Evangelism

[JM]

Who should evangelize?

Is evangelism different from witnessing or giving your testimony?

Should the evangelist have a "feeling" or "personal conviction" before evangelizing or should they be approved by the local church and sent?

Personally, I believe the evangelist should be approved and sent.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[BryanW92]

Who should evangelize?

Is evangelism different from witnessing or giving your testimony?

Should the evangelist have a "feeling" or "personal conviction" before evangelizing or should they be approved by the local church and sent?

Personally, I believe the evangelist should be approved and sent.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

We tend to make it "more" than witnessing. We turn it into a sales pitch. I think that evangelism is witness and testimony and everyone should do it using their own gifts and personality type and, most importantly, when they feel called to do it. No quotas. No methods. No qualifications. No "professionals".

 

[JM]

Some resources to help along our discussion:

Who Is to Practice Evangelism, and How?
Orthodox Presbyterian Church

 

[JM]

Quote, Although the supporters of the universal view of evangelistic responsibility are sincerely concerned about evangelism, there is a very real danger that evangelism will be (and has been) corrupted by this view. When people who are neither called nor gifted to evangelize attempt to do that for which they are not equipped, they inevitably do it badly. Their good motives cannot overcome their inability. Efforts are not enough, in any area of life; efforts, to be effective, must be competent. To illustrate this, let us consider one of the extended inductions offered by the defenders of the universal view. Citing the biblical injunction to love one's neighbor, they say, "If you love people, you want them to have what is best for them. If you are a believer, you know that what is best for everyone is to believe in Christ. Therefore, you should speak to everyone you can about the gospel." The problem with this argument is that it assumes we are all capable of meeting all of the needs of those whom we love. This assumption is, of course, false. Suppose my love for my neighbor includes my desire that my neighbor receive good dental care. Precisely for this reason, I do not attempt to fill my neighbor's teeth, but make reference instead to a competent dentist. Love wishes that needs be competently met; not that they be met by me.[21]

Further, after sixty or seventy years of the predominance of the universal view, we might also observe that its effects have been largely fruitless, and often destructive. The rise of this view corresponds almost perfectly with the comparative demise of Christianity as a cultural force in the West. The typical unbeliever today is not exposed to the Christian message through the competent presentation of the faith by a trained and devoted minister, but through a (well-meaning, but) less-competent, untrained, inarticulate, and often-bumbling layperson. The impression often left is that the Christian religion itself is confused, inarticulate, and subjective. Further, the zealousness of such well-meaning individuals has often bordered on rudeness, as unsolicited advice is offered, and sometimes offered persistently, to those who have not invited it. The result of this is that unbelievers perceive us the way we perceive the Jehovah's Witnesses: as the necessary evil that must be endured as the result of living in a pluralistic society. They hate to see us coming, and avoid interaction with us whenever possible; an irony that works in precisely the opposite direction that the universal view would wish.[22]

There is too much at stake to turn evangelism over to those who are unable or unwilling. The gospel, powerfully and clearly articulated, has the power to restore rebellious people to a relationship of service to God. It can begin a life of discipleship, which has as its ultimate goal heartfelt obedience to God's claims. For those who are without Christ, the issue is one of life or death, of experiencing the loving care of a merciful Father or the searing wrath of a holy God whose fellowship is spurned. Those who have neither the capacity nor the call dare not enter such an arena. Evangelism must be done; the proponents of the universal view are correct on this point. It must also be done well; on this point the proponents of the universal view may be less correct. Orthodox Presbyterian Church

 

[abacabb3]

No one should evangelize, nor undertake any office of the Church, as a vocation without being appointed by an elder.

However, we all evangelize not as professionals even when not called

 

[JM]

No one should evangelize, nor undertake any office of the Church, as a vocation without being appointed by an elder.

However, we all evangelize not as professionals even when not called

That's the way I understand the 1689 and associated baptist catechisms which are in agreement with other Protestant documents of similar theological origin.

This topic came up at our last pipe/theological meeting.

 

[abacabb3]

It is good to hear that the LBC makes that explicit. I inferred it from examples we see in Acts as the Pastoral Epistles. Further, reading Clement and seeing his application of Apostolic practices also precludes self-appointed church leaders.

 

[JM]

A good lecture on polity.

