# Divorced man in evangelistic ministry



## Der Pilger (Apr 22, 2009)

Hello all,

Here's an interesting question. Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church should allow a divorced man to be involved in outreach if he is actually living with his wife (allowing her to stay under his roof) but remaining separate from her?

I know you don't have a lot of details and it's tough to answer, but any insightful thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 22, 2009)

Sounds like a strange story. If they are divorced and are not working on reconciliation, why is she still there? Did they both want the divorce? If he wanted the divorce and isn't repenting of divorcing his wife and trying to reconcile with her, then he is in sin and needs to repent. If she won't be reconciled with him and he has repented (if needed), then yes he could be in the outreach.


----------



## DonP (Apr 22, 2009)

Would you have a problem with any man having a female house mate renter? 

Unless there is a reason to suspect impropriety it should be not be much different except you may have more strict concerns for appearance with an elder. 

If they both say they are not seeking reconciliation it might be different than if one is seeking reconciliation also. 

And it might depend on the grounds of the divorce as well. 

So I would say it is not a hard fast thing without more details known to the elders. 

But it may be a temptation to the members if all the facts are not laid out to the congregation, therefore it may be wise to suspend him until it is resolved more clearly. 

Are they living in the US or a 3rd world country? How long ago was the divorce? 

I mean lots of needed info to make an intelligent decision. 

Unless you just flat don't think an elder should rent a room in his house to a woman, for the look of impropriety. Then its a no brainer. They split or he is suspended.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 22, 2009)

Der Pilger said:


> Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church


I have a problem with an evangelistic ministry or mission effort that is not part of/related to a local particular Church


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 22, 2009)

yeutter said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church
> ...



Yeah, me too! Didn't catch that part before!


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Apr 22, 2009)

Problem with....say??? Martin Luther...or John Calvin...or Theodore Beza....OR how about John Hus?

Terrible of these men to do such things, like preach the gospel...

BUT, I see that the title of this is about a divorced man in ministry...maybe that's what you mean?


----------



## DonP (Apr 22, 2009)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> Problem with....say??? Martin Luther...or John Calvin...or Theodore Beza....OR how about John Hus?
> 
> Terrible of these men to do such things, like preach the gospel...
> 
> BUT, I see that the title of this is about a divorced man in ministry...maybe that's what you mean?



A little dif for Luther, he didn't have a denomination to go to 

The church is God's means of grace as far as I can tell. I see no warrant for another entity to usurp the place of the church in the advancement of the gospel. And for the sake of, being able to do it MY WAY


----------



## lynnie (Apr 22, 2009)

If you have children, I can see that even if one party no longer was willing to be married due to unrepented of adultery, there might be all kinds of logistical and financial reasons to still share the same house. I don't think I could handle it emotionally, but maybe he can. It is important to put the welfare of children first. Perhaps this is that sort of situation?

My parents lived in the same home for the sake of their five kids, but in every emotional-spiritual respect they may as well have been divorced. My Mom would have had grounds to leave. I think, bad as it was, that at least it was good for us to have two parents, my Dad's income, and my Moms general homemaking care for us.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 22, 2009)

The economic situation could be the cause of this, but it's too hard to speculate from this view. The details would matter--is he the guilty party, are they in counseling, etc.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 22, 2009)

yeutter said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church
> ...



One local church? Directly underneath? What do you mean by "related"?


----------



## DonP (Apr 22, 2009)

Hmmm..


----------



## TimV (Apr 22, 2009)

> Here's an interesting question. Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church should allow a divorced man to be involved in outreach if he is actually living with his wife (allowing her to stay under his roof) but remaining separate from her?
> 
> I know you don't have a lot of details and it's tough to answer, but any insightful thoughts would be appreciated.



The issues are all separate. There should be no such thing as an evangelistic or mission ministry that is not part of a local church, so a man with a perfect marriage would be disqualified.

