CHAPTER 7

EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

The act of ministry began with one goal for the instructor and two goals for the participants. The objectives were clearly identified and strategies were developed to measure the results before beginning the seminars. A pretest and a posttest were developed to see if the three goals were accomplished. In order to determine if the goals were met by the leader and for the students, pretest and posttest were given to each of the twenty-two participants.^[1] There were nineteen statements with four choices per statement.

The goal for the leader was to develop a series of essays to enhance one’s ability to read the Bible in context. On the other hand, the goals for the participants were to develop an understanding of how to read the Bible in context and to promote more toleration for those who are not in agreement with them on a particular passage. The goals for the participants and the instructor were evaluated according to the responses on the pretest and posttest. Also, two other means were employed in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the goals: (1) conversations following the presentations, and (2) letters sent to the instructor in which some participants expressed their sentiments.

The goals resulted from the nationwide turmoil that exists within many Churches of Christ. Many congregations do not tolerate differences among Christians when they do not subscribe to their brand of orthodoxy in their “interpretative” community. As a result of this mind-set, many Christians herald the epithet “false prophets” against any believer who deviates from the status quo of certain communities.

THE CANDIDATE’S GOAL AND EVALUATION STRATEGY

The nineteen statements, in the pretest and the posttest, were designed to elicit a clearer understanding of the problems that currently exist within the Churches of Christ. The test statements were written to help provide answers to the dilemma that many Christians face in seeking to deal with the nationwide turmoil that divides fathers and mothers, sons and daughter, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and so on, in their struggles to be true to God and His Word. To see if the goals were accomplished, a brief analysis of the statistical data of each statement is given in Appendix Three.

In this evaluation, the number of respondents are listed in charts in order to assist one in seeing clearly the overall progress made during the seminar. Also, in this evaluation, a number of oral or written responses to the presentations is presented to help determine the real outcome of the goals set for the instructor and the participants. The personal replies were more subjective, but, on the other hand, these expressions of inward feelings indicate, in addition to the objective tests, that the goals were accomplished.

PRETEST AND POSTTEST STATEMENTS

Identification of Legends

Under each statement is legend:^[2] 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. At the bottom of each chart are the letters B and A, B = Pretest (before) and A = Posttest (after). There were twenty-two persons who participated in the pretest and posttest. Only one of the twenty-two failed to complete the posttest (he/she did not complete statements 1-9). The test requested that each individual respond to the nineteen statements with one of the legends above—SD, D, A, and SA. The following tables represent the responses before and after the test. Also, the subsequent tables will be grouped according to subject matter, even though the statements were not arranged according to subject order: SDGEN = Sound Doctrine in General; SDMAT = Sound Doctrine in Matthew; ISSGEN = Issues in General; ISSMAT = Issues in Matthew; DEIGEN = Deity in general; DEIMAT = Deity in Matthew. In the following analysis, this evaluation groups all the disagreement statements (SD and D) together and the agreement statements (A and AS) together. The following graphs demonstrate the percentage of persons who expressed their feelings before and after their participation in the seminar. The Strongly Disagree and Disagree are listed first, then the Agree and Strongly Agree are listed in the second part of the graphs.

RESPONSES TO STATEMENTS BEFORE AND AFTER

THE PRETEST AND POSTTEST

SOUND DOCTRINE IN GENERAL

Statement One

1. Those who teach wrong doctrine are false prophets/teachers.

The objective of this statement was to determine if the participants considered an individual a false prophet/teacher if he/she misunderstood the Word of God in certain areas and taught such to others.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
6	14	8	133.33%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. In the pretest statement, there were 6 individuals who indicated that those who teach wrong doctrine were not false prophets/teachers. But, in the posttest, there were 14 persons who indicated that if a person taught wrong doctrine, then he/she was not a false prophet/teacher. One finds a differential of 8 persons (133.33%) who modified their stance on this distinctive position. This is significant because the commonly held belief is that if one teaches wrong doctrine then he/she is a false prophet/teacher.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
16	8	-8	-50.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the agreement section, before the presentations, there were 16 individuals who agreed that if one taught false doctrine then that person was a false prophet/teacher. On the other hand, following the presentation, there were only 8 that agreed to the above statement. Thus, the posttest indicates that there was a differential of 8 (-50.00%) who modified their views. The objective in this area of identification does indicate that the instructor reached his objective in seeking to help individuals correctly identify false prophets/teachers in the Gospel of Matthew.

