Evangelizing in the 21^st Century by Charles G. Goodall

Strategies to Bring Souls to Christ Beyond the Pulpit

 

Let Charles G. Goodall lead you to salvation in Jesus in one lesson Learn now how to be saved: In the Same Hour of the Night

 

 

 

Preface

The title chosen for this work may seem somewhat puzzling to you. I intend to analyze and explore the wide spectrum of strategies used to bring souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. Some of the conclusions will no doubt startle you. It is not our purpose to disturb you, however sometimes we must face the truth when our preconceived notions will not stand the test. It is our intent to objectively review the experimentation, failure, and successes of brethren over several decades to find out what has been attempted, what works, what does not work, and why.

 

Someone asks why I didn’t just call it “personal work” (especially since that phrase describes my work as they know it.) I will use that term sparingly in this effort because the term is somewhat trite and ambiguous to the point that it has no real meaning. To illustrate this, a young preacher typically will tell a congregation when he begins to work for them that he will not only preach from the pulpit, but he will do a lot of “personal work.” Any one-to-one interaction that anyone might have in the congregation is “personal work,” but it may not be a strategy that is useful and effective in leading souls to Christ. He may mean by stating that he is going to do a lot of “personal work” he intends to find a place on a sidewalk in a large city and ask those he meets whether they are saved. Obviously this would be “personal work,” but most of us would attest that the method is not likely to bear much fruit.

 

Strategies available and used by brethren now and through the years are not only numerous but multifaceted. The word evangelizo in Greek can be translated as “gospel preached,”

“glad tidings,” or “proclaiming the good news.” In the New Tes

tament, evangelizo is found in various forms 135 times (Tarbet). Kenneth Wuest comments on 2 Timothy 4:5, where Paul is instructing Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. He makes the observation that evangelist is not preceded by a definite article. The idea is, he says, “Let your work be evangelistic in character” (Tarbet).

 

This treatise is my life’s work. The conclusions are mine.

They are drawn from my own experiences, research, and investigation. Solomon said, “And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven...” (Ecclesiastes 1:13). In a similar vein this effort recounts what I have observed, studied, and been involved in for 50 years as I applied my heart to seek and search out all the appropriate strategies that could be used to bring people to Christ beyond the pulpit. Obviously that is my ambition and objective.

 

The methods of research to which I refer were learned in graduate school and incorporated into my original research published by the University of South Florida. The skills acquired during that process proved to be extremely beneficial in this effort. It is just as important to find out what will not work as to find out what will work.

 

The problem of strategies outside the pulpit to bring souls to Christ has been approached with a smorgasbord of random efforts, small samples, and huge assumptions. This approach destroys the opportunity to arrive at meaningful conclusions. In this work I aim to provide data and strategies based on my own experience and research to guide those who wish to engage in evangelism to bring souls to Christ.

Historical Setting

To understand the dilemma facing those who yearn to lead souls to Christ, one must have a historical perspective. We will unfold in this effort the domain in which personal evangelism is considered effective, of interest and desired in the work of the church. Obviously it will not be used when it is considered counterproductive and of no relevance to obtaining those who are

wanted as members and a “turn off” to those who might be approached with the gospel. Thus, before launching into an extensive analysis of personal evangelism (which we will subsequently do), it will be prudent to identify the narrow remnant of brethren to whom it would be of interest, relevant, useful and expedient. It is absolutely essential that we identify the target to which this work applies. I can see how one may feel at times that we are leaving our topic and wandering off into irrelevant subject matter. Let me assure you absolutely nothing in this study is of that nature.

Denominationalism evolved for the most part during the Middle Ages and consisted of a smorgasbord of religions couched in their human creeds. These denominations were offspring of the Catholic Church whose birth came about due to a desire to reform the Catholic Church. This break from Catholicism to establish the Protestant denominations was called the Reformation Motif. “Motif,” may be a new word for you. “Motif” is as tied to the review of religious philosophies as the word function is tied to mathematics. The intent of the Reformation was to reform Catholicism, not to return to a “thus says the

Lord.” The early settlers in America clung to their religious roots of denominationalism imported from Europe.

In the early 19^th century, several men like James O’Kelly, Elias Smith, Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone, each affiliated with a different denomination, were convicted that the Bible had been abandoned by their respective denominations. They arrived at this conclusion simultaneously and independently of each other. Their conviction was that they could not fellowship those who did not use and follow the Bible solely in their faith and practice. These men left their several denominational roots

and independently established congregations that relied on the New Testament and the New Testament alone as the standard of faith. They did not consider those of the denominations Christians and thus had no fellowship with them at all. Their plea was to call Bible things by Bible names, speak where the Bible speaks, to be silent where the Bible is silent, accept no creed except the New Testament, and fellowship no person who did not practice these principles. This is called the Restoration Motif as opposed to the earlier Reformation Motif.

It is obvious that this break in fellowship from those who clung to human creeds affected the target of evangelism. No denomination followed the New Testament or was interested in adhering to its pattern. Thus the appeal of those seeking to bring the lost to Christ was to teach Bible authority and insist that they abandon denominationalism to be fellowshipped. Thus the move of those in the Restoration Motif was to restrict their fellowship and withdraw from all denominationalism. Their fellowship was so narrow it would be fair to refer to them as a tiny remnant (cf. Isa.11:11). Needless to say, the denominations abandoned any pretense of adhering to the New Testament because it had become secondary to their creeds. Therefore, preaching the uniqueness of the church and the absolute necessity of adhering solely to the scriptures by necessity set the Restoration men apart. Their convictions led them to be the only ones interested in techniques to lead people to Christ by the authority of the Bible. This line of conviction resulted in only a tiny remnant clinging to the Restoration Motif.

As time progressed an effort was made by well-intentioned brethren in the tiny remnant adhering to the Restoration Motif to expedite the efficiency of the church in evangelism and improve the appeal of worship (according to their thinking). Their ambition was such that they preferred their innovations without justifying their actions by the scriptures. This led to the introduction of the United Christian Missionary Society, followed by the use of instrumental music in worship, which was introduced by

L.L. Pinkerton in Midway, Kentucky. The earlier remnant was divided over these issues, and fellowship was broken.

Again it became the conviction of the remnant that remained that these practices were false and contrary to the scriptures. Their consciences would not permit them to continue to worship and support false doctrine, since doing so would require their participation. Those who supported these innovations were no match against those who insisted on a “thus says the Lord.” Those who opposed the instrument in worship and the contribution going to a human institution constituted only a tiny remnant. Those who defended and identified with the innovations became known as the Christian Church. Those who were convicted that  the innovations were unscriptural had no fellowship with the Christian Church. In fact, one who did so was considered unfaithful to the Lord by those adhering to the Restoration Motif. The apostasy  developing  into the Christian church resulted in their losing all interest in the Restoration Motif. They gave up  debating; defending that what they practiced could be supported by scripture. The Christian Church soon came to view itself as a denomination. The pattern is clearly seen: When brethren choose the direction of the digression, only a tiny remnant is left each time.

Premillenialism soon made its advent among those who continued to follow the Restoration Motif and splintered the cause. Premillenialism is the doctrine that alleges that the land promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 were never fulfilled. It alleges that God intended to set up His kingdom on the day of Pentecost but because conditions were not right he established the church instead. A primary tenet of the doctrine is that there is going to be a rapture in which the saints will be caught up into heaven by Christ followed by a period of tribulation on earth. Christ allegedly will then return to set up a kingdom in Palestine and reign on earth a thousand years. Obviously such extreme twisting of the scriptures required a complete break. This division further reduced the number of those clinging to the Restoration Motif.

In the early nineteen fifties, a movement arose in our earlier remnant to expedite the work of the church by contributing to human benevolent institutions, use a sponsoring church arrangement to preach the gospel, and to use entertainment and

recreation as the primary means of drawing members. Again the result was division. Those who adhered to the Restoration Motif again were left, a tiny remnant. This remnant broke fellowship with those who militantly clung to their innovations. Those of this apostate movement were subsequently labeled as “institutional” or “liberal.”

In the early eighties a movement arose to use a noncontroversial approach in preaching and in the church. They were of the persuasion that preaching and teaching should be positive in order to not turn off those who might visit services or be approached privately. Sermons on false religions, church attendance, false doctrines, and marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR) and church discipline were considered “negative” and counterproductive. According to their persuasion, public teaching should not address any of these issues. As a result, church discipline was soon to become a thing of the past, because no one can be disciplined for that which is not preached from the pulpit. What was preached was wholesome, uplifting, and truthful and left those who went away feeling good about themselves and others. They do not consider whether false religions, church attendance, false doctrines, MDR, and church discipline were of any relevance to their salvation or that of anyone else. That is, the decision was made among a large number of brethren not preach the whole gospel. The Restoration Motif was no longer relevant, effective, or desired to lead souls to Christ. They had heaped to themselves teachers to sooth their itching ears. This apostate view again resorted to militancy to enforce their view. These of allegedly of a non-polemic and positive “gospel” philosophy attacked those who did not go along with their movement. They publicly called them inflammatory and insulting names like “neo-Calvinists,” “watchdogs,” “jingoists,” and

“negative preachers.” Gospel meetings were canceled. Challenges to discuss differences fell on deaf ears.

The latter who opposed that approach found themselves only a tiny remnant, consisting of those who survived this division, which exists in almost every congregation of God’s people. The division is not only apparent by dividing into separate congrega

tions but is also apparent within congregations whose influence in the past has been against this kind of digression. The membership in congregations that adopted the non-polemic positive approach in teaching and preaching usually has had an increase in numbers due to their new-found philosophy. Members from other area congregations who agreed with the non-polemic positive approach in teaching and preaching often left the small congregations – More about this movement later.

I am indebted to Ron Halbrook for providing the following analysis that is the evolution of thought that repeatedly led to digressive thinking that can be traced through the brotherhood papers. It is vital for the reader to understand that those with digressive thinking exposed themselves every time by losing their interest in spreading the gospel by the Restoration Motif. When such a movement or philosophy arises personal evangelism is not only in their view undesirable but counterproductive. What happened subsequently in the journals allows us the insight needed to document the changes.

In the thirties and forties, Premillenialism was introduced into the church by R.H. Boll and others. There were men like G. C. Brewer that were looking for the middle of the road. He did not favor Premillenialism, but was sharply critical of those carrying the battle against the false teaching. Those who opposed Premillenialism were stigmatized as being troublemakers and brotherhood watchdogs. What happened? Those who were of the “middle of the road” mindset never accepted Premillenialism but for the most part went into institutionalism twenty years later.

The lesson is clear: When there is an attitude of compromising the truth instead of forthrightly uprooting the error, the way is paved for apostasy.

The Christian Standard was a gospel paper started in 1866, and The Gospel Advocate was started in 1855. Another contemporary journal was The Christian Review. These journals led the fight against instrumental music and the missionary society organization. In time, the Christian Standard announced a new editorial policy – one they called “less reactionary.” It had excellent articles for about twenty years and finally compromised the

truth by aligning with those who had accepted instrumental music and the missionary society.

As Ron Halbrook once said, “A positive approach inevitably leads to compromise with sin and error. The man doesn’t live that can change that from happening once he has embraced the philosophy. It will happen with an individual, it will happen with a gospel preacher, it will happen with a journal, it will happen with a congregation and it will happen with a collectivity of brethren who are attracted to the snare.”

Continuing to trace digressive thinking through the brotherhood journals we note that Clinton Davidson bought the old Christian Leader in 1938 and renamed it The New Christian Leader. He said the Bible Banner and the Gospel Advocate were too legalistic and too controversial. He copyrighted his paper to avoid quotations. The paper compromised the truth about Premillenialism.

The Bible Banner was begun in 1935 by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In the 1940’s he was joined by Cled Wallace and Roy Cogdill, who published the paper until 1949. Then it was renamed the Gospel Guardian having Roy Cogdill, Fanning Yater Tant, William Wallace, Eugene Britnell and James W. Adams as editors. In 1956, Bryan Vinson, Jr., Cecil Willis; and, later, Mike Willis, were the editors. They fought Modernism and Institutionalism and held up against the grace-unity movement.

One, commenting on The Gospel Guardian in its long stance for the truth, said “a fiery and direct approach was assumed by these writers. They were unapologetically militant in fighting off false doctrine, because they saw themselves in a spiritual war.

They also saw themselves as news journalists, exposing the secret heresies taught privately by well-known brethren. Both of these directives flavored their writings such that they are all but unpalatable to today’s civilized, modern man. The sincere lover of truth will find rich, meaty morsels brought to life in The Guardian of Truth that exists nowhere else, save the original Source.”

Times were different back then. People were not only open to debate, but they expected it. Experienced preachers participated in hundreds of debates over their lifetimes. Furthermore, blatant and stubborn dishonesty was all too common. Consequently, dealings with false teachers often required a firm hand and a sharp tongue, which placed immense responsibility on the backs of the preachers and the students to maintain Christ and His Word as their central concerns. These times forged spiritual giants. The analysis and arguments they presented have withstood countless assaults.

Searching the Scriptures began in 1960. It was edited by

H.E. Phillips, James P. Miller and Connie Adams. It was a strong voice for the Restoration Motif first in Florida, then in the Southeast and finally nationwide. It merged with Truth Magazine to form the Guardian of Truth in 1992. Guardian of Truth carried the brunt of the battle against the fronts to be detailed below. They did so fervently, courageously and boldly, as will later see, to no avail.

Christianity Magazine began in 1984. Its editors proclaimed “We will avoid controversy.”

Three Digressive Dimensions of the Current Era

Three easily identified philosophical movements gave rise to the digression manifested today among non-institutional churches. Some of the thinking, if not the practices, was carried over from the institutional era. No one of them could have happened without the other. Each caused the other two, but not sequentially, but simultaneously because they were interdependent. Each came as the requirement and necessity of the other. One can understand interdependence when he understands creation. Everything created was interdependent.

The three interdependent components of the current digression are:

A.     Cherished and Philosophical Pluralism.

B.     Positive non-polemic and non-controversial preaching and teaching.

Acceptance of “Unity in Diversity” (Cher

ished Pluralism) in fellowship and the implementation and practice of Philosophical Pluralism.

Let’s first look at Cherished and Philosophical Pluralism because it has embraced society as well as our institutional brethren and most non-institutional congregations and brethren today. Few have escaped pluralism in society. Should we be surprised  to have our non-institutional brethren succumb to its allure?

Let’s define the terms and seek to understand the meaning of pluralism. We will quickly understand the nomenclature when we lay out their meaning and effect on the church.

Donald A. Carson explains three kinds of pluralism in a book called The Gagging of God. The first he calls Empirical Pluralism, by which he means valuing a diverse society. America is a country of many languages, ethnicities, religions, and worldviews. It is more accurate to speak of American cultures than American culture.

A second kind of pluralism Carson terms Cherished Pluralism. Cherished Pluralism goes beyond the

fact of pluralism to its value. To cherish pluralism is to appreciate it, to welcome approve of it. Cherished Pluralism says that pluralism exists; it is good and one must not cross the boundaries of another. Adhering to Cherished Pluralism is a necessity for mankind to live in peace.

A third kind of pluralism is Philosophical Pluralism. Empirical pluralism is a fact. Cherished pluralism values that fact. Philosophical pluralism demands it. It refuses to allow any single religion or worldview to claim that it alone is true. It insists that all religions and worldviews be seen as equally valid. According to Carson, Philosophical Pluralism holds that “any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically

superior to another is necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of Pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the others false.”

Let us illustrate Cherished Pluralism in society. It takes pride in diversity and calls for acceptance of all parties regardless of their cultural or religious mores. Sanders says that, as manifested in society, Cherished Pluralism means that every single individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle and each one’s “truth” claims are as good as another’s. Such a tolerance denies that truth or error, right or wrong, exists. In order to understand this mode of thinking, let’s look at a model. Suppose family “A” (see the chart below) considers homosexuality to be morally wrong and repulsive because of their Bible convictions and moral

standards. Family “B” moves in next door. Family “B” is of the same sex and has an adopted child. They let it be known by their overt behavior that they are practicing homosexuals. Cherished Pluralism would permit family “A” to treat and interact with neighbors “B” even with their divergent views and morals. At the same time they take pride that they can co-exist and be warm and close neighbors. They interact socially even though their moral views could not be more divergent. This is why it is called Cherished Pluralism. Not only do they observe empirically that they are different, but they cherish the opportunity to interact with each other with impunity. Both cherish the societal privilege to be able to accept one another socially without linkage to the other’s morès.

Philosophical Pluralism takes Cherished Pluralism a step further. Carson maintains that those who identify someone else with being evil are guilty of the worst of all evils, even worse than immorality. The issues under consideration are only relevant to make the point. When one crosses the line of Cherished Pluralism and condemns or criticizes another’s “truth,” the perpetrator is seen as being evil no matter how repugnant, perverted, immoral or uncivilized their cherished (to them) lifestyle may be.

Let us illustrate this with our model. Suppose that across the street from family A is family C moves in that agrees with family A, that is, homosexuality is wrong because it is condemned in

the Bible by God. However, family C takes their convictions a step further than their neighbor family A. They actively let it be known to family B by the scriptures in a loving manner that active homosexuals are not and will not be approved by God.

When family B lets it be known that they have no intention of changing, family C goes public with their stance and tells everyone in their community that homosexuality is wrong, and it is their conviction that the community is threatened by the model and lifestyle of family B. They then overtly and publicly let it be known their disapproval of family B’s chosen lifestyle, especially when they advertise it and let it be known that they are not comfortable with them as neighbors. Cherished Pluralism is not a satisfactory practice or belief for “C” in view of the scriptures.

Thus, they let it be known that they cannot and will not let it lie.

Family A practices Philosophical Pluralism when, though agreeing as strongly with family C and for the same Biblical reasons that B is wrong in its embracing of homosexuality, A instead attacks C with a vengeance. Family A sees the intolerance of C as a far worse and more evil than the homosexuality of B. Family A publicly becomes militant and vocal in branding C as a detriment to the community because of C’s intolerance of B. Subsequently A becomes, in its denunciation of C, extremely hostile and critical of C while maintaining a good-neighbor relationship with B. Thus A is demonstrating that he adheres to Philosophical Pluralism. This goes along with Carson when he says “that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong.”

From the perspective of our society, including most of those in the church, those who preach the uniqueness of the church and consider the teaching of the New Testament as absolute are in C. Sanders points out that the Christian who believes the gospel is the truth is dogmatic and arrogant to the postmodern mind. Every pulpit preacher and member who seeks to implement strategies beyond the pulpit is inevitably condemned by Philosophical Pluralism. As a consequence of this thinking those preaching the gospel by condemning false doctrine are also condemned. The reality is that those who falsely claim to teach the truth and lash

out at those who condemn perversity are Cherished Pluralists. They become Philosophical Pluralists when they condemn those who cross the line of Cherished Pluralism. Both Cherished Pluralism and Philosophical Pluralism are incompatible with the Restoration Motif. Either philosophy renders personal evangelism undesirable and impossible.

As God’s people, we live in the culture of Cherished Pluralism. We see that illustrated in the church when we attempt to lovingly approach someone in denominationalism about something that the scriptures are very plain about and will cause them to lose their soul. No matter how it is presented in their view, we have crossed the line. The Restoration Motif and Pluralism mix about as well as oil and water. Those who have abandoned the Restoration Motif no longer have a penchant for doing personal evangelism because they believe in Cherished Pluralism. From their societal view, the attempt at using the Restoration Motif and 2 Tim. 4:1-2 is worse than the sin of their brother, even though they would admit and agree that what the brother was doing is wrong and damning. It is no wonder that our brethren resist so strongly the idea of breaking their comfort zone (which we will define and discuss later)

to approach others about their “lost-ness.” If church members are unwilling to do it with their own parents, children, and brethren, certainly they are not all of a sudden going to begin doing it with their close friends

and neighbors with whom they have credibility. The Bible plainly teaches that Cherished Pluralism cannot be tolerated and be acceptable to God (Rom. 1:16, 2 John 9-10, 2 Tim. 4:1-2, Gal.1:6-8).

Those of the “institutional” persuasion had sought to cope with Pluralism in order to make coexistence plausible. The dilemma they faced yielded two choices. They could publicly reject the Restoration Motif, but they knew their constituents

would not accept it. Instead they chose to do something much more subtle. They implemented a new hermeneutic, one different than the one utilized in the Restoration Motif. The Restoration Motif required Bible authority to be established by direct commands, approved examples, and necessary inference. The institutional brethren faced the dilemma of how to withdraw from the Restoration Motif and introduce the institutional components.

They chose to accomplish this by changing the hermeneutic of the Bible. This was not done by ecclesiastical council but by popular adoption and practice. Those who believe in the Restoration Motif asserted boldly that the Bible hermeneutic could not be compromised. The institutional movement, however, by popular consensus chose to alter the Bible hermeneutic. It is “another” but not “another” (cf. Gal. 1:6-7). The consensus decision was to honor only direct commands and to consider examples and necessary inference as not binding. In our chart this philosophy is referred to as the “new liberal” or “second” hermeneutic.

 

Positive Preaching

The second component in the interdependent evolution needed to understand the current digressive movement in noninstitutional churches is non-polemic and non-controversial preaching and teaching. The advent of

Cherished Pluralism against polemic preaching caused brethren to become less productive and less tolerant in the early fifties. The feeling arose in the brotherhood that a need for a new hermeneutic existed. A renowned scholar in restoration history once made the observation that religious divisions occur not because of innovative issues but because two kinds of people evolve in the congregation. He said issues are just excuses and vehicles

that are ridden to finalize what already exists – division in the church.

It is helpful to understand what happened in the evolution of institutional thinking to fully comprehend the dilemma facing the church today. Please indulge me to review the impetus that gave rise to that movement. When those who now are known as “institutional” assessed that converts produced by a polemic approach were no longer of primary interest, the “book, chapter, verse approach” began to be viewed as legalistic and a turnoff to those they were attempting to lead to the Lord and thus considered counterproductive in their view. That would certainly be the case with those who were influenced by Cherished and Philosophical Pluralism. Thus this change in perspective gave impetus to adoption of a myriad of changes that altered the techniques used in leading souls to Christ beyond the pulpit.

One big change of perspective was the change in the desired product – the mem
ber. One might view

trated in the “Level of Members Sought” chart. Jesus talked about fishing for men, so a fishing analogy is apropos.

The target of one’s fishing determines the mode of fishing.

One would use chicken liver and no float on the bottom of muddy water to catch a catfish. A lure or a shiner thrown among the lily pads of a pristine lake would be favorable to catching a bass. Obviously it would be absurd to tell your friends you were going bass fishing with chicken liver and a heavy weight in a muddy lake. That is exactly the dilemma of our non-institutional brethren today who became convinced that they could get bass by bottom fishing. That is, they announced that they were interested in

obtaining those identified with levels one and two but used levels three, four and five to lure them.

Not only does the Bible teach the hermeneutic of the Restoration Motif but the pursuit of a martyr faith obtained only by following levels one and two. Effective and meaningful personal evangelism can only be done, or be of interest, in this environment. I heard Homer Hailey comment in his class on the Book of Revelation that victory was awarded to those saints who cried out from under the altar because they were faithful not just until death but unto (not simply until) death. He opined that his study had led him to conclude that these are the only ones acceptable to the Lord: those willing to be martyred rather than compromise their convictions. No one can meet that standard without a strong conviction about what John said: “Whosoever goes onward and abides not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abides in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes unto you, and brings not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that gives him greeting partakes in his evil works” (2 John 9-11). The point is: a martyr faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is imbedded not only in embracing the truth (John 8:32), and rejecting false doctrine but also the actual social, physical and spiritual rejection of the person teaching it. No one on earth who embraces pluralism (cherished or philosophical) can tolerate anyone with this conviction.

There are other illustrations of the consequences of yielding to the allurement of seeking converts by an initial approach utilizing methods directed toward levels three, four and five. As I pointed out in my publication The Crossroads Heresy, the International Church of Christ was catapulted out of small institutional church in Gainesville, Florida. (We will elaborate on this method later.) We will note here that the Crossroads philosophy focused on levels three, four and five.

The Crossroads philosophy fit well in the institutional mode for it appealed to the levels three, four and five for its flock.

Members were drawn in by love and spiritual fellowship on a level the prospects had never experienced. I am not implying that

such is wrong to use methods two three and four to attract and interest non-Christians. It becomes wrong when used alone without convicting them of the gospel as per method levels one and two. Conversion is a sharp pointed decision. The “warming of the frog approach” deliberately avoids the “pricked in the heart,” “see here is water” and “what must I do?” inquiries resulting from preaching levels one and two. Crossroads skipped even level three and appealed to levels four and five almost exclusively with peer pressure rather than teaching to encourage baptism. Baptism in the Crossroads movement came about in order to achieve the status of belonging. The prospect wanted to belong and he accomplished that by being baptized. To the liberals, Crossroads was like the pot at the end of the rainbow. The growth of the liberal churches agreeing to be restructured was astounding. Restructuring required the local preacher to leave, the elders to step down and accept a Crossroads trained preacher and trained Crossroads personnel as their leaders. Congregations with conservative non-institutional brethren at the time considered the approach too radical. Many credited The Crossroads Heresy with helping them understand what the doctrine was all about.

It has now been fifty years since the introduction of a new hermeneutic and the social gospel, which are the methods of levels three, four, and five by unscriptural means. The line was drawn in the sand. The developments had given birth to two persuasions that had no fellowship with each other. They had separate directories prepared by those of their own perspective in order that various individuals while traveling would not mistakenly attend the other.

The recounting of history is absolutely essential to having any hope of understanding an inevitable change in the approach and strategies used in leading souls to Christ. The strategies used in this work are not only viewed as undesirable but counterproductive and detrimental. At first thought, I wish all to understand the work we are undertaking is very relevant to all noninstitutional brethren today. It is very clear that once again there are two kinds of people in the Lord’s church. We are still in an

undesirable union after fifty years, but we are not in unity. We are divided. When you divide there are two trains of thought. A denominational person would put it this way: The “clergy” in both trains of thought know where and how the lines are drawn, but the lay people [Charles Holt called them the “poor dumb sheep”] for the most part are ignorant of any change. All knowledgeable brethren are aware of this and those who do not are either ignorant, in denial or uninformed. When the leadership (meaning the preacher and the elders) are committed to seeking members by levels three, four and five, the whole congregation appears to be of that persuasion, and they tend to draw members in considerable numbers from those congregations whose leadership does consider that approach to be scriptural. Congregations adopting the non-controversial gospel frequently blossom into churches with a large membership and a huge outlay of property. Such “success” absolutely confirms to the innovators that what they have done is accepted by God. The International Church of Christ (the Crossroads movement) reported in their journal that they considered the huge worldwide proliferation of members as a latter-day revelation of God and divine approval of their

“commitment” baptism and church reconstructions.

Why should we be surprised that those teaching the “positive” gospel would likewise feel ecstatic when witnessing and being a part of such an overwhelmingly popular and satisfying approach to the work of the Lord? By contrast, those who oppose the approach and cling to the Restoration Motif by contending that controversial teaching is vital to the spread of the gospel

tend to dwindle. More than one of these “positive” preachers has been quoted, commenting on those preachers and congregations that do not follow their lead: “If you brethren keep preaching like you are preaching, you won’t have to worry about how you are going to build new church buildings; you will be meeting in a phone booth.” Sadly to say, many remain in these huge “positive” churches who lament it’s abandoning the public declaration of the Restoration Motif by the congregation. They view this exploding, highly accepted philosophy with deep sorrow and sadness comparable to the way the restoration Jews felt who saw the inferior rebuilt temple when recalling Solomon’s. They feel

trapped. Seeing the universal acceptance of the “positive gospel” and the lack of knowledge of any “city of refuge” they settle in to tolerant lamentation.

Actually there is no safe haven for those fleeing the forces of Cherished Pluralism, the non-controversial gospel, and unity in diversity. The reason is that those congregations in which it appears that the congregation has not accepted this apostate stance have the wolf, not only at the door, but within. Someone says, a congregation whose leadership and preacher oppose the “baby food” gospel is where one will be immune from this contagious cancer. Quite to the contrary; the leaders in these congregations will readily admit that they contend constantly with a sizeable element of the congregation who embrace the “positive” philosophy, but they lack the courage to divide or “jump ship” but make it known that they oppose what they call “negative preaching.” They cry out for a more positive approach.”

Gradually then, about twenty years ago, with the advent of a new graying generation, a sizeable number of brethren began to lose their adherence to a martyr faith. The approach began to be looked on as negative, counterproductive and undesirable, at least in the pulpit and personal evangelism. Thus again, an appeal was adopted with almost no warning to address levels three, four and five from the pulpit and subsequently in personal evangelism. This was in sharp contrast to the first hermeneutic approach that had been adhered to in their own conversion, and of their parents in confronting the institutional brethren.

Enough time has passed that few have any benchmark to trace the enormous change that has taken place. To  those of  us who observed this transition the reason was obvious; the appeal of the Restoration Motif gradually became an objective of secondary emphasis or interest. Needless to say, this had a tremendous impact on preaching and the content of the material to be used in conjunction with strategies to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. For instance Mullins⁹⁵ suggested that pulpit preaching “needs to deal wisely with emotionally charged topics.” He cites 1 Cor. 14:22-25 and James 2:1-4 as emphasizing the need to be aware that we can have an adverse affect on

visitors. He laments that meetings often stray significantly from the goal of the meeting even when they begin well. When this occurs, in his judgment, counterproductive and unfruitful results have taken the meeting plans far off target. Sanders¹⁰⁵ notes that the liability of “book, chapter and verse” preaching one can expect to see dissatisfied people leave angry.

Unfortunately, brethren with roots in the truth bought into the idea that any preaching of the polemic nature would make a visitor uncomfortable even if it was presented with love. Sermons about Bible authority, with accompanying examples of false doctrines and lessons of the uniqueness of the church in contrast with false religions are not considered appropriate. This digressive philosophy was the driving motivational force of the institutional brethren and, of late, our non-institutional “positive” brethren. Though the new hermeneutic of the institutional brethren was not adopted by those appealing to levels three, four and five of our number, they ironically became ensnared seeking the same objective. They sought to obtain the wrong thing in the right way; that is, to act within the domain of the local church.

The “sin of Balaam” is noted several times in the scriptures with grave consequences to those who committed it. The sin of Balaam is simple. It was the sin of trying to do the wrong thing right. Balaam coveted a reward but went through several episodes in which he refused to go against God. Finally he gave up on finding a right way to obtain an evil reward. He finally accomplished his objective without actually doing something that he had been told not to. He advised Balak (Num. 22) to allow his women to marry the Moabites to accomplish Israel being cursed. Our non-controversial brethren wanted to see the church grow but they were not willing to use church funds unscripturally; so they decided to make the appeal for members at levels three, four, and five but not violate the Lord’s will. To do that wrong thing right was their ambition to obtain large numbers of members released from the yoke of Bible authority. The sin of Balaam was downgrading and for the most part changing the emphasis of God’s authoritative word as the impetus of conversion. The “positive, non-controversial” brethren do not use nor view it productive to use Bible authority as the initial primary tool in

attracting people to the Gospel. Personal evangelism has no venue or functional domain without the conviction that Bible authority is the primary tool. Bible authority is the track on which personal evangelism runs. Strategies of personal evangelism apart from Bible authority are as useful as a locomotive in a desert with no track.

The point of that movement is that we should back off emphasizing the Bible hermeneutic and the Restoration Motif. Paul stated, “For our exhortation did not come from error or uncleanness, nor was it in deceit” (1 Thess. 2:3). A highly esteemed leader in the positive gospel movement feigns humility and suggests we need to back off the Restoration Motif, dealing with

“out of season” issues and using “book, chapter, and verse” too much because it allegedly gives an impression of arrogance. To this writer it is a deliberate action utilizing the leverage of his brotherhood esteem to use deceit and guile to advocate apostasy in the church. By contrast the apostle Paul said, “To whom we did not yield submission even for an hour that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). He was not overly concerned about appearing to be arrogant because of preaching the truth (John 8:32).

Observe what this highly esteemed and influential writer facetiously wrote. It will be a good test to see if you are able to discern the change. I have included the article but I have left it’s author and source anonymous. In education we would call this article a “white paper” which announces an innovating instructional strategy or technique. A political cartoonist in my hometown newspaper would always embed his wife’s name into the lines of the cartoon, often nine or ten times. I used to try to find all of them. They were indisputable when located, but very much obscured at the first. You will need to be discerning as you read the following article. His message is obscured in much the same way as the cartoonist’s wife’s name. The article is entitled “I Worry About Us Sometimes.”

“I once thought I knew everything. I would try to answer questions about the flight patterns of leftwinged angels, where did the devil come from and lots

of things even more profound than that. There weren’t any issues I didn’t know about, no problems so tangled that my way would not solve them. Then one day I decided it was time for some introspection. Then I sat down and had a long talk with myself. Sad to say that was not that long ago. I was amazed what I found. Not only did I figure out that that I didn’t know everything, I figured out that I didn’t know much of anything. Besides that I found out that my motives were not always as pure as I had led myself to believe they were, that I was sometimes selfish and arrogant, perish the thought, just plain dumb. Maybe I’m the first one to do that. Or maybe I’m just the first one foolish enough to admit it. Let me explain why. There’s a kind of arrogance that comes with the Restoration Motif, a kind of air of superiority that accompanies the knowledge that you can turn to the Bible and show what you are doing has the imprimatur of God. We need to be careful that we don’t become a know-it-all, merely equipped with the scripture for every need, the passage for every problem. Being able to use passages properly is as important as having the right passage. Didn’t Paul say, a “workman that needs not to be ashamed, handling

aright the word of truth”? It’s not enough to know what’s right: You have to handle what’s right wisely.

I worry about us sometimes. I worry that we have been so preoccupied with making predictions about what is going to happen that we become distracted about what is taking place right now. I think it is fine to warn about apostasy and is foolish not to try and prepare for it as best we can but let’s face it we really don’t know when and how it will come and why and what it will be. We may think we do, but we don’t. And our preoccupation with what we think it will be can get us blind-sided if we are not careful. We best pay attention to today and let the Christians of tomorrow take care of their business in its own time (Matt.

6:34).

I worry about us sometimes. We are an issueoriented people. (He seems to ignore the irony of his dealing with his issue in this article, cgg) Now, that’s not all bad, because issues are certainly important. But we can become so issue oriented that fighting for them becomes an end in itself. Christianity is not a phrenic (sic) exercise. It’s just not being right, it’s doing right. Give the devil his due; he indeed is clever. He can cause us to so concentrate with lining one another up and making sure that everyone is saying things the same way that we don’t ever get around to applying the principles on which we are all lined up. I sure don’t want to minimize the importance of sound doctrine; without it we are lost. But just being right on doctrine is not enough. We have to apply the doctrine to our everyday lives; we have to have the right attitude about how we can use it; we have to learn to tolerate the immature to wait on those who have not come to understand it yet. Issues are important, but they are not the end of the matters. Many of our real issues are practical.

I worry about us sometimes. We have done a good job of restoring the New Testament church. We have called for a return to the ancient way of conversion, to the ancient way of worship and to the ancient methods of organization. I’m proud of us for that. But we’ve done a really poor job of restoring the New Testament attitudes in our treatment of one another. Sometimes we treat “outsiders” better than some of our own. We cut, slander, and defame, all in the name of restoration.” (Wow, what he has learned since he knew all

about left winged angels… his initial humility he now shows was a façade. He really wanted to let others know his expertise. Not only does he now know where the devil came from but what brethren represent him. Does this article cut, slander and defame those who preach the Restoration Motif, identify sinful issues and call for “book chapter and verse”? cgg) Continuing,

the author says, “…We actively seek ways to lessen one another’s influence among brethren. And what worries me we do it with a certain impunity, even with a bizarre sense of satisfaction, it seems. Listen, folks, I don’t care how right you are. If your attitude is not one of love and respect, if is not one of compassion and mercy, if it is not one of sensitivity and genuine concern, you’ve not restored New Testament Christianity, no matter how right, you are on the issues. I’m not trying to cause any trouble. I just want us to see that a hundred years from now nobody is going to remember who we are. Oh, you may have your name on some street, on the musty hall of some building, even be in somebody’s history of what is happening at this time, but it won’t mean much to anybody. We best take a look at ourselves and get our attitudes right or we may be surprised at the judgment.”

One critic commented on the article by saying, “The author outlines four major worries on his mind: ‘arrogance that comes with the Restoration Motif,’ ‘too many warnings about apostasy,’ becoming ‘issue oriented’ and over-emphasis on ‘restoring the New Testament Church’.” Our critic continues, “He fears we have lost sight of more practical concerns such as ‘right attitude.’ Teaching the right attitude is essential, but it has become a mantra of some to complain that emphasis on restoration, apostasy, issues and the church overshadows preaching Christ, right attitudes and practical concerns.” I would point out that it does not take an astute individual to conclude that our author was much more interested in levels three, four and five and positive and non-polemic preaching than levels one and two.

Connie Adams noted the negative effects of positive preaching and the positive effects of negative preaching. In particular he dealt with the negative effects of all negative preaching. Perhaps we should give Brother Adams the benefit of the doubt and hope that he was really addressing this extreme. Admittedly there are some preachers whose preaching is entirely negative. One preacher went so far as to say that a lesson was not a gospel sermon unless it dealt with at least one doctrine.

One must be wise and discrete in preaching and be careful

“not to throw the baby out with the bath water.” What is discrete and wise sometimes lies between two extremes. Each extreme exists as a reaction to the other, neither of which is correct.

Some preachers attempt to establish their preaching as sound by making almost every sermon negative and controversial. The opposite extreme of that is preaching a gospel that is solely positive and non-controversial. Neither is correct. The whole gospel is a balance between exposing error, condemning sin and encouraging one another through love – in this writer’s judgment, more of the latter than the former.

The third interdependent dimension, along with Cherished Pluralism and “positive non-polemic preaching” is that of “unity in diversity.” Many brethren have defended accepting a false teacher if he arrived at his position by “honest study.” One observed that doctrines of “a serious doctrinal and moral nature” would fit into the domain of Romans 14. He did so in spite of the passage limiting the doctrines to the things that were “good,” “clean,” and “pure. This showcases the doctrine of “unity in diversity” encourages fellowshipping a brother regardless of the seriousness of the violation of scripture. Obviously there were extremes that could not be tolerated by those who advocated this position. Each preacher had his own rules, rules based on his own judgment that could not be substantiated by the scriptures. Thus each decided his own range of tolerance and did what was right in his own eyes.