If the man were a part of a church, rather than a para-church sect, then his divorce status would have nothing to do with the matter as long as he was judged innocent in the divorce.

If the woman was still living under his roof, the matter would be up to the Elders to determine if there was public scandal involved.


----------



## Edward (Apr 22, 2009)

What are the policies of the group? If they have relevant policies and are doing something different, they need to consult a lawyer. If they have no policies and are making things up on the fly, they need to consult a lawyer. And if they have a policy and are properly implementing it, they probably should consult a lawyer. 

Now, if it was a church ministry, the matter should be addressed by the appropriate church court.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 23, 2009)

There should be no such thing as an evangelistic or mission ministry that is not part of a local church....

Prove this Scripturally.


What about a man sent out by a fellowship of churches? 

Overly rigid ecclesiology kills missions by chopping off its feet.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 23, 2009)

yeutter said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think an evangelistic or missions ministry that is not part of a local church
> ...



So do I. That's why I've been trying to get evangelism started in my church *and *bring the current ministry under the authority of my pastor. Your comment has gotten me thinking about continuing these efforts with greater diligence. In time, I might be successful. The sad truth, though, is that if we did not have an evangelism ministry apart from the local church, we would never take the gospel to the lost in public places. The evangelical church at large (in the U.S., at least) has a major issue with the biblical command to take the gospel to the lost. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but that is the reality of the matter. In fact, that was partly the reason for the formation of our ministry to begin with: The guy who originally started it did so because his repeated efforts to get his church to do outreach failed.


----------



## TimV (Apr 23, 2009)

> Prove this Scripturally.



The issue of para-churches lead by people with no accountability to the authority laid down by Scripture has been dealt with scores of times on this board.



> What about a man sent out by a fellowship of churches?



This is the only possible way it's done in Reformed churches, since they are hierarchical in nature. All missionaries are sent out by fellowships. 



> Overly rigid ecclesiology kills missions by chopping off its feet.



That is true but has nothing to do with this situation.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 23, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> TheFleshProfitethNothing said:
> 
> 
> > Problem with....say??? Martin Luther...or John Calvin...or Theodore Beza....OR how about John Hus?
> ...



Selfishness and arrogance (insisting on doing it one's own way) may be the reason for some ministries. There are indeed mavericks out there who rebel against the church's authority and are sinfully independent. The reason for the outreach we do, however, is that we desire and feel compelled to bring the gospel to the lost. Sadly, that motive seems to have never occurred to you.

As I mentioned in another reply to this thread, if we insisted on doing outreach only in the context of a local church we would never do evangelism. Which is the worse sin--not taking the gospel to the lost or doing so apart from the local church?

Thankfully my current pastor is enthusiastic about advancing the kingdom and has even encouraged me to coordinate public evangelism efforts in our church. He is a rarity, though, and even his enthusiasm is no guarantee because he can't force people in the congregation to get involved in outreach.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 09:06:30 EST-----



TimV said:


> > Prove this Scripturally.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of para-churches lead by people with no accountability to the authority laid down by Scripture has been dealt with scores of times on this board.



I'd be interested in reading up on this. I'll look for relevant threads, but is there any chance you could point me toward one?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 09:16:53 EST-----

To all,

Thank you for your responses. I knew it would be difficult to give answers because it is an odd situation and I didn't give a lot of details about it. Nevertheless, your responses have given me some things to think about. Ironically enough, this thread has gotten me now more interested in the idea of parachurch evangelism than the original topic. I had already been concerned about it, and in the past we've asked my pastor to be involved in a sort of peripheral way. Now, though, I'm seriously thinking we should talk about folding the ministry entirely into my church.


----------



## TimV (Apr 23, 2009)

> The reason for the outreach we do, however, *is that we desire and feel compelled to bring the gospel to the lost*. Sadly, that motive seems to have never occurred to you.



Good intentions are nice, but unless they are coupled with good means the whole action becomes evil.