Statement Five

5. Those who promote unethical behavior are false prophets/teachers.

This statement was designed to determine if the participants identified false prophets/teachers with those whose behavior was not in keeping with the Word of God or if false prophets/teachers were only associated with those who taught error. The following graph blueprints the percentages of individuals who dissented with the above statements.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
4	6	2	50.00%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. In the pretest, there were 4 who implied that they did not associate unethical behavior with false prophets/teachers. But in the posttest, there were six who did not identify unethical behavior as one of the characteristics of false prophets/teachers. The data reveals a differential of -2, which results in a 50% increase in the negative response. One cannot help but wonder if the questionnaire was lacking in clarity for this statement to have increased by 2. One purpose in this statement was to help individuals come to an understanding that those who push forward unethical behavior are false prophets/teachers. The instructor did receive feedback that the statements were somewhat confusing.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
11	18	-7	-61.00%

Agree and Strongly Agree. In the pretest, there were 11 who agreed that those who promote unethical behavior are false prophets/teachers. But in the posttest there were 18 who agreed that those who promote unethical behavior are false prophets/teachers. This response constitutes a differential of 7 (63.64%). The responses in this fifth statement also indicate a positive response in the direction that the instructor sought to accomplish through the presentations. The false prophets that Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount and in the eschatological discourse center on unethical behavior.

Statement Ten

10. Those who extend the right hand of fellowship to those who are not a part of their own mind-set are false prophets/teachers.

This statement was seeking to find out if certain Christians were viewed as false prophets/teachers if they were willing to recognize those Christians not in their own private “interpretative” community as Christians. Within many Churches of Christ, if one steps over the line and recognizes others as Christians who believe in individuals cups, Sunday school, instrumental music in the public assembly of the congregation, wine in the Lord’s Supper or grape juice in the Lord’s Supper, Bible colleges, and so on, then they too are looked upon as false prophets/teachers even though they may not practice the particular beliefs that some dislike. The two following charts indicate the response on the part of the participants:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
21	19	-2	-9.52%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. There were 21 who denied that if one extended fellowship to those who do did not agree with their understanding of the Scriptures as false prophets/teachers. But on the posttest there were nineteen who disagreed with the above statement. The pretest and posttest indicates that there were -2, which results in a –9.52%. The following chart is the agreement section of the above statement:

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
1	1	0	0.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. There was no differentiation between the pretest and posttest responses. There was one before and one after that advanced the notion that if one extended the right hand of fellowship to those who are not a part of their own mind-set are false prophets/teachers. This is an indication that those who took the test were far more advanced in their thinking in this regard than many within the Churches of Christ.

Statement Twelve

12. Those who push for unity in diversity are false prophets/teachers.

Many Christians suggest the belief that the teaching called “unity in diversity” is contrary to the teachings of God. And as a result of this belief, there are those who introduce the opinion that no one can have fellowship unless there is agreement on doctrinal questions. On the other hand, there are those who say that one can only experience unity in diversity since that is the only kind of unity one can experience. The above statement was to determine the understanding of the participants before and after the presentation.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
17	18	1	5.88%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The pretest reveals that there were 17 who disagreed with the above statement, but the posttest reveals that there was a gain of one. Since there were 18 who disagreed in the posttest this resulted in a 5.88% gain. Again, the pretest reveals the advance thinking in the minds of many that does not coincide with the status quo within many Churches of Christ. The next chart reveals the number that agreed with the above statement (12).