In order to practice unity in diversity, one must abandon labeling someone who is teaching unscriptural error as a false

teacher. One influential preacher said, “I accept the man, not his plan.” When brethren began to cross the line of unity in diversity and Cherished Pluralism, they were attacked viciously. Inflammatory names were used in the same manner and intent that the institutional brethren used the term “anti.” They attacked those who challenged their position of fellowshipping false teachers viciously. One writer wrote an article titled “Watch Them Dogs.”^32b He called those who differed “jingoists,” “watch dogs,” and neo-Calvinists” to name a few. This action exposed

the hypocrisy of the claim of open fellowship (unity in diversity) when they refused to accept those who challenged their open fellowship position.

The unity in diversity position is itself a position. Edgar Srygley used to say that those who claim no position on something have a position. He said it is the non-position position.

Those who practice open fellowship of all positions without false teachers have the unity in diversity position position…a position with no false teachers. One who will not tolerate that nonposition position cannot be tolerated – thus, a paradox. It is sort of like the situation I heard about one time when it was said, “A barber shaved everyone in the village who did not shave himself. Question: Who shaved the barber?” According to Carson, Philosophical Pluralism is when one asserts that any notion of a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong. That is the gospel cannot be tolerated within the “positive non-controversial” preaching, Cherished Pluralism, and unity in diversity position.

The reader should be able to see that Cherished Pluralism, positive and non-polemic preaching and unity in diversity are interdependent and stand or fall together. One cannot exist without the other two. Needless to say, those espousing this new philosophy of liberalism are not drawn to strategies that will lead people to Christ utilizing the Restoration Motif and appeal to levels one and two. Philosophical Pluralism, positive and noncontroversial preaching and teaching and unity in diversity have crowded out all public or private utilization of “book, chapter and verse” to accomplish conversion. Thus, as it turns out, only a tiny remnant is left again. This tiny remnant still is burning with a passion to convict the sinner as on the Day of Pentecost; which makes the use of personal work a subject of great interest to them. We will now turn to these, those who have an interest in leading souls to Christ with the appeal to the authority of God (the Restoration Motif) and analyze the efforts of many, including myself, to lead souls to Christ by personal evangelism.

As alluded to in the preface, the term “personal work” is trite and simplistic to the point that it has no real meaning. As we not

ed earlier, a young preacher typically will tell a congregation when he begins to work for them that he will not only preach from the pulpit, but he will do a lot of “personal work.” Any oneto-one interaction that anyone might have in the congregation is “personal work,” but it may not a strategy that is used for the express purpose of leading souls to Christ. He may mean by saying that he is going to do a “lot of personal work” he intends to see all the shut-ins and those in the hospital. That is expected of every gospel preacher but does not involve a strategy to bring souls to Christ. What he has said for a lack of a better illustration would be like an inmate and his cellmate talking before the inmate’s release. The cellmate asks him what he is going to do when he gets out and he says, “I’m going to do a lot of felonies.” He hasn’t said anything. A felony can be writing bad checks, stealing cars, rape, murder, embezzlement, etc.

A preacher who says he is going to do a lot of “personal work” may mean that he intends only to visit the sick and see the shut-ins. That is commendable to do, but that is hardly a thoughtout effort with the intention of bringing souls to Christ. He may mean to hand out pencils with the name and address of the congregation he works with at the county fair or the bus station. Or he may mean to launch a multifaceted program involving many strategies and brethren to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. Strategies available and used by brethren now and through the years are not only numerous but multifaceted. The word evangelizo in Greek can be translated as “gospel preached,”

“glad tidings” or “proclaiming the good news.” It is found 135 times¹¹⁴ in various forms in the New Testament. Kenneth Wuest¹³⁴ comments on 2 Timothy 4:5 where Paul is instructing Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. He made the observation that evangelist is not preceded by a definite article. The idea is, he says, “Let your work be evangelistic in character.¹¹⁴

Solomon said, “And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven” (Eccl. 1:13). In a similar vein this effort recounts what I have observed, studied, and been involved in for 50 years as I applied my heart to seek and search out all the appropriate strategies that could be

used to bring people to Christ beyond the pulpit. Obviously that was an idealistic objective on my part but not viewed that way by me.

It was just as important to find out what would not work from my viewpoint as to find out what did work. I understood from the beginning that the Law of Large Numbers, though valid, was unneeded. Valid conclusions can be drawn that are just as valid if the sample chosen, even though small, is random. The medical doctor chooses a small random sample of tissue for a biopsy. The needles are so tiny that they pose no threat of invasion to the tissue to spread a cancer. Though the sample is only a millionth of one percent of the total organ, the conclusion is decisive.

Similarly, the media are able to announce the results of most of elections when the polls close. The conclusion of a small random sample is sufficient for them to call the election for a particular candidate with absolute certainty. Our conclusions were made in the same way. One factor was different in our work of looking at strategies. While the outcome would not be affected, my involvement with the experimentation and data was quite different. The secular research was conducted outside the bubble with predicted outcomes. The objective might be to prove something would not work. In my work I was inside the bubble, always anticipating a favorable outcome. It would have been irresponsible to plan an expensive evangelistic effort involving time and man hours on the part of many with a view toward proving the futility of the effort. Some were futile. However I would have never begun had I suspected that that would be the case. In this vein we hope you will be patient as we unfold our journey. Admittedly the work is heavy with my experiences. Also, some are uncomfortable about the detailing of my scholarship credentials, but I have made a concerted effort to detail only what I felt was necessary for the reader to understand the background that would permit me to make the conclusions I make with credibility.

The Lord’s conversation with the woman at the well serves as a model for someone who seeks a one-to-one, non-pulpit approach that can effectively challenge the very sinful to turn to the

Lord (John 4:1-4). It seems so simple when the Lord does it; however, we quickly become disappointed with our own efforts. We do that in spite of Paul’s plain detailing of the source of conversions: “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). God said through the preacher that in the writing of books there is no end (Eccl. 12:12). The same could be said for the attempts to break through that seemingly impenetrable barrier in today’s world to obtain frequent conversions to the Lord—that which was experienced in earlier generations from the pulpit. With that avenue seemingly almost closed, brethren have looked elsewhere so that many precious souls can repent and turn to the Lord.

 

Personal Evangelism Is the Bible Way

Christ emphasized the individual. He sought common men, not those who were rich and had the power of this world. Even so today, Jesus seeks those of common stature to carry out His work.

Thus it is imperative that we find our place in order to accomplish his will. It is difficult at times knowing just where we should start. We may lament the fact that God did not endow us with more ability. We frequently have limited talent and subsequently few opportunities. Thus, we do nothing because we see little that gives us recognition and makes us feel really worthwhile. It seems as if we decided that we would seek to obtain credit before God for doing nothing at all. The Lord needs workers—all kinds of workers (Eph. 4:16). He needs those to invite people to services if that is all one can do. He needs those who can take the Gospel to foreign lands with strategies beyond the pulpit. If you would be a soul winner, the only requirement, is to live a life that is consistent with the Lord. That kind of life declares to all of those who are embedded in sin, “We have found the Christ.” Think about the Apostles. Which of them was of the most value to the Lord in carrying out His work? We will never know this side of the grave. Similarly we have no way to measure the most efficient and valuable servant of the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. The reason is that He does not use our gauge. Remember the widow with two mites? The Lord

declared that she had put in more than those who had given a large amount. The point is the Lord’s evaluations may not be subject to quantitative measuring.

Given that Jesus would want us to be interested in evangelism; we might look at those He selected to be a part of His work. It becomes apparent rather quickly that God’s work does not require us to have extraordinary ability. Consider the disciples that Jesus chose and their backgrounds. When Andrew found Christ, he told his brother, Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah (John 1:40-41). “Philip found his brother Nathanael, and said unto him, ‘We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth’” (John 1:45). We do not know that Andrew was abundantly endowed with ability, but he brought Peter to Jesus. God loves us, not by mass, but one by one. Jesus sought men who could help him in their own individual way. Such a man was Andrew, a man like you and me. Little is said of Andrew except that before his conversion to Christ, he was a disciple of John (John 1:35). He was a fisherman by trade (Matthew 4:18). He was one of the first to answer the call of the Master (John 1:40). So, two out of three times, he is introduced as “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.” John, in his Gospel, seems to fear no one will know who Andrew was.

Christ does not save us in groups, lots or numbers, but one by one. The Bible is one book read by one person at a time. The key word in the Bible is one, and the emphasis is on the individual. There is one body one spirit one hope one Lord one faith one baptism one God who is above all (Eph. 4:4). There is one purpose – to save (1 Tim 2:4). There is one motive – love (John 3:16). The one book describes one Gospel (Gal. 1:8). This Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). There is one messenger – the Christian: “we have this treasure it earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7).

There is one field in which to work: “Do you not say, ‘there are yet still four months and then comes the harvest? Behold I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for

harvest” (John 4:34-35). Each command that Christ has given must be applied to the individual. The church prays only to the degree that the individual prays. The church is not commanded to sing; the individual is. Individuals lay by in store as God prospers them. The church is edified only when individuals receive and apply the truths that are taught. The great commission can be accomplished only by the individual.

Some of the greatest lessons Christ taught were just to individuals. Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews who came to Jesus by night, is a good example. The great lesson of the new birth was preached, not to some vast audience, but just to one. The individual was enough to prompt the very best from the Master. Jesus often used the home to reach individuals. He taught the disciples to do the same. “And whatever house you enter, first say: ‘Peace to this house’” (Luke 10:5). The disciple was to seek out a receptive family and home. He made the individual and those in their homes the center of his work. Jesus working with individuals, often in their homes, emphasized this need to use strategies beyond the pulpit to reach the lost. These committed souls reached out to radiate God’s message to all men. Interestingly enough, they did it without a pulpit preacher. They did it with the encouragement of a carpenter’s son who took no power or glory to Himself, but taught as a lonely Galilean. Yes, He preached to thousands at times, but we don’t want to forget that He also taught individuals in their homes.

The classic model for strategies to use in saving souls beyond the pulpit is Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well (John 4:6-12). He was sitting by the well to rest and asked her for a drink. He broke protocol by addressing a woman and in particular a Samaritan. He established instant credibility by telling her about her husbands. He got out of the comfort zone of a typical Jew. He then played on the “drink” concept to allude to an eternal drink. That is, he used the conversation topic to address the subject he had in mind – her salvation. His reference to another kind of water led her to ask about it and make several inquiries. From there Jesus took it to another level: the divine level. It is at this point it is important that we as individuals be

able to take it to the next level. We must do it with the scriptures. We cannot use miraculous power as Jesus did. The model is plain and simple enough for us to emulate. It is the technique of using wisdom to feed off a regular conversation to develop an opportunity to teach the Gospel is there. The disciples no doubt were confused by the path our Lord had taken in this effort. They would have expected Him to find his niche among the Jewish nobles in anticipation of ascending to the throne of David with the overthrow of the Romans. Instead He from their viewpoint is in a cursed land (Samaria) interacting with contemptible people, a woman and an immoral one at that. Why did he do this? In the most extreme setting possible Jesus for the first time gave them insight as to why He came into the world – to seek and save all the lost. To do that, he had to do it with common people.

God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden. He said to Moses, “Build Me a tabernacle.” He wanted to dwell among people. God said to Solomon, “Build Me a temple.” He wanted to dwell among people. He was born of a virgin, came into the world, and went to heaven in His personal body. However, He left His spiritual body (1 Tim. 1:15, Luke 19:10). Jesus doesn’t want something from you. He wants you! He wants you to love people as you represent His spiritual body. You can’t really do much in utilizing strategies to reach souls beyond the pulpit until you exercise your spirituality by caring. Then you will be fitted for the work. The Christian is admonished, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: And be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

The ministry of Christ drew a lot of public attention. He often spoke to large multitudes. He would often cast all the fanfare aside for just one individual. Unnoticed by the masses was a man by the name of Zacchaeus, small in stature, a chief publican, outcast by his own people, whose infamy grew with his riches.

Christ suddenly stopped beneath a tree, and the hush of the people emphasized His words, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for today I must stay at your house” (Luke 19:5). How long it took him to climb the sycamore is not known, but the scrip

tures say, “And he made haste and came down and received Him joyfully.” Later Jesus declared, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9). The privilege of soul winning belongs to individual Christians. We cannot ignore our knowledge from the Bible.

Jesus had a special relationship with John. He was that disciple whom Jesus loved as noted in the text but also in His bequeathing the care of his mother to him. No doubt John reflected on those memories on the Isle of Patmos at the close of his life. Jesus spent special time with the small group consisting of Peter, James, and John (Mark 14:33, Luke 8:51 and 9:28). It is interesting to note that John is in this group, and the other nine Apostles are not. This would indicate there were things that He wanted John to learn and witness beyond what he learned and experienced with the others.

It is also the case that Jesus enjoyed a relationship with Peter, James, and John that He did not have with the rest of the Apostles. That unique and special relationship is shown by His seeking them out to pray when their priority at the time was to sleep. He needed them near Him again when He discussed His impending death with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration. These three were to have vital role in the evangelistic campaign catapulted from his death, burial and resurrection on the day of Pentecost (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus is the model evangelist. Like the expanding concentric rings coming from the pebble thrown in the pond you see the evangelistic bonding expanding from John to the thousands He addressed on the seashore and on the mountain. It was almost as if He felt dealing with the masses distracted Him from the work His heart, the lesson He wanted to deliver to the individual.

We see that apparent incongruence when He dealt with a large group in commissioning the 70, they were instructed to go in pairs. What else could they do but use strategies outside the pulpit—that is, deal with individuals? In fact, they were instructed to enter homes (Luke 10:1-2). Of course an enormous amount of time was spent with all of the Apostles. For three years He basically lived and traveled with the Apostles along the way; his single interactions with them involved the use of strategies we

are discussing. The Apostles were being prepared to jointly launch the kingdom, as we mentioned, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Mark’s Gospel records 30 occasions in which Jesus was in a setting that gave him an opportunity for personal interaction.

McKnight raises an interesting question relative to individuals seeking the lost, “Should we ask the lost to come to the assembly, or should we ask Christians to go to the lost and teach

them?” He seems to be making the point that we have a commission to confront the lost on their own turf. McKnight goes on to observe: “Someone says ‘I give enough to hire someone to do my teaching’.” He points out that one can no more do that than hire someone to do his praying.

A Gospel preacher should function at all these levels: with individuals, with small groups, and with larger groups having the potential to teach and recruit others to teach the word by using strategies that save souls in ways other than the pulpit (2 Tim.

2:2). Elders who have accepted the oversight of the congregation and responsibility for its feeding (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2) might not carry out these tasks themselves, but they should be an example.

“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death, and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20). ‘Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Jesus said, “I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day: The night comes, when no man can work” (John 9:4). He left us an example that we should follow in His steps (I Peter 2:21).

The value of one’s soul must have been great, for see what God was willing to give for it, the gift of His son. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26). We seldom underestimate the value of our soul, but somehow, we forget its worth in other people. Truly, he that wins souls is wise: “And the things that you have heard from

among many witnesses, same commit to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Romans 16, we obtain some insight into the role of individual Christians in the early church and the importance of using strategies outside the pulpit. The detail and precious scripture space that Paul gives to these non-pulpit brethren echoes a resounding herald that the “least in the kingdom” are extremely important to the ongoing process of spreading the Gospel.

He begins with Phoebe. She had been valuable enough in the work of the Lord that Paul encouraged the brethren at Rome to “assist her in whatever business she has need.” It has been my good fortune to know many Phoebes. The remembrance of Priscilla and Aquila, Paul’s helpers in Christ, struck a tender chord in his heart. He had met them in Corinth on his second tour, and he had lived with them over a year and made tents together with them (Acts 18:19).

Whatever their strategies beyond the pulpit, they used their mobility to the advantage of spreading the Gospel. It took them from Rome to Corinth, and then to Ephesus, and finally back to Rome. Along the way they pulled aside what we would call an eloquent preacher named Apollos and expounded unto him “the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). They exercised their abilities as individuals to look for opportunities to spread the Gospel without being preachers. Incidentally, their efforts were rewarded because Apollos’ baptism was improper due to the fact it was John’s baptism. He was baptized into the body of Christ as the result of their teaching.

Paul admonishes the brethren to “Greet Mary, who labored much for you” (v. 6). Whatever her labor was, it was not preaching, for women were forbidden to “usurp authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12), and it was "shameful for a woman to speak in

church” (I Cor. 14:35). We saw earlier that Priscilla taught and corrected an uninformed preacher. So women are to evangelize as well as men but not with an authoritarian demeanor with respect to a man. The Lord told Mary of Bethany (John 12:3) that her deed would be such that “wherever the Gospel is preached in

the whole world, that also which the woman has done shall be spoken in memory of her” (Mark 14:9). This discussion bears heavily one of the primary qualities of one who wants to be successful in utilizing strategies beyond the pulpit: obtaining credibility. Everything depends heavily on this quality, as we will detail later. A congregation without some “Marys” is not in a good position to evangelize. Elsewhere in this document we make the point that “people do not care what you know until they know you care." Typically, a “Mary” will be on call at any hour day or night to respond to any responsible person without needing a lengthy explanation. She can use her own judgment as to whether she is needed.

A situation I can recall is the time a non-member son of one of the members attempted suicide. He shot himself in the head, missed his brain, and hit both of his eyes instead. There was blood all over the house, and his mother was in hysterics. I called a “Mary.” Though it was late at night, all I had to do was say “I need you,” and tell her where. Another “Mary” was called on another occasion to restrain a sister experiencing involuntary hysterics so she could be transported to the hospital. The list

could go on. They “most gladly spend” and are willing to be “expended” for others (2 Cor. 12:15).

There is no question that Paul is using Romans 16 to call attention to the individual Christians involved in his work. I don’t see them deciding whether they are going to help someone or preach the Gospel. I see them understanding that the extension of their love was an absolute necessity to entertaining any hope to teach the Gospel. “Nobody cares what you know until they know you care.” It is obvious that Paul was not unmindful of their effort and importance to the cause and was not making a token sweep of commendation. He mentions them one by one and remarks upon their role in the work of the Lord. None were commended for being Gospel preachers, and no hint is given that any of them has ever been in the pulpit.

Paul talks about “the nobodies” – “Greet Andronicus and Junias.” We know nothing about them except that Paul considered them as his kinsmen. It is likely a spiritual relationship, be

cause they resided in Rome. He sees them as “fellow prisoners” (2 Cor. 9:23). Most likely he was referring to their sharing the burden of contending for the faith as he had mentioned in connection with Aristarchus and Epaphras (Col. 4:10, Philemon 23). We might mention the import of those who prayed for the imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:13). Certainly Rhoda was not a preacher, but noteworthy indeed. The work of Andronicus and Junias had caught the attention of the Apostles. They were “of note,” meaning having a mark upon, marked; “stamped,” according to Wuest.

Barclay sees a twinkle in Paul’s eye as he mentioned Tryphaena and Tryphosa: The names mean “dainty.” “You two may be called delicate and dainty, but you belie your names by working like Trojans for the sake of the church and for Christ” (Barclay). Is this roll call one of trivia or redundancy? I think not. Paul could as well be going down the church directory in some local congregation. I see it as a summons to duty. “And those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable” (1 Cor. 12:23). We must be presentable as the lights and instruments of the Gospel. We must grasp the huge importance of the regular, common, and maybe uneducated member in spreading the Gospel.

Paul is not finished. He mentions Rufus. With that name we go back to the crucifixion of our Lord. It was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Rufus and Alexander, who was summoned to bear the cross of the Lord (Mark 15:21). Of course we have no way of knowing whether this is the same Rufus. But if so, “his mother

and mine” would be the wife of Simon of Cyrene. In any case Paul considers Rufus a Christian and an adopted brother. We have been drawing heavily on this 16th chapter of the book of Romans. He is described this way not to demean him or his background, but to put as much distance as possible between him and our pulpit preacher today. Certainly these workers used strategies that reached far beyond the pulpit in saving souls.

What could be the import of calling attention to such a diverse ensemble, an ensemble familiar to Paul in his evangelistic en

deavor? Was he simply boasting about having so many loving brethren in his acquaintance, or did he want to make a point to brethren like me that our work is really to be understood as the combined effort of our own ensemble? Each of us uses and works with different brethren, but all work with the unified goal to spread the Gospel. It is important then that we focus on utilizing the strengths of each member to maximize our total effectiveness in reaching the masses with the Gospel.

Thus Paul’s teaching about collective individualism in evangelism makes us realize that the church cannot really function until its members learn to work in concert. A single finger can do so many things: Touchtone a phone, scratch, punch a keyboard on a computer, and point something out. And then again, how much more the body can do! We must learn we are “many members, yet one body” (1 Cor. 12:20). Everyone is needed, and everyone is accountable. The early Christians were everyone (Rom. 14:12) at it every day (Acts 2:46), teaching every creature (Mark 16:15), and going everywhere to do it (Acts 8:4).

We see the continuity of evangelistic purpose and strategy continued with the Pentecostal inauguration of the Gospel that was begun in the ministry of our Lord. The great commission set in motion a chain of events designed to evangelize the world.

The Gospel was to be taken by the early disciples into the entire world – That they did (Col. 1:6). The book of Acts is a textbook on reaching the lost with over 60 evangelistic encounters recorded. The process they used is well detailed (2 Tim. 2:2). Before the curtain came down on the period of divine revelation, erosion of the chain had already appeared (Acts. 20:29, Rev. 2:4 and 3:15).

Those of us with hoary heads can testify that evangelistic efforts go through different stages and different phases. The task we face is enormous. We are called to duty within the “Old Paths” to share God’s scheme of redemption. Our role is to do the works that we have been created to do (Eph. 2:8-10). The great commission cannot be carried out without cost (Luke 14:28-29). If we build a congregation, we must count the cost, lest the world mock our efforts. We build, realizing the numbers

we face in the world are awesome. Tarbet observed, “An evangelistic Christian invites people to attend the services of the church, he offers to study the Bible with others, he is unafraid to study the Bible with others, he is unafraid to tell them what the Lord has done for them and how He has mercy on their soul.”

It is difficult to get anything on track or keep it on track without understanding the church’s purpose. A widget factory makes widgets. Every bit of the resources and energy of the personnel is used to produce more and better widgets and to do it more efficiently in order to obtain the maximum profit for the company. Anything that diverts or distracts from that purpose is counterproductive. The same is true for the church. We have to ask ourselves, “What is the purpose of the church?” One might ask why that knowledge would not inherently reside in a convicted believer. The answer is that conversion and subsequent church membership do not carry a punched ticket for that realization. In fact a large portion of Christians never get it.

Thus, we emphasize it to those who don’t that Jesus said, “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). He came and shed his blood on the cross to purchase the church which is his body (Eph. 1:18). We are baptized to get into the church (1 Cor. 12:13), and it is this church consisting of the baptized that Jesus has promised to save (Eph.4:23).

In this vein we can look at the Jerusalem church on Pentecost (the first one after the resurrection of Christ) as a model for outlining the purpose of the Lord’s church. In the first place their purpose was to exalt God by worshiping and glorifying Him (Acts 2:42, 47). Then they were to energize and activate every member through fellowship and encouragement (Acts 2:42, 44, 46). Then they were to build up the members by training and equipping them (Acts 2:42, 44, and 46). Finally we see that they were to be of service to relieve the needy (Acts 2:44-45). The primary purpose of the church is to seek the lost whether from the pulpit or out of the pulpit. That purpose is expedited by training and serving.

At this point in our study our inquiry takes us up the ladder from the basic Bible knowledge and understanding of the Lord’s and the early disciples’ utilization of evangelism by sincere and evangelistic brethren to the application in our era. Thus, we would do well, if we intend to have a credible study, to be aware of the work of others in the past as well as those currently advancing His cause in an evangelistic way. We want to profit from the accounts of their successes as well as their failures.

Most of all we want to be attentive to their instruction. Was I not involved in the many studies I will cite, I would be very uncomfortable in personally evaluating their efforts. Instead I will simply note their contribution and give their self-evaluation if there is any. Many have sought to emulate the early disciples.

Camacho relates how a Spanish work without “blitz-like” door knocking and campaigns, fancy newspaper ads or enticing “radio spots” the congregation grew from three families to around 40 on the Lord’s Day. It came by one person and one family at a time sharing the good news. Bynum, commenting on a congregation that was obviously motivated, said “To have 100 baptisms per year as we have had, the members must be individually involved

– evangelism is the responsibility of every servant of the Lord (2 Tim. 2:24).

Gatewood agreed with our conclusions when he emphasized the importance of personal attitude. That is, personal integrity and credibility are vital traits. Bales said his book was not intended to deal with strategies beyond the pulpit in saving souls but to deal instead with the character, heart, and zeal of the sower. Homer Hailey in a similar effort examines the need for selfexamination in view of the scriptures. One should be prepared to answer the prospect’s questions. Exum published a small book by which a worker can prepare himself to deal with almost any query in his encounters with non-Christians in his effort to bring souls to Christ. Another suggested that the potential workers break up in groups and role play in within each group. Take turns asking each other: (1) Just why are you a Christian? (2) Just how do I become a Christian? and (3) What is expected of me if I become a Christian? Pepper uses considerable space in dealing with questions that come up, particularly in closing the lesson.

Gatewood gives pointers in answering questions potentially asked by a prospect. Exum attempts to deal with this anticipated obstacle of questions as well. Stewart said “I keep five honest serving men. They taught me all I know. Their names are What, Why, How, Where, and Who.”

McKnight (Journeys) mused that maybe a prerequisite training program for evangelism is not necessary. In other words, if one knew enough to obey the Gospel, he knows enough to teach someone that much. On the other hand, there are those who think quite to the contrary. That is, advanced preparation and training are indispensable. Many times we may feel passed over when not presented opportunities to serve the Lord. It may be because of our lack of ability or lack of training. Others perform what seems to us the greatest of works while we sit by wishing idly for some commission of our own. Fret not; the great commission is for all.

Many of considerable experience in reaching the lost and training others are needed, says Pepper, and the lesson allowing them to proclaim their convictions should be chosen and well thought out. Then it must be rehearsed, practiced, and prepared beforehand. I wholeheartedly agree. Oh, not that the novice cannot accomplish anything. He can. But serious personal evangelism that is carried out under the Restoration Motif is not something to be carried out off the top of one’s head, no matter how knowledgeable one may be. Sherrod goes to great lengths to provide suggestions to those who seek to implement strategies. One suggested that the potential worker memorize many scriptures. Robertson gave a list of 10 things such as the love of God and understanding the “one talent man” to motivate and urge the novice to undertake strategies beyond the pulpit.

God said, “My people are destroyed for a lack of

knowledge” (Hos. 4:6). We have failed today to develop members who have that basic Bible knowledge to teach the lost.

Learning results best when following a well-planned curriculum. Children go through K-12, all carefully planned to provide them with the minimum basic skills they need to function in society. Inexperienced Gospel preachers generally get into their third or

fourth locations to preach, each being 2-3 years, before being adequately equipped to do the Lord’s work. Why would there not be a progression to teach and train Bible students able to move into adulthood at least minimally skilled in God’s Word? (Isa.

28:1).

In the typical Bible study program in a congregation, the topics are so haphazard and repetitive that members grow up with little concept of the Bible story and how the people and events fit in. It is no wonder that our adults who are the product of that teaching are unable to implement strategies beyond the pulpit.

One must know the Bible to teach the Bible.

As we work in the vineyard of the Lord it is a common practice to say and think, “Lord, send them.” Isaiah took it upon himself to accept his personal commission, “Lord, send me” (Isa.

6:8). Also Joshua said, “For me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). So we need not wait for someone else. That time may never come. We may be the only one to accept the mantle as Elisha did from Elijah and take hold of the plow and not look back. Jesus said, “No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62).

Church leaders admit that their biggest problem in instigating strategies to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit is to motivate the members enough to get involved. Willis noted an irrecoverable situation in the church that thwarts success in spite of motivation. He laments the hopelessness of attempting to motivate when faced with the reality of the graying of the church.

Some congregations are not only made up brethren that are very elderly, but elderly that are partaking of the unwholesome fruit of their lives. Many of them are in their second marriages. Their children were often not brought up in the Lord and thus not only have they lost their children but, in many cases, all of their grandchildren. In these cases motivation falls on deaf ears. Convert me? Convert me to what?

Webster defines the word “motivate” as “to provide with, or affect as a motive.” Comer (Building) surveyed over 100 con

gregations for saving, using a scale of 1-10. The highest was 5, and the average was 2. Many have had a lot to say and given direction as to how to overcome this obstacle. Hawley presents a well-organized and concise agenda with the view of dealing with this reluctance. He gives a lot of food for thought. It seems that brethren have the conviction that the need for acquiring and using a strategy has nothing to do with their going to heaven or being lost. Crozier suggested a “pill” to make Christians soul winners like those in the book of Acts. Obviously he is being facetious, but it indicates the total frustration of brethren who are leaders to motivate brethren to do what the Lord wants them to do. He points out that those on Pentecost were motivated. Devotion, he says, is not a passing fancy. It is not a weekend hobby.

Devotion is intense commitment. Christ did not say to “Go and advertise.” Billingsley says. “We build a building and put a sign

out front, and expect the sinner to walk through the door and say, ‘I am a sinner, please save me’!”

Brethren have a tendency to establish themselves as the standard of the truth, saying. “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” The actual accomplishment of the Restoration Motif requires emulation not only in

doctrine but in zeal and enthusiasm. We fall far short of the latter. The early Christians went to every creature (Mark 16:15), every house (Acts 5:42), they went everywhere (Acts 8:4), served every member, (2 Tim. 2:2, Eph. 4:16), and did so every day (Acts 5:42-47), and the widow gave every penny (Luke 21:2).

Many in their frustration to reach the lost have resorted to gimmicks—such things as potluck meals (not paid for by the church), but conveniently listed on the meeting advertisement (which is paid for by the church to attract prospects). Willis comments on the strategy of omitting “church of Christ” from the sign in front of the building and replacing it with the declaration like “Christians Meet Here,” or “Disciples Inside.” Some have noted that a lot of people are looking for spiritual ties in general but are turned off by organized religion. Those who have done such allege that the posted “church of Christ” sign makes people erroneously conclude that it is a “Church Of Christ

church” like the Lutheran church or Baptist church and not the church belonging to Christ that began in 33 A.D. My point would be that the sooner one learns the nature of the church the better. Concealing its identity even for a while would not be an aboveboard approach. Thus, I agree with Willis’ opposition to the tactic.

Miller opined that brethren want to excuse themselves by saying that men and women are not interested in their own souls. The truth is the Christian does not have a choice. He can be involved and do what the Lord wants him to do and go to heaven and miss hell, or he can refuse to do the will of God and fail to seek souls. That choice is a damning one. “There is no middle ground (Eph. 4:16). Reisinger¹⁰⁰ opines that our choice is to either evangelize or fossilize.” Gatewood says, “If we want to, we can.” Miller said, “The church, and members of it, needs to quit making excuses and share the glorious Gospel with the lost.” Ten thousand hydrogen bombs could detonate, and the blast would not shake even the nearest star. But let one soul be saved, just one, and there is rejoicing even beyond the stars! The soul winner can produce happiness in another world! (Matthew 18:12;

Luke 15:4). Thomas Edison said, “the reason opportunity is missed by most people is because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work.”

Thomley, commenting on motivation, said: “Christians do not merely want a place to attend on Sundays and Wednesdays; Christians want to belong.” His point was that most brethren wanted to serve at the Lord’s Table, but many do not. No wonder Jesus said to go, go quickly and compel the people to come to the banquet (Matt. 22:8). Hailey (Let’s Go Fishing) noted that the early church’s message was “Go and teach, come and learn.” Salvation is too good to miss and hell is too real and horrible to experience. Milliner gives five good reasons to evangelize: (1) the command from above, (2) the call from without, (3) the constraint from within, (4) the cry from beneath and (5) the caution from before. Paul said, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:10-11). “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you,

lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. And he who reaps receives wages and is gathers fruit for eternal life; and he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored that you may enter into their labors” (John 4:35-38).

The greatest expression of love we can show anyone is to tell that one about Christ. James put it this way to those who already know Christ, “Brethren, if any-one among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins “ (Jas. 5:19-20). Paul thought of himself as a debtor to anyone he had not reached with the Gospel. “I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise. So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you who are in Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom.1:14-16). According to W.E. Vine, the word debtor is from the Greek word opheiletes, meaning “one who owes anything to another, primarily in regard to money.” It is used metaphorically by Paul in Romans 1:14 in the matter of preaching the Gospel.

Paul felt a strong compulsion to deliver the Gospel message to the lost. He responded to this indebtedness by sharing the Gospel with others—so much so that he told the Ephesian elders he was free from the blood of all men: “how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house…. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men” (Acts 20:20, 26).

You lived next door to me, for years

We shared our dreams, our joys, our tears, A friend to me, you were indeed,

A friend to help me when in need. My faith in you was strong and sure

We had such trust as should endure No spats between us ever rose

Our friends were like, and so our foes.

What sadness then, my friend, to find That after all, you weren’t so kind.

The day on earth my life did end

I found you weren’t a faithful friend.

For all those years we spent on earth, You never spoke of my lost soul

And of a Christ who’d make me whole.

I plead today from hell’s cruel fire And tell you now my last desire. You cannot do a thing for m;

No words today my bonds will free. But do not err, my friend again;

Do all you can for souls of men!

Plead now with them quite earnestly, Lest they be cast in hell with me.”

-Author Unknown.

Paul really saw no alternative to reaching the lost. “For if I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1

Cor. 9:16). George Stebbins penned these words to challenge the unfruitful: “Must I go, and empty-handed, thus my dear redeemer meet? Not one day of service give Him, Lay no trophy at His feet? Must I go and empty-handed? Must I meet my savior so? Not one soul with which to greet Him: Must I empty-handed go?” Really, we have no choice. We cannot help but be soul winners. Jeremiah thought once he might not speak of the Lord.

“Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of Him, nor speak anymore in His name. But His word was in my heart like a burning fire – shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, and I could not” (Jer. 20:9). It was in his bones to teach others about the Lord.

God expects us to be teachers. The author of Hebrews had in mind some who had not developed as they should. He wrote,

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). We must seek out faithful men and encourage them to

learn to teach others.” And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

 

Efforts to Emulate the Early Disciples

It has happened many times. A congregation will realize it really needs to put forth some effort beyond the pulpit in leading the lost to Christ. Generally they will agree to meet, say, on some weekday night, to do “personal work.” They meet, divide the visitors’ cards that have accumulated the last few months, and set out. Typically they will go to visitors’ houses and will most likely be invited in. The brethren participating in the effort will likely express how glad they were that the visitors came to services. If they stay long enough, the visitors will generally offer them a cup of coffee. After coffee and cake, the workers will excuse themselves and report back about their visit and relate that the visitors invited them to come back. What they did was commendable and may lead to other opportunities, but there was no strategy used or attempt at that time with a view toward leading them to Christ.

Adams (Reaching the Lost) wonders whether “house to house” activity in the church is in effect idleness as far as leading people to the Lord (1 Tim. 5:15). It is idle, he says, with respect to bringing souls to Christ. Nothing is put on the line with the stranger who is approached. The brother, he continues, leaves with a good feeling about making a personal effort to lead the lost to Christ, when in reality it has nothing personal in it at all that is evangelistic. This may remind one of the do-nothing machines seen on people’s desks. You turn a crank around and around and it makes a stick go back and forth on a block below it. You have a lot of activity, but nothing is done.

Some more experienced brethren in that visitor scenario referred to earlier who does not have a prepared lesson will ask the

visitor if there is some Bible topic that they have a question about. More than likely they will inquire whether the particular “bad man” in the news [cf. Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi, etc] is the antichrist, or the scriptural question of blood transfusions or cloning. The worker may be prepared to deal with these topics, but the odds are he is not. Whatever the case, those topics should not be dealt with in an initial study. Different approaches are needed utilizing different strategies depending on the objective of the personal needs and objective with a prospect. In one case the goal could be explaining what we mean when we call ourselves the church of Church, teaching others who Jesus was and what it means when we call Him “Christ,” (Matt. 28:20) and exhorting him (Heb. 3:13), all the time shining a light on Jesus (Matt.

5:16); sometimes provoking (Heb. 10:24); often admonishing (Col. 3:16), when he needs restoring (Gal. 6:1) – and always seeking to share our love for Christ and gratitude to Him (Luke 19:10). All of these require strategies beyond the pulpit and are vital to spreading the news about how souls were saved through Christ’s sacrificial death. Noah took care of his family first. Paul said every one of us will give an account to God, and in the end none are righteous, no, not one (Rom. 3:10).

We need a plan for what we are going to do. We do not plan to fail – We just fail to plan! We need more readiness, that is preparation (1 Pet. 3:15). Many seasoned members, that is elders and deacons, cannot present a lesson on first principles or deal with basic doctrines with their contacts. We need more enthusiasm. All of this depends on leadership. Few are self-starters. It is hard for brethren to get excited about the Lord when their mentors are laid back and indifferent about leading souls to Christ.

Lanphear commented on this point when he said, “If I would help save others from disease or danger or harm, why wouldn’t I help save them from their sins?” Charles H. Spurgeon once said, “He who converts a soul winner draws from water from a fountain; but he who trains a soul winner digs from a well from which thousands may drink to eternal life.”

One time Fanny Crosby, the blind hymn writer, visited the McAuley Mission in New York. She asked if there was a boy

there who had no mother, and if he would come up and let her lay her hand on his head. A motherless fellow came up, and she put her arms about him and kissed him. She went from that meeting and wrote:

“Rescue the perishing, care for the dying, Snatch them in pity from sin and the grave, Weep o’er the erring one, lift up the fallen, Tell them of Jesus the mighty to save.”

Sometime later, when someone was about to sing the song in St. Louis, he related the incident. A man sprang to his feet in the audience and said, “I am the boy she kissed that night. I was never able to get away from the impression made by that touching act.”

“Behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). Hazelip called attention to a sign in a barber’s window: “Free Haircuts Tomorrow.” He never took the sign down, and he never gave a free haircut. God has called every member to be in his place, performing his function, no matter how uncomely we may be or think we are (ugly, untalented, awkward, uneducated, uninformed, etc.). Paul says there are no extraneous or uncomely parts in the church! All have a duty and all must function (1 Cor. 12: 22-24). The work of the Lord cannot be left to the pulpit speaker even if he is efficient in drawing people with dynamic charisma and wonderful appeal. Please don’t fault him or the church for his function. It is scriptural and needed. However, God never intended for him to be exercised exclusively in that role.

