If only ordained ministers (WCF) and gifted brethren (LCF) should street preach, why are so few of them doing it?

[CHSalzgeber]

After using a search engine to try to mine Puritan Board for as much information as I could find on lay preaching, street preaching, open air preaching ('OAP'), evangelism, etc., I'd like to ask a few more questions on this topic, since I got back about as far as threads from 2008 and couldn't find an answer.


1. How do ministers who do not believe they are called to street preach or other types of 'kerusso' outside of the four walls of the church reckon with passages such as Luke 14:23 (cf. 1 Peter 5:3, 2 Tim. 4:5)?

2. If you believe this is a responsibility that rests with those who are called/ordained/sent, etc., do you believe this responsibility is being taken as seriously as it should? If not, why?

3. Do you think that ministers are responsible to equip their lay members to witness and evangelize in other ways, in accordance with Ephesians 4:12 (depending on where you put the comma)? Why or why not?

Bonus Question:

This one is for all the marbles.

If it is disorderly and improper for laymen to evangelize outside of the four walls of the church in particular ways, how can we best encourage our elders to take this work seriously? (Lest a situation not unlike Luke 11:52 arise, where not only are they unwilling to do it, but they're unwilling to let anyone else do it either.)

 

[Alexander Suarez]

After using a search engine to try to mine Puritan Board for as much information as I could find on lay preaching, street preaching, open air preaching ('OAP'), evangelism, etc., I'd like to ask a few more questions on this topic, since I got back about as far as threads from 2008 and couldn't find an answer.


1. How do ministers who do not believe they are called to street preach or other types of 'kerusso' outside of the four walls of the church reckon with passages such as Luke 14:23 (cf. 1 Peter 5:3, 2 Tim. 4:5)?

2. If you believe this is a responsibility that rests with those who are called/ordained/sent, etc., do you believe this responsibility is being taken as seriously as it should? If not, why?

3. Do you think that ministers are responsible to equip their lay members to witness and evangelize in other ways, in accordance with Ephesians 4:12 (depending on where you put the comma)? Why or why not?

Bonus Question:

This one is for all the marbles.

If it is disorderly and improper for laymen to evangelize outside of the four walls of the church in particular ways, how can we best encourage our elders to take this work seriously? (Lest a situation not unlike Luke 11:52 arise, where not only are they unwilling to do it, but they're unwilling to let anyone else do it either.)

C. H.,

Since this is similarly related to the other thread you posted, I'll offer some thoughts:

(a) Is there a minister today that actually teaches in so many words "ministers should not preach outside the four walls of a church building"? This often seems like a caricature of those who question the Scripture warrant for what is often termed open-air / street preaching.

(b) I remain unconvinced that open-air / street preaching is a duty of the ministry. By open-air / street preaching I understand that practice of delivering a sermon in some location to persons passing by engaged in other activities with no invitation to speak, no passive intention or attempt to hear, or none congregated to receive at the time of commencement. Even Spurgeon, an advocate for the practice, admitted the following:

"Really it must be viewed as an essential part of a sermon that somebody should hear it: it cannot be a great benefit to the world to have sermons preached in vacuo."

(c) Please explain how the Scriptures you reference (Luke 14:23; 1 Peter 5:3; 2 Tim. 4:5) speak of open-air street preaching as defined in (b) above.

Kind regards,

 

[CHSalzgeber]

C. H.,

Since this is similarly related to the other thread you posted, I'll offer some thoughts:

(a) Is there a minister today that actually teaches in so many words "ministers should not preach outside the four walls of a church building"? This often seems like a caricature of those who question the Scripture warrant for what is often termed open-air / street preaching.

(b) I remain unconvinced that open-air / street preaching is a duty of the ministry. By open-air / street preaching I understand that practice of delivering a sermon in some location to persons passing by engaged in other activities with no invitation to speak, no passive intention or attempt to hear, or none congregated to receive at the time of commencement. Even Spurgeon, an advocate for the practice, admitted the following:



(c) Please explain how the Scriptures you reference (Luke 14:23; 1 Peter 5:3; 2 Tim. 4:5) speak of open-air street preaching as defined in (b) above.

Kind regards,

(a) I'm not referring to doctrine in my first question so much as I am referring to practice. After going back and re-reading the question, I probably could have written that out differently. With that being said, I think the first sentence in your answer to (b) is a good example of what I'm talking about. The Spurgeon quote also seems to lend credibility to this idea that it wouldn't be effective, so we shouldn't do it. Was Noah effective? No builder entered, save the eight.

(b) I don't have a lot to say here beyond what I mention above, as you don't feel it's a responsibility. I do appreciate your plain speaking in this answer, though. Thank you for that.

(c) They don't speak directly of these things, but they do seem to speak of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. I suppose if one views the Great Commission as something to be peculiarly and exclusively undertaken by ministers, there's no equipping to do. Or if the Great Commission can simply be fulfilled within the four walls of the church, etc.

