Friday, 16 March 2018

Enthusiasts – Quantity or Quality?


In the church growth models, an enthusiast is the name given to the Christian believer who is responsible for bringing unbelievers to faith. “Responsible” in this context means the human point of contact where the faith is passed on, not the supernatural work in the heart, which is God’s responsibility! But we know God spreads the gospel through people. Those who spread it, so that others are converted, are called enthusiasts.

Some of these converts will themselves become enthusiasts, and in turn make more converts. Thus, the enthusiast is an “infected” Christian, passing on the faith a bit like the way a disease is passed on. Of course enthusiasts are not effective indefinitely. Just like people with a disease, the infectious period of an enthusiast is limited. Eventually they are either run out of contacts, run out of enthusiasm, or find so much else to do in church they spend too little time in evangelism and witness.

The above scenario describes the limited enthusiasm model [1]. It follows that church growth is very dependent on the enthusiasts within the church. A church needs enthusiasts – and should set about generating them! But what is the best way – to have more enthusiasts, or more effective enthusiasts? Should they produce quantity or quality?

The advantage of having a mathematical model is that computer simulations can be used to investigate different strategies. In this case I will look at the effect of changing the initial number of enthusiasts on the growth of the church. Then do the same by changing the effectiveness of the enthusiasts and compare the results.

Increase Quantity of Enthusiasts

Firstly, let the initial number of enthusiasts be increased, whilst their effectiveness remains the same. Perhaps the church has engaged in a training programme, or has more of its congregation involved in an outreach course like Alpha or Christianity Explored. Figure 1 shows the effect of changing the quantity of enthusiasts on church growth over 50 years. The high percentage growth is because the church starts small.

Figure 1: Effect on church growth of increasing the quantity of enthusiasts
The good news is that the more enthusiasts, the more church growth! For a small number of enthusiasts, increasing their number has a big effect on growth, the steep slope on the left of the graph.  However, the curve slows down; adding yet more enthusiasts has a less than proportional effect on church growth. Yes, it increases, but not in a large way.

Increase Quality of Enthusiasts

Secondly, increase the effectiveness of the enthusiasts, whilst keeping the initial number of enthusiasts constant. In this case each individual enthusiast is more “infectious”. The Christianity they have makes more impact on converting people; perhaps it is more challenging, more attractive. It is hard to be prescriptive, but the believer has something an unbeliever wants, so the unbeliever converts and becomes like it themselves. Figure 2 shows the effect of changing the quality of enthusiasts on church growth over 50 years. The “conversion potential” is a measure of enthusiast quality.

Figure 2: : Effect on church growth of increasing the quality of enthusiasts
When enthusiast quality is low, the effect on church growth is moderate, the straightish line on the left of the graph from a conversion potential of 1 to just over 1.5. From a value of 2 onwards church growth explodes. This value is near a “tipping point”, so that even very small increases in the quality of enthusiasts has a massive effect on church growth. A conversion potential of 2 means each enthusiast could be used to convert two people, if everyone they meet is an unbeliever.

Comparing figures 1 and 2 it is clear that increasing the effectiveness of enthusiasts has a much bigger impact than just increasing their number, as long as they pass that effectiveness on. Quality is better than quantity. But how is the effectiveness of enthusiasts increased?

Churches prefer to increase the number of enthusiasts perhaps because they feel it is something they can handle. Invite more people to be trained to do evangelism, put on more courses etc. But to increase quality, that is the number of people an individual enthusiast could convert, requires a change both in believer and unbeliever. And only God can do the latter.

In reality only God can change the believer as well. Yes there are things churches can to improve effectiveness of those who witness. They can contact more people – the extra people contacted may already have their hearts ready to receive Christ. They can be better prepared to answer questions – just the sort of questions that might be stopping an unbeliever coming to faith. But ultimately, just as it takes a work of the Holy Spirit to make unbelievers receptive, it also takes a work of the Holy Spirit to make a believer infectious – to make them a more effective enthusiast.

It is this work of the Holy Spirit that we are asking for when we pray for revival. This is why the church needs revival to see conversions increase and the church grow again. The trouble with praying for revival is that Christians are often more willing to pray for unbelievers to be open to Christ than they are for themselves to be set on fire and be made infectious Christians. Revival must start in the heart of the believer.

When, as Christian believers, we come to terms with the fact that the problem with church decline is in our hearts, and that the need for us to be effective in witness, to be infectious for God, will make huge demands on our lives – only then can our prayer for revival bring what we ask for. Because it is only that way, quality not quantity, that people will be able to say: “God did this, they could not have done this themselves.” It is quality, not quantity, that gives the glory to God alone. Conversions and church growth are only means to an end – that end is the glory of God, displayed in Christ Jesus saving sinners. “Lord Jesus, make us effective enthusiasts for You.”