A big advantage to using strategies beyond the pulpit is that all can participate (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4:16). God has always valued the individual. In the Exodus when Pharaoh proposed leaving some behind, Moses responded strongly: “Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, ‘Go, serve Jehovah; only let your flocks and your herds be kept back. Let your little ones also go with you.’ Moses replied, “Our cattle also shall go with us; not a hoof shall be left behind. For we must take some of them to serve Jehovah our God; and even we do not know with what we must

serve Jehovah, until we arrive there” (Ex. 10:26). The simplest strategies, like giving someone an invitation card or taking a pie to someone, will be rewarded by the Lord. His sentiment is easily paraphrased, “My people will go, the talented will go, the uncomely will go, the crippled will go, and not one hoof will be left behind.”

Another important advantage is that strategies can be used any time. Jesus worked with Nicodemus at night (John 3:5). Paul taught and baptized the Philippian jailor at midnight (Acts 16:33). That has been my experience through the years. People are converted anytime.

Another advantage is that it can be done anywhere. Paul baptized Lydia and her house after a study by the riverside (Acts 16:14-15). Jesus was able to teach a lesson while walking with two men along a road (Luke 24:13-27). One was brought to the point of conversion while riding in a chariot (Acts 8:26-39). I could relate many places where I have been – far from the pulpit and using strategies beyond the pulpit –when people obeyed the Gospel. The kitchen table is where the Lord has best blessed me with witnessing souls respond to the Gospel.

Still another advantage of personal evangelism is that it allows us to reach all classes. A congregation I was with one time [I have labored with seven congregations] was a middle-class Caucasian congregation when I went there. When I left some years later, it was totally integrated with African-Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics. By that time it had an even distribution of those who were upper, middle, and lower income, those of different races and included several on permanent disability, welfare, and Medicaid.

One of the best advantages of the utilization of strategies outside the pulpit is that implementing them hits the mark. Confronting someone person to person with his or her sin and his need to repent and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation cannot be from the pulpit. Young preachers have lost their job as well as the congregation by describing a person’s particular sinful situation from the pulpit in such a way that everyone would know who he

is talking about. The preacher might as well call his name. When the preacher preaches, he at best is doing what is like taking a shotgun and shooting up in a walnut tree where squirrels have been seen, hoping that one falls out. In using strategies outside the pulpit, we look at the person eye to eye and challenge him or her to repent before God and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation. They do this in view of his or her admitted sinful condition, for we are all sinners and none us can be saved by our own strength. It is best to do this reproving alone. If not, he most likely will feel like he needs to defend himself. Particularly this may be the case if the prospect is a married man and his wife is present. The classic one-to-one challenge is given is given in 2 Samuel 12:7:

“And Nathan said to David, “You are the man.” David didn’t look around to see if Nathan was talking to someone else. Nathan hit the mark. Finally personal evangelism works. How do I know? There is a great cloud of witnesses.

Adams¹ said, “Well-meaning brethren have at times contrived elaborate plans for the congregation which have resulted in more paperwork than soul saving.” In the early church there was a simple model: “They were continually devoting themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Adams’ point is well taken, and the evidence of the efforts in using strategies beyond the pulpit seems to bear him out. Mullins makes the point that the multiple non-personal strategies we attempt pale in comparison to the value of a personal invitation. Hailey (Let’s Go…) observes that the whole account of evangelism in the book of Acts has an air of spontaneity as opposed to organization (Acts 8:1-4).

Much more has been written on proposals and organized plans of one or more strategies than examining and addressing the results. However, many proponents of strategies for reaching the lost outside of the pulpit have seen a great need for organization of the total church program. Someone observed that getting organized does not necessitate an organization. However, McKnight (Journey…) said there was a need for organized personal work. He went on to suggest that the zone system with organized record keeping and motivation as an excellent approach.

Many congregations use that system. Guy comments that as in real estate the three most important criteria of property value are location, location, location. Similarly the three vital things to reaching the lost are to build the Bible class program and visitation, visitation, and visitation. To accomplish this, he feels organization is required. This work will conclude that “organizing” needs definition. An effort, it would seem, should be made to evaluate the merit of any ambitious plan requiring organization before launching it. Yes, we need to plan, but the plan may be well thought out but still have inefficient and questionable returns. ” McNutt details how a local group might plan their work to be under the direction and oversight of the elders. The effort he suggested was described in a way that seemed benevolent in nature and directed toward the members like those grieving or in a hospital or nursing home instead of a strategy to save souls beyond the pulpit. Sexton observed, “One can visit a lot and never do any personal evangelism.”

Gandy reflected on the merits of strategic planning in a wellknown journal. He doesn’t offer any strategies. He inflicts guilt on brethren who have no strategic planning. Ivan Stewart’s book, Go Ye, Go Me, could not have been more comprehensive in laying out plans which must have taken an immense amount of time to so meticulously compose. There are charts for keeping records. It is a “how to” manual for every facet of contacting and interacting with a prospect. There is no indication whether Brother Stewart or anyone else was successful utilizing the abundance of advice and instructions he gave out. It is a voluminous (400 pages) and detailed compilation of his personal wisdom derived from many years of preaching the Gospel.

By contrast, Byrum reported that in a typical week in the congregation in which he was working at least 12 group Bible studies in classes of 10-20 students were being conducted at times other than Sundays and Wednesdays. Moore suggests and defines an evangelistic team. He notes the value of a small group strategy for equipping saints in the development of evangelistic skills like connecting with visitors. He lists four purposes for the need of small group evangelistic teams. They are (1) share news;

(2) shoulder yokes; (3) sharpen skills; (4) show fruit and influence culture. He details the recruiting process, composition of the group, their training, their scheduling and the use of the five functions. Dunigan sees a lack of wisdom in such an approach. He questions whether group meetings are, in effect, forced evangelism. He further asserts that utilizing groups replaces the individual in doing the work of the church. It is obvious that

“preachers” face the dilemma of how to preach uncompromised truth in a way that does not build barriers before the truth can be digested. Sanders (Phil) opined that the postmodern mindset is full of “hard, roadside soil.”

Now back to the effectiveness of sound preaching of the Gospel utilizing the pulpit. It is uncertain as to just when the practice of having fully supported preaching began. Most feel it began in the early part of the 20^th century but cannot be documented because of its evolution over time. Why did it evolve? Why was it paramount and the utilization of strategies beyond the relegated to a secondary position, that is, as only the audience of the pulpit preacher? No doubt, this occurred by default because of the need for knowledgeable teaching. However no one has questioned its scriptural basis. Some however have challenged the evangelist working with a single congregation.

Obricht opined the pulpit preacher is a created office. It was in that manner that the synagogue came into being. Nothing is said about it in the Law of Moses, but Jesus gave his approval by recognizing it as a worthwhile expedient. Similarly the pulpit preacher was introduced out of a perceived need, and it turned out to be a very valuable and effective expedient.

It can be noted that there is the precedent of Paul staying at a particular location for a considerable length of time and receiving support (Acts 19:8-10, Phil. 4:16). Evidently fully supported preaching evolved in the early 1900s among those who at that time clung to the Restoration Motif. Before that, preachers generally had another trade, just as the Apostle Paul did (Acts 18:3). There was any number of possible reasons for this. In many cases the churches were small and could not afford to support a

preacher. Many congregations had what was called “circuit

preachers.” I preached according to that arrangement in my college days. That is, I was a designated appointment preacher for four or five congregations. Sometimes I preached at three different congregations on the Lord’s Day. Some of them had “preaching” only once a month and even then it was in the afternoon.

The other afternoons on Sunday they had Bible Study and the Lord’s Supper. I recall when I preached at a small country congregation, they would pour the entire contribution of change into my coat pocket when I was there. In another, the men would get up one at a time and lay their change on the “Lord’s table.” At that time in general those in rural congregations, and there were many of them, were poorly educated, the available teaching was shallow and the men available to preach in their area were likewise limited but were well able to fill these pulpits. During that time that arrangement worked out well for me because I knew almost nothing about the Bible except my sermon outlines, which I obtained from a sermon outline book and the congregations thought I was deep in the scriptures. At college age that was all I could do. I made no effort to learn or apply strategies beyond the pulpit in bringing souls to Christ. It provided a way for me at the time to connect with the era of small rural congregations with almost non-existent full time and fully supported pulpit preachers. Since this mode of conveying the gospel is in vogue we cannot ignore it in view of our objective to evaluate strategies beyond the pulpit to lead souls to Christ. That is, when we have made our conclusions, good or bad, what should we do about fully supported local preachers in the local congregation? Should we shy away from the practice, accept it as an efficient useful and efficient strategy to bring souls to Christ? Does fully supported pulpit preaching in the local congregation have merit? Much in every way! As it turns out, how a worker views the pulpit affects almost every facet of his perception of the role of strategies to be used beyond the pulpit to bring souls to Christ.

When the pulpit is brought into the environment of the Lord’s church it is like leaven in bread. The pulpit likewise affects the training, one’s view of responsibility and the efficiency of every effort.

As it has turned out, however, pulpit preaching has had its place and while in the past proved to be very effective in converting the lost, in recent years the number of those obeying the Gospel through that means has dwindled to such a degree that many brethren have sought more productive methods. I know a man who will face almost any personal discomfort for a fishing expedition. He will endure the cold, stand all day in the water, whip the stream, eat only a sandwich or two and come in with a pitiful catch, and still be the picture of enthusiasm. But “fishers of men” want everything favorable, and the fish placed on his line by some accommodating friend. Even then he is reluctant to pull him in. With all our education, our fine buildings, our image of the church, we are doing less to win people to Christ than our unschooled forefathers did. We’re no longer fishers of men, but keepers of the aquarium, and regretfully we spend too much of our time swiping fish from each others’ tanks.

What must be kept in mind is the Lord said, “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). We must assume that directive meant by using any scriptural means. Jennings (“Come...”) noted that Jesus in all His work did not “fill the pulpit.” McKnight supported this principle by commenting: “We must get away from this clergy idea and get back to the NT concept of evangelizing the world.” Miller (“Encouraging…”) observed that we are spoiled by having witnessed people in the past who came to the meeting house, heard the Gospel preached and obeyed the truth to be saved. He says we are angry that the local preacher today cannot produce those results; after all, that was what he was “hired” to do.

Pulpit preaching has changed considerably since the middle 50’s, especially among the liberal brethren. Congregations have adjusted their preaching in order to avoid confrontations growing out of pluralism. Two choices were and are available: (1) Expose error according to the Bible and be persecuted, or (2) be practical and preach the pleasing liberal Gospel and avoid confrontations that might lead to persecution. As has been the pattern throughout the history of the church, only a tiny remnant refused to go along. Most congregations and preachers changed to the latter

mode. In the 50’s the preaching was polemic by the choice of the preacher and the brethren as well as by the non-Christian. A brother or sister would typically get in a discussion with a denominational friend, and they would reach an impasse. The brother, having spent his knowledge, would then invite his friend to services. The friend would come gladly because he wanted to challenge what he perceived as the brother’s “Campbellite Doctrine.” When this friend arrived at services his thinking was no match for those masters of the scriptures that challenged his teaching. You see the men in the pulpit were fully up to their task of exposing false doctrine from the scriptures tactfully, meekly and with godly fear (1 Pet. 3:15). A.C. Grider, Harold Hazelip, Robert Jackson, and Grover Stevens, to name a few, were very able to convince the visitors of their error to the delight of the brethren who brought their friends and witnessed their baptism into Christ. These preachers openly challenged visitors who rejected the Gospel to bring their preacher, and they would meet him in an open discussion. Many of them did. Several debates grew out of these discussions as well as more converts. O’Neal recently suggested public debate as an effective means of reaching the lost. He concedes that a negative perception about debate lingers among brethren. He attributes that to mishandling as opposed to effectiveness when properly utilized. He then cites scriptural examples in its use.

Preachers in years gone by enjoyed fishing for men. They taught the Gospel; and by and by a “fish” would get a hook in his mouth. He would pull hard on the line. Though he runs away for a while, with the hook in his jaws, he cannot escape the truth if he has a good and honest heart. His very wriggling and his anger show that he has got the hook and the hook has got him. The preacher was in his waders ready to land him. He may have to give him more line as he spends his energy on prejudicial arguments gleaned from his erroneous moorings. Finally the prospects strength is spent. A trophy is landed – and another one becomes a strong Christian and perhaps, in time, a deacon or elder.

In that venue, most of the grandparents in the church today were led to the Lord. However, that climate and yearning for strong Gospel preaching has changed, as we detailed earlier. Paul said it would (2 Tim. 4:3-4). As we will point out a whole different approach has been adopted as a reaction to accommodate brethren who are torn between what they believe and the practical consequences of preaching their convictions. Those who have welcomed change in the mode of preaching know and believe polemic preaching is right; they just do not feel it is best. They steer clear of it in order not to offend visitors and strong pressure from the leadership of the congregation that don’t want to have any negative preaching. Howard commented, “bedtime stories, nursery rhymes, little sermonettes, dissertations on psychology, philosophy, current events, and politics are not going to convert souls to Christ.” It is clear that we need the “old Jerusalem” Gospel. Brethren who want to be “on the march” ignore and dismiss that thinking.

A very talented young man I trained encountered this change in the direction of pulpit preaching when he was handed a list of topics he was not to preach on by the elders. He resigned and obtained secular employment where he will not be tempted by such brethren. Paul said: “we did not give place” (Gal. 2:5-6). Brethren who want the Gospel preached like they consider the mandates of 2 John 9 and 2 Tim. 4:1-4 find themselves in a divided congregation. A large part of the congregation becomes liberal and does not want to drive people off with that kind of preaching. Yet, one could justifiably counter that when one begins to consider some truth off limits he is not preaching the truth.

As noted earlier, some initiated a movement of a “positive” gospel among conservative, non-institutional, churches two or three decades ago. This movement we discussed in earlier was given impetus by the editors and other prominent preachers

aligned with them to be featured in “lectureships” [Do you remember when we had Gospel meetings?] in the larger congregations in the brotherhood. Often three or four brethren thought to be “somewhat” are featured with brethren often scheduling their

vacations to attend. Nothing is wrong with that. What is lacking is the preaching of the whole Gospel. The great majority of brethren seem convinced that preaching controversial truth will drive prospects away.

This philosophy of late has generally prevailed. A large liberal metropolitan congregation will more likely today seek a preacher who will not be polemic. Members from neighboring congregations who share that sentiment will gravitate to it. So one by one, most congregations are selecting preachers that are not what they would consider “negative,” a label that goes with those who preach the whole Gospel. Preachers who are holdouts and refuse to “adjust” find themselves relegated for the most part to small congregations and their meeting schedule begins to dwindle. When they hold meetings, they are advised not to

preach on certain subjects. “We are not having trouble with what you preach and we would like to leave it that way.” Those who preach the whole Gospel for the most part have been quarantined much like it was utilized by the institutional brethren in the 50’s.

What is discrete and wise tends to lie between two extremes.

One of the extremes is often reactionary to the other. As noted some preachers attempt to establish their preaching as sound by preaching almost every sermon negative and polemic. The extreme of that is referred to by the former as the “baby food gospel.” While seeing some merit in the former extreme, I differ strongly with their lack of balance in sermon subjects.

Not too long ago, I had the occasion to hear a sermon in the liberal vein. The preacher preached about 35 minutes. At least 15-20 minutes was taken up using secular illustrations and telling stories. He used no Bible illustrations or Bible stories. In the middle of the sermon he told a joke with no connection to the lesson about a three-legged chicken. By this time I had my hand on my coat to leave and my wife restrained me. When I went out I kindly complimented the preacher on how well he was able to express himself. I told him that he had a pleasant mannerism that was very good. I then told him that every one of his illustrations could be replaced with a better one from the Bible and that the three-legged chicken joke did not belong in any Gospel sermon.

The liberal approach to increase membership makes techniques of strategies to lead souls to Christ irrelevant to them. It illustrates “baby food” gospel very well. The pattern is to introduce the sermon with a lengthy secular illustration, containing few scriptures and closing without an “invitation. It attempts to lure converts without any emphasis on Bible authority and the uniqueness of the church. Instead, it seeks to persuade them by the blessings offered by God in loving one another and the fellowship shared by those in Christ. Hopefully, a prospect will want to be baptized at the time of his choosing in order to become a part of this wonderful fellowship.

While it includes wholesome family life, encouragement and learning to serve, the Gospel of Jesus reaches far beyond. Needless to say, this change in emphasis has had a tremendous impact on preaching and the content of the material to be used in conjunction with strategies to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. Mullins seemed to favor the “positive” gospel by suggesting that pulpit preaching “needs to deal wisely with emotionally charged topics.” He cites 1 Cor. 14:22-25 and James 2:1-4 as emphasizing the need to be aware that we can have an adverse affect on visitors. He laments that Gospel meetings often stray significantly from the goal of the meeting even when they begin well.

When this occurs, in his judgment, counterproductive and unfruitful results have taken the meeting plans far off target. Sanders (Phil) notes that with this mode of preaching the preacher can expect to see dissatisfied people leave angry. However, all do not agree. One survey of strategies used in converting the “unchurched” noted that 88% reported the preaching of doctrines influenced them to become “churched.”

A man functioning as a pulpit preacher can serve at multiple levels. That is, the pulpit preacher’s work is not restricted to the pulpit. If the preacher has a deep knowledge of the Bible, it seems that he would want to exercise strategies outside the pulpit. He would understand that as a part of his work as a Gospel preacher. One preacher who was gifted as a pulpit speaker, scholar, and writer told the elders who hired him that if they expected work from him beyond the pulpit, they should get some

one else. They hired him, he kept his word, and they kept theirs. Apparently he felt that his ability to preach in the pulpit excused him from that responsibility.

Many ask for advice about methods of doing personal evangelism and the justification for their use. Some find themselves in an uncomfortable position when called upon to use a considerable amount of time teaching lessons in homes and making house calls. Initially they seemed to envision their evangelistic duties to be appointment type pulpit and class teaching which would not interfere with evenings with their family. The parable of the talents from Matthew’s Gospel illustrates what is expected of Christians. To whom more is given, more is expected. However, if someone has little talent, he must be proportionally responsible with that which was allocated him (Matt. 25:20-27).

The pulpit preacher would rightfully be expected to possess all five talents and not bury any of them. If he functions only from the pulpit, he is functioning as a “one talent man” when he possesses five talents. Jesus provides the model for functioning at all levels. He singled out John as a project. It may have been true that he had a special fondness for John. However, besides this alleged personal affinity, perhaps John was one who needed some extra attention in training. My mentors certainly were attached to me but correctly accessed that I needed and would appreciate help. Certainly I felt they loved me and I loved them.

Nothing is said in the Bible about why Jesus singled out John, or why he pulled Peter, James and John aside on occasion. The Bible simply says Jesus spent special time with them – time he didn’t spend with the other Apostles (John 13:23; 19:26). So a preacher might, as I have done many times, single out talented young men who perhaps have given thought to becoming a Gospel preacher. My approach was to encourage them to make calls on the shut-ins and go to the hospital. One very ambitious, energetic, and promising young man asked to go with me in order to observe my work. I intentionally suggested that we make some visits to the hospital and nursing homes before we went. He said he didn’t want to do that. When I asked why, he said that was

“not his thing.” I patiently explained that these visits were a part

of the learning process, teaching us how to care about those who need someone. Needless to say I did not let him go with me. He “went away sorrowful” because he wanted to do it his way.

The role of being the pulpit preacher for a congregation evolved out of a felt need – a need generated by the instruction and power of a man who was a knowledgeable teacher, one who was able to supply “meat” instead of “milk” (Heb. 5:12-13 ). The Bible teaches that most cannot and should not occupy the pulpit (Jas. 3:1). Pulpit preaching, as we know it, is not apostolic. The practice was adopted as a valuable expedient. Its adoption is similar to the adoption of the synagogue. It was not specified in the statutes of the Law of Moses, yet the Lord approved of it by participating and using it for his purpose (Luke 14:16-20).

The pulpit preacher, a timely expedient, provided a skilled Bible teacher who was able to convince the denominational people who were stirred up by the members. The members brought visitors to services or the purpose of showing the error of denominationalism. The pulpit preacher satisfied their desire to deal with their doctrinal differences. The ones who did it best were men like Charles Holt, Grover Stevens, and Robert Jackson, who were highly regarded and in great demand for Gospel meetings. It worked, and many were baptized into Christ. Most congregations today are made up of those who obeyed the Gospel as the result of the kind of polemic preaching we have described.

As we detailed earlier the pulpit has changed in its purpose and function. Today it is much different both in style and purpose. Many have concluded, and maybe rightly so, that the pulpit cannot be relied on as the sole means or obtaining church growth, as it was in days gone by. This is so in contradistinction to Mullins, who opined that in the last two decades the importance of pulpit preaching has grown to be an important dimension in congregational evangelism. The functioning of the position of the pulpit preacher evidently arrived by default. Evidently it appeared to be more efficient in times past to encourage members to bring souls to Christ by inviting their friends and neighbors to services. Other than that, the role of the individual

member was relegated being an observer. There was no need to train him if he did not have a function except to be supportive, give of his means and be present at every service. It was not unusual for the pulpit preacher to refer to the congregation as “the

audience.” Please do not interpret this as any degradation of the production and efficiency of the pulpit preacher. He, in most cases, did a wonderful job, and his work was invaluable. It was just that God had not and did not release the members at large from responsibilities in reaching the lost (Matt. 28:19-20, Acts 8:1).

We interject here that the evolving of the role of a “full-time preacher” at the expense of preventing the growth and development of the individual members was a terrible mistake. The New Testament church did not depend on pulpit preachers to spread the Gospel. They appointed elders in every church (Eph. 4:23). The inspired writer instructed the elders to work in such a way as to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3).

Stauffer observes that we seek the lost, not because it is hard to find sinners, but because few sinners provide fertile soil. Mullins offers that finding people home in the evening is a problem. This, he says, was not the case in the past. Families are mobile; schedules are complex and protective of their home time. We are successful when we properly recognize and accept our role. For example, a preacher might ask one of the members if he is a Christian. He no doubt will reply, “I consider myself a Christian.” Follow with, “Are you bringing other men to Christ?” He may reply, “No, that is not my business; that is not my responsibility. My business is to sell automobiles. Your business is to

preach the Gospel.” When it is brought to his attention that he was called to be a Christian by the Gospel and that he is called to bring other men to Christ, he may dispute the point. When he is asked to read Acts 8:4: “Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the Word,” he will typically reply:

“Oh yes, but those were the Apostles.” He will have nothing to say when he reads the first four verses of Acts 8: “a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except

the Apostles… those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”

One of the difficult lessons I had to learn early on in my work was the meaning of “success.” It is easier to learn the definition and give it by rote than it is to embellish it intuitively in the heart as a firm conviction. The inspired writer Ezekiel defined “success” like this: “Then He said to me, ‘Son of man, I am sending you to the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ “As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that ‘a prophet has been among them’” (Ezek. 2:3-5). “Success,” God says, is using an opportunity to teach the Gospel, as many times you teach it, even if no one obeys the Gospel. In fact it doesn’t matter as far as your spiritual worth in the eyes of God if no one ever responds. It is our job to plant and water; God is responsible for any increase or lack thereof.

If we fail to warn the wicked, no matter how wicked they are, their blood will be on our hands. If we warn the wicked and he doesn’t repent we will have saved our soul (Ezek. 3:18-19). “Success” means we warn or teach the wicked. It has nothing to do with what they do about it. If we fail to warn and teach a

“righteous” man who has succumbed to error, both will be lost. When we warn the righteous to avoid sin and he does so, then both of us will be saved (Ezek. 3:20-21). Again “success” is in the warning and teaching, not in the response. No one had more potential than the Lord in being “successful,” that is being effective in luring souls to righteousness. The broad spectrum and multiplicity of His miracles could not be denied. His keen insight into the application of Old Testament scriptures caused those who attempted to indict his teaching to go away talking to themselves. He spoke to crowds that numbered in the thousands and on one occasion the crowd was uncountable and so massed that they stepped on each other. Yet as the last week of His ministry began His disciples had inquired, by necessary inference, “Lord,

is this all?” Jesus replied by citing Isa. 53:1 – “Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

Yet the Lord was “successful” beyond measure even with the small numbers He had to show for it. He finally wound up with none except a few women. They all ran off, even the eleven. The Gospel always reaches the heart it is intended to reach. As one put it, “We are looking for those who are looking for Him.” He muses that “even Jesus was not successful in converting everyone He taught” (John 6:41-46). Be assured, however, He was very successful. This single realization on my part allowed me to move to another level in my effort to reach souls outside the pulpit. It is psychological. When realized to its fullest, it purges all avoidance behavior. That is, I feel successful when I teach someone my lesson, not when someone obeys the Gospel. My wife would ask me early on when I came in from teaching someone,

“Were you successful?” I would always say yes. Then she would glance at my clothes to see if I was wet from the baptism.

Conservative brethren, while rejecting strategies that require personal involvement besides putting something in the collection plate, are looking for an easier way. Again, like Balaam they are trying to find a way to do the wrong thing right. Ralph Waldo

Emerson said, “If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor, the world will make a beaten path to his door.” That aptly describes the energy expended in that direction. Commenting on Emerson’s statement, Bynum observed, “If you find a better way to win souls to Christ, other congregations will want to use it too.” Tarbet observes, “The power of evangelism lies in persuading men and women to accept and obey the truth. However there are right ways and wrong ways.”

Through the years brethren have tried different strategies for spreading the Gospel outside the pulpit. This writer will soon show that mass media, while providing “results,” some of which are promising, any such approach is not the panacea that is first envisioned. One such mass media method is simply handing out tracts. Almost every congregation has a large tract collection and

visitors are encouraged to give them to their friends. I have observed that few are taken. Most simply show their fading colors in the tract rack. Some hand tracts out door-to-door. Door-todoor work of some kind is the means of using a number of strategies individually or collectively. This ploy is the chosen method of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many brethren use it to distribute an advertisement of an upcoming Gospel meeting by knocking on the door and invite them orally or hang an ad on their doorknob if they fail to answer the door.

Several choices of strategies are available here: (1) simply inviting them to services by giving out a card with information about the congregation; (2) offer a tract or a free Bible correspondence course; (3) seek to engage the contact in a discussion that would lead to a Bible study. One might use a combination of these strategies. One might enhance this strategy by taking a religious survey. We will discuss this strategy later with still another wrinkle added in detail. It involves a process that shows promise in leading to other opportunities. Halbrook admits that there are more effective means of reaching the lost than door knocking [I agree].

However, he suggests using it as a means of extending our efforts.

As we noted in the beginning, “personal work” has such a broad meaning and application that it was useless in focusing on our effort. We must face that dilemma again by dividing  our attention between “Mass media” and “individual/small group” strategies. Mass media involves any strategy that targets a large population in an impersonal way. That is, the prospect is not known by anyone in the congregation. An “individual/small group” strategy seeks to use a personal contact in some manner to obtain leverage to prick the interest of the prospect.

For the Gospel to be efficiently and effectively spread by strategies beyond the pulpit, every Christian must become a “fisher of men.” Paul compared the importance and role of individual members of the church to the human body (Eph. 4:16). Every joint and part is needed for the body to function.

We must explore what we can do to accomplish the Lord’s purpose for His people. Sadly, many congregations feel little need to seek the lost outside of the pulpit. If they do, only the more mature experienced members seem to get involved.

Thomley¹¹⁷ warned that “churches must resist the temptation to let the strongest, most mature members do all the work. “Younger members need to taught and developed. The New Testament emphasis is on the individual and here is where God wants to keep it.” Hailey (“Let’s Go...”) says that the need for strategies to be adopted and implemented in the church is urgent. Walker (Fred) quotes Melvin Wise, who  said, “I believe my brethren fail more in personal evangelism than in any other phase of our plea.” According to Hillis, Brent Hunter opined that the greatest need today is for the church to get back its mission and seek the souls of the lost.

A great deal of time and energy has been devoted to the search for new and effective strategies to be used in attempts to reach lost souls. One can sense their frustration in not being able to agree on a unified course or reliable strategies. I found it interesting that an entire college lectureship one year was devoted to dealing with strategies to use beyond the pulpit in bringing souls to Christ. They talked about everything but practical suggestions as to how to do it. Similarly another brother, sought after to do a series on strategies beyond the pulpit, published a book entitled Evangelistic Toolbox. It had no tools.

Unable to locate or to have a lesson recommended to  them, novice workers in frustration will attempt to compose a lesson suitable for them. Brethren in years past have experimented, and offered numerous strategies in many publications. The diversity and uncertainty of their explorations will become clearer as we detail them in the narrative that follows. One strategy recommended repeatedly is that of conducting a home Bible studies. As our study will unfold, it will be observed that this approach has merit. Not so much as the result of a particular lesson but because of the likelihood of  the presence of integrity and credibility in a home setting.

Through the years this approach has enjoyed success. Paul Andrews, as noted elsewhere in this effort, baptized nearly a hundred during the course of several years by using this method. There is an abundance of material on how to set up and conduct a home Bible study (Walker, Sherrod, Hailey, Wilson, McCourt, Obricht, Stewart). Wilson says, “In the American culture today, a small group Bible study in someone’s home is probably a more effective entry point for a typical unbeliever than a worship assembly or a traditional Gospel meeting.” Adams, (“Reaching The…”) a Gospel preacher who holds numerous Gospel meetings, often asks the brethren how many home Bible studies they have in progress. Very often, he says, there are none. Hall ventured, referring to relying on pulpit preaching alone: “Here it is, come and get it.” He says that approach won’t work. He lists a number of strategies for getting the word out. Waither published a 180-page manual on how to set up and utilize the telephone as a strategy for reaching the lost. Nothing is said about its effectiveness. Pepper suggests a chain reference of the Bible. Jennings (“Come And…”) proposes a smorgasbord of methods.

McCort reported using the telephone to solicit prospects for a Bible correspondence course. Hailey (“Let’s go…”) laid out principles and guidelines to use when making a call on someone in house to house or  home studies. It  is quite evident from these accounts brethren were “crying in the wilderness” as they sought in their own way to lead souls to Christ outside the pulpit. It is ironic that one of the most detailed and scholarly publications and cited as sort of a textbook in strategies to use beyond the pulpit to save souls gave no information about their experiences with the strategies and  gave  no testimonial that they practiced these strategies themselves. In order to be comprehensive you will see that the writer details any strategy whatever its merit and conditions of implementation. While being as informative as possible and giving my assessment I would like to leave the reader free to make his own choices when his options are properly laid out. Thus, this writer continues in this vein.

Sherrod proposed the need for a training class before workers attempt to implement strategies. Poor use of the text he says is never justified which novices are inclined to do.

Likewise, attempting to “skin the sects” is unwise – not meaning that it can’t be done, but it should not be done. Instead one should adopt the proper attitude by trying to put himself in their place and in the interchange do more than condemn. One frequently would adopt the posture of authoritarianism, seemingly assuming the responsibility for originating the message. Other potential hazard  that he identified were the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of projecting oneself to a standard that exceeds one’s practice. Then he suggests a citywide campaign offering a free Bible correspondence course and a home Bible study. Gatewood deals with several approaches or methods of implementing strategies. Some he feels are good and some are not. He suggests a citywide campaign offering a free Bible correspondence course and a

home Bible study.

Sanders (Ed) proposes several simultaneous strategies: Mass media, modern technology, friendship evangelism, and group meetings along with hospitality and Bible correspondence courses. Rudd (“Fishing…”) gives 15 tips for running a successful correspondence program. Reisinger felt we should attempt massmeeting-type canvassing and door-to-door efforts. He also suggests a college evangelism effort. Hailey encourages following an interview technique. He details a track of 12 steps to learn to use this strategy. Fell gives a list of 34 ideas for doing evangelism. It seems vital to understand from after reviewing all of these techniques and approaches that all have had the same primary objective. That is they are seeking to lead souls to Christ outside the pulpit. They differ and change from time to time because of changes in society and technology. But God, man, sin, the devil, and the message remain the same. A successful evangelistic event is one in which one has shared the Gospel to one without hope who is lost (1 Cor. 1:7).

Sexton says that it is imperative that a systematic study plan must be used in any effort in using strategies beyond the pulpit to

save souls. Brethren have used a variety of lesson plans in the effort to save the lost. Jenkins suggested that whatever the lesson, it should have the objectives of establishing Bible authority, convict of sin, explain the distinctive nature of the Lord’s church, give the instructions how to become a Christian, and motivate to obedience. Connie Adams (“Personal…”) emphasizes that whatever the lesson the teacher must draw the line between truth and error, the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, stress the uniqueness of the plan of salvation along with outlining the organization of the church and worship. Certainly thought and care should be used in preparing a lesson (1 Pet. 3:15).

Many have found themselves without a lesson and feel somewhat bewildered as to where to begin. Jennings, realizing that need, sought to instruct the soul winner in how to prepare a lesson. He walks the prospective soul-winner through the technique he feels they should use in preparing their own lessons. He illustrates how it is done by selecting a single topic and using it as a model of the steps involved in preparing a lesson. It may be noticed that he provided only his guidance rather than offering ready-made lessons.

Jule Miller outlines the training of workers to present his popular and well-used series. It consists of lessons on creation, the patriarchal age, the Law of Moses, the Christian age, and becoming a Christian. It has been very popular, appearing first in filmstrips and then in color slides; it is now available in video.

Many have used this series with success. Bradford composed a list of questions to answer yes or no to after reading a passage. A number have testified of their success with the technique, and I have experimented with it. It has not enjoyed a wide usage. Hailey (“Let’s Go…”) submits a fourteen-lesson series that he has prepared. The lessons cover the creation, the promise fulfilled, the two covenants, and the great commission, baptism, the church, worship, contribution, prayer, the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, keeping saved and the danger of apostasy, the second coming of Christ, and the end: eternal life and eternal punishment.

Harkrider favors a study with extended lessons on the survey of the Bible and basic Bible doctrines. Sexton suggested a combination of slides and charts consisting of Bible survey, the church and the plan of salvation. Reisinger felt a good pattern of studies would be to develop the teaching of the Bible on atonement, the resurrection, repentance, and remission of sins. Walker submitted lessons in church history. MacArthur suggested a flipchart arrangement on the scheme of redemption. Pepper gave

commendation to a “successful” worker who used a combination of Tisdel’s charts, Jule Miller material and the open Bible. He doesn’t detail how successful he was. Bales lessons are very similar to those of Hailey. Jennings emphasizes he feels it is his personal responsibility to teach the pure doctrine of Christ to a lost and dying world. McKnight offers a survey of the Bible with attractive and useful charts. He concludes his study with a lesson on conversion. Collins observed that whatever lesson is chosen, it is very important to stay focused and not get sidetracked into some complicated tangent such as eschatology, etc.

Jason Longstreth⁸⁰ published a small booklet in which he has prepared lessons on authority, why there are so many churches, the Lord’s church and how one comes to Jesus. Exum³⁷ submitted 13 lessons he prepared beginning with a survey of the Bible followed by God and the Bible, and he concludes with worship and a faithful service. Wilson¹³³ presents lessons that stand apart from most of the others. They deal with what we might call “preevangelism.” The subjects are presented in a powerful and convincing way. He presents his lessons scholarly way with Christian evidences obviously his primary objective. The facts and material he deals with make an ironclad case for the Lord. The first lesson is “Does God Exist?” followed by “The Bible is the Word of God,” then “Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” then “Authority in Religion” and concluding with “Why You Need Christ.” The series of lessons using the measures of scholarship, logical and faith building and progression of topics far exceeds any series of lessons I have examined.

The pattern of lessons used to teach prospects are easily discerned when you peruse the lessons utilized by brethren

over many years. One only has to review the efforts of Roy Cogdill, Homer Hailey and James Bales to find the source of the lessons evolving over the years. They left a spiritual smorgasbord of material from which brethren could pick and choose and identify their particular selection as their own: the Jule Miller series, the Tisdel lessons, the efforts of Star Publications, the Walker and Harkrider lessons and yes, In the Same Hour  of  the Night. These lessons all draw from the same well. Yes, these are quite old, but the fundamental Gospel is the same.

What we find by reviewing the lessons used in various strategies used to spread the Gospel beyond the pulpit is that they usually begin with authority, prophecy of the church or an introduction of the scheme of redemption. While the other lessons will vary by topic, there is always a lesson on Jesus and the establishment of the church.

The problem is that strategies outside the pulpit to bring souls to Christ have been approached, unfortunately, with a smorgasbord of random efforts, small samples, and huge assumptions. This of course destroys the  opportunity to arrive at meaningful conclusions. To begin with, one cannot make conjectures or attempt to solve a  problem  until  sufficient facts and data have been examined and can be verified. Secondly, the results at best are not totally conclusive. Our objective of wanting to determine what strategies will work, and what will not, must be approached the same way.

James R. Cope, former president of Florida College, often said a conclusion was only as good as the facts that supported it. What is evident after reviewing the many publications on strategies that will lead souls to Christ is that very little evaluation has been done. There are very few facts presented in  the realm of evaluation of the various strategies. Certainly, there were results, but why publish a large detailed description of a strategy and say nothing at all about whether it worked or not? Wilson Adams wonders whether the “door knocking” activity in the church is in effect idleness as far as leading people to the Lord. Nothing is put on the line by the

stranger who is approached. The brother leaves with a good feeling about personal evangelism when in reality there is little personal in it at all. Gatewood gives examples of accomplishments of individual brethren as well as preachers. Walker gives 16 random situation conversions without specifying the strategy.  One must not leave the false impression that there are never any favorable results. In several cases we have few specifics about the methods they employed. In the early eighties the North Street congregation in Tampa, Paul Andrews baptized over 100 per year by using home Bible studies. Yet, Brother Andrews was a very humble man and he sought to give the glory to God in his work and  “kept his cards close to his chest.” The writer believes that he could have been more helpful if he had shared with others the fruits and testimonies of his labors. Bynum reported that a congregation in Georgia baptized from 90 115 people per year for three consecutive years by following his approach.

