Evangelism

[gord44]

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.

Odd that worldly success is how your church measures who should be an elder. A man being a lawyer, doctor or army officer doesn't make him any more important or equipped to be an elder then they guy who sells lotto tickets at the local corner store. Who did Jesus pick to be his apostles?

If your church doesn't consider you to be 'elder material' because of your career or social status, despite a strong desire, I would reconsider my place of worship.

 

[BryanW92]

Odd that worldly success is how your church measures who should be an elder. A man being a lawyer, doctor or army officer doesn't make him any more important or equipped to be an elder then they guy who sells lotto tickets at the local corner store. Who did Jesus pick to be his apostles?

If your church doesn't consider you to be 'elder material' because of your career or social status, despite a strong desire, I would reconsider my place of worship.

I don't know what they consider to be 'elder material'. I just know who are Elders now. I don't really know any of them, so they may be the most spiritual men in the church and that's part of the reason for their success in life. The ones who I have had conversations with are, without a doubt, good men, good husbands and fathers, and are outwardly Godly. I will look at them as a role model and not as an object of envy.

My sadness comes from knowing what my spiritual gifts are and not being able to use them.

 

[gord44]

Having success in life usually doesn't relate to ones spiruituality or godlyness. A simple observation of society will show that. Either way, my point was, if you feel you have a gift then you should try and use it. If it doesn't work out at least you gave it a go. Just try and know if you truly do have a gift.

I know people who have a strong desire to be evangelists, but they suck at it. They suck so badly that they would be better evangelists if they said nothing.

 

[BryanW92]

Having success in life usually doesn't relate to ones spiruituality or godlyness. A simple observation of society will show that. Either way, my point was, if you feel you have a gift then you should try and use it. If it doesn't work out at least you gave it a go. Just try and know if you truly do have a gift.

I know people who have a strong desire to be evangelists, but they suck at it. They suck so badly that they would be better evangelists if they said nothing.

I already know my gift and have used it for years. But I now find myself in a position where I cannot.

I'm not saying that success creates spirituality. I'm saying that being a spiritual, Godly man can lead to success.you don't have to be a greedy, thieving scumbag to succeed in business. You can also do it by being good and honest but if the secret of your success is fairness and honesty, then you ar probably a good person.

 

[AMR]

Some resources to help along our discussion:

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

Seeing all the linked table of contents material related to the topic is also worthwhile:

Evangelism: Whose Responsibility?

The real issue is does one consider the "Great Commission" as something given to each and every person in the church or strictly to its ordained servants within the church militant. I favor the latter.

 

[BryanW92]

The real issue is does one consider the "Great Commission" as something given to each and every person in the church or strictly to its ordained servants within the church militant. I favor the latter.

That really flips the Great Commission on it's head compared to what I've always been taught. Forget the Elect and predestination! This is the thing that really sets Reformed theology apart from the rest of the Protestantism.

I read that and thought, "No way he's really saying that!" But, then I went back and read Matthew 28 again and realized that one could easily interpret vv.16-20 as pertaining to only the ordained since Jesus was only speaking to the eleven. BUT, only if our PCA clergy claims apostolic succession. Does our church make that claim?

 

[AMR]

If everyone is a minister, then no one is a minister. Timothy is called to do the work of an evangelist, and everything else in the Scriptures indicates this is the work of those commissioned by Christ directly to the Apostles and, by extension church officers.

We Reformed reject any need of the episcopal succession of Rome, and merely doctrinal succession of the Anabaptists. Doctrinal succession is vital, but we also hold that Reformed elders must be lawfully called, thus properly ordained from the established church. Such ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles, and recognizes exceptions under situations of unavoidable necessity, which legitimized the calls of some of the Reformers, such as when the institutional church is apostate. Case in point: the tyranny of Rome.

Reformed churches can trace their formal ordinations back to the apostles. For example, in the PCA and OPC churches, the Scottish Reformers were all ordained by the Roman Church of Scotland or the Anglican church--presbytery succession back to the medieval church and to the apostles. Finally, the Reformed warn folks about attending churches wherein the ministers therein are not lawfully called.

See also:
A Puritan's Mind » Lawful Ordination – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

A Puritan's Mind » Presbyterian Church Government NOT of the Being of the Church – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Do not by in to the Romanist notions of a so-called exclusive claim to apostolic succession. It all depends on what is meant by the phrase. For Rome it is the notion that its bishops and the Pope received their offices and charism in a direct line from the Apostles via some mystical ritual.

