Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 1
Posted by deangonzales on April 16, 2009
I’m still learning new things about my Reformed heritage. Most of the time, these new discoveries are edifying and serve to confirm my conviction that the Reformed tradition usually has it right. Occasionally, however, I run across a strand of Reformed teaching that doesn’t resonate well with my general knowledge of the Bible’s teaching. In some of these cases, I’m prompted to do further investigation that reveals a flaw or imbalance in my own thinking. In other cases, I can’t get a particular strand of Reformed thought to fit with the contours of Scripture. The doctrine and practice of infant baptism is a case in point.
I’ve recently stumbled across another strand of thought associated with my Reformed heritage (or at least certain branches of Reformed tradition) that appears out of balance with the data of Scripture. The strand of thought I have in view is a bit difficult to define or characterize. It’s more of a propensity than a clearly defined position. The best way I can think to describe it is a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ministry of the ordained man and to underemphasize the importance of the ministry of the layman. It’s a penchant for defining the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of what happens in the pulpit on Sundays rather than more broadly in terms of what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week.
How did I run across this strand of Reformed perspective? Well, several months ago I posted a question on the Puritan Board (PB), a discussion forum for pastors and laymen who hold to one of the Reformed creeds. I raised the question whether the Reformed Confessions adequately affirm the church’s duty of evangelistic and missionary outreach.1 Some answered by pointing to the Westminster Directory for Worship, which commends public prayers for “the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations.” Others provided references of Puritan sermons on evangelism. One brother suggested that since evangelism and missions is something we “do” whereas creeds are primarily concerned with what we “believe,” we shouldn’t be surprised if there’s little creedal affirmation regarding evangelism and missions in the Reformed symbols. Most often, however, the answer I received was that the creedal expressions “the ministry of the Word” (WCF 10.3, 4; 14.1; WLC 68; 159), “the preaching of the Word” (WCF 7.6; WLC 35, 155; WSC 89), or “the administration of the Word (WCF 23.3) served as adequate affirmations of the church’s responsibility to proclaim the gospel to its own Jerusalem and to the uttermost parts of the earth.
These responses to my question were not entirely satisfying. I suspected that the phrases cited above had a more narrow reference to the pulpit ministry performed by the ordained minister. My suspicions were confirmed when one brother plainly asserted, “I don’t think every Christian is the one ‘who is sent’ according to Romans 10.” A Reformed Baptist pastor followed up and expanded on this remark:
I believe most of us are all settled on the role of the preacher in declaring the gospel. I doubt many on the PB will argue against missionaries proclaiming the gospel. But how about the individual pew sitter? Is there a biblical mandate for them to witness or share the gospel? Is one needed? If I am honest to scripture, I have to admit that I cannot find one inference that commands individuals to preach the gospel.
Then a Presbyterian minister joined the discussion and confirmed this perspective by citing the WCF 8.8, which refers to God’s effectual call via “his Word and Spirit,” and by asserting:
Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs. The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with “reaching the unsaved,” but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments.
Not only did I disagree with the false dichotomy drawn between “asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer” and “meeting human needs,”2 but I also was uncomfortable with this tendency to limit the work of evangelism to the pulpit ministry of the ordained man. When I pressed this brother whether the layperson had the privilege and responsibility to evangelize, he pointed to the believers in Philippi and noted that they prayed for Paul, supported Paul financially, and sought to cultivate a godly lifestyle. He even conceded that they might speak “about the things which are believed and practiced.” However, he went on to stress that
this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one’s faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.
Hmm. Speaking about things believed and practiced and sharing one’s faith “is not preaching the gospel”? Not “evangelism, in the NT sense of the word”? Doesn’t count as “official” proclamation? Doesn’t include “commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon [Christ] for the salvation of their souls”? And does Romans 10:14-17, which identifies special revelation as the means of grace for saving faith (see WCF 14.1; LBCF 14.1), restrict the proclamation of the gospel to the ordained minister? True, the ordained minister is one of the links in the Romans 10 chain that gets the gospel to the unreached. But should we conclude that Paul’s list of links is exhaustive? After all, he failed to mention explicitly the church praying for laborers (Matt. 9:37-38) and preparing laborers (2 Tim. 2:2). If the reader should assume those links as part of the chain on the basis of other texts of Scripture, why not assume another link in the chain, namely, that the explicitly identified commissioned minister will, in turn, “equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph. 4:12),3 which would include evangelism?