References and Notes


[1] The limited enthusiasm model is described on my website
along with various results
The work is published:




Thursday, 22 February 2018

Billy Graham, Church Growth and Revival

Given the news yesterday of the death of the great evangelist Billy Graham, I felt I needed to blog a few words in honour of a man who God used to do so much for the cause of the Gospel in the 20th century. Of course much will be written about him over the next few days, and there is little need for me to add to that. But I would like to highlight two things about Billy Graham in relation to church growth and revival in the UK.

 
1. Billy Graham and Church Growth

There is evidence that the Billy Graham meetings in the UK had a measurable effect on church numbers. Figure 1 shows the membership of the main Protestant denominations in Great Britain since 1900 [1]. The decline from the 1930s to the present day is clearly seen. But there is a plateau in the 1950s before decline accelerates again. It cannot be totally proved [2], but the likely reason for the plateau is the effect of the Billy Graham crusades in the UK, 1954-55. There are no other reasons unique to that period that would cause what is a large change in the normal decline pattern between 1930 and 1980. Billy may not have brought church growth to the UK – but the conversions that came as a result of his meetings were enough to arrest church decline for a while.

Figure 1

Indeed the mood in the UK denominations by the end of the 1950s was positive, with a belief that the post-war church decline was over. The preacher Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones made note of this optimism in his sermons on revival in 1959 [3]. Preaching on the hundredth anniversary of the revival of 1859 he lamented that the contemporary need for revival was falling on deaf ears as the denominational reports were so good - so much positive activity. And of course church decline had slowed – the Billy Graham effect.

But Lloyd-Jones had rightly discerned that things in the church were not good. The Billy Graham effect was precisely that, due to Billy. The church was unchanged, it was still not making enough converts, it was the Billy Graham crusades that were largely responsible for the 1950s conversions. And once he went, the decline continued.

But Billy did affect church membership positively. Indeed in every church I have belonged to there have been members who were converted in one of his 1950s crusades. Critics complained that many “converts” did not stick. But many did – and they have been working in the churches ever since. His impact was huge. Sadly, the denominations did not follow his example.

Going back to figure 1, note also that church decline has slowed from the 1980s onwards. This is almost certainly the effect of the Charismatic renewal from the 1960s onwards. As in any long-term revival it takes time to impact membership figures as the movement builds. 20 years is typical. From the 1980s onwards many churches found a new confidence through that work of the Holy Spirit, along with associated movements in evangelical and reformed circles. Part of that confidence came from a return visit from Billy Graham in the 1980s, Mission England. Billy still helping to dent church decline!

2. Billy Graham and Revival

Billy was an evangelist, not a revivalist. But if revivals are to see conversions then they need evangelists. And a good evangelist needs the revival power of the Holy Spirit. To find the origins of Billy Graham’s power we need to go back to 1946.

In 1946 Billy conducted his first two campaigns in the UK, with Youth for Christ. At this point he was not the well-known evangelist he became, just another visiting American preacher [4]. Part of the second campaign took him to Wales, in particular to Gorseinon, which had been one of the centres of the 1904/5 Welsh Revival, near Loughor, the starting place of that revival. Billy was booked to take the final meetings at an evangelistic campaign in Caersalem Free Church in which local Welsh evangelist, David Shepherd, was the principal speaker [5]. David Shepherd takes up the story [6]: 
Billy preached that afternoon, I remember what he preached about, the Rich Young Ruler, “What must I do to be saved”. I was not greatly impressed. And then he made an appeal, and no one came forward. Unlike Billy Graham as we know.
 And he went up to Edwards Caersalem, as we called him, the minister. And in that lovely openness that belongs to Billy he said: “Edwards, there’s sin in your church, because I always preach that sermon the first night, and people always get converted”. Now I thought, how different from us preachers in Wales and England. We say, it may be tonight that I could possibly be led by God to preach what I did before. Not Billy, terribly open he was.
 And Edwards did something for him he said: “Billy preach the Gospel, boy. God will bless you”.  “But I do preach the Gospel, Edwards”. “No you don’t” he said: “you’re preaching the New Testament, but not the Gospel”.  And Billy Graham, great man that he was, hung his head, he said: “You know Edwards you’re right, you’re right. There is something I haven’t grasped.” Now by a quirk of circumstance I heard Billy three years later in Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’s chapel in London. And strange to say, the same message. But it wasn’t the same message. He had grown out of all dimensions. It wasn’t the same Billy. 
David Shepherd reckoned Billy left Wales a different man. He went on [6]:
When Billy came (to Gorseinon), he stayed with people who were in the Welsh revival [7]. In fact one of the ladies was a team singer with Evan Roberts, indeed she was a member in my church. Billy learned first hand what it was like to be in a genuine revival. A God-sent revival. It made a profound impression on him. He was never the same man. I was in a prayer meeting in Birmingham, about say two years later. And I heard someone pray. I could not see who it was. What a prayer. Of course it was Billy. Billy had grown. I believe his visit here had contributed greatly to it.
 Indeed evangelist Stephen Olford recalls a specific time with Billy in Pontypridd, Wales in that second 1946 visit where they both had an experience of the Holy Spirit’s fullness and anointing [5]. He preached that night at Tabernacle Baptist as a man anointed. Such was the power of the Spirit that people came rushing forward before he finished [5].