> As I mentioned in another reply to this thread, if we insisted on doing outreach only in the context of a local church we would never do evangelism. Which is the worse sin--not taking the gospel to the lost or doing so apart from the local church?



The worst sin is your reasoning. You are in effect saying that God ordained a certain means to extend His Kingdom but it's not practical, so you'll help Him out by doing it your way.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 23, 2009)

TimV said:


> > The reason for the outreach we do, however, *is that we desire and feel compelled to bring the gospel to the lost*. Sadly, that motive seems to have never occurred to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Good intentions are nice, but unless they are coupled with good means the whole action becomes evil.



Really? Even if we are teaching the gospel accurately and thoroughly and setting up a structure to disciple people? You mean all of that is "evil" as long as it is not part of a local church? You might be right, but how do you show that biblically? If there is a solid biblical case for this, I will try to fold the ministry into my church completely. Believe me--I *want* to do this biblically.



> > As I mentioned in another reply to this thread, if we insisted on doing outreach only in the context of a local church we would never do evangelism. Which is the worse sin--not taking the gospel to the lost or doing so apart from the local church?
> 
> 
> 
> The worst sin is your reasoning. You are in effect saying that God ordained a certain means to extend His Kingdom but it's not practical, so you'll help Him out by doing it your way.



Not at all. Practicality actually has nothing to do with it; you read that into what I wrote. We're not doing it "our way" because we think that God isn't practical; we are simply doing it because we see that it has to be done and we desire to do so. It's not about "our way" but rather about obeying and wanting to reach the lost.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 23, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Prove this Scripturally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can agree with you, Tim, if you mean street preachers doing it on their own with no involvement at all from their churches. 

However, most folks lump missionary societies in with prachurches and then falsely say that all parachurches lack any sort of accountability whatsoever with local churches. 


I am sure that you would not fall into such a blatant oversimplification.


First, parachurches vary...not all are like the Promise keepers. 

Second, most folks blindly lump missionary societies into the category "parachurch" and then, by condemning all parachurches, they also condemn all missionary societies and resign missionaries to feeling the need to be sent out direct by their 80 member churches with 3 deacons who are 80 years old and know nothing of visas or tropical diseases....

...and then these folks that insist on an overly rigid ecclesiology then complain about the churches' lack of zeal in missions, even while they desire to saw off the legs of the church with a dull knife.

I am part of a missionary society, whose accountability resides in the churches which send the society its missionaries. therefore, there is MORE accountability than must Fundy ministries (EFCA, etc), but this accountability is to a great number of probing churches rather than being "under" the "direct" "oversight" of a single, local and particular church.

I would contest that mission orgs have 100 times more accountability than most of the churches that, in a knee-jerk fashion, spew rants at the very hearing of the word "parachurch" - like it is the attack command for a pitbull or something.

I, being independant, see little structural difference in the mission org I am part of and a "reformed denominational mission". 


Tim, I hope you agree with me. I can see that you may have a problem with my view of independancy and, due to this view that churches are to have independancy, I am sent by a fellowship of different local churches but not one church denomination, like some Reformed are.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 12:35:10 EST-----



Der Pilger said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > The reason for the outreach we do, however, *is that we desire and feel compelled to bring the gospel to the lost*. Sadly, that motive seems to have never occurred to you.
> ...



There does need to be some sort of accountability and "connectedness" between missionaries, evangelists and any evangelistic outreaches.

However, what we see from the book of Acts is a loose connectedness where Paul and his Fellow-laborers often worked and made decisions in the field without all decisions going through their local churches back home. They were semi-independant and when they were sent they were given tacit approval to make their own field-based decisions.

If your evangelistic outreach is officially commissioned by a church or fellowship of churches, then you can work largely independantly with the tacit approval of those you have sent you. 

We are not to run, unless we have been sent - but once sent, we do not need thumbs on us at every minute.

Have your endeavors been commissioned as such?