Perhaps it’s just a matter of semantics, I thought. Maybe I’m reading too much into their comments. Then someone sent me a lengthy citation from Reformed theologian and author Michael Horton, of which I’ll cite the relevant parts:
We believe that the Christian life consists chiefly in finding out what needs to be done, and doing it. Inveterate Pelagians by birth, we do our best to climb the spiritual rungs into God’s hidden presence, but he has plainly warned us against this strategy. For he has come near to us, through the Incarnate Word, the written, and especially, preached Word, and the visible Word (i.e., the Sacraments)…. In fact, although the Church often considers other activities “ministries” that reach the world for Christ, the Church, as Louis Berkhof reminds us, “is not instrumental in communicating grace, except by means of the Word and of the sacraments.”4
If I’m reading Horton correctly, especially in the light of his citation of Louis Berkhof, he believes the church will not reach the (lost) world “except by means of the Word and the sacraments.” Indeed, a look at the Berkhof statement in its original context provides further confirmation:
Strictly speaking, only the Word and the sacraments can be regarded as means of grace, that is, as objective channels which Christ has instituted in the Church, and to which He ordinarily binds Himself in the communication of His grace.5
Does “the Word” in this context only refer to preaching? Berkhof seems to imply so when he identifies it as “the preaching of the Word.” Nevertheless, he later distinguishes between the “the Word as it is preached,” which is “the official means of grace,” with “the Word,” which “can also be carried out into the world by all believers and operate in many different ways” (emphasis his).6 So Berkhof doesn’t completely limit the ministry of the Word or proclamation of the gospel to the ordained minister. But that’s where he and Horton place the emphasis.
I decided I’d do a little more investigation. I picked up a book off my shelf entitled With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship, written by Darryl Hart and John Muether, two Reformed scholars, and turned to the section that identifies the agent(s) responsible for carrying out the Great Commission. The authors rightly note, “The Great Commission is the task of the church.”7 But then they narrow the agency of the church vis-à-vis the Great Commission “to the ministers of the Word.” They argue that since it is the officers of the church who administer the “baptism” of the Great Commission, then we must also confine the ordinances of making disciples and teaching to the ordained ministers.8 In fact, these writers attempt to draw a parallel between the activities of the Great Commission and the three marks of a true church historically identified by Reformed theologians:
Discipling, teaching, and baptizing—together, these elements of the Great Commission describe what the Reformers understood to be the marks of the true church: the preaching of the Word (‘teaching … all that I commanded you’), the administration of the sacraments (‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’), and the exercise of discipline (‘make disciples’). The Great Commission, then, is a description of the true church fulfilling her mandate.9
Wow! This was a new paradigm for me. Not only did these writers seem intent on limiting the task of making and grounding disciples in the faith to the agency of the ordained minister, but they also seemed to narrow its sphere (at least primarily) to what takes place on Sunday within the four walls of a church building. My hunch was confirmed when I turned the page and read an injunction to trust that “[God] will make the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments effectual to salvation” and to believe that “he will supply the officers of his church with all that is necessary for them to carry out this work.” “Thus,” conclude the authors, “it is the church, and specifically the church at worship that fulfills the Great Commission” (emphasis theirs).10
It’s not that I was having problems with the ecclesiastical focus of these authors. I agreed with them that the task of the Great Commission ultimately belongs to the church and not to para-church organizations. Nevertheless, I was struggling with their tendency to narrow both the task’s sphere (corporate worship) and agents (the ordained minister). For one thing, though there is an etymological relation between “making disciples” and “discipline,” the two concepts, in their NT context, are not semantically synonymous. “Making disciples” (Greek: matheteuo), that is, to cause someone to become a follower of Christ is a much broader concept semantically than ecclesiastical discipline (whether formative or corrective). To state it differently, making disciples entails evangelism, which, in turn, results (with the blessing of God) in “adding” disciples to the church. How does “church discipline” add members to the church?11 Of course, Hart and Muether didn’t just limit “making disciples” or evangelism to church discipline, so it seemed. They also included “the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments” as “effectual means of salvation.” But doesn’t this still limit evangelism primarily to what takes place in the pulpit on Sunday?
Apparently not. After all, that would seem to contradict what they had said earlier, namely, “We [i.e., the church] must proclaim the gospel to the lost and desire that converts come to Christ. But,” they add, “that is not the only function of the church, and certainly not the focus of its worship” (emphasis added).12 In other words, “Evangelism,” they write, “is only part of the commission Christ gave to his church.”13 And to make their position more clear: “Worship, then, is not chiefly about evangelism.”14
So I paused to put this all together. The church at worship primarily fulfills the Great Commission on Sunday. Moreover, God is pleased to effectually save souls through the ordained minister who preaches Word, dispenses the sacraments, and administers church discipline. However, evangelism, which is certainly an essential part of “making disciples,” is not to be the focus of worship on Sunday. Something doesn’t fit. But wait! Maybe they intend the phrase “effectual to salvation” more broadly to include sanctification as well as those more initial soteriological blessings we associate with conversion. That makes sense. Just as the Great Commission is broader than evangelism, so salvation can be a wider concept than conversion. But I’m still left with questions about the sphere and agents of evangelism. It seemed to me that these Reformed authors largely confined the Great Commission to Sunday worship, minimized the task of evangelism in this context, and confined its agency to the ordained minister. What about evangelism outside of worship? What about the layman’s role in evangelism?