So, although Billy Graham was an evangelist, he was more than that. He was a man who knew revival, empowered by the same move of God that had shaken Wales forty years previously. And subsequently went on to make his own contribution to church growth; at least it was a dent or two in the church’s decline.

May the Lord Billy Graham served now grant him the eternal rest and joy won for him by Jesus Christ. And may we all be inspired to follow his example and make converts for Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

John Hayward
Church Growth Modelling


Notes and References


[1] The denominations are: Churches of England, Scotland and Wales; Baptist; United Reformed (and earlier constituents); Pentecostal and late 20th century charismatic churches; Presbyterian church of Wales, and the Free Church of Scotland. The Roman Catholic church was excluded to eliminate the effects of Irish migration in the 1950s. Northern Ireland was excluded as there were unique factors influencing church numbers there.

Data from various volumes of UK Church Statistics, Peter Brierley Consultancy, and Religious Trends 1-7, Christian Research.


[2] Ideally, the number added to the churches from 1930-1980 would help prove or disprove the hypothesis. However, few churches publish recruitment figures, let alone give a breakdown as to their source.

[3] Revival. DM Lloyd-Jones, Marshall Pickering, 1986. Also available on audio from the Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust.

[4] The 1946 meetings are not listed in the official list of Billy Graham crusades
probably because they precede the formation of his own mission organisation. A poster for from that time appears in reference [5].

[5] Billy Graham’s Encounter with the Holy Spirit in Wales, The Welldigger, David Edward Pike, 2012.

[6] All Things Considered, BBC Wales, When Billy Graham came to Wales, including an interview with Welsh Evangelist David Shepherd. This was broadcast in the 1990s. A version is to be broadcast on 25/2/18.


[7] My mother was taught in Sunday School by people converted in the Welsh Revival and could give me vivid testimony of what it was like to spend time with such people. She would often tell me “You could see it in their eyes” – “it” being the respect and awe they had for the Lord Jesus who had come so close to them in saving power. 

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

John Wesley Under the Contemporary Spotlight

Recently I had a lengthy comment on my blog post about John Wesley in Wales [1].  The comments raised so many issues that I felt it needed a long reply. So I have made the reply a blog!

The commenter was anonymous and their chief concern was that for all Wesley’s single mindedness and commitment, his approach to life is not one that 21st century church leaders would endorse.

Like many Christians today, I praise John Wesley's utter single-mindedness in his commitment to the work that God called him to do. Most of us know we fall far, far short, which is humbling. Embarrassing, in fact.

However, it occurs to me that Wesley's goals were aided by a way life that few religious leaders today would promote

I am sure anonymous is correct that few religious leaders today would promote Wesley’s way of life, or even his style of ministry. But that may say more about the poor standards of ministry in Christianity now than it does about John Wesley!

I am also wary when the “present” stands in judgement on the “past”. Understanding past beliefs and behaviours can only be sensibly done if we also examine our own in the light of scripture and history. We may misunderstand the past because we are so wrong ourselves. This is particularly true with the whole subject of revival. Our experience of outpourings of the Holy Spirit is so limited that we may view someone like Wesley as if he were experiencing what we experience. He did not – he, and the other Methodists, experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in a higher measure than us, thus we may never fully understand why they did what they did. Disapproving the way of life of a man like Wesley then becomes disapproval of revival altogether.

Then there are contemporary Christians who are so caught up by the subject of revival that they glamorise the revivals of the past, and elevate Wesley, Whitefield and the like to heroes second only to the Apostles. They then fail to see the flaws in past revivals, so that any modern claim to a revival is dismissed as it cannot achieve the standards of the pasts ones. However the “standards” used are artificial. I am afraid contemporary Christians do not make a good job of analysing the work of God in the past!

With the above provisos in mind I will attempt to deal with some of the problems with Wesley’s way of life that anonymous listed.

1. Celibacy is now unfashionable.

It is not clear that celibacy has ever been fashionable except among Roman Catholic clergy and the Shakers! Most Christians are not celibate otherwise populations would not grow. What I think anonymous means is that for Wesley the need for sexual “fulfilment” was secondary compared with preaching and building the church.

