# More on Evangelism



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 4, 2018)

So here is a thought: though we don't see a command for common Christians to evangelize, it does seem that when people meet Jesus, it is their natural tendency to tell others about Him. So this comes from love and a desire for people to know the Lord, rather than a command. Why wouldn't all Christians want to do this? 

"Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 'Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?'" (John 4:28-29)

Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. And when Jesus saw him, he said, “Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas.” This name can be translated as “Peter.” (John 1:42-44)

Woops, sorry, there is a command: As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled. (Mark 5:18-20)


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2018)

That was a specific command in Mark 5 to the man and not a general command to all Christians....but I also believe all Christians are to be witnesses to Christ. Many reformed want to deny the use of the word "evangelize" to laymen and that is fine, because sharing and witnessing and talking to others about your faith are good things, too, whatever you call this activity. And wives are called to win their husbands and etc. 

If some stickler out there demands that you not ever dare to "evangelize" another person because you are not ordained, well then just "share" and "witness" to them. I am sure it will look virtually identical, except that now you don't have to disappoint those with a pedantic rigidity concerning these terms.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 5, 2018)

Ryan, those who say unordained Christians shouldn't "evangelize" usually are just saying that the witnessing activity that Christians do shouldn't be called "evangelism." They are not denying that Christians have a "duty" of "love" to their neighbors that includes such things and activities as modern day Christians usually refer to as "evangelism." This must be the starting point for understanding the claim: it is a matter of definition and being careful with terms. There is a little bit more to be understood, but if you find what follows confusing (I doubt my little post here will help considering there were a couple of mega-threads recently), just understand the problem as one purely of definition for now and continue to "evanglize" others in your life, and maybe later you will understand the rest.

Having started with the understanding that the difference is one of definition, we can now jump into a few other contentions of those who say the unordained should not "evangelize."

1) They are trying to regain the use of the word in the Bible. The only possible use of "evangelism" being referred to those who are not ordained is in Acts 8. Some might take Matthew Henry's view of the passage and then declare it an exception to the ordinary usage. Others will note that in context the text immediately moves to the work of Phillip--an ordained evangelist (and also a deacon). Regardless, there is an ordinary sense of the word in the Bible, and since the Bible is the rule of our faith and practice, there is something to be gained by being careful with biblical terminology.

2) In regaining the use of the word in the Bible, they are trying to communicate that there are activities that the unordained should not do in relation to "evangelism." Some of these activities are those that modern day Christians practice and call "evangelism." The main point here is that those who are ordained carry the authority of a superior. For example, they can command otheres to repent and believe and make a public/official (notice the word "office" in "official") proclamation of the gospel--often called "preaching." Those who are not ordained are equals with other unbelievers. They cannot command them to repent and believe, but they can plead with them to do so for their own good and tell them that this is what the Lord commands all. They can testify what the Lord has done for them and do all they can to persuade them: but they must do so as equals, not with the authority of a superior. They must also do so as private persons: not ones invested with a public or official authority.

A helpful analogy that I've heard from Rev. Todd Ruddell is the difference between an ambassador and citizens of a kingdom. The ambassador has a public official authority with other nations and can speak on the King's behalf. However, private citizens may still speak of the greatness of their kingdom, its laws, and its King to those in other nations.

One of the reasons the unordained should not undergo these activities (again, some helpful analogies from Rev. Todd Ruddell) is because they have not been (1) sent by Christ to publicly represent him to others or have authority over others and (2) trained and vetted by a public authority. Remember that we are talking about souls here and souls need careful care and examination to produce the right cure for them. Would you ask a friend of yours to perform heart surgery on you? No, you would ask the one trained and vetted to do so: a surgeon. Likewise, the minister is a doctor of souls and trained to be a fisher of men. We are also talking about the public representation and teaching of Christ to the world. Would one desire to take such a responsibility upon oneself without having been properly trained, vetted, and sent by Christ for such a task (let not many of you be teachers)?

(Please note: in my whole post here, in part I repeat what I have been taught by those who do have authority, and in part, although intended to help, whatever I say here is not said as a public representation of church teaching; it represents a private opinion on the matter from my own studies and learning from those who know these things far better than myself.)