----------



## DonP (Apr 23, 2009)

For a congregationalist it would be different since their concept of the church is independent congregations. 
I still think each missionary should be commissioned and sent by his own church. He should remain under their oversight unless they appoint some mission board who is under their oversight to have oversight of him. 

Or the mission board could be under the oversight of several of the ministers of independent churches. But a mission board is not the church. 
Therefore the missionary still needs to be a member of a particular congregation with oversight via some method ultimately under an elder and minister. 

For a presbyterian I would think the mission board should be a committee of the presbytery or the GA. Not an independent entity with some nice words with pastors occasionally or reports given of activity. 

There should be real oversight and accountability by the church. 

The Church is God's means of grace, not an independent mission board. 
That usurps the place of and authority and unity of the church. 

The church is what god setup as his instrument to tear down the gates of hell and advance the kingdom. 

To say the church is not getting it done is no excuse. 
To say they don't do it my way, or they are not effective enough, it is rebellion. 

I would not support an independent missionary not under oversight of a church. 

I like the fact the OPC is not allowed to use offerings to to support any missionary except those in their own denominational mission. 

The session is free to take a special offering for another mission like Guideons. 

This way the members conscience is not bound having to give to a mission they may feel is not worthy. Like when I was barred from going on staff with Campus Crusade after going passing their seminary, because I admitted to holding to Calvinism. Then the Ref Baptist church I went to supported an elder's son in the Navigators. When I and a friend newly out of college, asked for help because it was hurtful to us to have taken such a stand to oppose this Arminian org, to have to support a similar, wow, did we become bad guys attacking a sacred cow.




Pergamum said:


> We are not to run, unless we have been sent - but once sent, we do not need thumbs on us at every minute.


*
Thumbs?? Really Pergamum, you think the church is thumbs??*


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 23, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> For a congregationalist it would be different since their concept of the church is independent congregations.
> I still think each missionary should be commissioned and sent by his own church. He should remain under their oversight unless they appoint some mission board who is under their oversight to have oversight of him.
> 
> Or the mission board could be under the oversight of several of the ministers of independent churches. But a mission board is not the church.
> ...



Some good thoughts.

Yes, I am sent by my home church. My home church is served by my mission org. My mission org values my home church and the terminology that they use is this: "we are servants to the church so that your home church can send you, through us..." Therefore, my mission org (and others that I know) make no claims to send a man without also affirming that it is the local church that sends them, with the org's help).

Many mission orgs are servants who have experts in cross-cultural adaptation, linguistics, and visa and paperwork requirements. Most local churches do not have such expertise. 


Still, however, I get badgered by mostly indy fundy supporting churches (to the point of them bemoaning my "unbiblical ecclesiology"...even though they still support me) because I have joined hands with a missionary society.

Therefore, overstatements condemning all parachurches and mission org rankle me.




Yes, THUMBS. I have had several churches tell me that all major decisions had to pass through them. I replied to one that I was sent by one church, my home church, and you all are not my boss but my partner...so go ahead and drop me now because I don't take orders from you. They doubled my support (maybe they liked backbone).

I have NEVER been "under the thumb" of my home (sending church), Bible Baptist of Maplewood, Saint Louis (Bible Baptist Church | Maplewood, MO). They have repeatedly told me that I am the man on the ground and they cannot dictate what to do, that I need to make those decisions. They are very supportive and will give advice, though, when I need it. 


Brother, you STILL overspeak, however, when you say things like _"The Church is God's means of grace, not an independent mission board. 
That usurps the place of and authority and unity of the church." _ I have never said this. And this is a false dichotomy. The universal church is God's people working together and many mission orgs can be seen as branches of the universal churches working together. And most mission orgs have a close relationship with local churches. We need not pick one or the other; churches or boards....we can pick both.


What do you mean by "real oversight and accountability by the church"...if a mission board is run by reps from the churches that send it missionaries and all aspects are transparent to the highest degree, how is there NOT oversight?