This is true, preaching and the ways of God did override all other activities – that what happens when the Spirit is poured out. It is the heart of what it means to be an enthusiast for Jesus. But the danger is to compare Wesley, and the apostle Paul, and even Jesus, with our culture that has become obsessed with all things sexual and its very public discussion. This obsession is mirrored in the Western church where redefining what is right and wrong in sexual behaviour is being radically revised. Anyone following current church affairs would think that sexual behaviour and identity are THE big issues of the moment, rather than the church’s lack of converts and the impending extinction of most mainline denominations. It is possible the modern church needs to look at Wesley and re-learn the priorities of the Christian life

2. Parents/spouses who evangelise full-time are often seen as neglectful of their families.

Wesley only married late in life, an unwise marriage according to his many biographers. Hs itinerate lifestyle meant he was unable to spend sufficient time with his wife. A similar view is held of George Whitefield. But they were the exception among the Methodists, not the norm. Most Methodist enthusiasts did not travel to the extent of these. Methodism grew through enthusiasts – the “infected” Christians who converted others – passing on the “infection” of enthusiasm in the process. It is this enthusiastic aspect of Wesley’s life that the modern church needs. It does not need itinerancy to the same extent that Wesley carried out. Enthusiasm and strong family life are fully compatible. 

3. Wesley's low level of expenditure would alienate many modern families.

It is not clear what Wesley’s actual expenditure was. A lot of money passed through his hands, but he was generous and did not need much himself. Nevertheless a glance though his journals and diaries pictures a man who was comfortable and far from “poor” in the sense of wondering when his next meal was coming from. Again I think it was priorities. When the need to preach Christ so that people are saved is a priority I doubt if there is much need for a lavish lifestyle. The opulent lifestyle of modern Christians may well be a substitute for a lack of passion for the person of Jesus and compassion on the lost.

4. Wesley didn't have a busy 9-5 (+ overtime) job alongside his evangelism.

No he did not. But most evangelism was done by the ordinary Methodists in the classes and churches that Wesley and others built up. They could easily work up to 12 hours in a day and 6 days a week, but it did not stop them witnessing and seeing converts. I find the same level of evangelism in the parts of Uganda I visit, where the time spent in work is much higher than the west. Contemporary Western Christians need to be careful that we do not make excuses for our lack of zeal.

5. Churches are desperate for money; do they want intelligent members who deliberately impoverish themselves? 

Modern churches are elaborate institutions that need money just to maintain themselves. Despite the Reformation, protestant Christianity inherited the medieval model of church as a “state” in microcosm. Thus much effort is needed to pay the professionals who minister on behalf of the people. Early Methodism was largely lay-led, like the New Testament church, thus not in need of the same degree of expenditure. Thus it did not matter to the church if people were impoverished, as long as they were spiritually alive!


6. Wesley focused on the working classes, but modern British evangelism aims at the middle class.

The more I read of Wesley’s life, and Whitefield’s, the more I realise just how much they spread themselves over all classes. Wesley spent much time ministering to the working class, that was a rarity in his day, but he did also minister to the middle and upper classes. In Wales Wesley could only minister to the wealthy as they were the only ones who could understand English! But Wesley knew the better off were key to reaching the poor, and to generating new ministers who would pastor churches in poor areas.

I understand the comment of anonymous that the bulk of church planting is done where there are a large number of middle class people, especially cities. Just think of HTB in London which can easily be thought of as ministry to the “well off”. But the same church, and its network, is generating many candidates for ministry who have a heart for the poor. Nevertheless, modern church planters can learn from Wesley how to prioritise unreached people, rather than all chasing after the same pool of “easier” people.

7. Some argue that evangelism today has to be friendship-based rather than preaching-based.

I don’t think the two are opposites. The only reason why Wesley had an audience was that people invited their friends to come and hear him. The true enthusiasts were the people in his congregation that brought others to listen.

The modern church has a real problem with preaching and seems to be in a permanent state of apology about it. Preaching is a command, not an option. The trouble is we have inherited a view of preaching that is “church building” centred. Wesley certainly broke that tradition, but it was still one man and his audience. Jesus and the Apostle Paul preached, often to an audience, but sometimes it was dialogue, sometimes it was one to one. Rarely was it in a church service! Perhaps we need to see preaching in a wider context, and I think Wesley helps point us in that direction


Anonymous finally said:

I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit can answer these (and other) problems. But modern Christians are clearly ambivalent about John Wesley; we admire his zeal, but as a role model he's highly problematic for us. Of course, that may be our fault.

I would like to thank Anonymous for their comments. Such comments help focus the mind and make us examine ourselves. Even if we do not agree, provided they inspire us to serve Jesus with more zeal, then good will result.

For me, having to take a forced break from research, it gave me an excuse to write another blog!

Reference


[1] John Wesley, Enthusiasm and Today’s Church, 20/9/17
-->