Stated very plainly, it's difficult to imagine how a minister might be an example to a lay person (let alone an ensample) of doing the work of an evangelist if they're never going outside of the four walls and compelling folks to come in. Perhaps you can correct my thinking on this, but that's how I've stitched those three passages together in this context.

Thanks for any feedback or insight you might offer along these lines. I'd welcome other opinions also.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

(a) I'm not referring to doctrine in my first question, but practice. With that being said, I think the first sentence in your answer to (b) is a good example of what I'm talking about. The Spurgeon quote also seems to lend credibility to this idea that it wouldn't be effective, so we shouldn't do it. Was Noah effective? No builder entered, save the eight.

(b) I don't have a lot to say here beyond what I mention above, as you don't feel it's a responsibility. I do appreciate your plain speaking in this answer, though. Thank you for that.

(c) They don't speak directly of these things, but they do seem to speak of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. I suppose if one views the Great Commission as something to be peculiarly and exclusively undertaken by ministers, there's no equipping to do.

Stated very plainly, it's difficult to imagine how a minister might be an example to a lay person (let alone an ensample) of doing the work of an evangelist if they're never going outside of the four walls and compelling folks to come in.

Thanks for any feedback or insight you might offer along these lines. I'd welcome other opinions also.

Dear C. H.,

Perhaps I was unclear in my first reply.

(1) I never intended to argue according to effectiveness. I was arguing based on principle based on the nature of preaching. Hence, the quotation from Spurgeon.

(2) I am not sure if you intended to suggest that Noah practiced open-air / street preaching as defined earlier. If so, I'd welcome a demonstration.

(3) It appears that your reading of Eph. 4:11-12 is quite different from mine: "11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

(4) It also appears you have a very definite idea of "do the work of an evangelist" in 2 Tim. 4:5 . . . do you think this has special reference to Timothy who held the office of an evangelist? Also, what do you think is entailed in this office of evangelist according to Scripture?

Kind regards,

 

[CHSalzgeber]

Dear C. H.,

Perhaps I was unclear in my first reply.

(1) I never intended to argue according to effectiveness. I was arguing based on principle based on the nature of preaching. Hence, the quotation from Spurgeon.

(2) I am not sure if you intended to suggest that Noah practiced open-air / street preaching as defined earlier. If so, I'd welcome a demonstration.

(3) It appears that your reading of Eph. 4:11-12 is quite different from mine: "11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

(4) It also appears you have a very definite idea of "do the work of an evangelist" in 2 Tim. 4:5 . . . do you think this has special reference to Timothy who held the office of an evangelist? Also, what do you think is entailed in this office of evangelist according to Scripture?

Kind regards,

We may have to qualify your definition of a 'sermon' if we're going to keep working from your original definition. I'd definitely like to continue this discussion, but I'm also struggling to get back to the original questions, as well as the bonus question.

I'll provide brief replies as a result.

(1) Fair enough!

(2) I'm leaning on 2 Peter 2:5, as Noah is recorded here as a 'preacher of righteousness'. I suppose he may have preached inside his house, or the ark.

(3) It is quite different. If you remove that first comma in the twelfth verse, it reads a bit differently. I believe there seems to be a warrant for those in the original.

(4) The office of an evangelist is a super interesting topic I'm actively trying to learn more about. There seem to be a wide variety of opinions on this.

My reason for stating at the beginning of this reply that we may need to qualify your definition of a 'sermon' is because of what Spurgeon says about street preaching here.

Thanks for chiming in on this thread as well! It's obviously a big topic. I look forward to circling back at some point to dive into (4), but do want to see if I can get a few more folks to weigh in on the questions in the OP before diving into tangents.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Bonus Question:

This one is for all the marbles.

If it is disorderly and improper for laymen to evangelize outside of the four walls of the church in particular ways, how can we best encourage our elders to take this work seriously? (Lest a situation not unlike Luke 11:52 arise, where not only are they unwilling to do it, but they're unwilling to let anyone else do it either.)

I certainly hope no one is teaching that it is improper for laypeople to evangelize outside of the church building. We may debate who can preach in a technical sense, but I’m still firmly convinced evangelism is the work of all believers, and it is not only done through preaching.

 

[Polanus1561]

Is there not a difference:
1. Preachers herald and declare (in streets or pulpit). It is not conversational or relational in the ordinary sense of the word.
2. All believers are to engage (not preach) unbelievers in different settings that lead to the moment to give an answer for the hope in us.

 

[CHSalzgeber]

Is there not a difference:
1. Preachers herald and declare (in streets or pulpit). It is not conversational or relational in the ordinary sense of the word.
2. All believers are to engage (not preach) unbelievers in different settings that lead to the moment to give an answer for the hope in us.

Yes, surely. I suppose, to my mind, it seems that for a preacher to not go out and preach to the lost, many of whom will not set foot in a church, is a great shame, since a preacher preaching to lost souls must result in the conviction, conversion or greater condemnation of the lost person, but it won't return void. So when I read these points, I think to myself, 'few preachers seem to want to do the humiliating, dirt-under-the-fingernails work of Luke 14:23, yet they're the only ones who ought to', at least in the minds of so many.