The Power and Importance of Polity : 9Marks

 

[hedrick]

Further, after sixty or seventy years of the predominance of the universal view, we might also observe that its effects have been largely fruitless, and often destructive. The rise of this view corresponds almost perfectly with the comparative demise of Christianity as a cultural force in the West. The typical unbeliever today is not exposed to the Christian message through the competent presentation of the faith by a trained and devoted minister, but through a (well-meaning, but) less-competent, untrained, inarticulate, and often-bumbling layperson. The impression often left is that the Christian religion itself is confused, inarticulate, and subjective. Further, the zealousness of such well-meaning individuals has often bordered on rudeness, as unsolicited advice is offered, and sometimes offered persistently, to those who have not invited it.

I don't disagree that certain types of evangelism require a call, but I'd like to observe that the characterization here says something pretty horrible about the success of our Christian education and the character of our average member.

Again, large-scale and organized evangelism does require authorization and preparation. But I believe most people are attracted to churches by people they know. Those around me should know what I believe. While actions often speak louder than words, the words are needed too. That means that our members, and particularly our officers, should be capable of articulating the faith competently and lovingly.

 

[gord44]

Quote, Although the supporters of the universal view of evangelistic responsibility are sincerely concerned about evangelism, there is a very real danger that evangelism will be (and has been) corrupted by this view. When people who are neither called nor gifted to evangelize attempt to do that for which they are not equipped, they inevitably do it badly. Their good motives cannot overcome their inability. Efforts are not enough, in any area of life; efforts, to be effective, must be competent. To illustrate this, let us consider one of the extended inductions offered by the defenders of the universal view. Citing the biblical injunction to love one's neighbor, they say, "If you love people, you want them to have what is best for them. If you are a believer, you know that what is best for everyone is to believe in Christ. Therefore, you should speak to everyone you can about the gospel." The problem with this argument is that it assumes we are all capable of meeting all of the needs of those whom we love. This assumption is, of course, false. Suppose my love for my neighbor includes my desire that my neighbor receive good dental care. Precisely for this reason, I do not attempt to fill my neighbor's teeth, but make reference instead to a competent dentist. Love wishes that needs be competently met; not that they be met by me.[21]

Further, after sixty or seventy years of the predominance of the universal view, we might also observe that its effects have been largely fruitless, and often destructive. The rise of this view corresponds almost perfectly with the comparative demise of Christianity as a cultural force in the West. The typical unbeliever today is not exposed to the Christian message through the competent presentation of the faith by a trained and devoted minister, but through a (well-meaning, but) less-competent, untrained, inarticulate, and often-bumbling layperson. The impression often left is that the Christian religion itself is confused, inarticulate, and subjective. Further, the zealousness of such well-meaning individuals has often bordered on rudeness, as unsolicited advice is offered, and sometimes offered persistently, to those who have not invited it. The result of this is that unbelievers perceive us the way we perceive the Jehovah's Witnesses: as the necessary evil that must be endured as the result of living in a pluralistic society. They hate to see us coming, and avoid interaction with us whenever possible; an irony that works in precisely the opposite direction that the universal view would wish.[22]

There is too much at stake to turn evangelism over to those who are unable or unwilling. The gospel, powerfully and clearly articulated, has the power to restore rebellious people to a relationship of service to God. It can begin a life of discipleship, which has as its ultimate goal heartfelt obedience to God's claims. For those who are without Christ, the issue is one of life or death, of experiencing the loving care of a merciful Father or the searing wrath of a holy God whose fellowship is spurned. Those who have neither the capacity nor the call dare not enter such an arena. Evangelism must be done; the proponents of the universal view are correct on this point. It must also be done well; on this point the proponents of the universal view may be less correct. Orthodox Presbyterian Church

good info there.

 

[JM]

Go article. Helped clear up some of my misunderstandings.

A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry » It Is Written

I picked up a book off my shelf entitled With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship, written by Darryl Hart and John Muether, two Reformed scholars, and turned to the section that identifies the agent(s) responsible for carrying out the Great Commission. The authors rightly note, “The Great Commission is the task of the church.”4 But then they narrow the church’s agency vis-à-vis the Great Commission “to the ministers of the Word.” Since it is the officers of the church who administer the “baptism” of the Great Commission, we must also confine the ordinances of making disciples and teaching to the ordained ministers.5 In fact, these writers draw a parallel between the activities of the Great Commission and the three marks of a true church highlighted in the Belgic Confession, Article 29iscipling, teaching, and baptizing—together, these elements of the Great Commission describe what the Reformers understood to be the marks of the true church: the preaching of the Word (‘teaching … all that I commanded you’), the administration of the sacraments (‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’), and the exercise of discipline (‘make disciples’). The Great Commission, then, is a description of the true church fulfilling her mandate.6

