Editorial: Direct Evangelism Overseas

by Jim Reapsome

Two articles in this issue are about church-planting and church growth. Ron Fisher makes a strong appeal for better training and more experience in the U. S. David Pickard says one problem encountered in moving into responsive areas is that the missionaries don’t know how to win souls.

Two articles in this issue are about church-planting and church growth. Ron Fisher makes a strong appeal for better training and more experience in the U. S. David Pickard says one problem encountered in moving into responsive areas is that the missionaries don’t know how to win souls.

Both of these articles strike at the missionary stereotype that still prevails in the homeland: a missionary is someone who goes overseas to win souls. The basic concept is still one of the missionary- evangelist.

Of course, by this time, American supporters of missionaries are aware that many of them are involved in such things as hospital, radio and literature work. But even so, they consider these works to be evangelistic "tools"; i.e., the patient, the radio listener, the reader of tracts is supposed to hear and receive the gospel.

It has not yet struck home that only 28 percent (according to Missions Handbook, 11th edition, 1976) of the 37,000 Protestant missionaries from the U.S. and Canada are involved in establishing new churches or carrying out direct evangelism.

In view of that, perhaps Fisher and Pickard are addressing their pleas to a steadily diminishing number of missionaries anyway. It is not much use to call for better trained soul-winners if three-fourths of missionary work is not church-planting and soul-winning.

Why, then, print their articles? To expose the problem, to raise questions, to cause some thoughtful reapportionment of missionary personnel, to change directions, to think about what kind of people are needed to engage in direct evangelism.

It does no good to keep pretending that missionaries are doing something they aren’t. It is an insult to the intelligence of the supporters of missionaries. By no means are the 72 percent doing the wrong thing, although it is not inconceivable that a good chunk of them might be. If we don’t even allow that possibility, we are perpetuating poor stewardship of people’s money and lives.

But back to direct evangelism. Should not missions executives try to reverse the trend? If more candidates seem to have the gift of Bible teaching rather than soul-winning, would it not be a good idea to put a moratorium on sending out any more Bible teachers until more evangelists are recruited?

Why should mission boards overload in one or two church-support and service-type ministries and neglect primary evangelism? One reason they do so is because missionary-evangelists are few and far between. The emphasis today is on having more specialized gifts. People who want to volunteer to serve overseas can find virtually anything they like to do in some mission board.

Another factor is that direct evangelism and the simple gospel are suspect in some circles. Would-be missionary- evangelists are not immune to the literature that suggests old-time missionaries were at fault in exporting a simplistic gospel. This literature intimates that a different gospel is needed today – whether it be called a "whole" gospel, or a gospel of liberation, or whatever.

On top of that, there is a strong spirit at large that suggests the unevangelized are unreachable anyway, for political, social, cultural and religious reasons. Better to give oneself to building up existing believers.

The 28-72 ratio is neither right nor good. It can be reversed intelligently and courageously – despite the pressures forcing mission boards the other way.

—–

Copyright © 1978 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.