This is what I'm struggling with.

This is why I probably should've just let the bonus question stand on its own: because if what you've put forward here is true, why should I not do everything in my power as an ordinary person to encourage preachers to turn that "or" in your first point into an "and"?

 

[Alexander Suarez]

We may have to qualify your definition of a 'sermon' if we're going to keep working from your original definition. I'd definitely like to continue this discussion, but I'm also struggling to get back to the original questions, as well as the bonus question.

I'll provide brief replies as a result.

(1) Fair enough!

(2) I'm leaning on 2 Peter 2:5, as Noah is recorded here as a 'preacher of righteousness'. I suppose he may have preached inside his house, or the ark.

(3) It is quite different. If you remove that first comma in the twelfth verse, it reads a bit differently. I believe there seems to be a warrant for those in the original.

(4) The office of an evangelist is a super interesting topic I'm actively trying to learn more about. There seem to be a wide variety of opinions on this.

My reason for stating at the beginning of this reply that we may need to qualify your definition of a 'sermon' is because of what Spurgeon says about street preaching here.

Thanks for chiming in on this thread as well! It's obviously a big topic. I look forward to circling back at some point to dive into (4), but do want to see if I can get a few more folks to weigh in on the questions in the OP before diving into tangents.

Thank you C. H. for interacting. I will clarify one more item and let others chime in (unless called upon ):

I am not against open-air preaching in the sense of preaching outdoors. Whether Noah preached indoors or outdoors is indifferent to me.

 

[Jack K]

The cultural context matters. There's not just one way, or one place, to go and evangelize—although all ways involve telling the gospel.

So, let's first admit that some ministers and churches surely are negligent. They have little interest in evangelism and missions, or they are overly focused on maintaining the programs within their buildings. But many ministers faithfully do "open-air" preaching in places where that will draw an engaged crowd. I've seen it happen in Africa, Dublin, Central America, and in the US among the Navajo people.

You live in Georgia in the US. The cultural context there means an open-air preacher who just stands on a street corner downtown and starts to speak will probably not draw much of a crowd or will be met with disrespect before anyone even considers the content of his message. But a minister in Georgia might volunteer to serve as chaplain for the local football team, or at a hospital, and will have an excellent platform with engaged and respectful listeners that way. That kind of evangelism does go on. It is one way to "go out into the highways and byways and compel them to come in." The fact that it fits the cultural context better than preaching on a street corner should be a plus, not a reason to claim that going out to evangelize isn't happening.

In my church, the elders have commissioned me (without official ordination as an elder) to speak and teach at summer camps for youth when those camps invite me. I consider the work to be similar to that of the football team chaplain in Georgia. I introduce a lot of unchurched people to the gospel and invite them to believe, and I do it in a context that allows me to be heard in Colorado.

I think my elders are wise to give me their blessing and oversight for this work rather than insist it must be limited to ordained men. In another thread, you mentioned Stephen's preaching. My view is that Acts 7 is evidence that we should not be overly rigid in applying the rules for officially-called church services and church-government roles to other opportunities to tell the gospel which God may provide. It might be wrong if I were to usurp the pulpit during a worship service at my church, but still right to proclaim the gospel in a manner quite similar to preaching if I am invited to speak about Jesus at a local camp. Some folks here will disagree with that, but Stephen suggests otherwise.

 

[jw]

Preachin’ to streets is for the birds!

 

[CHSalzgeber]

Preachin’ to streets is for the birds!

Blessed be the heckler that revives my dying thread, though it be new. <3

 

[davejonescue]

The only reason I slightly disagree with the lack of effectiveness of "street proclamation" is my own salvation experience. To be brief, it was 2005/6 or so. I was a "believer" but heavily backslidden. Homeless, daily drug and alcohol abuse. I was sitting "on the wall" at Ocean Beach, CA when a group of young Christians were ministering and singing hymns in the same space. One noticed the big John 3:16 tattoo on my leg, all the while I had a solo cup full of vodka and a blunt in my mouth. Respectfully he asks me "are you a believer?" And I said "of course." Then he says "if you are a believer, then why are you out here here doing all this?" Not only did they take a concerned interest in me that day; but they also invited me to dinner, offered me a place to stay at their motel (they were in town for a Billy Graham crusade,) and actually drove around trying to find me when I didnt meet up with them to go with them to the crusade. While that may not seem like a big deal; it was that mixture of love/ministering/concern (and of course the work of the Spirit) that was the pivotal point in my life. After they left, the overwhelming conviction that I was living a fake Christian life led to a broken spirit. I went from enjoying the homeless, no responsible life, to seeking to be in church anytime it was open, getting into a shelter, and quit using drugs and alcohol, Now I dont know the theological complexities of the difference between profession and being "born again;" but if there is a contrast, I can say I was baptized at 7 years old, but not born again until I was 26. God used that group of people in my life in a mighty way; and since meeting them, my life has never been the same. I have never had contact with them again, nor can I really vividly remember their faces; yet, their simple act of evangelism put my entire life on a different path. Certain methods may seem less effective statistically; but to that single soul, they can be priceless.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I think it would be wise and powerful if all teaching elders did openly proclaim the gospel in some form or another. The church would definitely have a stronger witness in the world.

