How Resolve the Quarrel over Evangelism?

The Presbyterian denomination has always believed in evangelism, but it has had a continuously difficult time making up its corporate mind about it. It has split and nearly split over evangelism several times in its history, notably during the Great Awakening of early colonial times and on the Cumberland frontier about a century later. These controversies over evangelism have a way of dissolving themselves after time enough has passed for cooling off and clearer thinking. The reunions have been happy occasions with elaborate testimonials of regret over the unfortunate misunderstandings. Subsequent history is replete with thanksgiving over the reunions. But recurrently there are rumblings along the line of this same old earthquake fault. And again there are some rumblings today. Why is it so?

Somewhat in parallel, other denominations of Christians have also had their debates over evangelism. In some cases they have taken on distinguishing characteristics from their attitudes toward it. With some, evangelism has become almost their entire concern and program. With others, evangelism has been entirely or almost entirely eliminated—something considered of little or no value.

Why is this? Any activity which causes so much division in the “Body of Christ” should be investigated with concern. If evangelism is merely a bone of contention, a peculiar activity which is of interest to some Christians but distasteful to many others, should we not eliminate it once and for all? But if, on the other hand, evangelism’s constant resurgence and recurring demand for attention is indicative that it is a basic and indispensable part of a full-fledged Christian program, then we should study it in a comprehensive way and give it its proper place.

From The Early Years

Because I find myself “existentially” involved, I have been compelled during my half century of ministry to give this whole matter considerable thought. I happen to be one of those who love the word evangelism. It has played a considerable role in my Christian experience. At nineteen years of age I was first brought to a wholehearted consideration of the claims of Jesus Christ upon my life by what called itself evangelism. I was attracted by the changes I observed in the lives of some of my young contemporaries when they accepted the call of the evangelist and, as they said, “gave their hearts to Christ.”

During the days of my theological education in Chicago I set myself the task of observing and evaluating the different types of Christian service which were being carried on in that laboratory of human life. Along with other on-going Christian programs, I investigated the rescue missions and tabernacle evangelistic ventures. I saw and heard much—some that I liked and some that I did not like—but there deepened within me a sense of awe before what happens in a human personality, even a degraded personality, when the person is brought face to face with Jesus Christ and led to a genuine decision for Him. When I became a pastor I found myself turning at times to so-called evangelistic methods, and I have had many exciting experiences in “life changing,” as it has been called by one group of zealots. Through the years my heart has frequently been warmed when I have seen evident victories for godliness brought about by the “evangelists,” even those on the so-called “fringe” of the Christian enterprise.

Causes Of Timidity

It has not been hard for me to understand why some of my friends have decided they do not like “evangelism.” When they have backed up their attitudes with the reasons for them I have usually agreed in large measure. I have shuddered many a time on hearing of some of the methods employed and of some of the behavior which has gone on in so-called “evangelistic meetings.” My “shudder” has evidently been magnified in the feelings of these friends, to the point where they have denounced the whole affair as improper, irreverent, and worse than useless. The reason in depth for the negative attitudes toward evangelism has usually been some embarrassing experience when someone was taken advantage of by aggressive and obtrusive methods employed in “evangelistic meetings.” I confess there have been times when I have studied myself and asked whether I might be doing wrong by encouraging evangelism, because whereas my experiences with it have been largely happy ones, it seems to have been otherwise with many. But the end result with me has always been a still deeper conviction that evangelism rightly conceived and properly practiced is as basic as Christianity itself. The complex of negative attitudes toward it which exists today is, I believe, the result of flagrant misuse of the term evangelism. Charlatans have sometimes posed as “evangelists” and made easy money out of the deepest aspirations of trusting people. Other “evangelists” of obvious sincerity and noble intentions have dealt with sacred things in blundering and hurtful ways because they have not been properly trained to understand the things with which they were dealing.

