishes."¹⁸

This is an age of mass communication and therefore mass movements. Single events can monopolize the public mind in a matter of hours. People think and act in concert as well as individually. Salvation is personal, of course, but the influences that move a person to decision and action are often collective and cumulative. God has made us social beings, a fact that must not be overlooked in evangelism. In the Bible God often addressed communities and nations. Fish comments,

"The world is not made up of independent individuals, but is bound together in tribes, communities, families."¹⁹

Paul’s strategy was urban.²⁰ It keyed on the city. We should recognize this fact and its significance. Leavell writes,

"Cities set social standards. Cities dominate commercial life. Cities produce the literature of the land. Cities control politics. Cities mold educational standards... The bloodstream of the nation issues from city life. Purify that bloodstream and national health will be restored."²¹

Leavell’s statement might over-simplify the situation. Some would point out that rural areas and small communities "feed" people into the cities. Others would call attention to the shift of city dwellers to the suburbs. Nevertheless, cities remain the fountainheads of communication and other forms of social influence. For this reason they are prime targets for large-scale, high-visibility evangelism. Effective use is being made of other means of mass communication to reach the cities with the gospel. If this demonstrates the validity of the mass principle in evangelism, it becomes an encouragement to put the same principle into operation in crusades.

"EMOTIONALISM."

Many object to mass evangelism on the grounds that it has a great potential for abuse and in fact has been the occasion for much abuse. Any such abuses should not be denied or ignored. Serious attention must be given to eliminating any that still exist and preventing their recurrence. But we must not allow the fear of abuses to rob to us of this valuable method of preaching the gospel.

All of the potential for "hysteria" and "illegitimate persuasion" were present when Jesus preached to the crowds, but that "did not deter Him from using for God a medium which might well have been exploited for the devil.²²

"Almost every revival is accompanied by outbursts of excitement, and by startling physical phenomena. Outbreaks of physical anguish are followed by outbursts of uncontrollable joy, and the effect of these extreme emotions on ill-balanced natures is often disastrous. The spiritual value of a revival, however, is not to be negatived because of the disastrous effect produced upon a certain number of excitable natures. Many who are on the outlook to cast opprobrium on all such movements select these excesses to prove the justice of their condemnations. They prove only the narrowness of their judgements, and show how, by prejudice, movements which carry with them untold blessings to the race may be belittled by minds that fix upon the trivial, and by hearts that are bankrupt of lofty, spiritual emotions."²³

These words, written in 1909 by James Burns, sound somewhat harsh to us today. Nevertheless, they do make a legitimate point, although they must not be used as a justification of injury to even one soul. We are to guard against fanaticism. The point is that we must not fix our minds on a few excesses and miss the great good done in mass evangelism. This is the point Burns is making. Earlier, Fish wrote,

"...as a rule, those ready to labor in revivals are just the persons engaged in steady work; while those who cry ‘excitement’ find it convenient, somehow, to be idlers in God’s vineyard."²⁴

Billy Graham’s leadership has so lifted the level of mass evangelism that few responsible voices still raise the issue of emotionalism.

Before leaving the objections to mass evangelism, it is in order to look at a comment that Kilpatrick made in 1911:

"The ‘mass meeting’ of modern evangelism invites many criticisms, and must be handled with conscientious care, and the utmost wisdom, if it is not to be productive of much mischief. At the same time it finds its warrant in New Testament practice, and in the facts of human nature. After all due warnings against excitement and sensationalism, it remains true that the crowd is a psychological and ethical unit, and that the individual can be reached, and permanently and morally influenced for good, in the crowd, and through the crowd, as by no other means."²⁵

A person’s choice to trust Christ as Savior and follow Him as Lord is freely made in obedience to the truth presented to the mind. It is not the product of the crowd. Nevertheless, the crowd does have an influence on the individual. The crowd certainly reinforces unconverted people in their disobedience to Christ. Peer pressure is tremendous. The pleasures of sin rape human emotions; and when those pleasures control the crowd, the combined emotional pressure of society is overwhelming. Reason directs the will to obey Christ, but passion has already won over reason. Unless the Holy Spirit intervenes with a presentation of truth powerful enough to move the emotions as well as the intellect, the will does not yield.

It is like stepping into the strong current of a river. The mind tells the feet where to step, but the current pushes against them. Would a counteracting current that neutralized the pressure be "manipulation"? Of course not. It would free the person from the influences that make it difficult to carry out the directives of the mind.

Sinners are caught up in an emotional current. To use another metaphor, they are carried along by the crowd as it stampedes after self-gratification. Now, in proclamation evangelism we stand in front of the stampede and try to head it off and turn it around. Our means is truth. Our dependence is on the Holy Spirit. Our strategy is to present the truth so clearly that its impact on the intellect will produce its proper impact on the emotions, bring the stampede to a halt and give reason a chance to gain control of the will and turn it to Christ. Manipulation? Of course not.

A primary purpose of mass evangelism is to penetrate the public mind with the truth so that the impact of truth will create a positive atmosphere to counteract and neutralize the negative emotional influence, remove it as an obstacle to the will, and thus place on the side of truth and reason a force that is usually a hindrance.

CONCLUSION.

As we conclude this chapter on the need for co-operative proclamation evangelism, let us consider some appropriate statements that speak to the subject. Leighton Ford writes,

"‘Mass evangelism’ is a platform for personal evangelism. It differs from the regular preaching of the Word of God in the church only in degree, not in kind’.²⁶

Ford’s statement should be qualified by saying that in mass evangelism the focus of the preaching is soteriological, whereas in the church soteriology is only one element in the preaching, howbeit an essential one.

