Mass evangelism is the attempt to proclaim the Good News
to a large number of people simultaneously--whether in Gospel meetings
or evangelistic campaigns, whether with print or film, whether by radio
or television. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a method--rather
than the advocates of a method--called mass evangelism.
Methods are relative. They are conditioned by time, place,
and people. There is only one Gospel but there are many methods. The
Bible reveals the message but does not lay down one absolute methodo-
logy for proclaiming that message. The same method may be very
effective at one time, in one place, with one people but quite ineffective
at another time, in another place, with another people. Mission does not
need another Gospel but it does require a continuous revision of the
methods employed to communicate the old, old story in an intelligent
and meaningful manner.
The Charges. It is also increasingly clear that large-scale
outreach cannot be institutionalized in the contemporary world. Like
every method for spreading the Gospel, the mass approach to evangelism
has built-in limitations. As TIME magazine said, in reference to a Billy
Graham crusade, it is a "redundant anachronism" (1966:64). Though
such an indictment may be unnecessarily harsh, overstated criticism
should not blind any one to the widespread, deepening uneasiness about
mass evangelism, should not blind missionaries to the need for a
rigorous scrutiny of this method.
The Questions. A close examination of mass evangelism raises
several important questions. These questions must be faced squarely
and honestly. Are those who respond believers coming forward for
rededication or unbelievers for conversion? Are they incorporated into
churches? Are they nurtured into responsible, reproducing members?
Do local congregations grow as a result of mass evangelism? What is
the effect on the local church one year and five years later? Answers
to these and similar questions will assist in discovering the real problems
and potentials of mass evangelism.
A Response. In spite of the need for answers, surprisingly
little research has been done, little hard data are available on this type
of mission work. Mass evangelism traditionally reports attendance
figures, listening or viewing audience, or number of responses. Success
is often based on amount of letters, volume of calls, extent of requests,
as well as materials distributed. These are important but only indicate
the "front end" effects. They can obscure more than they reveal.
Historical Background of Mass Evangelism
The use of mass evangelism is a long standing practice. Many
essential lessons are learned from a review of its history.
Biblical References. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom to "large
crowds," Matthew 4:25. On one occasion, when He saw the "crowds,"
He went up on a hillside and preached what is called the Sermon on the
Mount, Matthew 5:1. Later, such "large crowds" gathered around Him
that He got into a boat and spoke to them, Matthew 13:1-9. At various
times throughout His ministry, "great crowds" followed Him and
listened to His words, John 6:2. Though it cannot be asserted that mass
evangelism constituted a major method in the ministry of our Lord, He
did use it as a practical means for communicating the Good News. Peter
spoke to thousands on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:41. "Crowds" heard
Philip in Samaria, Acts 8:6. Paul and Barnabas spoke to a "great
number" of Jews and Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia, Acts 13:44,
Iconium, Acts 14:1, and Lystra, Acts 14:18. Paul and Silas spoke to
"large numbers" of Jews and God-fearing Greeks in Thessalonica, Acts
17:4, and Athens, Acts 17:17, 22-32.
Obviously mass evangelism gave birth to the New Testament
church. It was used effectively in various cultures and among different
people. Nevertheless, it was not the only method employed in the New
Testament. In fact, it was really not the primary method. Rather, the
record indicates personal, small-group, face-to-face evangelism was the
prevailing practice among the first century saints (Peters 1972:206).
This may have been because of its effectiveness, because of its suitability
to their emphasis on the laity, or because of the severe persecutions that
broke out in the Roman Empire.
Historical Developments. Christendom through the centuries
has continued to use mass evangelism. In more recent times, the tide of
this approach has ridden the crest of three major waves of large-scale
activity. The first wave of modern mass evangelism came in the
eighteenth century ministries of John Wesley and George Whitefield.
Their work was characterized by open air meetings (often called "camp
meetings" or "field preaching"), itinerating, and aggressive evangelism
(Orr 1965:33). As a rule, the established churches in Great Britain
looked askance at such "undignified" behavior.
The second wave occurred in the campaigns of Charles Finney
and D. L. Moody in the nineteenth century. Although Finney worked
cooperatively with the local clergy, it was not till the coming of Moody
that a conscious effort was made to include the laity in the outreach
(Orr 1965:191,192), albeit only a few, specially trained lay "personal
workers" assisted the respondents in the counselling room at the
campaign site. The third wave in the tide of modern mass evangelism
came in the twentieth century under the leadership of William A. (Billy)
Sunday and William F. (Billy) Graham. Sunday brought to mass
evangelism an organizational efficiency, especially the use of follow-up
cards distributed after the campaign to the churches the "converts"
preferred to attend. The city wide crusades of Graham seek to mobilize
all the churches in a given area for both participation and follow-up.
