From the 1975 classic “WHAT’S GONE WRONG WITH THE HARVEST” by James Engel
Persuasion
Most training in evangelistic technique focuses on methods of persuasion — simple, dramatic presentations that provide the essence of the gospel, with special focus on the steps necessary for a decision. Persuasion, therefore, is Christian communication designed to call for and facilitate a life commitment to Jesus Christ.
Persuasion, however, will be inappropriate unless the recipient of the message has reached stage -3 — problem recognition. Problem recognition occurs when the Holy Spirit, by producing conviction, brings about a perceived difference between the actual state of affairs and the ideal state of affairs. This, of course, serves as a powerful motivating force for change, which, in turn, is usually followed by a search for information and high receptivity to relevant communication. The filter now is open and responsive and this is the key indicator of “fields ripe for harvest.”
What brings about this state of problem recognition? As the next chapter elaborates, there are times when communication content itself can perform this function, but it must be remembered that absence of a recognized problem, and hence of felt need, implies a closed filter. Thus, there are limitations on what man can do with the message and the media.
An all-too-common mistake is to utilize persuasion in such a way that the individual is, in effect, manipulated to make a decision that usually proves to be an abortive one. Visualize the following scene, for example: The preacher has finished his sermon and is about to give the invitation. At his quiet signal the organ softly begins playing and the choir strikes up with “Just As I Am.” The preacher exhorts, “Friend, if the Spirit is moving in your heart, come forward now; come forward now and give your life to Jesus. Don’t delay, because this may be the last chance you will ever have. That’s it; keep coming. You, back there, Jesus is working on you. Come forward, give your heart to Him.” And when the trickle of inquirers diminishes, the choir strikes up again, louder this time.
Let it be understood that this type of invitation still is used by God to bring people to repentance. But it also may be used by man to “brainwash” people into coming forward. The combination of soft music and not so subtle exhortation can get people to the front, all right, but what does this action mean? Does it really signify that all-important step of faith that Jesus asks? Unfortunately, there have been too many instances of a recording of so-called “decisions” that were not decisions at all.
What, after all, is the true meaning of a “decision for Jesus Christ”? Does it require that people “pray and invite Jesus to come into their heart”? Many, including the authors, came to Jesus in this way. But is such a prayer necessary? Where precisely in the Bible is this strategy of witness suggested or even alluded to? Some immediately will point to Revelation 3:20. A more careful analysis, however, will reveal that God was speaking there to a moribund church and was offering a collective promise of restoration to spiritual power if they would only take the first step of volition and permit Him to resume His role as Lord. It is not primarily a salvation verse!
This may come as a real shock to some readers and the authors can anticipate the waves of response. Some will ask, “After all, didn’t you pray such a prayer of invitation?” Yes, but, when it comes right down to it, salvation came only upon the kind of belief the apostle Paul talked about in the tenth chapter of Romans — a step of faith in which one rests completely on the assurance that Christ’s claims are true and that He is the only way. The prayer of invitation or commitment is basically an outward manifestation of such belief, and a helpful one at that, at least in the North American setting. Feeling the need of praying such a prayer gives the inquirer something tangible to do and hence the prayer can be a useful aid in bringing him to salvation. But to make serious reference to Revelation 3:20 and claim that such a prayer is normative is inappropriate, because saving belie! comes by standing on the Word God has spoken.
All too often, evangelistic campaigns have been judged successful (or not successful) on the basis of how many prayed.” A common occurrence in the evangelical church is to applaud the preacher who gets the most “decisions.” Seldom do we ask after a short period of time how many “converts” show real evidence of regeneration, of the fact that “old things have passed away and all things have become new.” Some rather surprising things can be discovered if this important inquiry is made.
Hundreds of supposed decisions were reported in an evangelistic campaign in India, but later analysis showed that those who came forward and “prayed” were only expressing interest. Few truly came into saving belief, but the evangelist enthusiastically reported his results to his North American supporters, little realizing how erroneous his evaluation was.
Similarly, a group of Japanese pastors and laymen were trained to share their faith through a strategy of persuasion of this kind, using door-to-door witness. Many apparent decisions resulted but, once again, those who made decisions just seemed to disappear into the woodwork. Why weren’t they joining the church as one would expect? Any keen observer of the Japanese scene could quickly supply some answers. First, the use of persuasion at the beginning is usually the wrong strategy because the vast majority of the population have little or no knowledge of Christianity. The real need is for proclamation, followed later by persuasion. Secondly, the cultural norms of courtesy often will lead people to comply simply to avoid offending. Finally, the average person “prays” to many gods, so why not also pray to Jesus “just to make sure”? As Goodenough has said, “Some agents of religious change … making assumptions about the universal needs of the soul in keeping with their own values, are notoriously naive about the motives that made converts of their clients.”5
Again, the purpose here is not to attack any particular evangelistic technique, but rather to avoid a strategy that may be culturally appropriate in some places but inappropriate elsewhere. The examples cited reflect a particularly insidious form of program orientation referred to by the anthropologist as ethnocentrism. 6 This is where the one who is trying to bring about change in a culture other than his own imposes his norms and behavior patterns on others. The consequences of ethnocentrism can be catastrophic. More will be said about this later.
The objective of persuasion, then, is something quite different from getting people to come forward or to pray a prayer. The objective is to focus on the reasons why a person is at the stage of problem recognition and to present the biblical solution in a logical manner, in terms appropriate for that individual’s felt needs. Thus, the evangelist clearly presents Jesus as the solution to his or her problem and provides concrete steps to bring the inquirer to the point of saving faith. The specific form of these steps, however, must be a variable and not a constant if the errors of ethnocentrism are to be avoided.
Leave a Reply