Your ShelfYour Projects

Doubtful Revival Methods

8%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 19, 1911

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 88, No. 3.

Read the full edition

Doubtful Revival Methods

By A. SMITH

A. SMITH
On this point Wm. R. Moody, in an article published in the Home Herald of Feb. 4, 1909, says:—
“The two most serious evils in present-day evangelism are the spirit of sensationalism and of commercialism. Unless a preacher can count his converts by the hundreds, or even by the thousands, he deems that his efforts have failed. In consequence, every effort must be exerted ‘to draw’ a crowd, and then desperate attempts made to induce as large numbers as possible to sign cards, or rise, or make some outward manifestation of desire to be a Christian. We are deeply sensible of the value of some act which may record the decision of the will. Any one who has any experience in personal work will readily assent to the wisdom of such a method. But when the audience is urged and even teased to rise, and then the invitation is modified and broadened, every wile being employed to get men and women to their feet, it is far from being the ready response to an appeal that it should be. Telling pathetic, not to say impossible, stories, and continually widening the basis of appeal, often results in a multitude of ‘decisions’ which have in reality decided nothing. On the other hand, many a valuable and permanent work has been done where there have been few visible results at the time. But the work has been none the less important. If, however, the spectacular is always to be the criterion of success, there must result sensationalism that will hinder the truest work rather than help it. In this the churches are equally responsible with the evangelists.”

The Church and Politics

In the same issue of the Herald, Arthur T. Pierson, D. D., says:—
“Sometimes an evangelist promises to all who sign his converts’ roll some helpful book of his own. Even such a promise, however unselfish on his part, he has to guard carefully, lest some give their names for what they get. And the more spiritual a man’s methods are, and the more exalted his conception of his work, the less will he rely upon apparent results, or make a display of numerical success. He will ever remember how that first divine Evangelist never paraded numbers. In Matthew 18, where in twenty verses he refers seven times to numbers, they never exceed one, two, three. And to attach importance to revival statistics, risks superficiality of method, lust of human approbation, mistaking extensity for intensity, as well as deceiving souls into a false hope, and one’s self into a false persuasion of success. Surely this must be the devil’s snare to catch the unwary.”
“Sometimes we fear that modern evangelism gets mixed up also with secular affairs and political issues, so that money collected in evangelistic campaigns goes to further political propaganda. In one such case at least we have it on competent authority that many thousands of dollars have been so diverted. If an audited account should be rendered of funds so gathered and dispersed, it would be at least more fair to the public. Zeal in politics may not be amiss, and some political issues may be important even to the church’s unfettered service; but an evangelistic campaign is hardly the time and way to secure funds for such ends. If evangelism is to be above suspicion, it must be kept clear of side issues, and soul-saving by gospel preaching be kept as its one grand aim. The ‘Father’s business’ demands the single eye of undivided devotion, and the reward of such absorption in the one supreme object is sure.”

Are They Converts?

In the Herald of March 31, 1909, appeared the following editorial:—
“Many revivalists, when leaving a town where they have been at work for several weeks, announce through the papers the number of converts they have made. It is the custom with some to prepare a statement in which the exact number of those who have become Christians is stated in round numbers. One man, after a series of meetings lasting over six weeks, says, ‘The whole town was shaken; 927 converts is the glorious result.’ But how are these ‘converts’ reckoned?—Every person who holds up his hand at any meeting in response to a request from the evangelist; every person who stands on his feet when the question is asked if any one wishes to have prayer offered for him; any one who in any degree, by a gesture, or by standing up, replies to a question made by the evangelist, is counted. Then the evangelist moves out of town, and in many cases these converts are not followed up. How does he know they are ‘converts’? A convert is one who becomes a disciple; who changes his life, if it was wrong, until it begins to be right; who does the thing that Jesus commanded; who joins a church and goes to work. This is not a criticism of the evangelist as such, but of the methods employed by some; and the question is raised, Are they ‘converts,’ if they are counted in the way described?
“It does not dignify the religion of Christ to say that men are converts simply because they hold up the hand and stand on their feet at a religious meeting; and it would be far better for the evangelist never to count, and afterwardclaim, the number of those who showed interest by raising the hand or standing up during the meetings.”
Grandville, Mich.