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
5	3	-2	-40.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. Prior to the presentation, there were 5 who proposed the notion that if one sanctioned unity in diversity, then that individual was a false prophet/teacher. But in the posttest that number dropped to 3, which indicates a –40.00%. Again, some ground was made in bringing about change in the overall outlook.

SOUND DOCTRINE IN MATTHEW

Statement Seventeen

17. The teaching in Matthew 7:15 refers to the religious leaders in Matthew.

Matthew 7:15 is cited by many well-meaning Christians to justify their epithet of false prophet to those who do not conform to traditional interpretation offered by certain groups. This statement also makes known the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the presentation on false prophets.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
4	2	-2	-50.00%

This pretest reveals that there were only 4 who disagreed with the idea that Matthew 7:15 did not refer to the religious leaders. In the posttest this number decreased to 2, which indicates that there was a –50.00% change in their attitudes toward identification of false prophets in Matthew 7:15. The ensuing chart relates to the agreement side:

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
18	19	1	5.56%

In the pretest there were 18 who responded by saying that Matthew 7:15 referred to the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. Following the presentation, this number increased by 1, thus there was a gain of 5.56%. Even though the change is small, nevertheless, this increase is still significant for the objective of this seminar.

Statement Eighteen

18. The teaching in Matthew 7:15 addresses the ethical behavior of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day.

This statement sought to determine if the participants identified the false prophets in Matthew 7:15 as dealing with the religious leaders. Generally, within the Churches of Christ, false prophets are not associated with unethical behavior but with doctrinal behavior. The chart below reveals the mind-set of the participants:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
6	2	-4	-66.67%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The statistics reveal that prior to the presentation there were 6 who disagreed with statement eighteen. But after the seminar the number dropped to 2, which is a –4. This means that there was a –66.67% difference between the pre-and posttest differentiation. In other words, only two still held to the belief that Matthew 7:15 addresses the ethical behavior of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. The agreement chart is also quite revealing concerning Matthew 7:15.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
16	19	3	18.75%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the pretest, there were 16 who agreed that Matthew 7:15 did have reference to the ethical behavior of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. But, on the other hand, there was an increase in the posttest by 3, which resulted in a positive figure of 18.75%.

ISSUES IN GENERAL

Statement Two

2. Those who advocate solo singing in the congregation are false prophets/teachers.

This point of singing solo is one of the verbalized concerns within the Churches of Christ. It is not uncommon for Christians to describe anyone who allows solo singing in the assembly as false prophets. The following chart discloses that the three groups tested did not hold as strongly to the established contention.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
16	21	5	31.25%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The numbers were 16 before and 21 after that refused to identify individuals as false prophets if they advanced the idea that was scriptural for individuals to sing solo in the assembly. Since there were 5 more to join the disagree section, then this change represents a 31.25% increase in change from the pretest. The other chart is also significant in what it reveals in this regard.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
6	0	-6	-100.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. The pretest revealed that 6 individuals agreed that if one were to sing solo in the assembly then that would constitute the epithet of “false prophet/teacher.” On the other hand, the posttest was a complete reversal—no one was considered a false prophet if he/she advocated solo singing in the assembly. The statistical data for the posttest is –100.00%. This again indicates that there was a change in one’s view concerning statement 2.

