Page 5371 – Christianity Today (2024)

What do they really think-those people we call on? Do they associate church visitation teams with the assorted cultists who go door knocking and pamphlet peddling? How many people are glad to see us, and how many feel we’re invading their privacy?

They’re normally civil, perhaps even polite-but pastors and lay volunteers wonder, What do they say after we’ve left? And more important, What effect, if any, did this visit have?

To find out, LEADERSHIP surveyed nearly seven hundred people who had been contacted in the past year by the calling programs of three diverse congregations: Galilee Baptist Church in Denver, Colorado; Bismarck Reformed Church in Bismarck, North Dakota; and Big Valley Grace Community Church in Modesto, California.

Each of these churches has weekly visitation based on the Evangelism Explosion method. The program, which trains lay people to give a brief, systematic presentation of the gospel, is used by many churches, including these three, to follow up on first-time visitors to their worship services.

These were not “cold contacts”-homes picked out of the phone book or off a city map. These were people who had shown some interest in the church, usually by attending a Sunday morning service and signing a visitor form.

In order to get candid reactions and the greatest number of responses, the surveys were short-five questions-and anonymous, though people were given the option of including name and phone number if they were willing to talk further. Thirty percent included their names.

In order to assess the effect over time, separate surveys were sent to those visited from September 1982 through August 1983 and those contacted since September 1983.

Because of the strong response (from one group an amazing 74 percent of the surveys were answered) and the similar results from all three churches (despite their different sizes and locations), the survey may indicate what other churches with similar programs can expect.

Generally a Positive, Helpful Contact

Nearly 80 percent felt good about the visit, and over 60 percent indicated it was either helpful or very helpful.

In response to the question “After they left, what were your personal feelings about the visit?” less than 1 percent marked Strongly Negative (They shouldn’t have come). Five percent said Negative (It was an irritation), 13 percent were neutral, 44 percent said Positive (I appreciated their stopping), and another 35 percent felt Strongly Positive (I was very glad they came). Three percent marked Other. (See chart 1.)

CHART 1 – pg. 80

Several surveys said, “I was nervous and hesitant at first, but afterward I was glad they’d come.” Others were grateful for “meeting people who cared.”

Those who were negative complained primarily about the timing of the visit.

“We had just moved to town and were very busy laying carpet and cutting the pads underneath in anticipation of the moving van arriving the next morning,” wrote one respondent. “When the team called, I explained our predicament and suggested we meet another time, but they said they only visited that night each week and insisted they come in for a short visit. I felt very uncomfortable-we had no furniture, no refreshments, and were in work clothes. We explained we were Christians already, yet we had to listen to the whole speech because one member of the team ‘needed practice.’ The ‘short’ visit lasted an hour and a half, and we were resentful since we had to work into the early morning hours to prepare for the movers.”

Several mentioned that the visits came just as they were leaving the house, at bedtime for kids, when someone was sick, or at mealtime. “My husband and I were both in our bathrobes and felt uncomfortable with the unexpected visitors,” said one. Another wrote, “My husband had the flu, the house was a disaster, and they came unannounced. I would have appreciated some warning.”

Several others commented on the approach of the callers:

“They treated me like a new Christian instead of the person I am-a Christian of twenty-five years.”

“Once they discovered I was a Christian, they ‘practiced’ the plan of salvation on me. I felt like a guinea pig.”

These, however, represent a minority. In response to the question “After they left, did you feel you had gained anything by their coming?” only between 3 and 19 percent (depending on the church) said No, the visit wasn’t helpful. The overwhelming majority said the visit was either somewhat helpful, helpful, or very helpful.

What, if anything, did they feel they’d gained? Most checked more than one response:

Information about the church (69 percent)

Beginning a friendship with the visitor (32 percent)

A further step in my Christian walk (26 percent)

Help with a personal question or problem (13 percent)

A new understanding about the Christian faith (9 percent)

A new relationship with Jesus Christ (6 percent)

Other (12 percent)

Among those marking Other, a few were negative (“We appreciated the first visit, but after we told them we were active in our own church, they should not have come back four more times. It was an irritation”). Most, however, expressed appreciation. “I was glad to see Christians evangelizing rather than the cults,” said one man.

Or as a Bismarck woman wrote, “I became a Christian three years before, but I backslid. After this visit I felt as though someone cared. When they left, I rededicated my life to Christ. Now I’ve joined a women’s Bible study at the church.”

Long-Term Effects

Survey responses also revealed the church attendance patterns following the visitation.

Overall, 28 percent said they’re now regularly attending the church that called on them. Another 12 percent have been back once or twice.

Some 13 percent have visited another church and become active there, and 10 percent were already attending another church and have become more active there.

No change in church involvement was reported by 23 percent, and 14 percent marked other. (See chart 2.)

CHART 2 – pg. 81

Another way of looking at it: Based on this sampling, 40 percent of those you visit will wind up back at your church at least once, and a full 50 percent will become more frequent church attenders, either at your church or another.

Often this takes time. While 30 percent of those visited recently claimed no change in church involvement, that number dropped to 18 percent among those visited several months ago. In other words, results sometimes come late; people begin showing up months after the doorbell was first rung.

Where do these unhurried people eventually plug in? Primarily other churches. (See chart 3.) Of those called on recently, 30 percent are regularly attending that church. For those called on a year ago, the figure dips slightly to 27 percent. But during that year, those becoming more active in other churches rises from a combined 14 percent to 29 percent.

CHART 3 – pg. 81

If visitation is seen as a ministry for the kingdom of God rather than simply for the specific congregation, this can be encouraging: over half the people you visit will likely become more active at one church or another.

The Fraction We Focus On

Evangelism programs often rate their success by how many people “pray the prayer” committing themselves to Jesus. What about this 6 percent? Who were these people?

Mostly young adults. By age, the new believers fell into these categories:

0-19 years-none

20-35 years-80 percent

36-50 years-7 percent

51-65 years-13 percent

65 years or more-none

Possibly this can be explained because the early adult years are transition years, and those in flux are more receptive to the gospel. It also may be the result of this group doing more church shopping and thus being the focus of more visitation. (See chart 4.)

CHART 4 – pg. 81

In addition, 80 percent of those claiming a new relationship with Jesus Christ also marked the response Took a further step in my Christian walk. Perhaps this wasn’t the first time they had heard the gospel; perhaps they had been getting closer to taking this step for some time.

What part did the visit itself play in their decision? What had been especially influential? We phoned all those who said they’d begun a new relationship with Christ and who’d included their name and phone number.

Slightly over half described the experience as primarily a renewal of previous religious commitment.

“We wanted to get back into following Christ,” said the wife of an air force officer. “We were puzzled about things in the Bible. They answered our questions and gave us the words to describe our faith.”

“I was already a Christian, but I’d sort of gotten away from it,” said a young woman in California. “But they were so warm but not pushy; they didn’t make me feel like an outcast. They opened my eyes about how people really are-that it’s normal to slack off, but you have to keep coming back.”

In every case, however, even among those making a first-time commitment, there had been exposure to the gospel before they met with the visitation team.

“I’d been reading the Bible with a Christian girl at work, and I was beginning to understand what God wants,” said a Denver woman. “But I had never really prayed to ask Jesus into my life. The people from the church asked if I wanted to, and I said yes. It was my first time ‘officially,’ and I was real nervous because I didn’t know the people. If that had been my first contact with Jesus, I wouldn’t have done it.”

Another new believer, a medical student, explained, “I grew up (and still am) an Episcopalian, but I never had what I’d call a personal relationship with God. Then I experienced several deaths of people about my age, and I realized that if I was going to be a doctor, I’d better come to terms with death.

“When the group from Galilee came, they explained their faith, and it made sense. They were very supportive, but didn’t push. They didn’t say anything I hadn’t heard before, but we prayed together, and it was a big symbolic event, an outward declaration of my faith. It was the beginning of the process of change in my life.”

What We’ve Learned

After sifting survey returns and interviewing by phone, what can we conclude? What would be helpful for visitation teams to know? Three things stand out:

1. Calling on people is not offensive. The strongest finding of this survey is that while some people may be hesitant at first, 80 percent wind up enjoying the attention they receive.

Those who knock on doors without phoning ahead of time have a greater risk of negative response, but as Mike Pentel, a visitation team leader at Galilee Baptist, says, “It’s a tradeoff. When you call ahead of time and ask if you can come over, it’s easier for them to say no. The people who need it most wouldn’t get touched. If we don’t find anyone at home several nights in a row, then we’ll try to call and set up an appointment.”

And unless the time was inconvenient, even those who weren’t called appreciated the visit.

Many of those ready to make spiritual decisions, however, are eager to talk and simply waiting for the opportunity. Most of those who’d begun a new relationship with Christ also said they knew the visitors were coming-either someone phoned or someone had talked to them at church. Instead of discouraging anyone from coming over, these people said they were prepared to discuss spiritual things with the visitation team.