Do the “others,” that is, the laypeople have a ministry in the church? In our limited survey of the “ministry” vocabulary, non-clergy are included. The act of believers offering financial or material assistance to other needy believers is termed “the ministry [τῆς διακονίας] to the saints” (2 Cor. 9:1; cf. 9:12). Other examples of financial or material aid extended by saints to saints and to those outside the church also qualify as “ministry” though the precise terminology isn’t used (see Matt. 25:36; Luke 8:1-3; Acts 2:44-45; 4:23-37; 9:36, 39; 10:31; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 8:1-9, 15; 16:1-3; Gal. 6:6-10; 1 Tim. 5:11; 6:18; James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:16-17). The provision of food to the hungry is called “ministry [διακονίᾳ]” (Acts 6:1), and this is a role laypeople may fulfill (Matt. 15:32-38; 25:35, 37, 40; Mark 8:2-9; Rom. 12:20; James 2:14-17). Indeed, it’s not just the pastor’s duty (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8) but also the layman’s privilege to “show hospitality” (Matt. 25:35; Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 5:10; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9), which is a form of ministry. Notable is the reference to certain women who accompanied Jesus and “ministered to him [διηκόνουν αὐτῷ]” in various ways (Mark 15:40-41; cf. Luke 7:36; 8:1-3; 10:40; John 12:2-3). The example of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) certainly devolves upon every believer and can be appropriately termed “ministry.” Many of the acts of kindness referenced above qualify as “good works” (see John 10:32), a virtue concerning which the laity are frequently enjoined and commended (Matt. 5:16; Acts 9:36; 2 Cor. 9:8-9; Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:17-18; Tit. 2:14; 3:8, 14; Heb. 10:24).

 

[BryanW92]

Go article. Helped clear up some of my misunderstandings.

A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry » It Is Written

• believers offering financial or material assistance
• financial or material aid extended by saints to saints and to those outside the church
• The provision of food to the hungry
• the layman’s privilege to “show hospitality
• Notable is the reference to certain women who accompanied Jesus and “ministered to him
• The example of the Good Samaritan certainly devolves upon every believer and can be appropriately termed “ministry.”
• Many of the acts of kindness referenced above qualify as “good works” , a virtue concerning which the laity are frequently enjoined and commended

So reducing this to a list, the ministries of the laity are labor and giving (which is just labor converted to money). That's kind of depressing when you consider the list of spiritual gifts and how most of them are deemed off-limits to a large majority of Christians. I'll speak to some of the Elders in my church about this list and see if this is what I'll be confined to for the rest of my life.

 

[JM]

The Reformed Baptist view:

But we’ll also recognize that Jesus authorizes all his people to be ministers: “If anyone would be first,” says Christ, “he must be last of all and servant [διάκονος] of all” (Mark 9:35). As Jesus assumed the role of a “servant,” so must all who would follow in his steps. And as we serve one another and the world around us, we’ll be engaged in what the Bible calls “ministry.”

“Ministers All?” With the proper qualifications, “Yes!” It’s just that plain and simple.
​

 

[BryanW92]

The Reformed Baptist view:

But we’ll also recognize that Jesus authorizes all his people to be ministers: “If anyone would be first,” says Christ, “he must be last of all and servant [διάκονος] of all” (Mark 9:35). As Jesus assumed the role of a “servant,” so must all who would follow in his steps. And as we serve one another and the world around us, we’ll be engaged in what the Bible calls “ministry.”

“Ministers All?” With the proper qualifications, “Yes!” It’s just that plain and simple.
​

I just got through reading the whole article. It seems that the author definitely holds a minority view on the issue of laity as evangelists. In the comments section, he makes an additional point about only proclaiming the gospel from the pulpit and its that these rules were written in days when church attendance was mandatory and virtually everyone did recieve the gospel from ordained clergy every Sunday. Today, that is not the case.

For example, in my workplace I am the only Calvinist. I am the only one of three who attends church regularly and I am the only one of maybe five who is a member of a church. The rest (10-12 people) never come into contact with the gospel. All the ordained clergy in the world will not affect them whatsoever. In the article, he answers that with something that is disturbing. He says that the church exists to protect the rights of the crown and not the needs of the humans. So, the 10-12 people in my workplace are written off as lost--and I guess that is theologically correct for a Calvinist since, if they were in the Elect, they'd be in church on Sunday.

This is a lot to digest. I was really enjoying my conversion to Calvinism, but I may be just a little too democratic to make this work for me.