 

[BryanW92]

If everyone is a minister, then no one is a minister. Timothy is called to do the work of an evangelist, and everything else in the Scriptures indicates this is the work of those commissioned by Christ directly to the Apostles and, by extension church officers.

We Reformed reject any need of the episcopal succession of Rome, and merely doctrinal succession of the Anabaptists. Doctrinal succession is vital, but we also hold that Reformed elders must be lawfully called, thus properly ordained from the established church. Such ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles, and recognizes exceptions under situations of unavoidable necessity, which legitimized the calls of some of the Reformers, such as when the institutional church is apostate. Case in point: the tyranny of Rome.

Reformed churches can trace their formal ordinations back to the apostles. For example, in the PCA and OPC churches, the Scottish Reformers were all ordained by the Roman Church of Scotland or the Anglican church--presbytery succession back to the medieval church and to the apostles. Finally, the Reformed warn folks about attending churches wherein the ministers therein are not lawfully called.

See also:
A Puritan's Mind » Lawful Ordination – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

A Puritan's Mind » Presbyterian Church Government NOT of the Being of the Church – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Do not by in to the Romanist notions of a so-called exclusive claim to apostolic succession. It all depends on what is meant by the phrase. For Rome it is the notion that its bishops and the Pope received their offices and charism in a direct line from the Apostles via some mystical ritual.

That makes sense. Being a Christian just got a lot easier. The worst part of being a Methodist was that everyone was expected to be an evangelist. Now I can scratch that off my list of things to do. The hardest part of the concept of the Elect was "why bother evangelizing if only some are chosen and they know it?". Now I know tHe answer to that: I don't have to.

 

[JM]

That makes sense. Being a Christian just got a lot easier. The worst part of being a Methodist was that everyone was expected to be an evangelist. Now I can scratch that off my list of things to do. The hardest part of the concept of the Elect was "why bother evangelizing if only some are chosen and they know it?". Now I know tHe answer to that: I don't have to.

 

[BryanW92]

Why the face palm? It's a legitimate question. If the Elect are predetermined and nothing we do can change that, why bother with evangelizing to the "lost"? As a Methodist, we were alway being told to get out there and evangelize. They quoted the studies that show that it takes a certain number of "touches" before the message begins to have any effect on people. So we were alway encouraged to find new ways to touch the unsaved to move to that magical number.

Even if the laity aren't evangelists, we still serve, but only for meeting physical needs. But our responsibility for spiritual things and teaching is left to the Elders. Is that the ruling and teaching elders, or just the teaching elders?

 

[JM]

Why the face palm? It's a legitimate question. If the Elect are predetermined and nothing we do can change that, why bother with evangelizing to the "lost"? As a Methodist, we were alway being told to get out there and evangelize. They quoted the studies that show that it takes a certain number of "touches" before the message begins to have any effect on people. So we were alway encouraged to find new ways to touch the unsaved to move to that magical number.

Even if the laity aren't evangelists, we still serve, but only for meeting physical needs. But our responsibility for spiritual things and teaching is left to the Elders. Is that the ruling and teaching elders, or just the teaching elders?

No, not the question...the idea that you are no longer called to be a witness for Christ or to proclaim the Gospel to the lost wherever you maybe. Not all of us are called to be ministers, that is true, but to leave evangelism to the ordain alone ignores the rest of the NT on the subject. Again, Baptists and paedobaptists differ on the nature of the church and how it should function.

I slapped my forehead because you feel like you’re off the hook and it has been my experience with Reformed folks that this feeling is common.

I’ll try to post more later when I have more time.

Quote:

Who should evangelize?

While some might want to leave evangelism to the preachers, apologetic experts, or maybe just to the extroverts generally, the New Testament asserts that all Christians should evangelize:

•Example: We see this in the example of the earliest Christians: “Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went” (Acts 8:4, NIV). And Acts 11:19-21 tells us that all the disciples evangelized as they spread out from Jerusalem.

•Instruction: Peter instructs all of us to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:16, NIV).

•For the sake of love: If we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:31, Jas. 2:8), is there any more important way to love someone than to share the gospel with him or her?

(This material has been adapted from The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever, 45-53) Who should evangelize? : 9Marks

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

This might be of some use, it could add context to the discussion:

B. Context of Congregationalism
Under God, such responsibility to be the final judicatory authority resides not with a Pope or a Convention, not with a national Assembly or with a pastor, not with a regional association or a state convention, nor with some committee or board, whether paid or unpaid. Such responsibility for the discipline and doctrine of the congregation, under God, lies not with the deacons or the elders, but with the congregation as a whole.