2. Make sure the communication is two-way. No one surveyed objected to what the callers said. People who’ve visited a church are interested in what the church stands for. The resistance comes when the message is dispensed as a monologue or a sales pitch with only token responses asked of the listener.

“All the visitor did was tell me the basics of Christianity without ever asking about where I was in my spiritual life,” wrote one man. “He rambled on and sought no interaction from me.”

Another said, “I didn’t get any information about the church-only their personal experiences.”

One woman reported, “It was uncomfortable because I was a Christian, but my husband is not. He stood up through the whole visit, hoping they’d leave, though he’s too polite to ask them. But one man talked for twenty minutes without stopping. They needed to ask us some questions. It was unnatural.”

Interestingly, now a year later, that woman is involved herself in the church’s visitation program, and she’s learned from her pastor how to talk about the gospel naturally. “It’s much more relaxed that way,” she says.

3. Don’t be discouraged if the night doesn’t produce a dramatic conversion. Lay people sometimes get the impression that the evening is less than successful if no one prays to accept Christ. Actually, a profession of faith is the exception, not the rule-one in approximately twenty visits. But that doesn’t mean failure. Significant spiritual things are happening.

One woman, for instance, who indicated she’d received help with a personal question or problem, said, “About a month before the people from the church came, my ex-husband kidnapped my son. He came over for a visit, put our son in the car, and left. I haven’t seen either of them since.

“I was feeling so guilty-I should have known . . . I should have done something to stop it.

“You never get over those feelings, but the people who visited me from the church really helped. They didn’t second-guess me, and they helped me see I didn’t need to keep blaming myself. They cared about me.

“I told them I was thinking of taking in an older person to room with me, and within the next week, each of them phoned me with names of people to contact. They kept me going through a rough time.”

No, this woman didn’t make a profession of faith that night. Nor has she been added to the church rolls-she’s only been back once or twice. But that anonymous visitation team showed that ministry, even when it’s not visible, can be effective.

Copyright © 1984 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

I put my son on the horns of a dilemma the other day.

“David,” I said, “if you had to choose between getting rid of your dad and getting rid of the television set, which would you choose?”

My question was prompted by a study I had read the night before. A psychologist asked a group of five-year-olds to choose between their fathers and the television set. In the study, the overwhelming majority decided to keep the TV.

The study intrigued me enough to do some reading about difficult decisions. I found that social scientists call a choice between two equally attractive objects an approach-approach decision. Psychologist Leo Festinger did the most research in this area. He found that forcing a decision between two positive alternatives creates something called cognitive dissonance. Because the selectors want both objects, they are forced to fabricate reasons to accept the one and reject the other.

For example, I just bought an Apple home computer, and a friend of mine bought a Xerox. We have spent a good deal of time discussing the relative merits of our purchases. I find myself defending my Apple with great vigor-even though there is probably not a thimbleful of difference between what the two machines can do.

This whole process started me wondering if perhaps there’s an insight here that can help us in the way we present the gospel to non-Christians. Too often in our evangelism efforts we demand a dramatic choice between two attractive alternatives:

The spiritual realm, which includes heaven, eternal life, and communion with God. It’s also associated with a lifestyle only Jesus lived to perfection. The rest of us live like little boys dressed up in our father’s clothing, longingly trying to imitate the one we adore, but finding the long sleeves, floor-length shirts, and floppy shoes a bit more than we can handle.

The earthly realm, which includes fine restaurants, concertos by Bach, and Christmases around the fire as little ones open He-Man figures and plastic dinosaurs. Every earthly day brings new discovery, and God gave us the capacity to love and enjoy a miraculous creation.

When forced to choose between these two realms, people face a classic approach-approach decision.

To help them along, we extol the virtues of heaven, as we should, but perhaps run down poor old earth a little more than we should. Our intention, of course, is to make a difficult decision easier to make. But forcing a black-and-white decision may cause cognitive dissonance to set in, and we begin to fabricate reasons to denigrate earth far beyond what we really feel.

Instead, shouldn’t we be looking for ways to make people search for the proper relationship between heaven and earth? The apostle James wrote that all good things come from the father of lights. A proper orientation to God transforms the good in the natural realm so that it harmonizes with the supernatural. Having money is a good thing if it is put to work for the purpose God intends for us-spreading the Good News of his kingdom. However, money for money’s sake can become a rival of the spiritual realm, a destructive force. Living the Christian life is not necessarily a choice between good things and bad things, but an understanding of how “all things work together for good to them that love God.”

Orienting everything to our love for Christ is a must, and affects the most mundane affairs of life. I had the good sense (for a change) to realize this when my other son, Paul, asked me who was stronger, Darth Vader or Jesus. I figured that eventually the movies would make the question moot (which they did recently when Darth Vader turned out to be an old softy after all). But in the meantime, I came up with an answer. Instead of extolling the virtues of Jesus over dastardly Darth, I explained that Darth was very powerful indeed in his neighborhood, but that Jesus was the most powerful in all neighborhoods. I don’t know if my son understood or not, but perhaps from the seeds of even the Star Wars myth an appreciation for the Eternal will start to sprout.

If we expect the truths of Scripture to sprout in nonbelievers, it’s important that we present the Christian message in a true form. The time has never been better for aggressive truth telling. A recent Gallup poll noted an increased interest in religion among all levels of society. Six in ten Americans said they are more interested in religious and spiritual matters than they were five years ago. The survey also discovered more and more people concluding that religion, not science, is the key to long-term solutions to our problems.

If we don’t step up to meet the challenge of presenting the gospel well, we face the terrible risk of failure. Failure in this case means the eternal emptiness of not knowing Christ.

Fortunately, failure in the case of son David simply meant a bad choice. After some agonizing deliberation over his Raisin Bran and bananas, he chose the television set. I went to work crushed.

God’s redemptive love, however, works in wondrous ways. Just after midmorning coffee break, I received a tearful telephone call. “Dad,” said David, “I’ve changed my mind. I’d like to keep you-but could we keep the TV, too?”

I settled for the tie-love knows no bounds-and determined to enlist the television set in my efforts at effective parenting. I may not be as strong as Mr. T, but would he pitch wiffle balls to plastic-bat-toting urchins in my back yard?

Terry C. Muck is editor of LEADERSHIP.

Copyright © 1984 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

The following research deals in specific church situations and makes detailed recommendations. Some readers will want to make adjustments for various church styles, but we think the principles expressed here are widely applicable.

The visitation teams headed back to the church at the close of a Thursday evening’s work. One group in particular was excited about their call at the home of Tom and Emily Kenyon. After some polite small talk, the conversation had turned to religion. The group leader followed the basic evangelistic outline they had learned and eventually asked whether the Kenyons wouldn’t like to make a Christian decision.

Tom and Emily responded affirmatively and prayed the prayer in the booklet. Follow-up material was left with the couple, along with an invitation to attend church the next Sunday. This experience, when shared with the other calling teams, was enough to qualify the entire night of calling as a fine success.

The next Sunday Tom and Emily Kenyon did indeed attend church. While they didn’t know anyone and could not find any of the three who had called that Thursday night, they tried to be friendly and enter into the Sunday morning activities. They attended the church once more two weeks later. It was their last visit. A phone call from the church, following up on their earlier decision, was met with a polite but noncommittal response. The Kenyons had just left through the ‘evangelistic back door.’

What happened? Why did these apparently genuine Christian decisions not proceed naturally into church involvement and continued growth? Why do many modern evangelistic endeavors have similar dropout patterns? In talking with pastors and church leaders across the nation, we have found that the evangelistic back door is, indeed, very large and very well used.

Some Clues

Research is now demonstrating that the process by which people arrive at a point of Christian decision is a key factor in whether they become responsible members or drop out. The effect of the evangelistic process on the eventual results is so significant, in fact, that it can be predicted which decision makers will grow into responsible church members within the first year and which will become inactive. What is particularly discomforting is that many churches and parachurch groups today use methods that actually increase the likelihood of new converts never becoming active church members.

The bottom line for evaluating the success of any evangelistic effort must be “Did those who made a Christian profession become part of the church?” To an increasing number of church leaders, successful evangelism is no longer “How many decisions were made?” or “How many came forward?” or “How many phoned in to accept Christ?” Faithful response to the Great Commission is achieved when the evangelistic process, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, produces actual, factual growth in the church . . . growth that is measurable in one year and five . . . growth that reproduces itself in new disciples.

When this goal is not achieved, well-intentioned but usually inaccurate excuses are given: “They didn’t understand their commitment.” “Our follow-up program was lacking.” “There were no other people in the church their age.” “The results are up to God.” But research is now showing clearly that the more fundamental cause of this high “infant mortality rate” lies upstream to the actual evangelistic process.

In closing the evangelistic back door, two key areas produce significant increases in lasting disciples and growing churches. The first is process, the second concerns ratios.