As far as as non-ordained people preaching in the streets, it's not that I am against it, but I truly believe they have to be in accordance and submission to their local church.

As far as all believers, yes I think it is extremely important for us to be witnessing to the world through sharing the gospel.

 

[CHSalzgeber]

I think it would be wise and powerful if all teaching elders did openly proclaim the gospel in some form or another. The church would definitely have a stronger witness in the world.

As far as as non-ordained people preaching in the streets, it's not that I am against it, but I truly believe they have to be in accordance and submission to their local church.

Amen, and amen. Any thoughts on the bonus question? How can we encourage elders to do this work?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I hope your OP and good questions get good answers, @CHSalzgeber.

I'm in a denominaton whose ministers practice street preaching (to passers-by, @jw!), and can say from observation and not being thoroughly acquainted with its history in the FCC, that I appreciate it and do often think of the Lord's command to go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in. I don't know that that Scripture is literally speaking of street preaching though, as much as simply being another way of describing being sent unto the harvest.

I do think of Paul's finding public places to proclaim Christ and debate with unbelievers.

But as has been stated before, the authoritative voice of preaching is from those properly trained/educated, and recognized through ordination and the laying on of hands, and then sent; and sent has one meaning, and is only accomplished via the lawful channels of the visible church. I believe the Bible clearly shows us, though, that every believer is to be prepared to witness to the truth of the gospel.

One thought on use of the word "evangelize" to describe the gospel witness of non-office-holders; evangelist being an office of the church, it's always seemed best to me to not use that term in regard to the work of non-officers in bearing witness to Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Something I haven't heard mentioned (explicitly) yet in the thread: this ordained minister, who isn't getting out in the street--I wonder if he's busy during the week with his ecclesiastical calling (visiting the membership at home and in the hospital, praying privately, leading prayer meeting, conducting Bible studies, administering the church institute, attending meetings, all while finding time to prepare for any of the former as well as for Sunday services), and more often than not his familial calling.

I know that if he's doing his job properly, he's preaching a vitally important evangel once or twice (possibly more) on Sunday, right? Knowing that the saints literally feed on Christ in the preaching of the gospel each Lord's Day, who will surely faint and be spiritually anemic if the gospel is absent or hardly discernible, his duty is that of an evangelist every Sunday, every service.

Now, if one has in mind by "evangelism" 1) a very specific proclamation, 2) with the goal (irrespective of outcome) of obtaining a heart-commitment to Christ, 3) after which one moves on to a new audience seeking a new possibility for harvest, then the assiduousness of the shepherd lavished on the sheep might seem beside the evangelist's labor, in addition to it. This is evangelism in the narrowest sense.

If the gospel is something a would-be Christian needs, and a new Christian has just embraced; but an experienced Christian reckons is formative, basic, and a past experience, or may be revisited on the occasion of a personal spiritual "revival" of sorts--then I can imagine regular preaching to a congregation of Christians could skip-out the gospel without it being missed. However, outside of "sharing the gospel" should the gospel be something of a rear-view mirror encounter for a mature believer? Or, is it possible that healthy believers can't do without a constant diet of Christ in his gospel?

Count me among those who think a true preacher, his ordination notwithstanding, only does his job well when he preaches the gospel (evangelizing in the full breadth of that term) at every gathering of the assembly to worship, to every person present for his well being. The doctrine of Perseverance is not divorced from the preaching of the gospel. Nor is it connected as by an umbilical to the gospel-origin of each person; but the gospel is his meat and drink, it is how we persevere.

So when Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," he isn't simply referring to his responsibility to find opportunity to meet and tell the lost (who never yet were presented with Christ in the gospel) for the first time. He commands Timothy to fulfill his ministry through all the ways the evangel permeates his calling as a gospel minister. Reaching the lost will sometimes take place outside the walls of the kingdom; and other times will take place right where there are many present who all begin the meeting assuming they were found already, but discover they were not, or they had wandered carelessly far off.

I propose: practices some have made paramount--namely a public oration to passersby, and buttonholing folks who are too kind to say "get lost!" because this pattern has produced some fruit for some men with charisma--are simply technique, not a rule, not suited to every personality. The idea that reluctance to so behave must reveal cowardice or pride strikes me as a straitjacket. Forcing people (and sometimes pressure is laid on pewsitters as well as parsons) to act in ways contrary to their personality is not typically regarded as good for mental health.