My Personal Background and Journey

For the most part of my preaching career I have studied strategies for leading people to Christ outside the pulpit, even though I was regularly in the pulpit. As Solomon applied his heart to seek out wisdom, I applied my heart to learning about strategies to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. When I began, I knew little, and there was little to recommend me, because I had no experience. But my education, and various other experiences, began to whet my appetite to learn more. By doing secular research, I became curious about whether the strategies being used by brethren could be studied using research parameters. In professional studies when something is supported by scholars as being a worthy conjecture, then it becomes an object of research interest if the establishment of its validity or non-validity would significantly affect the results of other conjectures. Sometimes proving something will not work is as valuable as proving something does work. In retrospect, I now see where my educational research and professional background was a great advantage in analyzing strategies of my own and those of others.

While having served in three local works at the time I was invited to come to the Nebraska Avenue Church of Christ in Tampa. I knew it would be the most challenging. I was replacing a fully supported experienced preacher. I saw it as the opportunity of my life, and therefore the work there became the primary recipient of my energy

and attention. I was fortunate to have been employed also as a professor at Florida College. The college supplied enough outside support that Nebraska Avenue was relieved of

the heavy support that would have been required had I not worked at the college.

 

Those who are familiar with the churches in Tampa, FL have to be intrigued with the Nebraska Avenue congregation.

Nebraska Avenue was the second congregation in Hillsborough County. It was begun in 1903 by a group of Christians who met initially in the home of George B. Hoover. Its first meeting house at Nebraska Avenue and 20th Avenue housed a small number, but with rapid growth a much larger building soon was scheduled and erected just one block south on Nebraska Avenue at 21st Avenue. During these early years George Hoover for the most part was responsible for the preaching. His work often carried him to remote parts of the county and Nebraska Avenue was able to have fellowship in spreading the gospel throughout the Tampa Bay Area. Byron Conley, who perhaps did more for the cause of Christ in Florida than any single gospel preacher, worked with the congregation in its early years. If there

were such a thing (of course there was not) it was the “mother church” of Tampa. Christians moving to Tampa initially would place membership with the congregation. As the city of Tampa grew in population and size, some of the saints left Nebraska Avenue to form the North Street congregation. By the time I came to Nebraska Avenue in 1968 there were about 20 congregations in the county. Misfortune struck Nebraska Avenue in 1939 in the aftermath of the depression, and the large building

closer to town on Nebraska Avenue than the current location was lost to creditors. Subsequently, a frame house was purchased on the corner of Nebraska Avenue and Curtis Street and used for a meeting house. In 1957, the frame structure was demolished and the present building was erected. The trustees, or men of the

congregation met to sign the note for the loan. The bank didn’t want any signature except that of Bryan Griffin. He was the father of elder Bob Griffin and himself was a deacon in 1968.

When I came I had preached in Louisville, KY, Brooksville, FL and Bartow, FL. Nebraska Avenue’s preacher, C.L. Overturf, had tendered his resignation and moved to Jacksonville. I wrote the elders that I was interested in the work. Really, at the time I had little that they could see that would recommend me above the abundant talent and experience available in Tampa especially to replace an experienced and tireless worker like C.L. Overturf. The brethren knew I taught at the college and had been a part time preacher in three 2 ½ year works. I told them I thought I could do the work. After looking at several preachers wanting full support, they hired me in spite of my connection with the college. I was 28 years old. My son Chuck was a baby, Charla and Cheri were 8 and 6 respectively. We moved into the modest

preacher’s house and began a 19 year work. It was a thrilling and satisfying experience. Our children grew up there.  Over the years the preaching had been done by Billy Hood, Eugene Clevenger, Thomas H. Burlon, Garvin Toms, Louis Garrett, Roland Lewis, Charles Tidwell, George Horton and C. L. Overturf. Several served with me who included Thomas C. Hickey, Jr., Harry Pickup, Sr., Harry Payne, Jr. Ray Hinds and Doug Barlar. For a time services were broadcast live on WHBO radio. The personal evangelism program was admired by brethren all over the country. Preacher training was practiced. Bill Beasley, Harold Hancock, Steve Klein, Dennis Allen, James Richardson, Terry Partain, Robert Raif, Steve Bobbitt, Darren Winland, Marc Hinds, Jamey Hinds, David Beckley, Keith Ward, and Allan Turner are a few of those who trained with me. Elders during my tenure included W. F. Benson, Bob Griffin, H.A. Roberts, Archie Copeland, Harry Pickup, Sr. and Robin Willis. While a number of men worked with me and assisted me during my nineteen year tenure it was always understood that I was the “Nebraska Man”(ha…that was the name given by evolutionists to a prehistoric man). It was the Lord’s work to me. I was a gospel preacher. I preached it fair, balanced and unafraid. The elders came to me one time and said (Harry Pickup, Sr. the speaker),

“Bro. Goodall we are going to give you a raise. The only thing that bothers us is that you will feel like you will go out and do more to earn it. Please do not do that. We don’t know how you do what you are doing now.” At the time my work involved putting out a weekly 8 ½ x 14 bulletin, at least one sermon and one Bible class a week, visiting the shut-ins (at one time we had 11) and the hospital, teaching home Bible studies, doing a daily “Di

al-a-Bible-Thought” (for one period we had over 100 hits a day), taking young men with me for training, holding my quota of gospel meetings and doing 4 or 5 weekend seminars around the country on “In The Same Hour Of The Night” and serving as a elder.

The Lord’s work was my occupation. It consumed my creative energy. I loved Florida College because it was my recreation (re-creation). I found the Lord’s work put me under a lot of stress. FC gave me respite. By going to Florida College every day Vernita and I escaped the pressure cooker of the large local work for a few hours. FC gave me Thursday off which allowed me to return to my first love...being a gospel preacher.

As mentioned elsewhere one of my mentors was Paul Andrews. He had been my PE teacher when I attended Florida College. He preached for the nearby North Street congregation.

Bro. Andrews advised me not to go to Nebraska Avenue to preach. I don’t know whether he thought I was too young and

inexperienced for Nebraska or he felt Nebraska Avenue was too far gone…probably a little of both. They had 240 my first

“Easter Sunday”. I found out that about 60 were coming once a month. No one, including the elders, knew who the members were. I became aware of how awesome my task was soon after I began. One of the elders eased over to me on Wednesday night

and whispered, “I think Frank Puckett starts a meeting with us Sunday.” Everybody in the brotherhood knew Frank Puckett and it was my task to get ready for him...by the next Sunday!

The congregation had lost the whole crop of young people and at that time were 20-30 years of age. Most were married  with children by then. When I realized those who should be in a vital role in the church were gone, I obtained their names and addresses from their parents. I went to see everyone I could find. For the most part I found them indifferent, unspiritual and bitter about their upbringing in the church. One of them said one of the elders had the class but didn’t teach them anything. They just partied and went to the beach. Another related how their elder (office) teacher would not let them take their books home. However, If they cooperated in getting the fill-in-the-blank books filled out they could have the rest of the Bible study class time to socialize.

When I moved to the Nebraska Avenue area in early 1968, it was a surreal experience to say the least. For 19 years I would preach for this wonderful congregation and partake of its unique environment. I must confess it was quite different than the upper middle class community where Florida College was located. The one to which my family sought respite for about 8 hours each week day.

The building was located in a high crime area. It was an area in which a man and his wife were murdered in their small mom and pop grocery by walk-in robbers. The milk drive-through across the street was robbed by gunpoint on numerous occasions. We had, if my memory serves me correctly, at least five break-ins at our home while we were there. Vernita lost all of her silver. The house owned by the congregation where we lived was just a few blocks away. In our tenure we had 5 cars stolen out of the driveway.  Our landscaping was uprooted twice. Concrete blocks were thrown through the windows of our cars. When I came to the building at night, prostitutes and their pimps would line the street beside the building and call out to their “customers” as they passed the building on Nebraska Avenue, a highly traveled

North-South street. One of the elderly members was killed crossing the street right before I came.

 

My neighbor across the street from where I lived was thought to be associated with the mafia. He owned a large well landscaped piece of property with an expensive ranch style home. He operated a modest produce market about a block from the building. His brother lived next door to it. He was killed in a drive-by shooting. My son, Chuck, worked for the neighbor in his produce market. When his daughter married my family was invited to the wedding and reception. The reception was a sit down meal for at least 150 people at a lavish hotel. The entrée was thick cut prime rib. The guest across the table strangely did not even know the family, obviously taken by the lavish spread and the large number of guests, he leaned forward and asked me, “What does this fellow do”? I said, “He runs a fruit stand”!

 

Our daughters began dating while we lived in the Nebraska Avenue neighborhood. That was a difficult time in my life. I didn’t want anyone dating my daughters. lol I finally gave in to my oldest when the fellow she was going on the date with had a broken leg in a cast and was being escorted by his parents who were faithful Christians. She said to me once, “Dad, they get the idea that you don’t like them”. She had one that had the claim to fame of being able to ski on one foot backwards. Another drove a new replica of Starsky-Hutch’s car and looked like he was wearing a new suit from Jos.A. Banks like her son now sells.

Both were nice kids. However, their parents would not allow them in our neighborhood after dark because of its notoriety. (I liked that)

 

Down the street from Nebraska Avenue was a bar. It was not unusual during services to have guests from there. One time a woman, who obviously had too much to drink, came in the middle of services and started dancing along the back of the auditorium. Another time a fellow, also under the influence came down the aisle while a song was being led and mounted the stage opposite the song leader and mocked him in his directing. We

also had strange people come in off the street from time to time. We were not without protection. We had a member that was a Captain with the Tampa Police Department. He usually left his gun in his car but went out to get it several times. The police

code for a suspicious person was “Signal Thirteen”. I would be citing a passage like "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.” Signal 13. I could see the person from where I was, most could not. Immediately about 4 or 5 men would get up slowly and make their way to the back and check out the overflow room and nursery to locate the suspicious person. Among those who made their way to the back were two young deputy sheriffs, incognita of course. One of the ladies of the congregation with long blond hair was an undercover vice squad member with the Tampa Police department. I was in good hands. One of our members had his hunting rifle mounted in plain sight in his pickup in the parking lot. (He was the one who could ski on one foot backwards, however, someone broke the back window of his pickup and stole his rifle). Once a stranger came in and selected a seat close to one of our women when he didn’t need to be that close. I gave signal 13. As I remember the story, Ron Wilson slid over next to him and motioned for him to come outside with him. He indicated he didn’t want to. Ron leaned over and whispered something in his ear. (Probably not telling him he had a nice out fit on). Immediately the subject changed expression and made his way out with Ron close behind.

 

The local fire chief was a member. His station was just a few blocks away. When we had a baptism he would often bring his fire truck and fill the baptistery. On Monday, like Clark Kent, I would appear at Florida College as Dr. Goodall, the mathematics professor. Vernita would administrate the bookstore and act as the consultant to hundreds of preachers around the country who wanted books to help them with their preaching. She sold the students their textbooks and churches their class literature.

In the evening Vernita and I would return to the world we loved most of all, the work of the Lord. Florida College provid

ed, as I said before, an escape from the heavy emotional work load of being a gospel preacher. I had an important role and made a vital contribution to Florida College. They needed me with my credentials. No one could be obtained at the low salary they paid. I was like the punter on a football team for them. I helped them score as a school by providing her students with a high level mathematics background. I was not a Bible scholar, had absolutely no interest in becoming an administrator and was not multitalented like most of FC’s professors in music, drama and sports. When Ron Wilson, one of the deputy sheriffs came to Florida College in his patrol car to take me to get coffee the students would cheer as I would get in his patrol car. They had no idea as to what our connection was. I will have a word about Wilson later.Nebraska Avenue, in recent years, has had several preachers to work with the congregation. Among them has been Harold Reynolds, Larry Dickens and J.T. Smith.

When I came to Nebraska Avenue it was a congregation of about 175 with no African-American brethren. Soon after my arrival a young black woman came to services. She asked me privately if she would be allowed to come there. The black church from which she had come did so many things she just couldn’t justify from the Bible. She said you could smell the fried chicken and coffee prepared during worship for the visitors. The church had an apartment adjacent to the church building that had housed their preachers in prior years, but none of them wanted to stay in it so they rented it out. You get the picture. Her husband was not a Christian, but she had a little girl. When she asked her question I looked her in the eye and said, “I don’t know…but if you can’t we both will be gone! I became her friend for life with that statement. She reminded me of it years later. She never forgot that shining moment. Her husband Silas was a strong Baptist. He came from a big Baptist family. His mama was the matriarch of

the family and she was a strong Baptist. Lucille, Si’s (Silas) wife was outspoken to say the least. She had no comfort zone. I am sure Si had heard all he wanted to hear about the church of Christ. He was an accountant; they had season tickets to all the Bucs and Florida A & M games. He played right guard at A &

M. The family owned a large motor home. They traveled to all of the out of town A & M games. They had Thanksgiving dinner together. It was the task of one of Si’s sisters to make 40 sweet potato pies for the occasion. The others did their part. One big happy Baptist family except Lucille Wells…I am sure she stuck out as a sore thumb.

 

She kept encouraging me to get to know Si. I went by the house unannounced in order to meet him. He would go out the back door and get in his car and leave. Lucille was always breaking her comfort zone and lining me up with people to teach. As I recall she had gotten this school teacher to agree to let me teach her my lesson (In The Same Hour Of The Night). I called her house and was trying to set up a teaching site. Si overheard the

conversation and said, “tell him to come over to our house”. I was in shock. I had never laid eyes on the man nor talked to him. As arranged I arrived at the appointed time, taught the lesson and the prospect was unconvinced. As was my custom, I thanked her for listening, put my materials away and made my leave. That was Tuesday night. On Wednesday night Lucille shows up with this jovial lovable black man (Si). When I extended the invitation he came forward and was baptized into Christ. I found out later he was around the corner in the living room and heard my lesson.

I began a long personal relationship with Si. We went to NCAA games and Bucs football games. In time he became a deacon which thanks to him and Lucille the congregation became integrated. My son Chuck tells the tale of him and the Friends were laying around on the floor listening to the older preachers exchange stories while on tour in Tennessee. One of them said he had heard there was a congregation in Tampa that was integrated. Chuck spoke up and said, “Yes and my dad is the preacher there”.

I met Si at the inner city all black school before daylight three times a week and jogged 4 miles for a time. Si and I would carry on conversation together all the time we jogged. One time Si was tired after 2 miles and he said, “Charles, I don’t think I am going to make it. I am too tired to go another lap. Without missing I said, “Si, I think the state should close down Florida A &M. If we can’t have a college without blacks why should you guys be able to have a college without whites? Si ran the other two miles and I got an ear full. That trick never worked again. Si served as a deacon at Nebraska Avenue several years.

When Karen, their daughter, delivered their first grandchild no one else was invited, just Vernita and I. They made a framed 5x7 photo and it hung in our kitchen. It simply said, “Grandson”. When Si passed I was asked to preach his funeral. Nebraska Avenue was packed with blacks. You may or may not know that they call a fellow black a “brother”.

I told them that you may wonder why this non-brother is preaching this brother’s funeral. I said, “He was a brother in a way that most of you will never know.

When we were close we discussed his conversion. He cried when he told me the pain of turning loose of his mother and concede in his mind that she was not a Christian. I remember going with him to his mother’s funeral. He never wavered from his faith in the gospel.

 

The people that came through Nebraska Avenue tell a story. One after another they came. Each doing their part and establishing the case for an evangelistic church at work. Each had their own story. Each played a part. Si and Lucille Wells were a big part of it. We didn’t do it alone. There were others that helped along the way.

 

Joan and David Beckley were married as I recall when they came to Nebraska Avenue. Joan was one of the several daughters of Glen Barnhart, a FC English professor and Vernita’s supervisor in the bookstore. He knew me from being in faculty meetings. Joan and David were students at Florida College. David aspired to become a gospel preacher. I worked with the young

men who were attending Florida College to give them opportunities to develop. Usually I would start them off with short talks and if they progressed I would give them an opportunity to preach. David, as I recall, had completed his second lesson when one of the sisters came to me and said, “Why are you putting

David up to preach?” She went on to say, “He can’t preach, he will never preach and why do we have to sit here and listen to him?”

 

From time to time I went to the homes of visitors who were not members in an attempt to set up classes. Beckley knew that and one time he came to me and

asked to go with me. On the way to the prospects house David confessed that he had never done what we were doing before and was apprehensive about how to go about it. I suggested that he handle the situation.  I told him I would observe and help him if things did not go well. He approached the door and knocked. The man answered the door and David asked,

“Do you read the Bible?”  “Do you want to study the Bible?” The prospect did not reply. He was startled and began closing the door. I spoke up and said, “I’m Charles Goodall and this is David Beckley. You visited

us at the Nebraska Avenue church of Christ last week and we came by in hopes of getting to know you better.” He smiled apologetically, as I recall, and said, “Come on in”.

Joan and David Beckley I am sure struggled during those days when congregations paid preachers sub-standard wages. I was in a meeting in Arkansas, I think, when I heard that the Beckley’s worked with a congregation 35-40 miles away. I

called them and they invited me to come and have lunch with them. I hadn’t seen them for several years. I arrived at their modest home in time to visit before lunch was served. Lunch was chicken and stars soup evidently right from the can. That made a lasting impression on me. The budgetary sacrifices gospel preachers made to stand in their place and preach the gospel.

The church on Nebraska Ave created strong memories for the Beckleys because they were instrumental in creating a learning curve as newlyweds and in preparation for David to preach full time. The Beckleys worked with three congregations in Arkansas and Texas before making the decision to move to South Africa to help in spreading the gospel in that part of the world. There they reared our three children,preaching and teaching for the next fifteen years, working among the Indians in the Durban area, among the BaVenda tribe in northern South Africa, and in the Johannesburg area. With the increased needs of their parents, they chose to return to the States. David continued to preach and teach in several locations, and Joan used the opportunity to write several Bible based workbooks for women and teen girls. Ten years later they returned to South Africa where they continue to work with the BaVenda and have expanded into Zimbabwe and Mozambique working with young preachers.

 

The preaching career of David Beckley in South Africa does not need to be reviewed nor appraised. Joan Beckley has became a teacher of women in her own right. She added to the repertoire of books written by Nebraska Avenue people by publishing Learning To Sing At Midnight, Forgotten Womanhood and Eye To Eye.

.

 

Keith Ward came to Nebraska Avenue in about 1971-1972. He was the room mate of my double first cousin, Tom Goodall, at Florida College. Tom had transportation so Keith rode with him. Dene Ayers was a teen ager and the daughter of one of our deacons. Both Dene and Keith had handicaps. Keith stuttered and Dene wore heavy glass spectacles due to bad eyesight. Dene related on facebook how she experienced an embarrassing scene

from a John Travolta movie. She had been to class in our upstairs classrooms and was descending the stairs in her high heels and rolled down the stairs and landed in an unladylike posture. As I recall, she was not as concerned about being hurt as getting her wardrobe in order.

They married and moved to North Florida and had their family. Keith got a job, I think for the state and preached in some capacity. Vernita and I visited them from time to time. It was obvious that they were struggling financially, but they were handling it well. Dene Ward has written three books: “Soul Food”,

“Flight Paths” and “In The Garden With God”.

 

Linda Martin was the daughter-in-law of one of our deacons at Nebraska Avenue. Her husband Clifton was a member. She was a strong Baptist and attended the Baptist church and took  her young son Marty. She was an RN and I came to know her through gatherings in which were mutually involved with another couple that were members at Nebraska Avenue. In time, I approached her about the possibility of a Bible study. My approach with someone who perhaps had an adverse opinion about the church of Christ was to concede to them that I suspected such they probably did not have a pleasant viewpoint about the church. I would then tell them that I would like to explain my perspective without the input of the family. I would then give them the standard modus operandi I used to set the lesson up with apprehensive prospects who did not want to be “sent to hell”. I would tell them that generally I would like to sit down at the kitchen table and present my lesson as a low key story (narrative). I would tell them it would take me about an hour and fifteen minutes. (ISN) When I finish, if you like it we will go from there. If you do not, I will simply put my things in my briefcase and leave. There will be no argument because I do not believe in arguing about the Bible.

She agreed to study and I delivered my lesson (ISN). When I reached the part where I use the Baptist Manual, discuss the Baptist view of the salvation process as explained in the Baptist Manual, she became agitated. She said “her” Baptist church did not believe or teach that and furthermore she did not do that

when she was baptized. As I recall she did not stop me there, but allowed me to finish the lesson.

She basically said when I finished that she enjoyed the lesson but it had no relevance to her. She said she agreed with the scriptural arguments because they were consistent with her own Baptist views. I left her with an appeal. I encouraged her to meet with her Baptist preacher and let him tell you how he believed and administered your baptism. ( I make the point in the lesson that it is impossible for a Baptist preacher to baptize anyone scripturally. The reason is that when you approach a Baptist preacher and ask him to baptize you there are only two dichotomous alternatives. You either have to lie to him or tell him the truth. If you tell him the truth, that is you are lost, he will not baptize anyone that is not saved. They have to tell an experience that as the Baptist Manual says to testify or witness that they have passed from death unto life. That is, they must confess an experience with Jesus that can be conveyed to others that they are saved. This testimony is submitted to the body politic of the Baptist Church. They vote on whether they believe the prospect is saved. If they pass the vote then the Pastor can baptize them, not before. So, if you tell him the truth he will refuse to baptize you because he will only baptize saved people. Once you realize that he won’t baptize you as a lost person then your other alternative in order to get him to baptize you is to lie to him. Make up some scenario where allegedly you were saved. He will baptize you, but God will reject you for lying. Rev. 21:8)

When I finished teaching Linda Martin I put my materials in my briefcase, thanked her for listening and made my leave. In a week or two she called me. She said she wanted to study again. As I recall I met with her and started in my lesson near the part where she had balked earlier. She began making the arguments ahead of me. This time she was agreeing with me. She obeyed the gospel by being baptized. She became a valuable asset to Nebraska Avenue and I worked with her several years.

I mentioned earlier that Nebraska Avenue lost the the previous generation of young people.  There were about 25 or thirty of them. They still lived in the area but out of the Lord. Their

parents, for the most part, were still active in the church at Nebraska Avenue. Anita Reich and Allan Turner were two of these. Allan had been the quarterback on the high school football team and Anita had been the head cheerleader. They had married and left the Lord.

Allan and his parents had formerly attended the Belmont Heights congregation but by this time the Turners were at Nebraska Avenue. I visited Allan and Anita at their apartment and as I recall it was not a good visit as was most of the other visits I had with the wayward children. Allan was working as a deputy sheriff and attending The University of South Florida. As has been my custom from day one I went unannounced. As I recall they were somewhat uncomfortable in my presence. Allan observed that he no longer held the views of his heritage and found evolution intriguing. I concluded that I was wasting my time and excused myself.

What transpired after that Allan will have to tell you because I do not have the details. Somehow he obtained some knowledge of me and my work. At least he knew about my lesson (ISN). The scenario he later related to me was that he and his patrol partner were riding together. His partner was a strong Baptist, brought up in the Baptist church where his father served as a deacon. The young man’s name was Ron Wilson. Allan and Ron had been discussing the Bible. You would have to know them to imagine the intensity of their discussion.

One Lord’s day Allan calls me after lunch and asks me if I will come over to his house and teach my lesson to a young couple he has been studying with. He gave me no background about them, only that they had agreed to let me teach my lesson. He later told me that he and Ron had reached an impasse. In order to get permission for me to come he had told Wilson that if you will listen to Goodall’s lesson, I won’t approach the subject with

you again. I said, “Sure, I’ll be there in a few minutes”. When I arrived I met the Wilsons. Susan was pregnant and well along. As was my custom I used about a dozen sheets of paper to draw my charts and presented my lesson. When I finished Wilson looked at me and said he wanted me to baptize him. With a little persuasion she agreed to be baptized as well. It was about 3:00 in the afternoon by then and it was my custom to baptize my prospects consistent with the title of my lesson (ISN). We took them to the building and baptized them.

The Turners and the Wilsons were at services that night. When I extended the invitation Allan and Anita came forward and made public confession and asked for the prayers of the congregation. Some weeks later Anita called and asked to me. She confided that she realized, after hearing my lesson, that she had not been baptized for the right reason. She said she was baptized with a number of girls and she just followed the crowd. I complied with her request and baptized her.

 

Allan and Anita entered in the work at Nebraska Avenue and before long they were being productive. Ron and Susan Wilson were there as well and Vernita and I became very close friends to both couples. Allan had distinguished himself in police work so much so that at the age of 24 he became the youngest deputy sheriff to make detective in department history. Ron Wilson applied for a job with the IRS and gained merit quickly with them. Allan agreed to make talks and in time he was able to preach and did a commendable job. So much so that he soon was preaching by appointment at Sulfur Springs, a small congregation in North Tampa. He became one of our deacons as well. As I recall, by this time he had left the sheriff’s department and had formed his own business. Soon Allan made contact with the Citrus Park congregation, another small congregation in North Tampa and agreed to work with them as their regular preacher. Ron Wilson was transferred to Fort Lauderdale and left Nebraska Avenue. One of my saddest (and happiest) days in preaching was when I went to the Turner’s house to say goodbye to them. Allan had accepted his first full time position and was moving to Louisville, KY to work with the Wendell Avenue congregation.

When I got there the furniture had all been loaded on the moving van and the house was empty. It was an emotional time for me. It sank in that this whole transition had been instigated by me. I

remember thinking, “What have I done?”. Here was a family that was leaving behind their hometown, their heritage and their family. I realized it was God’s providence and will, but that did not make any easier.

A year or so later Vernita and I were in Louisville visiting my parents. We surprised Allan by dropping in to hear him preach on a Sunday night. After embarrassing us by acknowledging our presence with extraordinary accolades he settled into his sermon. He was perhaps 15 minutes into the sermon when a visiting lady whom he apparently did not know was unable quiet her toddler. It became obvious to him after awhile that she was not being successful with her efforts. He stopped his lesson, addressed her, and said, “Lady I am going to have to ask you to take your child out. My mentor that trained me to preach is here.

I am struggling enough to do my lesson with him here. I cannot continue until you take your child out” I was as shocked I am sure as the lady was.

 

 

After leaving Nebraska Allan preached in Florida, Kentucky, India, Kenya, North Caroline, and Ohio. He has written four books on the theme, The Christian & ... Allan is presently living in Georgia, just north of Atlanta. He currently is having four personal Bible studies a week with as many as ten people.

Ron and Susan Wilson were welcome additions at Nebraska Avenue. In time Ron became the closest friend I ever had, before or since. We had a bond that most did not understand. We allowed one another the freedom to feign insults about each other at public gatherings that most would not tolerate. We loved it.

We loved each other and intuitively believed that neither of us would give any credence to what were outright put downs. When Ron was doing it he developed a demeanor that was accompanied with a slight smirk but with a serious tone. Nothing was off limits (intelligence, looks, education, family…) and the banter was reciprocated. The love was mutual.

In a few years he came to me and was upset. He had received word that the government was transferring him to Fort Lauderdale. The reason he was upset was he had anticipated enrolling in Bible courses at Florida College and eventually become a gospel preacher. I told him not to worry, the Lord had ways to make things work out. I told him Clinton Hamilton, the best and most scholarly Bible teacher I had ever had, was the preacher in Fort Lauderdale. I

said, “Just get you a big notebook and every time Clinton Hamilton breathes, write it down. Ron studied for several years with Clinton Hamilton and thus became an able Bible teacher in his own right. Currently he is preaching for the Land O” Lakes congregation in North Tampa. The Wilsons moved several times after that move to Fort Lauderdale. They were in Daytona Beach, Louisiana, Georgia, St. Louis and Alabama. When Ron moved I would invariably get a call to do my (ISN) series there. Consisted of admonitions from the scriptures about doing personal work, relate some of these Nebraska Avenue stories and teach my Lesson (ISN). One chart I used was “Who should I teach?” On the list was one I called “Come Often Joe”. I was doing the series in New Smyrna Beach where Jack Hobby was the preacher. “Joe”, as I described him, was not a Christian, but his wife

was. He, his wife and children came to every service, even during gospel meetings. Whenever a gospel meeting would be held the visiting preacher was always given Joe’s name as a prospect to teach. I came down strong that Joe was not a good prospect. He has already heard the gospel. Go out and let someone hear the word at least once before you try to give it to Joe again. I presented my lesson (ISN) Sunday afternoon. I did not know that New Smyrna Beach had a “come often Joe”. When the invitation was extended he came forward to be baptized. The brethren wept for joy. Jack Hobby was so emotionally distraught he could not take his confession. I had to do it. As it happened, they had two in the congregation and he obeyed the gospel a couple of weeks later. Years afterward I returned to New Smyrna beach to preach a gospel meeting. As I was greeting the brethren after a service a brother approached me. He said, “You probably don’t remember me, but I am “Joe”.

 

Years later Ron Wilson noted that those congregations where I was invited to do my series generally experienced conversions soon thereafter. One day when Ron was in Alabama I got a call from him. He told me he was being transferred back to Tampa.  He said he was having a house built. He wanted to know if I would let his family live with us while the house was built. By this time there were 5 children: Beverly, David, Jonathan, Katie and T.J. and of course Susan. He said the government would be paying him an allotment to obtain quarters but he preferred to live with us. Immediately, on the phone as I recall, I gave him permission to do just that. Our children were out of the house then, but it was not all that convenient. We improvised by putting blow up mattresses in the garage and installing an air conditioner for the area. Susan and I shared the cooking chores because Vernita worked and she did not have time to cook. The boys helped me with yard chores and the girls helped Susan. It was not ideal, but it worked out fine.

Ron and I were both were in our prime. Ron served as a high government official, he was working cases involving millions of dollars and I was an elder and preacher at Nebraska Avenue, doing my IN The Same Hour Of The Night series all over

the country, teaching a full course load at Florida College and heading up a committee for the state of Florida which required me to travel over the state and address college presidents and deans. Wilson, for some reason, seemed to be in awe of me and that scared me. So much so, my counsel was accepted as the course he would set in life. It was that way with all matters that weighed heavy on his mind. Things that related to his work, his parents and yes with Susan and the children. I was always uncomfortable with that, but when he asked for my judgment I always gave it. Ron was what you would call a super cop for the United States government. The cases he finally handled as Agent In Charge working under the Inspector General of the United States exceeded what you might imagine. He was a U.S. Marshall as well.

Years later, Ron invited me to sit at the head table at his retirement dinner. One hundred fifty people were there, most of which were U. S. Treasury officials who had worked with Ron. There were 24 speakers, among them the Inspector General of the United States, I put my name on the list, and because they didn’t know me, I spoke last. About 15 of the Treasury officials spoke and reviewed many memorable cases they had worked with Ron. Many were emotional. Several broke down crying before they finished.

Finally when my time came, I rose from my seat and told them. “You know what you people remind me of? You remind me of the guy who died who really had lived a bad life. He had mistreated his wife and family. These preachers get up near the casket and go on and on about how grand and wonderful the deceased was. His widow punched one of her boys and said ‘Ernie, go up there and look and see if that is really Pap! I went on to tell them that Ron Wilson made me believe in reincarnation...no one could get that dumb in one lifetime! After some more of that I told them in a few sentences the impact that Ron Wilson had had on my life.

We remain friends with the Wilsons and their family.

Theirs, like ours, commands a lot of time as we have settled into being grandparents.

Not long after Ron and Susan Wilson were baptized into Christ I learned that Ron had a brother Joe who was in the service and would be soon getting out and coming home. Joe was disturbed when he learned that Ron had left the Baptist church where they had grown up where their father served as a deacon. He approached Ron about it and Ron attempted to point out to him his reasons for his conversion. After much discussion they reached an impasse. By this time Joe knew I was the one instrumental in his brother’s change. Since they could not come to a meeting of minds, Ron told Joe that if he would listen to my lesson he would not bring it up again. Joe, like Ron before him, welcomed the challenge. When I finished the lesson with Joe he was baptized. Joe was engaged to be married. He invited me to teach his fiancé. He arranged the study and after teaching my lesson to Sarah she obeyed the gospel. In the years to come, Ron would learn my lesson. Subsequently, Joe and Ron’s step-mother obeyed the gospel.

 

When you venture out to seek and save the lost there are rewards and risks. At Nebraska Avenue we had a large number of people that just showed up at services. It was my objective to field them all. We established a reputation among brethren in the city of being a congregation that would reach out to the needy. A number of people approached us for help who for the most part were non-Christians, but some were. Two absolutes we worked by were that we could not take funds from the church treasury to help non-Christians and we would not help, individually or otherwise, those who would not work or were dishonest. The criteria we used if they said they were Christians was we would ask them to name the preacher where they attended services. If they could not know we would ask them the name of the congregation or the name of any member they knew in the congregation. It was our policy to make whatever calls necessary to establish their identity. We assumed that anyone who did not know anyone was not legit. If we were able to contact the preacher or one of the members we would tell them the situation. Sometimes they told us the person was a member, but was irresponsible and

they would not help him because of his life style. When all else failed we would ask them how he became a Christian.

 

If they were non-Christians, we told them that unfortunately for them we did not have a fund to address their needs ( gas, groceries, rent money or bus tickets). We asked them if they were hungry before we sent  them away. If they said yes, we would ask them to wait where they were and one of us would go to the store and get a bag of basics (peanut butter, bread, bologna, milk, etc.) and bring it back and give it to them we would never individually give anyone money. Usually what they really wanted money to buy booze. They weren’t hungry and would be gone many times when we came back. It was our intention not to ever send anyone away hungry.

 

My help for people extended beyond Nebraska Avenue and my Florida College classroom. For instance, I had F. LaGard Smith in one of my mathematics classes. He was failing. I looked at his aptitude and concluded something was amiss. I went to his dorm room early one evening and told him that I saw no reason for his academic performance in my class. I told him I was not going to leave until he understood the subject. I stayed until late that evening and he never had a problem after that.

 

I got a call one day from a young man named Terry Gardner. He said he was a Christian and in need. As I recall I met him somewhere to hear his appeal. Before I met with him, however, I obtained the references pointed out above and contacted the congregation where he said he was a member. They told me this young man is legitimate and please help him. We will repay you for anything you are out.

 

I told Vernita about him and we invited him to dinner. He told me what sounded like a made up tale fabricated for the purpose of getting help. He told of his journey from California, I think, to Florida. In one of the states on the way his automobile, which he said was a late model, blew it’s engine. He said he did not have time or the money to get it fixed. The garage owner

gave him an older car that would run for his car. Gardiner, who had already made me suspicious, was testing me.

 

He said, as I recall, he had called another of the Florida College professors who preached and asked them where he could help. They had told him Charles Goodall at Nebraska Avenue helps people like you. He did not tell them, as he was telling me, that he had just gotten out of service and was coming to enroll at Florida College that fall. After a good laugh, we provided whatever help he needed without being reimbursed. I had gained a dear friend in Terry Gardiner. He married a wonderful young woman. Her name was Connie. He became an avid student of restoration history. He especially admired the scholarship of Clyde Woods, a brother of Guy N. Woods.

 

Vernita called me one day and said she had gotten a call from someone who wanted help and wanted to talk to me. She said he said he was walking and had our address, but was 6 or 7 miles away. He called me intermittently as he got closer. It was around dinner time when he finally arrived at our house. He said his name was Ronald Eugene Thompson and he had left a circus when his job played out in downtown Tampa. He looked to be about 20 years old, very handsome and very well mannered and polite. He reminded me of my Florida College students. Vernita was quite taken by him and invited him for dinner. As I recall, we wound up giving up a couch for him to sleep on that night.

He said he needed a place to stay and a job. After taking him to Florida College and introducing him to the dean of students he was given temporary quarters in one of the dormitories and was hired immediately at Temple Terrace Industries.

 

He soon agreed to let me teach him my lesson (ISN) and readily consented to be baptized. Things were going along well until one day he called me at my office at Florida College and said he needed to talk to me. He then confided that his whole scenario with me was a façade. He told me he was an escaped convict from the federal penitentiary at El Reno Oklahoma. He said he had been given 6 years for armed robbery. He told of

tragic experiences for a young man in prison. I surmised from what he said that he had been raped. He told of getting the supplies and assisting while others were raped. After he escaped he boarded the train with the circus and did odd jobs for them until it reached Tampa. He said, “I really didn’t reach Tampa, I reached North Florida, and made my way to Tampa by going from church of Christ to church of Christ and feigning conversion. I came to you with the intent of deceiving you the same way.” He said he was married and he had a child back home.

With tears in his eyes he told me that all the other baptisms he had were for an ulterior motive. He said when I heard your lesson I was really convinced and repented and was baptized for the remission of my sins. I realize now that since I have repented I have to face the music. I want you to call the U.S. Marshall’s office and get an appointment. I want you to go with me when I turn myself in. He said I will get an additional six years for escape. I went with him to the U.S. Marshall’s office and watched them handcuff and chain him and take him away. Thompson wrote me for several years, but I lost track of him after awhile.

 

The point of these accounts is that you never know who you might encounter. In this case I exposed my family to potential harm and danger. Thompson was an armed robber and escapee from a federal penitentiary. He could have been armed and dangerous.

 

James Richardson was a study. He was a man who knew who he was and set his own limitations and goals. I only facilitated his aspirations. He came to Nebraska Avenue no doubt through the influence of Lucille Wells. He left the liberal twentyninth street church when he saw a need to get a fresh start out of the grasp of their unscriptural practices. He and his wife Eloise came and identified with Nebraska Avenue and left behind the baggage of 29^th Street.

James, an African American, was a retired truck driver. He had held office in the teamsters union in the Tampa Bay area.

The Richardsons owned nice home min a well kept AfroAmerican neighborhood. James began to take part in the work at

Nebraska Avenue right away. The Richardsons and the Wells were the only two black families diligently working with the Nebraska Avenue congregation for a time. There was a perceptable difference between the philosophies of the Wells family and the Richardson family when it came to the way they interacted with the white brethren in the congregation. The Wells seemed to immediately dismiss any semblance of racial barriers at Nebraska Avenue. That was a welcome thing as most of the white people at Nebraska Avenue were working at doing the same thing. I made the comment privately then that the Wells family was a immense blessing to Nebraska Avenue. I told Si, “it is great for you to be here. You can’t believe what you are doing for us.

Many of these brethren have never known really good black people” It was not unusual to hear about interactions between the Wells and white brethren outside the assembly. They were frequent visitors in our home. Some of our white brethren were racist as you would expect. This was borne out one evening when I had the Wells family and one of our white deacons and his family for dinner. In the dinner conversation the deacon, seeming wanting to vent his uneasiness eating with his black brethren remarked that he had been around blacks all his life. He observed that he had had a black mama in the house when he

was growing up. He didn’t have a clue what he was revealing about himself. Needless to say, Vernita and I were embarrassed.

