Conclusions.
I have noticed that anytime people talk about a method or approach to telling the good news, someone inevitably asks what results that approach has gotten, and I have done the same. But the more I have thought about results, the more questions it has raised. Why do we ask? What are we thinking we will learn? Does a majority of positive results indicate a method is “good” and should be used while few positive results indicate it is “bad” and should not be used? Just what do we learn from results? I believe we need to think through what we are asking and why, and also what we can rightly conclude from the answer.
Here, then, are some of the conclusions I have come to in thinking about this matter.
One good reason for asking about results is to learn more about whether and how the method or approach has actually been used. We should not be advocating methods that have never been tried. The person who is advocating them should have used them enough to know whether they are “doable” and not merely theoretical. We could also learn this information without asking about results by simply asking the person who is advocating that method about what their experience has been in using the approach. But either way, this much seems fair.
If we are going to evaluate a method by the results that are generated, the standard to which we compare those results should not be our desires or assumptions but rather the New Testament.
Beyond that, I believe we should turn to Scripture for guidance as we think about results. If we are going to evaluate a method by the results that are generated, the standard to which we compare those results should not be our desires or assumptions but rather the New Testament. As we explored in these posts what the New Testament has to say about results, we noticed, in sum, that there is a range of response to the gospel. Sometimes the vast majority of people accepted it and were converted to Christ, sometimes the results were mixed, and sometimes the majority rejected it and even persecuted the spokesmen. There is no reason for assuming this range of response was due to anything inadequate in the methods Jesus and the apostles used for communicating the message. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to suggest their results would have been better if their methods had been better.
What I surmise from this is that an approach or method to outreach that leads to a broad range of results is the most similar to what we see in the New Testament. In other words, if we are going to evaluate based on results, the results that should make us feel best about a method is a broad range of results including acceptance, mixed, and rejection.
Though it may go against our assumptions or natural feelings, I believe that if the results of an approach are all positive, that should raise some red flags. The best Spokesperson of the gospel ever did not get overwhelmingly positive results. Neither did his apostles. If a modern approach yields overwhelmingly positive results, perhaps we should consider whether it truly communicates the message. Does it omit any key aspects of the gospel such as the cross, the cost, and the absolute lordship of Christ. Have we unwittingly given in to our consumer culture and “sold” or “marketed” the gospel (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17). Or could we perhaps have used pressure or manipulation to gain the semblance of the result we desire? Did we rely too much on either logic or emotion to convince them to respond without having a whole-hearted grasp of the decision they were making? And will they still be in the church and following Jesus a year from now?
I believe that if the results of an approach are all positive, that should raise some red flags.
Don’t forget that speaking a positive, popular message puts us in the company of the false prophets and false teachers (Jeremiah 5:31; 6:14; 27:16; 28:1-9; Micah 3:5-8; Luke 6:26; 2 Timothy 4:3). Speaking a positive message does not automatically makes someone a false prophet, of course. After all, we have been commissioned to speak good news! But the dynamic of speaking a message that is entirely positive instead of the balanced truth of God is characteristic of false teachers, not genuine ones.
Conversely, if the results of a method or approach are overwhelmingly negative, that is a red flag as well. Perhaps we have added matters to the gospel that are not essential to it and these are what the person is rejecting. Or maybe we presented God’s message in a way that is too detailed or extensive for people to grasp. Maybe our attitude or manner were off-putting in some way. Or maybe we omitted the gospel itself! I’ve been surprised by how many methods of teaching the either omit the gospel or fail to make it central.
Neither an overwhelmingly positive response nor an overwhelmingly negative one matches what we see in the New Testament overall. Perhaps there will be some times and circumstances when the response is primarily one way or the other. We saw this, too, in the New Testament. The response that best matches the New Testament overall, however, is a range of response, including conversion, mixed, and rejection. So if we are going to ask about results, the answer that speaks best for a method is a range of different results.
Part of our interest in results is certainly that we really want people to come to Christ, but part of it may also be from the influence American culture has had on us.
I’d also like to gently suggest that we consider whether our interest in results could be due to mixed motives inside of us. I know it has been for me at times. Part of our interest in results is certainly that we really want people to come to Christ, but part of it may also be from the influence American culture has had on us. Americans want success and often believe they have the “know how” to bring it to pass. We must not approach God’s work with those attitudes. That is not the nature of the evangelism we see in the New Testament. Instead, we see humble servants doing all they can but trusting that God and the gospel will work through them, with God giving the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6-7).
I will also add that regardless of whether we ask about results, there are other much more important questions for us to be asking. Chief among them is whether the method communicates the gospel faithfully. And does it focus on Jesus? If we genuinely communicate Jesus and the gospel, we have done right in the eyes of God regardless of the response that ensues. We should also ask whether the approach includes the drastic response that Jesus and the gospel demand.
We might also ask whether the communication style and mentality are appropriate to the gospel. This would include things such as telling it as news, telling it with some urgency, telling it with compassion and love, telling it clearly and boldly, telling it gently and respectfully and telling it with reliance on God. Does it leave room for both God and the person we are teaching to have a role in the outcome? Does it preserve the person’s free will?
I will also add that regardless of whether we ask about results, there are other much more important questions for us to be asking.
Of somewhat lesser importance, we might ask some practical questions about whether the method is clear, too complicated or too simple, and whether it could be used by others? You could no doubt add other questions to this list.
If, instead of a method of teaching, we are evaluating an approach to finding people to teach, there are some other questions we should ask. For example, is the approach deceptive or manipulative (2 Corinthians 4:2)? Does it contain the compassion of Christ? Does it include or at least make room for demonstrating the truth of the gospel of the kingdom in our deeds? Is it conditional? Many other such questions could be added.
Results matter some, but they are not the most important matter. I hope these posts will prompt further thinking and discussion so that we are more faithful to Christ and his word.
For more on how Empowering Subjects is equipping servants of the King to show and tell the good news faithfully, see here.
Empowering Subjects 