I'm not arguing that no one should ever leave their comfort zone, especially if there is a calling and duty at stake. But I do question the idea that there is a particular personality expression for the evangelist. Apollos did one sort of evangelism; Paul did another, yet both men were effective. Paul did not think he was much gifted as a speaker; whatever his limitations, God was pleased to use him in spite of those. These men were gospel-men, Apollos especially after he was more clearly instructed.

Timothy might have needed to be urged to focus on the gospel, or get out of his shell; but who can doubt he was being prompted because he was already the evangelist by appointment? This is the same Timothy who impressed Paul with his gospel zeal years earlier in Derbe/Lystra, and who had learned from the master over a long service by the time of the letter Paul wrote him. The call for him to do the work of an evangelist is one of several exhortations Paul gives him that are a summary of the standing orders for a minister. The manner of performance is varied, in the nature of the case. Evangelizing in Ephesus did not require Timothy to become the peripatetic missionary Paul was before him. It meant being faithful as the minister there where Paul left him to carry on his work when he left.

 

[davejonescue]

Something I haven't heard mentioned (explicitly) yet in the thread: this ordained minister, who isn't getting out in the street--I wonder if he's busy during the week with his ecclesiastical calling (visiting the membership at home and in the hospital, praying privately, leading prayer meeting, conducting Bible studies, administering the church institute, attending meetings, all while finding time to prepare for any of the former as well as for Sunday services), and more often than not his familial calling.

I know that if he's doing his job properly, he's preaching a vitally important evangel once or twice (possibly more) on Sunday, right? Knowing that the saints literally feed on Christ in the preaching of the gospel each Lord's Day, who will surely faint and be spiritually anemic if the gospel is absent or hardly discernible, his duty is that of an evangelist every Sunday, every service.

Now, if one has in mind by "evangelism" 1) a very specific proclamation, 2) with the goal (irrespective of outcome) of obtaining a heart-commitment to Christ, 3) after which one moves on to a new audience seeking a new possibility for harvest, then the assiduousness of the shepherd lavished on the sheep might seem beside the evangelist's labor, in addition to it. This is evangelism in the narrowest sense.

If the gospel is something a would-be Christian needs, and a new Christian has just embraced; but an experienced Christian reckons is formative, basic, and a past experience, or may be revisited on the occasion of a personal spiritual "revival" of sorts--then I can imagine regular preaching to a congregation of Christians could skip-out the gospel without it being missed. However, outside of "sharing the gospel" should the gospel be something of a rear-view mirror encounter for a mature believer? Or, is it possible that healthy believers can't do without a constant diet of Christ in his gospel?

Count me among those who think a true preacher, his ordination notwithstanding, only does his job well when he preaches the gospel (evangelizing in the full breadth of that term) at every gathering of the assembly to worship, to every person present for his well being. The doctrine of Perseverance is not divorced from the preaching of the gospel. Nor is it connected as by an umbilical to the gospel-origin of each person; but the gospel is his meat and drink, it is how we persevere.

So when Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," he isn't simply referring to his responsibility to find opportunity to meet and tell the lost (who never yet were presented with Christ in the gospel) for the first time. He commands Timothy to fulfill his ministry through all the ways the evangel permeates his calling as a gospel minister. Reaching the lost will sometimes take place outside the walls of the kingdom; and other times will take place right where there are many present who all begin the meeting assuming they were found already, but discover they were not, or they had wandered carelessly far off.

I propose: practices some have made paramount--namely a public oration to passersby, and buttonholing folks who are too kind to say "get lost!" because this pattern has produced some fruit for some men with charisma--are simply technique, not a rule, not suited to every personality. The idea that reluctance to so behave must reveal cowardice or pride strikes me as a straitjacket. Forcing people (and sometimes pressure is laid on pewsitters as well as parsons) to act in ways contrary to their personality is not typically regarded as good for mental health.

I'm not arguing that no one should ever leave their comfort zone, especially if there is a calling and duty at stake. But I do question the idea that there is a particular personality expression for the evangelist. Apollos did one sort of evangelism; Paul did another, yet both men were effective. Paul did not think he was much gifted as a speaker; whatever his limitations, God was pleased to use him in spite of those. These men were gospel-men, Apollos especially after he was more clearly instructed.

Timothy might have needed to be urged to focus on the gospel, or get out of his shell; but who can doubt he was being prompted because he was already the evangelist by appointment? This is the same Timothy who impressed Paul with his gospel zeal years earlier in Derbe/Lystra, and who had learned from the master over a long service by the time of the letter Paul wrote him. The call for him to do the work of an evangelist is one of several exhortations Paul gives him that are a summary of the standing orders for a minister. The manner of performance is varied, in the nature of the case. Evangelizing in Ephesus did not require Timothy to become the peripatetic missionary Paul was before him. It meant being faithful as the minister there where Paul left him to carry on his work when he left.