Statement Three

3. Those who advance hand clapping in the assembly are false prophets/teachers.

Hand clapping in the assembly is another anathema within many Churches of Christ. If one advances such conduct, then this behavior is sufficient to receive the phrase “false prophet/teacher. The results are also quite revealing with the three congregations that participated in this seminar.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
18	20	2	11.11%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. Again, this pretest and posttest reveal the unusual acceptance of handclapping within the Churches of Christ as permissible behavior. Even before the presentation, 18 stated that they did not identify individuals as false prophets/teachers if they advanced the notion of clapping hands during a worship service. After the seminar, one observes that two who had previously identified hand clapping as sinful now said “no.” The difference between 18 and 20 is 2 which represents 11.11% change in thinking. The next chart that deals with agreement is also quite telling.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
4	2	-2	-50.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. Before the seminar, there were 4 who agreed that clapping hands in the assembly could call forth the epithet “false prophet/teacher” upon the one who practiced such behavior. But after the seminar, this shifted to a reduction of only 2 who still maintained the early position. Once more, the statistical data indicates a –50.00% reduction in agreement section. This response again upholds the goal of the instructor in which he sought to bring about change in their reading of the Scriptures.

Statement Four

4. Those who encourage instrumental music in the assembly are false prophets/teachers.

The use of the instrument in the assembly is one of the most vocal points of concern that exist within many Churches of Christ. To use the instrument is one of the most heinous sins that one can be guilty of among many circles. The pretest and posttest are quite revealing in demonstrating the centrality of this issue among many Christians. The following chart illustrates the focal point of this belief and the change in responses to this statement during the seminar:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
10	18	8	80.00%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The pretest discloses that 10 disagreed with statement 4, but the posttest also reveals that 8 more added their names to the side in which they no longer held to the belief that if one employed the instrument in the assembly that he/she deserved the phrase “false prophet/teacher.” This attests that there was an 80.00% positive response in their movement. This is what the instructor sought to bring about by looking at the context. Also the next chart is really another revelation in change.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
12	4	-8	-66.67%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the pretest, there were 12 who identified individuals as false prophets/teachers if they encouraged instrumental music in the assembly. But, following the presentation on “False Prophets in the Gospel of Matthew, Who Are They?” only four held to their previous convictions. Again this is a differential of –8, which is a –66.67% change. Once more, one observes a change in positions held. Over and over again, this is what the instructor sought to accomplish in his teaching Christians how to read the Bible more effectively.

Statement Eight

8. Those who advocate kitchens in the church buildings are false prophets/teachers.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. This statement is not in the same category as some of the other statements. If this pretest and posttest had been administered within the Churches of Christ that hold to Statement Eight, then one would have observed a significant difference in the responses. But, one observes that within the three congregations tested none held to the view that those who advocate kitchens in the church buildings are false prophets/teachers. The following chart illustrates the above comments:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
22	22	0	0.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. All of the participants, before and after the test, renounced that one is a false prophet/teacher for utilizing kitchens in the church buildings. On the agreement side, one also observes that not one person agreed with Statement Eight.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
0	0	0	0.00%

Statement Nine

9. Those who promote or tolerate the raising of the hands in a worship service are false prophets/teachers.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The pretest and posttest are as revealing in nature as Statement Eight. Even though many within the Churches of Christ condemn the raising of hands in the assembly, nevertheless, this is not the case within the three congregations that participated in the presentations. There is one exception to the above statement that is revealed in the agreement section. The first disagreement chart is enlightening.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
20	20	0	0.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. The agreement chart does reveal that two in the pretest agreed that if one promoted or tolerated the raising of hand in a worship service, then that person is a false prophet/teacher. But in the posttest, one of these individuals changed his/her mind. There was a differential of 1, which is a –50.00%. Again, one still observes change. This is what the instructor sought to bring about.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
2	1	-1	-50.00%

Statement Eleven

10. Those who fellowship individuals in the Christian Church are false prophets/teachers.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. One finds an identical response to Statement Nine. Among the Christians that shared in the seminar, one again observes that this is not an issue over which they are ready to hurl the epithet “false prophet/teacher.” Even though many Churches of Christ believe that fellowship with this body of believers is tantamount to being a false prophet/teacher, this was not the consensus of the majority of those who took part in the seminar.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
20	20	0	0.00%

Agree or Strongly Disagree. As in Statement Nine, there were two who advanced the notion that they agreed with statement 10, but in the posttest this dropped by 50.00%. The following chart is the disagreement segment:

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
2	1	-1	-50.00%

ISSUES IN MATTHEW

Statement Thirteen

13. The warning or teaching in Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who employ the instrument in the worship service.