3) In regaining the use of the word in the Bible, they are trying to avoid imposing a duty on the unordained where there is none. This is a bit trickier to understand, but think of the word "office" itself: it means "duty." Those who are in office have a "duty" that they must do; they have been specially charged to fulfill that duty. They have such a necessity laid upon them that woe to them if they preach not the gospel! Of course, some of these duties are of a moral nature. An old phrase is that the private Christian does by charity what church officers do by duty. A Christian is bound to the "duty" of "charity." By charity, they will witness to their neighbors and shine the light of Christ in them to their neighbors. But they are not bound by a special duty to do so; they do not sin if they preach not the gospel or do not witness. They are being unloving and uncharitable if such a situation that calls for witness to others about Christ comes up, but they have not necessarily sinned (except, perhaps, for a lack of charity; there are other exceptions, e.g., if the lack of witness in a situation is the sort that the private Christian is "ashamed" for Christ's sake, then that is a sin against a duty). The private Christian has other things--things of this world--to attend to that the minister of the gospel does not. The private Christian's duties in other areas will constrain the private Christian's time in providing witness. The private Christian's goal is to advance the kingdom and Christ's glory: part of that will include witness, but a large part of that is simply living one's life out, taking care of one's family, and working.

So if a private Christian has time and is so inclined, the private Chrisitan may share tracts, invite friends to church, engage in argumentation, but must not look down upon the private Christian who does not do these things as sinning--even sinning against charity.

4) Finally (and this is the big point), those who wish to restrict the term "evangelism" to "official" activity (activity done by church "officers") are often Presbyterians or have an ecclesiastical view of evangelism. Those who do not have an ecclesiastical view of evangelism will likely regard this point and possibly all the others as being pendantic to restrict the term "evangelism," but those who do have an ecclesiastical view will view the restriction of the term as preserving an important concept. By an ecclesiastical view of evangelism, I mean a view that evangelism is not properly done until a person is solemnly admitted into the visible church and put under the care of elders, put under the preaching of the word, and put under the administration of the sacraments/church discipline. Notice that the great commission has disciples that are made by "baptism." They are not fully and completely disciples (in the eyes of the church) until they have been officially incorporated into the church body. The church "extends" itself to include these disciples and their children. Furthermore, they are made disciples by "teaching whatsoever the Lord commands:" they must be under the teaching and discipline (teaching in the proper sense is an authoritative action that implies the ability for correction, i.e., discipline; or you can just view church discipline as a commandment of the Lord) of those commissioned by Christ (church "officers").

Now, do private Christians have a hand in the Great Commission? Certainly, their witness and their lives are a part of how unbelievers come to be made disciples. But the private Christian does not make them disciples, being unable to baptize or teach with authority.

We see this model in Acts, where those who are considered to be saved are those who are added to the church (Acts 2:41 compared with 2:47).

We have it in our soteriology. Part of salvation is sanctification. How can they be properly "saved" if they are not within the means of grace for sanctification (Christ's church) being taught so as to leave sin, love Christ, and pursue holiness? The teachers that Christ has appointed are necessary for the well-being of his people and are a necessary and ordinary means for understanding the Scriptures. They are necessary and beneficial for understanding the Scriptures. So how can one properly and fully make progress in sanctification without making use of the full and proper means of grace?

We have it in our ecclesiology. Until they are in the church, they have not been (in the eyes of the church) saved from the pollutions of the world. They are not believers (in the eyes of the church) but are still in the world. They have not publicly renounced the world, flesh, and devil to publicly engage themselves to be the Lord's and profess themselves to be his.



Having said all that, there are divisions among those who hold to these views. Some make a distinction between "passive" and "active" witnessing, reserving the latter only to church officers. I see no such distinction in the Scriptures (hence, as implied above, I would see no problem with a Christian handing out tracts, perhaps during their lunch break). Others suggest that the private Christian will stumble and bumble in their explanation of the gospel and hence should not preach. While it is true that explaining the things of Christ takes practice, not all (including myself) use such as a reason as to why Christians cannot preach; neither should it be implied by the surgeon and heart surgery analogy I gave above.


Perhaps you may find this other, past lengthy thread useful: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/is-the-great-commission-only-to-apostles.58678/

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> Ryan, those who say unordained Christians shouldn't "evangelize" usually are just saying that the witnessing activity that Christians do shouldn't be called "evangelism." They are not denying that Christians have a "duty" of "love" to their neighbors that includes such things as modern day Christians usually refer to as "evangelism." This must be the starting point for understanding the claim: it is a matter of definition and being careful with terms. There is a little bit more to be understood, but if you find what follows confusing (I doubt my little post here will help considering there were a couple of mega-threads recently), just understand the problem as one purely of definition for now and continue to "evanglize" others in your life, and maybe later you will understand the rest.
> 
> Having started with the understanding that the difference is one of definition, we can now jump into two other contentions of those who say the unordained should not "evangelize."
> 
> ...