The Process

What is it about many current evangelistic methods that is so counterproductive to the goal?

1. A manipulative process tends to create dropouts. It is possible to sort evangelism methods and approaches three ways:

Informative transmission sees evangelism as a one-way communication of certain facts the hearer needs to know. When the information is correctly presented, an appropriate decision can be expected. The relationship between the evangelizer and the prospect is like that of teacher and student, the goal being to impart certain correct information. Thus, the bottom line is “How many people heard the message?”

Another approach to evangelism may be called the manipulative monologue. It may center around an emotional appeal or use a set of carefully prepared questions. The relationship between the believer and the nonbeliever more closely resembles a salesman and a customer, the perceived goal being to close the sale. The bottom line in this view is “How many people said yes?”

The third approach, nonmanipulative dialogue, views evangelism as a two-way process of honest interaction. The assumption is that not all people see things the same way, and one canned approach will not be appropriate in every situation. Evangelism is an effort to respond to the other person as an individual and portray the value of the Christian faith in terms of individualized needs. The relationship between Christian and non-Christian in this case is friend to friend, the goal being to share an honest concern for the other.

In The Pastor’s Church Growth Handbook, Volume II, Flavil Yeakley reports on a study of how church members view the evangelistic process and the results of their evangelistic endeavors. The study identified three groups (240 people each) of “recipients” to an evangelistic presentation: (1) those who made a Christian commitment and are now actively involved in a local church; (2) those who made a commitment but soon dropped out; and (3) those who said, “No, thanks.” Here are the startling results.

Seventy percent (169 of 240) of those who are now active members came to Christ and their church as the result of a member who saw evangelism as nonmanipulative dialogue. By contrast, 87 percent (209) of those now inactive came to their point of decision through a member who used manipulative monologue. And, of those who said, “No, thanks” to an evangelistic presentation, 75 percent (180) did so in response to a would-be persuader who saw evangelism as a process of communicating certain facts, content, and theology. Partial results from this study:

CHART (pg. 26) GOES HERE

The corollary: Effective evangelistic training and strategy encourage a view of nonmanipulative dialogue between Christians and non-Christians.

2. An evangelistic process that sees its goal as a “decision” rather than a “disciple” tends to create dropouts. When the goal is a “soul saved,” God’s plan for making disciples is often short-circuited. The fact is that not all deciders become disciples; the two are not synonymous. The biblical goal is not simply an oral confession. The biblical goal is a life transformed and a participating member of Christ’s body. Nowhere in Scripture is the word decision found-yet, the word disciple appears again and again.

The corollary: Effective evangelism sees disciple making as a process, not an event. A “decision” is only one element of many in the goal of seeing people become disciples and responsible church members.

3. An evangelistic process that presents the gospel one time and then asks for a response tends to create dropouts. We all know stories of people who heard the Good News once, were gloriously changed, and went on to become great men or women of faith. When these miraculous events happen-and they do-we can rejoice. It should be understood, however, that this is unusual, not the norm. More often when someone comes to faith, that person has heard the message again and again and again . . . then makes a Christian commitment.

A person may hear the gospel in a Bible study class. He may hear it through music. He may see the Christian life demonstrated in the lives of friends. He may hear a testimony at a church social event. He may read it in Scripture, a tract, or a book. He may hear it on radio or television. Then, after many exposures, a season of receptivity comes into that person’s life-a time of need-when the seed that has been sown breaks into new life, takes root, sprouts, and grows.

Research underscores this fact. In comparing active and inactive members, Yeakley found (in Why Churches Grow) that those who continued as active church members had been exposed to an average of 5.79 different Christian influences prior to their commitment. The dropouts, by comparison, had seen or heard the Christian message only 2.16 times before their decision.

As an evangelistic strategy, the more times a person is exposed to the gospel message prior to a Christian commitment, the more likely he or she is to understand the implications of that commitment.

The fewer the exposures prior to commitment, the greater likelihood of dropping out.

The corollary: Effective evangelistic strategy seeks to expose potential disciples to many and varied presentations of the gospel.

4. An evangelistic process that does not build relationships with the local church, its programs, and its ministry tends to create dropouts. When the events leading up to a non-Christian’s profession of faith occur outside any relationship with the people of the local church, no ties are established, and the perceived need for involvement in the church is low. This may be true not only when decisions are made in large crusades or via mass media but even when evangelism calls are made from a local church.

When the new Christian has not built any friendships with members in the church . . . has not become part of any group where there is a sense of belonging . . . has not had prior exposure to the church, its people, its beliefs, and its expectations, some very large roadblocks are put in the path of assimilation.

What should a disciple-making strategy include to remove this deficiency in most evangelistic methods? The strategy should seek to foster genuine caring relationships between a variety of members and the potential disciple. It should also seek to involve the potential disciple in several appropriate groups and church programs where new friendships can be made. The more exposures a non-Christian can have to the person of Christ though his people and the church, the more complete his or her understanding of Christ and his love.

The New Testament compares the healthy functioning of the church body to the human body. Arms, legs, eyes, and ears come together as parts of the body. Each member has certain gifts and abilities, and not all members have the same gifts. Because of this, the whole more accurately reflects the person of Christ than any of its parts in isolation. One member brings strengths where another may be weak. Some members are able to relate to a special need of a non-Christian or unchurched person better than others. And in the process, evangelism moves from a few lone rangers to a total team effort. Then, when a Christian commitment is made, it is founded on experience with the body and a growing understanding of what this new commitment means.

The corollary: The closer evangelism is to the local church, the greater the fruit that remains.

Crucial Ratios

While the process of a person becoming a disciple and responsible church member is one key element to a successful Great Commission strategy, a second element, equally important, focuses on the church environment into which that new Christian is entering. It concerns ratios in the church.

Here are seven ratios that have significant effect in closing the evangelistic back door:

1. Friendship ratio-1:7. Each new person should be able to identify at least seven friends in the church within the first six months.

Friendships appear to be the strongest bond cementing new members to their congregation. If they do not immediately develop meaningful friendships in their church, expect them to return to their old friendships-and ways-outside the church. Seven new friendships are a minimum; ten, fifteen, or more are better.

The time factor is important as well. The first six months are crucial. New people not integrated into the body within that period are well on their way out the back door. The following chart clearly illustrates the importance of establishing friendships in the church during the first six months. Note that all fifty “converts-now active members” could name three or more friends in the church, with thirteen new members identifying seven, twelve identifying eight, and twelve listing nine or more. The “dropouts” show almost the opposite pattern in the new friendships they did, or more correctly did not, establish in their churches.

CHART (pg. 30) GOES HERE

2. Role/Task Ratio-60:100. At least 60 roles and tasks should be available for every 100 members in a church.

A role or task means a specific function or responsibility (choir, committee member, teacher, officer, etc.). Typical churches of 300 members have no more than 80 roles and tasks available. Of those 80 roles/ tasks, 60 are filled by 30 people (the willing workers with more than one job). The remaining 20 roles and tasks are filled by an additional 20 people, thus involving 50 out of 300 members. Would such a typical church have a place for Tom and Emily to find meaningful responsibility? Probably not.

The lack of variety and number of roles/tasks/ministries in most churches creates an environment that actually produces inactive members. Such a church of 300 needs to open itself to newcomers by creating at least 100 new roles and tasks-not busy-work but “kingdom work” . . . “Great Commission work” … ministries that focus on meeting needs and changing lives.

These kinds of roles are often called “Class II roles.” Whereas “Class I roles” focus primarily inward toward maintenance of the existing institution, Class II roles focus primarily outward toward the surrounding community in an effort to reach persons for Christ and the church. Most plateaued or declining churches average fifteen Class I roles to every Class II role. A more productive ratio would be 3:1 (for every three Class I roles, at least one Class II role). While this is more of an outreach ratio than an assimilation ratio, it does give an important clue to the priority of the church and, thus, the probable reception given to the newcomer.

3. Group Ratio-7:100. At least seven relational groups-places where friendships are built-should be available in a church for every 100 members.

In studying churches involved in our institute’s Two-Year Growth Process, we have found that plateaued and declining churches fall far short of this group-to-member ratio. The consequence of too few groups for members to build meaningful relationships is a high rate of inactives using the back door. Good questions to ask are “How many groups does our church have per 100 members?” “What percentage of the congregation is a regular part of one or more groups?” “How many new converts/new members have become a regular part of such groups in the last two years?” “How many have not?”

Creating an effective group life is a fundamental building block for growth and incorporation. This important ratio is affirmed by other authorities. Lyle Schaller writes in Assimilating New Members, “It usually is necessary to have six or seven of these groups . . . for each one hundred members who are thirteen or fourteen years of age or older.”

This ratio in a church will provide important answers to the question “How open is this church to newcomers?”