Matthew 7:15 is cited by many well-meaning Christians to censure other Christians who employ the instrument in the worship service. This statement was made to determine how many in the three groups held to this position before the presentation. By giving a posttest following the pretest, this enabled the instructor to determine if sharing the context made any significant difference in their answers. The following charts indicate a change in the overall attitude in answer to the statement. The first chart is the disagreement chart to the above statement.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
14	20	6	42.86%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. In the pretest, there were 14 who rejected the notion that Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who employ the instrument in the worship service. In the posttest, this number jumped to 20. This indicates a gain of 6, which is an increase of 42.86% that no longer held to their views in the pretest. Once more, this suggests that the Matthean study made a difference in their rethinking their traditional views in light of the context. The next chart is also an eye-opener.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
8	1	-7	-87.50%

Agree or Strongly Agree. Prior to the seminar, there were 8 who agreed with the statement that Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who employ the instrument in the worship service. But in the posttest, one observes a differential of –7, which from a statistical viewpoint is –87.50%. Again, one observes that only one out of 8 held to the pretest position. Apparently, the reason for such transformation is learning how to read the Gospel of Matthew in context.

Statement Fourteen

14. The warning or teaching in Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who allow solo or quartet singing in the assembly.

Once more, the objective of this statement was to determine if the presentation made any difference in their thinking. In the disagreement section, one observes a 40.00% difference between the pre- and posttest results. The following chart gives the available figures of the test:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
15	21	6	40.00%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. This is still a substantial difference between the two tests. Prior to the presentation, there were 15 who disagreed with the opinion that Matthew 7:15 applied to those who allowed solo or quartet singing in the assembly. Following the seminar, there were 21 who took the position that Matthew 7:15 did not apply to those who practiced such things in a worship service. This is a differentiation of 6, which is a 40.00% increase in change. Again, the instructor can only account for this as a result of the effort spent in calling attention to context. The next chart also reveals astonishing change between the pre- and posttest.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
7	0	-7	-100.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the pretest, there were 7 who maintained that Matthew 7:15 applied to those who allowed solo or quartet singing in the assembly. But in the posttest, there was a 100.00% reversal from the pretest. Once more, this statistical data demonstrates that when one reads Matthew in context then one comes away with a different perspective.

Statement Fifteen

15. The warning or teaching in Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who practice handclapping during a worship service.

The issues in Matthew are similar to the issues in general. The major variance has to do with Matthew 7:15. Since the seminars centered on “False Prophets in the Gospel of Matthew, Who Are They?” then it was important to ask the similar questions in order to determine the effectiveness of the seminar as far as change is concerned. In the pretest, there were 18 who stated that they did not believe that Matthew 7:15 was applicable to those who practiced handclapping during a worship service. Following the presentation, there were 20 who denied that this verse had to do with those who handclap in the assembly. The following is an analysis of Statement Fifteen:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
18	20	2	11.11%

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. There was a differential of 2 between the pre- and posttest results. This statistical data shows an increase of 11.11%. This again confirms the belief that if people are exposed to how to read the Bible more effectively, this will alter their traditional thinking. Even in the agreement section, one detects a notable variance.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
4	1	-3	-75.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. Before the seminar began, there were 4 who stated that if one practices handclapping in the assembly, then one could legitimately apply Matthew 7:15 to those individuals who practice such behavior. But after a thorough analysis of Matthew, along with the principles of how to interpret, there was a differential of -3, which is –75.00%. This posttest again confirms the hypothesis of the instructor that anyone exposed to an in-depth overview of the Gospel of Matthew would not interpret 7:15 to those who handclap in the assembly.