 

Richardson, however, for some reason didn’t feel right about doing that type of thing and maintained a self-imposed distance. Though many invitations were given, James and Eloise repeatedly turned down offers to come to our home for a meal. He was as meek a man as one would ever meet; a gentle giant in the truest sense of the expression. The brethren at Nebraska Avenue fully embraced them.

 

James Richardson was the master of barbeque. He introduced me to smoking (meat, of course). His means permitted him to lavish his expertise in smoking meat on Nebraska Avenue. Typically he would come to our covered dish outings bringing a whole fresh pork ham that he had smoked. He would stand

and carve it as we moved through the line. Many said it was the best tasting meat they had ever put in their mouth. Sometimes he would come with several slabs of ribs to serve. If you didn’t get ribs your first time through the line, you didn’t get ribs because they’d be gone. He had the best ribs that I had ever eaten.

 

Even though Richardson entered into doing his part in the services, for awhile there were limitations in what he would agree to do. He led prayer, waited on the table and ushered.

However, there was something we didn’t know about James Richardson and would not know for some time…he was one of the 25+ million Americans who could not read. He wanted so

badly to read the Bible that in time he learned to read. He was at least 63 years old at the time. As he was learning to read he agreed to offer an invitation by giving a small talk. In time he agreed to preach on Sunday night. From time to time he visited the mostly black Belmont Heights congregation where Paul Andrews had once preached. The brethren there were philosophically aligned with James Richardson. Si Wells didn’t feel such philosophical alignment was a good thing and did not want to isolate his family the way he felt the brethren at the Belmont church tended to do.

 

Si Wells and I visited Belmont a number of times. Their congregational singing was not good. Si asked me once what does this do to the white brethren’s theory that black brethren can always sing? Richardson seemed more comfortable at Belmont than at Nebraska Avenue. I really think James Richardson leaned more toward the Belmont Heights way of thinking that brethren of color should stay together. They soon invited James to come and be their preacher. He accepted and preached there for a good while.

In time, the Lake Wales church in central Florida, a mostly black congregation, invited Richardson to become their preacher. He accepted and worked with the brethren there for several years. When he resigned from Lake Wales and was back in Tampa (He never sold his house, he commuted in his preaching years), I heard he had terminal cancer. I went to see him and vis

ited at length. He thanked me for what I had done for him. I said, James there is one thing I would like to have, your technique of smoking. He gave me his technique for preparing barbeque ribs which he had shared with no one. I have only shared it with my son Chuck.

 

When James Richardson passed away, Eloise asked me to preach the funeral. It was in the Nebraska Avenue building.

White brethren were there, but in the minority. James had a lot of friends that I used to hear him call his “brothers”. I told them obviously I lacked credentials to be his “brother” in that sense, but that James Richardson was a brother to me in a way few of them would ever understand.

 

JoLinda Roberts Crump. Cathy Howell Valdes and Penny Copeland Dean, as they would later be known, were maybe ten or eleven when I came to Nebraska Avenue. Like my children they grew up, were educated and married during my tenure.

They were very close and would prove to be very important in the work at a Nebraska Avenue. They were the “gophers” in handling the Bible correspondence

courses resulting from the newspaper

advertisements and “Dial-A-Bible-Thot” detailed in the account of the work of Robin Willis. They did an enormous amount of work in the grading and mailing of those lessons. Penny and JoLinda were daughters of two of our elders.

Penny married a young man who had grown up in the congregation. She became a stay-at-home mom and a good one at that. JoLinda and Cathy graduated

from the University of South Florida and became school teachers. JoLinda became a music teacher which would become useful in her work to come in the Lord.

 

I had piqued their interest by doing an intense survey of the Bible. They, over time, realized their children would not get the

background needed to have a good understanding of the whole Bible story. Our “system” was as it was most other places back then. The teacher’s randomly rotated voluntarily “teaching” the Bible classes. The deacons, as was the tradition in most Bay area congregations, selected the class materials from the Florida College Bookstore. Vernita managed the bookstore and observed that they, like most others who came to pick up literature for the next quarter for a particular class, did not know what the class had studied the quarter before the last quarter, much less whether it was in the Old Testament or New Testament. Often, to their chagrin, she would note from her records that they had just studied the book they picked out the quarter before. The classrooms at Nebraska Avenue were sadly neglected. Faded hang-ups were on the bulletin boards with little or no correlation to what the class was studying. By this time I was an elder, so as the women began their work they had the ear of the elders.

Thus, in this environment, The Amplified Bible Curriculum(ABC), was born. The women wanted to develop a curriculum wherein their children would study the WHOLE Bible chronologically in a three year cycle. It didn’t hurt that my doctoral I was just completing consisted of two areas of intense training, curriculum and mathematics. The former, of course, came into play in this setting. The women approached this task with gusto. They asked the elders to let them use two unused classrooms (Nebraska Avenue had a large two story building). They made a library out of one of the rooms and a resource room out of the other. The only limitation that these three women had was their own work ethic. They envisioned a curriculum that did not omit any part of the Bible. They did not want the traditional random repetitive back and forth favorite topics that were neither sequential nor chronological. They observed that from the way we, and others, were teaching a child might well think that Moses and Barnabas were contemporaries. Not only that, they would likely know nothing about the united kingdom, divided kingdom, Judah alone, Babylonian captivity much less have any concept of the whole Bible story. There was nothing on the market that met all their criteria.

1.      Comprehensive, cover the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation

2.      Chronological

3.      Cover the entire Bible in 3 years using a succession of lessons

4.      Address the learning capabilities at each children’s level (5 or 6 year old begins to read, etc.)

5.      Bible based objectives and activities for all grade levels

They began by dividing the Bible story into 12 quarters (three years).  As you would expect each quarter was divided into twelve lessons, one for each week. They envisioned every teacher at every level would teach the same topic on the particular class day, even in the adult classes. Ideally each family would do their Bible study preparation at home together because that no matter what class they were in from pre-school through adult level they would all be studying the same topic. The task was a formidable one. In time the women enlisted the help of Gene Taylor, who preached in Tallahassee, FL to write the adult series correlating to ABC .

 

One of the vital courses in the education of professional teachers is the one in which they learn how to write educational objectives. I had taught my young teachers when I was overseeing student teachers in graduate school the absolute necessity of that. Cathy and Jolinda had taken the course (not from me).

They had been taught that you must write state a measurable outcome behavior for every objective in the classroom. The prospective professional teachers are drilled in this. “More and better” are not acceptable standards because neither are measurable. The teacher is asked, “What do you want the student to do” when you finish your task. Can you observe and measure the

result. An example would be: “the student will name the 12

apostles” would be acceptable. “The student will name the 17 Bible periods in order” would be acceptable. “The student will learn to love the Lord more” would not, even though that result

is an inevitable outcome of studying about God. Thus the women wrote objectives at every level (Preschool, primary, etc. through high school) for every lesson except adult. (The literature that was available for purchase for the most part was totally void of the expertise provided by these young educators. Most of the literature had been written by preachers, who were not educators, and had little distinction of level.) ABC suggested an activity commensurate with each level of each lesson. ABC was a teacher’s guide, it was not a book to be read to the students. Nebraska Avenue purchased every teacher’s manual and a copy, when possible, of every literature series on the market at the time. The women placed them in the library along with any books they believed the teachers would be able to glean materials and Bible stories in their preparation. The resource room was supplied with rolls of paper, flannel cut outs of Bible figures, maps and anything a teacher would need to set their room up for the topics they would study. If a teacher asked for something the women welcomed the opportunity to make a new addition to the resource room. On the average the women would spend 20-25 hours preparing their materials for their quarter. On the Saturday of quarter change the outgoing teachers would go in and “take down” their rooms and take the material to the Resource Room and library for recycling except for maybe a timeline. These women loved this opportunity they were given to be an active participant in creating something that did not exist and best of all have their children be the benefactors.

 

It would be a gross mistake to underestimate the talent, expertise and zeal of these young women. Crump and Valdez were school teachers. The former wrote songs with lyrics for memory work made available on cassette tapes commercially to be used in conjunction with the curriculum. Valdez eventually became the official in charge of the construction of all new school buildings in Hillsborough County, FL. Dean was the beaver and the “go to” gal for the whole project. The Amplified Bible Curriculum in my judgment was a masterpiece. There was and is nothing like it. These women set high goals and standards and therein was the Achilles heel of The Amplified Bible Curriculum. The

women refused to compromise. They said to the teachers we are not going to give you a prepared lesson to teach, however we will help you prepare your own. We will provide all the resources and assistance you need and the moral support, but in the end you will have to prepare your own room and your own lessons. The Amplified Bible Curriculum (ABC) individual lessons provided suggested activities and projects for each of the separate grade level groupings. I witnessed it’s implementation and watched it function about 15-16 years…as long as JoLinda, Cathy and Penny were there to make it go. It will work again if a few sisters involved in teaching their children want them to know the Bible when they grow up. If not then we may have to be content with teachers who greet the children in a faded drab classroom. Teachers that have only their purse, and pick up the lesson book left there the week before and read it to an inattentive class. If that is the scenario that pleases you and your congregation ABC would not work for you. It is so sad to watch the parade of our children as they grow up and leave the church ignorant of the Bible and the Bible story.

 

One couple I am not going to name came to Tampa and Nebraska Avenue from my home congregation in Louisville, Ky. The young man enrolled at Florida College and took all Bible classes. He could do that because he was older and had some college. The couple had two lovely little girls that reminded me of my own. We had them in our home

and enjoyed their company. Later they would reciprocate. As I recall this young man had not been converted very long. He was very ambitious in wanting to become a gospel preacher and devote his life to serving in that capacity. He had all the tools for that endeavor. He was sincere, articulate, handsome, eager to learn the Bible, had a winning personality and a wife who was sweet and charming. He had heard of me and my record in personal evangelism. He wanted to work and train with me while in Tampa. I really had not had anyone as

promising to work with. When his time came to preach he really did a splendid job. He was very knowledgeable and articulate. I had worked with him no more than one term while he was at Florida College, if that much, when he came to me and asked to talk about his situation. He confided that in his judgment he was wasting his time staying at Florida College and Nebraska Avenue. I did not think that was a wise thing for him to do and told him so. He obviously had made up his mind. He had heard of a congregation that was looking for a preacher and said he was going to “try out”. Coincidentally a congregation in Kentucky suddenly needed a preacher. The next thing I know, the elders there hired hum. Valley Station at the time was a sizeable (150) congregation and was an active work. Several able gospel preachers had worked with them in the past. He went right to work with full imbursement which he had never had before.

My parents and older sister were still living then and when we brought the children to visit we would always worship at Valley Station. I recall hearing Ralph preach and teach a Bible class. He was teaching the book of Daniel. He obviously had mastered his subject.

 

Robin Willis is the most tireless, sincere and dedicated personal worker I ever worked with. I was never able to match his zeal even though I tried. I encountered Robin during my third trimester at Nebraska Avenue. (1980-1987) Robin won’t mind me telling you, I am sure, that

the Lord did not equip him with the tools to be a gospel preacher. He was well schooled in the Bible at Florida College and zealous to a fault. He finally decided becoming a gospel preacher was not his forte. He learned the

printing trade and became a professional printer and publisher.

I came in contact with him when he came to Nebraska Avenue where I preached and served as an elder and made overtures to worship with us. He was a member of another area congrega

tion near Florida College which was made up of mostly Florida College students. Robin had made an error in judgment there about a legal matter and it was brought to the business meeting (they had no elders). Because he did not repent of his error they withdrew from him. In time, bro. Willis repented of his action, wrote a letter of confession and contrition, but it was rejected.

Robin told me that in their judgment he was insincere in the presentation of his document. I read his confession and it appeared contrite and sincere and specifically identified the error he was repenting of.

So as elders at Nebraska Avenue we were presented with the problem of whether to accept a withdrawn from brother into fellowship. We decided to conduct a hearing at Nebraska Avenue and invite those from Robin Willis’ former congregations to come and charge him. They did. They simply named his error and repeated their conviction that he was insincere in his repentance. For those who know Robin Willis you might charge him from time to time with unwise moves, decisions or even misunderstandings, but never insincerity. We accepted him as a member in good standing and later appointed him an elder at Nebraska Avenue.

For those who might not know about the presentation of my In The Same Hour Of The Night (ISN) lesson, it is an intensely comprehensive lesson presented in a relaxed narrative tone. I, but few others have mastered it. It takes about 12 hours of intense study, drill and recitation to do that it. Under ideal conditions at the kitchen table, it can be presented it in an hour and fifteen minutes. That kind of preparation is a sacrifice that most are unwilling to make.

 

As I recall Robin and Mateel (Robins wife) went with Vernita and I to Vermont. I had been invited to present my series on personal evangelism which featured my (ISN) lesson. While we were there a preacher named Frank Butler from Tennessee was holding a meeting in upstate. He called us and wanted to meet for lunch. At lunch he said, “Bro. Goodall, I want to thank you. I have devoted a big part of my life (he was several years older than me) concentrating on personal evangelism.

Sometime back I ordered a set of cassette tapes of your series that were made available when you did your series at the Douglas Hills congregation in Louisville, KY. As I drove to my meetings I memorized your lesson (ISN). I began to use it immediately and in the last two years I have baptized 22 people. He said, “I loaned the tapes to a young preacher and he baptized the first 8 he taught.”

 

Robin, bless his heart, had difficulty mastering the lesson. Not that he didn’t try. One time we were doing a funeral service together at the church building. His part in the service was to begin by giving a ten minute personal tribute, read the obituary and have a prayer. I was then supposed to preach the funeral sermon. The building, as I recall was full and most of them were non-Christians. Without letting me know, he usurped the floor and attempted to present my lesson, In The Same Hour Of The Night. After about 45 minutes of leaving parts out and summarizing he sat down. Embarrassed, I quickly covered for him and closed the service. Two things Robin Willis had plenty of, zeal and sincerity to go along with his good intentions.

 

He and I worked together closely in our personal evangelism program. Robin believed in home Bible Studies. I did also and we formed a team. Nebraska Avenue was doing what we called Dial-A-Bible-Thot. We bought a large expensive ad in the Tampa Tribune and advertised Dial-A-Bible-Thot with the phone number to call in large case numerals. I loaded the recording machine every day with a new Bible Thought. The preamble went something like this: “Thank you for calling Dial a Bible Thot. Our thought for today is….( I would give a 2-3 minute devotional thought) Then I would say, “If you would like to receive a free Bible correspondence course leave your name and address and we will mail it to you. Thank you for calling Dail a Bible Thot. (Beep)” They would either hang up or leave their name and address. I had the machine in my office at home, but even with the door shut we could hear the machine and the voices. It sounded like a gerbil. The machine had two tapes and was rather

expensive. It ran day and night recording every name and address.

 

Our “girls” at Nebraska Avenue, Jolinda Crump, Cathy Valdez and Penny Dean, fielded the addresses and mailed the lessons of the Hurt Bible Correspondence to each new prospect. When the prospect sent them back, they would grade them and send the next lesson to them. There were 8 lessons in the series. At one time we had over 100 active lessons. We considered them “active” when they returned lesson five.. (Ideal mass media evangelism, expensive, heavy man hours, but opportunity galore) It was at lesson five when we chose to visit them unannounced in their home with a view of setting up a home Bible Study. This, apparently, was a panacea. A door was open for us to set up home Bible Studies. There were three of us working these studies…all experienced and qualified to teach home Bible studies: myself, Buddy Payne and Robin Willis. Soon each of us had one or two Bible studies a week. Payne was my associate in the pulpit. He had come from St. Petersburg and the elders had asked him to help me. We were teaching the Jule Miller slide series in our home Bible studies.  As I remember we had been going a few weeks and when Payne came to me and told me he couldn’t do home Bible studies anymore. It was taking too much time away from his family. He went to Temple Terrace and became their regular preacher.

 

No one ever came to services or obeyed the gospel from only the Bible correspondence courses. Robin and I had the whole home Bible study effort to ourselves. Robin was like a kid in a candy store. It was what he had only dreamed about. Neither of us had ever had the opportunity to set up an unlimited number of cottage classes. The people who we were teaching seemed to appreciate the classes. They openly thanked us when we finished a class and sought reassurance that we would be back next week. When we finished the Jules Miller series (five lessons) we would move on to lessons on Bible authority or the New Testament church. Those in the home Bible studies seemingly could not get enough from either of us. They always asked for more, but we

could never get a commitment to come to services even with transportation provided or to obey the gospel.

 

As I remember it, Robin was teaching a staunch Baptist couple. They played instruments and sang religious songs at nursing homes for the elderly. He called me and was ecstatic that they had chosen to give up their instruments and obey the gospel. This was huge at the time. While we were having converts as usual at services, and with ISN (who did not come from Dial-aBible Thot) neither of us had any results in our home Bible studies. When it appeared we were not getting anywhere in our home Bible study we would begin with a new prospect after maybe 6 or 7 weeks. To have this newly converted spiritual couple in services was indeed a shot in the arm, especially for Robin. The proof was in the pudding. This wonderful highly spiritual mature couple engaged themselves thoroughly and invigorated the Nebraska Avenue congregation. They were the boost we needed at the time. We had poured hundreds of dollars and hundreds of man hours into this mass media project with no tangible fruit until this couple obeyed the gospel. I was glad at the time it was Robin that had experienced the success because his well had been dry for so long. My ISN successes were in abundance and by this time it was a matter of history. I would eventually do over 60 weekend series on Personal Evangelism around the country)

 

I recall vividly getting the call from Robin. He sadly told me the former Baptist couple had notified him that they were going back to the Baptist church. Instrumental music in worship was such a part of their life that they just couldn’t give it up. His disappointment was devastating. He was crying.

 

Immediately Robin and I compared notes and I made an analysis of the prospects from Dial-A-Bible-Thot. (Something I should have done before the experience with the Baptist couple.) My work in doctoral graduate research in statistics led me to realize our prospects were coming from a highly selective population which destroyed any possibility of randomness and homo

geneity, the bedrock criteria for statistics. Even though our ad had been placed in a Tampa Paper we had not obtained a fair unbiased sample of the metropolitan area. An absolute necessity in statistics) Our prospects had been heavily weighted toward one race (black), gender (female), age (elderly) and interest (they zeroed in on religious radio programs and tele-evangelists like Oral Roberts and Ernest Angsley). When I assessed what was happening I pointed out to Robin that the reason our prospects were so receptive to our classes was that for the most part we were enriching their already full agenda of religious experiences. Characteristically our prospects could and/or no longer wanted to attend church anywhere. Their religious passions were being fulfilled at home and were excited that we augmented that by being willing to come to their home and teach them. That is why we could never interest them in attending a service, even with transportation, and they most noticeable would not consider obeying the gospel.

 

That is when I learned that mass media evangelism produces prospects that are expensive, requiring a lot of man power,

tend to have handicaps and “baggage” and while having the prospect of conversion, tend to be unstable if they are. We were doing much better with prospects produced by the credibility and integrity of the membership who willing to break their comfort zones and arrange for us to teach them ISN. Thank you Robin Willis for being there with me to learn this vital lesson in personal evangelism.

 

The most knowledgeable Bible student at Nebraska Avenue was, outside of the preachers and elders, Thelma Cross. Her husband Frances was a non-Christian who never came to services. Sister Cross was blind. She contributed heavily in Bible class.

She was very much aware of who was in the assembly who needed teaching, both Christians and non-Christians. I am sure Frances Cross had heard the gospel from every angle. He just was not willing to obey the gospel. Let me give you a made up scenario that would typically be a moment for Thelma Cross. (She had no fear. She wanted the gospel taught.) If she knew a

non-Christian was there, she might ask, “Bro. Goodall, does a person really have to be baptized to be saved?” If she knew that a couple was present which she felt had no right to marry because of one of them having a living mate which had not committed fornication before the divorce she might ask, (Her question would invariably out of context of what we were studying in class.) “Bro. Goodall can a man who has divorced his wife who did not commit fornication prior to the divorce, find another woman and remarry and it be OK with God?”

 

One day I decided I would try my hand with Frances. I had heard that Frances like to fish but I didn’t know how much. I loved to boat ride but I had never really enjoyed fishing mainly because I had never caught anything. Frances worked as a contract guide on the Hillsborough River, one of the few remaining pristine rivers in the south and a haven for trophy large-mouth bass (12-15 lb). He did not keep 10 pounders. Frances Cross knew how to catch the big bass. He told me he would take me fishing if I would buy the bait.

I met him one morning, as I recall, before daylight. We went to a fish camp and he ordered 18 live river shiners (8-10 inches long and very lively). They were, in about 1975, one dollar each (ouch!). Frances used salt water gear. We made our way up the river to an area called Lettuce Lake. We fished with the shiners about they were dead or gone (about 30 minutes). The shiner was strong. It would swim frantically around while it was alive around the area of the large float. Suddenly, when a strike came, it would submerge and take off. Cross said to let it go for a little while then pull back strongly. Then the fight was on. The objective was to reel the fish in beside the boat and put the net under him and hoist him in the boat. It was very exciting. When the first shiners were gone Cross cranked up his high powered boat and we went to an inlet he knew about where we could catch more shiners, better than the original ones. He handed me a cane pole with a tiny hook. He opened a loaf of bread and we put a tiny piece on the hook. In 30 minutes we had another 18 shiners and it was back to Lettuce Lake. At 11:00 Cross shut everything down and we headed home. We were fishing for large

mouth bass. Typically we caught 5 or 6 2-3 pounders, one or two 5-6 pounders. Cross would sometimes catch a 10-11 pounder. I never caught one that big.

We went fishing like that several times. It was hard on my budget. I guess I couldn’t keep my endeavor secret. Word spread around the congregation about my fishing with Cross and brethren began to ask if I had broken my comfort zone with him and approached him about the gospel. I had not. The brethren continued to ask so one day when we came in I said, “Frances, you know I am interested in your soul. Would you be willing to have a Bible study with me?” He said, “No”. He obviously felt he had been used and did not make it easy for me to go fishing with him again. In retrospect he was right. I was more interested in studying the Bible with him than I was in fishing and would not most likely have sought his help in fishing had I not I wanted to teach him. I left Nebraska by my own volition in 1987 after 19 years. Thelma Cross eventually, according to Robin Willis, and suffered poor healthand became disabled. In the interim Robin says he visited her often and discussed the Bible with her. He said Frances would come into the room and listen and interact. Finally Thelma passed away. Frances Cross had never attended services. One day he called Robin and asked to be baptized. Robin met with him and baptized. He attended services until his death. He left $89,000 dollars to Nebraska Avenue.

 

Bob High was a young man I came in contact with as I recall by telephone. Bob called me one day and said that he had obtained a book that had a short paragraph describing each of the various denominations. He said there was a paragraph in the book that described the church of Christ. He said it seemed most like what he was looking for. I soon met Bob, his wife Helen and toddler daughter, Tammy. After Helen and Bob heard my lesson (ISN) both were baptized into Christ.

 

John Hensley was a real person who was a member at Nebraska Avenue. His name is fictitious you can understand why. I don’t know where John came from but he was there every Lord’s day. John stood out because he was schizophrenic. (schizo

phrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by a deficit of typical emotional responses.^] Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, para- noid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction-Wikipedia Encyclopedia)

John exhibited almost all those symptoms. He lived alone over on 40^th Street near the river. He was quite spiritual. When I went to see him in his modest home he showed me a set of audio tapes he had bought. It was a large collection of dramatized stories of Bible events. He told me he paid $300.00 for the set. He gave the set to me. We used them in our Bible classes where appropriate. John was strange. He wrote long letters to the church about once a week. They were long, hand written, and in different colors of ink. He warned of a plot that involved the Waffle House and James R. Cope, the president of Florida College that posed a threat to Nebraska Avenue. He never suggested violence was involved, just a murky underhanded threat of some kind.

Consistent with the description of his illness his letters were filled with “paranoid or bizarre delusions and disorganized thought”. His letters consisted of details of unrealistic overheard conversations involving Cope and Waffle house and warning of some impending action on their part but he never specified what. When you talked with him he would not discuss the content of the letters. It was like he was not cognizant of what he wrote. He interacted with us in a very normal way.

As would be expected we became worried. I took his letters to the police and talked to their psychiatrist. After reading the letters the doctor explained that he was living in two worlds as a schizophrenic. One was real and the other was imagined. Each world, however, was equally real to him. I asked him what we could expect and what we should do. He said until he threatens bodily harm to himself or someone else there is nothing the police can do. (He had not done that) He said the man with his illness is unpredictable. He might come to services, pull a gun and shoot a bunch of people and say, “The Lord told me to do it.” John’s house burned down and he moved away. We never saw him again.

I first came to know Winke McDonald when I preached in Brooksville, Fl in the middle 60’s. She moved to Tampa and became a member at Nebraska Avenue. She impressed me early with her zeal and particularly her willingness to leave her comfort zone. Perhaps in retrospect I would classify her among the best and most aggressive in that trait. She was very skilled at not offending a prospect, yet gaining their trust in order to set up a study. Winke could not conduct or lead a study. When she came to Nebraska Avenue her age was having it’s toll on her. Because of her physical problems she had to sit in our overflow room.

There was no air conditioning but there was a rest room adjacent to it. Winke, as was said about the Lord, did not have a comely appearance. Her youth was gone, her physical body was breaking down and life was a struggle for her. Besides her property in Tampa she owned “Mary’s Fish Camp”. It was a substandard fishing camp on the spring that flowed from Weeki Watchee into the gulf of Mexico. Her husband was a welder who at the time was out of the Lord and building a floating pontoon boat. The boat was big. He planned to take it out in the gulf and lease it to guests. Mary rented substandard cottages to those who wanted to spend the night and pole fish for mutton, a vegetarian eating fish. On one occasion she put a pig in the ground on hot coals to barbeque. Vernita, the kids, and I along with some of their friends gathered there on occasion. Winke had the uncanny ability to leave her comfort zone and set Bible classes for me. Time and agin in Tampa she would call and tell me that someone would allow me to teach them. I, in turn, would go to the place pre-arranged and teach my lesson (ISN). The strange thing is I

can’t recall a single one that was converted. That doesn’t mean there were none, I just can’t remember a particular individual. I believe that Winke was totally successful at what God wanted her to do. She kept seeking the lost and did not grow discouraged when no one came to the Lord. I do know that she made it possible for me to teach a lot of people and I liked that.

Somewhere out there are the Winke McDonald’s who trudge ahead. No doubt the Lord sees them and puts their treas

ures in heaven. He certainly did that for the widow with two mites. She had given more than all of them.

 

Nebraska Avenue was willing to try any strategy, no matter how unproven. It was the oldest and largest congregation in Tampa at the time. Not having to replace the salary of a fully supported evangelist and seeing the fruits of their labors encouraged them. The elders were eager to attempt almost any project that was proposed that seemed to have even a remote possibility of being successful. The congregation was willing to take any promising risk in order to attempt to bring souls to Christ. The congregation enjoyed a brisk influx of visitors and provided a

laboratory for me for twenty years (the 1970’s and 80’s) to test strategies other than the pulpit to bring souls to Christ. In particular we were fortunate to have the best public relations and promotion in the brotherhood, provided by Harry Pickup, Sr.

To be sure, I viewed my efforts with the young people there a work of the Lord, and I worked “as unto the Lord.” My work as a professor at Florida College and being an evangelist meshed well. The former was my refreshment and leisure and the latter was my life’s work. I was not a Bible scholar or an administrator. Instead, the Lord blessed me with a lot of drive and ability to organize. Florida College was a great blessing in my life because it provided for the needs of my family, including my needs, that I could spread the Gospel with what little ability God gave me.

I consider myself to have been blessed in my work with having two fine mentors, Harold Dowdy and Paul Andrews. These brethren were very different. Their methods were different, and their preaching was different. Paul Andrews converted listeners by implanting a deep spiritual urge to obey the Lord by providing the deep sincere portrayal of what Jesus had done for them. Harold Dowdy assumed his prospect already had a belief in Christ, a belief in the inspiration of the scriptures and a basic knowledge of the Bible. In his lesson he brought his prospect to the point of wanting to obey the Gospel by reasoning from Jesus’ prayer in John 17. He demonstrated the stark contrast of the desire of Jesus as expressed in His prayer and the development of

Protestant denominationalism. He challenged them to lay all of that aside and become a New Testament Christian. Many of them did. I understand that he did a series on the final week of Christ that was unforgettable. Prestigious people, who you would not normally have an opportunity to teach, I was told, were spellbound by it. However, I never had the privilege to hear the series.

Harold Dowdy encouraged me to get involved in strategies of leading people to Christ beyond the pulpit. Dowdy was a master storyteller. He could recount the Bible stories by exposing the absurdity of those who opposed God with such animation, mental vision, and clarity that often I couldn’t keep from chuckling.

I would love, even now, to be able to hear that. I tried to imitate Dowdy as I did Andrews. I’m sure, however, that my attempts at imitation were just that – poor imitations. One story Dowdy told that I found quite amusing was about the efforts of Ahab and Jehosephat to go down and take Ramoth-Gilead. He brought it all to life, the horns, the smite-in-the-mouth, but most of all, four very strong Bible lessons that he drew from the story. I could never recreate it in the effective way that he did it.

Dowdy’s personal evangelism approach to personal evangelism was simple. He utilized about a 25-30 minute lesson that started with John 17. Then, after giving an overview of church history, he would conclude with the plan of salvation. He utilized a brief case of denominational creed books in his presentation. (Dowdy was my mentor, so that was my practice as well). Before he would begin, he would say in a folksy way that only he could do, “Have you got a little time here? I want to show you what the church of Christ is all about. If when I get done it doesn’t mean anything to you, I’ll put my Bible away, and we’ll still be

friends.”

He used the denomination creed books to show the difference in the denominations and the church of Christ. The purpose of his lesson as I realized later was not designed to convert people but to disarm their prejudices and leave them in a frame of mind to be taught later. This system also effectively sorted out those who were not interested.

He called what he taught, “My Lesson.” If he did a fourservice series in a congregation to teach them how to do personal evangelism, he would start out at the beginning every time presenting his lesson. Typically he would do it two or three times in his series. The rest of the series as I recall was filled with anecdotes that were hard to believe. But Harold was believable. Usually the escapades involved him and Ed Harrell. One story was that in a Gospel meeting he was holding at a congregation where Ed Harrell preached, Harrell gave Harold Dowdy an address of a prospect. The story is that Dowdy went next door to the prospect he was given by mistake and baptized the person. On another occasion one of them allegedly offered to pay (not seriously, of course) the one who came to the congregation where they preached for a Gospel meeting, based on the number of baptisms for the week’s meeting. The story as I remember it is that a list of 12 prospects was given and all were baptized. True or not, I never questioned his veracity but admired him for his work’s sake.

Harold Dowdy had a tremendous impact on my life’s work, and I will always be indebted to him.

Paul Andrews was sports minded, to say the least. For some reason he was impressed with me when I was in college – enough that though a freshman and not a Bible major, he asked me to fill the pulpit for him when he was away. There was nothing that could have impressed him about me as an athlete [I didn’t participate in any sports, even intramural, which he directed], and in the one year I spent in Bible college, I took only four Bible courses and basic ones at that. Certainly there was nothing at all in my Bible background to recommend me. I didn’t even attend the congregation where Paul preached. Obviously he had some insight that gave him confidence in me that still puzzles me. Some ten years later I was considering the work at Nebraska Avenue. My tenure of nineteen years allowed many opportunities to experiment with strategies seeking to lead souls to Christ beyond the pulpit.

Paul was my idol, particularly in the pulpit. His accomplishments at a nearby congregation were unprecedented. In his preaching he had a pathos I had never heard before. James P.

Miller said one time that any great preacher or orator has pathos. Paul Andrews had what some would call a country brogue peppered with agrarian anecdotes drawn from his wealth of experience. He drew men to the love of the Savior and convinced them as sinners to obey the Gospel.

Paul impressed me so much so I wanted to preach just like him. I obtained every cassette tape I could of his sermons and attempted to preach the way he did. I think I did a fairly good job of imitation, but I could never prepare a sermon of my own using his style. During this time Paul was highly focused on strategies beyond the pulpit. His success, to my knowledge, has never been matched. He did so through home Bible studies in conjunction with his preaching.

Paul was a very humble man. In my judgment he was a master teacher and preacher. His work spoke for itself. He baptized more than 100 people for more than one year, yet he was basically ignored by the preaching brethren in the area, especially those connected with Florida College. He was never asked to do seminars for the prospective preachers at the school or appear in lectureships. Years later when he was finally asked to speak at the lectures, he was introduced with the accolades he deserved and the details of his unparalleled career. When Andrews rose to

speak, with a sheepish grin he observed, “If I was all of that, you would have thought they would not have waited so long to ask me to speak!” Paul Andrews was a mentor of mine. I loved him, I loved his work, and I wanted to preach as well as he did and use strategies outside the pulpit as effectively as him. I never did.

The trainees I worked with would usually make talks on Wednesday nights. I let them accompany me while I used strategies to lead souls to Christ. I was able to bond beyond the pulpit with a number of potential gospel preachers who now attribute their becoming a gospel preacher to the encouragement I gave them. I wasn’t any great hero in doing that. I was simply following the example of the time Jesus spent nurturing and teaching John. That was good time spent by the Lord. There were no other disciples and no multitudes. I’m sure that the Lord didn’t feel His time was wasted. The key lesson Jesus illustrated is that the

time a trained, experienced teacher spends one-to-one with an untrained individual with no spiritual direction is time well spent.

Not every talented pulpit preacher wants to get out at night and spread the gospel by strategies beyond the pulpit, even when his classes are set up for him. A lot of talented preachers, for whatever reason, do not put forth the effort to save souls beyond the pulpit. Perhaps they feel that it is outside their area of expertise. A very prominent scholarly preacher in the area became so discouraged with the futility of his efforts in an upper-middleclass neighborhood that he opined from the pulpit that it was closed to evangelism.

The sermons I preached in the congregation at Nebraska Avenue were broadcast live for several years. To my knowledge none were baptized or visited because of the program. However, a number were baptized who were drop-in visitors and contacts of the brethren. Preaching was not neglected (2 Tim. 4:1-5). The congregation grew.

Nebraska Avenue was known for preaching the word, teaching model Bible classes, supporting mission work, and training gospel preachers. Harry Pickup, Sr. provided invaluable encouragement and guidance to the congregation. Harry Pickup, Sr. instructed the men in pulpit preaching and served as an elder while I pursued strategies to lead souls to Christ outside the pulpit. My perspective was that I expected I would learn in the process. New strategies would reflect my maturity and development. Homer Hailey asked my beloved colleague, W. D. Burgess, if he had any good sermons on childrearing. Brother Burgess bent over laughing, feigning disbelief that brother Hailey would ask him that. Then he said, “I think I’ll get mine raised first before I tell anyone how to raise theirs.” Brother Hailey retorted, “You had better preach to them now because you know more now than you will then.” It goes without question I began as if I had done it all my life and was quite accomplished. I wasn’t.

I discovered early on that most of the strategies beyond the pulpit were home Bible studies that included multiple lessons.

Immediately, I concluded that there is no apparent disadvantage of the multiple-lesson approach for those who need more time. It appeared to me that those of us using it were assuming that those we were teaching would be spared by the grace of God and continue their interest uniformly.

I experimented with the multiple lesson approach with the Tisdel, Walker and the Jule Miller lessons. As I settled in for the long term in the presentation of these lessons, several occurrences seemed to repeatedly emerge. Many of those I was teaching were interested immediately in learning what they needed to know and do to be saved. Obviously the eunuch knew enough to obey the Gospel even though his knowledge was incomplete when he said, “See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Failure to satisfy that intense desire immediately by postponing the invitation to obey until later lessons (number four in the Jule Miller series) led several of the prospects I was teaching to “jump ship” before I was able to conclude the planned four or five week study. When I arrived to teach the third or fourth study, they would often eagerly report how they had been baptized at a denominational church since the last class. The denominational teachers satisfied their desire for immediate action.

Another disadvantage of the “several weeks” approach has to do with the conservation of the time of the worker seeking to bring souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. Many will agree to a series of lessons when they are not the least bit interested. Their motives vary. Some view the lessons as an additional social outlet. Others look on the meetings as occasions to share religious

experiences (“witnessing,” they call it). Others see the classes as enrichment of what they already have. For instances tapes sent them by various religions, TV evangelists and radio preaching. Still others simply are just unable to say no. Whatever their reason, the teacher is committed to the task and must plod through five weeks of study with an inattentive and unresponsive listener. The single lesson approach culls out those who are not responsive; time that would have been spent with someone not interest

ed may be used to teach one who has never had a chance to hear at all and who may well obey the Gospel.

The single lesson approach that I used placed the whole picture of the uniqueness of the Lord’s church in its Biblical setting. The church is then contrasted vividly with the apostate denominations and their historical development. Finally, the plan of salvation is explored with care taken to show the blood connectivity of baptism and the inability of denominational plans to match the form of Romans 6:5, 17. The prospect sees at once that he is lost without God and without hope unless he submits to this “form” and is added to the Lord’s body, the church. The lesson has the advantage of setting the church apart from denominationalism within a framework that the listener can appreciate and understand without charging his teacher with being arrogant or a religious dogmatist. Most prospects know very little about church history and thus find that part of the presentation thoroughly enjoyable. If conversion does not occur, the stage is set for follow up lessons on authority, the church, and worship. He has a committed interest and is unlikely to be distracted by the lure of denominational teaching. In any case the one who presents the lesson has increased the teacher’s credibility as a knowledgeable Bible student and a source of answers from the scriptures as opposed to those of denominational legacy.

In general, I have found that those who fail to respond with the single lesson approach are never again the same religiously. Several who initially appeared to reject the lesson have returned at a later date to obey the gospel. That is, they often heard more than they appeared to hear. I recall engaging in vigorous argumentative discussions with my children in which they were disagreeing strongly with me only to hear them later in another context quoting me. I recall one lady who strongly disputed the correctness in representing her Baptist baptism even though I was reading it to her out of the Baptist Manual approved by the Baptist convention. She further asserted that she did not follow that when she became a Baptist. I concluded the study, and she called me the next day and wanted me to baptize her.

Another advantage of the single-lesson approach I used is its effectiveness in dealing with anticipated questions. Questions like “What is the church of Christ?” “What do its members believe?” “How does it differ from the denomination I belong to?” etc. should be dealt with in the lesson. Even if the prospect does not agree with the answers to his questions, he understands at the end of the lesson the Biblical basis for the conclusions.

