Jeremy,
It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:
Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is never divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.
But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:
It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being contacted by the church? That the goal is to confront them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been convicted to then present them the sure promise of comfort by the gospel, and citizenship in the Kingdom?
The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?
And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.
If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them. They will assist your thinking in this area. Please do not be discouraged in well-doing. Continue to think about these things, and do not be afraid of "starting" a Christian conversation, for "fear" of doing "unauthorized" evangelism. Just think about it the right way, in connection to the church--visible as well as invisible--and categorically, in the way of our separate callings.
And never forget the gospel is an everyday, week-by-week thing for every believer.
It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:
Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.
In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is never divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.
But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:
It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being contacted by the church? That the goal is to confront them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been convicted to then present them the sure promise of comfort by the gospel, and citizenship in the Kingdom?
The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?
And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.
If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them. They will assist your thinking in this area. Please do not be discouraged in well-doing. Continue to think about these things, and do not be afraid of "starting" a Christian conversation, for "fear" of doing "unauthorized" evangelism. Just think about it the right way, in connection to the church--visible as well as invisible--and categorically, in the way of our separate callings.
And never forget the gospel is an everyday, week-by-week thing for every believer.