Evangelism and Public Witness; Radical vs. Ordinary

[lunarWood]

I read a short book by Beeke, Puritan Evangelism, this past summer. It was then that I found out there is a difference between what Beeke (and those saints in the past) understood evangelism to mean, and what I have been taught when I was an evangelical.

Simply put, Beeke’s view is that evangelism is the work of a preacher/minister, and not of a lay person. What I had been taught in the past is that evangelism is the duty of all Christians, per Mt. 28:18-20 (think organizations like CRU) — this doesn’t necessarily take the form of preaching, but would include things like handing out tracts and actively engaging in conversations with friends/strangers in hopes of converting them.

I have been contemplating on the difference between evangelism (what Beeke means by it) and public witness (what I think my former understanding of evangelism should be called), on and off for the past four months. I still find difficulty with the these two terms.

This difficulty in my mind perhaps stem from guilt — guilt of not doing enough public witness, if indeed Mt. 28:18-20 is directly applicable to all Christians and must take on a public form. I personally greatly struggles (and have struggled) with this, because I simply suck at it; I feel I should have the zeal of Paul, but I don’t.

Well, I realize that my above words are a bit of a mumbo-jumbo. I would like to hear what other wise saints have to say to this. If it helps you understand what I am trying to say: I tell myself I should be radical (think David Platt’s book). Yet inwardly, and as an introvert, I simply want to be an ordinary Christian, act Christianly in all areas of my life, and give an answer to the hope I have when I am asked.

 

[davejonescue]

Different denominations will have different definitions of the Great Commission. You should be faithful to fall under the definition of that body which you have bound yourself to by membership. With that being said, being an introvert doesnt necessarily absolve one of service if God is directing. For instance, Moses tried the same excuses regarding his speech Exod. 4:10. And, 1 Cor. 2:3 can possibly display a Paul suffering from "stage-fright" yet, this is to be contrasted with "the power of God" that was manifest through him despite his weaknesses. You dont have to be a Paul to be a part of the story. Remember, Jesus fed 5,000, but would he have if there were no loaves and fish? Joh. 6:9. Get in, where you fit in. Dont bury your talent. And whatever that talent is, use it to the glory of God.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I'm in the camp of those who believe evangelism is the mission of the church, which is one body with many members. Not every member is the eye, or the mouth. It is the church's duty to recognize, call, equip, send, and support ministers for the work of preaching the Gospel. Wouldn't it be strange if God left very specific requirements for pastors, but left the very important task of evangelizing to any random enthusiast?
I just read a few moments ago in Isaiah "how beautiful are the feet." He's talking about evangelism. Paul takes this up later and asks rhetorically, how will they preach if they are not sent? Who sends? The church. And if they're going to send, they need to vet. And they need to equip and support.
Being a faithful churchgoer IS supporting evangelism. The church can't exist without its members, even if not all of them are called to public proclamation.

 

[lunarWood]

Different denominations will have different definitions of the Great Commission. You should be faithful to fall under the definition of that body which you have bound yourself to by membership. With that being said, being an introvert doesnt necessarily absolve one of service if God is directing. For instance, Moses tried the same excuses regarding his speech Exod. 4:10. And, 1 Cor. 2:3 can possibly display a Paul suffering from "stage-fright" yet, this is to be contrasted with "the power of God" that was manifest through him despite his weaknesses. You dont have to be a Paul to be a part of the story. Remember, Jesus fed 5,000, but would he have if there were no loaves and fish? Joh. 6:9. Get in, where you fit in. Dont bury your talent. And whatever that talent is, use it to the glory of God.

I don’t desire to absolve myself of that service, for there are times the Lord clearly directs my steps to speak Gospel hope to my unbelieving friends. I very much appreciate your last sentence, “Get in, where you fit in. Dont bury your talent. And whatever that talent is, use it to the glory of God.” Which lines up with @Ben Zartman’s comment, that not everyone is that beautiful feet that goes out to publicly proclaim.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I don't think it is simply this black and white. Certainly the pastor takes the lead in evangelizing as the one who publicly proclaims the word-- and as Ben says every part of the body will be gifted differently. Yet this does not mean that laypeople shouldn't share the gospel in any way. I think laypeople can and should be eager to speak about Christ when the opportunity arises, and to take part in ministries of the church body to evangelize as the opportunity arises. However Beeke's points may be a good corrective against the massive sense of pressure some can feel about personal evangelism.