The sincere personal evangelist, believing the gospel will produce and hoping his prospect will respond, presents each lesson in great expectation. Obviously experience has taught him to the contrary, but it is imperative that he expects that result. It is extremely difficult to psych oneself up to accepting the result as a complete success when he has presented his prospect with the opportunity to obey the gospel. However, each successive prospect is a totally independent individual. He deserves every opportunity to hear the gospel as a beautiful positive story of salvation unfolded in his presence. We must assume that he has never in his life heard it and that upon hearing it he will be eternally grateful for its presentation. It is for this reason that in order to mentally prepare myself, I often went by and turned on the baptistery heater prior to going to teach the lesson. I am happy to report that more often than not, the baptistery was used “in the same hour of the night.”

I learned early on that strategies in general did not make a big difference, and that there is there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of strategies. Certainly I never thought In the Same Hour of the Night was any kind of utopia, and I was embarrassed that anyone would think so. In my series I did in congregations around the country I named and reviewed every strategy I knew about no matter how obscure. I did so because in their own context I had heard about all of them leading people to Christ.

I used the Jule Miller system enough to decide I didn’t like it. Not that it was a bad series, but I had a difficult time adapting to it. There were several problems for me. The mechanics of setting up the filmstrip projector was somewhat awkward. Though the narrator was quite professional sound

ing, the artwork and sound effects were a little demeaning for adults. My biggest objection was that, because it lasted five weeks, there was no way to cull the uninterested. They would doze as soon as the lights went down and jump up at the end and tell you that they couldn’t wait until next week. The clincher was what happened several times: When I returned for the second or third lesson as noted (p. 67) earlier they would present me with what they thought was exciting news—they had been baptized into a denominational church.

 

My Lesson

When I refer to the lesson I teach, I unashamedly call it “My Lesson.”( It is not Dowdy’s even though similar in many ways) It is that because I composed and arranged it. None of the material was original. It was put together like a scavenger hunt, all woven together to become what I envisioned. It came together out of need. When I left Florida College as a student, I had almost no material to help me. In the year I was there, I took no advanced Bible classes. My “library” consisted of a cardboard box full of tracts and bulletin articles. I knew I had to have more, and I knew I wasn’t going to be at Florida College long enough to satisfy that need, so at 19 years of age I began a card file and began to file my material in folders as I obtained it. The rule was: no folder without a tract or an article. The system evolved into The Goodall Filing System which was published. I could not afford to make copies for the many requests I got for it. The folders grew until I had five file cabinets full by the time I was forty.

The file on strategies for saving souls beyond the pulpit was over six inches thick. Please understand I had no plans to become a fully supported preacher when I began.

I really don’t remember when “My Lesson” came together. I do know that it was born out of necessity. I wanted to implement strategies beyond the pulpit, but I didn’t have a lesson that I was comfortable with. I tried them all: the Walker series, the Tisdel series, the Jule Miller series, the Bradford questions, and Harold Dowdy’s lesson, to name a few. I leaned toward Dowdy’s lesson the most. After all, he was my tutor and had given me great en

couragement to become involved in strategies beyond the pulpit. I am indebted to Brother Dowdy for pointing the way for me.

I credited Dowdy in the first edition of In The Same Hour Of The Night with the great contribution he had in producing the final product, so much that I encouraged him to co-author it with me. He refused but insisted on paying for the publication. I was totally fascinated by his faith in me. I drove great distances to hear him present his series on strategies beyond the pulpit even though I had heard it several times. Brother Dowdy is a character, to say the least. He would do almost anything to convince those who could never get in the pulpit that the Lord needed them and could use them. Sometimes he did things that I am not sure I could pull off – nor am I sure I would want to. For instance, in one meeting he said he had someone he wanted the group to meet. Dowdy went outside and brought in a really less than average-looking guy. The fellow, as I remember, sauntered in, his shirt disheveled and his pants wrinkled and looked sideways and up to the ceiling as Dowdy brought him down to the front and introduced him. The man didn’t say anything.

Then Dowdy excused the man, who left. Dowdy said, “You saw him and he doesn’t look like he has much to offer.” But he went on to explain this man was an exemplary personal worker. He fished and took people out fishing and had baptized a number of people. He said if a fellow who looks like that can do it, you can too. The fellow really did that, and wherever his name was mentioned anywhere near where he lived, brethren would relate stories of his conversions.

Someone piqued my interest (maybe it was Harold Dowdy) by giving the rationale that if Paul could teach the Philippian jailor, who no doubt was a pagan, and baptize him in the same hour of the night (Acts 16:25-34), why can’t we teach those with a denominational background, who know a lot of the Bible stories, who have a simple faith in the Bible and Jesus and enough Gospel to baptize them “in the same hour of the night”? With that the idea, In The Same Hour of the Night was conceived.

From my materials in The Goodall Filing System I began to pick and choose the most compelling and convincing arguments to lead a soul to Christ. The parameters were that it should be near an hour in length, cover the scheme of redemption, and emphasize the establishment of the New Testament church and the subsequent apostasy (Harold Dowdy’s material was drawn on heavily here) and becoming a Christian. The objective was to present a lesson that was very interesting and with such a convincing message that a good and honest heart could hardly turn it down. The objective was to baptize them in the same hour of the night. My use of it, and even more so, the overwhelming testimony of those who have used it leaves no doubt in my mind of its effectiveness. It was really personally meaningful to me to receive expressions of gratitude for the lesson and almost unbelievable accounts of their success. It is an understatement to say those objectives were accomplished. I decided to divide it into three parts. When someone asks me what the three parts are I reply: (1) The establishment of the church, (2) Where did all of the churches come from? and (3) How to find the right church.

The usual setting for presenting “My Lesson” was around a kitchen table. A supply of blank paper was needed and an unmarked Bible.

Ideally the prospect would sit close on the right. It was not a sermon. It was not presented as a sermon but as calm, reasoning narrative.

Those who have followed my instructions and prepared properly report grand success in using it. For the average preacher who prepared for exams in college, it will take about 12 hours to learn the lesson.

That is about 4 hours for each third. The first third should be mastered before going on to the next part. The worker will learn to recite the location of the passages as well as noting the critical points in order. I give this preparation detail in order for you to realize putting together an effective lesson is not always an easy task. Not everyone can do it. If not, they need to do what they can do.

I know of a ladies’ class that learned it. They figured out that half the world is made up of women, which gave them a large population to teach without teaching men. Women are prone to say, “The men are responsible for teaching the Gospel. As a woman it is not my place to teach.” I see in bulletins that they

taught this one or that one using “Goodall’s Lesson.” I tell them

that if they have gone through the rigor of learning the lesson, report that you taught your lesson.

In the Same Hour of the Night was used with a great deal of success at Nebraska Avenue, where I preached for nineteen years. All who knew anything about it admitted as much. It quickly sold out several printings, though I never personally sold a copy or advertised it for sale in any congregation.

The Lesson Itself

Our objective in this lesson is to deal with two basic questions: (1) What did the prophets foresee regarding the church and the kingdom and (2) when was the church and the kingdom established? To begin our study, we will examine several Old Testament passages, beginning with Isaiah 2:2-3.

 

 

Note that at some future time the Lord’s house will be established and the word will go forth from Jerusalem. Although the passage vaguely mentions a time frame of the “last days,” we are  simply directed to look to the future.

Our second step

brings us to a prophecy in Daniel 2:44:

Here we learn that at some future time an everlasting kingdom will be established, but again we are pointed to the future with few details about its fulfillment.

The prophet Joel teases us with a few more details in Joel 2:28, 32.

At some time to come the spirit is to be poured out in Jerusalem. At that time a tiny remnant of God’s people will be saved.

Still, however, we are simply directed to look to the

future without really knowing what the Lord has in mind.

Does the Old Testament speak of a Messiah? What will His role be?

Just a couple more passages and we will make our point. In Isaiah 62:2, it is prophesied that a new name is to be given to God’s people.

In this passage the prophet

points to a time when the Gentiles would be saved and indicates

that God would give his people a new name.

He doesn’t say what that name will be; he simply points to the future.

Our last prophecy of this section forecasts a change of covenant. In Jeremiah 31:31-32 the prophet says that a new covenant would be given different from the Ten Commandments.

These passages are typical of hundreds of passages in the Old Testament that tantalizingly predict that at some future time some great change in the way that God deals with his people is few hundred years between the final writings of the Old Testament and the events recorded in the New Testament. We have no records of God’s revelation or communication with his people during this time.

When the New Testament opens with the history of the births and ministries of John

coming. The prophets themselves wondered when they gave the prophecies, but were given no answers. In fact the Old Testament closes without revealing what great and wonderful things God had in mind for his people.

There was a period of a

the Baptist and Jesus Christ, it is interesting to find both John and Jesus preaching about the kingdom in Matthew 3:1-2 and Matthew 4:17. They both revealed that the kingdom was “at hand.” In other words, its coming no longer seemed distant as in the days of the Old Testament prophets.

A little later the question arose about who Jesus was. Some thought he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Peter identified Him as the Christ. Jesus then said in Matthew 16:18-19 that the church would be built on that truth and simultaneous with the kingdom.

In Mark 9:1 we finally nail down the time for the establishment of the kingdom. From that passage we note that the kingdom would come with power during the lifetime of some of the people present then. In other words some

of those people standing there would not but still be alive, when the kingdom arrived.

At this point we best look at some basic facts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the first four books of the New Testament. Each of these books begins with the same event, the birth of Jesus, and each ends with the same event, the death of Jesus on the cross. Since they were written for different audiences, each contains details the others don’t include. Near the end of the Book of John, we read about the time when certain men came to take Jesus to put Him to death. The Apostle Peter, in an effort to protect Jesus with his sword, apparently attempted to cut off the head of the servant of the High Priest, but cut off the man’s ear instead. Jesus restored the man’s ear. John 18:36 records that a little later when Jesus stood before Pilate, He said,

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from

hence.

Jesus says it will not be a physical kingdom with armies like China or Russia. If it is not a physical kingdom, then it must be a spiritual kingdom. As we study further we will see that when Jesus is talking about the kingdom, He is talking about the church, God’s spiritual

family. Soon Jesus was taken and nailed to the cross. When He was dead the soldiers came, as recorded in John 19:34, and pierced His side. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his

side and forthwith came there out blood and water. Thus Jesus shed His blood in His death. After three days He was raised from the dead and spent about 40 days conversing with the disciples and showing himself alive to various ones.         We aren’t left to wonder what He talked to them about. When we pick up the reading in Acts 1:2-4, 8 the record says:

Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he

showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them,  commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father.

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Then Jesus was taken up from them. He ascended into heaven out of their sight. The rest of chapter one for the most part deals with the mechanics of choosing Matthias to replace Judas, who had betrayed Jesus and then subsequently hanged himself. Let us read

Acts 1:26-Acts 2:1, 4 to understand the development:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one

place. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance.

The day of Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover (Lev.

23:15) on which Jesus died. Since the Passover was on Saturday, fifty days later would be on Sunday. Thus Pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit fell on the first day of the week or Sunday.

Now let’s pull some of these facts together: If the kingdom was to come with power during the lifetime of some there (Mk. 9:1), and the power was to come with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), and the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, then the kingdom had to come on Pentecost.

In fact all references to the church and kingdom after the day of Pentecost are in the present tense. You recall that Jesus said in Matt. 16:18 that he would build His church. After Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and told the people what to do to be saved, we read in Acts 2:47: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

 The church is also spoken of in the present tense in Acts 8:1.

Not only were the saved spoken of as being in the church; they were spoken of as being in the kingdom as well.  It is very clear that in Bible times those in the church were also in the kingdom. The kingdom and the church are one and the same. The day of

Pentecost is identified by the Apostles as the beginning. In Acts 11:15 when the Holy Spirit came on the house of Cornelius, reference is made to the former occasion of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as “at the beginning.” When the Apostles spoke on the day of Pentecost under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they spoke with “tongues” as indicated in  Acts 2:6-8:

“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in

our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

The people explained this by saying the Apostles were drunk. However, in Acts 2:15-17, Peter says this is not the case:

“For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

But, you say, that is the passage we read earlier from Joel 2:28, 32. You are right. Here, on the first Pentecost after the death of Christ, the Apostle Peter is saying these are the “last days.” You will also recall

that in Isa. 2:2-3 the prophecy was made that in the “last days” the Lord’s house would be established and the word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem. Daniel had prophesied that an everlasting kingdom would be established. We now see its fulfillment with the establishing of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. Isaiah had foretold of a new name that the mouth of the Lord would give when the Gentiles would be delivered. At Antioch, immediately after the first Gentile was converted, this was fulfilled. In Acts 11:26 we read:

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

Every time the expression “were called” is used (with one possible exception) in the Bible, it implies a divine designation. It wasn’t that someone simply said, “Let’s call these people Christians.”

The Hebrew writer, when comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament, said in Hebrews 8:6-8:

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he says, Behold the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Note that the writer affirms that the New Testament is the change of covenant prophesied in the passage we cited earlier from Jer. 31:31, where he said that the new covenant would not be like the one God gave when He “took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,” which, of course, was the Law of Moses.

From the chart you will see that all the arrows from the Old Testament and into the

Gospels point to the establishment of the church-kingdom on the Day of Pentecost. After that both the church and kingdom are spoken of in the present tense, and the Day of Pentecost is the

“beginning” (Acts 11:15). For the time being I would like for you to forget about all organized religion today and even what you may know about the church of Christ as it exists today. In apostolic times there were no denominational names such as Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Mormons, etc. They were just Christians. Those who met in a particular locale simply made up Christ’s church in that community. Thus, there was Christ’s

church at Ephesus, Christ’s church at Antioch, and Christ’s church at Jerusalem, etc. To show possessiveness the Greek language would not take the

form as illustrated above. The church belonged to Christ (Matt. 16:18, Acts 20:28) and the above reference is correct, but it is our way of saying it, today, in English. For example, in the Greek language one would say: “The

chariot of the eunuch” instead of the eunuch’s chariot. That is why that in Romans 16:16 the record says: “Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.”

Thus, Christians moved freely among the churches of Christ without any human labels (1 Cor. 1:10-13). They were simply Christians and members of the church of Christ. Further, it is clear that the churches were organized according to a set pattern. For instance, Luke records in Acts 14:23 that elders were appointed in every church.

Later, we find that the churches indeed had elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1) with qualifications as detailed in the scriptures (I Tim. 3, Titus 1). Elder, bishop, and shepherd are three different terms used to refer to the same office.

They are used interchangeably

in various texts. It is clear, too, that the jurisdiction of the elders or bishops was limited. Paul met with the elders of Ephesus and defined the extent of their rule in Acts 20:17, 28.

It is clear then that the elders’ rule was limited to their own local congregation, the one “over which the Holy Ghost hath

made you overseers (bishops).” Peter further iterates this point in 1 Pet. 5:1-2.

Again, the rule of the elders is restricted to the flock

“among” them. It is clear that in the New Testament each church had its own plurality of elders whose rule was autonomous in their local congregation. A group of elders were never over several churches and one elder was never over one church or several churches. Each congregation had its own elders to whom the congregation submitted (Heb. 13:17).

Let us turn our attention for a while to the Holy Spirit and His role in the early church. The church had been established only a little while when a dispute arose about the care of the Grecian widows. It appears they were neglected in the daily ministration (Acts 6:1). To remedy this matter, without neglecting their own work, the Apostles appointed seven men to take care of the situation. Among these were Philip and Stephen (Acts 6:2-5). They were brought before the Apostles and endowed with miracle-working powers as recorded in Acts 6:6, 8:

“Whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.”

Shortly after this Stephen preached his last sermon and was stoned to death (Acts 7). Philip went down to Samaria to preach. Keep in mind that Philip is not an Apostle. He is a miracle-working evangelist who had been endowed to do so by the laying on of the Apostles’

hands. The events at Samaria are recorded in Acts 8:5, 12, 14-18:

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. But

when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized    Now when the Apostles

who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had

received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of  the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money...”

It is plain that Philip was unable to pass the Holy Spirit on to others even though he could work miracles. Since those on whom the Apostles laid hands could work the miracles but could not pass on to others the ability

to do so, it must follow then that when the last Apostle died, and the last man on whom the Apostles laid their hands died, the age of miracles would be ended. Obviously no one meets the conditions or qualifications of those who performed miracles in the days of the Apostles.

Paul says that indeed would be the case in 1 Cor. 13:8-11.

The passage lists three of the nine spiritual gifts as representative of all of them and states they would not go on and on. As a child who grows to maturity discards his childish ways, so would it be with spiritual gifts. Some confusion arises over this passage when the reader assigns the present-day meaning to the word perfect and then reasons that since Christ is the only “perfect one,” then it must follow that the passage refers to a time when Christ will come.

The word perfect in the New Testament means “complete.” Christ had already come at the time of the writing; and since time will end at His second coming, it would be senseless to speak of a future abolishment of spiritual gifts then. It must be some intermediate time the writer has in mind. That which is

“part” at one time and “complete” at another time must of necessity be the same thing throughout. One does not start out with a part automobile and wind up with a complete house. One could not even start out with a part Chevrolet and wind up with a complete Mercedes-Benz. The entity under consideration in the passage is the revelation of the word of God. Partial revelation (tongues, prophecies, and knowledge) would last until that which was perfect (complete) is come: the written New Testament.

You know, God does things pretty much the same a lot of times. Let me illustrate. Many times we will point out a cow in the field and ask a child, “Who made that cow?” We would like for the child to tell us that

God made it. But not really. He made the first cows, but He hasn’t made any since then. After the first cows were created, all others have resulted from natural reproduction. Now in our situation under consideration we have a parallel.

The Apostles couldn’t give out the Gideons’ New Testaments on the Day of Pentecost. In the first place, there weren’t any Gideons, and in the second place the New Testament events hadn’t for the most part even happened, much less been recorded. So, it was necessary for the church in its childish form to have the inspired man until it could receive the inspired plan.

When the last Apostles to died, and the last man on whom they laid their hands died, that ended spiritual gifts. By then the New Testament was completely written. Thus, no one today can raise the dead, restore withered hands, and bring sight to someone blind from birth as the Apostles did.

If there were no Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc., in the Apostolic times, where did all these churches come from? This is always an interesting question to someone who is not familiar with the historical evolution of modern religion. According to a recent study, there are approximately 1300 denominations in this country alone. The individual who is searching for what is right

would face an almost impossible task if he were to seek to investigate the various religions with which he comes in contact. We have found that it is often easier for those already exposed to the maze of current denominationalism to see the truth when it is presented in contrast with error. For this reason, it is worth our time to explore historically the question of the origin of such a plurality of churches.

The infant church faced two major dangers. One of these was the danger of apostasy from within its own membership. Paul and other Apostles recognized that brethren would not always follow the truth and would fall away. Many warnings and prophecies are made concerning following false teachers and leaving the faith. Paul, in the same context in which he admonished the Ephesian elders about their oversight, told of an impending apostasy that would involve the elders themselves. In Acts 20:29-30:

“For I know this: that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of yourselves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves.”

Sure enough that was the case. After the last Apostle died and the last man on which they laid their hands died, false doctrines were able have a much freer course without the refutation of the inspired teachers. As those doctrines introduced in the days of the Apostles they were

totally foreign to the New Testament and completely the innovations of men. These false teachings later led to such doctrines as holy water, extreme unction, Latin Mass, purgatory, the worship of images, indulgences, sprinkling instead of baptism and instrumental music in worship.

The other danger was an external one—the extreme persecution Christians suffered at the hands of the Roman government. This persecution was already taking place at the time that the New Testament was being penned, and the New Testament writers gave encouragement to those who might have to suffer for their faith in Jesus Christ.

One of the first and most severe waves of persecution against the early Christians was instituted by the Emperor Nero. (History tells us that the Apostle Paul was arraigned before Nero.) Persecution included putting Christians in animal skins and throwing them to the wild beasts. and tying Christians to posts outside his home just to listen to their screams. These are only a few of the inhuman practices of Nero. Domician, and others who followed Nero to the Roman throne, continued the persecution.

During this period of intense persecution, many Christians died for their faith. Ignatius of Antioch who was condemned to death under the reign of the Emperor Trajan, was one of the more famous of these early Christian martyrs. Ignatius was told that he would be released rather than be thrown to the wild animals, if he would recant his faith. He replied, “I am the wheat of Christ, I am about to be ground with the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread.”

Another famous martyr of this period, Polycarp, was told to deny his faith or he would be burned at the stake. Polycarp’s reply was, “Six and eighty years I have served my Lord and savior and he has done me nothing but good, how can I deny him?” When he said that, they took him and burned him at the stake.

These two early martyrs are representative of the many early Christians who elected to give their lives rather than deny their Lord. This persecution continued until the reign of Constantine in the early fourth century.

As the Apostle Paul had warned, one of the first apostasies to occur in the church was a change in the eldership. You will remember that in the early church a plurality of elders ruled over a single autonomous congregation. As time passed, one elder, perhaps because he was a better speaker than the others, began to be

known as the “presiding elder.” In time these “presiding elders” began to meet privately in councils or synods and organized themselves with a leader called a “country bishop.” As you are already perhaps surmising, the country bishops organized further with what was known as a “city bishop” over them. Thus, over a period of time the organization of the church was changed to a form totally foreign to the New Testament.

During this time Christians continued to suffer persecution. Because they refused to worship the Roman Emperors who set themselves up as gods to the people, they often were unable to gain employment. Because it was a crime against the state to be a Christian, they were unable to own homes. Because the Roman emperor Diocletian saw Christianity as a threat to the Roman Empire, he sought to exterminate the Bible from the face of the earth. Diocletian, who has been considered a great Roman statesman, shut Christians in their meeting places and set fire to the buildings.

Finally, an emperor named Constantine came into power. He observed that Christians were willing to die for what they believed, and came to feel that commitment of that type would be valuable to the Roman Empire.

In time he adopted the “Christian” religion as his own and issued the Edict of Toleration which made it legal for the first time for a Christian to own property and live in peace.

Even though Constantine was not baptized, himself, until shortly before his death, he encouraged others to do so. He gave out small prizes to those who were baptized. White robes were given to those who were considered to have a place in society. Thus, where professing Christianity previously caused economic and physical hardship, being known as a Christian was now an advantage.

By this time the apostasy in the organization of the church was almost full-fledged. In addition, various factions had arisen

concerning such issues as the question of the trinity. To study this question and a few others, the emperor Constantine, in 325 A.D, called together the council of Nice. All the presiding elders, country bishops, and city bishops met and considered their differences. When they finished, they drew up what is known as the Nicene Creed. This, the first human creed, came just 200 years after the days of the Apostles. That may not seem like very long until you consider that our country just celebrated its bicentennial in 1976 and consider the changes that have occurred in this country in that 200 year period.

As we have noted, being known as a Christian had now become popular. As with most popular causes, people were eager to “jump on the bandwagon.” Many people became “Christians” but continued their pagan worship and practices. Paganism had been widespread in the days of the Apostles. It has been said that it was easier to find a god in Corinth than a man. The Corinthians had a war god, a crop god, a sun god—a god for everything. When the Apostle Paul went to Athens and found a shrine inscribed to the “unknown god,” he told them that was the one he wanted to tell them about and proceeded to tell them about Jehovah. The townspeople at Ephesus worked themselves into a frenzy in honor of their idol, Diana, and cried out for the space of two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:24-41).

Diana was a 90-foot-tall statue of a woman with breasts all around her body. The idea was that she gave succor and nourishment to the nations. Often the method of worship in the idolatrous system was really a system similar to prostitution. Some pagan temples employed something like 2000 prostitutes. The worshipper would bring his “sacrifice” and then go in to “worship.” Paul said of the things they did in secret it was a shame to speak (Eph. 5:12).

Thus, Constantine’s legalizing of Christianity resulted in a combining of paganism and Christianity. We all have observed what appears to be a mismatched couple—a tall, burly man and a petite young woman or a couple where one person is friendly and outgoing and the other is withdrawn or has a sharp tongue.

This merger of Christianity and paganism resulted in just such “a

mismatched couple.” What would one expect with the marriage—perhaps a religion with a lot of statues, a central woman figure—something about Jesus and the Apostles, a government similar to the Roman government, and an abundance of ritualism? That is exactly what resulted.

Looking again at the apostasy in the organization of the church, we find that by 588 there were now five big city bishops or “papas.” They were at Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria of Egypt, and Jerusalem. John the Faster, the “papa” at Constantinople, declared himself to be the “Universal Bishop” over all the others. That did not go well with Gregory I, the “papa” at Rome. He appealed to the Roman emperor and complained about this usurped power. In 606 A.D., however, Boniface III, a successor of Gregory’s, was declared to be the “Universal Bishop,” or “pope,” thus marking the formal entry of the Roman Catholic Church to the world scene.

Someone says, “Roman Catholicism existed before then.” Well, in a sense that is true. Roman Catholicism existed when it began adding to the worship, practices which led to the doctrines of Holy water, extreme unction, Latin mass, purgatory, etc.; when it changed the organization of the early church from simple elders over single congregations to presiding elders, country bishops, and city bishops that was the seed of Catholicism; when Constantine pooled Christianity and paganism—those were the seeds of Catholicism. It was not until 606 A.D., however, that the Roman Catholic Church was complete with a Pope and all its machinery.

The period of history from 606 until 1500 has been designated by historians as the Dark Ages because during this era mankind actually regressed. In this period, there was a succession of popes, many of whom reflect the prevailing morality of the times. Some of them were wicked even by the admission of the Catholics. During most of this time, the Catholic Church ruled the world. John of England was deposed.

Henry IV, of Germany, had men under him who were guilty of “simony” (selling ecclesiastical offices to the highest bidder).

The Pope gave orders for Henry to correct the situation and of how Henry was deposed when he refused to do so. Henry had to cross the Alps in the dead of winter. When he was ordered to stand outside of the Pope’s castle barefooted in the snow, his feet bled. After three days the Pope let him in, and Henry bowed down before the Pope. Henry got his kingdom back.

By the 1500’s, mankind was emerging from the “Dark Ages” and the Renaissance was unfolding. The printing press had been invented and many other things were happening. During this time the Roman Catholic Church wanted to build St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, but they didn’t have the money. To raise money, they commissioned John Tetzel to go into Europe and sell indulgences. According to Catholic Doctrine those who die and are too good to go to hell, but not good enough to go to heaven, go to purgatory. If someone on earth is interested in removing these people from purgatory, he or she can “pray them out’’ or “pay them out.’’ The latter is termed an indulgence. As he went around selling the indulgences, Tetzel would make a red cross and stick it in the ground before he would begin his speech. He would say:

“Indulgences are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. This cross has as much efficacy as the very cross of Jesus Christ.  Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences  than the Apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great that an indulgence cannot remit…but more than this indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. For that repentance is not even necessary. Priests! nobles! merchant! wife! youth! maiden! do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments: A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it, and you will not!” At the very instant that the money rattles in the bottom of  the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory and flies liberated to heaven. Oh, stupid and brutish people, who do not  understand the grace so richly offered!” (Shepherd, pp. 69-70)

With the funds Tetzel raised by this method, they were able to build the cathedral.

With the invention of the printing press and with people becoming more enlightened, some began to speak out against some practices of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the most vocal of these was Martin Luther, a priest in the Catholic Church. Luther basically sought to reform the Catholic Church. When he nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, the Catholic Church excommunicated him. Now one thing Martin Luther was able to do was run. They sought him for the rest of his life to kill him, but he evaded them and died a natural death.

Martin Luther did not intend to start another church. He said, “Who am I but a beggarly bag of bones?” However, after his death there was no one of his stature to take his place, so his followers met at Augsburg and drew up his teachings and began the Lutheran Church.

This was the very first Protestant denomination. Soon after came John Calvin and John Knox. Their efforts led to the establishment of the Presbyterian Church. Perhaps recently you have seen advertised on public television The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Public TV has set this story to drama. It seems that Henry wanted a divorce from his wife Catherine in order to marry Ann.

When he appealed to the Pope, the Pope turned him down. So he

appealed to Parliament, which made him head of the Church of England. Henry went ahead and took five more wives.

Out of the Church of England came John Wesley. His efforts led to the establishment of the Methodist church. John Smyth in England became concerned that baptism was being neglected, so his efforts led to the establishment of the Baptist church. Then, the Mayflower came to America and war broke out. The Church of England in America evolved into the Episcopal Church. This trend has continued until there more than 1500 denominations in existence in America today.

In any city, there are a number of churches. There are over 1300 denominations in the United States. Just how do we go about finding the right church? How can we know for sure it is Christ’s church or, if you please, the church of Christ?

One basic principle will help us. That is, seed produces after its kind. A turnip seed produces a turnip, a pumpkin seed a pumpkin, etc. Archeologists found wheat seed in the pyramids and planted them. Sure enough, wheat came up. Now in Luke 3:11 Jesus says the seed is the word of God. Paul taught a person the word of God, and that person became a Christian. Peter taught a person the word of God and he became a Christian. The word of God makes a Christian. We may not right now agree on what the word of God says to make a Christian, but if we could find out what Peter and Paul taught and teach it to someone, the result would be a Christian. The word of God makes a Christian.

Now suppose I come up to someone and ask, “What are you religiously?” Suppose the response is, “I’m a Catholic!’’ We say, “We aren’t looking for a Catholic; we are looking for a Christian.” The person then says, “I’m a Christian.” Then we reply, “I thought you said you were a Catholic.” The person says, “I am, but I am a Catholic Christian.” Perhaps we should be courteous. If the person wants to be referred to as a Catholic Christian, we’ll use that term. Now we know that word of God makes a Christian. If the person is a Catholic Christian, something ^-else in addition to the word of God made that happen. That something else is the Catholic Catechism. The word of God plus the Catho

lic Catechism makes a Catholic Christian. (Place the Catechism on top of the Bible for illustration).

Similarly, the word of God plus the Methodist Discipline makes a Methodist Christian. The word of God plus the creed book of the particular church makes that kind of Christian. A similar argument can be made for each denomination and the respective creed books they publish and cherish. The Mormons have the Book of Mormon, the Episcopal Church has the Book of Common Prayer, the Presbyterian Church has the Confession of Faith, and the Lutheran Church has Luther’s Catechism.

It is true that many will say when they see these books for the first time that they have never seen them before. Obviously, their preacher has not used them in their presence. If you think a little, you can understand why. If he came out and stood in front of everyone and said, “Today I’m going to read to you out of our creed book,” everyone would walk out. So he becomes familiar with the peculiar doctrines of his church by reading it in his study and comes out with his Bible under his arm. Now ask yourself why these books exist anyway. The reason is that they crystallize and finalize the beliefs in the various churches.

A person can go up on a mountain with only the word of God and come down a Christian. He could not come down a Catholic, because Catholic doctrine is not in the Bible. If he took the word of God and Book of Mormon, he could not come down a Catholic because Catholic doctrine is neither in the Bible nor in the Book of Mormon. If he took

the Bible and the Baptist Manual, he could not come down a Methodist, because Methodist doctrine is not in the Bible or in the Baptist Manual. The point is, each of these books contains the doctrine peculiar to that church. If they have more than the Bible, they have too much. If they have

less than the Bible, they don’t have enough. If they are the same as the Bible, why do you even need them? What we need to do is

discard them and simply rely upon the word of God for faith and practice.

Since the word of God makes a Christian, let’s give some attention for a while to a procedure whereby we can find out what the word of God says about how to become a Christian. To do so, we will need to go to the book of conversions in the Bible, which is the Book of Acts.

In a “bookkeeping” kind of fashion we want to follow the

charts titled, “What does the word of God say?” We want to look at every conversion in the book of Acts in which details are given about conversion. We will simply read the account and record what they were told to do. When we finish, we will see if there is a pattern. In Acts Chapter 2, we have the account of those on the day of Pentecost. Peter preached to them and convicted them of their sin. They cried out “men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said in Acts 2:38:

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift  of the Holy Spirit.”

So in our chart “What Does the Word of God Say?” we will check “repentance” and “baptism.” The next conversions are the Samaritans. Philip had gone down to preach to them and you recall that he was unable to impart spiritual gifts. Peter and John, who were Apostles, were sent to do that. However, he was able to tell them how to be saved. So we read in Acts 8:12 where the record says:

“But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus  Christ, both men and women were baptized.”

Here we find that the Samaritans believed and were baptized, so we will just check those positions in our chart. The next conversion is the Ethiopian eunuch. He had been to Jerusalem to worship God and was returning home riding in his chariot and reading about the prophecy of Christ’s suffering from Isaiah, chapter 53. Philip came along beside him and asked if he understood what he read. The eunuch said, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” Thus in Acts 8:35-39 we read:

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him. And as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said. ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, “If thou believe with all your heart you may. And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more:  and he went on his way rejoicing.”

It seems the eunuch thought he was ready to be baptized. But Philip in effect said that he had one more thing to do, that was to confess his faith in Christ. So in the chart we enter confession and baptism for the eunuch. The next convert is Saul of Tarsus. Saul was on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians. A voice was heard, and we read the account in Acts 9:4-6.

“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

And he said, ‘Who are you Lord?’ And the Lord said to him.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said ‘Lord, what do You  want me to do?’ And the Lord said to him, ‘Arise, and go into the city. And you will be told what you must do.”

He was blinded and led by the hand to Damascus. In the meantime, the Lord appeared unto Ananias, a preacher, and directed him to go preach to Saul. At first he was reluctant because

of Saul’s reputation, but finally gave in and went to him and told him what to do to be saved. Paul reviewed what he said to him in a later discourse in Acts 22:16.

“And now why are you waiting? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of die Lord”

Under Saul of Tarsus in our chart we simply enter baptism. The next conversion we will consider is the first Gentile convert: Cornelius. Cornelius was a fine man. He was a soldier in the Roman army and held the rank of centurion: We know that he was devout, fearing God. He gave to the poor and prayed (Acts 10:1-2), yet he had to hear words whereby he could be saved (Acts 11:14). Peter had to be shown a vision to convince him that indeed salvation had been delivered to the Gentiles. In a trance, he was shown a sheet being lowered with all sorts of animals forbidden for a Jew to eat under the Law of Moses. He was told to kill and eat. He refused and the Lord then taught him that what God had cleansed one could not refuse.

Then he said in Acts 10:34-35:

“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears Him, and works righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

Peter then assembled the house of Cornelius and instructed him and his entire household about what they should do. In Acts 10:43, 47-48, his instructions were:

“To Him all the prophets witness, that through His name whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins... Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”

Note that Cornelius was told to believe and be baptized. Let us indicate that in our chart. The next conversion we will consider is Lydia. In Acts 16:14-15 we read:

“Now a certain woman named  Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God: The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay. And she constrained us.”

Let us record “attended unto the things which were spoken” in the faith column and note also that she was baptized.

The next case of conversion we will consider is that of the Philippian jailer. Paul and Silas were in prison in Philippi. It was midnight and they were singing praises to God. Suddenly there was an earthquake and shook the prison and loosed their bands as well as opened the prison. Oriental Jailers were bonded with their lives to keep their prisoners. If their prisoners got away the honorable thing to do was to kill yourself before you were executed. The jailer woke up and was ready to kill himself when Paul responded in Acts 16:28-33:

“But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying. Do yourself no harm: for we are all here. Then he  called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.

And he brought them out, and said, Sirs,

what must I do to be saved? So they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you  and your household. Then they spoke the  word  of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house.

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and immediately he and all his family were baptized.”

Thus, the Philippian jailer was told to believe and to be baptized.

In Corinth, "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with his entire household and was baptized; and “many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).

We then note that in our chart as we did the others. Let us now examine more critically our chart of “What Does the Word of God Say?” Notice there are many empty spaces in the chart. This raises some concern about why that would be the case. In the first place, the Bible doesn’t claim to give a complete sermon anywhere. It is complete as a unit but not sermon by sermon (2 Tim. 3:16). If you want to know what the word of God says about the Lord’s Supper, read what it says in various passages, and you have what the word says about it.

In the second place, many of the converts were at different stages when they learned the truth. For instance, the Philippian jailer wouldn’t have known Jesus from the local deputy sheriff, so he had to be told to believe. To understand this situation, think for a moment about someone traveling from California to Florida. When the person left California and asked someone along the way how far it is to Florida, the answer might be 2000 miles.

Near St. Louis, it might be 1000 miles. In South Georgia, someone might say it is 100 miles. All three answers were true, yet different. Why? The traveler was at different points each time.

The same is true for the various conversion accounts. The people on the day of Pentecost already believed. In fact they would have been insulted had they been told to believe. Thus, they were told to repent. The eunuch apparently thought he was ready to be baptized. However, Philip indicated he needed to confess his faith in Christ first. Saul of Tarsus, after apparently doing everything he needed to do, was asked why he was waiting and told to be baptized.

Now let’s go back to our chart and conclusively decide what the word of God says to be a Christian, In the first  place, we can mark all the places where believe is mentioned

because Jesus said in John 8:24: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

Also in Heb 11:6 we read:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

So we can conclude that all of the converts believed.

But we can fill up all the vacant places in the repent column.

Jesus said in Luke 13:5 and then Paul said in Acts 17:30:

“I tell you, no: but, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

“These times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.”

It has to be true that all of the converts confessed as well.

For Paul says in Romans 10:9-10:

“That if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth

confession is made unto salvation.”

Notice that it is recorded that all of the converts were listed as having been baptized. That is understandable when we con

sider that Jesus and Paul respectively taught in Mark 16:16 and Gal. 3:27:

“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

That raises an interesting observation. Not only are all recorded as being baptized, but there appeared to be a sense at urgency about it. For instance the eunuch said, “See, here water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip could have said,

“Why, there is no hurry, wait until you get back down to Ethiopia and in a few weeks when you want to show ‘an outward sign of an inward grace’ have a baptismal service for 15 or 20.” No, he didn’t say that. “And he commanded the chariot to stand still:

and they went down both into the water        “In the case of the

Philippian jailer, it was midnight. His jail was in shambles. Paul and Silas had blood all over their backs from being beaten. The jailer had almost committed suicide. Yet he was taken in the same hour of the night and was baptized. That leads us to the basic question,” Why baptism?” Why were all of the converts recorded as being baptized? Why the urgency?