Then I thought again of Ephesians 4:11-12, which speaks of Christ giving to the church “the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (ESV). After a quick look at the index, I was happy to learn that the authors devoted two full pages to this text. My countenance fell, however, when I read their interpretation. They adopt the older, less common interpretation that limits the ministries envisioned in verse 12 to the ordained man and reject the more common interpretation (reflected in the ESV translation above) as
an every-member-ministry construction of Pauline teaching that diminishes the specialness of pastors’ chief duties by elevating to the status of ministry all the service of encouragement and edification that believers quite appropriately offer to each other.15
While Hart and Muether don’t offer much of an exegetical argument, they do direct the reader to an article by T. David Gordon entitled, “‘Equipping’ Ministry in Ephesians 4.” Gordon finds the majority view, reflected in most modern Bible translations and commentaries, as grammatically, contextually, and canonically (NT) indefensible. Indeed, he can only attribute the view that sees pastors as equipping saints so that the latter can engage in works of ministry “to the egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, populist Zeitgeist [i.e., ‘spirit of the time’].”16 Most readers don’t want to be associated with such contemptuous epithets. So they’ll have no other choice but to reject the view that’s inclusive of lay-ministry and to embrace the view that’s exclusively clerical.
I found the same kind of name-calling scare tactic in the Hart and Muether book. According to them, those who include the laity in the task of the Great Commission are unduly influenced by “North American democratic and egalitarian culture.”17 Similarly, one of Darryl Hart’s and Michael Horton’s colleagues, R. Scott Clark, rejects “the ‘every member’ model” as having “a lot more to do with democratic populism than it does with the biblical view of the church.”18 In another essay, Clark opines, “There’s not a lot of evidence in the NT that unordained Christians did much ‘evangelism.’ This is the Achilles’ Heel of modern, populist, democratic, egalitarian evangelicalism.”19
Despite the credentials of these scholars and their attachment to historic Reformed Christianity, I find their tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ordained man and to underemphasize the importance of the layman imbalanced, to say the least. At worst, it’s unhealthy for the Christian church. I’ll try to refrain from associating their views with papism, fascism, and the aristocratic Zeitgeist. Instead, I’ll offer biblical arguments in favor of lay-ministry (Part 2) and in favor of lay-evangelism (Part 3). My aim in these posts is not to denigrate the importance of the ordained man and the pulpit ministry. Rather, I hope to counter what I perceive to be an unhealthy tendency in some Reformed circles to downplay the importance of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism inside and outside the four walls of the sanctuary. In a word, I’d like to give proper due to the people in the pew.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- “Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?” which can be found on the Puritan Board: http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/do-reformed-confessions-affirm-duty-evangelistic-missionary-outreach-37503/. For more examples, see also the discussion under the thread, “The Pastor Only Should Evangelize”: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/pastor-only-should-evangelize-29582/. [↩]
- I responded to this pastor as follows: “I think the theology of all true churches (whether Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) should be concerned with asserting the crown rights of King Jesus. But I’m not comfortable with the seeming dichotomy you’ve drawn. Part of ‘asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer’ is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming ‘I’m the Promised Messiah’ but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc., I think we’re on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ). [↩]
- See my exposition and application of this text in Part 2 of this series. [↩]
- “Mysteries of God and Means of Grace”; accessed April 14, 2009 from the Internet: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=626&var3=main. [↩]
- Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1941), 604-05. [↩]
- Ibid., 610-11. [↩]
- Worship with Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (P&R, 2002), 43. [↩]
- Ibid., 43, 105-112. [↩]
- Ibid., 47. [↩]
- Ibid., 48. [↩]
- Of course, Paedo-baptists have a way to circumvent this difficult. They can “add” to the church via procreation. That option is closed to the Baptist, however. [↩]
- Ibid., 45. [↩]
- Ibid., 48. [↩]
- Ibid., 133. [↩]
- Ibid., 111. [↩]
- Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 75. [↩]
- Worship with Reverence and Awe, 44. [↩]
- “Ministers All?”; accessed April 14, 2009 from the Internet: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/ministers-all/ [↩]
- “Missional Monday: Should Evangelism Happen Only in the Church?”; accessed April 14, 2009 from the Internet: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/missional-monday-should-evangelism-happen-only-in-the-church/. Dr. James Renihan, professor of at the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies, also alarms the reader against the “every-member-ministry” view by calling it “the triumph of Plymouthism,” which, “in its worst application … obliterates any distinction between members of the church and promises a kind of egalitarianism. Churches become like huge shopping malls,” says Renihan, “full of stores with ‘Help Wanted’ signs. Choose your place, find a position, and do it! The work of ministry is yours to do.” “The Ministry and the Church, Part 1,” The Banner of Truth 491-492 (Aug-Sept 2004): 41. [↩]
32 Responses to “Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
[...] week. In a three-part series of posts, I
April 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I look forward to your articles brother. One thought that struck me is the apparent contradiction of the idea that what happens in the church is the principle means of evangelism, especially when combined with the common argument that our worship services are for believers and not unbelievers. Which is it? If preaching the gospel to the unconverted happens chiefly at public worship then we need to consider this in the formulation of our worship services much more than we do, in my opinion.