Statement Sixteen

16. The warning or teaching in Matthew 7:15 is applicable to those who advocate fellowship with other believers who employ musical instruments in their worship services.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The pretest indicates that 17 disagreed with statement 16. The participants denied that Matthew 7:15 could be applied to those who employ musical instruments in their worship services. The posttest also indicated that there was a differential of 2. Thus, the posttest reveals an 11.76% difference. Again, one witnesses change when one is exposed to the basic principle of how to read the Gospel of Matthew. The subsequent chart illustrates the details:

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
17	19	2	11.76%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the pretest and posttest no one answered any of the agreement statements. The following is a chart for illustrative purposes:

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
5	2	-3	-60.00%

The significant eye-opener is that in this agreement statement there was a decrease by 3 in the number that asserted that those who employ instrumental music in their worship services are false prophets. The posttest reveals a differentiation of 3, which is –60.00%. Thus, once more one observes a change in earlier views about Matthew 7:15.

DEITY IN GENERAL

Statement Six

6. Those who deny the Messiahship of Jesus are false prophets/teachers.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The statistics in the pretest and posttest are quite surprising. In the pretest there was only 1 response in which one person stated that they disagreed with Statement Six. But after the presentation, this individual also stated in the posttest that if one denied the Messiahship of Jesus then that person was a false prophet. As a result of the intense study of the Gospel of Matthew, change was brought about for this person’s thinking.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
1	0	-1	-100.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. One can observe the statistical data and see that the presentation accomplished its objective in teaching one how to read the Bible more effectively through context. In the posttest chart below on the agreement statements, one observes that there were 21 who agreed before and 22 who agreed after the seminar. This again confirms the above statistical data in which the one person changed his/her mind. Since the differential is 1, this resulted in 4.76%.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
21	22	1	4.76%

Statement Seven

7. Those who renounce the first coming (incarnation) of Jesus in the flesh are false prophets/teachers.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. In the pretest, only 1 disagreed with Statement Seven. In other words, one person disagreed with the statement that if one denied the incarnation then one was not a false prophet. It appears that the person misunderstood the statement or just marked the wrong number. But in the posttest, one also finds 0 response after the presentation, which results in a differentiation of -1. Again, gain was made.

DISAGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
1	0	-1	-100.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the agreement section before and after the seminar, there was an even number that affirmed that if one denied the incarnation, then that person would be considered a false prophet.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
20	20	0	0.00%

DEITY IN MATTHEW

Statement Nineteen

19. The teaching in Matthew 7:15 refers to those who rejected Jesus’ Messiah.

Strongly Disagree or Disagree. The pretest reveals that 4 advanced the notion that Matthew 7:15 could not be applied to those who denied the Messiahship of Jesus, but in the posttest one observes a decrease in this number to 2. From the statistical data there is a –50.00%. So again, there are favorable results from the presentation.

DISAGREEMENT REPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Strongly Disagree Or Disagree	Strongly Disagree Or Disagree
Before	After	Difference	%
4	2	-2	-50.00%

Agree or Strongly Agree. In the pretest, one observes that 18 agreed that if a person rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, then Matthew 7:15 could justifiably be applied to that person. But after the seminar there was a gain of 1; there were now 19 who affirmed the statement. This increase resulted in a net gain of 5.56%.

AGREEMENT RESPONSES TO PRE AND POSTTEST
Agree Or Strongly Agree	Agree Or Strongly Agree
Before	After	Difference	%
18	19	1	5.56%

RESPONSES FROM PARTICIPANTS

The following are various responses from the participants immediately following the Seminar:

Written Statements From Participants on Posttest

· “Enjoyed very much! Very helpful in studying.”

· “Great Seminar. Thanks: Dallas.”

· “The information was very helpful. Brother Burdette did an outstanding job.”