----------



## DonP (Apr 23, 2009)

That's good. I agree the church may not need to run the day to day affairs. 

I also do not think a church who just chooses to send financial support needs to have oversight, only the sending church. The other congregations either trust yours, check in with them, or trust the mission board to be doing things decently and in order etc. or don't support. Their due diligence should be primarily with your authority not you. But then I come from a Presbyterian perspective. 

I do think your overseeing church *can *have a say in matters like: 
Should the mission continue for another ?# years
Should you expand, take on another city etc. 
Should you build a hospital
What materials and literature are used in the gospel presentation or member training. 
And assure the same principles they would use to govern their own worship services, are used for your worship services. Liturgy, sacraments etc. 
Can you take a part time job 
Help define the actual purpose and scope of the mission
Etc. 
Now they may delegate this to the mission board but they should oversee the mission board or a group of congregations should. 
There is no place for an independent mission board. 

But once established the main oversight I am speaking to would be for your personal Christian walk. A mission board can't do this, only a church.

The church is not to be thumbs to stop you from buying more literature to hand out or what kind of car you need. 

Only the last line of my post was for you specifically. 
The rest was just a general statement concerning many para church orgs. today. 
Sorry I did not make that clear. But it was nice to hear more about how yours is handled. 

I also blame the churches for not uniting and handling these things and leaving it to mission boards. 

It is somewhat necessitated by the independency of congregational churches, so it is more of an error to see this in presbyterian realms in my mind. 

The church is the only agency of God. All work must be done under the oversight and control and direction of the church, not just a financial donation to an independent organization with no real accountability.

This can lead to a decay of the mission board, its gospel, or no gospel at all, with no protection from God's ordinary means of grace. 

By the way, if we are not straying too far, what would you think of a deaconal mission only with no gospel presentation or minister seeking to establish a church.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 23, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> There does need to be some sort of accountability and "connectedness" between missionaries, evangelists and any evangelistic outreaches.



I agree with the accountability aspect of what you said. That's why bringing the outreach ministry under the authority of my church has been on my mind for about a year now. What perturbed me was the apparent assumption that those who organize an evangelism ministry outside the local church are: 1) trying to do it their own way and/or 2) trying to usurp the place and authority of the local church.

And sorry, Peacemaker, you are just plain wrong when you say that saying the church is not doing the work of evangelism is no excuse. It's one thing to say that an outreach ministry should be commissioned by and come under the authority of the local church--thus far I agree with you. But you are too severe in your view that *even if the church is totally dropping the ball on evangelism we still should avoid organizing evangelism on our own.* The gospel must go forth because God has commanded it to be done. If the church is in blatant sin by neglecting its divine mandate to bring the gospel to the lost, it still needs to be done. We should never allow the sins of others to keep us from obeying God.



> If your evangelistic outreach is officially commissioned by a church or fellowship of churches, then you can work largely independantly with the tacit approval of those you have sent you.
> 
> We are not to run, unless we have been sent - but once sent, we do not need thumbs on us at every minute.
> 
> Have your endeavors been commissioned as such?



No, not originally. I wasn't the one who started it; I took over the leadership of it about a year ago, along with another individual. I've made a connection between the ministry and my church, but only loosely, i.e., not a connection that brings the ministry entirely under my church's oversight. That is something, though, that I have been wanting to do for a while now. This thread has roused those thoughts and made me want to pursue this with my pastor more diligently than we have done in the past.


----------



## DonP (Apr 23, 2009)

Der Pilger said:


> And sorry, Peacemaker, you are just plain wrong when you say that saying the church is not doing the work of evangelism is no excuse. It's one thing to say that an outreach ministry should be commissioned by and come under the authority of the local church--thus far I agree with you. But you are too severe in your view that *even if the church is totally dropping the ball on evangelism we still should avoid organizing evangelism on our own.* The gospel must go forth because God has commanded it to be done. If the church is in blatant sin by neglecting its divine mandate to bring the gospel to the lost, it still needs to be done. We should never allow the sins of others to keep us from obeying God..




