KEY 73 AND HERE'S LIFE

The attempt to apply the methods of Evangelism in Depth to the United States came in what was called the Key 73 program. In 1973, the most massive coordinated evangelistic effort that America had yet known was conducted. Expectations were high, but the results were disappointing to the majority of cooperating churches, largely due, once again, to hyper-cooperativism. In this case, an inordinate amount of energy was demanded of church leaders across the board to accomplish the immense task of building bonds of interdenominational communication and cooperation. If ecumenism and cooperation had been the stated goals, Key 73 would have been a singular success. The Christianity Today editorial that originally sparked the entire movement used as its title: "Somehow, Let's Get Together." Unintentionally, and often quite subtly, cooperation might have been a higher priority in the minds of some than evangelism.

Evangelism, according to some analysts, entered the picture as only a means toward the real end, which was cooperation. Nevertheless, the overall goal was communicated to the average pastor in the pulpit as being evangelism, and most of them hoped against hope that Key 73 would be the program that would help their churches grow. When it didn't work out that way, they became disillusioned. Memories have faded since 1973, but widespread desire for national cooperation in evangelism had not reached that level since then. The positive recollections of Key 73 that remain in the minds of those who participated related mostly to new friendships and improved Christian relationships, but not to accelerated church growth.

A few years later, Campus Crusade for Christ launched a large national effort called "Here's Life, America." Large numbers of churches in virtually every city in the United Stated joined in the effort to evangelize the nation. Once again, evidence surfaced that as the program was being implemented city by city, cooperation had become a higher functional priority than had evangelism.

As an example, the Here's life America Southern California Communiqué reported a meeting of 42 pastors from divergent denominational backgrounds. It reported how they discovered their mutual devotion to Jesus and how together they were uniting in a new way of corporate church life. The article quoted the leaders as saying that "this meeting alone was enough to make the entire Here's Life effort worthwhile." Although I would not want to push it too far, nevertheless, in the minds of those who originally designed the effort, the only thing that could possibly have made it worthwhile was not warm fellowship among believers, but saving lost souls! Many leaders had lost sight of this goal.

The evangelistic results of Here's Life were rather disappointing. Of those who made first-time decisions for Christ, only approximately 3 percent became church members.¹ Even allowing for those persons who may have received E-0 evangelism and those who became privatized Christians, there appears to be a disproportionately large follow-up gap.

CHALLENGES OF THE CHAPLAINCY

One of the most institutionalized example of hyper-cooperativism in the United States is the military chaplaincy. I have spoken with many chaplains who are evangelistic in outlook and who would like their chapels to be effective centers for evangelism. Most of them are frustrated. Chapel growth on a military base is difficult to attain. The major reason for this might be a congenital case of hyper-cooperativism.

Protestant military chapels according to regulations, have to be nondenominational. This is a distinct disadvantage. Under these rules, it is difficult for a chapel to develop a distinct philosophy of ministry geared specifically to the needs of a given target group. To suppose military personnel constitute a homogeneous unit that could be naturally drawn together in one congregation is naïve. The total ministry on a given base might be strengthened if the chaplains were encouraged to be more distinctive in their chapels, but this does not seem to be a possibility in the near future. Thus, success for most chaplains will have to be gauged in some terms other than chapel growth, given the present conditions, which to all intents and purposes dictate hyper-cooperativism.

SCHALLER ON COOPERATION

One of America's outstanding church diagnosticians, Lyle E. Schaller, has come to similar conclusions concerning hyper-cooperativism and church growth. He says, "While this runs completely counter to the hopes and expectations of the advocates of church unity and intercongregational cooperation, the evidence is increasingly persuasive. Church growth and cooperative ministries are not compatible!"²

Schaller's five reasons concerning hyper-cooperativism and lack of church growth bear examination and commentary as a summary to this chapter. To the degree they are understood, hyper-cooperativism can be avoided.