 

[Jack K]

Luke,

Yes, in the Bible, evangelism is connected to the specific calling of preachers to formally proclaim the gospel. If you've been made to feel guilty because you don't have the boldness or the desire to join projects where you approach strangers and "evangelize" them, relieve yourself of that burden. Not everyone has that calling, and telling about Jesus shouldn't be a guilt-inducing burden anyway.

That said, the Bible also connects the evangelion (good news, gospel) to ordinary believers who are so filled with joy they can't hold it in as they interact with their neighbors. Consider the opening chapters of Luke. The good news first announced by angels (Luke 1:19; Luke 2:10) gets spread more widely by ordinary people who tell what they've heard and seen: Those gathered at Zechariah's house talk about it through all the hill country (Luke 1:65-66). The shepherds tell those who were around at Jesus' birth (Luke 2:17-18). And Anna speaks to all who were waiting for the Savior (Luke 2:38). Telling good news is natural and enjoyable. It's more like a release of pressure than something that brings pressure—or it should be.

Sadly, some churches turn it into a duty to do "personal evangelism," either as an organized group project or as a personal responsibility when you meet unbelievers. This not only overlooks how we have different callings within the church, it also robs us of the joy we naturally have over Jesus. Telling about him ought to make our hearts glad but instead makes our stomachs uncomfortable.

You probably would do well to stop thinking of evangelism, or even "giving reason for the hope within you when asked" as a duty to perform. It can't be a joy when you think of it that way. Focus on enjoying Jesus and how he relieves your burdens. Perhaps he will reset your heart when it comes to talking to others, and you will find yourself doing so free of pressure and full of joy.

 

[lunarWood]

Luke,

Yes, in the Bible, evangelism is connected to the specific calling of preachers to formally proclaim the gospel. If you've been made to feel guilty because you don't have the boldness or the desire to join projects where you approach strangers and "evangelize" them, relieve yourself of that burden. Not everyone has that calling, and telling about Jesus shouldn't be a guilt-inducing burden anyway.

That said, the Bible also connects the evangelion (good news, gospel) to ordinary believers who are so filled with joy they can't hold it in as they interact with their neighbors. Consider the opening chapters of Luke. The good news first announced by angels (Luke 1:19; Luke 2:10) gets spread more widely by ordinary people who tell what they've heard and seen: Those gathered at Zechariah's house talk about it through all the hill country (Luke 1:1:65-66). The shepherds tell those who were around at Jesus' birth (Luke 2:17-18). And Anna speaks to all who were waiting for the Savior (Luke 2:38). Telling good news is natural and enjoyable. It's more like a release of pressure than something that brings pressure—or it should be.

Sadly, some churches turn it into a duty to do "personal evangelism," either as an organized group project or as a personal responsibility when you meet unbelievers. This not only overlooks how we have different callings within the church, it also robs us of the joy we naturally have over Jesus. Telling about him ought to make our hearts glad but instead makes our stomachs uncomfortable.

You probably would do well to stop thinking of evangelism, or even "giving reason for the hope within you when asked" as a duty to perform. It can't be a joy when you think of it that way. Focus on enjoying Jesus and how he relieves your burdens. Perhaps he will reset your heart when it comes to talking to others, and you will find yourself doing so free of pressure and full of joy.

Thank you, Jack, for your wise counsel.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

What is, in essence, "evangelism"? Is it not simply bearing witness to the Lord Jesus, whether by simply sharing with others what He has done in your life and heart — when the occasion arises — as well as a more formal type, whether leaving or giving out tracts in public places, or — in some churches — publicly proclaiming the gospel under the auspices of one's local church.

My wife will bake cookies or breads and give them out to neighbors or people in nearby stores so as to make friends with them, and often a mention of Jesus can be broached.

There are many ways, according to our particular personalities and abilities. I often ask the Lord, "please give me an occasion to talk about You with so-and-so"; or, "please give me insight into how to approach [a particular person]."

