Is the Old Evangelism in the Past?
O NE would gather that to be the case, if he is to believe some of the replies in the "Homiletic Review" for June, regarding the Chapman-Alexander revival meetings held in Brooklyn during the month of last February. The "Homiletic Review" says that it has tried to obtain from representative ministers of Brooklyn an unbiased opinion as to the success and probable value of those meetings. There were some favorable replies. It was thought that the number of men who were at the meetings was encouraging, and that it revived the faith of many in the churches. However, there were unfavorable criticisms. The Rev. Waldo A. Amos, of Holy Trinity Church, said: The method employed may be effective with folk of a certain type, and these must be considered. It did not impress me, however, as being a method that was likely to make for permanent betterment in the community. The dominant question was, How can I save my own soul? rather than, What can I do to serve my brother? I criticize the Chapman-Alexander meetings on the ground that they were absolutely individualistic, and took no note of the social spirit which is beginning to dominate the Christianity of our day. Dr. Robert MacDonald, of the Washington Avenue Baptist Church, said: No other methods would achieve so much in so short a time. Their appeal is immensely emotional, but in no sense sensational. Dr. L. Mason Clark, of the First Presbyterian Church, said: Relatively, I think the number affected by the meetings is small; at least I have seen few signs, very few signs, and those quite insignificant. I did not hear a single appeal to harness religious emotion to ethical living; nothing about the Christian as a citizen, nothing about social service, tho these may have been spoken of in my absence. But these were not made emphatic; it was the appeal to get into heaven. The Rev. Benjamin E. Dickhaut, Presbyterian, said: It did not appear that those outside the churches had been reached at all. It looked as if the day of the traveling evangelist had passed, and that each pastor should be his own evangelist. In summing the matter up the "Review" says: It has also been noted that the city as such has not been touched. There were no less people at the theaters, the clubs, the lodges, the saloons, on the street, in all the usual haunts, while the meetings were in progress. It has certainly become the conviction of many earnest evangelical ministers that the campaign method of evangelism is no longer useful for them. They are turning to Christian nurture for the children, to social regeneration for their churches. But "social regeneration" will never save the man or the masses. The only hope in Christianity is the hope for the individual man. Christ died to save him; all these other things come indirectly. They are the fruits of individual salvation; but when we aim at the fruits and neglect the tree and the life, we get but painted pictures, effigies of fruit, and not the fruit itself.