Congregationalism may or may not be attractive, efficient, well understood, well practiced, easy, universally loved, impervious to distortion or corruption, but it is biblical. It is biblical in two senses: first, only the congregation—no outside person or body—is finally accountable to God for its actions in discipline and doctrine. Secondly, the whole congregation is so accountable. This is the picture that we get in the New Testament. I confess that the evidence is slight, the specifics are nearly non-existent, but the picture is consistent, and the implications important.

Jesus taught His followers in Matthew 18 that the final court for matters of disputes between brothers was the congregation. So we read in Matt. 18:15-17 that the final step is to “tell it” he said, not to the elders (as I humorously told one Presbyterian translator I had when preaching one time in Brazil) but to the ekklesia, that’s the church, or the congregation, as Tyndale translated it – the assembly. So when the apostles wanted men to serve in waiting on the needs of some poorer members among the church in Jerusalem, in Acts 6, Luke notes that the proposal the apostles made “pleased the whole group.” Luke proceeds in Acts 6:5 to list the people to fulfill these duties, and the people were chosen by the church.

Paul implicitly taught the Galatians in Galatians 1 that the final court to settle disagreements in matters of doctrine is the congregation. Paul exhorted these young Christians in Galatia, that even if he—an apostle!—should come and preach a different gospel than the one they had already accepted, then they should reject him, or whoever the errant missionary is. It is interesting that Paul said this to young Christians—he wasn’t writing to the elders. And he was writing about the matters of the most theological importance—the gospel itself! And yet, he resided his trust in them. They knew the gospel that had saved them! The cognitive content of the gospel is more significant than even claims to apostolic call, let alone succession! And Paul assumes that that message is perspicuous, even to young believers.

Paul taught the Corinthians in I Corinthians 5 that the final court to settle matters of discipline is the congregation. Paul writes about the scandalous situation in the Corinthian church, and he writes not just to the pastor or leadership, but to the whole congregation! He tells the whole congregation that they are to act, and to continue to act in not associating with this man.

And finally on this point of congregationalism, Paul taught the Corinthians in II Corinthians 2:6-8 that the final court to determine church membership is the congregation. He wrote to them about a repentant sinner whom they had earlier excluded: &#8220;The punishment inflicted on him BY THE MAJORITY is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.&#8221; Paul writes to the whole congregation about an action they had taken as a whole, urging them now to take a different course.<A style="mso-footnote-id: ftn40" title="" href="http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID1744980,00.html#_ftn40" name=_ftnref40>[40]

Much more could be said about this context of congregationalism, but I hope enough has been said to distinguish biblical elder leadership within a congregational context from unbiblical elder rule which does not recognize the Biblical role of the congregation. So this Biblical elder-led congregationalism is distinct from Presbyterianism, because it will never appeal outside of the congregation to find another final backstop against sin and wrong. The congregation may shirk that responsibility, but it will never lose it. Furthermore, this Biblical elder-led congregationalism is distinct from the kind of elder-rule we see in many independent and Bible churches because it recognizes that finally it must be the congregation as a whole who takes responsibility for its life together&#8212;for disputes and doctrine, for discipline and membership. The evidence is slight, but consistent and clear.[41]

 

[JM]

back to outline

C. Elder Rule or Elder Leadership?

So, inside the local congregation, are there to be elders? Yes. The Bible says so. The New Testament evidence is clear. Do they rule? Well, there it depends on what is meant by &#8220;rule.&#8221; I&#8217;ve just given you examples where the congregation as a whole in the New Testament is taught that it bears responsibility. What, then, is the responsibility of the elders. In one sense they must rule. The translators of the King James Version translated the Greek word proestotes in I Timothy 5:17 as &#8220;rule&#8221;. More modern translations have used &#8220;direct&#8221; or &#8220;govern&#8221;. So, certainly elders are to do that. But in our modern context, when most people say &#8220;elder rule&#8221; they mean as opposed to the congregation having the final authority. And that, we&#8217;ve just seen, neither our Lord Jesus, nor Paul seems to envision. Even when there are areas of indisputable elder responsibility&#8212;like the orthodoxy of the teaching&#8212;even there the congregation is not without its responsibility. So in II Timothy 4, when Paul is warning Timothy of the times of terrible teaching to come, he doesn&#8217;t just blame the elders, as one might expect, but he blames those who &#8220;gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear,&#8221; (II Tim. 4:3). So a better word for summarizing all the elders do would be this word &#8220;direct&#8221; or, &#8220;lead.&#8221; The Biblical model is elder-led congregationalism.<A style="mso-footnote-id: ftn42" title="" href="http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID1744980,00.html#_ftn42" name=_ftnref42>[42]
back to outline