Additionally, how can the sacraments be a means of grace to unbelievers? Especially in light of the fact that many baptisms in the NT are private, coupled with the reformed teaching that baptism is a sign to the believer. Perhaps it is a means of grace by observing…I’ll grant that. But there doesn’t seem to be much evidence for this usage in the NT especially with regard to the supper. Maybe I have missed something. I have thought many times that exclusively preaching the gospel in the church can be a way of hiding the candle under a bushel. We are the light of the world…and the truth needs to be shined outside of the body of believers and into the darkness.
The words of Jesus in Matthew 5 are sobering, “if the salt looses its saltiness IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING.”
April 16th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Every Reformed Baptist church that I am familiar with displays an earnest concern for evangelism.
Perhaps less time on the internet and more time engaging in evangelism would be good for all concerned.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:23 am
It is refreshing to hear you speak about our Reformed Heritage in the spirit of “always reforming”. In my own studies about what being “reformed” means, I have also come across issues that don’t seem to be in line with what has seemed to me to be what Scripture teaches. I am very interested to read your next few posts, as this minister/ layman teaching in some contemporary Reformed writings has troubled me a bit. Thank you.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:43 am
[...] Bob Gonzales has begun another provocative and helpful series over at RBS Tabletalk concerning the responsibility of the whole body of Christ to be winners of souls. In the light of that, I thought I would post an excellent chapter from Charles Spurgeon’s [...]
April 17th, 2009 at 3:59 am
I am looking forward to the remainder of your thoughts on this.
Not knowing where you will go with all this, must we not distinguish between the work of preaching in its more specific sense and in its more general sense?
With regard to the first, for example, I note that the Baptist Confession states in 26.11 that those (other than ordained pastors) gifted and fitted by the Spirit for the work of preaching ought to be approved and employed (i.e. put to work) by the church. It’s not the same context, I know, but during the eighteenth century revivals one cause of immense hoo-hah was preaching carried out by unordained men (mainly in a more Anglican environment). Is there in some circles a tendency to clericalism of which we must beware? I must confess, brother, that I find even the terminology of ‘lay-ministry’ and ‘lay-evangelism’ unhelpful at this point. I am not seeking by any means to undermine or downgrade the office of the pastor-preacher, but we can make false distinctions (or make too much of true ones), even by way of over-reaction to the individualism and unscriptural democratisation that has first crept and then marched into Christ’s church.
Then, with regard to the more generic work of witness, I wonder what must be done with Acts 8 at this point (not to mention general exhortations given throughout the Scriptures to the people of God)? Saul is there, the spearhead of the great persecution that arises, and the church is all scattered throughout the regions (the apostles being specifically excluded). In v4, “those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.” Now, Philip is immediately identified as preaching Christ in Samaria, and the verb is different (evangelise for all vs. proclaim for Philip). But, even taking that into account, with whatever nuances there may be, I am not sure how you empty v1-4 of their significance. Even if you take the records of the Acts as more foundational and the epistles as more normative, I think the clear implication is that the people of God – all of them – carry Christ with them where they go, and – as I believe one well-known minister said – in doing so they are to “gossip the gospel.”
At the same time, we must not allow this to become an excuse for us as ministers of the gospel. I could potentially use the Ephesians 4.12 line to allow myself to remain safely within the walls of the church building, while I equip the members of the body to go out and do the hard, dirty and dangerous work of witnessing to the lost. Surely if we are truly pastor-preachers we will feel the weight of our obligation to spearhead the gospelling of our neighbourhoods, towns and cities, to go out into the highways and byways, compelling men to enter the kingdom by gospel truth from earnest hearts in sincere warning and warm entreaty? We are the ones who will give an account as stewards appointed by God to fulfil his word.
Sure, there is much more that could be said about how we evangelise (the balance between missional and attractional, for example), and we need to take account of the Spirit-worked graces, gifts and capacities of the individual people of God – not all of them have the same ability to minister the truth – but I would be right with you on this one. I think that the history of Christ’s church indicates that in its healthiest days there is no ‘either-or’ to this issue, but rather a ‘both-and’: ministers of the gospel appointed by the church doing all in their power to see the gospel come with vigour to all those within their sphere of influence and opportunity, and the people of God in their appointed spheres and in keeping with their circumstances and graces and gifts, by good works letting their light shine before men, and with good words pressing home the gospel of grace upon the hearts of men.
