Per Christum

Most Christians take it for granted that we are supposed to tell others about Christ. Jesus’ final words in the gospel of Matthew exhort us to go into all nations bringing in candidates for baptism. However, often we give a lot of thought to evangelism techniques, but very little to the unintended consequences of our zeal. I grew up with all sorts of evangelism techniques, some that worked, some that embarrassed me beyond belief.

Let me give an example: Street preachers. One prominent street preacher is brother Jed Smock. He and his friends go from college to college preaching damnation and judgment to hoards of provoked students. I have seen Brother Jed preach about 10 times while at Ohio University. My brother and I’s photo is even on his webpage (or at least it used to be). Not once did I encounter any converted students among Jed’s group. When I asked, he admitted that a few are converted from his techniques, but not many. In other words, he is pretty ineffective. However, what many evangelists like Brother Jed fail to take into account is the number of people who actually avoid becoming a Christian because of their methods.

So let’s look at the effectiveness of evangelism mathematically. Let’s use the equation G-B=PC. G=People leaving with a good impression of the faith, B= people leaving with a bad impression of the faith, and PC=potential convert balance. So if G is greater than B, then your technique resulted in more potential converts than it turned off, which is good. Even if nobody converts, at least you know people have left with a positive, accurate impression of your church. Now, if B is greater than G, then you have actually turned off more from the faith than were interested, leaving many already angry or confused people even angrier and more confused. Of course, this is not scientific and you can’t actually accurately measure these variables, but it is a good thing to keep in mind.

This equation shows one thing: collateral damage from our evangelism techniques may turn more away than we bring in. Confrontational and provocative evangelism almost always results in a high collateral damage. Getting people angry and affirming the stereotypes people have of Christians almost never works. Look at Pat Robertson. “Assassinate Hugo Chavez,” he says. “Ariel Sharon had a stroke because God caused it,” he says. While I am sure Robertson brings some to the Christian faith, how many are turned off by such ridiculous (from the Catholic/historical faith standpoint) statements? While it should not be our goal to water down the gospel so people leave “feeling good,” there are tactful and charitable ways to speak the truth.

Another case in point is a provocative Catholic room on paltalk I encountered. The title of the room was meant to generate discussion. However, it implied that only Catholics are saved, something Catholics do not actually believe. Many people came into that room provoked and ready for a fight. Folks friendly to the Catholic Church, even exploring it, left angry. A few days later a room titled, “There is no salvation inside the Catholic Church” was thriving with over 30 members. The folks who set-up the provocatively titled Catholic room are good people, with good intentions, but I think they miscalculated. Once again, let’s use the equation G-B=PC. While we can’t know for sure, if so many people are being turned off (and I have talked to about 5 who were), this room title has turned more away from the faith than it brought to it. It also mobilized the anti-Catholic forces into starting their own room. Despite any good intentions, the collateral damage was too high.

I guess my point in all of this is that evangelism must have a purpose, and that is to bring people to Christ. We must speak the truth in ways that are charitable and effective, not self-serving. The techniques, the discussion, the debate, the preaching, the blogging, and so forth, should be the vehicles of evangelism, not the ends themselves. The moment our discussions become bitter and venomous, or our blogs become filled with sarcastic Christian commentary, and we know people are building up walls to block out our faith, then we must immediately stop. If we continue a pointless and angry debate, or constantly publish sarcastic and bitter blog entries, even though the collateral damage is too high, we have made an idol out of our techniques. In the examples I just mentioned, debating facts and posting scathing entries have replaced Christ as the end of our activities. I think we must all keep this in mind.

Now to what works: Do you really want to share Christ without turning people off? Act like Jesus at all times. Speak the truth when necessary in a loving way, but always show the mercy and compassion of Christ. Pray for those who persecute you. A paltalk example: A gentleman opened an anti-Catholic room. A few Catholics came into the room and engaged him in a reasonable discussion. In the end, the Catholics were praying for the room operator’s mother. They were having a civil discussion and finding points that Catholics and Protestants agreed upon. At the end, the room operator said that while he disagreed with the Catholic Church, he would never open an anti-Catholic room again. I have yet to see a debate room have that effect… ever. Acting like Jesus did has its benefits!