Many years ago, my wife and I were involved in medical mission events in the Philippines. At these events, we would also evangelize. I would track the responses. Commonly, around half of the people who come would “say the Sinner’s Prayer,” which in Evangelical circles is often equated with converting from unsaved to saved. Should it be? I would argue not. Anyone can say a prayer, but we are not saved by saying a prayer, or by going underwater, or by joining the membership roll of a church. Salvation is a mysterious interplay of God choosing us with us choosing God, tied to an outward working that demonstrates an inward change. That sounds vague. It is not vague, but it is hard to quantify with certainty.

But I had problems with this. The Philippines is a land of “utang na loob” or of “implied obligation.” If one does something nice for someone, that person will feel a certain sense of obligation to return the favor, even if in a different way. So many will go along with the Sinner’s Prayer as a way of saying “Thank You” for the doctor visit and the medicines. Additionally, a large portion of the people are already active in a church. Although many of those churches were not Evangelical, and may not be focused on the Sinner’s Prayer, that in no way suggests that they are unsaved. If one could cross off those who were already redeemed followers of Christ, and those who said the prayer without heart conviction, the stats would be quite low, I assume.

When I spoke to my good friend and fellow minister about the fact that the numbers we had might be very inaccurate, he suggested simply to use them and take their word as their word. If people respond, simply record that.

I don’t think there is anything wrong necessarily with that tack. Well, I guess that is not correct. My feelings are that there is nothing wrong with my friend suggesting that tack. However, there are problems with that approach, missiologically speaking.

1. It perpetuates a problem that Evangelicals have regarding defining what a Christian is. We have put such an emphasis on the Sinner’s Prayer that it has become equated with salvation. The fact that this does in no way align with the Bible should give us a tiny bit of doubt. For Christians who have committed themselves to Christ and humbly rely on His mercy, we really should not be trying to get them to doubt their salvation so that they can follow our formula. And people who have parrotted the prayer should not be be given the impression that they have the golden ticket despite their lack of belief, faith, or relationship with their God.
2. It misinforms supporters. In five years we did medical missions in around 70 sites, with over 30,000 patients and over 10,000 people who have “prayed to receive Christ.” Yet, if one returned to some of the places where we had done medical missions, there is no discernible change in the community. That does not necessarily mean that there has been no change in individual hearts. However, long-term transformation tends to be tied to the community, not just to individuals (another thing that Evangelicals tend to struggle to grasp). I have seen various evangelists who made outlandish claims. One Indian evangelist online claimed to have led so many to Christ (I forgot his name) that if true in any meaningful way, Christianity, by his work alone, would have replaced Islam as the second largest religion in the sub-continent, and be vying for surpassing Hinduism. Since this is not the case, even remotely, one must reject any credibility in this minister. An acquaintance of mine in the Philippines claimed to lead at least three people to Christ every day of the year… for decades. That is nice, but when she shared her method, I found out that she essentially got people who already believed in Jesus to say that they believe in Jesus— essentially get Roman Catholics to say the Sinner’s Prayer. Since there was zero follow-up, one must wonder if there was any value in her statistics. When supporters start to doubt the hyperbole, they not only doubt the missionary/evangelist, but also question others who be more truthful.
3. It does not encourage one to look for a better system. After we realized that the response to the gospel presentation was a poor measure of spiritual effectiveness, we changed our measurement. Yes, we still kept track of responses. However, we placed more value on (a) who wants to join a Bible study or even host a Bible study, (b) how many Bible studies were added associated with the host church partner, (c) what has happened to the host church after, and (d) was there a planting of a new church from the event.
4. It makes us less effective. We found that we were more effective not by doing big events in populous areas. Rather, we were more effective in medium-sized venues for removed from good medical and dental care, where there was a strong local church partner that shared a common vision. Changing the criteria for where we go, made us so much more effective. We ended up being able to utilize medical missions to start dozens of Bible studies, and several new churches. That is not bad for a type of ministry (medical mission events) that have a reputation of having little long-term impact. <Over time, my wife and I did move away from medical missions because we wanted to help people more holistically, and medical missions, ironically, were not very good at physical care.