In Charles Spurgeon’s The Soul Winner there is an outstanding chapter on “How to induce our people to win souls.” There he emphasises the importance of the earnest example of the man of God, but he also has this to say:
If you will excuse his little aside at your national expense, I think there is much to commend here. The Metropolitan Tabernacle at its best certainly had the great preacher as a figurehead of sorts, but the whole place was a hive of gospel activity, humming through the week. I think that is a model worth pursuing.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am
[...] Dr. Bob Gonzales, dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary, gets it exactly right in the first of his series: Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, P…. [...]
April 17th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Do you think that a cultural shift could go a little ways in explaining the emphasis that was placed on evangelism in the church vs evangelism outside of the church? I think there was a time when it was the cultural norm for everyone to be in church on Sunday. If the unsaved were not in church regularly, then they were at least more cordial to an invitation from a church member to visit church.
To us it seems outrageous to limit evangelism to Sunday worship, because there are so many millions unsaved in American who will never darken the door of a church. Was this always the case though?
Also, Jeremy, great quote from Spurgeon, thanks for that, even if it does take a swipe at Americans and their “flummery”.
I am looking forward to reading parts 2 and 3!
April 17th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Jeremy,
Thanks for you many helpful comments. Not sure where to begin.
First, the quote from Spurgeon is priceless. Indeed, I didn’t even mind the joke about American preachers–it had me rolling in laughter!
Second, yes, I think we should and may distinguish between the ordained man and the layman, as well as between the ministry of the Word or formally preached sermon and the lay-proclamation of gospel truth. I’ll try to maintain those distinctions along the way.
Third, is there a clericalism in some circles of which we should beware? I think there’s a “tendency” in that direction among some within the confessional Reformed camp (both Paedo-baptist and Credo-baptist). Appeal is often made to the WCF or LBCF 14.1, which speaks of the ministry of the Word as the ordinary means of grace by which saving faith is wrought. The deduction is then made that the life and ministry of a local church should be defined mainly by “the Word and Sacraments,” by what’s done on Sunday. I have problems with this “tendency.”
Fourth, you’re not certain if the designations “lay-ministry” and “lay-evangelism” are helpful. I think your point is (and correct me if I’m wrong) that my very use of those terms is simply reinforcing a dichotomy between clergy and laypeople that isn’t completely biblical. Is that right? If that’s what you mean, then I’m willing to concede that the terminology might be misleading. I like to look at it this way: all believers are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ and members of his church. In that capacity, we are all called to let our lights shine, do good unto men, proclaim the gospel, etc., in accordance with the measure of gift and opportunity God has given to us (1 Pet. 4:10-11). Nevertheless, from among that group of disciples, Christ chooses some who have a notably higher gift of public utterance, administrative skill, and godly maturity to serve as pastor-teachers. Similarly, among that same group of disciples, God chooses some who have a notably higher gift (and proven record) of ministry (in the sense of “service”) and godly maturity to serve as deacons. So instead of two distinct groups, i.e., clergy vs. laity, I prefer to view the one group (clergy) as a subgroup of the larger (laypeople). Do you think that’s a better way of looking at the matter?
Fifth, I completely agree with you that equipping saints to do work of ministry does not relieve the pastor-teacher from that task. He too is a disciple of Christ and should also be engaged (in keeping with the time and opportunities God gives him) in seeking to minister to the poor and needy and share the gospel with the lost.
Sixth, I agree with your take on Acts 8:1-4. I’ll be referencing that passage in a subsequent post.
Seventh, you write, “I think that the history of Christ’s church indicates that in its healthiest days there is no ‘either-or’ to this issue, but rather a ‘both-and.’” Amen and Amen! I pray that my contribution will promote the “both-and” approach.
Brother, thanks again for your helpful and sharpening remarks. I’ll now, in light of Spurgeon’s remarks, have to watch the barometer when I mount the sacred desk lest I preach a “storm” rather than a sermon.
Gratefully yours,
Bob Gonzales
April 17th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Brad,
I think you may have a point about the cultural shift. I don’t have any statistics, but I would suspect that in a sacral society more evangelism could take place from the pulpit since church’s may have consisted in great part of unconverted people. I suggested elsewhere that this may partly account for the paucity of emphasis on evangelistic and missionary outreach in the Puritan confessions (1689 included). This is all the more reason why we need to cultivate among our people more than an inward, Sunday focus. We need to spur them on to do the work of ministry and evangelism in the workplace, schools, market, etc.
Thanks for your input.