By the way, I never said "totally dropping the ball" those are your words. 

Is that your view of the church today? 
I was just thinking one who felt it wasn't being done good enough or their way or meeting their expectations. 
To me totally dropping the ball would be apostate. 

On what authority would you present the gospel? Do you think the great commission was given to individuals, or to the church through the elders?

Would one need to be at least ordained by a church before it went so defunct in your opinion that you had the right to go off on your own and do the work of the church? 

And I find it interesting if the church apostated so badly, why you would not think of yourself as being the church instead of being something other than the church? Why not say the church is not doing it s call to evangelize so we are starting a new congregation to do that work Why instead start a mission board to just do that work apart from God's means?

Would you also advocate that if men will not step up and do the work of elders that women are justified in taking on the eldership so the church can have elders and function?

Just trying to understand your reasoning. Thanks


----------



## TimV (Apr 23, 2009)

> But you are too severe in your view that even if the church is totally dropping the ball on evangelism we still should avoid organizing evangelism on our own.



You're still missing the main point. It's not your responsibility to step in just because you, from your very limited vantage point, doubt that God is able to carry out His plan by His appointed means.



> 1Ch 13:9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled.
> 1Ch 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.


----------



## Edward (Apr 23, 2009)

TimV said:


> This is the only possible way it's done in Reformed churches, since they are hierarchical in nature.





No, most - perhaps virtually all - are not hierarchical in nature. Most are Presbyterian in structure, a few (our reformed Baptist brothers, for example) are congregational. I can't think of any significant reformed body which is hierarchical in form. - Wait, I came up with one which might be reformed - the REs would be hierarchical. But they are the exception to the rule.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 23, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> > Just trying to understand your reasoning. Thanks



Thank you for trying and for sharing the thought-provoking questions.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 11:50:42 EST-----



TimV said:


> > But you are too severe in your view that even if the church is totally dropping the ball on evangelism we still should avoid organizing evangelism on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the main point. It's not your responsibility to step in just because you, from your very limited vantage point, doubt that God is able to carry out His plan by His appointed means.



No, I'm not so sure that I am missing the point, and I am definitely sure I am not doubting God's ability to carry out his plan. Once again, you are reading too much into what I write.

But thank you for responding.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 24, 2009)

There are PLENTY of ways to do evangelism "more properly" if you want to. 

All it requires is a little more connection with a local body, or local bodies. 

Especially in America, there are churches enough so that anyone wanting to minister and feels a call can easily check himself with the larger body of Christ and go forth as one "Sent" rather than one who runs alone. 

Don't stop your evangelism, but DO connect with the larger body of Christ so that you can be true to the Great Commission, whereby the whole church was given the job of world evangelization. Do not curb your zeal at all - just see that missions is the work of the whole church and should be done in a way reflectiveof this.

We do not just want to "plant Gospel seeds" - we want to disciple people, teaching them all things, and incorporate them into God-honoring churches. 

Our job does not end with mere proclamation, we are to teach, disciple, etc, and these things require the larger body of Christ at some point. 

The "church" is NOT totally dropping the ball on evangelism, the worldwide church is active in many parts of the world in evangelism. The key is to make sure that we are plugged into this worldwide body of Christ so that even if particular local churches are dropping the ball, you are still obeying the Great Commission. If your own local church is not missions-minded, there are big problems and it is time to unite with another local body.

-----Added 4/24/2009 at 12:43:37 EST-----

P.s.

What are God's appointed means for world evangelization other than the church and its leaders?

In Acts 13 we see that the whole church fasted and prayed and picked those whom they were to send out. There is no passivity in missions; how many of our churches have ever fasted and prayed until candidates were selected to send out into the fields? This is not the voluntary and individualistic system of missions wehave today whereby a single individual decides he is called and then the church usually just says, "um..okay.." This Acts 13 account is more akin to a Divine Draft, initiated by the Holy Ghost through the church as a whole.