4. New-Group Ratio-1:5. Of every five relational groups in a church, one should have been started in the past two years.

The reason new groups are important is that established groups usually reach a saturation point sometime between nine and eighteen months after their formation. When a group has reached this saturation zone, it in most cases stops growing and no longer assimilates new people. Two or three members may leave and two or three may fill their places, but for all practical purposes, the group remains plateaued.

How do you know when a group has reached the saturation point? You make a graph. If a group has not grown in the last six months, it has probably reached saturation.

One remedy is simply to form new groups, with new people involved. This provides for continued freshness in the group life of a congregation. It decreases the number of inactives. It helps close the evangelistic back door.

5. Committee Member Ratio-1:5. One of every five committee members should have joined the church within the last two years.

In conversation with the pastor of an old-line church in the Pacific Northwest, I asked, “How long would I need to be a member of the church before I might be elected to office?”

He studied my question for a moment, then asked, “Would you attend regularly, give faithfully, and exemplify the Christian life?”

“Yes,” I responded.

“Then you would be elected to office sometime between the twelfth and fourteenth year after you joined.”

No wonder this church has a terminal illness. New board and committee members bring fresh and exciting ideas . . . vitality . . . they are positive and enthusiastic about their new church . . . ready to earn their sense of belonging . . . they provide the best source of volunteers.

A regular review of the boards and committees in a church to assure the 1:5 ratio will encourage an openness in the power structure and assure that the church never forgets its real mission.

6. Staff ratio-1:150. A church should have one full-time staff member for every 150 persons in worship.

This ratio is a good indicator of a church’s commitment to growth. If the ratio reaches 1:225-250, it is unusual to see any significant increase in active membership. While more persons may join the church, the evangelistic back door will open wider. Adding a staff person before this point is reached helps a church anticipate the influx of new persons and provides a church environment to accommodate them. Here is a rule of thumb:

CHART (pg. 31) GOES HERE

We suggest the first person added after the pastor be a person ministering full-time in the area of evangelism/church growth, including the incorporation of new members into the fellowship. This person will normally pay for him/herself through new giving units added to the church within the first year and a half. In some churches we have worked with, the new staff person’s salary was paid within nine months.

7. Visitor Ratio-3:10. Of the first-time visitors who live in the church’s ministry area, three of every ten should be actively involved within a year.

Calculating the visitor ratio provides three insights into a church’s attitude toward newcomers: (1) it indicates the present members’ openness to visitors; (2) it indicates the priority of visitors in the functioning of the church; and (3) it indicates the effectiveness of the church’s follow-up strategy.

Whether persons are transferring to a new church or trying their first church, as Tom and Emily were, they always visit before joining. Visitors are the only source of new members (except for the children of believers). If visitors do not feel genuinely welcome, needed, and wanted, they seldom return. Studies from our computer analysis center indicate that through an effective strategy, some churches are seeing four of every ten local visitors come back a second time. An incorporation strategy that focuses on these second-time visitors will result in 70-75 percent of them joining within a year (hence the 3:10 ratio of first-time visitors). We are also seeing some churches with an effective follow-up/incorporation strategy experience as much as a 40 percent return on first-time local visitors joining within a year.

The typical nongrowing church, on the other hand, sees only 10-12 percent of its first-time visitors join. Such a percentage, it turns out, is almost the exact number a church can expect to lose each year through transfer, death, and falling away.

We Can Do Better

It is important that the relatively high mortality rate from some present-day evangelistic methods not come to be viewed as normal or unavoidable. With adequate training and appropriate methods, churches can see a significantly greater harvest.

Is there really any value in investing time, energy, money, and people in the work of evangelism only to see the hard-won results drop away? Closing the evangelistic back door is possible. We can see more lasting results if we begin viewing evangelism and incorporation as two sides of one coin, interdependent, both essential for the growth of God’s church.

Most churches can substantially increase their effectiveness in making disciples and responsible church members. Let’s slam the back door.

Win Arn is president of the Institute for American Church Growth, Pasadena, California. His son Charles is the institute’s director.

Copyright © 1984 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Two views of the same subject often serve to enhance an image. Reviewers Harry Cheney and Lloyd Billingsley, two writers living in Southern California, here offer separate yet complementary impressions of a single film.

Broadway Danny Rose

Orion Pictures; written and directed by Woody Allen

Woody allen is a true believer, floundering in a sea of skepticism. A buoyant hope keeps him barely afloat. “You have to have faith in people,” Mariel Hemingway admonished him in the final scene of Manhattan, and Woody has taken her advice to heart. His earnest characters are yet pessimistic about eternity, occasionally morose over an empty universe, but there remains an abiding faith in the preciousness of life that borders on reverence. Allen’s understated style is consistent with the modest aspirations of his movies. His intimate morality plays are examples of personal artistic expression, unique in the Hollywood corporate structure.

Broadway Danny Rose is such a sweet epiphany: a wisp of a film that celebrates the uncommon virtues of a common man. Danny Rose, the title character, lives a life of hyperactive failure. As a Broadway agent he has become a local legend, representing all the well-meaning but woefully untalented worms in the Big Apple. He labors diligently for his clients—the stuttering ventriloquist or the woman who plays water-filled drinking glasses—doting on them as if they were kin. The amorous adventures of one of these errant children (an overweight, over-the-hill night club singer named Lou Canova) puts Danny in jeopardy as two half-witted mobsters chase him and the singer’s paramour through a New Jersey swamp. The luckless talent agent ultimately escapes, only to be betrayed by Canova, who has managed to find more upscale representation.

In between some hilarious one-liners and slapstick shtick, Woody the moralist manages to speak: “Forgiveness, acceptance, and love”—concepts that sound like a radically condensed version of the New Testament themes are, in fact, the guiding principles of Broadway Danny Rose. Danny is a small-time show-biz messiah to the halt and lame of the Great White Way. Where others see ineptitude, he sees perfection through his own co*ckeyed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. He “believes all things” in spite of the evidence. This is not so much optimistic humanism as an urgent hope. With Woody Allen, at least, there is a distinction. One senses a desperation that is never quite defined, a tension between his agnosticism and his unrequited faith in mankind. Love and laughter alone survive as the last standing barriers between the comedian and despair. At the center of his precarious universe he has placed undependable humanity, knowing full well the words of the poet, “things fall apart; the center cannot hold.” In the thundering silence of God’s assumed death, Woody has become a prophet without credentials: the voice of one laughing in the wilderness. As a true comic artist, he cannot help but recognize the irony of his position. And we, the audience, cannot help but adore him for it.

HARRY CHENEY

The entertainment and idea markets are competitive places. In view of the superabundance of material on every hand, and on every subject, why should the offerings of Woody Allen merit our consideration?

One of the privileged few unshackled by commercial constraints, Allen can make any sort of film he likes. He assumes an intelligent, literate audience. Beyond the laughs, one senses a treatment of serious issues that deserves, if not agreement, at least a hearing.

Allen is like a man who goes through life wearing mirror glasses—backwards. Everything reflects himself. He is frequently the only fully developed character in his films. In Broadway Danny Rose, the other characters, like volleyball players, set up big lines for Danny to spike.

It is all wonderfully funny, of course. Allen has few equals in pointing out the absurdities and posturings of the human condition, whether in witty repartee, one-liners, or in slapstick. However, the humor falls short of Allen’s earlier works and shows none of the technical trickery of last year’s Zelig.

Neither does Allen escape his parochial New York Weltanschauung. One still gets the impression that anyone outside of New York is a cultural Neanderthal. To turn Shakespeare on his head, the stage has become a world, with its own rules. In this one, Jews are always intellectuals, Italians boozy singers or homicidal mobsters. (Perhaps he is laughing at his audience?)

Finally, Woody Allen the philosopher/theologian is still with us, interjecting his metaphysical musings with refreshing honesty. “Do you believe in God?” Tina asks Danny during a discussion on the utility of guilt. “No,” he answers, “but I still feel guilty about it.” (One might ask how an impersonal, mechanistic universe could produce someone as creative as Woody Allen.) Danny has primal fears; he is a “landlocked Hebrew.” Laughs are part of life, he says, but so is suffering. Though his creed is “acceptance, forgiveness, love,” Danny has learned that “we all want what we can’t have.” Woody Allen might want acceptance, forgiveness, and love; who wouldn’t? Whether we can have these things without God is a question beyond the scope of Broadway Danny Rose.

LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

If robert short, author of The Gospel from Outer Space (Harper & Row, 1983), made a film, it would begin with a legend in bold white letters rolling slowly upwards into a dark, star-spangled background:

Long ago, in a Civilization not so far away, most people believed in a God in Heaven, and in his Son who came to Earth. They felt at Home in the Universe. Their lives had Meaning. Gradually, over the centuries, they abandoned God and constructed new gods in their Own Image, in the likeness of Man, Eroticism, and Technology. Families disintegrated; churches emptied. Existence became Meaningless.