Bob Gonzales
April 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Doesn’t being a cross bearer entitle one to preach the cross?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am
David,
Good to hear from you. I think Jesus’ words “take up your cross” allude to the rejection and persecution suffered by those who follow Jesus. But the cause of that rejection and persecution is more than an outwardly decent lifestyle. I believe it assumes that Jesus’ disciples will be proclaiming the gospel as he did, thus incurring the world’s wrath, as he did. What’s more, I’m not willing to limit Jesus’ call to “take up your cross” to apostles and preachers. I think it applies to all who would be disciples. Hence, I agree with your rhetorical question: being a cross bearer does entitle one to preach the cross.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
April 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Amen! Several years ago, I was practically kicked out of a church in north Texas for preaching on the doctrine of election. One of the arguments “the mob” made was that God chose before the foundation of the world to save the group and not the individual. My response was that a group is selected one individual at a time, much like we used to choose who played on our baseball team during recess. Inherent in the call to disciplship and to be fishers of men is the individual call to evangelize. But how can one separate gospel worship from evangelism? Expressing love for the Savior and the unmerited favor He poured out upon us as well as the warning of God’s wrath, should be the contagion and the motivation that should drive us to snatch the lost from the fire.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Matt Troupe said, “what happens in the church is the principle means of evangelism”.
This certainly doesn’t seem to be the case when I read through the NT. I see the Christians going out from their churches and evangelizing.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hello, Mr. “Anonymous”
Actually, I think you may have taken a statement Matt said out of context. I believe he was alluding to the imbalanced tendency I was addressing in my essay. Note carefully what he says later: “I have thought many times that exclusively preaching the gospel in the church can be a way of hiding the candle under a bushel. We are the light of the world…and the truth needs to be shined outside of the body of believers and into the darkness.”
Hope this helps.
Bob Gonzales
April 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Bob,
This is another excellent post. I am so thankful you are dealing with sticky issues among Reformed Baptists with grace and boldness. As a whole we are imbalanced on this matter and it is turning RBs (generally speaking) into pew potatoes. Church life turns into “sermon listening”. That is why, I believe, our churches have been humbled over the last 5-8 years or so…
Thanks for addressing these issues. May God use you (among others) to reform our churches.
God bless,
April 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’m sorry if it seemed like I was accusing him of something. That was not my intention. I was just answering his question: “which is it?”
By the way, I am looking forward to the rest of this series.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
[...] Gonzales has written a fabulous article on Christians and evangelism. Here’s my summary: Some reformed people argue that the great [...]
April 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Bob,
Can you share with us some helpful examples of evangelistic efforts that you have led the churches you pastored in accomplishing? What are some of the “rubber meets the road” examples that took place in Bossier City and are talking place in Easley?
Resources that I have found helpful are:
Books –
1. Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions – John Piper
2. Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People – Will Metzger
3. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God – JI Packer
Tracts
1. Ultimate Questions – John Blanchard
Thanks,
Steve
April 18th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Great topic.
This is an interesting point of reflection for anyone, like myself, who began their faith in a broad Evangelical context before becoming Reformed. During that journey, certain elements of belief and practice are jettisoned, and certain others are retained or even strengthened.
Obviously, the central metamorphosis concerns the doctrines at the heart of the reformed tradition, i.e. the doctrines of grace, the solas, covenant theology.
But in other issues, the experience of being “Reformed” varies widely. Some count their newfound acceptance of paedo-baptism as a central part of their Reforming process. Others, like myself and Dean Gonzales (as he mentions in the post) cannot square that idea with their foundational understanding of Scripture.
As another example, some lump in a drastic change in worship style as a part of their Reforming process, while others do not.
My point is that for some who have become Reformed, the call to personal evangelism is equated with a part of their broad past to be left behind. How sadly misguided. While I am not an apologist for all of the things done in the name of “personal evangelism,” how disappointing to see those who claim a theology that gives God all glory and power in the saving of souls adopt a practice that stifles the spread of the gospel.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:11 am
[...] As I mentioned in a previous post, Bob Gonzales has begun a series over at RBS Tabletalk concerning the responsibility of the whole body of Christ to be winners of souls. I posted a chapter from Charles Spurgeon’s The Soul Winner on inducing the people of God [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Hello, Bob -
Thanks for your response to scattergun comments.
With regard to clericalism and the clergy/laity distinction: I appreciate your distinction between the ordained man or the vocational minister (which I know is not necessarily the same thing) and those who are not called to preach the gospel as a way of life. Perhaps its something in my British Dissenting bloodstream that bridles at the terminology of “lay-ministry” and “lay-evangelism” – to me, it does reinforce what I think is an unhelpful distinction. It’s a bit like when people talk about those who are in “full-time Christian service” as if they are somehow special or particularly committed Christians, whereas all Christians are in full-time Christian service (being Christians!), but some have a particular calling to a specific vocation that is more definitely associated with the work of the kingdom (even that is an awkward designation). I do have a problem with the tendency to clericalism that you also see, and I wonder if it is possible to find language that does not lend credence to it. While agreeing that the under-shepherds are a subgroup of the sheep, as it were, I think that avoiding language that reinforces a clergy/laity distinction while still recognising the distinctive calling and office of the pastor-preacher (and, for that matter, the deacon) and the specific responsibilities and privileges that attend it. Having tried to identify the problem, I am glad to announce that I can offer no immediate solution! I will continue chewing and see if I can offer something more substantial.