It will help us to see the answer to this if we made some basic observations. First of all no one can go to heaven without the blood of Christ. Salvation by the blood of Christ is a cardinal Bible doctrine. We are redeemed, forgiven of sin, and have our robes washed in the blood of

Christ as stated in Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, and Rev. 7:14 respectively: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

And he said to me, these are they which came out of great tribu

lation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

This presents a problem. Other passages say that baptism does precisely the same thing. Baptism is said to remove sin and cleanse the heart. For instance in Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and I Pet. 3:21, respectively, we read:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name  of  Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And now why do you tarry? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

Now, that presents a problem. The Bible first says the blood takes away one’s sins; then it says baptism does. What is the truth? There are only two possibilities. Either the Bible contradicts itself by saying two different things take away sin, or there is some connection between the two. Obviously, I would not continue to teach from the Bible if it contradicted itself. Therefore, there must be some connection between

the two. There is, and Paul says so in plain words in Romans the sixth chapter, which we will consider in depth soon. But first we must deal with the feasibility of contacting the blood simultaneously with baptism. Let us recall that Jesus shed his blood in his death (John 19:34). Obviously, we could not contact the actual physical blood of Christ. That was too many years ago and there was too little of it to begin with. But we must contact his blood for forgiveness of sin. Paul explains how this is done in Rom.

6:17, 3-5:

“But God be thanked, that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.”

“Or do you not know that as many of us  as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.”

Now notice in verse 17 he said they had obeyed the “form” of doctrine. A “form” is a pattern. These people had obeyed a pattern. Paul gave it in verses three to five. The pattern was baptism as an enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Jesus was dead, buried in the tomb, and arose alive. Paul said that you did was just like that. You were dead in sin, buried in baptism, and arose saved (alive) from the watery grave. That’s the pattern he thanked God they had obeyed. Notice he says they were baptized into his “death.” What happened in his death?

Christ shed his blood in his death. Notice also it is not his actual death, but the “likeness” of his death. Baptism is like Christ’s death. It is my preference at this point in time not to know what you did in baptism. I don’t want to respond from prejudice.

However, from this description we can determine if you have been baptized scripturally. A person coming to be baptized must feel that he is a dirty, nasty sinner, lost without God and without hope prior to baptism. He goes down into the water to contact the blood of Christ. He comes up pure and clean with all of his past sins washed away in the “blood.”

The Bible is the best commentary on itself. Let’s look at this lesson in a completely different context. In Col. 2:11-13, we read:

“In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the

flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”

Under the Law of Moses, every male child was circumcised on the eighth day. It was an “operation” requiring hands to wield the knife. Paul explained that they had been circumcised with a circumcision that required no hands, for it was the “circumcision of Christ.” That is, when they were “buried with him in baptism,” they were “operated on” by God. They had been dead in their sins, but when they were buried God forgave them all their

trespasses and made them alive (quickened) or saved. Again, this was not the actual death, burial, and resurrection. It was “through the faith of the operation of God” who also raised Christ in his actual death. Again, the scripture is plain, one is lost in sin without hope, he is buried in baptism to contact the blood that was shed in Christ’s death, and comes forth anew creature in Christ Jesus. That is the form.

Now let’s look at a counterexample. In the Baptist manual, we exhibited earlier, we read on page 17:

There are two ways of receiving members into a church.

By experience and baptism.

By letters of dismissal from sister churches.

In accordance with the first way, persons wishing to unite with a church give an account of the dealings of God with their souls, and state the “reason of the hope that is in them;” whereupon, if, in the judgment of the church, they “have passed from death unto life,” they are by vote of the church recognized as candidates for baptism, with the understanding that when baptized they will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership.

First of all, note that this statement is taken from a human creed book and gives a procedure nowhere found in the word of God. According to this Baptist procedure of salvation, one is dead in sin; then he has a saving experience (not baptism) which he relates to his pastor, who conveys it to the church. If in their judgment (a vote is taken) the person is saved alive, or as they say, “passed from death unto life,” he or she is permitted to be baptized. This author knows of an instance in which a subject came forward in a Baptist church and they voted him down.

They didn’t believe he was saved (alive spiritually). The Baptist system requires that the subject be alive. Then he is buried (by baptism). But you don’t bury people when they are alive; you bury them when they are dead! If this had been the “form,” Christ would have died, been resurrected, then captured after he was alive by Joseph of Arimathea, and buried. Totally absurd! Baptists are buried alive! No, this process violates the “form” of Romans 6. The proper subject for baptism must be lost without God and without hope, and then he must go down into the water a filthy, dirty, lost sinner, contact the blood of Christ in the watery grave, and then come up a new creature (alive) in Christ Jesus. That “form” is in the “likeness” of Christ’s death described in Romans chapter 6. The intent of this study is not to single out the Baptists. We use them only for the sake of illustration. The same points can be made about the other religions we mentioned earlier who also ignore this “form of doctrine.” Thus, if one has not obeyed it, he has never been saved and

cannot await the joys of those who come forth from the water grave in “the likeness of his resurrection.”

Now we can better see the composition of  Christ’s church. Christ’s church is made up of those who have accepted this “form” of doctrine. Those who did so on the Day of Pentecost were “added to the church” (Acts 2:47). They met  in a local area together under elders (Acts 14:23) and partook

of the “Lord’s Supper” (Acts 20:7) and gave of their means  by free will offering (I Cor. 16:1-2) each Sunday. They had elders (Acts 20:28) who ruled over each congregation. They were Christians and Christians only (Act 11:26). Since seed produces after its kind, those who do the same today are also Christ’s church or the church of Christ, if you please.

Now the problem is, how do we find Christ’s church today? In reply, we ask: How do you find anything? Suppose one has a 1983 Ford station wagon, gray with blue interior, that has license number GPN-020 with Florida tags. He goes out in the parking lot and spots a new red Mercedes convertible with white interior and personalized license tag CHERI-G from New York. He thinks: “That’s not my car!” Not a hard process at all, is it? We use exactly the same method with the same clarity in finding the right church.

Now suppose you come in contact with a church that claims to not be part of organized religion and only posts the relationship “church of Christ” on its door and you find out that those inside are called simply

“Christians.” On further examination you find out they became Christians by doing what the word of God says. They believed, repented, confessed their faith in Christ, and were baptized. They tell you that they have only elders and deacons as they had in the

New Testament. They partake of the Lord’s Supper each Sunday. They “lay by in store” on the first day of the week as their only means of raising funds. You then compare what they are doing and find that their practice is identical with Christ’s church de

scribed in the New Testament. You say, “This must be a church of Christ.” By contrast, if you drive up to a church and it has written on the door “Baptist Church” and find out those inside are called Baptists. On further examination you find out they became “Baptists” by being voted on and by being “buried

alive.” They tell you that they do not have elders at all but only “deacons.” They partake of the communion only about once a month and raise their money by any kind of “rummage sale” they choose to have in addition to their Sunday tithe.” You say, “This is not a Christ’s church!” Finding the right church is that easy. If you can’t make that comparison, you would most likely get into the Mercedes instead of your station wagon. God’s people are found in most communities in the same way. If none is there, conscientious people refuse to be associated with organized religion but begin to meet and thus establish Christ’s church in their community.

Some never get beyond the mental conviction stage. They believe in Christ, they say. But they never act on their belief. They are like the devils who believe and tremble (Jas. 2:19). Others reach the turning stage, but go no further. They repent by cleaning up their life to some extent, but never act on the change in their thinking. Some reach the acknowledgement stage. They confess as the eunuch did that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Yet, they never go any further. The last stage should be in red to signify the blood stage. It is the cleansing stage. It is no more important than any other stage. A person could no more be saved by confession alone than he could by belief alone. However, as our chart “What does the word of God say?” indicated, the early disciples were not baptized until they had been convicted.

 

Persuading the Taught

 

Experience and tact are valuable prerequisites teaching a lesson and, in particularly helpful in obtaining closure, that is the

“See here is water, what keeps me from being baptized?” stage. The new birth comes somewhat in the same manner as the human birth. Having a precious baby does not come in most cases

without travail. In some cases there is no trauma or pain. The new birth of a young man or woman brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord does not require rejection of false religion or immorality but the recognition of their sins and obedience to the Gospel they have been taught for years. However, the new birth does not come easy to those who are immoral, into false religion or unwilling to give up the religion of their parents and concede that they are lost because of following their human creeds. All of those we encounter to teach outside the pulpit are in the latter situation. Jesus said we are to fish for men. When was the last time you hooked a fish and simply reeled him in.

Even the weakest fish will put up a fight before finally conceding he cannot prevail. Those on the day of Pentecost fought back ferociously. In the process they had killed Jesus who was the Christ. Finally when they saw that they had no chance to prevail and cried out, “What shall we do?” The point is, the more strenuous the fight, the more promising the fish, as illustrated in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

Most of us can recall that when we have struggled with someone like Jacob did with the angel that the catch when they result in elders and preachers were worth the toiling. Conversion is a sharp, sometimes agonizing conclusion, resulting in finally surrendering to the Lord. That result is level one and level two converts. Levels one and two require the Restoration motif (the Gospel) consistent with the Biblical hermeneutic. Only those who are convicted of this approach will stand the test of the refiner’s fire. The rest is hay and stubble. Seeking to bring souls to the Lord by appealing to levels three, four, and five makes mockery of the Gospel, Bible preaching and New Testament

conversions. The “warming of the frog” approach leads to significantly larger numbers but at the same time significantly fewer converts in that number.

My faith was from the beginning embedded in the need to use Bible authority and Bible authority only to obtain actual and legitimate converts. I think it was Harold Dowdy that said, “If those pagans in Acts 17 with the Philippian jailor could hear enough Gospel to baptize them ‘in the same hour of the night,’

what keeps a denominational person who has a basic faith in Jesus and a basic conviction in the inspiration of the Bible from hearing enough Gospel to be baptized ‘in the same hour of the night’?

One of the most frequently asked questions in strategies to be used beyond the pulpit relates to the time one should spend in study before encouraging a prospect to obey the Gospel. Just how many lessons in a home Bible study should be presented prior to extending him the “invitation” to obey the Gospel? Gospel teaching, like the teaching of any subject, requires time for absorption. Not all learn at the same rate.

The complexity of the material and the breadth of the subject are certainly variables to be considered. An evangelist (any worker applying strategies) would be remiss to encourage the obedience of even an honest and willing subject who has been unable to comprehend the truth. Particularly this is true for

someone who has decided he wants “to be in a church” and comes forward at a service in which almost nothing has been said about the Gospel. The prospect’s prior knowledge, prejudices, concentration, basic mental ability, or any number of other factors come into play, obstacles not easily overcome. We can confidently say that only an irresponsible worker would hold back a knowledgeable and ready subject (Acts 22:16). The case of the Philippian jailer illustrates how one may soon hear and obey the Gospel. His conversion was accomplished quickly under the most adverse circumstances. He had, only moments before, attempted to take his own life. His jail was in turmoil. He had to be told even on whom to believe. Yet, though the hour

was midnight, he was baptized “the same hour of the night” (Acts 16:33).

In fact, a careful analysis of the conversions in the New Testament indicates this immediacy to be the rule rather than the exception. Even in the case of Saul of Tarsus in which three days passed before contact was made with the preacher Ananias, there is not the slightest hint that it took three days to teach him what he needed to know to become a Christian.

In my series, I felt a need to study all of the strategies being used by brethren around the country to take the Gospel to people. I wanted to use the very best. Pulpit preaching has been limited considerably in recent years. Those who are preached to are generally those who attend services in a location. Maybe a member will bring someone now and then, or even a visitor will drop in, but not much more.

 

Analysis of Options and Strategies

 

I have found that brethren periodically, on their own, call a meeting at the building with a view of implementing strategies of spreading the Gospel in ways other than the pulpit. They often begin by distributing cards of recent visitors, and some not so recent, and visit the homes of those who visited. While someone in the group could maybe teach a lesson, no plan has been made about that. Usually the tactic is to ask them if they have a Bible question. Given the opportunity the prospect will often ask something like, “How do we get three days out of Jesus being in the tomb three days and three nights?” or, more likely, “What do you think about the Battle of Armageddon?” This would not be a wise start in investigating and implementing strategies beyond the pulpit to save souls. However, the initial effort of paying a good will visit to someone who attended services is a polite and courteous thing to do but not a strategy seeking to teach the prospect what it takes to be saved. The first options that occur to brethren once they have seen recent visitors is to go door to door in the neighborhood and hand out material calling attention to the congregation and its work. Some congregations never venture beyond these efforts. Jacobs mused that it would be a mistake to conclude that evangelism is limited to “door knocking” and passing out flyers. He advances the idea of offering the written word in the form of tracts, or essays on single subjects, as an effective way to get started.

By far the most efficient and effective strategy for reaching those outside the pulpit is the “discipling” strategy. However, it is contrary to the scriptures and utilizes techniques foreign to the Gospel. It is dealt with here because it has very visible results

and faithful brethren have been tempted to experiment with it – not knowing that it is contrary to the scriptures. This technique is marvelously successful if you consider success only in terms of baptizing large numbers.

My educational background often used the Case Study method for research. Several accounts obtained collectively would be of no value from a research point of view. The situation when reported as a group report would have no credibility because they may have collaborated. It was my lot to interview individually a sizeable number of former “Crossroads brethren” who came out of a Crossroads congregation called “Sunrise Church of Christ” in Tampa. The “discipling” movement, as it did at Sunrise, exploded into the institutional churches of Christ across the country. With their liberal penchant for grabbing onto any promotional scheme, regardless of whether it was scriptural or not, it looked like the way to go, at least to them.

Gainesville was castigated as the center on control and finances for the Crossroads movement. Chuck Lucas, the spokesman, perpetrator, and promoter of the Crossroads nationwide effort, became involved in blatant infidelity. He immediately relinquished his leadership. It is my conviction as well as that of others that the popularity of The Crossroads Heresy removed the threat of the “discipling” movement. Until then, there was no credible information as to how it operated and produced such astounding results.

The movement soon became recognized as a sinful method among conservative brethren as a possible strategy to bring souls to Christ beyond the pulpit. That was such a great disappointment to many brethren who viewed it most certainly as the “pot at the end of the rainbow.” My description of the movement’s intents was reinforced when a preacher named Kip McKeen kicked the whole discipling movement up to another level adopting a confessional and organization structure that was much like the Catholic Church. McKeen installed a system of reconstructing churches by removing their elders and replacing them with trained leaders and many more innovations not in the Bible.

Needless to say, the liberal institutional churches quickly

dropped out, and Crossroads, refusing reconstruction, settled back into being an institutional church. Few non-institutional congregations tried to adopt or adapt to the system at the time. One non-institutional brother accused me of “crying wolf” when I attacked it as a false strategy. The Crossroads Heresy exposed the false doctrine in intricate detail to the world show how it worked and why it was unscriptural. The preacher who did that later admitted my report was correct. However, the conservative church that was using it and attempted to implement the system no longer exists. It is my judgment that their attempt to follow that false system led to their demise.

How did the system that so captivated people work? Actually it was mind-boggling the way it exploded a small congregation into a powerhouse of members. Early on I observed that it was implemented only in congregations near college campuses. The prospects were for the most part from the college population.

College students often are lonely, homesick, and seeking to explore the unknown, especially if the unknown promises spiritual peace. When Crossroads caught hold, the atmosphere was exhilarating and spiritual, to say the least. The congregation was greatly encouraged by a multitude of young voices in the services. How could it be wrong when it seemed so right?

What exactly was this remarkable strategy for saving souls beyond the pulpit? It was implemented on a small scale but quickly mushroomed as converts were worked into leadership roles based on loyalty, commitment, and zeal rather than age, experience, and longevity. This commitment was obtained by a baptism that was called “Lordship baptism.” Members frequently were baptized again even though they had already obeyed the Gospel by being baptized into Christ earlier. From their perspective, someone who had been baptized without taking an oath agreeing to be “discipled” had not been baptized scripturally. If one was a disciple, he or she followed the dictates of the leadership the same way the Apostles followed Christ. I pointed out then and would again that there is no parallel there. Christ was God and the Apostles were being trained to bind on earth what had been bound in heaven.

For more details about this technique, see my publication: The Crossroads Heresy. Its accuracy has been totally verified by those who have examined the system. Barnett published a much more scholarly, thorough, and detailed expose of the “discipling” movement. My feeling at the time was and still is to this day is that no one who knows anything at all about the Bible would even give the strategy a second thought. The Lord condemned

anyone who assumed the role of a “master” to another (Matt. 23:8-10, 1 Pet. 5:3).

The lesson to be learned here is psychological oppression is not a scriptural strategy. No one can argue with its efficiency in drawing large numbers of committed spiritually oriented people. The problem is, besides being drawn by an unscriptural system, the Gospel was perverted. Eventually they claimed latter-day revelation. They maintained that that the huge success that they had enjoyed proved that God had spoken to them directly. Needless to say this was a false system, although highly productive, which produced the wrong kind of convert in a false way. Thus this was a method not be used in looking for strategies for spreading the Gospel beyond the pulpit.

In the church we speak of ourselves individually as Christians, and collectively as the church of Christ, even though other terms could also be used. We could refer to the church as the church of God or the assembly of God. It is fairly common to use the term “church members” to denote Christians, but we rarely use the word “disciple” to refer to Christians. We may use “disciple” when citing the passages about the Great Commission, and for years I guess I mentally made the substitution, correctly, of “church members” in that particular context. Similarly, we might substitute the term “priest” in a passage that refers to our “reigning with Christ.” In these instances, we are substituting another descriptor that is true and used elsewhere, but arbitrarily overriding the word as used in the context by the inspired Apostle. Using my computer’s “find and replace” edit function, I

could take the New Testament text and replace “disciple” with the word “Christian.” I am not sure, however, that the Holy Spirit would be pleased with my editing. “Then said Jesus to those

Jews which believed on Him, if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples” (John 8:31).

When Jesus began His earthly ministry, He chose twelve disciples who later became “The Twelve” Apostles designated for a special work. Subsequently, Jesus described all his followers as his disciples. The Greek word mathetes from which we get our word disciple means “a learner.” It denotes “one who follows one’s teaching,” as the “disciples” of John (Matt. 9: 14); of the Pharisees (Matt. 22:16); of Moses (John 9:28)” – (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Words, 171). The Apostles were prepared for a special work. They were to receive the promise of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4, 2: 1-4) and bind on earth what had been bound in heaven (Matt. 18: 18). Jesus spent three years with the Twelve teaching and training them for a commission that would be described as sitting upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

The disciples in the New Testament, who were not Apostles, were simply “learners,” following their “teacher,” the Lord Jesus Christ. This is clear from the results that came from preaching the Gospel as recorded in the book of Acts. “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciple multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7): “Jesus said unto him, Thou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).

First and foremost, a disciple must have a love of the Savior. The Apostle Peter emphasizes this attribute as a prerequisite of those who would prepare themselves to teach others. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man  that asks you  a  reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet.

3:15). We are sometimes ineffective in rallying others to be workers for the Lord because we seek to get others to talk about a Lord they do not know themselves. Those who love the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind will have no problem sharing their faith with others, no matter how awkwardly their message is presented.

When a young man proposes to the one he has chosen to share his life, she understands his message even if poorly presented. His love for her is apparent, and she is graciously complimented. Similarly, a disciple of the Lord who has sanctified Jesus in his heart will present the risen Lord well (assuming he has made proper preparation) no matter what lesson he presents, whether a Jule Miller video or some other series. You see, when we love the Lord, we wind up talking about him.

Disciples who love the Lord cannot help but teach others about Him. They will feel as Jeremiah did in his day: “O  Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and have prevailed; I am in derision daily, every one mocks me. For since I spoke, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil; because the word of the LORD was made  a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily. Then I said, I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name. But His word was in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay” (Jer. 20:7-9). “My heart was hot within me; while I was musing the fire burned: then spoke I with my tongue” Psalm  39:3).

Second, in order to become an effective worker utilizing strategies beyond the pulpit to bring souls to Christ, a disciple must have a deep faith in the message of the Gospel. This message is eternal. God, man, sin, and the devil have not changed. Society and technology have changed, but our mission has not changed, and our message cannot be changed.

Our strategies of presenting the message will change from  time to time but a different method may not be better. What is right and works better is better. The message is to be taught whether it is accepted or not. Realizing and remembering this will prevent our getting discouraged when, despite all our efforts, the one we’ve taught does not accept the Gospel.

Even Jesus, near the close of his personal ministry, found it necessary to explain the apparently small response to his teaching (John 12:37-41). He reminded them of Isaiah’s

prophecy stating that the day would come in which the workers would wonder aloud: “Who has believed our report?” In other words, they were saying to Jesus, “Lord, is this all?” Yet, Jesus was a complete success in what he did. The increase of converts is the Lord’s part. We plant and water; the Lord gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6).

Ezekiel was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. He was not sent to those of a strange language or culture. He was told that they would not hear him, yet he was to go anyway. If he failed to teach the wicked, he would perish with the wicked. If he taught the righteous, he would save himself as well as his hearers. But whether they chose to hear or they chose to forbear they would know that there had been a prophet among them. (Ezek. 3:4-7, 17-21;

2:5)

J.B. Phillips’ translation of 1 Cor. 1:17 reads this way: “Christ did not send me to see how many I could baptize, but to proclaim the Gospel.” Some in the New Testament era reacted with angry hostility to the preaching of the Gospel  (Acts 9:23, 25; 18:5-6; 19:8-9, etc.). Others were interested, but did not immediately obey (Acts 24:25; 26:2728; etc.). Many believed and obeyed the Gospel (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; etc.). All three reactions are found in Acts 17:32-34. It is clear that if we teach the Gospel, whatever the apparent results, we will please the Lord. If we do not teach it, we can only expect condemnation. Our behavior indicates that we do not really believe people are lost and that we will be lost if   we do not take the Gospel to them.

Third, a disciple must have a deep concern for those who are lost in sin and who face eternal torment. We should be horrified at the thought that someone we know is going to hell. Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh because he was afraid of what they might do. Examine what the record says: “Then said the Lord, You have had pity on the gourd, for which you have not labored, neither made it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, where

are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?” (Jonah 4:10-11). Jonah was afraid that the Ninevites might repent and God would spare them. We need to be careful about wanting the wicked to get their due. Our lack of utilizing strategies outside the pulpit to bring souls to Christ indicates that we do not really believe people are lost, and that we will be lost if we do not take the Gospel to them. More of our prayers seem to be

“Come Lord Jesus” rather than “Just a little longer...please Jesus…just a few more days to get our loved ones in.” Paul expressed his attitude this way: “For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you” (Phil. 1:23-24).

After pulling a number of people to safety after the Edmund Fitzgerald shipwreck in Lake Erie, a young man died of exhaustion. Before he died he asked, “Did I do my best”? When reassured that he had saved seventeen, his dying reply was, “I know, but if I could have saved just one more.” In a spiritual sense this should be the goal of every Christian – Just one more!

Finally, a true disciple must have the mind of the Spirit; that is, he must be spiritual or spiritually minded. True disciples walk “after the Spirit” and have the “mind of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4, 6). Paul said that the lost were best approached by “those who are spiritual” (Gal. 6:1). He would say that you if you are spiritual you are going to be His disciples. A spiritual person is at peace with his own heart: “And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him; for if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God” (1 John. 3: 19-21).

“If we have confidence toward God” – spiritual interests prevail in the lives of spiritual people. Spiritual people spend a large portion of their lives hearing Gospel preaching, reading the Bible and related material and caring for the needy, visiting those that are in the hospitals and nursing homes, fellowshipping and socializing with those of like precious faith, talking about spir

itual things and issues and, yes, seeking the lost. That is not to say that they don’t enjoy a ball game now and then or a good movie, or even a party once in a while. They may even read a good novel or go on a picnic when time permits. It is just that their whole life is not dominated by ball games, movies, parties, novels, and picnics. Brethren, if the thrust of our life is focused on carnal things, even if these things are not wicked within themselves, then we are just not spiritual.

 

An Effort to Use Strategies beyond the Pulpit

A congregation once invited me to work with them with the intent that I would help them implement strategies beyond the pulpit to save souls. It was a sizeable congregation with a number of talented members who had expressed a desire to use strategies beyond the pulpit to lead people to Christ. I designed a plan to maximize the effort. Considerable cooperation and support in both finances and time were given to the effort.

The objective of this plan was to seek to evangelize the small town. The intention was to begin at the building and seek to personally contact every resident in the town in an ever-widening circle. The purpose of the contact was twofold: to personally meet residents, invite them to services, and then, using information obtained in the front-door interview, maximize the possibilities by which each person could be exposed to opportunities to hear and obey the Gospel. The plan envisioned using all available resources: finances, computer technology, evangelism techniques, and labor. Ten teams of two were recruited, trained, and dispatched to carry out the task.

Here, step-by-step, is how it was devised and implemented.

The effort is described in detail in order to allow review and evaluation but that also in the future a reader may want to revisit the plan and with adjustment and revision implement it satisfactorily.

Part 1: Planning

To begin, using a town directory and map, a database was prepared that listed the name, address, and phone number of eve

ry resident in the town. A city block was selected along with the subsequent names and addresses for that block with the intent of expanding block by block away from the church building until the entire town was compassed. Obviously the plan was long term.

A poll of the members of the congregation was taken to determine who would participate in the plan and in what way. A card-file system handled both residents who were to be worked as well as those who had been worked already. Then kits were prepared to take along. Each kit contained the following items:

·      A good supply of tracts on such topics as Baptism, What is the church of Christ, Instrumental Music, Pre-Millennialism, and the Holy Spirit

·      The Jule Miller video #1 or the Harkrider #1 tape (or both), as well as the question sheets that accompany those lessons

·      An ample supply of cards with the address of the building, a map to the building, and a schedule of services

·     A set of cards with the names and addresses of those to be seen.

Part 2: Working the Plan

Workers were assigned into teams of two and trained to pick up a briefcase and kit at the building, select a card, drive to the home, and knock on the door. They were told to memorize the name(s) of the residents and leave the card in the car.

The team would ask for the person on the card BY NAME. (People are suspicious of strangers who come to their door without knowing who lives there or whom they are looking for.) Residents generally relaxed and were friendly when they were addressed by their own names.

Then the team would introduce themselves, explaining that they were members of the church of Christ and were becoming acquainted with the people in the community. They would men

tion that many people are not aware of the church of Christ, and many people are not in church at all.

Then the team members were told to stop and listen, and try to remember what the prospects told them. The teams were told that usually the prospect would volunteer the pertinent information in regular conversation. Some of the things that we would like to know were:

·      the names of the wife and children

·      approximate age of the children

·      their religious background (if any)

·      doctrinal questions that might concern them

·      an evaluation of their willingness to learn more about the Bible and its teachings.

 

The worker would make a mental note of these details and NOT write them on his card at that moment. Instead after the interview has been concluded, he would return to his car and drive to another location, stop, and complete the card while everything was fresh. Rather than appear like door-to-door Jehovah Witnesses, I told them that it was probably better to check out two or three blocks or streets (not close together) to work on at once.

The primary objective was to set up a Bible class, providing an opportunity for the person to hear the truth by scheduling a home Bible study. It was emphasized that the minimum action they should take was to extend the prospect a personal invitation to visit services, along with a card that had a map to the church building and a listing of the time of services.

Everything was ideal for the experiment. The process was a real time test with the hopeful objective of utilizing a combination of strategies that had been tried separately by evangelists in other places. My goal was to devise a program that would work independently of any talent or lack of talent on my part. If it was successful, I would be able to recommend it to others as a viable plan. If it worked only because of my efforts, its usefulness to others would be under suspicion. Really, there was nothing in the

design that would have been enhanced had I participated. There was an abundance of capable home Bible study teachers.

Conditions were ideal for the project. The congregation was very talented. It had four elders and fifteen deacons, along with a number of engineers and schoolteachers. Thus, recruiting a team of ten pairs was easy. Each team agreed to work an hour and a half one evening a week and make at least six contacts. I went with each worker at least one evening for training purposes. I refrained from attempting to break the comfort zone in the training session. (That is, try to elicit a conversation that would lead then prospect to think that there might be some doubt about his salvation). That was hard for me to do. A novice worker would not be expected to function at the level of a trained Bible teacher. I wanted to be sure that team members did only what they were asked and able to do. I did not intend, and did not want, for them to function at my level unless they chose to on their own.

The program as far as I knew was unique. It contained every facet of anything that I knew of that had ever been attempted in strategies beyond the pulpit to lead souls to Christ. A year passed and no one had come to services, as I recall because of the program even though the workers were well known in the community. They were not prodded to make their calls. No Bible classes were set up as the result of the program. I was ready to teach any class they arranged. They really didn’t need me to do that. There were elders, deacons, engineers, schoolteachers, etc. well able to do anything I would do...except to teach my lesson. Only one learned the lesson, a schoolteacher and the son of a well-known preacher. He preached it on occasion, but I don’t recall his teaching it to anyone.

They also reported what they had done, i.e. invited to services, left a tract, a correspondence course, etc. All of this data was fed into a computer. Numerous calls were made and the cards filed. The addresses were collected but there was no interest in using them to mail out meeting advertisements. The elders felt that a flyer sent to all the local congregations would be adequate. I waited patiently for someone to set up a Bible class, call for me to help, or have someone they had called on come to ser

vices. None of these happened though there were twenty men involved, most of whom were educated professionals.

The project turned out to be a wonderful opportunity to test the maximizing of all the strategies of evangelism beyond the pulpit without depending on the talents of the preacher. My credentials and success in leading souls to Christ was well known. My objective was to see if a talented and knowledgeable group of brethren could use proven strategies to bring the lost to Christ without being overshadowed by the preacher. Educators have known for some time that students learn better when encouraged to work in groups and rely on the teacher as a facilitator. I used the method in my college classes and reluctantly had to admit that was the case. My conviction had been that maximum learning required the teacher to lecture before the class. Thus I “tied one hand behind my back,” so to speak, and restricted myself to being a facilitator for the effort. Of course a facilitator must be available to answer any question when asked. He is to do anything but actually do the assigned task for the worker, assuming he has the ability to learn whatever the task or objective is.

I said in the preface that this was not to be a statistical study. However, not all research has to be of a statistical nature, but all research has to deal with all of the basic guidelines and precautions of research. To begin with, I began each facet of my work with no predetermined outcome. In fact, the results from my efforts proved many of my preconceived conjectures to be in error. Basically when I look at a strategy I ask myself, “How can I design the implementation of the strategy in order to increase the probability of its succeeding?”

If the experiment were then to turn out to be favorable, I would accomplish my immediate objective and have found a successful strategy that could be used by brethren anywhere to lead souls to Christ outside the pulpit without making the preacher responsible for all conversions. I had always looked for what worked. I never wanted to prove that a strategy didn’t work. I never used a strategy that I felt was futile. In this case it failed even though I began it with every reason based on my prior experience that it would work. Some have asked me what I

called this program. I have told them it was a neighborhood religious survey soliciting Bible classes, meeting the residents, whose names were already known, giving out tracts and correspondence courses, and inviting them to services. My conjecture was that if all the strategies of the many programs used by other brethren who had been successful were combined along with the added dimension of randomly approaching a home and knowing the names of the residents, the program would be effective. Obviously one can see why it was simply referred to as “the project.”

After a year the project was abruptly aborted by the teams. They were having no visible results. They were unable to set up a single class. To my chagrin I had designed an ineffective and unproductive project, one that asked for many man hours from talented and able men with no success. Without viable visible results it eventually became evident to me that it wasn’t going to work. It became evident to me that it was going the way of my previous efforts, and the general report of mass media strategies. Thus, suddenly all of their cards were left in the office and the workers quit. When I left a year later, they were still there. At the time we implemented this effort of futility my credentials in personal evangelism were established. I had conducted sixty five meetings around the country, instructing local congregations on the techniques of personal evangelism. Ten of those were done while working with the congregation. My books were being widely used around the country. Florida College was using me on their lectureships to broaden the brethren’s insight into personal evangelism. Besides the extensive usage of strategies I had studied strategies of others extensively. If anyone wanted to know what to try I think most would have conceded at that time I would have. I led these brethren down a fruitless path in all good conscience based on my experience, knowledge and background which brought me to do the work in the congregation to begin with. In hindsight it would have been derelict for me to call brethren to a task, ill conceived and unpromising, with a premonition to let it fail in order to prove that it would be fruitless. I really believed it would succeed.

I had been in this position before. After carefully perusing more than 85 scientific research papers I convinced my USF mathematics doctoral committee that a particular untried innovative strategy had favorable promise of success. I, in turn, conducted a scientific experiment with the strategy under statistical sound guidelines. The resultant data proved not to be favorable to the 5% standard of significance. The outcome did not support my conjecture. Nevertheless the experiment was valuable in that it became a part of the international collection. It was original research and met dissertation requirements for my PhD degree (Goodall: (“The Reduction…).  It is as valuable to know what not to do as to know what to do. Because of this I handled the results with academic maturity, as disappointing as they were to me personally. However, it would have been much more satisfying for me if I had found something that worked for me and no one else in the world. I could have used that result in the classroom at Florida College. Yes, what I found resulted in my degree, but that elation fell far short of what I had anticipated, a practical strategy that would help professors and students all over the world.

Thus it would be extremely harsh and unfair to connect the intense community involvement after the effort as a large contributing factor. They only went back to the pattern of their lives before I interrupted them.  I accept the blame for the failure. I did not know then what I know now. In fact I would have been irresponsible had I organized and encouraged an effort that I knew wasn’t going to work. I would have been irresponsible had I organized and advanced the scientific secular effort if I knew wasn’t going to work. I know now why it didn’t work, and it was not because they were too busy. It failed because it was a mass media strategy feeding off of relationships that had no developed credibility. Later in this work we will expand on this. The effort was not without precedent; Billingsley reported using a survey technique. He developed a 13-item questionnaire, but he gave no report of the results that came from it.

Mass media efforts are programs in which prospects are acquired by targeting a large population by a technique that gener

ally does not involve personal relationships. To decide whether they are worthwhile, one would do well to examine what brethren have done. Poor results are often considered better than no results; that is, the result of doing nothing.

When someone responds to a strategy he is then considered a prospect and contacted in anticipation of having a Bible study and teaching him the Gospel. Gentry proposed a business reply technique. A permit must be purchased in the beginning in order to do a mass mailing of cards or envelopes. A label must be printed on the card or envelope that will return to the sender if mailed. Thus one only pays for those in which a prospect has

responded. A DVD study, a home Bible study, or a “free Bible

correspondence course” is offered (I never have heard of one that was not free). A typical mailing would be about 10,000. Remember you only pay the postage for the cards that are answered. Of course the labor and materials sent out are not included in the cost.

I had the opportunity to utilize this process and learned that the post office makes it easy to use. The results were the same as almost all mass media techniques. We will discuss that later.

Hardin opined that local newspaper ads are one of the most effective ways to reach a large population. However, relationships based on credibility are preferential to any mass media method. An established congregation with teachers and brethren producing prospects from their day to day activities that respond to requests for home Bible studies and personal teaching will generally be reluctant to engage in mass media efforts.

I was fortunate through the years to have the opportunity to participate in several mass media endeavors, including one when I preached at Nebraska Avenue in Tampa. A costly ad was placed in a preferred section of the Tampa Tribune advertising a daily Bible thought with no indication of its origin. The number to call was displayed in large print. A 24-hour answering machine was set up, and a new two to three-minute devotional message called “A Bible Thought,” was given each day. At the end of the message, callers were given the opportunity to obtain a free Bible correspondence course by leaving their name and address. The

response was remarkable. The population of the Tampa Bay area was about a million. The machine ran continuously. At first, those responding were sent the Hurt correspondence course. It is an attractive, well-thought-out, eight-lesson series. When the prospect had sent back two lessons, had them graded and returned, we considered him or her “active.” At one time there were over a hundred “active” Bible correspondence courses going at one time. An able staff able and willing handled the work in grading the lessons, returning them and maintaining records. When participants finished four lessons, it was determined that they were ready for a visit.

Our, goal when the prospect was visited, was to set up a regular Bible class. At this point we were uncertain of our modus operandi. For one reason, this was brand-new turf. None of us had ever functioned in this setting before. There were three men, including myself, with extensive experience in Bible teaching.

By this time, all of us were into the In the Same Hour of the Night material. All of us were able to teach lessons on authority, instrumental music, the uniqueness of the church, and the distinctiveness of the plan of salvation. All of us could use the Jule Miller series. Setting up classes was no problem at all. The continuation of the classes with a particular prospect appeared to be no problem. The prospects would usually let us come and teach them as long as we wanted to. They were generally eager for instruction.

The difficulties we soon encountered came as a surprise. It was my assumption, and correctly so, that the opportunity to teach home Bible studies would be a worker’s delight. I could not imagine that there would be baggage. To appreciate how difficult it is to set up home Bible studies, one preacher said that he would gladly give $50 for someone to set up a home Bible study for him. Obviously he was not going to do that, but I definitely sensed that he would like to have the brethren set up home Bible studies for him.

Our situation was a personal worker’s dream: All the Bible classes with non-Christians one would want could be set up.

However, after a few weeks, the experienced, well-known

preacher who was working with us dropped out. He said he needed to spend more time with his family. The other worker was excited about the opportunities we had. He had sought for years to have such a rich opportunity. He pitched in to teach with enthusiasm. Soon he converted a couple who had been steeped in denominationalism. Needless to say, he was ecstatic. I was glad for his sake that it was he, because by this stage of my work I had enjoyed a number of conversions. He needed a boost because of working tirelessly in the past with little to show for it. I hadn’t broken through, however, with this effort although I continued to have conversions with my other efforts.

There were several who looked promising to me, and I used everything I knew that was available. They would finish the Hurt series, and I would then teach them my lesson and then lessons on authority and instrumental music. They kept me coming back with interest and enthusiasm. But unlike prospects drawn from outside the project, they wouldn’t obey the Gospel or attend services. I found that very strange in view of my previous success with referrals and visitors to services.

What were we going to do now? Our machine was going full speed with the Dial-Bible-Thought. We had many Bible correspondence course enrollees who were eager to have us come to their homes and teach them. We were maxed out on the number of home Bible studies we could handle with the workers we had available. (This process was detailed earlier in the prologue about Robin Willis at Nebraska Avenue)

After we compared notes with the nearby congregation in the area that used the same method. We determined that not only were identical efforts independently conducted; the profile of the responders was identical. The first inkling that we did not have a level playing field was that a large portion of the prospects we observed were into several of the TV evangelists’ programs. The viewers “witnessed” as to what this one had done and what that one had done. They were so excited about their life “in the Lord” that it was hard to get them settled down for the class. But when they tried to concentrate on our message, they gave us the same focused attention that they gave Oral Roberts or Ernest Angsley.