 

[JM]

I had a long day and it's possible I misunderstood but I thought Dr. Bob was saying the opposite. He's criticizing the typical Reformed view.

A different view from his own:

The strand of thought I have in view is difficult to define. It’s more of a propensity than a clearly defined position. The best way I can think to describe it is a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ministry of the ordained man and to underemphasize the importance of the ministry of the layman. It’s a penchant for defining the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of what happens in the pulpit on Sundays rather than more broadly in terms of what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week.

​

Being a witness is ministry as well:

men like Clark would probably approve of laypeople engaging in deeds of kindness and exchanging mutual exhortation. Though he’s willing to permit laypeople to bear “witness to the faith” (what’s revealed in the Word and the Reformed symbols) and “witness to their faith,” he’s uncomfortable with calling that “evangelism.”
​

Woman being referred to as "a minister"

Paul commends to the church in Rome a laywoman by the name of Phoebe as “a minister [διάκονον] of the church at Cenchreae” (Rom. 16:1). It’s doubtful she was an office-bearer.


​

Seeking balance:

In my reading of these writers, I see a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ordained man’s ministry and to underemphasize the importance of the layman’s ministry.
​

 

[BryanW92]

I had a long day and it's possible I misunderstood but I thought Dr. Bob was saying the opposite. He's criticizing the typical Reformed view.

A different view from his own:

The strand of thought I have in view is difficult to define. It’s more of a propensity than a clearly defined position. The best way I can think to describe it is a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ministry of the ordained man and to underemphasize the importance of the ministry of the layman. It’s a penchant for defining the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of what happens in the pulpit on Sundays rather than more broadly in terms of what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week.

​

Being a witness is ministry as well:

men like Clark would probably approve of laypeople engaging in deeds of kindness and exchanging mutual exhortation. Though he’s willing to permit laypeople to bear “witness to the faith” (what’s revealed in the Word and the Reformed symbols) and “witness to their faith,” he’s uncomfortable with calling that “evangelism.”
​

Woman being referred to as "a minister"

Paul commends to the church in Rome a laywoman by the name of Phoebe as “a minister [διάκονον] of the church at Cenchreae” (Rom. 16:1). It’s doubtful she was an office-bearer.


​

Seeking balance:

In my reading of these writers, I see a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ordained man’s ministry and to underemphasize the importance of the layman’s ministry.
​

He is criticizing the typical Reformed view. But, from his quotes in the beginning of the article (and from the posts in this thread), he is in the minority. His article is mostly explaining what the majority thinks and why and then he explains why he disagrees.

 

[JM]

He is criticizing the typical Reformed view. But, from his quotes in the beginning of the article (and from the posts in this thread), he is in the minority. His article is mostly explaining what the majority thinks and why and then he explains why he disagrees.

Ahhhh, yes.

Baptists differ from Presbyterian and Reformed on the nature of the church, our ecclesiology is different, I have to believe that plays into the argument somehow. I would have a difficult time believing Baptists would limit the local congregation from witnessing or proclaiming the Gospel on a personal level. I know Reformed and conservative Baptists take time to training members of the local congregation to effectively communicate the Gospel.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[BryanW92]

Ahhhh, yes.

Baptists differ from Presbyterian and Reformed on the nature of the church, our ecclesiology is different, I have to believe that plays into the argument somehow. I would have a difficult time believing Baptists would limit the local congregation from witnessing or proclaiming the Gospel on a personal level. I know Reformed and conservative Baptists take time to training members of the local congregation to effectively communicate the Gospel.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I'll talk to someone at church about this and see what our policy is. The Ruling Elders of my church are all important men (doctors, lawyers, retired military officers, and such) so my chances of ever being an Elder are slim to none. I hate to think that I'll be prohibited from teaching again.

 

[JM]

I'll talk to someone at church about this and see what our policy is. The Ruling Elders of my church are all important men (doctors, lawyers, retired military officers, and such) so my chances of ever being an Elder are slim to none. I hate to think that I'll be prohibited from teaching again.

If God calls you to be an Elder...you'll be an Elder. The church must recognize the call.

Still, listen to your Elders. If they are against personal evangelism and you are under their authority...

 

[BryanW92]

If God calls you to be an Elder...you'll be an Elder. The church must recognize the call.

Still, listen to your Elders. If they are against personal evangelism and you are under their authority...

I've heard that if you think you are called to do something, stop doing it. If you can't stop or feel like part of your life is missing, then it probably a calling.

I'll listen to the Elders because I do recognize their authority. But, since becoming one isn't exactly a thing you apply for, I don't think that the church will recognize any call.