I also noted Brad Hicks’ comment about the cultural shift from church attendance being the norm (and even the mandated norm) and being the exception, together with your response. In that regard, I was just reading a sermon by Calvin on the Acts of the Apostles: the whole thing is outstanding, but the section that caught my eye is as follows:
He goes on to give some practical counsel and offer some rebukes to those who would evade this duty. As I understand it, Geneva in Calvin’s day was pretty clear about the responsibility of the whole populace to attend upon the worship of God, and even so, the great reformer is here pressing the saints to undertake the evangelism of their friends, neighbours, colleagues, families, and fellow-citizens. If Calvin were pressing this home so plainly (except for the somewhat confusing paragraph about Timothy and Titus) in his time and under his circumstances, I think there is some justification for suggesting that those who claim to be heirs of the Reformation without embracing this wider duty may be missing the mark.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Bob,
One of the things that has been troubling me about RB churches is the tendency to think that coming to Christ and coming to our RB distinctives is one and the same thing. Sometimes I think we are more concerned with making others Reformed Baptists than we are with making lost sinners disciples of Jesus Christ…
April 20th, 2009 at 10:15 am
[...] Part 1 of this series, I expressed my concern about a tendency in some Reformed circles. This [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 10:28 am
[...] Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2 In Part 1 of this series, I tried to provide some examples of Reformed leaders and scholars who seem inclined [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Steve Clevenger,
If I might take the liberty to answer in part the question you ask Bob above as it relates to our ministry together in Easley.
First, let me say that we are painfully aware that we ourselves have often failed in this area. We have certainly not done all that we should or could do. Here are some things that we have done with reference to encouraging our people to be involved in the work of service and also in sharing the gospel:
1) Sweeps through the community by folks going door to door with gospel literature on various occasions or tapes of sermons, Raking leaves for people in the community and giving literature, church carnival etc… 2) Something I think has been a helpful and important way that we have encouraged our people to think in these terms has been often having a segment in our prayer meeting where people are asked to share with everyone opportunities they have had that week or recently to witness to someone and then we pray for those situations. It has been quite encouraging to discover by that means how often our folks are attempting to share the gospel with others and this also creates a certain climate where the people see this as something for the regular member to do. In those segments we as pastors also share with the church various witnessing opportunities we have had. 3) various men volunteer to minister the word in the nursing home and this is not limited to ordained men..same in the children’s home. 4) We have sought to utilize young men in teaching bible studies or Sunday School and one of our college men opens every Lord’s Day for us by welcoming everyone and leading the hymn etc. in the opening assembly in the mornng. 5) We have regional bible study/prayer meetings in different homes once a month. We have three of those going on right now in different locations…In the group I’m a part of a flier was put together and folks from our church in our group passed out fliers throughout the community to invite people to the bible study which is study of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. We have had some visit the bible study as a result. 6) We have had the desire of beginning a counseling ministry to our community. We have put together guidelines and needed documentation thus far and have been seeking to prepare for and encourage more every member ministry in this area of counseling by taking our folks through Ready to Restore: A Layman’s Guide to Christian Counseling by Jay Adams, the purpose being to have more folks in our church to whom we could hand people over for accountability after we, the pastors(also our chairman of deacons is well trained in nouthetic counseling), have made some progress with them and also to help our folks learn how to counsel one another.
Please tell us other ideas that you have found helpful in your setting. We are always looking for them and like to hear what other churches are doing.
Grace and Peace,
Jeff Smith, Easley
April 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Steve,
Sorry for the delayed response to your inquiry. Looks like my fellow elder beat me to it. I would also add to what he said above that we took our people through a course on personal evangelism in adult SS class. I think that encouraging our people as well as ourselves as pastors to make contact with people in the community is good in addition to church sponsored efforts.
While in Bossier City, my family and I cared for a 54-year old man in our home who did not know the Lord. His mental capacity was about that of a 7 to 10 year old. We preached the gospel to him daily. We hope our labors bore fruit. We also got involved in Little League and had a number of informal opportunities to share the gospel, though I’ll confess my wife was more aggressive than I. I set up a weight-room in my garage and invited some men in the neighborhood to work out with me. My next-door neighbor was my primary target and I had opportunity to share my testimony with him and proclaim the gospel. We also engaged in church sponsored efforts: door-to-door evangelism, a special seminary on raising teens to which unsaved people were invited, weekly newspaper articles, 60-minute radio blurbs, nursing home ministry, special evangelistic services, 4th of July Picnics in which a message was brought that highlighted the gospel. These are just some of the things I can remember off the top of my head.