I think that the main confusion to me in this area is when some seemed to have pushed it to the point that only Pastors and Elders are authorized by the Lord to ever witness for Him, as somehow their offices secures the only real salvation.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 5, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> Ryan, those who say unordained Christians shouldn't "evangelize" usually are just saying that the witnessing activity that Christians do shouldn't be called "evangelism." They are not denying that Christians have a "duty" of "love" to their neighbors that includes such things as modern day Christians usually refer to as "evangelism." This must be the starting point for understanding the claim: it is a matter of definition and being careful with terms. There is a little bit more to be understood, but if you find what follows confusing (I doubt my little post here will help considering there were a couple of mega-threads recently), just understand the problem as one purely of definition for now and continue to "evanglize" others in your life, and maybe later you will understand the rest.
> 
> Having started with the understanding that the difference is one of definition, we can now jump into two other contentions of those who say the unordained should not "evangelize."
> 
> ...


Wow, brother, that is very good and thorough. 

So the end of the matter is: it is good for private Christians to witness, but just don't call it evangelizing, don't preach, and don't make it a burden for other Christians?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Wow, brother, that is very good and thorough.
> 
> So the end of the matter is: it is good for private Christians to witness, but just don't call it evangelizing, don't preach, and don't make it a burden for other Christians?


In my local Church, we have now adopted a mentoring program, so that older established Christians can partner to help teach and instruct the younger ones, would that fall under this?


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 5, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So the end of the matter is: it is good for private Christians to witness, but just don't call it evangelizing, don't preach, and don't make it a burden for other Christians?


For those who wish to restrict the term "evangelism" to actions of church officers (I am one of them, but I also don't wish to be an offender for a word), yes, that is correct.



Dachaser said:


> In my local Church, we have now adopted a mentoring program, so that older established Christians can partner to help teach and instruct the younger ones, would that fall under this?


There is not enough information to say one way or another. Just ask yourself: are Christians who are not church officers taking on an authoritative teaching role on behalf of the church? And if so, why? Why would you entrust the souls of people to those who have not been trained to handle them? Ministers are doctors of the soul. If not, well, Christians are to teach and admonish one another as equals in their day to day life; Apollos was taught the way of God more fully by Priscilla and Aquilla. Older Christians will teach younger Christians in their day to day lives or in spiritual conversation quite naturally, since age brings a certain authority with it, but it is not a churchly authority, remaining a private opinion with respect to the church. In a modern American church setting, Christians are not always brought together as a family, so relationships are "unnaturally" started via things like mentoring programs to fill the void. I do not think such is ideal, but whether I would personally be opposed to such or whether such is consistent with the framework I presented above would seem to me to depend on the details. Even if specifics were presented, I am not interested in giving my opinion on the specific church program in a public forum and will content myself with the general principles I have just given in an attempt to clarify the position in my earlier post.


It should be noted that the above framework I presented is a framework. There can be disagreement on specific applications of the framework or particular actions or programs while approaching the matter from the same perspective.




Dachaser said:


> I think that the main confusion to me in this area is when some seemed to have pushed it to the point that only Pastors and Elders are authorized by the Lord to ever witness for Him, as somehow their offices secures the only real salvation.


Certainly, you might find such people that exist. I have not run into them. Certainly though, the real position (which I have presented) can be confusing at first to those who are not familiar with it!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> For those who wish to restrict the term "evangelism" to actions of church officers (I am one of them, but I also don't wish to be an offender for a word), yes, that is correct.
> 
> 
> There is not enough information to say one way or another. Just ask yourself: are Christians who are not church officers taking on an authoritative teaching role on behalf of the church? And if so, why? Why would you entrust the souls of people to those who have not been trained to handle them? Ministers are doctors of the soul. If not, well, Christians are to teach and admonish one another as equals in their day to day life; Apollos was taught the way of God more fully by Priscilla and Aquilla. Older Christians will teach younger Christians in their day to day lives or in spiritual conversation quite naturally, since age brings a certain authority with it, but it is not a churchly authority, remaining a private opinion with respect to the church. In a modern American church setting, Christians are not always brought together as a family, so relationships are "unnaturally" started via things like mentoring programs to fill the void. I do not think such is ideal, but whether I would personally be opposed to such or whether such is consistent with the framework I presented above would seem to me to depend on the details. Even if specifics were presented, I am not interested in giving my opinion on the specific church program in a public forum and will content myself with the general principles I have just given in an attempt to clarify the position in my earlier post.
> ...


We have cell groups with bible studies not led by Officers of the Church, and the mentoring program would be more akin to both persons doing diligent scripture studies on their own, and then comparing and reviewing with one another that week.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## timfost (Jan 5, 2018)

Afterthought,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I especially appreciate how you have focused the issue _as a concept_ without making the issue into one of mere words.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 10, 2018)

Also, consider what 1Cor. 9:14 says, "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel". If all and every Christian was called to preach the Gospel in the same way then all could live by the Gospel as a means of living. And who then would be paying them since all would be worthy of the paycheck?? Something to think about.


----------