In a more recent work, Lyle Schaller applies these principles directly to the reasons certain churches grow and others do not. He says, "It is only a minor exaggeration to suggest that [the compulsion for promoting interchurch cooperation] is one of the most influential differences between large and numerically growing congregations and most small churches. The former assume that competition is the norm. The latter believe that cooperation should be the norm. That difference in perspective is one more reason why large congregations are large and small churches are small!"⁸

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Because both evangelism that helps churches grow and interchurch cooperation are commendable activities, it seems reasonable to assume that there must some way to join the two. Putting past disappointments to one side, it does appear now that some models for programs of cooperative evangelism, that in fact do result in measurable church growth, are emerging on the horizon.

Edgardo Silvoso, an Argentine evangelist, is one of the foremost leaders in developing strategies for evangelizing cities that combine the two. Silvoso's pilot project, called the "Rosario Plan," was designed and executed in Rosario , Argentina , in 1975 and 1976. More than half of the Protestant churches in the city joined the movement, so it was a good example of interchurch cooperation. The difference was that as early as 15 months before the public evangelistic event—which featured Silovoso's brother-in-law, Luis Palau—teams of church growth experts, including Vergil Gerber, Juan Carlos Miranda, Edward Murphy and Silvoso, worked with the cooperating churches. They helped each church develop plans and goals for growth in its own congregation, as well as in new churches they would plant.

Approximately 40 churches decided to cooperate. By the time Palau arrives, 45 new churches had been established. A strong growth process had been initiated, and new converts were already being made at rates not seen in Rosario for years. The evangelistic event then was introduced into the growth process at the most appropriate time. The evangelist was coming, not to begin the harvest, but rather to accelerate a harvest already begun. The barns were by then ready for the increased harvest, so to speak. In the traditional models of citywide cooperative evangelism, between 3 percent and 16 percent of those who make first-time decisions for Christ become responsible members of the local churches. In Rosario, however, of the decisions registered during Palau's meetings, an amazing 57 percent were incorporated as members of churches. The follow-up gap had been considerably reduced.

THE PROCESS AND THE EVENT

As I see it, the secret of the success of the Rosario Plan, compared to the more traditional models of communitywide efforts in other cities, is skillfully coordinating the evangelistic event by using a growth process in the cooperating churches. When churches cooperating with citywide crusades are not in a healthy growth pattern themselves, the big meetings or the media blitz will not usually stimulate real growth. When the church is already growing, however, and when it is in the habit of folding in new converts before the start of the large, public evangelistic event, the event can then help the churches to grow. The following are two examples:

My view is that a long-range component of church growth planning and consultation should be provided as part and parcel of a great high-visibility evangelistic event sponsored by some interdenominational association. This should start as much as one or two years before the event. The timing of the event itself needs to remain flexible until all cooperating churches (or a predetermined percentage of them) have corrected the problems causing their nongrowth or slow growth and are reasonably sure that by the time of the event they will be growing and absorbing new converts. When the cooperating churches are growing at an estimable rate, bring on the evangelist or the media blitz or whatever method may be appropriate. The follow-up gap will narrow dramatically because the barns will be ready for the harvest.

This kind of thing can be done well through interchurch cooperation. Because the primary growth goals are not focused on the stadium, but on the local church, the local churches remain central to the program. Many local churches together can combine their resources to pay for areawide media, the professional evangelist and the church growth consultation services, which most churches by themselves might not be able to afford.

THAT NONE SHOULD PERISH

Edgardo Silovoso contracted a life-threatening disease soon after the Rosario Plan had ended and he was forced to curtail his ministry for the better part of a decade. The Lord healed him miraculously, though, and he is once again strategizing citywide evangelism, this time using the added dimensions of power healing, prayer and spiritual warfare. Silvoso's book That None Should Perish (Regal Books) is in my opinion the state-of-the-art exposition of how to combine high levels of evangelism and Christian unity in reaching a city for Christ.

If I were to write a prescription for a cure to hyper-cooperativism, I would require reading That None Should Perish, but in tandem with another of the finest recent books I have seen, Primary Purpose (Creation House) by Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Silvoso is the master strategist, and Haggard is the practical, down-to-earth local church pastor, who, out on the front lines of his own city has seen pastors come together across theological lines for the purpose of evangelizing his city. Haggard's advocacy of Christian unity is not unity as an end in itself, but unity aimed at the goal, which he uses as the subtitle of his book: Making It Hard for People to Go to Hell from Your City!

Notes