Same place, same people very different outcomes. All in the name of evangelism (the preaching of the gospel) and the winning of souls. To be clear, and I’ve said it before, I am not in favor of any evangelism definition that equates it with the winning of souls. You can check out the links at the end of this article to see my reasoning.
In a small town nestled in the Andean mountain range of Ecuador there were two evangelistic campaigns. I was at both of them. At one I was a participant, but not involved with the administration and direction of it. In the other, I was deeply involved in the planning and organizing along with many others.
The first campaign was everything that would most likely come to mind when thinking about these sorts of events. There were big speakers, a podium, microphones, productions, preaching, emotional pleas. The sponsor of this event, another church, had gotten permission from the school administrator to put on this campaign. It was centrally located in the town and there’s no doubt that many heard all of the fanfare. It was a good show. But, as evangelistic campaigns go, very unsuccessful. In fact, the whole deal upset quite a few folks in the town.
The second campaign was in the same place. But this time, instead of speakers and podiums there were paint and brushes. We brought a group to the school to give it much-needed paint job. Many people showed up for the event and worked alongside us. Meals were made, small discussions groups formed naturally, people laughed, shared stories, and got to know one another. As we served them in their crucial need, they began to serve us. Of course there was a bit of hesitation in the light of the previous campaign, but our work there was clearly one of love and there were no strings attached. We did not intend, we attended. Let’s just say that now, in that town, there are many who have come to know Christ and are growing in Him.
In comparing these two campaigns, it might be easy to decide which you like better, but perhaps not so easy to determine which was more biblical or “christian.” What I do know, is that there are some evangelism shifts to be considered:
Moving from putting on shows – to – showing people that they’re loved.
Moving from getting people to raise their hands in a service – to – having a hands on approach in service.
Moving from the collection of people – to – compassion for people.
Moving from instructing people – to – investing ourselves in their lives.
Moving from calling people to the altar – to – leaving our gifts at the altar.
Moving from getting people to go to an event – to – going to the people and being eventful.
Moving from Acts 17 – to – Luke 10
1. What is your opinion about evangelistic campaigns?
2. Are one of these approaches more biblical than the other?
3. What other shifts would you recommend?
For related links, see:
Why I’m No Longer the Sort that “Closes the Deal,” in Evangelism… Part I, Part II, and Part III
Would You Sign This Evangelism Accord?
Missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. My last name, "Labrador," is the word that's used for "Vine Worker" in the Spanish Bible, and it's OK with me. 
Eli on Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?
Carlos on Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?
Beautiful comparison Miguel.
Many of us with white hair on our head have been part of the podium style preaching of evangelism, that seemed to take massive effort with little to no results for the kingdom of God on this orb. It’s all we really knew to try, it was in line with “we’ve always done it this way’. And it was feel good stuff.
We have a lot to learn. Some times simplest forms of interactions are best. Who couldn’t feel the love of being served? Especially if no strings are attached. I’ll be interested in others contribution to this thread to hear their thoughts.
Great comparison. When John 13:35 is the core value, people will be interested in hearing more. For the most part, at least in NA, most growth (90%+) comes from within, births or transferring from other Christian faiths. And unbelievers never consider the church to be a place where love is at the forefront.
I think the model of Acts 17 is a good one. I also think the model in Acts 13 is a good one. The model of Jesus and his feeding the people is also a good model (John 6:1-10). Each model is different.
But the results will always be few, and only a few of those will actually have a lasting faith. This is what scripture itself tells us.
Matthew 7:13-14
13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Even those who followed Christ while he was living left him when things got tough or difficult to understand (John 6:66). Indeed, even among those who Christ called was a devil (John 6:70-71).
I think evanglism campaigns where pople get up and speak in front of a group (ala Acts 17) can be effective, but also tend to make it more difficult for people to be receptive to the word later on, as they often call for belief but no change and no discipleship.
The same can be true for the model where a person gets up and speaks to the church, as many dont teach repentance and discipleship.
I think you are more likely to get people to be willing to listen in the model where you serve and love others in practical ways. I think this will be more effective in the short run, but will it actually cause more people to trust Christ? Maybe, or maybe not. Remember, there are many who will have claimed to love God and He will say He never knew them (Matthew 7:23).
Our job is to sow the word or water it. But it is God’s job to cause theincrease (Mark 4:3-20; 1 Corinthians 3).
I’ll just sit back and learn from this one.
I’d love to know the results in terms of fruit of each one. I’ve seen “crusade” type evangelism produce extraordinary results when followed up with simple church principles–ie identifying the person of peace and starting something in their home. In a nation I cannot identify for security reasons, a large harvest was not only conserved, it multiplied, so people who might have started four churches following the crusade had eight within a few months etc.
But I suspect that painting the school was more effective in your situation. I’d be interested to know.
Either of these sound quite unbalanced in isolation.
Our good works should indeed direct the attention of the world to The Lord. However the apostles approach in Acts was not limited to that but also involved direct verbal proclamation (especially of the resurrection).
Your interesting post does somewhat suggest an “either-or” dichotomy when the New Testament church is jam packed with “both-and” …