The Evangelist’S Task

The “evangelist” in this specialized sense of the word is one who proves to have a God-given talent to “tell the good news” so effectively as to bring his hearers to understand and assent to it, for the good news must win a verdict of assent in the heart of the hearer before it becomes good news to him. Philip was selected by the early Church to be a deacon, but he turned out to be an evangelist. He had a heaven-born power to evangelize. Down through the Christian centuries there has been a notable procession of “evangelists” who have been used of God to turn multitudes of sinners from the error of their ways: Augustine, Savonarola, Whitefield, Wesley, Moody, and innumerable others. Sometimes, as in the case of Wesley (according to sober historians), the fruits of their evangelism have been so tremendous as to change the destiny of nations.

Thank God for these specialized “evangelists”; but there is no evidence that they have been the only preachers who have won converts to the Christian religion. Other more quiet servants of Christ, mostly unknown to fame, have done most of the evangelizing of the world, by methods and programs which were not so sensational. The fact to get hold of is that all of Christ’s ministers are “evangelizing”; only some are doing so in the more specialized sense of the term. It has been so from the beginning and so it is today. A faithful pastor who is making his whole church a life-changing force in the community is an evangelist par excellence, though he may never attempt “meetings.” But a zealot who is carrying the good news into the slums with his rescue mission or building a tabernacle to reach out to people who are church-shy is also at least trying to be an evangelist, and I hasten to confess that many of them function in areas where I am helpless. I never heard a more sincere and eloquent sermon than one by “Lucky Baldwin,” delivered in gutter slang to a congregation of human derelicts gathered in the State Street Mission of Chicago. They hung on his every word and knew what it meant. They knew that Lucky knew what ailed them, and they were almost persuaded to accept the medicine which he was recommending.

Jesus’ fishermen must fish in many different kinds of pools and use different lures according to the need. Their admonition from Him is to “catch men.” Once “caught,” it is amazing how even the lowest of the low will change from what they were to what God wants them to be. No method which is not honest, sound in doctrine, in keeping with Christian culture, and in the true spirit of Jesus Christ, should be tolerated, but within those limits the methodology of evangelism should be as varied as human nature is varied.

An Objectionable Dichotomy

I have listened in on arguments, especially among young Christians, which have pitted Christian education against evangelism. “I believe the way to make a Christian is to educate him in Christian truth,” says one side. “No, you must get him converted,” says the other side. According to Paul, John, Peter, and the other authors of the New Testament, both sides are correct. It takes both to make a Christian. Accept Christ; then grow up in Christ to spiritual maturity. Christian nurture is of supreme importance. But you must be born before you can grow up. There must be conversion. It may happen suddenly or gradually. Usually the latter. It may be a matter of crisis experience, or it may be so gradual and normal that the person is not aware of what is happening. But it must happen. You must be converted from sin to Christ Jesus.

It is because they believe so strongly in the reality of “conversion” and the necessity of it that some Christians become “evangelistic,” according to current usage of the term. They pursue “evangelistic” projects hoping for the conversion of people—as many as possible. They feel they owe it to their Lord and to all who do not know him as Lord and Saviour to encourage them to give Christ a hearing—yes, and to come to a decision for him. They feel that the supreme fact of Christianity’s impact upon the human race is that men must be converted, one by one, and then transformed by divine grace from what they are to what they ought to be. Therefore, to them the most exciting “good news” centers in “miracles of grace”: Saul the persecutor changed to Paul the chief of apostles; Jerry McAulay the crook transformed into God’s missionary to the down-and-outers; Toyohiko Kagawa, the confused son of an aristocratic Japanese polygamist family, converted to become the great Japanese evangelist, a blessing to the whole world. Allowing for all of the varieties of Christian experience, do we still believe in the reality and desirability of Christian conversion?