Long ago I knew I wanted to be able to publicly open-air preach, but was afraid to do so. So, I enquired around where was there a "public preacher" I could apprentice myself to? When I found one, I asked him if I could tag along when he did, and he was glad to have me with him. He said, "You can just sit there and observe, you don't have to do anything." After a while — riding the subways in NYC with him — I felt comfortable reading a brief Scripture passage after he spoke. Then, later, I would give a brief commentary on a passage, such as after reading the 23rd Psalm, would ask the people around, "Wouldn't you love to have goodness and mercy following you all the days of your life, by the hand and care of the Lord, instead of trouble and difficulty?"

It grew on me, and I sort of lost much of my fear — though not all of it. It is always — for some — a bit fearful, but we do it to please the Almighty God, for the sake of calling His elect to Him. And at least giving others the chance to hear the truth.

Ask Him for help, He will gladly oblige.

 

[toledomudhen]

I read a short book by Beeke, Puritan Evangelism, this past summer. It was then that I found out there is a difference between what Beeke (and those saints in the past) understood evangelism to mean, and what I have been taught when I was an evangelical.

Simply put, Beeke’s view is that evangelism is the work of a preacher/minister, and not of a lay person. What I had been taught in the past is that evangelism is the duty of all Christians, per Mt. 28:18-20 (think organizations like CRU) — this doesn’t necessarily take the form of preaching, but would include things like handing out tracts and actively engaging in conversations with friends/strangers in hopes of converting them.

I have been contemplating on the difference between evangelism (what Beeke means by it) and public witness (what I think my former understanding of evangelism should be called), on and off for the past four months. I still find difficulty with the these two terms.

This difficulty in my mind perhaps stem from guilt — guilt of not doing enough public witness, if indeed Mt. 28:18-20 is directly applicable to all Christians and must take on a public form. I personally greatly struggles (and have struggled) with this, because I simply suck at it; I feel I should have the zeal of Paul, but I don’t.

Well, I realize that my above words are a bit of a mumbo-jumbo. I would like to hear what other wise saints have to say to this. If it helps you understand what I am trying to say: I tell myself I should be radical (think David Platt’s book). Yet inwardly, and as an introvert, I simply want to be an ordinary Christian, act Christianly in all areas of my life, and give an answer to the hope I have when I am asked.

Can you elaborate just a little more on what Beeke's definition is? I see that you wrote it is the work of a preacher/minister, but I would like to have a better idea of what that looks like (without buying another book for the shelf!).

 

[Andres]

I've read that book a few years back and can't recall anywhere that Beeke opposed evangelism/outreach by laity. Instead I recall the book primarily speaking to the function of preaching and how it must be evangelistic and preaching is the primary means the Lord uses to convert men. Do you have a reference or page # where Beeke puts forth your conclusion in the OP?

 

[lunarWood]

I've read that book a few years back and can't recall anywhere that Beeke opposed evangelism/outreach by laity. Instead I recall the book primarily speaking to the function of preaching and how it must be evangelistic and preaching is the primary means the Lord uses to convert men. Do you have a reference or page # where Beeke puts forth your conclusion in the OP?

No, Beeke did not oppose outreach done by laity, and I’m sorry if my OP seems to suggest that. If my memory serves me correctly, the function of laity was not at all mentioned in the book; the whole book talked about the function of ministers in evangelistic preaching. It was this that led me to think, “It seems that evangelism is reserved for ministers because of the book’s silence on the laity.”

Which, in term, led me to think my conception of “evangelism” in the past could better be termed public witness/outreach.

Post automatically merged: Jan 8, 2025

Can you elaborate just a little more on what Beeke's definition is? I see that you wrote it is the work of a preacher/minister, but I would like to have a better idea of what that looks like (without buying another book for the shelf!).

I am swamped at the moment, but if I could get some time, I will re-read the opening chapters, and perhaps could find something for you.

Post automatically merged: Jan 8, 2025

What is, in essence, "evangelism"? Is it not simply bearing witness to the Lord Jesus, whether by simply sharing with others what He has done in your life and heart — when the occasion arises — as well as a more formal type, whether leaving or giving out tracts in public places, or — in some churches — publicly proclaiming the gospel under the auspices of one's local church.

My wife will bake cookies or breads and give them out to neighbors or people in nearby stores so as to make friends with them, and often a mention of Jesus can be broached.

