Last week, I re-posted something about doing open air work. As part of the preamble to that, I said this:

In our context, relationships are really vital. Even though – as you will see from the picture below – we have done open airs in Oldham town centre, we tend to want to prioritise modes of outreach that allow us to build up ongoing relationships. Contextually, relationships are key to the gospel getting a proper hearing here. Whilst we used to run open airs, and they were excellent for local presence and for engaging with some folks we wouldn’t otherwise reach, we haven’t done them for a while because we don’t have the personnel to run them alongside everything else. In the end, we determined that means of developing relationships in which we could share the gospel were a higher priority in our context that would bear more fruit.

Of course, relationship building is not the only factor in deciding what to do. It is simply a factor. Which leads to another question: how do you determine what to prioritise altogether?

One thing I have noticed over the years is just what gets people excited about our ministry. Invariably, the things that get people most excited are a) ethnically diverse and b) generate big numbers. So, our English Classes that have been full to bursting with people from all over the world generate an awful lot of excitement. Similarly, our Muslim-Christian dialogues get a lot of people excited. Why? Both are ethnically diverse and tend to bring a lot of people into the church.

Clearly, as we run both these things, I think there is value to them. I mainly think the value of any one ministry, almost whatever it is, is typically related to the wider package of activities your church might offer. Some ministries might be pretty useless on their own, but coupled with a set of other ministries suddenly serve an excellent purpose. Some ministries might appear quite effective at getting numbers into a room but are considerably less effective at producing gospel opportunities or moving people from that meeting towards actual faith in Christ and membership in the church. Some things might do some of these things well and not be so great at other aspects of what we’re aiming to do hence we want a broad package of different ministries that might cover the bases.

As a small church, however, one always must prioritise. There may be all manner of things that we would love to do as part of our missional package that we just aren’t able to do because we don’t have the time, money or people to do them all. At some point, we have to cut our cloth accordingly and what is most effective in such ways that makes best use of what we have.

There are no specific right or wrong answers here. What is most effective and makes best use of your resources in one context may not be the same as in any other; we have to hold our forms with a loose hand. But it bears saying that we need to think carefully about our measures of effectiveness and fruitfulness if we are going to answer the question. I think what we are aiming for and how we measure its effectiveness is often where our efforts to prioritise go awry.

For many, the answer is obvious. Whatever brings the most people in, do that. The thing that has the most people in the room is the thing that is most effective. The thing that brings the most people into contact with Christians who can tell them the gospel, that is the most effective thing we should prioritise. It’s not an altogether foolish measure – there is some sense behind it (especially, not to harp on about it, but as a part of a broader package of stuff – making first contact has to happen and the ability to do that with lots of people in one setting is very efficient). But I would suggest it is not the best measure of effectiveness.

For one thing, it is possible to fill a room up with people and yet not have any real gospel opportunity with them at all. If I can get 100 people through the doors by handing our food parcels, that is a pretty effective way of filling a room. But, if I have no ability to share the gospel with them while I do it, I have no ability to build up relationships with anyone where I might share the gospel down the line, the room may be full but the gospel opportunity is distinctly limited. Weighing whether to do this – which might in a broad sense give a good witness to the community that the gospel compels us to do kindly things so people can see the fruit of our belief leads to objective good – against something that attracts far fewer people but we can very directly and clearly share the gospel message with them might alter our view on what is the better gospel opportunity. Again, as part of a broader package, both things have their place and where possible I would want to do both. But if we have to prioritise one over the other, the larger things may not always win.

We also have to think about efficacy of moving people towards Christ. I may have three different ministries: one which includes only social mercy with no overt gospel content, one which is cold-contact one-hit but direct sharing of the gospel and one which is regular, ongoing contact where we read the scriptures together and share the gospel. One of those ministries might be absolutely massive and packed to the rafters, but you never see any of the punters outside that meeting. Another one of those (and it could be any depending on your context) might reach a much smaller group of people but be far more effective than any of the others at getting them into church on a Sunday. That, in turn, allows you to build up ongoing relationships with people and bring them into something where the gospel will be heard regularly whilst giving space for all manner of people in the church to show love and kindness to them. It makes it far more likely you will have ongoing relationships and the ability to keep speaking the gospel to them in all manner of different ways. The one I would judge most effective is not necessarily the bigger one.

There is lots more we could say here, but I hope you get the broad point. If our aim is to see people come to faith in Christ, the most effective outreach is the one through which people seem to keep putting their faith in Christ. If we reckon relationships are the most effective way of leading people to Christ, then we’re going to prioritise those outreach activities that create the opportunity for ongoing relationships. If we think ongoing contact with the gospel is likely to be bear more fruit than one-time contact, we are going to prioritise what gives us ongoing contact. That being said, we still have to think about ways that we might make first contact and so we won’t just throw our eggs into the ongoing contact stuff if we have no means of making first contact with anyone who might come.

Again, I am not arguing for any one form of outreach here. I am not arguing for or against cold or warm contact (both are good) or mercy ministry vs content input (both are good). Everything that is a godly means may have its place, I am just thinking about how we think about what is effective. We may have a big ministry through which nobody has come to church on a Sunday, nobody has become a believer and nobody has joined the church. Big and busy as it may be, I would venture that is much less effective ministry than one that saw three people coming in a year but through which all three started coming along to church regularly and engaging with believers over gospel content.

We need to be careful not to get overly excited about the wrong thing – getting caught up in numbers or the excitement of reaching a demographic most churches never see – but judging effectiveness by whether people are engaging with the gospel and moving in any way towards Christ. We should prioritise the works that do something to lead people closer to Christ and his church in reality rather than those that merely fill the room and make us busy.