When we left, they always asked us to come back and assured us that the lesson was of immense value to them. What was surprising was the ease of not only being able to set up the class but the eagerness with which we were asked to return again and again, and the enthusiastic joy to hear what was taught. That which led to the cessation of the program was, with the exception of the couple who went back, (1) none of the prospects would attend services, and (2) none of them could be led to obey the Gospel even though they were presented multiple lessons utilizing a wide range of strategies by three men widely acknowledged to be among those most able to present the Gospel.

The profile of the responders at both the congregation I was in and the congregation nearby were the same. Wheeler points out that we cannot discriminate in searching for souls. Jesus reached out to the unloved and handicapped (Mark 1:41). We must reach out, he says, to all the drunks, the prostitutes, pushers, liars and dregs of society. The thirsty and hungry are to be visited (Matt. 25:35a). Strangers and the destitute are worthy of our attention (Matt. 25:35). The sick and imprisoned are to be visited (Matt. 25:36).

There are a number of strategies being used by brethren today with varied rates of success. They differ in many respects and offer interesting perspectives and creative insights to seeking to save souls. We shall call attention to some of them in our analysis in order to complete the spectrum of strategies. Ricky Shanks in Goose Creek, South Carolina is very active in utilizing strategies beyond the pulpit to lead souls to Christ. Though he is in a small congregation, he has full support in an all effort to reach the lost. Basically, it is a three-pronged approach. All of the prongs interact and interconnect to produce a very active and efficient program. The program is quite expensive, but the congregation has said, “Let’s do it.”

One prong is a dial-a-Bible study effort. Ricky Shanks uses an IVM phone-answering attendant computer program to answer callers with a short message each day. At the end of a 2-3 minute message, they are offered a Bible correspondence course. Shanks gets about six or seven requests a week, and the congregation has

about 75 active enrollees in a Bible correspondence course. They learn about the Dial-a-Bible-Message and/or Bible correspondence course efforts from signs and ads in local paper as well as being advertised on their call-in radio program. He does not give the cost of the Dial-a-Bible-Message or correspondence course effort. The second prong of their program is a call-in radio program, but he reports that it was extremely difficult to obtain.

When the radio station acquiesced to their request they were amazed with the results. The program became so popular that the station advanced the available time to 90 minutes. This effort has been fruitful in producing prospects. The third prong of their program is home Bible studies. The congregation maintains 1520 home Bible studies per week.

With these programs, 30 have obeyed the Gospel since it began, with a 50% attrition rate. The radio costs $18,000 per year and the Dial-a-Bible-Message and/or Bible correspondence course effort costs a considerable amount. The costs of this program may seem excessive until you consider that many congregations with resources that permit them to add a second evangelist to increase opportunities to spread the Gospel in the congregation. The program Ricky Shanks is involved in would cost half the expense of supporting another evangelist. How many additional preachers are able to maintain 15-20 home Bible studies per week as does the congregation with which Shanks works?

The Taylorsville Road congregation in Louisville, Kentucky where John Humphries and Paul Ayers preached obtain a list of move-ins from the newspaper and utility companies. They send an attractive brochure to them along with a cover letter welcoming them to the city and to services. The brochure contains the information about the congregation, times of services, and the location of the building. They tell them they will be by soon to pay them a visit. Someone visits them in their home. They attempt to set up a home Bible study or offer a correspondence course. The program, underway approximately a year, has had three who obeyed the Gospel. The prospects fit the profile of those produced by mass media efforts.

The Lake Wales, Florida congregation where John Guzzata preaches announces a particular Sunday and encourages the members to each invite friends for that service. Leaflets are passed out advertising the day and emphasizing the focus of the congregation toward having visitors. They understand that on that day at least the sermon will be faith oriented. It will stress the need to do God’s word and live according to His will. Subjects, at least for this service, will avoid topics like marriage, divorce and remarriage, church discipline, false religion and current behavior involving immorality. Young people are targeted by using titles stressing the current theme of their Bible classes. Last year it involved evidences.

An essential element to utilizing this strategy is that the brethren must be involved in the process. This year was the second year. It is done once a year. Last year there were 50 firsttime visitors. The effort resulted in one baptism. In 2009, there were 40 first-time visitors. The strategy involves visiting each attendee and asking his or her reaction to the service. In April, they had scheduled three Bible classes. Just get the brethren involved in the process. Guzzata has detailed the basis of attempting such a program in an attractive handout. Guzzata is of the opinion that cold canvassing is a waste of time. At the time of this writing the Southwest congregation in Lakeland, Florida purchases an ad in the local paper offering a Bible study course.

Gentry reports that the congregation where he labors provided over 300 classes on four continents, six countries, and four states in the U.S. This was accomplished in one year by video conferencing. The effort utilizes the Internet with a webcam, video projector and software. He also reports using Searching for Truth DVD’s put out by the World Video Bible School (http://wvs.org). He also offers mentions using the Edwards fourlesson correspondence course but does not detail how it was used.

Billingsley suggests using the Internet with a web page.

Many have used the Internet in different ways, but none as extensively and thoroughly as Steve Rudd. Because of its exhaustive breadth, only Steve Rudd can detail with any hope of giving

the Internet possibilities proper exploration. I have obtained permission from Steve and Truth Magazine to offer below his entire article published in the magazine in November 2009.

When you read it, you will understand why I did not attempt to summarize it. Rudd says:

In today’s society Jesus might have said: “The kingdom of heaven is like the Internet cast over the earth, and gathering fish of every kind; and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away” (Matt. 13).  Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a great tool for local church evangelism. I think every local church must have its own local church web page, but this is more a yellow pages directory listing than a tool for reaching the lost. Sure, the church’s website can be used as a secondary tool that you print on business cards, flyers, meeting announcements, and newspaper articles quite effectively. But this places the Internet as a secondary contact, not a primary method of contacting seekers. They must first see your business card or read the newspaper article, then notice that there is a web address, and then go there on their computers. I have used this method quite effectively. I have handed out flyers with a special page I created as an advertising front for the local church. It is like putting an ad in the classified section of the newspaper to call a number to enroll in a Bible correspondence course. Bible.ca clocks 6 million hits and 112 million unique visits by both web robots and humans. These numbers mean that about 250,000 different humans visit bible.ca every month. Now it should be no surprise that this number not only equals the population of the town I live in, but also that 99.9% of the people visiting bible.ca are more than 300 miles away! Bible.ca is not an effective tool of local church evangelism for me.

lt was back in 1996 that I comprehended this, and this is why I pioneered the auto-redirect data base that

matched seekers with brethren in their own home town. For example, if someone living in Reno, Nevada sees something on bible.ca to motivate him to either attend a local church or make contact by email, the server automatically matches him with the local church at 520 Queens Way, and gives him the name of an individual, along with his personal email and home phone number.

Realizing how important the accuracy of the data for the “world directory of churches” is, last year I sent out 2000 first class letters to every church in North America asking them to confirm or update their information. The result was that about 500 churches were deleted from the database as either being disbanded, moved, or institutional. That means that one in four of the directory listings on bible.ca was bogus, and my directory is much more up to date than the others.

Just for the record, there are 1919 different local churches worldwide. The directory of churches on bible.ca is not only the most up-to-date and accurate available for free on line today from any source, it removed 500 of those annoying “phantom churches” that brethren on vacation would drive to, only to find a Baptist church had bought the building over fifteen years ago. The new geographical interface automatically maps the seeker’s home address, then shows the closest local churches in concentric rings. The gps co-ordinates of each local

church are then used to tell them: “here is a church 2.8 miles from your home, and another 12.6 miles, click here.” You can add a “Find the church” link on your website by linking to this address: www.bible.ca/directory/ seek:php? type=church

The database is the primary reason that over seventy people have been baptized as a result of first visiting bible.ca as a point of first contact. Here is just one of the examples of letters sent to me:…

“I’m not sure if you are Steve Rudd or if he is the person responsible for this site, but

whoever you are, thank you. I found your site maybe close to two years ago and after studying on it for several months I clicked on the ‘worship with a church in your own home town’ link: and visited the ‘South Jacksonville Church of Christ’ (Florida). After a few months of studying with them, I obeyed the Gospel, as did my wife. The congregation has just recently started to support me as a fulltime preacher in another church. Two weeks ago a young man called, us, having found us  on your web site, too. The next week he obeyed the Gospel, and I baptized him (my first baptism). I just wanted you to know how much your site has done for me, and I continue to rely on it. I hope you are able to continue this work” (Keck Lynn).

Now I am telling you this for good reasons to help you make a contribution to the Lord’s cause on a global scale like bible.ca on your own church website. I have instructed brethren to use my auto redirect database on their own local church website. Not merely a single link from the main menu: “worship with a church in your own home town,” but a link on every single article, sermon, news item on your website. A typical local church website might have 5-100 individual html pages. Place this link at the bottom of each and every article. If you did this, your website will put seekers into direct contact with brethren in other cities and if they, in turn, do the same, their website will redirect seekers in your own home town to you. It is a simple, scriptural and very effective. Go to Mark Copeland’s “Executable Outlines” website and notice that at the bottom of every single sermon outline, there is a link that says: “Looking For A Church Near You?” Neither Mark nor I have any way of knowing if anyone is getting baptized from this unless we get a letter telling us so. It all happens automatically in stealth. There are 18,000 html text pages on bible.ca and each of them offers the seeker the invitation to

“worship with us.” That’s a big “dragnet.” But if you

added up all the html txt pages of every local church in the world, it dwarfs bible.ca. If you have comprehended this critical point, make the needed changes on your church website today!

Bible.ca actually offers seekers three different ways for seekers to contact brethren in their own home town:

1. Assembly locations; 2. Home phone numbers of brethren; 3. Email addresses of brethren. The data base feeds this information instantly and freely back to the seekers who then pick up the phone and can call! Here is another one of my favorite stories: We, at Valley, just got a phone call tonight congratulating us on what a fine webpage we have. You can imagine our surprise, since we don’t even have a webpage. I have spent a brief time there tonight on bible.ca and am also impressed. Who are you? Please send me a return email that I may learn more about you-webmaster! Glen Erickson, elder, Valley Church of Christ.”

Here are the three links you can put on your own each page of your church’s website:

“Find a church near you”:

www.bible.ca/directory/seek: php?type=church.

“Telephone hotlines in your own home town”:

www.bible. ca/directory/seek.php ?type= phone.

“Contact Email study partner nearest you”

www.bible.ca/ directory/seek.php ?type= email.

So what good does a local church’s web page do for them in evangelism? Almost nothing! It is kind of a “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours” concept. But all is not lost. There is one very important thing you must do if you want to make sure seekers in your own home town contact you. Let me tell you what I have done. You might think that I have an elaborate website for our local church where I worship. Surprise! There is a single page. But that is all I need and it probably outperforms most other elaborate “shocked,” “java’d,” “flashes,” “twittered” pages with fancy intros and a high tech look. My page is rather crude and simplistic in comparison. There

are no direct links to this site from bible.ca. It is a single, “orphaned” page sitting like an island in the middle of the bible.ca ocean. But Google knows about it. If you want to look at it, just type in the same thing seekers type into Google: “bible study in Hamilton, Ontario.” We are the third result! I have received a number of local calls from seekers doing exactly that! I see all these complex church websites that don’t contain the key elements that a seeker is looking for.”

Billingsley suggests putting an ad in the paper with a question and give the Web Page address as the place to find  the answer. Dann suggests methods of reaching out to those  we have never met. Among them would be developing a conversation with someone in a shopping mall. Also he offers the technique of handing out tracts on a busy street or at a fair.

He reasons that this technique is similar to what Paul did in evangelizing in the marketplace (Acts 17:17). He leaves us wondering whether this technique was profitable. Billingsley offers the approach of obtaining the names of new residents from utility companies and real estate lists.

Jim Bell, then at Seminole in Tampa, writes: “We had over 300 who enrolled in the correspondence courses obtained by Dial-a-Bible-Message. Of these, about 30 finished the course and a few went on to do a second course. Of these 30, we had maybe seven home studies as a result. Most of these saw all five of the Jule Miller filmstrips, but we had no conversions.” He also reported that in Saraland, Alabama, the congregation utilized a Dial-a-Bible-Message effort. Over 200 enrolled in the Bible correspondence course and over 30 to finish the course. This program resulted in four or five home studies and two were baptized.

After we have examined the literature and conducted interviews with brethren who have worked in mass media in the past or are actively involved at the present there are conclusions that can be drawn. These conclusions all converge by seeing a pattern in the result of the mass media programs. Many are not discouraged by this pattern of results and plan to continue in spite of the direction of the traits that tend to be shared by all mass media

programs. It was astounding to me that all the mass media results had the same liabilities. It was refreshing to hear them express that those contingencies, which we will detail soon, they accepted as the price to pay for bringing souls to Christ. You can’t help but admire those who continue with great enthusiasm and optimism in conjunction with their efforts and lament in private the following conclusions about mass media efforts.

Let’s be more specific in our definition of mass media. By mass media I am referring to the distribution of anything by any means. It includes radio or TV efforts of any kind, printed advertisements of any kind in any kind of publication, telephone and computer messaging and door-to-door efforts. That is, any method that is designed to contact unknown people on a large scale. The pattern of the results is the same regardless of the number of prospects obtained and the number that eventually obey the Gospel. Some report no prospects and resultant with the program under their direction while others are elated with their results.

Here is the pattern; but keep in mind these tend to be more the case than not and all of them may not apply to every effort:

1.      Mass media efforts tend to be very expensive per contact and even more so per opportunity to teach someone.

2.      Mass media efforts generally require large population distributions.

3.      Mass media efforts usually require many thousand to reach a few that will agree to study – the larger the distribution, the more contacts that may be obtained.

4.      Mass media efforts will more often than not result in contacts that have “baggage” such as:

a.    They are slow, having little education, and thus requiring extreme patience and longterm teaching.

b.    Handicapped in some way, disabled and physical problems.

c.    Not financially independent. Often make it known they need help.

d.    They tend to come from a biased (nothing necessarily connected with race, but can be)

subset of the population that rarely represents any homogeneous random sampling of the targeted population.

5.      Mass media conversions tend to have a higher than normal attrition rate.

6.      Mass media efforts do not require the brethren of the local congregation to involve their friends or associates or anyone else they know.

7.      Mass media efforts yield prospects outside the reach of other efforts and most likely will be their only opportunity to obey the Gospel.

8.      Mass media efforts relieve the guilt of those who are unwilling to teach the Gospel to their friends and neighbors.

9.      Mass media efforts encourage those wanting to see people baptized

10.   Finally, mass media efforts lead to the salvation of souls in spite of all the drawbacks. Those who have had a part in baptizing someone into Christ using a mass media effort simply asks: “What is one soul worth?” Who would argue with that? As we pointed out earlier poor results are better than no results. No program guarantees there will be no results.

Strategies to spread the Gospel outside the pulpit have occupied the attention of brethren for decades. Finding ways that work has seemed like looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Most agree with the objective of whatever strategy is used, the goal is to “present Jesus Christ to sinful men” in order that they may come to put their trust in God, through Him to receive Him as their savior.

Increasing the Effectiveness of Our Efforts

Failure is part of life. The bright day does not come until the end of night. A classic case is Abraham Lincoln, whom our new President looked to as an icon of his anticipated presidency.

Abraham Lincoln:

Failed in business in 1831

Defeated for legislature in 1832

Second failure in business in 1833 Suffered a nervous breakdown in 1836

Defeated for speaker in 1838 Defeated for elector in 1838

Defeated for congress in 1848 Defeated for the Senate in 1855

Defeated for vice president in 1 Defeated for the senate in 1

Elected president in 18

Most historians consider Abraham Lincoln our greatest president.

Wallace notes the uncertainties that faced Paul and Barnabas as they set out on their first missionary journey. He adds that life is full of uncertainties. The most certain path, he says, in this life of uncertainties is to put ourselves in the hands of almighty God. With this approach one is cushioned from his fear of failure, but like Paul’s thorn in the flesh, it will not be removed. Failure occurs in many cases because of a lack of patience. One must take time to plant and water. Then wait for God to give the increase. Someone once said, “If it doesn’t come easy, you better let it go.” The lesson for us here is that no matter how prepared and willing we are, we cannot force results. We have to accept failure. To illustrate: there was one brother I worked with who had always been a tireless worker in implementing strategies beyond the pulpit to save souls. He and I labored together for more than ten years as elders, experimenting with strategies. Some of them were more effective than others. It was during my work with this brother that I developed “My Lesson.” He quickly became impressed with its value and learned it. He got so excited about presenting it that he, in my view, at times did not use good judgment about where and when to present it. He was absolutely convinced that if anyone heard it, no matter where and under what circumstances, he or she would obey the Gospel. On one occasion, when asked to make the introductory remarks at the funeral of a dear brother in Christ, he taught my lesson.

McKnight (Journey) said, “We are more concerned with holding services than with saving souls.” Kercheville cited a case

in which about 25 senior couples met for breakfast. The effort of some to bring unbelieving friends did not go over well. They were behaving as those who “passed by on the other side” in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-32). They were more interested in their own selfish entertainment than in lost souls.

Churches are growing in places, not by noticeable conversions but usually by competing congregations coming up with programs that will attract members from other congregations. Thus, meaningful and fulfilling services have become the objective instead of searching for strategies to save souls beyond the building. Hall noted that a congregation whose members are more interested in sports and entertainment is like the temple Paul alluded to that was built of hay, wood, and straw. It will bring no honor to God (I Cor. 3:13).

Paul said, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” The biggest single built-in failure factor for individual Christians is their unwillingness to pay the price of allocating time. Brethren pay lip service to seeking souls by strategies beyond the pulpit, but no track record of success follows. When they make a commitment in their heart they know what is right and what they should do, but it requires something that they do not have and are unwilling to give, which is time.

Some are realistic enough to understand their dilemma from the beginning. They see that, with their present priorities, they cannot become involved in an effort that requires committing time from an already packed schedule. They simply “go away sorrowful” because they have too much committed time. Others are like the seed in the parable of the sower that fell among the thorns. They are active for a while, but their time is choked with commitments and they do not have enough available to honor their commitment. So: just who is going to implement these strategies beyond the pulpit? Who is going to provide the parachute in our plight to failure?

Let’s check the family to find someone to carry the torch for personal evangelism. Perhaps Mama will help us. When we look to Mama for help, we find she has to work every day, pay the

bills, clean the house, do the laundry, go grocery shopping, provide taxi service for the kids, have her hair done, attend services on Wednesday and the Lord’s day, attend the ladies’ Bible class, shop for gifts for birthdays and showers, do the cooking, go to and work in the PTA, sponsor the Girl Scouts, watch the soccer and Little League games, have dinner parties, take vacations, visit or care for her parents, or both, and watch Regis and Kelly. Mama can’t help. She doesn’t have time!

Then I guess it is left up to Dad. We don’t even need to go there. His list is likely to be longer than that of mom because of football, baseball, car racing and basketball. Obviously Dad can’t do it. He doesn’t have time! We must conclude that the primary reason strategies beyond the pulpit cannot and will not work is because brethren are unwilling to change their priorities.

A genuine soul seeker is a lover of people – all kinds of people – poor people, hurt people, sick people, neglected people and lonely people. The lesson of Gideon illustrates the Lord’s interest in identifying the workers who have the proper spirit to enter  into battle for the Lord (Judges 7:1-8). So, who has the right spirit for using strategies to save souls? The “people person” is the one who becomes a personal evangelist, not necessarily a Bible class teacher, an elder, or a preacher. Many individuals could never pass as a “people person.” They see using strategies as provoking an academic doctrinal wrestling match and hope to prevail much as Jacob did (Gen. 32:24-25). By contrast, the

“people person” is sensitive to the hurts of others; he or she can empathize with the plight of those hurt with sin and can effectively lead them out of their imprisonment.

What often results from the converts of brethren who are insensitive, cold and uncaring toward others? Invariably, they produce converts are just like them. Do I mean an accumulation of converts to that mindset eventually would produce a congregation that is insensitive, cold, and uncaring? Yes, very possibly it could – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matthew 23:15). Seed produces after its kind. A congregation that is

insensitive, cold, and uncaring cannot become evangelistic without going through some major reconstruction. It is fruitless and counterproductive to worry about the lost, when there is very little love shown toward the brethren. The Apostle John writes about the absolute necessity of showing love toward our brethren (1 John 2:7-11; 3:15-16; 4:7-8, 11-12, 16, 19-21).

A congregation composed of brethren who do not feel the need to face their responsibilities to visit those hurting (shut-ins, those in the hospital, the elderly, the lonely, and the bereaved, those wrestling with difficult problems) has no business trying to reach the lost. On the other hand, those Christians in a local church who are concerned about their needy brethren will become the kind of people who show their love for the lost, and non-Christians will seek out these loving Christians to lead them to Christ.

Some Christians seem to think that if they send a card or make a phone call, they have completely discharged their duty to “visit” those in need. Some set aside a certain time for a “visitation” meeting. Someone has said that brethren ought to rename

“visitation” to “call-ation,” or “card-ation” because most brethren don’t truly visit; they just call or send a card. Cards and phone calls certainly have their place, and many of us have been cheered by the thoughtful words of a brother or sister. However, there are times when a card or phone call just isn’t sufficient.

Sometimes a brother needs a hug or a person-to-person visit to share his hurt. Perhaps the priest and the Levite were of the mindset to call or send a card, but the “good Samaritan” was the true neighbor (Luke 10:30-37).

Our brother in Christ may need someone to bring flowers, nuts, prepare a meal, offer prayer, read scripture, or cry with him. He needs a real, live brother or sister who has left home, driven to his house and said in effect, “Here I am for you, at least for a while.” Most brethren are not willing to do that. Although they may offer a friendly smile and a hearty handshake at services and say, “If you ever need me, be sure to call.” They seldom open their homes to anyone or sacrifice themselves at other times.

That is one reason why many congregations are not growing

spiritually. (Notice I said nothing about numbers. Many congregations would grow spiritually by reducing their number substantially!) We need to understand that brethren who are hurting don’t need our money, cards, or phone calls as much as they need us! They don’t really need the food we bring as much as they need to eat a meal with us. Food prepared by a loving sister who comes by to serve it and visit means more than seafood sent from Red Lobster or prime rib sent from Outback Steak House.

Many brethren, very actively involved in other congregational activities, fail to recognize their responsibilities to these needy brothers and sisters. Although many would be willing to go and help if they were called, most have no idea where the shut-ins live. The reason is simple; they have never been there. Is it any wonder that if called in the middle of the night, they would have difficulty finding the homes of the feeble in the congregation without a map and directions? And, sad to say, if by chance they found the house, they would be such strangers that they might make the situation rather worse instead of providing a remedy. A time of personal trauma, a serious illness, or accident is not the time to “get acquainted.

We repeat: “People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Those who truly care have genuine opportunities to lead people to the Gospel. The move to do more evangelism has two obstacles that must be overcome: (1) a sincere resolution to give more attention to those who are hurting; and (2) clearing the schedule to make time for the work of the Lord. Some make the resolution without clearing the time. Initially, just one night a week would be a reasonable start.

One day when I was sitting in a hospital room quietly working on my computer, a woman whom I did not know entered the room. Without acknowledging me, she began to address the aged sister who was being treated for a serious fall. She had a broken nose, and the nurses couldn’t stop the bleeding. I introduced myself and she said was the niece of the sister. I was the first to arrive, had been there a good while, and knew the sister’s son was on his way. So I asked the woman if she might be able to stay a

while until he arrived. “Oh no, I have too much to do, I can’t do that.” I was thinking her aunt could in all likelihood be bleeding to death (her face was blue). This woman was too busy to attend her aunt who desperately needed her.

The step to make time is vital. If this obstacle is not overcome, the rest of the study becomes theoretical, idealistic, and of little practical value. The lifestyles of many of us must change and change dramatically if we are to become useful. Obviously, there is no program that will fit everyone. All this author can do is to suggest the magnitude of the change. Each Christian will have to develop his or her own plan, utilizing his or her own conscience and relationship to the Lord. You can’t talk to the wrong person about Christ because everybody needs Him. To set aside time for the Lord requires a radical change. Typically, Christians not wanting to make more time for the lost will rationalize their selfish, materialistic lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed, and then lash out at others who question their current lifestyles.

Evidence of a lack of spirituality is suggested by Gatewood, who cites a number of reasons for this lack. He said as brethren we seem to console consciences by excuses and are not proactive in our lives in seeking souls beyond the pulpit. He goes on to detail some of these excuses: (1) They say that they are just “too busy” or (2) that they “already doing their part.” Or they may

avoid their responsibility by saying (3) “no one is interested” or

(4) “I don’t know enough about the Bible.” Whatever the case, it is obvious that such a brother will be of little help in seeking souls beyond pulpit preaching. He accepts failure without even trying. He is like the one talent man who buried his talent that Jesus condemned (Matt. 25:18). McKnight makes the point that “God demands obedience, not excuses.”

No, odds are, we can’t seek souls beyond the pulpit. Not because we aren’t talented enough or not able to teach someone, but because we simply don’t care enough about people, and we are unwilling to make the time to teach them. The attitude is: “I gave at the office.” Obviously there is a choice. It is a choice that must be made by those who are serious about implementing

strategies and sincere in their love for the Lord. Little can be done by a congregation until a sizable number in the congregation make a commitment in this direction.

The break in emphasis on conversion has caused an influx of those who show signs of not really being converted. This is indicated by slips that occur long after some are “converted.” Many are being eased into the number without being taught. This illustrates why people cannot be drawn to the Lord by a heavy reliance on levels 3, 4, and 5. Some time back I was visiting a congregation. The class consisted of reading Bob Harkrider’s class book⁵⁸ verbatim without comment. I thought one of the readers who was called upon to read did very well. I spoke to him after the service, and after some pleasantries I asked his background in the church. He said, “Oh, I am not a member of the church of Christ. I am a member of The Pentecostal Church. My wife wanted to come here because she was unsatisfied with the pastor of my church.” I asked the treasurer and the preacher if they were aware of the fact that he was not a Christian, and they said, “We don’t ask him to lead in prayer or wait on the table.” Needless to say, I was appalled.

Many who have been active members for years have little understanding of the uniqueness of the Lord’s church. Some will correct themselves quickly after introducing the preacher as “our pastor” or refer to someone in a denominational church as being a Christian, but not a “church of Christ Christian.” You would expect that from a new convert, still steeped in denominationalism, but not from someone who has had time to become a teacher (Heb. 5:12). I know of one family that was out of the church for 25 years. During that time the sister adopted the position that that there were many saved in denominationalism and developed an adversarial attitude toward anyone that thought otherwise.

Without changing her conviction and publicly confessing and repenting of her unfaithfulness, she has eased into a congregation and proudly announces herself to visitors as a member of that congregation.

Frequently there are among us who became “Christians” in order to have a unified home when they married. Most of us can

cite examples when a fiancé realized it was really important to the prospective mate and his or her family to marry a Christian. The person is quickly “converted” (that is: baptized). One fiancé came to me on one such occasion and asked that I administer

“church of Christ” baptism to him. Upon questioning, I discovered that he not only did not know what Bible baptism is but he also refused to study the Scriptures to learn what it is. Needless to say I didn’t baptize him.

Reisinger called attention to the contrast between the states of converted and the unconverted. The unconverted are ignorant of the truth that saves and are slaves and captives of Satan (2 Tim. 2:24-26). When members are not converted when they are baptized, they have few convictions and little interest in being spiritual, and they see little distinctiveness in the Lord’s church and denominationalism.

McKnight makes the point that real converts are easily identifiable, and gauged by the interest they have in saving souls. He says, “Evangelism is so demanding on a Christian that it is a real test of his spirituality” (Matt. 7:16, John 15:1-6). There may be more in this group than we want to admit. Alexander calls attention to the incongruence of brethren who have an interest in committing to memory volumes of secular material yet fail to learn the word of God. His point is they lack the spirituality to pursue knowledge of the word of God. These weak or unconverted brethren are usually shallow in God’s word and lack the courage and conviction required to mount an effort for the cause of the lost. In many cases they are successful businessmen, but they are not spiritual. Men who walk so as to please God must be spiritual (Gal. 6:1, I Cor. 2:13). Noah tried to warn the people of the flood. He tried and he was a complete success in doing what God wanted him to do, but only saved his family.

It is sometimes a shock to realize brethren can be active in church work and not be spiritual. The latter is an absolute necessity in implementing strategy to save souls beyond the pulpit All believers do not measure up to the Lord’s teaching on spirituality, instead they are carnal (fleshly and not spiritual) (1 Cor. 3:14). If spirituality is attained, it is not always maintained. Thus

Paul in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 contrasts a babe in Christ with one in a spiritual state. Spiritual people are interested in spiritual things – like attending Gospel meetings, reading the Bible and material about the Bible, having concern for the sick and afflicted, having spiritual companions, and, yes, utilizing strategies in spreading the Gospel beyond the pulpit. After self-analysis, some are shocked to conclude that they, indeed, are not very spiritual, even though they are active in the church. I remember a lesson in which I presented the above description of what it meant to be spiritual and made a strong charge: “If that is not your interest, then you are not spiritual!” One brother got up and walked out, never to come back. When approached about it, he explained that he was not

angry. He said, “You made me realize I was not spiritual.” The admonition of the Lord would be, of course, to “repent and do the first works” (Rev. 2:5). The man in this incident would not do that. Many, indeed, are spiritual and reflect all that we have said. “Do not be weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9)!

Jenkins noted that the Lord had a lot to say about those who work in his vineyard. The Parable of the Tares teaches: Do not let the unfaithful destroy the works of those using strategies of those seeking to bring souls to Christ. The Parable of the Leaven teaches the effect of caring; the Parable of the Hidden Treasure shows that the worker must be soul winners and seek the lost. The Parable of the Net shows that the worker must see the worth of every soul.

Wilson suggests six reasons for failure: (1) A lack of conviction; (2) A lack of self esteem; (3) The fear of losing credibility; (4) Being embarrassed from prior religious experiences; (5) Predicting the outcome before an effort and (6) Conflict of interest.

Jennings pointed out that the practice of hospitality (Greek philozenos “lover of strangers”), was urged upon disciples in many passages (cf. Rom. 12:13, I Tim. 3:2, Titus  1:8, 1 Pet. 4:9, Heb. 13:1-2 and Matt. 25:34-43). His point is that brethren are instructed to use hospitality with strangers. Sexton points out that hospitality provides an opportunity to get to know people well enough to read their behavior. What

better way is there to get to know them than around the dinner table? Smith commented that the real cement of those in Bible times was “table fellowship” He observes that sharing a meal seemed to be an indispensible tool to accomplish meaningful relationships. Jesus made it a point to eat with sinners. Adams (“The Gospel…”) makes the point that efficiency in leading souls to Christ by implementing strategies beyond the pulpit occurs by approaching people we know. He goes on to say that our opportunities to teach the Gospel must feed off    of personal rapport.

Walker (Wayne) explored data from “Christian” religions to discover what attracted converts to a congregation. A sizeable segment reported that relationships had been the reason for their coming. He then turned his attention to exploring how relationships could be  enhanced. Adams³ makes the point that the everyday liaisons present us as a walking, talking, and living example of what Christianity is (or isn’t).  “The truth, he says, is before people will embrace something, they must see that it has done something in life – that is changing you.

One contributor observed that from a survey that the number who had changed from the “unchurched” to the “churched” began going to church because of direct personal contact from someone affiliated with  the church. Over 50% of those he encountered said that they were influenced by someone from the church talking to them directly about their soul. Olbricht shared that one of the sisters arranged a study with a man with whom she worked. He and his wife were baptized. After this, he persuaded his friends to study with him, and twenty-one others were baptized. McMillion (Lynn) says we can reach out and extend our relationship with others by caring and focusing on broken homes. He  calls attention  to Jesus’ use of social relationships. He cites Zaccheus, the  tax collectors, and sinners. He notes that of the 130 contacts Jesus made are recorded in the Gospels, only ten were in the synagogue or temple. Jesus was a lover of people. He worked the people. Mullins makes the point that the multiple non

personal strategies we attempt pale in comparison to the value of a personal contact.

Another contributor details a highly organized “we-care” program. Still another makes a noteworthy remark when he says that we need to relate to an ever-increasing number of people in our daily experience has crippled our ability to relate effectively to even one person. Adams (Wilson) reports that according to a survey in which new Christians were asked: “How did you come to be a Christian?” Eighty-seven percent responded that they had been encouraged by a friend. He goes on to say we are ineffective because of the pace of life. It is too fast and complicated.

The worker who is searching for a strategy often does not know where to start. He wants to do something that will connect him with a prospect who has never has heard the Gospel and baptize him into Christ. This Christian is willing to look under any rock, go into any swamp or desert, and leave the ninety and nine, as the Lord suggested, to find the one lost sheep – a lost sheep that never will find its way back without the shepherd. John Isaac Edwards makes this suggestion: Get a pencil and paper and write the names of six people one knows who need the Gospel. Pick one, he says, and go get it. It is true that one cannot put a price tag on the time invested   in baptizing people into Christ, especially in view of the fact that hardly anyone was baptized before a program began.

Suppose he becomes involved in a program in which seven prospects were produced and five were baptized. Of the five, two fall away. When this happens he is brought into the real world of saving souls. There is work, rewards and disappointments.

 

Credibility

Jesus’ ministry was very short, and yet he covered an area of 10,000 square miles on foot in His preaching. There were many places to go and much to say and do. An absolute requirement for impact and effectiveness is credibility. He healed the sick, made the blind to see, touched the maimed and made them whole

and raised the dead. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing” (John 2:23). The primary purpose of the signs and miracles in His case was to establish His credibility (Luke 5:18-26). The credibility of the Apostles was to be established the same way in order to cover the whole known world (Mark 16:17). Jesus challenged the lawyers and so called “Bible scholars,” the scribes and the Pharisees mightily using the scriptures. He left them speechless because that could not deal with his questions. All of this gave both Jesus and the Apostles instant credibility wherever they went. Needless to say no, one can have instant credibility today.

We do not live in the day of signs and wonders but credibility is nevertheless vital. It is obtained today by the use of the scriptures and godly living consistent with those scriptures

(2 Tim. 3:15-16, Eph. 4:25-29). Credibility today is obtained by long-term association with others and living the Christian life with integrity. That requires godly living. A person who does not project godliness and reflect a deep trust in the scriptures cannot have credibility. Not only must we have the truth (John 8:32), but our lives must give evidence to the truth (Matt. 7:21). Thus when one has not been careful about his influence, he “has a name” all right, but it is not a good one. It could be a name of dishonesty, impurity, indifference, uncaring, family and child neglect, and on and on; you fill in the blanks. No one wants to hear the Gospel from anyone with that kind of a reputation. That is why, in my judgment, those in the mass media efforts and the ones in the door-to-door survey were left cold. It was because the messengers had no credibility – they were strangers to those they contacted.

In connection with my work with strategies to be used and implemented outside the pulpit, I came upon three essential links that affects all outcomes. They are (1) the credibility of the worker, (2) his willingness to break his own comfort zone, and

(3) the willingness to draw from his credibility and transfer that trust to the acquaintance who will accept him as an able teacher of the truth.

Credibility is not a Bible word. Neither are trinity and incarnation. However all three are very real and vital Bible concepts. In fact they are the crux what Jesus taught about his kingdom.

The trinity has to do with the Godhead. There are three: God the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:8). Incarnation identifies the concept that God and man were combined in Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 16:18). Credibility exists in Christians whose life in the Lord is blameless, godly, trustworthy, and exhibit integrity, with public knowledge that they have ruled their own houses well. Noah was a just man (Gen. 6:9). Enoch walked with God and God took him (Gen. 5:24). “And what doth Jehovah require of you, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8). The pattern of life one has exhibited before his neighbors consistent with these principles portrays light shined before men (Matt. 5:16). Wherever one has been short, there is a loss of credibility. David made amends with God, and rightly agonized over his sins (Psalms 51). He was saved, but he had lost his credibility.

Many very spiritual brethren have, like David, in godly sorrow, confessed their ungodly behavior, unscriptural marriages and their failure to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The latter in most cases resulted in the loss of their children and grandchildren. Brethren who bring baggage of this sort into the church, even though they have confessed and repented and have restored their salvation with tears (Heb.

13:17), have little hope of having credibility. Credibility can be lost through inadvertent and unfortunate circumstances – in many cases circumstances beyond our control. Such things as a second marriage because of an unfaithful spouse, grown children who have left the church and become identified with a denomination, a business that goes bad because of a dishonest partner or just plain slander. In these situations, innocent Christians have been robbed of their credibility – many times through no fault of their own.

It goes without saying that when those who have credibility move to a new community they must start all over. Credibility is not an account that can be drawn on from one’s for

mer habitation. Preachers in particular who move frequently are painfully aware of this handicap. They are asked to serve with the expectation that they will be effective when they have little credibility even though evidence of merit exists in many places.

Deason suggests that others may conclude that what we do and say in worship places our credibility in question. He asks whether our actions in seeking the lost actually reveals the lie in our lives and condemns us. We sing, “The Harvest Call,” by Elbert Kelly, “There is much to do,” by M.W. Spence, “We Have Heard the Macedonian Call,” by Charles Gabriel, and “I Want to be a Soul Winner,” by J.W. Ferrill. Think about what you sing! Have you? Will you? Do you realize the promise you are making to God in these hymns?

Credibility is by far the most valuable and critical quality or asset needed to teach the Gospel, especially with a strategy beyond the pulpit. Looking back, I would venture to say that every conversion I had a part in through In the Same Hour of the Night was accomplished because of credibility. Notice I did not say credibility established on my own, but credibility established by Christians in their own lives.

Attaining credibility can be compared to what happens with the cocklebur plant. Its sticky seedpod contains several seeds, not just one. These seeds germinate in different years.  If seed “A” fails to sprout because of a drought, seed “B” will be there waiting for next year, and seed “C” the year after   that. All are waiting until the right conditions for germination to arrive. It is much like the spiritual seeds we plant in the  lives of others. The Gospel “seed” is planted, and when the time is ripe, it will produce a harvest. The Christian is sowing the seeds of credibility by letting his light  so  shine before men so that they can see his good works and glorify the Father (Matt. 5:16).

To understand this more thoroughly, get out your old high-school psychology textbook. Read again about Pavlov’s dog. Pavlov discovered the confusion of the stimulus concept. He fed the dog while he rang a bell. After a while, he