D. Relationship of Elders to Others

What then is the relationship of elders to the congregation? By championing congregationalism, I am certainly not saying that the congregation is always right, that it is inerrant, that the Holy Spirit so superintends the workings of each congregation that our actions and conclusions are always in accord with God&#8217;s will and that our churches are never wrong. No form of government&#8212;whether Papal or congregational or anything in between&#8212;in this fallen world is promised infallibility. We know that when Christ returns He will find faith on earth, because He is the one who has determined to build His church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Nevertheless, the best of congregations&#8212;like the best of men&#8212;can and do fail. So the congregation that fired Jonathan Edwards had every right to do it, but they were wrong in their decision.

At the same time, the call to Christians to obey their leaders (found in Hebrews 13:17) in no way implies the infallibility of leaders. We as elders and pastors, too, make mistakes. And for those, James 3:1 tells us, we will have to give account to God. Even so, we cannot ignore the call God gives us to lead His church. And so we preach and teach, we study and pray, we evangelize and disciple, we examine and exhort, we deliberate and decide.

Ultimately, elders can only act by teaching and persuading the congregation. All of the duties elders have, all of our responsibilities and obligations have been given us by the congregation we serve. Certainly God must call us; and we would expect an internal witness to this divine call. But that internally sensed call of God must be confirmed by a visible congregation, by a particular flock that would call us to shepherd them, and would follow us when we do. Particularly on matters that are both significant and unclear, elders should normally be trusted. It is for just such careful work they have been recognized.<A style="mso-footnote-id: ftn43" title="" href="http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID1744980,00.html#_ftn43" name=_ftnref43>[43]
There are further questions for us to ask on this matter of elders in Baptist churches. One of the most longstanding questions among Baptists (and other Congregationalists) has been, how are these elders to relate to one among them who is commonly called &#8220;the pastor&#8221;? This was the question that many Baptists were wrestling with in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as they considered the role and place of ruling elders. What Baptists finally, largely and rightly&#8212;I think&#8212;concluded, is that there can be no distinction between ruling and teaching in the eldership. The authority that is to accrue to elders is to come through their ministry in the congregation, and particularly through their teaching and explaining the Word.

The elder that we usually refer to as &#8220;the&#8221; pastor&#8212;the person like me&#8212;is, these days, the one who is generally set apart to fill the pulpit on Sunday. He is the one who marries and buries. He will often be paid&#8212;either part-time or fully. If the church is larger, he may be the one who hires and fires, and who sets the direction for the church as a whole. In our congregation in Washington, I am recognized as an elder by virtue of my call as the senior pastor of the church. Anyone whom we hire to work in ministry will either be called an assistant, or a pastor. The title pastor is reserved for those whom the congregation recognizes as an elder.

Among these elders, I have only one vote. Because of the leadership responsibility I have as the main public teacher, there is undoubtedly a special degree of authority that attaches to my voice in elders&#8217; meetings, but the other brothers probably have by now a pretty good assessment of where I am most concerned and most helpful, and where I have less to contribute. On an eldership, though formal authority between the members is equal, there will always be those who garner special regard in one area or another. An elder cannot be either installed or removed except by a vote of the congregation.

A related question for Baptist churches today would be, what about the relationship of the elders to the staff? Many churches are large and prosperous enough to have multiple staff members. Are these members of the pastoral staff to be regarded as the elders of the church? Perhaps, but there are some challenges to that position. If all the elders are employees of the church on the one hand, it frees up their schedules so that they can work together more easily. On the other hand it may discourage the development of leadership within the congregation. Employees may be dismissed more easily than a well-developed leadership within the congregation terminated. In our congregation, the staff deliberate over how to carry out the pastoral directions set by the elders.

A couple of more questions about the relationship of the elders to other groups in the church. What about the relationship of the elders to the deacons? Can&#8217;t we just recognize the fact that deacons fulfill the role of plural, non-staff leadership in most of our congregations?
We certainly could simply recognize the deacons as elders&#8212;whether or not we call them that&#8212;but we must note the significant difference in the qualifications that Paul lays out for the two offices. And that difference is essentially that an ability to teach God&#8217;s word to others is required for the elders, and it is not for the deacons. This means that men may rightfully serve as deacons who are not qualified to serve as elders. Some distinction must, then, be made between the two offices. Furthermore this difference is particularly important because that aptness to teach almost certainly reflects a greater knowledge of Scripture. Such knowledgeable Christian brothers are exactly the ones that we would and should most naturally acknowledge and trust as leaders in the church.[44] In our own congregation, the deacons work to facilitate various services in the church&#8212;from pulling together the budget, to helping to prepare for baptism and the Lord&#8217;s Supper, to facilitating our care for those in financial need. The deacons do not act as a kind of second house of the legislature&#8212;a kind of house of representatives to the elders&#8217; senate. Their work is to care for the physical and fiscal needs of the church, to create unity in the body and to support the work of the pastors and elders. The deacons are to be the body&#8217;s &#8220;shock absorbers.&#8221;[45]