Certain popular filmmakers stood viewing this this great Void inside Man. “Let us make Mythical Films to fill this Void,” they said. Equipped with cameras, personnel, and money, they did so. And behold, the lines at the theaters were long. The filmmakers were pleased. And Man looked upon it and proclaimed it very good. But something was missing.

A footnote to this might read: And I, Robert Short, heard a voice saying, “Write, and explain all this.” And I answered, “I will.”

Short, a popular author and lecturer, has picked up where he left off with his delightful 1964 best seller, The Gospel According to Peanuts. That book urged the church to “encourage a vanguard of men and women to be interpreters of these tongues, or arts, which can act as truly provocative ‘conversation pieces’ between the church and the culture in which [it] finds itself.” The apostle Paul performed a similar function among bored, affluent Athenians when he quoted to them from their own poets. Like Paul, Short has been listening for years, and he has turned his attention from comics to blockbuster films.

Much science fiction, in his view, is “dumb junk.” Or, in the case of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, it can be “bad [materialist] philosophy bearing good entertainment.” But mostly, he is an enthusiastic devotee of what he interprets—a fan, not a film critic.

Close Encounters, Star Wars, Superman, et al have their problems, which he ignores. Primarily children’s films (as George Lucas admits), they are noisy, feature dumbed-down dialogue, have weak scores and awkward performances, and substitute technical gimmickry for real human feeling. The much-heralded Return of the Jedi could be described as a violent Muppet movie. This science fiction is related to fiction the way Christian Science is related to science. Short goes beyond this.

It is the power of myth, of story, that makes these films important. They have become “jerry-built substitutes for the great myths and rituals of belief, hope, and redemption that cultures used to shape before mass secular society took over.”

Josef Stalin provides an illustration. In the dark days of World War II, with the Wehrmacht at his doorstep, he did not broadcast readings from Das Kapital, but sprung Orthodox prelates from the Gulag to review temporarily the myths of Holy Russia, hoping that would inspire defense of the Motherland. It did.

Lucas also knows what he is doing, says Short—his symbolism is blatant: Darth Vader’s garb has a Nazi motif; there are allusions to imperialism; the evil emperor in Jedi looks like a demented albino monk; Luke Skywalker, as a newly ordained Jedi knight, appears sartorially religious. And there is the skeptical Han Solo, as well as the good and bad sides of the Force, a kind of all-purpose spiritual metaphor.

Stephen Spielberg, on the other hand, provides a fascinating example of Blake’s Fearful Symmetry. The parallels between his extra-terrestrial and Christ are many: they come to Earth, possess special powers, demonstrate compassion, are loathed by the authorities, then die and are resurrected from the dead. When pointed out to Spielberg, he said, “I’m Jewish and I don’t want to hear anything about this.”

Short signals the appeal of E.T. as “the ache of universal love,” or “cosmic love assurance over cosmic fire insurance.” He sees the traditional teaching of hell as an impediment, hovering over the church like Banquo’s ghost, driving people away into atheism. He writes that this doctrine “has no good theological, ethical, or even biblical leg to stand on,” but tackles none of the difficult texts or arguments, something John Wenham (The Goodness of God) and R. C. Sproul (The Psychology of Atheism) have ably and courageously done.

We may not always agree with Short, but he shows how Christ is the key to the longings expressed—intentionally or not—by pop culture, a factory of “fresh parables.” Christians possess the Great Code, the Bible. The Gospel from Outer Space, and books like it, also reveals a larger issue: the church is more involved in interpreting art than in its creation, sort of a trahison de clercs. Francis Schaeffer has written (Art and the Bible) that the imagination of Christians, above all others, should soar beyond the stars. This is seldom the case. Whatever the defects of these films, all display a staggering breadth of imagination. Short wrote on this in 1964:

“If the church fails to use the divine imagination given to it, to see the unseen, to see ‘sermons in stones and good in everything,’ to see ‘that all that passes to corruption is a parable,’ as Karl Barth put it, it will constantly be embarrassed by a world capable of far more imagination than the church itself.” Robert Short has again excelled at interpreting pop parables, but this is a piece of authentic prophecy that has surely come to pass.

Mr. Billingsley is a free-lance writer living in Poway, California.

The august air hung still and heavy as my wife and I pulled up to the church we would soon call our home. The windows and doors were wide open, revealing a congregation I had not yet met. The street was blocked for the funeral cortege of a woman named Beth. The familiar words from the ancient hymn of victory rang out: “Jesus Christ is risen today! Allelulia!” This congregation was celebrating the triumph of life over death.

The next day I found myself back in my present pulpit, facing the congregation I would soon leave. The announcement that I had been called to another congregation had been made that week. I preached on the text of the day: Abraham, the faithful man of God, brought out to a country he did not know, in pursuit of God’s promise to him—a blessing of descendants and life and faith. My congregation, usually so alive, was quiet and reflective. Some people cried. Most did not know what to say when I greeted them. “Our loss is their gain,” they said in various ways.

Life and death and moving are inextricably bound together in a minister’s life. His vocation develops in response to a move that may enable the next call. But a move can fill that vocation with pain and confusion. The minister’s identity, clearly defined in the present community of believers, now must die in order for a new identity to come to life. These moments call for mourning and celebration—often at the same time.

I entered into this mysterious paradox as the Holy Spirit struggled to make plain a call from God to move. In the midst of my own dying and rising in moving, I have had to continue to preach, teach, counsel, administer, pray, and play with a congregation that soon will be related to me only by prayer and memory. I must simultaneously begin to imagine ministry in the church where the very first act of worship I witnessed was that of Christian burial.

The minister, spouse, and family feel the paradox in the death of old relationships, the packing of cherished memories, the disruption of a familiar pattern of life, and the dissolution of the carefully built, tenderly nurtured network of community.

The reception at the close of my final service in my old congregation may be a funeral of sorts, whereas the funeral I encountered with my wife may have been a celebration in disguise. In a move, everything is turned inside out. God’s humor and irony win out once more over our carefully laid plans, familiar places, and feelings of permanence.

Since the communities of a minister are bound together in the body of Christ, no minister makes the move alone. Here is one of the greatest ironies: There are individuals in the congregation I am leaving who grew up, were baptized, and married in the congregation to which I am going. Other connections are coming to light and new bonds being built, the sinews of the body being stretched and exercised.

These bonds enable us to move between congregations without the body withering or our relationship with God being destroyed. Ministers are enabled to live, die, live again, and minister in many different places. No place is permanent; but the body is, holding us wherever we go. So we move on faith and trust in God, even though to trust hurts like crazy.

We could always say no to a move that requires so much of us. But to say no to a call from God risks the ultimate death in us, spiritual death, as we fall into comfortable slumber and quietly lead congregations into comas. Our God is a God of movement and life.

“In the midst of life there is death,” we say in our burial service. But the converse is just as true. The congregation that knew Beth heard these words. On my first Sunday in the new congregation they will hear the choice of life in death in yet another way. In the appointed Scripture lesson, Moses sets before the people the choice of life and death, and adjures them to choose life and go forward together into the Promised Land. This choice is what faces the minister in a move.

Today I helped paint my new study a cheery white, dispelling its gloom. As I sorted through the books and papers of the minister who had retired nine months earlier, I came upon a small box containing Beth’s ashes—moved here temporarily.

Though I never met her, I had heard much about Beth in each of the congregations. Shortly before her death, a parishioner had played for Beth the tape of one of my sermons. She nodded weakly that she had understood; I am told that I had her “seal of approval.” Beth has greatly influenced the shape and life of my ministry in my new congregation. She chose life and movement in Christ. So has the congregation. So have my wife and I.

Next week, as we move to take up our new ministry, Abraham’s faithful response to life and death and God’s movement will give us courage: “If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (Heb. 11:15–16).

Mr. Throop is now minister of the Church of the Mediator on Chicago’s South Side. He just concluded a pastorate at Saint Simon’s Episcopal Church, located in Arlington Heights, a Chicago suburb.

Christianity is more than anybody’s single-issue drumbeat.

One of the most disruptive tendencies in the church today is the inclination to exaggerate the importance of one (valid) concern to the neglect of others. Some segments of the church make the search for peace and justice so important that they have virtually no time or money for evangelism. Others do the reverse. Some judge political candidates almost exclusively by their stand on abortion; others, by their stand on reducing global poverty.

I have a passion for balance. A one-sided emphasis provokes an equally one-sided response. What we need today is balance—biblical balance.

For the Christian, Christ is Lord—he is Lord of every area of life, including our politics. That means that biblical revelation, not secular ideologies of the Right or Left, must shape our politics.

