Ethics of Proselytization

[zippy2006]

Does Romans 12 fit into this conversation? Must every Christian be an evangelist in word?

The first point is that what is at stake in the OP is not evangelizing but being evangelized. Whether or not one is averse to evangelizing others, they should not be averse to being evangelized.

But as to your question, friends share important parts of their life by definition, so even if one does not feel called to evangelize strangers, they should still be sharing important parts of their life with friends. It would be odd if you had two "best friends" who had never met each other, or who did not even know about the other one's existence. But if God is one of your closest friends, then how could it be that your other close friends never come into contact with God through you? It would be as if my best friend had never been brought into contact with my spouse.

 

[RDKirk]

Does Romans 12 fit into this conversation? Must every Christian be an evangelist in word?

For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your a faith; 7if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, b do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Well, this is where I have to get tediously pedantic.

Not every Christian is called to the office of "evangelist." We use that word in general too loosely (as we, including me), have been doing in this thread.

We see some specific things in scripture regarding people in the office of evangelist:

1. They are called and gifted as such by the Holy Spirit.

2. They are fully trained in the gospel by those who have been called and gifted to be teachers in the Church.

3. They are commissioned to a specific evangelistic mission by the congregation.

4. They are held accountable to the congregation for how they acquitted their mission.

That is not everyone.

But we each do have a responsibility to the Lord to be ready at all times to give our own personal testimonies of our experience with Him (1 Peter 3:15). We must never discount the power of personal testimony. The Samaritan woman had only a few minutes with Jesus at the well. She was not at all well versed in the gospel--she wasn't even sure Jesus was the Messiah. But her personal testimony of her own experience with Him brought the entire town to Him.

 

[bèlla]

2. They are fully trained in the gospel by those who have been called and gifted to be teachers in the Church.

3. They are commissioned to a specific evangelistic mission by the congregation.

4. They are held accountable to the congregation for how they acquitted their mission.

You provided the scriptures that mentioned the gifts of the spirits but nothing for the others. Everyone that ministers to the lost isn’t commissioned by a church nor is the gift solely related to that setting. Charities come to mind as do activities in the marketplace.

~bella

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The first point is that what is at stake in the OP is not evangelizing but being evangelized. Whether or not one is averse to evangelizing others, they should not be averse to being evangelized.

But as to your question, friends share important parts of their life by definition, so even if one does not feel called to evangelize strangers, they should still be sharing important parts of their life with friends. It would be odd if you had two "best friends" who had never met each other, or who did not even know about the other one's existence. But if God is one of your closest friends, then how could it be that your other close friends never come into contact with God through you? It would be as if my best friend had never been brought into contact with my spouse.

Zippy, not to completely nail your tires in your arguments here because, for the most part, I agree with the general intention of what you've been saying, but have you ever been boldly (and repetitively) accosted by Christians whom you know misread and misuse the Bible in order to deliver their "evangelizing message"? I have to say that I have, and there have been times that their unrelenting and dismissive attitudes were beyond common sensibility and, I aver, even entered into what I'd call a form of verbal abuse and/or personal manipulation.

So, on one level, I agree with the general intention of clarity in your posts here, but on another level, I also agree with @bèlla in EXPECTING that Christians know how to deliver their 'evangelizing methods' in ways that most folks can recognize as something comporting to what we should expect to find in interpersonal attempts to 'change hearts' from all we find said in the New Testament.

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy, not to completely nail your tires in your arguments here because, for the most part, I agree with the general intention of what you've been saying, but have you ever been boldly (and repetitively) accosted by Christians whom you know misread and misuse the Bible in order to deliver their "evangelizing message"? I have to say that I have, and there have been times that their unrelenting and dismissive attitudes were beyond common sensibility and, I aver, even entered into what I'd call a form of verbal abuse and/or personal manipulation.

Sure, but I am thinking about the context of the OP and what happened there, which was a very discreet card. If the OP presented a rude or obnoxious form of evangelization, then that would have to be taken into account and we would have to approach it differently.

Everything good can be done in a bad way, but this does not undermine the fact that the underlying act is good. It is not correct to object to X because X can be done in a bad way. I of course agree that we should not do things in bad ways, including evangelization. Much of what I have been doing in this thread is asking people to identify what counts as good and bad ways of evangelization, and why. I think that is the discussion that needs to be had.

 

[RDKirk]

You provided the scriptures that mentioned the gifts of the spirits but nothing for the others. Everyone that ministers to the lost isn’t commissioned by a church nor is the gift solely related to that setting. Charities come to mind as do activities in the marketplace.

~bella

"Everyone that ministers to the lost" is not in the office of an evangelist. That's why I said we tend to use the word sloppily. A congregation can set up a food ministry, for instance, staffed by persons with the gift of helps, not necessarily evangelists.

Regarding people in the office of evangelism:

1. They are called and gifted as such by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 13:2–3
Ephesians 4:11

2. They are fully trained in the gospel by those who have been called and gifted to be teachers in the Church.
2 Timothy 2:2
Acts 18:24–28

3. They are commissioned to a specific evangelistic mission by the congregation.
Acts 13:3
Acts 6:5–6

4. They are held accountable to the congregation for how they acquitted their mission.
Acts 14:26–28
Galatians 2:1–2

 

[RDKirk]

I also agree with @bèlla in EXPECTING that Christians know how to deliver their 'evangelizing methods' in ways that most folks can recognize as something comporting to what we should expect to find in interpersonal attempts to 'change hearts' from all we find said in the New Testament.