But what seems, and excuse me if I am getting this wrong, is it seems that we keep trying to pile on responsibilities for the Shepherds in an attempt to preserve an exclusivity of office, to the point of human impossibility. We all know Pastors main office is to focus on the saved. But ignoring that it is also their office to prepare the church corporately for the work of ministry, in an attempt to offset the churches corporate call to ministry, still leaves the proclamation of the Gospel in the world lacking. I agree with all you say of their weekly duties, and I agree all of those duties are fitting; but I dont agree that those duties give credence to a lack of evangel in the world. This is literally what the rest of the church is for. To find someway to share God with a lost world. The point is again, that there are many who will never step foot in a church; and we may think effectiveness in leu of numbers, yet does God? The Angel of the Lord said if he found but 10 righteous in Sodom he would have spared the city for their sakes; could it not be that those that "go out" do a service if 1,000 heckle, if 10,000 heckle but just 10 are awakened by the message? I sometimes feel that some Pastors want to "hog" all the service of the Lord to themselves (for lack of better terms) and are content to leave pew sitters paying tithes and paying attention on Sundays, and that's about it. As if the same Spirit which enables them is not in each person in those pews. For a God who created a billion galaxies by the power of his word, to have his Spirit within each of the elect, could it also not be such a figment to conceive there may be just as many ways to share God with others?

This is really one of the few things that irks me with the contemporary Reformed tradition. Is it seems many of us have no problem trying to be scholars, no problem trying to dissect every nuance of theology, no problem with doctrinal assimilation; but when it comes to going out into a hurting and dead world; like Jesus did with all those whom he healed and ministered to outside the temple, it is as if it is no importance. Jesus didnt wait until the leper was at church to heal him, Jesus met the woman at the well, Jesus didnt draw a line in the floor of the church, but the sand of the street. Jesus, on the cross, in the midst of sinners, not the saved, commits his last act of evangelism with the thief. I guess it really boils down to if we believe all Saints are called to some sort of ministry or not. Within my own tradition, we believe in the Priesthood of all believers, and as such, each believer has the responsibility to expand the Kingdom of Heaven in some way.

 

[beloved7]

I think street preaching would take a particular type of gift as it were, as one wouldn’t be able to prepare their sermon in the traditional sense. I think preaching would be difficult enough as it is, as I have never done it. Street preaching would be even more so.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

each believer has the responsibility to expand the Kingdom of Heaven in some way.

I rejoice for engaged, joyful, active believers, ready to tell others about their hope. May they always be present in the church, and may there be ever more and more of them. If I may, I want to focus on the word "responsibility" in the quote. That involves duty, one surely known or ought to be, a standard to be held to. A vague "responsibility" is more like "opportunity," and those aren't always recognized for reasons that range from ignorance to indifference, to variable priorities.

When we say the pastor has the responsibility to evangelize, we're looking at 2Tim.4:5 and recognizing that he is either doing or attempting this assigned task--clearly his duty--with zeal or without, making an effort or mailing it in, doing some work at the approximate level of his competence or shrouding the Master's mina.

I have a responsibility (of sorts) to be a "good citizen" of the country that provides me a harassment-free home. But it is exactly in the absence of a standard of accountability, that various good things I might fail to do--plausibly justifying myself, or even shrugging off--have no effect on my good-citizenship rating. The specific duty is not spelled out, so my responsibility is limited, as is praise or recognition for a job well-done. I have my liberty and use it, regardless of what others may think I should do.

Telling out the gospel, doing so in a way that is accurate, being ready to field reasonable questions, having facility (not mere passing familiarity) with the Scriptures, pointing a person with burgeoning interest to a faithful Christian fellowship for intimacy with Christ and his people and growth in grace--this is a specific skill that belongs to the toolkit of a man who has been invested with the Lord's authority. "By his command, I tell you: Repent, for you must be born again." A greater judgment is threatened against him, commensurate with the station unto which he was raised.

What I'm solicitous about is that word "responsibility." We should be careful how we toss it around. Is it each believer's responsibility to EXPAND the kingdom? Are there any whose duty is less extravagant? A bit more in line with their modest gift? It could be the humblest believer, who makes no pretense to plan for expanding God's kingdom, who discovers in heaven that his unobtrusive kindnesses, especially forgotten by himself, were used to great effect by the Lord of time and space. Meanwhile, the kingdom did not expand in any traceable way to his faithfulness. In God's providence, what was theoretically possible in his case still wasn't the case. I don't think any scenario like this one is spiritually faulty, a failure of responsibility.

Where is that "responsibility" unambiguously expressed in the word of God, what are the responsibility's parameters, what are the prerequisites, what is the penalty for not-fulfilling the duty? As a pastor, I'm concerned not only to encourage faithfulness and vocal witnessing (rightly performed) by Christians of all kinds; I'm also concerned to spare sincere and shy Christians from a shameful guilt trip, who deserve their modest freedom in Christ to be their mousy, Christ-glorifying selves.

