It is not uncommon to find people, wedded to particular means, making arguments that allow them to continue with such means even when they are deeply ineffective. Or, if not totally ineffective, preferring them over means that are considerably more effective. They are wedded to this approach and are looking to justify it.

It is probably most common when it comes to evangelism. Arguments such as, ‘we’re just called to be faithful’ abound. Which, of course, we are called to be faithful. But we’re called to be faithful to Christ and his commands, not to particular, scripturally non-mandated means of outreach. To say we are being faithful, and yet commit ourselves to means of evangelism that fail to actually make any disciples, is not being faithful to what Jesus asks us to do in The Great Commission. In fact, it bears noting that “evangelism” per se isn’t commanded of us anywhere in scripture. Disciple-making is. Of course, you can’t make disciples without doing evangelism, that is true. But it also follows that if you aren’t actually making any disciples, but wed yourself to means that fail to make any disciples, you have not actually been faithful to what Jesus specifically does command.

Similarly, you have the ‘I know someone who was saved through X’ arguments. This is simply to speak against the facts of the matter. All the evidence we have points to people primarily, and most likely, becoming believers through relationships of some sort. That isn’t to say we must only do cold or warm contact evangelism. I think all thing may have their place. We need some means of building relationship with people we don’t currently know as well as means of building up the relationships we have with those that we do know. But the point is, we have to think about how whatever we’re doing is going to lead to the kind of relationships that tend to lead to lasting belief.

It is all very well arguing that ‘I know someone saved through X’, but we can point anecdotally to all sorts of people saved through all sorts of things. I know people who were saved through deeply ungodly means. They are believers now, praise God. But to advocate the means by which they came to believe, which were objectively ungodly, because someone was once saved through it is not being faithful to Christ. It is not sensible – on the grounds of anecdotes – to stand against the objective weight of evidence that most people simply don’t or won’t believe or become lifelong disciples through this. It is to deny the bald reality of the matter in the face of all the evidence because you want to continue with your particular means of outreach that Jesus hasn’t commanded you to do.

Others, taking a more theological track, will argue things like ‘God can use anything’ or ‘the results are not up to us’. Clearly, both those statements are true. We can praise God that he can work through anything no matter how rubbish. We can praise him that he overrules both ungodly means as well as down right stupid ones to cause some to trust in Christ regardless. But that doesn’t justify our pressing on with them.

God used a donkey to speak to a man in scripture but we don’t make that a central plank of our evangelistic strategy. That it worked once does not justify it as a means that will work any other time. Similarly, that the results are not ultimately up to us – we can’t change men’s hearts – doesn’t do anything to alter the fact that the Lord works through ordinary means. If he works through ordinary means, then we must pay some attention to the ordinary means he typically works through. Which is just a slightly more theological way of saying that we have to look at the evidence of effectiveness. And when we do that, both looking in scripture and looking at the empirical evidence today, we discover that God overwhelmingly works through relationships and not one-hit wonder, one time gospel encounters. Yes, he can use such things. Yes, he may overrule and turn such things for good. But the evidence – the ordinary means he tends to use – suggest this isn’t how the Lord typically operates.

Others again want to argue something more like ‘we’re links in a chain. Who knows what this encounter will mean for someone down the line’. The elephant in the room here being, who knows indeed! It is all very well arguing that we just don’t know what the Lord will do from a chance encounter in somebody’s life. The point is, if we don’t know, we can’t argue that we are being in any way effective. But the issue is worse because what we do know from the evidence we have available is that the vast majority of people who come to faith explicitly tell us it is not through chance encounters with strangers. It is overwhelmingly the case that relationships are the strongest and most telling factor. People either become believers through ongoing family or friend relationships. Those relationships may begin in a variety of different ways. They may develop in all kinds of different ways too. But relationships are key. Again, that isn’t to say cold contact work has no value. It is to say, it is of most value when it is designed and aimed at developing into ongoing relationship.

It is certainly true that there will be ‘in seasons’ and ‘out seasons’ when it comes to the gospel. We won’t always be as effective as we might like. That may be down to us, but it may be down to the culture or context we are in. We certainly shouldn’t despise ‘the day of small things’. But we similarly shouldn’t ignore the words of Jesus: ‘the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few’. Jesus didn’t send us out to expect no return. He sends us out expecting people to respond.

Those who were sent out to expect no fruit were typically told that at the beginning of their ministry. The likes of Jeremiah and Isaiah were told they would not be heard. We have not been so told. Similarly, Jeremiah and Isaiah were speaking to the people of God. God told them to go to a people who would not listen because he had already rejected them. We are not being sent to the people of God, but to the unbelieving world that we have not been told will reject everything out of hand.

Not that we want to press the details of parables too far, but there is also the parable of the Sower. Whilst only one in four in the story are genuine disciples because they persevere and produce fruit, we often ignore that three out of four initially give a positive response to the gospel. Yes, the discipleship drop off is then 2 in 3 (and, again, I am conscious we shouldn’t press the specifics of parables too far), but if we are going to use that parable to console ourselves with a realistic view of discipleship drop off, we must similarly conclude our evangelism should be (at least on first blush) reasonably effective, doesn’t it? Which begs the question, why are we so quick to settle for low to no returns in evangelism when three in four of that parable initially profess faith?

But the big point here is that Jesus does not command us to do ‘outreach’ nor does he command us to do ‘evangelism’. He commands us to make disciples. That means we must at least think about the effectiveness of the means we are employing to make disciples. To put it another way, if we cannot show that any disciples have actually been made, in what way have we really been about the business of disciple making? If our evangelistic efforts do not actually lead to anyone listening nor to anyone entering the church and functioning as a disciple, in what way have we actually been faithful to Jesus’ call to make disciples?

This isn’t to say there is any one way to achieve these things. Once effective things might no longer be effective. Things that would never have worked in the past might be extremely effective today. We might utilise a range of cold and warm contact stuff. But the bottom line remains the same. At some point, effectiveness has to matter at least a bit. We are in the business of making disciples, not simply doing evangelism nor engaging in outreach. Evangelism and outreach are steps towards, part of, making disciples but they are not disciple-making in and of themselves. If we are going to be faithful to Jesus and not just our preferred means, we have to be able to answer this: how have our means actually led to any disciples being made?

If we can’t say, we may well have made an idol out of our particular ministry. If we use the term ‘faithful’ to mean faithful to our particular mode of outreach rather than faithful to Jesus’ specific commands, we have probably made an idol of our ministry. If we are being faithful to Christ, we will be about the business of making disciples. If we are about the business of making disciples, we will be able to point to some disciples who have actually been made or how this is likely to achieve that end given all we know about how people come to true and lasting faith in Jesus. Which means, effectiveness must matter – at least a bit.