# A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 16, 2009)

I'm concerned about a tendency in some Reformed circles to _overemphasize the importance of the ministry of the ordained man_ and to _underemphasize the importance of the ministry of the lay-person_. 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_. In a three-part series of posts, I’d like to give the people in the pew their proper due.

*Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 1*

Your servant,


----------



## MW (Apr 16, 2009)

Dear brother,

Seeing as I happen to be the "Presbyterian minister" in question, I look forward to examining the reasoning behind your uncomfortability with what appears to be a clear emphasis of biblical evangelism. (1.) The labourers are few. (2.) They are to be prayed for. (3.) They are to be raised up (equipped and authorised) by the Lord of the harvest.

Ministers bear the solemn responsibility of motivating the people of God to live up to everything that they have been made in Jesus Christ -- kings and priests to God. I do not deny that every believer is to "minister" (serve) in the body of Christ according to the faith apportioned to him; I only maintain that there are divers functions in the body of Christ, that one of them includes the very important work of the pastoral ministry, that this ministry is primarily concerned with the administration of Word and sacraments, that this administration is the official and public evangelism ordained by Christ, and that the qualifications necessary for this ministry are such that comparatively few of the Lord's people are equipped and authorised to function in it. Most pastors I know are of the same mind as Moses, and would that all the Lord's people were capable to fulfil this function, but the fact of the matter is that they are not.

The NT clearly holds out that there are "rulers" in the church of Christ, which necessitates that there are those who are "ruled." Likewise, the NT clearly holds out that there are "teachers," and this necessitates the existence of a class of persons who are "taught." All things are to be done decently and in order, with accountability to one another and specifically to those who bear oversight. When these matters are given their due weight it will be seen that the pastoral ministry does not belong to an elite class within the church of Christ who seek at all costs to maintain their own privileges, but to a very burdened group of men who above all else must be faithful to a solemn calling that many of the Lord's people are either unwilling or unable to take up.

Blessings!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dear brother,
> 
> Seeing as I happen to be the "Presbyterian minister" in question, I look forward to examining the reasoning behing your uncomfortability with what appears to be a clear emphasis of biblical evangelism. (1.) The labourers are few. (2.) They are to be prayed for. (3.) They are to be raised up (equipped and authorised) by the Lord of the harvest.
> 
> ...



Matthew,

I don't disagree with what you say above. In my opinion, your comments here are much more balanced in comparison to the comments you made in our earlier interchange. As you'll note in Part 2 and Part 3 of this series, I'll maintain a distinction between the clergy and the laity. Such a distinction is biblical. Nevertheless, the NT, in my opinion, has plenty to say about lay-ministry and lay-evangelism. I recognize that we've already debated the appropriateness of applying the term "evangelism" to the task of the lay-person. So I'll have the burden of proof. Thanks for taking the time to read my post. 

Sincerely yours,


----------



## Berit (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi Bob,

You briefly mentioned T. David Gordon's article in your post. I was wondering if you will interact with Gordon's arguments in one of your later posts.

Thanks


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 17, 2009)




----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 17, 2009)

I agree with Rev. Winzer here. The NT places what some today would (in my opinion erroneously) call a lopsided emphasis upon the teaching office of the Church as the primary means of calling sinners to repentance. There are several examples from which to choose:
1 Corinthians 3.5-10 The teachers of the Church are the "master-builders" the Church is the "building". 
2 Corinthians 5.18-20 The Ambassadors are the ministers, the preachers, and those being reconciled, and exhorted to reconciliation are those "in the Church". 
Romans 10.14-15, in a series of 4 rhetorical questions, the answer to each being "It is impossible" the Apostle declares that preachers are sent--they do not run on their own. 

There are many other passages which could be cited. It is not my belief that the role of the minister is to "equip the saints so that they ca do the work of the ministry". I believe the KJV translation has the placement of the comma exactly right in Ephesians 4.12--that there is a 4 (or 5) fold office with a 3-fold ministry.


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 17, 2009)

> I agree with Rev. Winzer here.



That's generally a good idea. 

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 01:57:17 EST-----



> It is not my belief that the role of the minister is to "equip the saints so that they ca do the work of the ministry".



Really? Obviously I agree that there are clear roles and distinct functions between officers and laity but isn't there at least some sense in which ministers are to equip the saints to do works of ministry? Would you be willing to expand that statement for me Rev. Ruddell?

(If this is not the right thread for this I apologize in advance! Mods, feel free to act accordingly.)


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 17, 2009)

Dear Ben, 

The question is a grammatical one. I believe the grammar is accurately translated and punctuated in the KJV, where the three "ministries" are a function of the officers mentioned beforehand. There are in the NT 2 types of ministry. The word in its bare lexical sense simply refers to service--that is, being servants to one another. However "The Ministry" is the work of "The Minister". And, the work of the ministry as used in Ephesians 4.12 is of the latter kind. In your post you used the phrase "works of ministry". That's OK if understood in the NT context of service, or acting the part of a servant. However, this is different from the "work of the ministry" which is comprised of duties placed by Christ upon the officers of the Church. 

No one I know would deny that all of God's people are to serve one another (ministry in the first sense). But we must distinguish this from ministry proper. Certainly, many times the NT vocabulary might be the same, but the import is quite different. 

Hope that helps. 



Hamalas said:


> > I agree with Rev. Winzer here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 17, 2009)

Bob,
That is an excellent post. I look forward to reading the others.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 17, 2009)

Berit said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> You briefly mentioned T. David Gordon's article in your post. I was wondering if you will interact with Gordon's arguments in one of your later posts.
> 
> Thanks



I'm planning to interact with his article, as well as Andrew T. Lincoln's commentary on Ephesians, which sides with the view Gordon supports.