 

[davejonescue]

I rejoice for engaged, joyful, active believers, ready to tell others about their hope. May they always be present in the church, and may there be ever more and more of them. If I may, I want to focus on the word "responsibility" in the quote. That involves duty, one surely known or ought to be, a standard to be held to. A vague "responsibility" is more like "opportunity," and those aren't always recognized for reasons that range from ignorance to indifference, to variable priorities.

When we say the pastor has the responsibility to evangelize, we're looking at 2Tim.4:5 and recognizing that he is either doing or attempting this assigned task--clearly his duty--with zeal or without, making an effort or mailing it in, doing some work at the approximate level of his competence or shrouding the Master's mina.

I have a responsibility (of sorts) to be a "good citizen" of the country that provides me a harassment-free home. But it is exactly in the absence of a standard of accountability, that various good things I might fail to do--plausibly justifying myself, or even shrugging off--have no effect on my good-citizenship rating. The specific duty is not spelled out, so my responsibility is limited, as is praise or recognition for a job well-done. I have my liberty and use it, regardless of what others may think I should do.

Telling out the gospel, doing so in a way that is accurate, being ready to field reasonable questions, having facility (not mere passing familiarity) with the Scriptures, pointing a person with burgeoning interest to a faithful Christian fellowship for intimacy with Christ and his people and growth in grace--this is a specific skill that belongs to the toolkit of a man who has been invested with the Lord's authority. "By his command, I tell you: Repent, for you must be born again." A greater judgment is threatened against him, commensurate with the station unto which he was raised.

What I'm solicitous about is that word "responsibility." We should be careful how we toss it around. Is it each believer's responsibility to EXPAND the kingdom? Are there any whose duty is less extravagant? A bit more in line with their modest gift? It could be the humblest believer, who makes no pretense to plan for expanding God's kingdom, who discovers in heaven that his unobtrusive kindnesses, especially forgotten by himself, were used to great effect by the Lord of time and space. Meanwhile, the kingdom did not expand in any traceable way to his faithfulness. In God's providence, what was theoretically possible in his case still wasn't the case. I don't think any scenario like this one is spiritually faulty, a failure of responsibility.

Where is that "responsibility" unambiguously expressed in the word of God, what are the responsibility's parameters, what are the prerequisites, what is the penalty for not-fulfilling the duty? As a pastor, I'm concerned not only to encourage faithfulness and vocal witnessing (rightly performed) by Christians of all kinds; I'm also concerned to spare sincere and shy Christians from a shameful guilt trip, who deserve their modest freedom in Christ to be their mousy, Christ-glorifying selves.

I think the parable of the talents is a good one. It both expresses a common endowment, different attitudes regarding investment, and consequences for action or negligence. Also, this goes back to trying to encompass "the work of evangelism" to only the office of Shepherd. The Bible doesn't say, Evangelists will be judged more harshly, (and we do see a difference in gifts such as teacher, evangelists, apostles, etc. Ephesians 4:11) it says teachers. I.e. "let not many become teachers" James 3:1 . Evangelism added to the commission of Timothy, doesnt necessitate evangelism as a practice exclusive to Preachers, but does include it as a work in the office of Pastor. As far as the timidity or shyness in the body, I would suggest 2 Timothy 1:7. The problem isnt so much that being kind is wrong, it is not. But that there is a large segment of lost society that are also kind. The attribution of that kindness is only found in given credence to the giver of the gift, by the proclamation that it stems from the savior in his service. This doesnt mean we always need to mention Jesus every time we are kind, but if we are only known as Christians at church, I think this not only defeats the purpose of being a city set on a hill; but also excludes most potential forms of persecution promised to all saints who follow Jesus. 2 Timothy 3:12

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I think if people want to preach into the open air they should do so under the guidance of their pastor and session, likewise this leadership should be nuturing such an endeavor. There isnt a nesessity for them to be ordained if they are already empower to live and speak the christian life (obviously the session should take care that they live godly consistent lives to avoid scandal and their own hurt) . The open air isnt a church or a pulpit and unbelievers need more simpler ideas and language to understand the truths of the Christian faith and so I see no reason to hinder such an endeavor, unless of course, jealous ministers burn with envy because the attention is taken off of themselves. Let them be reduced to ash and be blown away by an east wind if thats the case. The apostle had other ideas:

Phi 1:12-18 KJV 12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; 13 So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; 14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

 

[jw]

unbelievers need more simpler ideas and language to understand the truths of the Christian faith

Where does the LORD say this about His "method" of drawing His people to Himself?

What the Scriptures teach is that men cannot call upon Him of Whom they've never heard. And that they can't hear without a preacher. And that a preacher cannot be heard without being sent. As for "more simpler ideas and language," well, truly/savingly to understand the truths of the Christian faith, regeneration is what is needed, and no amount of reduction of complexity of language can affect that. The very same apostle you quote from Philippians is the one that wrote the concept I began with, and the two sentiments do not contradict. Paul expressing joy that Christ is being preached is not about some unvetted, unsent men running loose on the landscape but -rather- about "brethren," not all of whom had the best of intentions with their preaching.