All this to say that missions is a Body of Christ endeavor; not a Lone Ranger endeavor.


----------



## Der Pilger (Apr 24, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> There are PLENTY of ways to do evangelism "more properly" if you want to.
> 
> All it requires is a little more connection with a local body, or local bodies.
> 
> Especially in America, there are churches enough so that anyone wanting to minister and feels a call can easily check himself with the larger body of Christ and go forth as one "Sent" rather than one who runs alone.



Thank you, but this, of course, depends on whether said churches are actually willing to send people out into the public with the gospel. Fortunately, my current church is willing, which is partly why my pastor and I have wanted to begin a public outreach ministry in and for our church, incorporating the same method we use in the "outside" ministry. As I've pointed out also in another post, I've wanted to bring the "outside" ministry under the oversight of my pastor.



> Don't stop your evangelism, but DO connect with the larger body of Christ so that you can be true to the Great Commission, whereby the whole church was given the job of world evangelization. Do not curb your zeal at all - just see that missions is the work of the whole church and should be done in a way reflectiveof this.



I agree, and thank you for the encouragement. To the degree that it is possible to do this within the local church--and in my case, thankfully, it is very possible--I intend to.



> We do not just want to "plant Gospel seeds" - we want to disciple people, teaching them all things, and incorporate them into God-honoring churches.



You're preaching to the choir, brother.  When I took over the reins of this ministry about a year ago (not by choice but by default), it was woefully lacking in any discipleship whatsoever. There wasn't even a plan in place (although one was being discussed at the time, albeit a very questionable one). Shortly thereafter I incorporated a system for follow-up and discipleship. In fact, discipleship was one of the reasons I wanted to hook the ministry into my church; I figured that way the pastor could teach introductory gospel classes in an alpha-like gathering at our church, which would hopefully make it more of a church ministry.

Believe me, I have no desire to be a maverick.



> Our job does not end with mere proclamation, we are to teach, disciple, etc, and these things require the larger body of Christ at some point.



Again, agreed. Proclamation of the gospel is just one side of the evangelism coin, so to speak.



> The "church" is NOT totally dropping the ball on evangelism, the worldwide church is active in many parts of the world in evangelism. The key is to make sure that we are plugged into this worldwide body of Christ so that even if particular local churches are dropping the ball, you are still obeying the Great Commission. If your own local church is not missions-minded, there are big problems and it is time to unite with another local body.



That's a good suggestion in its way, but following it in today's evangelical climate would ultimately mean hopping from one church to another because the vast majority of congregations are failing to plan and implement a regular outreach ministry that engages the public with the gospel message and disciples people. Not only that, but if you go into such churches and try to implement it, the strong likelihood is that you won't be successful (unless you count going out alone as successful). I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but the evangelical church at large has a major issue with the public proclamation of the gospel. I have my theories as to why, but I won't get into that. Let me say, however, that I am not against the church. I think my posts in this thread have made that all too clear. In fact, the fact sheet for the "outside" ministry I'm involved with clearly states that we are not out to replace the local church.



> P.s.
> 
> What are God's appointed means for world evangelization other than the church and its leaders?
> 
> ...



Interesting. One has to wonder, then, why this doesn't seem to be happening--i.e., the fasting, praying, and "divine draft," as you call it. Most churches send out missionaries, that's true; but why are so many churches failing to take such an initiative in *local* missionary endeavors? Could it be that we have grown complacent, thinking that we have fulfilled our responsibility by sending out one or two people to some foreign land?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 24, 2009)

Jeremy: I can't find anything I disagree with in your last post. Sounds like we agree! May God bless your efforts!

Yes, it is a shame that so many churches are lukewarm....I am sure that God will vomit them out. There are some, however, that continue to be "on fire" for all sorts of outreach and I usually try to seek those churches out.


----------