· “This has been one of the most eye-opening and sensible seminars that I have participated in, in over 15 years. And we barely tipped the iceberg. Starving for more. I’ve learned to think today.”

Letters Written Four Weeks After the Seminar

The following are excerpts from some of the letters written to the instructor. These letters were requested to help determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the three/four hour seminar training:

· “The seminar was very helpful—especially in noticing the running (continual) conflict in Matthew’s Gospel between Jesus and the religious leaders. I also noticed a great focus on “fruit” in Matthew that I had not recognized before.

The seminar was a positive experience which strengthened my commitment to examine my adherence to traditions—which often claim Biblical authority—in light of the Scriptures.”

· “Some of the items discussed were helpful but some left me more confused. I am going to do a lot more studying on my own.”

· “I enjoyed the seminar very much. It was very helpful in understanding “false prophets.” I had never thought of those that were indicated in the seminar as being “false prophets.” I suppose my thoughts of a ‘false prophet” would have been someone who taught something a little more radical, such as Christ not being the Messiah, but I was surprised to think that using instruments or having Sunday school was considered false teaching.

However, I think the study was more helpful to me in learning how to study the Bible as a whole. It helped me in seeing how to use all passages as a whole on any one topic.”

· “There was a lot of helpful information and I’m thankful I had the opportunity to participate in this seminar. I have been aware for a long time that some leaders and teachers in the Church have done more harm than good and that their teachings are not always in accordance with God’s Word. By keying in on Matt. 7:15 makes me want to study more and love more lest me and mine are defined as a false prophet by our Savior Jesus Christ.”

· “I am writing in response to your request for comments concerning your meeting with the Landmark elders. I would first like to say that the evening was very enjoyable and informative. You were very well prepared and professional in both your presentation and manner. Your presentation was very though provoking in its content.

There were many valuable points presented throughout the evening. The ‘three’ points that I still think about often are ‘CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.’ I would have considered the time well spent if the only point had been the importance of studying God’s word within its proper context.

Dallas, I am thankful that there are men of your character and scholarship at work within our brotherhood today.”

· “Dallas did a masterful job in identifying who the false teachers were that Jesus was warning about in Matt. 7:15. He used the writings of John and Paul to identify who false prophets are as found in Scripture. He was careful to caution about the lifting of Scripture from its context and using it to prove a preconceived position. Through Scripture, logic and his own religious heritage, Dallas systematically and successfully dispelled the erroneous judgment by many who conclude that all who differ with their accepted religious practices is a false teacher.”

· “Brother Dallas Burdette’s material appeared to be thoroughly researched and was presented in a very efficient and informative manner. The questionnaire relative to the subject was appropriate and though-provoking.”

· “Your observation that our various factions use the same Scripture to alienate each other needs to be preached more. It is disturbing how we blind ourselves to our sectarian spirit with our own self-righteousness.”

CONCLUSION

Evaluations of the three/four hour seminar proved overwhelmingly positive. There were some shortcomings in the seminar. First, the seminar was too short. There should have been at least six sessions of two hours each—one per week. Second, the handouts should have been given prior to each study. This would have allowed more participation and greater understanding. Third, the pretest and posttest statements should have been grouped according to various categories. Fourth, there should have been more time spent in explaining the test before requesting the participants to answer.

The letters received from the participants also confirm the effectiveness of what the instructor set out to accomplish. Following the seminar, several people let it be known how much they had learned. One minister said that he had learned more about the Bible in four hours than he had in his previous fifteen years of preaching. There were other similar remarks that only confirm the affirmation of the goals set at the beginning of this seminar. Hopefully, this material can be used by others to teach Christians how to read the Bible more acurately.

---

^[1] See Appendix II for charts that record the responses from the participants. The charts give the total number of answers given by the respondents. One can see at a glance the changes that occurred in the Posttest. See also Appendix III for the various percentages of change before and after the test.

^[2] See Appendix I for the Pretest and Posttest Questionnaires.