There are many ways, according to our particular personalities and abilities. I often ask the Lord, "please give me an occasion to talk about You with so-and-so"; or, "please give me insight into how to approach [a particular person]."

Long ago I knew I wanted to be able to publicly open-air preach, but was afraid to do so. So, I enquired around where was there a "public preacher" I could apprentice myself to? When I found one, I asked him if I could tag along when he did, and he was glad to have me with him. He said, "You can just sit there and observe, you don't have to do anything." After a while — riding the subways in NYC with him — I felt comfortable reading a brief Scripture passage after he spoke. Then, later, I would give a brief commentary on a passage, such as after reading the 23rd Psalm, would ask the people around, "Wouldn't you love to have goodness and mercy following you all the days of your life, by the hand and care of the Lord, instead of trouble and difficulty?"

It grew on me, and I sort of lost much of my fear — though not all of it. It is always — for some — a bit fearful, but we do it to please the Almighty God, for the sake of calling His elect to Him. And at least giving others the chance to hear the truth.

Ask Him for help, He will gladly oblige.

Thank you, Steve. This is also helpful.

 

[lunarWood]

@toledomudhen
From pp. 5-6 (emphasis mine)

"Evangelism" is not a word the Puritans commonly used, but they were evangelists nonetheless. Richard Baxter's Call to the Unconverted and Joseph Alleine's Alarm to the Unconverted were pioneer works in evangelistic literature. Evangelism was, for these and other Puritans, a Word-centered task of the church, particularly of her ministers. They understood well the centrality of preaching, the role of the pastor, and the necessity of prayer in evangelism. They were truly "fishers of men," seeking to awaken the unconverted to their need of Christ, to lead them to faith and repentance, and to establish them in a lifestyle of sanctification.
The expression "Puritan evangelism," then, refers to how the Puritans proclaimed what God's Word counsels regarding the salvation of sinners from sin and its consequences. That salvation is granted by grace, received by faith, grounded in Christ, and reflective of the glory of God. For the Puritans, evangelism not only involved presenting Christ so that by the power of the Spirit people come to God through Him; it equally involved so presenting Christ that the believer may grow in Him, and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of His church and in the extension of His kingdom in the world. Puritan evangelism involved declaring the entire economy of redemption by focusing on the saving work of all three Persons of the Trinity, while simultaneously calling sinners to a life of faith and commitment, and warning that the gospel will condemn forever those who persist in unbelief and impenitence.

The whole book is also available on Monergism: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/puritanevangelism.pdf.

 

[gordo]

Luke,

Yes, in the Bible, evangelism is connected to the specific calling of preachers to formally proclaim the gospel. If you've been made to feel guilty because you don't have the boldness or the desire to join projects where you approach strangers and "evangelize" them, relieve yourself of that burden. Not everyone has that calling, and telling about Jesus shouldn't be a guilt-inducing burden anyway.

That said, the Bible also connects the evangelion (good news, gospel) to ordinary believers who are so filled with joy they can't hold it in as they interact with their neighbors. Consider the opening chapters of Luke. The good news first announced by angels (Luke 1:19; Luke 2:10) gets spread more widely by ordinary people who tell what they've heard and seen: Those gathered at Zechariah's house talk about it through all the hill country (Luke 1:65-66). The shepherds tell those who were around at Jesus' birth (Luke 2:17-18). And Anna speaks to all who were waiting for the Savior (Luke 2:38). Telling good news is natural and enjoyable. It's more like a release of pressure than something that brings pressure—or it should be.

Sadly, some churches turn it into a duty to do "personal evangelism," either as an organized group project or as a personal responsibility when you meet unbelievers. This not only overlooks how we have different callings within the church, it also robs us of the joy we naturally have over Jesus. Telling about him ought to make our hearts glad but instead makes our stomachs uncomfortable.

You probably would do well to stop thinking of evangelism, or even "giving reason for the hope within you when asked" as a duty to perform. It can't be a joy when you think of it that way. Focus on enjoying Jesus and how he relieves your burdens. Perhaps he will reset your heart when it comes to talking to others, and you will find yourself doing so free of pressure and full of joy.

This was very helpful. Thanks!