Recent Experiences. Others have in recent times borrowed
from these models of mass evangelism with varying degrees of success
and failure. Evangelism-in-Depth, New Life For All, Overseas Crusades,
African Enterprise, Asia Evangelistic Commission, One Nation Under God,
Hope For America, World Bible School, World Radio, World Christian
Broadcasting, Herald of Truth, and others are contemporary examples
of mass evangelism. None of them is the best way to reach the lost in
every situation. All of them have limitations. None of them can be
frozen in its present form. All of them need ongoing refinement in a
rapidly changing world.
Problems with Size. Mass evangelism usually requires
massive organization. The sheer size of such organization has fallen
under increased suspicion lately. Mass evangelism is particularly prone
to rely on big names. In the aftermath of Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart,
and Jerry Falwell, there is a strong distrust of such bigness. George
Barna calls it "corporate cautiousness" (1990:173). It results in a
suspicion of self-promotion so often associated with mass evangelism.
The credibility gap caused by such bigness tends to limit its appeal to a
certain strata of society (Peters 1972:224). Consequently, in trying to
cover a whole area, mass evangelism will "spread its effort too thin and
expend equal labor upon the receptive and the unreceptive alike"
(Bradshaw 1969:113).
Problems of Appropriateness. Mass evangelism has problems
of appropriateness, too. It is easy to condition a church to think of
evangelism as "a special event." Outreach becomes sporadic rather than
persistent. Area wide efforts should supplement instead of supplant the
soul-winning work of a local congregation. There is simply no substitute
for regular, local, personal witnessing. When mass outreach is a substi-
tute for evangelistic anemia, "it is both inappropriate and ineffective"
(Cassidy 1976:205).
This does not mean that Evangelism-in-Depth specifically nor
mass evangelism generally has no effect on church growth (Reed,
Monterroso, and Johnson 1969:61). Positive outcomes have been
obtained. Better results are being realized by some more recent mass
outreach efforts. The various types of mass evangelism surface people
who are interested, confront them with the claims of Christ, and invite
them to respond--to write, to call, to come forward. However, results
have too often been limited to these primary responses, to initial contact
rather than long term commitment.
The following model is an attempt to lower costs, raise
effectiveness, maximize regular, lay participation, reduce competition
and conflict, deepen impact, and enhance the contextual relevance of
area wide approaches. The model consist of three major elements
(which encompass several sub-elements). First, involve the local church.
Mass evangelism must not disregard, ignore, or overshadow the local
brethren. Two important issues must be considered. (1) A person con-
verted by the temporary excitement of great singing, big organization,
or a skilled speaker often finds the local congregation flat, boring, and
dull. New converts must experience the enthusiasm of the local
brethren, be warmed by the fire of the local church. Research indicates
that the greater the gap between the local church and the evangelistic
effort the greater the difference between the initial ingathering and the
harvest that lasts (Arn 1984:107). (2) Mass evangelism must not take
the motivation, initiative, decision making, and work away from the
local brethren. Cross cultural importations and impositions are not
advisable in a day of deep and strong national feelings. The local
brethren must "own" the area wide outreach effort from start to finish.
Third, develop a comprehensive strategy. The deep penetration
of a community requires a thorough preparation. This suggests--even
demands--that the entire process from beginning to end be bathed in
fervent petitions for the blessing of God.
The research
should be done in three stages with different questions at each stage. (a)
Pre-outreach assessment. What methods of evangelism would work best?
What message should be proclaimed? Who should proclaim the
message? (b) Mid-outreach assessment. Who is being reached? What
motivates them to accept Christ? Are they being incorporated into the
local church? And (c) post-outreach assessment. Is the number of
responses reflected in the growth of the church? How could the mass
evangelism effort have been done more effectively? These and similar
questions can keep mass evangelism from being an irrelevant,
prepackaged, sterile mission effort.
Mass evangelism can be a powerful means of Gospel procla-
mation in relatively small towns, where community prevails, where local
brethren are harmonious. If it is imported simplistically into large
heterogeneous cities, and confined exclusively to a series of public
speeches, radio or television programs, it is probably counter productive,
relatively ineffective, and an inefficient use of resources. At the right
place, in the right time, and among the right people with appropriately
trained local personnel, with comprehensive church-centered follow-up,
and in the power and guidance of the sovereign God, mass evangelism
can be a strategy whose potentials outweigh its problems.
Honest evaluations and continuous study must accompany
every application of mass evangelism in order to assure growth.
Multitudes of winnable people are waiting to hear. God will be glorified
if a good method is refined into a better one.
Arn, Win
1984 "Mass Evangelism: The Bottom Line" in Win Arn, ed.
, ed.
1984 The Pastor's Church Growth Handbook, Volume I. Pasadena,
California: Church Growth Press.
Barna, George
1988 Marketing the Church. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Navpress.
1990 The Frog in the Kettle. Ventura, California: Regal Books.
Bradshaw, Malcolm
1969 Church Growth Through Evangelism-in-Depth. South Pasadena,
California: William Carey Library.