As for the "open air/street preaching," I would ask the same questions that my brother Alex has brought up, and I echo the sentiments that the Rev. Bruce mentioned. May ministers "preach" in open air? I suppose that's just fine. The question is, however, is it a duty prescribed to the official ministry of churchmen? I am not sure that is proven. When I think of the ministers I know -and these are the things Pastor Buchanan was talking about- and I look at the "rigors of the ministry" as it were, in which these men are pouring themselves, the last thing I'm gonna be thinkin' about is, "Why hasn't Pastor SO & SO been on the corner of Easton & Main lately?" I am also not saying that those brethren of mine who, as a regular part of their ministry, engage in street preaching are neglecting other things. I cannot (and would not presume) to be judge of such. That said, I know what my very own Pastor is spending his time doing, and they are necessary things, gospel things, and leave little to no time for the aforementioned street preaching.

Often times, the departure we find one from another on some of the aspects of this subject, is the failure properly to have a definition of Evangelism. The Good News means something particular in Scripture, but I fear we've so saturated it with many other layers, even of well-meaning things, that it is inflated in our era. Every Christian has a duty -according to place & station- to be salt & light, to have an answer ready for those who would ask for a reason fo the hope he has, to be forward to tell others what Christ has done for/in him, to speak a word in season to those who are in need, etc. But those things -while comprehended in evangelistic work- are not "evangelism."

 

[TylerRay]

After using a search engine to try to mine Puritan Board for as much information as I could find on lay preaching, street preaching, open air preaching ('OAP'), evangelism, etc., I'd like to ask a few more questions on this topic, since I got back about as far as threads from 2008 and couldn't find an answer.


1. How do ministers who do not believe they are called to street preach or other types of 'kerusso' outside of the four walls of the church reckon with passages such as Luke 14:23 (cf. 1 Peter 5:3, 2 Tim. 4:5)?

2. If you believe this is a responsibility that rests with those who are called/ordained/sent, etc., do you believe this responsibility is being taken as seriously as it should? If not, why?

3. Do you think that ministers are responsible to equip their lay members to witness and evangelize in other ways, in accordance with Ephesians 4:12 (depending on where you put the comma)? Why or why not?

Bonus Question:

This one is for all the marbles.

If it is disorderly and improper for laymen to evangelize outside of the four walls of the church in particular ways, how can we best encourage our elders to take this work seriously? (Lest a situation not unlike Luke 11:52 arise, where not only are they unwilling to do it, but they're unwilling to let anyone else do it either.)

Hey, brother. You appear to be pretty close to my church. Every week after our afternoon service, we head over to the park and my pastor and I (I'm a ministerial candidate) preach and other church members hand out tracts and talk to folks. Let me know if you're interested in joining us. We usually go to Ronald Reagan Park in Snellville because it's near our church building.

 

[Ben Zartman]

It's hard to add to the excellent things that have been said already. I want to mention the OP, though, since it was likely my comment in another thread that sparked this offshoot, that whatever we take "evangelism" to mean, it is the duty of the church--the local assembly of God's people, constituted with officers, and blessed with all sorts of different people with different gifts and talents. Everyone has his task to do, be it only sitting and singing and tithing sometimes, but it all comes together with God's blessing for the advancement of His Church, even if it seems like few are publicly declaring God's word.
I agree with Jack, that the church can send someone who is not an ordained minister to perform various teaching functions, since they are acting under the authority of the church. I myself have been commissioned by the church to teach Bible studies from time to time, and have been sent on various foreign mission trips. I did none of these on my own, but was sent to each one with a specific task, and reported to the church on the proceedings.
I'm also not convinced, with others, that street preaching, or 'doorknocking' is among the duties of every ordained minister in every context. I do say that if it were, even if a group were going out to do it, a duly appointed officer should be spearheading the effort. When I was young, we used to go out knocking on doors to pass out tracts, but we did it as a church, and the church elders were always in the group, being an ensample of the work they wished to see accomplished.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but some will say that it either won't work today or that it is more difficult. In some areas, there really isn't a public square in the sense that there used to be. Some areas more naturally lend themselves to this type of ministry than others. I guess if the late "Brother Jed" could still preach on campus until recently that more solid believers can also.

In some areas, door knocking works much better than in other areas, but probably doesn't work anywhere nearly as well as it did when people were accustomed to sitting on the front porch.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

Where does the LORD say this about His "method" of drawing His people to Himself?

That's not what I said.

This is what I said:

The open air isnt a church or a pulpit and unbelievers need more simpler ideas and language to understand the truths of the Christian faith

Here's what I mean:

WLC 159: How is the Word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?

Answer: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the Word, are to preach sound doctrine1, diligently2, in season and out of season3; plainly4, not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power5; faithfully6, making known the whole counsel of God7; wisely8, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers9; zealously10, with fervent love to God11 and the souls of his people12; sincerely13, aiming at his glory14, and their conversion15, edification16, and salvation.17