Our political activity, therefore, should reflect a biblical balance. If we focus all our political concern on the nuclear arms race and justice for the poor, we are unbiblical because the Bible also has a great deal to say about the family and the sacredness of human life. Therefore, a biblically balanced political agenda will be very concerned to oppose abortion on demand, creeping euthanasia, and government programs that weaken the family. On the other hand, a political agenda that lacks a central focus on justice for the poor is equally unbiblical because the Bible repeatedly teaches that God has a special concern for the poor, weak, and oppressed.

At this time of growing influence, it is crucial that the evangelical political agenda reflect the balance of concerns that we see in God’s Word. I plead for a “consistent prolife” approach. Certainly abortion, euthanasia, and the family are central concerns. But world hunger is also a prolife issue. (Twelve million children will starve this year. That is the equivalent, in one year, of two Nazi Holocausts.) When each year drunken drivers kill as many Americans as did the whole Vietnam war, we face a prolife issue. When cigarette advertisem*nts persuade us to kill ourselves slowly, we confront a prolife issue. Surely too we have a prolife issue when the nuclear arms race reaches a point where Admiral Rickover (who built our nuclear navy) says, “I think probably we’ll destroy ourselves.” Dare prolife Christians permit the ultimate abortion of hundreds of millions of deaths in a nuclear holocaust?

I am opposed to one-issue politics—partly because it is bad for the health of the body politic, but even more because it is unbiblical. Following secular drummers will lead to one-sidedness. Only God’s revelation can provide a proper balance.

Dr. Sider is associate professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. He is president of Evangelicals for Social Action and author, with Richard K. Taylor, of Nuclear Holocaust and Christian Hope (IVP, 1982).

Digging into Recent Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology

A survey of fascinating excavations and controversial conclusions.

Few things are more fascinating to the student of the Bible than new archaeological discoveries. These discoveries are more and more frequent, but it would be impossible to enumerate even the most significant ones. Instead, the more important books in this field are annotated here, emphasizing books for the nonspecialist and those published after 1979.

Two short paperbacks provide an excellent place to begin. R. Moorey’s Excavation in Palestine (Eerdmans, 1983, 128 pp., $6.95) is actually an introductory and background volume to a new series, Cities of the Biblical World. (Two others in the series, Jericho and Qumran, are referred to below.) Seven chapters provide basic information, including what archaeology is, its history, methods, process of excavation, and interpreting of the finds. Expecially valuable is the last chapter on the use and abuse of archaeology in biblical studies. This chapter is essential reading because it succeeds so well in showing both the values and limitations of archaeology for the study of the Bible.

Since archaeology usually provides general background information rather than specific details, it can neither prove (nor disprove) the accuracy or historicity of the Bible. In fact, Moorey points out, when applied too specifically it gives information that differs from the biblical text on the conquest of Ai and Jericho.

Another good book for beginners is H. D. Lance’s The Old Testament and the Archaeologist (Fortress, 1981, 112 pp., $4.50). Lance is a field archaeologist who succeeds well in showing both the values and limitations of archaeology. By referring to some of his own experiences, he makes very clear some of the uncertainties in interpreting archaeological discoveries. Two chapters include material not covered by Moorey. One is on archaeological publications and their use, and another deals with the future of biblical archaeology, an issue creating a good deal of controversy and dividing archaeologists. On the one side are archaeologists who (for various reasons, including what they believe has been an overenthusiasm in using archaeology to illuminate the Bible) completely abandon the term “biblical archaeology.” Instead, they prefer the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology and concentrate on archaeology (and to some extent anthropology or history) rather than try to illuminate the Bible. The other side (including Lance) prefers the term Biblical Archaeology (or Archaeology and the Bible) and continues to use archaeology as an aid to understanding the Bible. This is a very significant issue that will influence the field for several years to come.

Old Testament

The last decade of excavations and research has revealed the complexity of such biblical events as the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan. Gone forever are the days of the past when one scholar, such as W. F. Albright, could dominate the field with his views. The explosion of new information made an old standard synthesis, such as Albright’s Archaeology of Palestine, very dated, and yet no one immediately stepped forward to provide a good synthesis of all the new discoveries. At the same time, the last several decades saw the rapid development of a new generation of Israeli archaeologists trained primarily by Y. Yadin and Y. Ahroni. It was Ahroni who wrote such a synthesis in Hebrew (now available in English). In The Archaeology of the Land of Israel (Westminster, 1982, 344 pp., $27.50; paper, $18.95), Aharoni builds on his expertise in historical geography and excavations he directed, such as Arad, Beersheba, and Ramat Rahel, to produce an excellent textbook that may well become the standard in university and seminary courses. Almost one-third of the book is devoted to the period before Abraham, while the period after the fall of Jerusalem, 587–86 B.C., is not covered at all. It is written for the student of archaeology, is more technical than the other books mentioned here, and makes little direct reference to the Bible.

A simpler textbook would be Keith Schoville’s Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Baker, 1978, 511 pp., $19.95). However, there is less synthesis here because the last two-thirds of this book is devoted to a site-by-site survey.

J. A. Thompson’s The Bible and Archaeology (3rd ed., Eerdmans, 512 pp., $17.95) covers both the Old and New Testaments and follows the biblical order of events. Thompson writes simply and with a minimum of unfamiliar terms. He tends to emphasize the positive way that archaeology illuminates the Bible and minimizes problems and difficulties that archaeological discoveries sometimes create. Unfortunately, the revision could have been more thorough; but extensive indexes, a good bibliography, and chronological charts make this a useful volume.

J. R. Bartlett’s Jericho (Eerdmans, 1983, 128 pp., $5.94) is another book in the new Cities of the Biblical World series. It is a readable summary of the literary and archaeological evidence of the city of Jericho throughout history. A helpful section deals with the apparent lack of archaeological evidence for occupation at the time of Joshua’s attack. Bartlett concludes that there is no solution yet to the apparent conflict between literary and archaeological evidence. He believes any solution is likely to come from further evaluation of the biblical text rather than from further excavation.

New Testament

On the whole, New Testament scholars have stressed literary sources and been much less involved in archaeology than their Old Testament counterparts. However, the last decade has seen an increasing number of excavations at sites relating to the New Testament period. Not all the results of this field activity are readily accessible yet, but a very significant (some would say groundbreaking) book makes some of this material available. It is E. M. Meyers and J. F. Strange’s Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Abingdon, 1981, 208 pp., $7.95). Both authors are superb field archaeologists with a decade of excavation experience in Galilee. They are selective rather than exhaustive in attempting to show the importance of nonliterary (as well as literary) evidence in the reconstruction of early Christianity and Judaism. This is a stimulating book with a useful glossary, index, maps, and diagrams, but no photos.

Two books deal with early Christianity in Asia Minor and the western Mediterranean. The more narrowly focused is Edwin Yamauchi’s The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Baker, 1980, 180 pp., $7.95). Twelve cities, including the seven cities of Revelation, are covered. Each chapter is logically organized, including sections on New Testament references, excavations, and monuments. This book is not intended to discuss the specific implications of New Testament references to the cities but rather the broader historical background of them.

In 1959, J. Finegan authored The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church (Princeton, 297 pp., $45.00; paper, 1978, $8.95). Finegan has followed this with a companion volume, The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles (Westview, 1981, 282 pp., $36.50). The first two chapters deal with literary sources and chronological issues. Then, moving geographically, he starts with Paul and his beginnings and follows him to Rome. The emphasis is on statues, frescoes, mosaics, art, and architecture. However, there is next to nothing on everyday life to illustrate how Paul lived, ate, and worked.

Two other books are more narrowly focused. P. R. Davies’s Qumran (Eerdmans, 1983, 128 pp., $6.95) is another in the new Cities of the Biblical World series. It maintains the high standards of the others in the series, focusing on the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced. Although the nonspecialist will find the going a little difficult in places, numerous pictures and diagrams will help make the text understandable and maintain the reader’s interest. Davies is effective in demonstrating the interrelationship of the literary (Dead Sea Scrolls) and archaeological evidence of Qumran. Most of J. Murphy-O’Connor’s St. Paul’s Corinth (Glazier, 1983, 214 pp., $7.95) is devoted to texts. However, 20 pages are devoted to archaeology, with very interesting results. One example would be the study of the homes in Corinth that helps explain the divisions surrounding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.

Reference

A helpful new reference work is The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Zondervan, 1983, 540 pp., $24.95), E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, editors. Twenty scholars (including the editors) contributed over 800 articles, ranging from a few sentences to over 14 pages. Coverage is quite broad, including the Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern worlds, and articles cover peoples, places, characters, and texts or inscriptions bearing on the Bible. Most daily life—type items are grouped by topic and discussed there. “Spear,” for example, is discussed under “Arms and Weapons.” The usefulness of the volume is increased with good cross referencing, 16 colored plates, over 240 black-and-white photos, 16 pages of colored maps with an index of all places noted on the maps, and 4 pages of black-and-white maps. Especially helpful are the articles on archaeological techniques and methods and the two-page list of briefly annotated archaeological periodicals in English.