The final word which should be clarified and agreed upon in our study is “decision”—or shall we go back to John the Baptist and call it “repentance”? Whatever we call it, there is a human side to the sublime drama of conversion. God calls, but man must respond. Granted that salvation is of God; it is his Holy Spirit working within us that awakens us to newness of life and gives us the impulse to say “yes” to the call of the Christ. But however we explain it theologically, man must say “yes.” Man must decide for Jesus Christ and the Christian way. Otherwise nothing happens. “Whosoever ‘will,’ let him come.” Man must “will” to come. God, out of his infinite love, calls us, but he will not force us into the kingdom of heaven. We must decide for Jesus Christ and the Christian way of life against all of the varicolored alternatives which stand in opposition. It is within our power to say “no” to God, and if we do, the whole matter ends there. The Spirit departs. “Choose ye—whom ye will serve” is God’s challenge not only to Israel in Joshua’s time but to every generation and to every individual of the human race. It is almost impossible to say too much for the importance of Christian education, but Christian education must consummate in decision or it is a failure. The well-raised child of a Christian home, a pupil in a fine church school, may know much about the Christian religion; but it is only when, as an act of his own will, he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour that Christianity becomes vitally effective in his life. A Christian (“Christ-one”) is a person who not only knows about Christ but has chosen Christ as his Lord and Saviour.

The Burden For Souls

It is because my enthusiastic “evangelistic” friends believe these things—tremendously—that they act the way they do. They are trying to get “sinners” to “surrender” to God, “to make a decision for Christ”—in order that a “miracle of grace” may happen, the miracle called “conversion.” They know that the miracle is God’s work, but they believe that God respects human freedom and waits for human decision.

They also believe that God has chosen to use human witnesses to set up the conditions under which “decisions” are likely to be made. So they pray and work and experiment as John the Baptist did to prepare the way of the Lord into human hearts. Sometimes they fail; the answer is often “no” instead of “yes.” But sometimes they succeed. Multitudes of people have been thus led through “evangelism” to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” Whether the decisive “evangelistic service” was held in a cathedral or a barn or under the trees at a frontier camp meeting does not matter. Isaiah suddenly burst through the familiar temple ritual and for the first time saw the Lord high and lifted up in the old temple in Jerusalem. Billy Sunday sat on a curbstone in Chicago and heard the testimonies of the evangelizing zealots of Pacific Garden Mission. A group of young people in camp in the hills or huddled about a campfire on the lakeshore find a Pentecost transpiring in their midst. Peter Marshall tells of a solitary spot among the hills of Scotland where “God tapped him on the shoulder.” What matters the place or the method? God has appointed us who know him to serve as his witnesses to those who do not know him. We are his agents to perform the human acts which will lead people to be still before him until they know that he is God. Methods are of necessity varied, but whatever will impel human personalities to be still before the divine personality of Jesus Christ while they ponder his claims is evangelism.

William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, at the close of a career which had gathered an army of human derelicts from the gutters of London and turned them into near saints, was asked how he did it. He said, “I don’t know; all I know is that Jesus Christ has had all there is of me.” That explained William Booth, and it also explained what he was striving to bring to pass in the lives of others. In fact, Booth gives us here a correct definition of the whole business of evangelism. Whether the participants be at the bottom or the top of the social ladder, it remains true that if Jesus can have all there is of them, wonderful things will happen—for them, in them, and through them. The key to it all, we repeat again, is decision. A discerning Negro preacher was asked to define the doctrine of election. He answered: God is holding an election to choose candidates for heaven. There are two votes to be cast—man’s vote and God’s vote. God always votes “yes.” When man votes “yes” the election is unanimous.

How can we set up conditions which will induce people to be still before God and give attention to his good news? That is the whole problem of evangelism. In my experience, when you do succeed in bringing a group of people, old or young, to be still before God, giving their wholehearted attention to his Gospel, they are likely to respond. Whatever methods are conducive to such stillness are worthy to be called evangelism.

Let there be more of it. “I heard a voice saying, ‘Cry—Whom shall I send and who will go for us?’ ” “The harvest is plenteous but the laborers are few.” And while we hesitate and argue among ourselves over methods, the preachers of atheism and despair fill the earth with their raucous propaganda.

We may be born again. Has it been so with us? All of us? We may grow up into the image and stature of Jesus Christ. Are we so growing up? That is the challenge of the Evangel. What a privilege it is to be an Evangelist!

Jesse Hays Baird is president emeritus of San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California. He served as moderator of the 160th General Assembly of what was then the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.