That would be part of the Holy Spirit's gift to one who is actually called to the office of evangelism.

And I've seen that work in person truly called to the office...someone with that gift being able to speak to an individual precisely as that individual needs to hear it. It's a wonder to watch ("Wow. That was something!").

It is truly a spiritual gift, and we've seen so many ham-fisted attempts at evangelism because so many people who don't have that gift have been told everyone holds the office.

 

[bèlla]

"Everyone that ministers to the lost" is not in the office of an evangelist. That's why I said we tend to use the word sloppily. A congregation can set up a food ministry, for instance, staffed by persons with the gift of helps, not necessarily evangelists.

Are you equating the gift of evangelism to the office alone? Billy Graham wasn’t commissioned by a church and many would consider him the greatest evangelist of the modern age. I‘d raise a similar question for teachers too. But that’s off-topic. Now that the internet exists the net is wider. You don’t have to wait for permission or partner with local entities or rely on them funding. If churches were the lone way of getting things done we’d be in another era.

~bella

 

[RDKirk]

Are you equating the gift of evangelism to the office alone? Billy Graham wasn’t commissioned by a church and many would consider him the greatest evangelist of the modern age. I‘d raise a similar question for teachers too. But that’s off-topic. Now that the internet exists the net is wider. You don’t have to wait for permission or partner with local entities or rely on them funding. If churches were the lone way of getting things done we’d be in another era.

~bella

Scripturally, churches are the lone way of getting things done, and I don't see that they were wrong.

And, yes, Graham was commissioned by and held accountable to his home congregation.

 

[bèlla]

Scripturally, churches are the lone way of getting things done, and I don't see that they were wrong.

And, yes, Graham was commissioned by and held accountable to his home congregation.

Why would I seek a church’s permission to launch a business or a platform with speaking gigs? Why would I look to them to create a charity and fund it with my own means? I can understand the reason if you’re desirous of support or they’re providing financial resources. But they don’t have the manpower to scrutinize everyone. Never mind the 501c3 which I don’t agree with nor do I like the donor model. But to each his own.

~bella

 

[RDKirk]

Why would I seek a church’s permission to launch a business or a platform with speaking gigs? Why would I look to them to create a charity and fund it with my own means? I can understand the reason if you’re desirous of support or they’re providing financial resources. But they don’t have the manpower to scrutinize everyone. Never mind the 501c3 which I don’t agree with nor do I like the donor model. But to each his own.

~bella

We're talking specifically about evangelism and other church missions. Do you see that as merely a business?

 

[bèlla]

We're talking specifically about evangelism and other church missions. Do you see that as merely a business?

No I don’t and the Lord provides gifts of leadership and administration for a reason. Doing a work for the Him doesn‘t preclude business practices that make the organization sound and financially healthy. And if you don’t know how to do that you’re meant to have someone on the team who can. It‘s hard to run an organization relying on donations and the unexpected is a certainty.

When you understand human nature you know a person will drop a $1,000 for a phone but wouldn’t write a check for the same. That’s not a slight against the church but there’s a correlation with the value we attach to goods and services. People will afford what they want if they believe they’re getting something in return.

When you take the devil’s tools off the table it allows you to stretch yourself and think outside of the box. But when you’re relying on tax breaks, loans and donations you won’t do the same. Nor are the downloads as plentiful because you have a safety net. I don’t want to be beholden and the bible warns us about the lender and borrower. I don’t make the rules and the one who did can change them and I won’t have his foot on my neck.

If you let the Lord build the house He’ll tell you how to fund it righteously. You don’t have to look to the world or rely on an anonymous donor. There’s a dignity that comes forth when you can say like Abraham “that I would not take anything that is yours, from a thread to a sandal strap, so you could not say, ‘I [the King of Sodom] have made Abram rich.”

Not a business loan, mortgage or car note. If He wants me to do it He has to provide.

~bella

 

[RDKirk]

No I don’t and the Lord provides gifts of leadership and administration for a reason. Doing a work for the Him doesn‘t preclude business practices that make the organization sound and financially healthy. And if you don’t know how to do that you’re meant to have someone on the team who can. It‘s hard to run an organization relying on donations and the unexpected is a certainty.

When you understand human nature you know a person will drop a $1,000 for a phone but wouldn’t write a check for the same. That’s not a slight against the church but there’s a correlation with the value we attach to goods and services. People will afford what they want if they believe they’re getting something in return.

When you take the devil’s tools off the table it allows you to stretch yourself and think outside of the box. But when you’re relying on tax breaks, loans and donations you won’t do the same. Nor are the downloads as plentiful because you have a safety net. I don’t want to be beholden and the bible warns us about the lender and borrower. I don’t make the rules and the one who did can change them and I won’t have his foot on my neck.

If you let the Lord build the house He’ll tell you how to fund it righteously. You don’t have to look to the world or rely on an anonymous donor. There’s a dignity that comes forth when you can say like Abraham “that I would not take anything that is yours, from a thread to a sandal strap, so you could not say, ‘I [the King of Sodom] have made Abram rich.”

Not a business loan, mortgage or car note. If He wants me to do it He has to provide.

~bella

Once again, you're trying to divert the discussion. We're talking about the Church mission being done under Church auspices rather than by lone wolves doing their own things without accountability.

 

[bèlla]

Once again, you're trying to divert the discussion. We're talking about the Church mission being done under Church auspices rather than by lone wolves doing their own things without accountability.

I’m not trying to divert the discussion and the rest isn‘t worth debating.

~bella