Unfortunately, there are several significant weaknesses:

1. It appears that the majority of articles were written six-to-ten years ago since they show no awareness of archaeological discoveries during that time. Some of the articles and bibliographies are brought up to 1979 and a few up to 1981, but they are the exception. This is unfortunate, because the field changes so rapidly.

2. Although the editor’s preface states that archaeology should not be used to prove the Bible, too little of the limitations (or values) of archaeology are discussed in articles such as “Archaeology.” Furthermore, there is a general reluctance to discuss apparent conflicts between archaeological and literary (biblical) evidence. Good examples would be the articles on Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, and Beersheba: each of these sites seems to have little or no evidence of occupation at the time of Israel’s conquest.

3. Synthesis is always difficult for dictionaries or encyclopedias. However, the omission of articles such as archaeology-Old Testament; archaeology-New Testament, exodus, conquest, and so on, where at least something of the current state of research could be given, is regrettable.

4. The articles on daily life are far too brief and omit discussion of some artifacts and procedures that the reader would expect to be covered.

5. Over one-half of the articles are contributed by the two editors, with Blaiklock doing about one-third of all the articles himself. This means the editors, especially Blaiklock, have done articles outside their special expertise.

6. Finally, the articles are often quite brief; much fuller coverage on most of the articles in this dictionary can be found in multivolume dictionaries or encyclopedias, such as The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (1975); the revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979–); and the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962, 1976).

Despite these weaknesses, this is a handy one-volume dictionary that is sigificantly better than its only competitor, A. Negev’s Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (SBS Publishing, 1972, 356 pp., $14.95).

Other

Intellectually curious travelers to Bible lands are often disappointed by the standard travel guidebooks or superficial tour guides who tell them only what (they think) they want to hear. J. Murphy-O’Connor has now rectified this with The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (Oxford, 1980, 336 pp., $9.95). Part 1 is devoted to Jerusalem and part 2 covers the land (Israel and the West Bank—not Jordan and Sinai). This is the finest guide available and is best used on location rather than read at one sitting. The treatment of archaeological remains is so well done that even archaeologists will find it useful.

G. Cornfeld and D. N. Freedman’s Archaeology of the Bible, Book by Book (Harper & Row, 1976, 352 pp.) first appeared as a hardback. It has been reissued in paperback (1982, $12.45) in slightly larger page format to avoid the crowded appearance of the hardcover edition. Numerous mechanical errors have been corrected and page numbers added where they were omitted in the earlier edition. This book is unique in that it claims to give an archaeological commentary on the Bible. However, it is often disappointingly selective, and it sometimes includes such nonarchaeological material as the author, date, and purpose of a biblical book.

Finally, another unique set of books is The Book of Life, by V. G. Beers (Zondervan, 1980, 8,000 pp., 24 vol., $299). These volumes cover most of the Bible and are designed as a set for Bible reading. Beautiful color pictures and drawings abound and are well worth the price of the set. It is not an archaeological work as such, but it puts the Bible into the context of daily life and uses archaeology to illuminate the Bible. It would be an excellent aid to personal or family Bible reading.

Reviewed by James C. Moyer, professor, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.

Baptists on both sides of the border dispute the affiliation of 62 Canadian churches.

Does it matter whether Canadian Baptists join America’s largest Protestant denomination? The answer depends on whom you are talking to.

The controversy between Canadian Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been brewing for 30 years. Denominational officials on both sides of the border disagree over ties between the 14-million-member SBC and its 4,300 Canadian members.

Southern Baptist activity in Canada began in the fifties when two Vancouver, British Columbia, churches affiliated with the SBC’s Northwest Baptist Convention. Since then, Southern Baptist churches have multiplied in western Canada. More recently, the Ohio Baptist Convention has established two churches in southern Ontario.

Some officials are calling for the expansion of the SBC to enable its 62 Canadian churches to send messengers to the denomination’s annual meeting. But others, both in the SBC and in the Canadian Baptist Federation (CBF), prefer a cooperative venture between the two denominations.

Leaders in the CBF want to find ways to share resources with Southern Baptists. The CBF and the SBC already are cooperating in education, media, and evangelism projects. But Michael Steeves, executive secretary of the 130,000-member CBF, says the joint ventures are more at the denominational level than among local churches.

Before the SBC could seat Canadian messengers it would have to amend its constitution to redefine the denomination as a binational, rather than a national, body. SBC Foreign Mission Board president R. Keith Parks opposes the move. He says the denomination should cooperate with Canadian Baptist bodies that have their own national structures. However, SBC Home Mission Board president William Tanner disagrees. He says it is natural for Southern Baptists to establish their own churches in Canada.

The man who has helped start many of those churches agrees with Tanner. Henry Blackaby, home mission director for the western Canadian arm of the Northwest Baptist Convention, says Canadian Southern Baptists should be part of the SBC. At the same time, he sees room for cooperation between the SBC and the CBF. He notes, for example, that Southern Baptists are interested in funding a Christian education chair at Carey Hall, a Canadian Baptist college at the University of British Columbia.

Carey Hall principal Roy Bell welcomes that idea. A past president of the CBF, Bell believes in developing a strong partnership between his denomination and the SBC. But Doug Moffat, executive minister for the CBF’s western sector, wonders if the SBC is equally committed to the concept, SBC missionaries say churches are started at the request of local people, he says. But he adds that the SBC’s planning goals call for forming 50 new Canadian congregations by 1989.

A 21-member committee chaired by Dallas home builder Fred Roach has been studying the issue. Late last month the committee was expected to come up with recommendations to present to this summer’s Southern Baptist Convention.

LLOYD MACKEYin Vancouver

A New Survey Shows Families Are Better Off Than Most Think

Church-going families with young adolescents refute the stereotype that families are falling apart, according to a major national study.

The research project gathered information about children in the fifth through ninth grades. The survey’s national sample tends to represent families that are involved in a local church.

“We do not mean to imply that youth and families are functioning at optimal levels,” the directors of the study say. “Indeed, there are stresses and problems in most families. However, we find that the needs, despairs, and the longings of youth and parents are less catastrophic, more subtle, and perhaps more benign than we have been led to believe.”

Thirteen groups cooperated in the study, including the Evangelical Covenant Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Southern Baptist Convention.

The study was based on in-depth questioning of 8,000 adolescents and 10,000 parents. It was directed by the Search Institute of Minneapolis and funded by the Lilly Endowment of Indianapolis.

The questions investigated values and goals, conflicts and communication between children and parents, sexuality, chemical use, exposure to mass media, faith, concerns of youth, and interest in youth programs.

More than 50 percent of the youths said they watched three or four hours of television on an average school day. The most important goal for boys, and the second most important for girls, was “to get a good job when I am older.” Fifth graders placed a higher value than ninth graders on such global issues as a “world without war.”

The desire “to be part of a church or synagogue” tends to be in the middle of the early adolescents’ value hierarchy. Church commitment among youth declined between fifth and ninth grades, and the decline was sharper for boys.

What do young adolescents worry about? School performance, physical appearance, and peer acceptance were the three most prevalent concerns. More than 42 percent worry that their parents might die. More than 20 percent worry about nuclear annihilation.

Some 22 percent of fifth graders and 53 percent of ninth graders said they have used alcohol. Twelve percent of fifth graders and 20 percent of ninth graders said they have used marijuana.

The number of youths who said they have had sexual intercourse ranged from 12 percent of sixth graders to 20 percent of ninth graders, although the researchers are skeptical. They say data for fifth and sixth graders “may be suspect, reflecting in part uncertainty about the meaning of the term ‘sexual intercourse.’”

Some 40 percent of the youths said they desire more opportunities to discuss sexuality with their parents. Even higher percentages of parents say they desire parent-child communication in this area. In addition, 42 percent of the youths claimed their family never discusses religious topics.

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

Wrangling among Southern Baptists is nothing new. But the controversy swirling around James Dunn is extraordinarily intense.

The combative Texan is executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJC). The Washington, D.C.—based group conducts research, reports news, and serves as a government liaison on issues related to church and state. It is funded by nine Baptist denominations, but the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) provides more than 80 percent of its support.

Some SBC leaders are fuming about the controversial positions Dunn has taken on issues close to conservatives’ hearts. At the denomination’s annual meeting last year, messengers voted to support President Reagan’s proposed constitutional amendment to restore oral prayer in public schools. But Dunn testified against the measure in Congress, denouncing Reagan for “despicable demagoguery” and for “playing petty politics with prayer.” The statements placed Dunn high on the hit list of Southern Baptist conservatives.

“I part company with them at the point of tampering with the Constitution by adding another amendment that would put upon the Constitution the inflexibility of the moment,” Dunn told CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

But no matter what his reasoning, SBC conservatives oppose him. In fact, they oppose the very idea of a Baptist Joint Committee. “We pay 85 percent of the BJC’s budget. We fail to see why we shouldn’t have our own representative in Washington,” says Paige Patterson of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies in Dallas.