Since we’ve been in Greenville, SC, we’ve found that enrolling our children in Aikido (a form of martial art) has provided many good evangelistic opportunities for Becky and I as well as our oldest son and daughter. In fact, my daughter’s been zealously witnessing to a young girl who’s fallen into gross sin. My wife has had the joy of seeing one of the mothers come to Christ (though not exclusively through my wife’s witness. Becky and I also had a homeless women stay with us for a time and we preached the gospel to her often in addition to trying to minister to her temporal needs. I also had the blessing of preaching the gospel in a counseling session to a young couple who began attending our church a while ago. Through my witness and particularly the witness of our husband, the young woman confessed her sins and trusted in Christ. They both moved into our home for a time, and we had lots of opportunity for discipleship.
I’ve also had some opportunities to preach the gospel in the blogosphere. I’ve interacted with and debated Roman Catholics, Mormons, Deists, and Atheists.
I will confess that I’m not as bold as I should be personally (my wife is far more bold), and Jeff and I are feeling more of a pressure to think creatively of better ways to connect with un-churched people in our community–kind of a challenge in the buckle of the Bible-belt where practically everyone’s a member of a church.
One church that’s been a good example to us is Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, North Carolina. I would highly recommend Pastor Gary Hendrix message, “One Church’s Journey in Evangelism,” which he preached at the 2008 ARBCA General Assembly. He provides several good principles establishing the basis of a holistic view of evangelism as well as several different kinds of outreach ministries in which his church has been or is engaged.
Hope this is helpful. Who is adequate for these things! I confess I wish I had more time and greater measures of God’s Spirit to be a more effective and zealous example.
As far as books, Steve, I think the books you recommend are great. I would add to that list the following:
Books to read on evangelism:
God is the Gospel by John Piper
The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever
God-Centered Evangelism by R. B. Kuiper
The Soul-Winner by C. H. Spurgeon
Books to hand out to sinners:
Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Died by John Piper
For Your Joy by John Piper
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
April 20th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Jeremy,
Thanks very much for the excellent words of John Calvin! We certainly can’t say he discouraged the laity from sharing the gospel. I also want to affirm my agreement with you that we pastors should be leading the charge and setting the example for our sheep. Thanks so much for your helpful input!
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
April 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
G. C.,
Many RB churches started as groups of believers separating from Fundamentalist or Evangelical churches where the gospel wasn’t preached well or there was poor church order or other issues. Sometimes in our zeal for truth and disdain for the errors to which we or our people were once exposed, we RB pastors spent a good deal of time preaching polemically and highlighting the finer distinctions that made us different from all other Bible-believing churches. I don’t think all that was bad. I do believe, however, that in some cases (but not all) the pendulum may have swung too far. I think I can say that many RB churches are striving for balance–a greater focus on the central truths of the gospel and the Christian faith while not jettisoning all our distinctives. My hope is that most RB pastors are more concerned to see sinners become devotees to Christ than devotees to the 1689 per se. Biblical balance is hard, and we need to keep striving toward that end while being humble enough to admit that we have plenty of room to grow and patient with our brothers who may be at different places on the pathway of reformation. Thanks for your input.
Bob G.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Just a clarification, when I mentioned that “what happens in the church is the principle means of evangelism,” I was not advocating that position, just pointing out what I see as a problem. It just seems that if the word and sacrament is the principle means of bringing the gospel to the lost that some might end up taking that position. And if someone doesn’t agree with the idea that lay people should be involved in evangelism that means that pastors and formal officers should be doing it. If this is the conclusion, we are in big trouble! Most pastors I speak with tell me that they don’t have time to do serious evangelism because they are busy with the flock. And I think that no matter how you slice this issue that is not good. it is not good because it is not getting done, and it is not good because there is no example for the flock to follow.
Perhaps David Charles’ experience is different than mine, and for that I am glad. I know of a number of RB churches for whom the word “earnest” would not apply to their evangelistic efforts. I know, because our church was one of them… and we had to repent of it and lead the church to follow Christ in this. And when we did a number of people didn’t like it and left.
I have had conversations with pastors who have expressed sorrow at the fact that they have not seen anyone saved at their church in a long time. Their churches have experienced meager growth from people saved through the ministry of other churches.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:48 am
[...] rather than holistically, in terms that give proper place to lay-ministry and lay-evangelism (see Part 1). While in no way denying the unique role of the pastoral office or the reality of varied levels of [...]
March 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
[...] the notion of lay-evangelism. Part 1 and Part 3 are especially relevant to this discussion. Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part … Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part [...]