Ford calls attention to four results of mass evangelism: (1) it kindles concern for evangelism; (2) it is a time when many church members or attenders are converted; (3) it provides the impetus for "the formation of small cores of spiritually concerned people"; and (4) it is an opportunity for first hand training and experience in prayer, visiting and counseling.²⁷

Cassidy states that crusades "spawn": personal witness, homogeneous unit witness (stratified groups), societal witness, and home group witness.²⁸

Although they do not have mass evangelism primarily in view, Engel and Norton make a statement that is applicable to our subject:

"The cooperative strategy... lies at the heart of God’s plan for our times."²⁹

Granting this to be true, it would be inconsistent to apply the co-operative strategy to other forms of evangelism while rejecting the crusade or relegating it to the periphery. If the co-operative strategy is at the heart of God’s plan for contemporary evangelism, then that mode of evangelism that is co-operative by nature ought to be at the forefront.

There are problems, of course, some major. Still, methods of evangelism that deviate from Biblical norms can be and often are fruitful notwithstanding; however, to the extent that they do deviate from those norms, such deviation produces stress in the evangelistic enterprise. This has been at the root of the problems that have been associated with mass evangelism (whether media ministries or crusades). Tragically, this has resulted in some negative attitudes toward large-scale evangelism. Even a cursory survey of contemporary church-growth literature demonstrates the disfavor into which mass evangelism has fallen. Many have given up on crusades altogether. Sad to say, much of the criticism is justified. And whenever a major ministry fails and thus brings massive reproach upon the cause of Christ, the effect is devastating.

But should we let the matter rest there? Should we say the requiem over united proclamation evangelism and let it be gone forever? Would that be consistent with a truly evangelical profession?

Instead of drawing final conclusions based on negative experiences and on research findings that have been drawn from selected traditional models, would it not be more consistent for us as Christians rather to go first to the Bible to see if it provides an ecclesiological framework for a more productive crusade methodology?

In spite of all that it has suffered both by abuse and by neglect, not many evangelicals are willing in their hearts to abandon crusade evangelism. Something deep inside of us says that a genuine spiritual awakening is going to involve mass evangelism in some way, that the abuses are not the norm, that the crusade should be a part of the evangelistic life of the Church, and that a model must exist that utilizes it more productively.

A thorough re-thinking of crusade evangelism in the light of the fundamentals of a Biblical ecclesiology will likely lead us to the following conclusions:

(1) Being a part of the on-going witness of the Church, the united evangelistic crusade should be generated by and receive its impetus from within the local Body of Christ itself instead of an outside agency.

(2) The organization and infra-structure of the crusades should be indigenous to the community, not imported into it, and should be under the oversight of and accountable to the local leadership of the Church.

(3) The evangelistic strategy for each community should be determined by the character and needs of that community, with built-in adapability to the style and approach of each evangelist who is invited to minister. At the same time, its quality should meet the standards of any evangelist.

(4) The crusade should emerge out of the dynamics of Christian unity. It should be both a periodic climax in the overall evangelistic life of the Church and a major impetus to that life. It should rest upon relational evangelism and provide an occasion for the stimulation and application of relational evangelism.

(5) Because mass evangelism is a tool that God has given to the local Church, the purpose of the crusade should be to reach the community and not to advance the programs and projects of the evangelist. The crusade belongs first to the Church, not to the evangelist. The evangelist is a guest, a resource. The crusade is his only in the sense that he is a vital part of it, and also that it is a part of his total ministry.

Be it repeated for emphasis: city-wide crusades belong to the Church. Because God has given the tool of crusade evangelism to the Church, He has placed within the local Church itself the resources for its development. In every sizeable city there are qualified persons gifted for some phase of united evangelism, who together can function as an indigenous evangelistic association through which the churches can plan and carry out crusades and other major evangelistic projects for their city.

Sterling Huston states that

"...a Crusade is a supplementary method to assist healthy churches who are already doing evangelism."³⁰

"An integral method" would have been a more satisfactory term than "a supplementary method." However, he is right on target when he goes on to say,

"A Crusade is effective in serving the church when it is looked upon not as an isolated event or end in itself, but rather as part of a process of achieving larger long-term goals."³¹

As a part of its total, on-going life and witness, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in every community should make a unified evangelistic statement to its community on a periodic basis. The united evangelistic crusade is one appropriate, Biblically consistent and (when properly done) effective means of doing this.

If the churches will unite regularly and vigorously in evangelism, develop a locally adaptive methodology that is heavily based on prayer, and provide specific training for evangelists, what would be the outcome?

The crusade would be perceived as a ministry of the Church rather than the appearance of a personality. The personality of the guest evangelist would enhance the crusade, of course, but less emphasis would be placed on his personality and more on his message. Evangelists would be given more opportunity to develop and exercise their gifts. Believers would be enriched by regular involvement in a mode of evangelism that is dynamic and complementary to other modes of evangelism. People would be converted. Churches would grow, and Christ would be glorified.

Thus that form of evangelism that some have considered irrelevant to modern needs would become under God and through a more Biblical adaptation a major instrument for the advancement of the kingdom through the growth of the local Church and churches.

United Proclamation Evangelism--index page

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES