Should Evangelism Be a Key Purpose for Churches?
18 comments | Permalink
Tony Payne:
...Even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies. It is certainly not their focus. In the New Testament, churches are characteristically the fruit of evangelism, not its agent. Evangelism usually takes place outside the assembly—in the marketplace, the synagogue, the prison, and in daily gospel conversation.Read the whole thing.
More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.
This runs counter to the common (although often unspoken) assumption that one of the main aims of a church gathering is to be attractive to non-Christians—to draw them in, to intrigue them, and to evangelize them. Perhaps it's a legacy of the parish model, where those attending the Sunday assembly were often not Christians at all, and evangelism consisted of preaching the gospel to them. Or perhaps it is the influence of the seeker-service model, where the main aim is to attract and win over unchurched Harry. Or maybe it's a bit of both.
There is an important difference, it seems to me, between running a Christian gathering whose focus is on evangelizing the outsider, and running a Christian gathering that is welcoming and intelligible for the outsider, but where the focus is on fellowship with Christ, in speaking, hearing and responding to his word.
Update: Ken Stewart, professor of theological studies at Covenant College, posted a thoughtful comment below, which I thought was worth highlighting:
In the abstract, the argument of this post is unassailable. It has a weight of NT evidence behind it. But these are not the only considerations; one must at least have a curiosity as to how historical realities have factored in, at least since the age of Constantine. Since the era when ‘throne and altar’ became intertwined, evangelism in church has been ‘a propos’. Here's why:Final update: Again, pulled up from the comments--from Tony Payne:
1. For those ministering in broad, comprehensive churches in which the spiritual status and allegiance of attenders is doubtful, you will have to preach the gospel for conversion Sunday by Sunday or miss your best opportunity. I find it paradoxical that among so many pastors serving in the broadly Reformed tradition, there is now such a strong push to focus on the Church as God's covenant people that the presence of many nonbelievers in our services goes under-recognized and calls to repentance and faith are very rare. Even All Souls (London)-style "guest services" in which the gospel is cogently presented for the benefit of the curious are almost non-existent. Over- correction of course has brought about a new problem: dearth of gospel preaching.
2. For those determined to follow the counsel set out, please indicate where, and in what other venues you are preaching the gospel with a view to the conversion of your hearers if by your own admission, you will not belabor this in your Sunday services. If you can name open-air gatherings in parks and on beaches, accepted invitations to speak to service club luncheons and so on, then fine. But to fall into line behind this argument with no such preaching program in place is to join company with a very large company of perfectly orthodox preachers who no longer press the gospel on the unbelieving, because they limit their preaching to the edification of those who believe already.
3. Perfectly orthodox churches need to hear the gospel preached and to witness its power in transforming the curious and unbelieving. So many perfectly orthodox churches are 'starved' of the opportunity to observe people visibly responding to the gospel because that response is no longer sought. So, years pass into decades during which no one has been known to be effectually called under the preaching of the Word, because the preacher has not sought any such result.
Some quick clarifications, in case I've been misheard:
1. Yes, our church gatherings should definitely be evangelistic in the sense that the gospel will always be prayerfully taught and proclaimed in true Christian assemblies, and that if those same gatherings are warm, welcoming and helpfully intelligible to the outsider, then outsiders will come (by bring invited or otherwise), and be gospelled there. Praise God! (I did say this in the original post.)
2. My point was that for various reasons (perhaps historical, denominational or cultural) it has become common to believe not only that church gatherings are places where outsiders will hear the gospel, but that THE focus (or locus) for our evangelistic activity is the church gathering. And so our gatherings become centred around attracting outsiders; and our evangelistic efforts consist almost solely of trying to get people to church.
I was simply pointing that there is something wrong-headed about this, and that the NT would actually push us in the other direction. It's a matter of emphasis, not an absolute dichotomy.
Thanks to all for the stimulating comments and discussion.
TP (http://solapanel.org)
posted by JT at Sunday, September 07, 2008
18 Comments:
Thanks for pasting this quote JT.
This is something that so many Christians have a hard time accepting, but they need to and it needs to change. This false idea is one of the main reasons for the demise of the 'Biblically sound' Christian. It makes sense. If we tailor our services to the lowest common denominator (ie. unbelievers) then the Christians in the congregation are starved the Word of God. Without sitting under God's ordained means of grace, the proclamation of His Word, Christian's don't grow.
Further, it makes the line between believer and unbeliever harder to define, and ministries often end up being run by those who have not truly been born of God.
We have six other days in the week to evangelise - let's use them and keep the Lord's Day for the gathering together of the Lord's people.
Good point Nathan. I completely agree. Also, on the flip side I think there is a false idea out there that the gospel is just for unbelievers rather than for the believer. If churches focused on teaching sound doctrine, equipping the saints for the work of the ministry, and proclaimed the gospel (something we Christians all need everyday) unbelievers who are visiting the churches would also be evangelized. Primarily churches are for equipping believers, and secondarily for evangelism.
False dichotomy...
JT - I completely agree, though a more accurate title might be "Should Evangelism Be a Key Purpose for Church Gatherings"?
Right on.
1 Corinthians 14:23 "Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"
The "if" suggests that it was not the focus. 1 Co 12-14 suggests edification of the believer is the focus of the assembly. Uphold the gospel for all (I don't mean an altar call) who God brings to assemble (assuming there will probably be some unconverted).
JT,
I understand the need to get away from the seeker sensitive models of doing church. The Gospel should not be substituted for a market driven message which plays the itching ears of those who really need to hear the law of God and how they have failed to obey it and how they stand in danger of eternal judgement unless they flee to Christ for salvation.
But, I think this article overplays this. He says, "However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies." I think he protests too much. I certainly think from the context of the post that author would agree that evangelism should be *a* main purpose of Christian assemblies among other purposes.
Again he said, "It is certainly not their focus." I think this is overstated. I think that evangelism should be *a* focus of Christian assemblies amoung other focuses. I read someone who said, "We need to be careful about making a false dichotomy of our meetings being “Evangelistic” and being “for the Church”. I don’t think that dichotomy exists in the New Testament. "
I think maybe we fall to easily sometimes for "either, or" categories of thinking instead of "both, and."
The bottom line for me is this, the apostles routinely preach the gospel in their epistles which are meant to teach the Christian assemblies. They knew that the visible church contains both the invisible church and hypocrites who need salvation. So, they offer meat to those who are mature, milk to those who are babes, and the Evangel to those who are still dead in their sins. They did all of this.
Consider the following Scriptures,
" that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you."* Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." 2 Cor 5:19-6:2
"12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end," Hebrews 3:12-14
The apostles offered real assurance to those who are truly saved, but also evangelized in the assemblies knowing that not every one there was saved. There are those in our assemblies that have "recieved the grace of God in vain," that is, they have never been truly born again and need to hear the Gospel, repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus so they may be saved.
Let us continue to preach forgiveness of sins through our Lord Jesus to each other and all who will listen and compel them to come and drink of the water of life freely.................
In Him,
Alan
"I love to tell the story to those who know it best seem hungering and thirsting to hear like the rest. And when, in scenes of glory, I sing the new, new song, 'Twill be the old, old story that I have loved so long."
Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," and yes this can be done outside the church, but being taken from the Pastoral Epistles I would also imagine Paul wanted Timothy to do it from the pulpit as well. Of course, this does not mean Timothy should preach evangelistic sermons each time he presents a message, but all pastors should incoporate an evangelistic flavor to each of their messages so that the Gospel of God is front and center in our meetings. This is the reason why we have come together in the first place and it must not be forgotten.
Rob Plummer, NT prof at SBTS, recently published his dissertation titled, "Paul's Understanding of the Church's Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize?"
(http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Understanding-Churchs-Mission-Communities/dp/1597527238). It's obviously more academic, but very even-handed and helpful for a full treatment of the issue.
Chuck,
I think Plummer's dissertation is addressing a different issue--from what I understand. This discussion centers not so much on the function of the believers but rather the purpose of the gathered body.
JT
In the abstract, the argument of this post is unassailable. It has a weight of NT evidence behind it. But these are not the only considerations; one must at least have a curiosity as to how historical realities have factored in, at least since the age of Constantine. Since the era when ‘throne and altar’ became intertwined, evangelism in church has been ‘a propos’. Here's why:
1. For those ministering in broad, comprehensive churches in which the spiritual status and allegiance of attenders is doubtful, you will have to preach the gospel for conversion Sunday by Sunday or miss your best opportunity. I find it paradoxical that among so many pastors serving in the broadly Reformed tradition, there is now such a strong push to focus on the Church as God's covenant people that the presence of many nonbelievers in our services goes under-recognized and calls to repentance and faith are very rare.
Even All Souls (London)-style "guest services" in which the gospel is cogently presented for the benefit of the curious are almost non-existent. Over- correction of course has brought about a new problem: dearth of gospel preaching.
2. For those determined to follow the counsel set out, please indicate where, and in what other venues you are preaching the gospel with a view to the conversion of your hearers if by your own admission, you will not belabor this in your Sunday services. If you can name open-air gatherings in parks and on beaches, accepted invitations to speak to service club luncheons and so on, then fine. But to fall into line behind this argument with no such preaching program in place is to join company with a very large company of perfectly orthodox preachers who no longer press the gospel on the unbelieving, because they limit their preaching to the edification of those who believe already.
3. Perfectly orthodox churches need to hear the gospel preached and to witness its power in transforming the curious and unbelieving. So many perfectly orthodox churches are 'starved' of the opportunity to observe people visibly responding to the gospel because that response is no longer sought. So, years pass into decades during which no one has been known to be effectually called under the preaching of the Word, because the preacher has not sought any such result.
This is very timely. I have really been wrestling with this concept a lot lately. Is the point to get people in the door so we can evangelize them? Would it be good if non-Christians walked through our doors, heard the gospel, and were saved? Of course. But it seems many churches have taken on an event-driven model of evangelism. The focus seems to be centered around creating events at the church with the purpose that people will be brought to them to be saved. Can God use this and does he use it? Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best way of doing things. But too often, churches are looking for a one size fits all model. And...could there be unintended consequences for the worship gathering evangelism model? I think so...such as creating an environment where people understand evangelism as getting the unsaved in the doors of the church (among others).
Anyhow...I'm still wrestling with all of this. And I'm thankful for others who are doing likewise and who are much wiser than I am.
Why wouldn't the place where Christ is being magnified (i.e. a worship service) be the place an unbeliever is likely to behold "the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6)? It seems if Jesus is being worshiped in Spirit and truth in an intelligible way - then "evangelism" is likely an inevitable result of worship. Isn't making a service "evangelistic" simply an issue of making the gospel intelligible, to the best of our ability, for those hearing?
Tim Keller at Redeemer in New York seems to do a good job of this.
Now here is my question. Doesn't it seem that the Apostle Paul in addressing the various churches, whatever their problem is, goes back to the Gospel? In other words, to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus does not the pastor preach the Gospel indicatives and imperatives to his flock? Doesn't preaching expositionally allow the pastor to take on all comers, from older men of God, new Christians, nominal believers, and the lost?
What my old church used to practice (and I wish it still would) was to have the Sunday morning service more evangelical and basic in scope.
Then we would have an evening service of songs, hymns, testimony, encouragement and a message that was generally for more mature Christians. The thinking was that for the most part, only mature believers came Sunday nights (and this seemed to me to be pretty accurate).
some responsive thoughts for Professor Stewart:
1. I agree that there will be nonbelievers present in almost every worship service. Christian preaching requires an emphasis on the gospel no matter what topic is being addressed. The only way we can have Godly marriages is through the power of God demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. The only way we can love God with all of our heart soul mind and strength is through His power. The only way we can avoid showing favoritism to the rich and powerful is to see them as Jesus did; lost and afraid like sheep without a shepherd.
Thus, I don’t see how Christian preaching occurs that is not based in the Gospel for its power and application.
In addition, I just disagree that Sunday worship is the “best opportunity” to evangelize the lost. This kind of thinking is what Tony was addressing. Simply asserting it to be so, is not a responsive argument.
2. This is an excellent point. The failure at this point is why churches default to straight proselytizing sermons on Sunday. Pastors who do not expect their members to be ministers of reconciliation will take it upon themselves to bear the full weight of this responsibility. Pastors must insist that their people assume the obligations of being Christ followers and insist that the people share the good news of the Gospel in their neighborhoods, workplaces, gyms, bridge clubs etc. Pastors must be providing specific instruction to their people in this regard. Our preacher Sunday said to the congregation that it is not ok to talk about being missional. We must do it and we must do it now.
3. I agree that churches need to hear the gospel preached. I don’t know what he means by needing to see the curious and unbelieving transformed on Sunday. Sunday service is not the primary place to witness that miracle. In their offices, soccer games, bunko groups is where this miracle should be regularly witnessed by Christ followers. The fact that it isn’t being witnessed in daily life with friends family members and neighbors is the great tragedy and failure of the church today. Again, the professor is assuming the lack of such opportunity and relying on the Sunday service as the last best hope for experiencing the power of God in salvation. This again is the church culture assumption that Tony was arguing against.
My conclusion on this matter is that we need to have a revolution in the church. A revolution of thought and practice that reaches for practices that are unassailable in light of the New Testament. No longer should we be satisfied with churches bound by historical tradition at odds with the example of the church in scripture.
This revolution will never occur if we allow ourselves to keep doing what we have been doing and calling it the best opportunity. It is not the best opportunity. A congregation of believers allowing themselves to be used by God as ambassadors in this world right here and right now can in God’s power transform a city. That is the best opportunity. That is how 11 disciples plus Paul transformed the Roman empire.
Sola Deo Gloria!
This will need to be my last word on this subject, lest we hijack Tony Payne's original and stimulating posting. That posting achieved a fair balance and was by no means an attempt to downplay or eliminate evangelism from the church's program.
My deep concern however is that while very many of us want to get the biblical emphasis right, and to avoid seeing worship assemblies diverted to being only 'gospel rallies'(a fairly significant trend in North American evangelicalism across the 20th century)there are other, equally serious diversions to be avoided.
For those of who stand in the Reformed tradition, with its heritage of parishes and territories (as distinct from the 'gathered church' tradition) an undeniable part of that heritage, broadly conceived, is the duty of evangelizing the locale in which the church sits. This system in its pure form is long gone, true.
But that is the setting reflected in the Reformed confessions and catechisms.
I am more and more exercised by the evidence that this idea that Reformed churches preach the gospel to their locales (and not just to their members)is evaporating. I see it reflected in Shorter Catechism 89: "How is the Word Made Effectual to Salvation?" "The Spirit of God makes the reading and especially the preaching of the Word and effectual means of convincing and converting sinners and of building them up in holiness and comfort..."
It is sadly too common in Reformed churches now (orthodox in other respects)for there to be really no expectation that this can happen under the reading and preaching of the Word. Whatever preaching is for, it must be something else than this. And as year gives way to year, all expectancy that effectual calling happens under the preaching of the word evaporates. There does not seem to be any clear idea of how effectual calling happens -- apart from the preaching of the gospel -- either.
To sum up, the doctrinal heritage of the broadly Reformed churches (Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed) is that people of the parish can be expected to be converted under the preaching of the Word. The Puritans (most of whom worked inside this framework) conducted their ministries in the expectation that they would and could see this. Sadly, now we have almost no expectation left that, whether inside a church premises, or elsewhere that God will use the "foolishness of preaching to save some" (1 Cor. 1.21.)
If you are working in a gathered or believers' church setting, perhaps a different set of expectations may apply. But you are still left with the issue of whether you still believe that effectual calling is meant to happen under the preaching of the Word. If you say yes, you must be looking for opportunities to be practicing that kind of gospel preaching.
Thanks Professor. I understand what you are saying.
I woke up thinking about this this morning.
In a way this whole discussion seems weirdly artificial. All of our life as Christ followers is the gospel. Everything we do or say is because of the presence of God in us.
I am not a preacher (vocational pastor of a congregation). I am a lawyer who teaches (and yes I do preach sometimes) the Bible. Standing in front of a class I feel the weight of James 3:1. I also feel unworthy to teach or preach anything out of my own power. the only reason any of us (seekers, as well as Christ followers) are in that room at that time for that lesson is because of the Grace of God manifested toward us through the provision of His son as the perfect lamb that was slain on our behalf so that we could be reconciled to God.
My goal as a teacher is to wake up within each listener a hunger for God’s glory so that they will pursue Him on their own every day. Teaching the scripture is always an exercise in learning the height and depth and fullness of God’s love toward us. That is why it seems artificial to be having this discussion about evangelism in church services.
All of our life is spent working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. every lesson is an attempt to take hold of that thing/reason for which God took hold of me. the goal of every lesson is to make God look glorious and to persuade the listeners to look at Him in awe and wonder and love.
The gospel permeates and undergirds every lesson, every song. It is the reason for our hope. It is the reason for our joy. It is the reason for our love of the Bible. It is the reason we assemble together to encourage one another and provoke one another to love and good works.
God’s wonderful magnificent sovereign grace is what makes sense of the senseless and it is what gives hope to the hopeless.
What else would we have to talk about in our gatherings?
Some quick clarifications, in case I've been misheard:
1. Yes, our church gatherings should definitely be evangelistic in the sense that the gospel will always be prayerfully taught and proclaimed in true Christian assemblies, and that if those same gatherings are warm, welcoming and helpfully intelligible to the outsider, then outsiders will come (by bring invited or otherwise), and be gospelled there. Praise God! (I did say this in the original post.)
2. My point was that for various reasons (perhaps historical, denominational or cultural) it has become common to believe not only that church gatherings are places where outsiders will hear the gospel, but that THE focus (or locus) for our evangelistic activity is the church gathering. And so our gatherings become centred around attracting outsiders; and our evangelistic efforts consist almost solely of trying to get people to church.
I was simply pointing that there is something wrong-headed about this, and that the NT would actually push us in the other direction. It's a matter of emphasis, not an absolute dichotomy.
Thanks to all for the stimulating comments and discussion.
TP (http://solapanel.org)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home