CASSIDY, Michael
1976 "Limitations of Mass Evangelism and its Potentialities," International
Review of Missions, Vol. 65, No. 258, April, pages 202-216.
Davis, B. E.
1976 "Mass Media in Missions" in George Gurganus, ed.
DYCK, David
1975 "The Missionary Church in the Dominican Republic." An unpublished
MA thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary.
Enyart, Paul
1970 Friends in Central America. Pasadena, California: William Carey
Library.
Gurganus, George, ed.
1976 Guidelines for World Evangelism. Abilene, Texas: Biblical Research
Press.
Guthrie, Stan
1992 "Outreach in Mexico City district is a big deal to its evangelicals," World
Pulse, Vol. 27, No. 3, February 7, page 3.
Hadaway, Kirk
1991 Church Growth Principles: Separating Fact from Fiction. Nashville,
Tennessee: Broadman Press.
Lausanne Occassional Papers #26
1989 Radio in Mission. Charlotte, North Carolina: Lausanne Committee For
World Evangelization.
McGavran, Donald, ed.
1972 Crucial Issues in Missions Tomorrow. Chicago: Moody Press.
Murphy, Edward
1970 "Follow Through Evangelism in Latin America" in Clyde W. Taylor and
Wade T. Coggins, eds.
Orr, J. Edwin
1965 The Light of the Nations. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Peters, George
1970 Saturation Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
1972 "Great-Campaign Evangelism" in Donald McGavran, ed.
Reed, David
1992 "Falwell: An Unraveled Empire Now," Abilene Reporter News, Sunday,
December 20, 1992, Section A, pages 13 and 22.
Reed, Jerold
1974 "A Componential Analysis of the Ecuadorian Protestant Church." An
unpublished D.Miss. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary.
Reed, William, Monterroso, Victor, and Johnson, Harmon
1969 Latin American Church Growth. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Slate, Philip
1992 "Missions Professor Critiques Methods Used in Eastern Europe,"
Christian Chronicle, Vol. 49, No. 7, July, page 15.
Taylor, Clyde and Coggins, Wade, eds.
1970 Mobilizing for Saturation Evangelism. Wheaton, Illinois: Evangelical
Missions Information Service.
Time
1966 "Billy's Victory in London," Vol. 88, No. 3, July 15, pages 64,65.
Underwood, Joseph
1965 "Crusades and Missions," The Commission, Vol. XXVIII, No. 5, May,
pages 9-14.
Wagner, C. Peter
1987 Strategies for Church Growth. Ventura, California: Regal Books.
Mass Evangelism: Problems and Potentials
by
Ed Mathews
Abilene Christian University
Abilene, Texas
Critique of Mass Evangelism
Problems With Mass Evangelism
Problems with Results. Mass evangelism also has problems
with results. It struggles to gain and retain converts. In his book
Church Growth Principles: Separating Fact From Fiction, Kirk Hadaway
asserts, "there is no evidence that mass evangelistic events help churches
grow...." (1991:29). To say there is "no evidence" is surely an
overstatement. More accurately perhaps, is the conclusion of George
Barna, in Marketing the Church, that "the cost is of dubious value
considering the low returns" (1988:13). C. Peter Wagner carefully
analyzed the results of an Evangelism-in-Depth campaign held in Bolivia
during 1965. After the study he "was greatly surprised to discover that
the year-long program had not increased the rate of growth of the
churches" (1987:140,141). In fact, he went on to say, the percent of
annual growth was greater the year preceding--than during and the two
years following--the Evangelism-in-Depth effort! (Wagner 1987:141).
Collaborating evidence for the struggle to gain and retain results
abounds (Dyck 1975; Enyart 1970; Murphy 1970; Peters 1970; Reed
1974).
Potentials of Mass Evangelism
Second, take plenty of time. If the local brethren are to be an
integral part, they need more time, much more time to prepare for and
participate in mass evangelism. What used to take several months may
now require "several years" (Peters 1972:217). What used to be done
by others will now be generated in large measure by them. The
extension of time reflects two essential changes. (1) Year round activity
helps local churches see proclamation as more than a flash-in-the-pan,
once-in-awhile effort. Instead of appearing as an end in itself, mass
evangelism must be seen as one of several ongoing outreach strategies.
And, (2) the church does not serve mass evangelism but mass evangelism
must serve the church or, more accurately, mass evangelism must serve
the mission of God through the local congregation.
Mass evangelism is still a viable method of outreach. Its
limitations are real. Its results must be measured in context against the
investment of time, money, and effort. Mass evangelism has value as
one-among-several possible strategies. However, as a means of reaching
the unreached where the church does not exist, it is by and large a waste.
As a solution to local church inertia, as a substitute for ongoing local
evangelism, it is futile.
Endnotes
Bibliography
Mirrored by permission of ACU Missions Personnel
Direct questions and comments to Ed Mathews,
![]()