Patterson says a motion for separate Southern Baptist representation in Washington is likely to surface at the SBC’s June meeting in Kansas City. Meanwhile, he says Southern Baptist conservative leaders simply go over Dunn’s head to gain access to government officials.

“Dunn has been extremely antagonistic against the President, guaranteeing that he would have no influence at all in representing us regarding the Vatican envoy question,” Patterson says. “He hobnobs with the liberal establishment in the House and Senate.… That doesn’t make us very happy either.”

In his defense, Dunn points out that several liberal senators, including Mark Hatfield (R-Oreg.) and Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), are leading the congressional opposition to Reagan’s appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. Patterson suffers from a “terrible misconception,” Dunn says.

“Face-to-face contact is not the way most things happen in Washington,” he says. “We have excellent relationships with decision makers that cut across political and ideological lines.”

Conservative Southern Baptists believe Dunn fraternizes with the wrong sort outside of government as well. For three years he was a board member of People for the American Way (PAW), a group founded by television producer Norman Lear to oppose the Moral Majority and much of the so-called electronic church. When his term ended in December, Dunn refused renomination to the PAW board, mainly because of the criticism it stirred.

“I’ve got enough to do on religious liberty concerns without wasting time with people who are bothered about my being part of it [PAW],” he says.

Lear’s organization raised the ire of some Southern Baptists because of its relationship with the Playboy Foundation. PAW received a $40,000 grant from the foundation and has placed ads free of charge in Playboy magazine. It enraged Southern Baptist conservatives when PAW mentioned the BJC in connection with Dunn.

“It’s not appropriate at all for him to use the name of the organization [BJC] to support PAW when they’re willing to accept funding from Playboy,” says Albert Lee Smith, a member of the Southern Baptist Public Affairs Committee, a BJC subsidiary.

Dunn’s decision to decline renomination to the PAW board has not satisfied all of his critics. “Dunn is still a member of the organization and is clearly identified with them,” Patterson says. “It’s like putting Sodom together with Jerusalem.”

Patterson says the Southern Baptists are growing increasingly wary of the BJC. Calls for Dunn’s resignation have cropped up around the country. And the Alabama Baptist Convention last year asked the SBC to withdraw its funding of the BJC because of Dunn’s association with PAW.

A year ago, First Baptist Church of Wichita Falls, Texas, which strongly supports cooperative Baptist endeavors, withdrew its funding of the BJC. “That was the shot heard ‘round the world,” Patterson says. “We are totally at the mercy of what Dunn and his staff happen to think. Once Baptists understand that fully, even the moderates will not put up with that.”

Dunn is undaunted. He says Christians should work with “many people with whom we do not agree on everything.… I believe in the long haul it is terribly important that we continue to work in the real world.”

A major showdown is expected this year between progambling interests and religious groups that oppose betting.

If anyone were putting money on the outcome, the odds would favor the gambling industry. Backed by millions of dollars for lobbying and public relations, gambling interests are planning a major expansion in several states. Religious groups are gearing up for a fight. But the general public has been receptive to gambling when it promises to supplement a state’s tax base.

Eighty-two percent of those who responded to a Gallup poll last year said they would approve of some form of legalized gambling if it meant increased state revenues.

Most states already allow some form of gambling. Bingo is legal in 46 states, horse race betting in 32, lotteries in 18, and casinos in two. Only four states (Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, Utah) prohibit all forms of gambling, according to the Congressional Research Center.

Legislation that would legalize lotteries is expected to be considered this year in Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia, says Larry Braidfoot of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission. Pari-mutuel betting proposals are being studied in Hawaii, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Southern Baptist leaders from 11 states met last fall to formulate a major campaign against pari-mutuel betting, state lotteries, and casino gambling. Ironically, in battling the issue, churches are confronted with the role religion has played in fostering legalized gambling. Proponents of a North Carolina lottery point out that the first lottery approved by the state’s colonial council was held to raise money to build churches.

“About 44 percent of the people living in states where bingo is illegal think it is legal because of its close association with churches and charitable groups,” reports the United Methodist magazine engage/social action. Some of the states that prohibit bingo and lotteries make exceptions for charitable groups.

Catholic churches have been particularly associated with the use of bingo to raise money. But some Catholics are rethinking their position on the subject. “The temptation of church bingo has caused me and others that I know to commit sin,” wrote Nathan Kollar in U.S. Catholic magazine. “The church shouldn’t tempt us. Christ said we shouldn’t make his Father’s house a house of business.”

The dilemma came to a head when Bishop Walter F. Sullivan of Richmond, Virginia, opposed a move to legalize pari-mutuel betting in 1978. “Many institutions, including our own parishes, sponsor bingo, raffles, and bazaars to raise needed funds for educational and charitable purposes,” he said. “Gambling is not generally regarded by our tradition as immoral and sinful.”

But he added that “after study and reflection, I am convinced that only a select few would benefit greatly from pari-mutuel betting.… Serious questions need to be raised about the participation of our own parishes in legalized bingo.”

In addition to moral objections, religious forces are adding social-justice questions to their arguments against gambling.

“An industry which wrecks lives, leads to an increased crime rate, fails to deliver what it promises in financial rewards, breaks homes, leaves families in financial stress, and preys upon the poor is not an industry which is a matter of personal morality,” Braidfoot says.

In their book The Atlantic City Gamble, George Sternlieb and James Hughes write that “every study of casino gambling has indicated its regressive nature … that is, that lower-income groups spent a greater percentage of their income on gambling than other income groups.”

Sternlieb says thefts, murders, and prostitution have increased and the influence of organized crime has grown in Atlantic City since it legalized casinos in 1978. In spite of those problems, he says, “no one wants to slash the throat of the golden calf.”

Indeed, some Americans are addicted to the practice. The problem of compulsive gambling has attracted attention through mass-media coverage and the work of the National Council on Compulsive Gambling. Joseph Dunne, a New York police chaplain who is a cofounder of the council, says there are some 6 million compulsive gamblers in the United States.

Opponents of gambling have succeeded in defeating legislation in several states. But such proposals don’t go away forever, says David Lindsay, a United Methodist minister and a veteran of anticasino battles in Florida.

“The continuing battle against casinos raises a degree of frustration,” he says. “It would be nice to defeat the proposal once and for all. But we are struggling against an idea. While we can defeat a specific proposal by a ballot, or we can provide sufficient opposition to discourage proponents on one specific attempt, we do not seem to defeat the idea.”

The challenge is great. But CHRISTIANITY TODAY advisory editor Kenneth Kantzer says there is reason for optimism. “A century ago, our nation reversed its position and began to oppose gambling,” he points out. “It can do it again—if we have the will.”

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

World Scene

In Poland, 21 million people watched The Day After, an American film about nuclear war. It was the first full-length showing of the film in a communist country. Immediately before the film, an announcer accused the United States of failing to match a Moscow pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

The British House of Commons voted against restoring the death penalty for murder, terrorism, and other crimes. Violent crime has risen in Great Britain, but there were only 619 homicides in 1982. The government has instituted stricter measures, including a minimum 20-year term for crimes such as the murder of policemen and prison officers, and for terrorist acts or armed robbery in which someone is killed.

The number of Lutherans in the world has risen to nearly 69 million, an increase of about 50,000. Data collected by the Lutheran World Federation showed the greatest growth in Africa, where there are 3.8 million Lutherans. The most significant decline occurred in West Germany, with a loss of 167,000 members.

Religious extremists in India stopped a public showing of the film Jesus and forced the Baptist pastors who brought the film to leave. However, villagers protected the pastors as they fled, and promised to arrange for another showing of the film. The group that stopped the showing has been opposing Christianity in the the area for several years.

Some British Methodists are accusing the house church movement of authoritarian and unscriptural tendencies. William R. Davies, principal of Cliff College, says some extremists claim the house church is the one true church. The term refers to groups of Christians that meet in members’ homes. British Methodists have lost about 550 members to house churches over the past two years.

A Romanian magistrate has delayed the trial of Baptist pastor Iosif Stefanut for the second time. Stefanut faces charges of distributing religious literature without government approval. His trial was delayed the first time to assign a public defender to the case. There was no clear reason for the second delay. But sources indicate the court might be waiting to gauge reaction from the West.

Deaths

Paul De Ballester, 56, auxiliary bishop in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, former Roman Catholic monk, first convert to Greek Orthodoxy to become a bishop in the Western Hemisphere; January 31, in Mexico City, of bullet wounds.

Leslie Frederick Weber, 71, former executive secretary for social ministry services of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, former pastor; January 27, in Saint Louis, Missouri, of cardiac arrest.

John Coventry Smith, 80, former president of the World Council of Churches, former moderator of the former United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.; January 15, near Philadelphia, of a heart attack.