----------



## TimV (Apr 17, 2009)

> I only maintain that there are divers functions in the body of Christ, that one of them includes the very important work of the pastoral ministry, that this ministry is primarily concerned with the administration of Word and sacraments, that this administration is the official and public evangelism ordained by Christ, and that the qualifications necessary for this ministry are such that comparatively few of the Lord's people are equipped and authorised to function in it.



*I'm not sure why the issue should be more complex than that*. Just this week I mentioned to my new Session that our long term Bible study was currently not under the authority of a church, and people were leading it without any accountability to Elders, and it's shrinking, and they've begun to teach odd things.

The solution was easy. If there were no Elders available, the church could still take control of the Bible Study by authorising someone the Session trusts to facilitate the study, and that person would work with the Session in getting study material approved, etc....

On a practical level this is how a "lay minister" (whatever that is) would use his/her gifts, whether it be in that sort of situation, choir, homeless shelter etc...

It's all neat, organised and helps keep chaos reigned in, and church splits from happening. Those relatively few men who are equipped for the task extend the scope of their work by being in charge.

Unfortunately, the guy who's taken charge doesn't believe in the principles of the paragraph I quoted from Pastor W., so we'll have to see how much damage control will be necessary to bring it back to where it was. If it's even possible.

It was that way when I managed a big table grape farm. I was in control. It was my project, and any success or failure was placed ultimately at my feet. And I authorised people with certain talents to operate on my behalf "he speaks with my voice" was what I said about my under leaders in Africa.

The extremes are easy to see. One the one hand you have chaos, with unordained people doing whatever they like, as is currently going on in our formerly great Bible study, which is watching a Pentecostal by the name of Tom Wells say harmful things on a series of videos, since a few guys figured Reformed culture needs "balance".

The other extreme is the control freak, who won't even let graphic designer Suzy put together the church bulletin because that's *His* Job.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 17, 2009)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I agree with Rev. Winzer here. The NT places what some today would (in my opinion erroneously) call a lopsided emphasis upon the teaching office of the Church as the primary means of calling sinners to repentance. There are several examples from which to choose:
> 1 Corinthians 3.5-10 The teachers of the Church are the "master-builders" the Church is the "building".
> 2 Corinthians 5.18-20 The Ambassadors are the ministers, the preachers, and those being reconciled, and exhorted to reconciliation are those "in the Church".
> Romans 10.14-15, in a series of 4 rhetorical questions, the answer to each being "It is impossible" the Apostle declares that preachers are sent--they do not run on their own.
> ...



Todd,

Thanks for your counterpoint. I'll be addressing some of your points in my subsequent posts. Keep in mind that the NT was written during and addresses _the foundational stage_ of the church. Not surprisingly, much is said about the work of apostles (Peter, Paul, etc.) and their "apostolic deputies" (Timothy, Titus, etc.) and a little less about the pastors they appointed in every church. The question that Romans 10:14-17 (and the other texts you referenced) begs is what happens after the commissioned or "sent one" reached an unreached people (who previously did not have access to special revelation) with the gospel and a nucleus of believers is gathered into the church? What was expected of those believers? 

The fuller answer I will give in my two subsequent posts can be summarized as "ministry" and "evangelism." Granted, later generations have made "the ministry" into some like "clerical vocation." But while the NT recognizes a subgroup of gifted leaders and teachers within a congregation (i.e., pastors-elders-teachers), it does not reserve the "ministry" vocabulary for them. Nor is the vocabulary "evangelize" or "preach" only reserved for the ordained messenger. 

I will also argue for the majority view of Ephesians 4:11-12, though I'm afraid the larger context along with other NT passages will render the minority view--even if correct about verse 12--much noise and fury. 

Your servant,

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 09:13:39 EST-----



TimV said:


> > *I'm not sure why the issue should be more complex than that*.... The extremes are easy to see. One the one hand you have chaos, with unordained people doing whatever they like, as is currently going on in our formerly great Bible study, which is watching a Pentecostal by the name of Tom Wells say harmful things on a series of videos, since a few guys figured Reformed culture needs "balance". The other extreme is the control freak, who won't even let graphic designer Suzy put together the church bulletin because that's *His* Job.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2009)

Unordained men and women were part of those described as "fellow-workers" in Paul's epistles, who seemed tasked to do certain things in the churches and among the different churches. Women, too, were included in this category. Laypersons can be very active in and among churches if approved by the church and underneath its care.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 17, 2009)

Joshua said:


> I think it should also be distinguished that neither Rev. Winzer or Rev. Ruddell are arguing against folks being "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh [them] a reason of the hope that is in [them] with meekness and fear." Rather, I am confident that they both (as well as any Confessional minister) would readily charge this to each and every person in the visible church. However, this is not the same as the proclamation of the Gospel, which belongs to ministers.



Joshua,

I agree. No one to my knowledge, not even some of the Reformed authors I cited in my essay attempt to discount the teaching of 1 Peter 3:15. I have, however, noted this verse being used by some to argue that the layman's proclamation of gospel truth is to be "passive" as opposed to "proactive." That is, the Christian is to live a godly life and prepare an apologetic for that godly lifestyle so that should someone ask them why they're different from other men, they are authorized to speak. My argument will be to the effect that Christians are authorized by the NT to speak by life AND lip regardless of whether someone first solicits their input. Of course, I will also attempt to argue that each man should minister and speaking in accordance with the measure of gift and opportunity God has granted him (1 Pet. 4:10-11). 

Thanks for your helpful remarks.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 18, 2009)

Thanks for the article Bob. Well said. 

Here are a couple of threads where this was dealt with to a certain degree.


pastors only should evangelize

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/wha...r-minister-missionary-evangelist-elder-39656/


----------

