There’s nothing worse than a long delay between a two-part series, albeit you’re not refreshing the home page every hour in suspense of part 2. In part one, I summarized Christianity Today’s recent article about the new, “cutting edge evangelism. I now want to give a brief assessment of it.

1. Evangelism methods are often controversial and continually being revised. This is just the reality we live in. Billy Graham is nearing the end of his life and thousands, maybe millions, of people have been affected by his ministry. But his methods weren’t sheltered from criticisms and controversies. The same could be said of the endless list of personal evangelism tracts and methods. There may be many reasons why criticism and controversy is inherent to evangelism methodology. For example, it can be attributed partly to the fact that Scripture just isn’t very specific about how one ought to fulfill the Great Commission. The command is very clear but the method isn’t. The apostles’ example is descriptive but not entirely prescriptive. Therefore, we should not be surprised by this article. I’m not saying the new trend is right or wrong. I’m just saying that given the pattern of the last half century and the lack of Scripture’s specificity then one ought not be taken aback by evangelism that would be called “new” and “cutting edge.”

2. Church planting and church reform should go hand-in-hand. This article never talks about church reform per se, but it does mention the difference between “established” and “newly planted churches. ” Here’s the logic: According to the research, most churches stop looking out after about 15 years; thus, they stop growing. Church plants, however, are looking out; thus, they are growing at a faster rate. Churches, therefore, need to plant churches in order to reach out. The article then went on to describe the similarities between domestic planting and overseas planting.

Well, I’m all for planting churches. But what about the thousands of dwindling churches that are planted but need reforming and reviving? What about the thousands of seemingly unattractive churches that have buildings and membership but need strong leadership and biblical preaching to become once again a bright light? Can those churches be a means of “cutting edge” evangelism? I think they should be and by God’s grace can be.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a false assumption that church reform is to the exclusion of evangelism. In other words, reform looks “in” and planting looks “out.” When in reality, reform looks inward and outward. Just take expositional preaching, the most essential component of reform, as an example.

Expositional preaching reorients a church’s worldview, priorities, purpose, and the list could go on. The Holy Spirit transforms lives through the preaching of God’s word. That transformation causes churches and Christians to be “salt” and “light.” In addition, they mature in brotherly love so that all men know they are Christ’s disciples by their love for one another.

I’m no church researcher. I don’t study demographics and church statics. But one doesn’t have to be in order to observe the thousands of churches across this nation that are regularly closing their doors; many of which are in areas considered to be “gospel priorities” (We love you, Bruce and now Kurt!). NAMB’s planting rate is 4-5 churches per day. I could only imagine that the closing rate is equal to if not greater than. So shouldn’t we strike an evangelistic balance? I believe that reformers can learn from planters and vice versa. Therefore, the two can actually find a way walk hand-in-hand as the “new” evangelism.

Posted in Church Life, Evangelism & Missions |