One last relationship we should notice, and one which I think is one of the reasons we should most care about restoring the Biblical practice of a plural eldership in our churches: the relationship of the elders to the nominating committee? In so many of our churches, nominating committees have for decades led the congregation, directing it in some of the most crucial decisions for the on-going ministry of the church. These committees, though sometimes full of fine Christian men and women, are not bodies required in Scripture. Their members need meet no particular Biblical requirements. Too often, their decisions are motivated by more worldly concerns of not disappointing a long-serving member, keeping a balance of ages or genders or even family connections. Surely the nomination of servants and leaders in our churches is best left to the most mature among us, and to those who meet the basic Biblical qualifications laid down for elders.

back to outline

 

[BryanW92]

"I slapped my forehead because you feel like you’re off the hook and it has been my experience with Reformed folks that this feeling is common."

48 hours ago, I was not off the hook. I was totally on the hook until I was told that evangelism is not my job in multiple posts in this thread.

I have to admit that I am not nearly as enthusiastic about Reformed theology now as I was a few days ago. I think that the interpretation that the Great Commission only applies to the ordained is just wrong, but I will accept it since my membership vows require that I do what the church and Elders tell me.

 

[JM]

Patience brother. lol

You will find the answers you need in time, just don&#8217;t be in a rush, just keep your Bible handy as you read theological works. Reformed theology, credo or paedo, will supply you with biblical answers.

Is it not a possibility that the Great Commission was given to the Apostles alone but we are still obligated to take part in personal evangelism? That is, the Apostles had authority to make disciples and baptize them and we, the church also have an obligation to evangelize? Shouldn't we evangelize and bring people to our gatherings so they can hear the Pastor open up the word? Why does it have to be an either / or scenario? As I type this reply I&#8217;m texting back and forth with a fella I&#8217;ve been evangelizing for years. We are setting up a pick up time so I can bring him and his family to church this Sunday.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[gord44]

As I type this reply I’m texting back and forth with a fella I’ve been evangelizing for years. We are setting up a pick up time so I can bring him and his family to church this Sunday.

Cool. You still going to that Reformed church with the pastor friend of yours?

 

[JM]

Cool. You still going to that Reformed church with the pastor friend of yours?

Nope. My wife and fams hated the strict order. I loved it! For the sake of my family, especially my wife, we went back to the Baptist church. I have to lead the family and not be a tyrant. We've been back among Baptists for a while now and many of the Reformed Baptists that attended the Presby church soon followed me so things are pretty good. We have a solid number of Calvinistic Baptists and some of the fellas are moving more toward covenant theology. The guys I smoke and sip whiskey with tend to be more ‘Refromed’ than typical Baptist.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[gord44]

Excellent!

 

[BryanW92]

Patience brother. lol

You will find the answers you need in time, just don’t be in a rush, just keep your Bible handy as you read theological works. Reformed theology, credo or paedo, will supply you with biblical answers.

Is it not a possibility that the Great Commission was given to the Apostles alone but we are still obligated to take part in personal evangelism? That is, the Apostles had authority to make disciples and baptize them and we, the church also have an obligation to evangelize? Shouldn't we evangelize and bring people to our gatherings so they can hear the Pastor open up the word? Why does it have to be an either / or scenario? As I type this reply I’m texting back and forth with a fella I’ve been evangelizing for years. We are setting up a pick up time so I can bring him and his family to church this Sunday.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

One of the articles referenced in this thread covered that. It is our job to be friends, serve meals, and drive them. But we aren't qualified to speak about the gospel to them. Sort of like, "I'm happy because Jesus loves me and I know a guy who can tell you why. I'll take you to him." My wife is good at that stuff so she can do our part. I operate the sound board, so that's going to have be my only ministry ( if I'm allowed to call it that).

 

[drjean]

I daresay that Presbyterian Reformists DO engage in "evangelism" and I point to Dr D James Kennedy's excellent and ongoing work "Evangelism Explosion".

A strong defender for the faith, Dr Kennedy always insisted the Christian share his faith with others.