The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity
Who is to evangelise? Now there is a sticky question. One which is sure to create great debate, but only if we ignore Scripture!
The issue of evangelism has, unfortunately, been side-tracked by modern worldly perspectives. The common idea is that ministers had evangelism all to themselves while the laity (for want of a better term) sat around and listened to the sermonising of the pulpiteers waiting for the Rapture. These ministers were seen as “glory hounds” with their fancy robes and ecclesiastical paraphernalia. As the world agitated more and more against authority, it was only a matter of time before the rumblings reached the pew – adequately aided by the State education of the pew sitters.
Then came the revolution! Books like “Liberating the Laity” hit the stands and were devoured. The phraseology changed. “Laity” became a term that was to be spurned. All were now said to be ‘ministers’. This change was even justified on the Biblical grounds that the Bible speaks about the “priesthood of all believers”. The poor, oppressed laity were finally unchained, freed, and let loose on the world. They were encouraged to find and explore new avenues of mission. They were encouraged to make up the rules as they went along. Finally, people with real vigour and passion were enabled and empowered to venture forth and save the lost, leaving the ecclesiastical bombasts to their pontificating.
Where has the Revolution taken us? What did this Revolution achieve?
To be perfectly blunt, it achieved nothing more than to destroy the Church, its worship, and its witness. The reason for this boils down to one important fact: this movement was not from God! It was one more example of Humanism being rushed by the baptismal and then press-ganged into the service of the Church.
Having had the rampant Humanistic doctrine of Individualism taught to them for decades, the laity were simply glad to be free so as to scratch their itching feet. They cared not whether this movement was Biblical. I doubt that any really stopped to ask the question. The laity were free at last from the chains of a draconian ecclesiastical system. Now they were free to express the desires of the individualist that had been lurking in the shadows of their heart.
This happening parallels the destruction of the family through Feminism. Men had, to some extent, dropped the ball as head. As per Scripture’s prophecy (Genesis 3:16), women simply sought the opportunity and the excuse to step up and take on the mantle. Again, few stopped long enough, if at all, to question the Biblical warrant. All they knew was that they finally had an opportunity to give expression to their desire.
The commonality in this process is important. First, the authority figure gave up on their task. Husbands and Elders ceased to understand their roles as Covenant heads and directors of Godliness. They failed to teach those under their care the importance of the Biblical order and role. Consequently, they failed to teach the basis for their authority and the necessary role and attitude of submission. Their servant-leadership disintegrated and the associated requirements of Biblical submission followed suit. Men became administrators; they bankrolled projects and organised community, but they were no longer holders of an office of authority.
The result of this was that Family and Church began to wander. They became aimless. As the Word of God ceased to speak with volume and clarity and its serene voice dwindled, so the raucous voice of Humanism grew louder and louder until it could be ignored no longer. As the Biblical model crumbled, a shift in leadership was imminent. Thus it was that Humanism stepped into the void and grasped the helm.
The result was Revolution; Familial and Ecclesiastical Revolution!
Understand this well. Do not dismiss its importance!
What is seen here is a Biblical picture too oft repeated. When trouble and crises came, the institutions of God did not turn back to their Biblical roots and to the wisdom of their God. No, they turned for counsel to the spurious one called, the World!
What does this have to do with Evangelism? Enter Part 2.
Murray
Thanks for the article.
If the press toward personal evangelism is fuelled by the ‘liberating’ effect of Humanistic individualism having usurped the authority of the pulpit and thus empowered the laity to undertake witness then, up until that ‘release’, the pews should have been full of people straining to share their faith but prevented from so doing for want of ecclesiastical permission.
My experience has been the opposite. I have found the laity as being more along the lines of a dozey, fearful bunch happy to occupy their pews in somnolent ease, unwilling to be disturbed by the personal implications of Christ’s Great Commission. Thus the direction of teaching and preaching from the pulpit has been toward urging the laity into personal evangelism.
Well do I remember being told by my pastor: “Shepherds don’t beget sheep. Sheep beget sheep”.
Thus are you able to (or intending to) comment on the relevance as contributors to the push for lay-evangelism attributable to:
* the fearfulness of clergy at their loss of livelihood caused by declining numbers, and/or
* the church-growth movement.
Chris
Good day Chris,
Thank you for your reply and questions.
It seems that, to some extent, we are at cross purposes on this topic. We have very different ideas on the subject, so I proceed with caution.
First, the main inference in this article is upon individualism. It is an attempt to highlight or understand how individualism has led to the current forms of evangelism.
Second, experience is unavoidable, but it is not always objective or specific. What you mention as “your experience” of the “somnolent” may indeed be true. However, it is also possible that alongside the experience of the “sleepy” there was also a growing attitude of discontent caused by the message of individualism.
Third, we must be aware of “labels” and “justifications”. Let me illustrate from the world of PC. A coloured person is apprehended for a crime. He sees a camera. He calls out, “Racist oppression!” A female misses out on a promotion. She appeals. Her claim is, “Sexist oppression”. In a similar way, many things have been thrust upon the Church in the name of evangelism because none would dare to deny the legitimacy of such a claim. At the very least, people become nervous because they do not want to face the teary eyes and the shaky voice of the one who, having been denied, says, “Do you not care for the souls of the lost?”
Four, pulling these threads together, we need to see that what started as a quest for self-expression was eventually justified on the basis of “doing evangelism”. Also, please understand that it had many other expressions as well. All dressed in ecclesiastical language. All touted as “service to the Lord”. Yet, all are expressions of individualism. This expression was given catalyst by the emergence of new (old revived) denominations that fostered this individual approach and urged their people to identify and use their gifts without reference to external verification – this while the “somnolence” rested content.
Consequently, Chris, I do not agree that, for the stated thesis to be true or accepted, we had to witness “pews … full of people straining to share their faith but prevented from so doing for want of ecclesiastical permission”. All that was necessary was a growing desire for individual expression; a desire that was being continually feed by the philosophy of the world through its many mechanisms. Eventually, the “bug” took and it became a full blown “doctrine” in Christendom.
Here, it is worth noting Francis Schaeffer’s observation that the Church is the last to pick up a trend. Says he: “Theology has been the last for a long time. It is curious to me, in studying this whole cultural drift, that so many pick up the latest theological fashion and hail it as something new. But in fact, what the new theology is now saying has already been said previously in each of the other disciplines [philosophy, art, music, general culture].” (The God Who Is There; Vol 1. P 9.)
As a result, this individual expression was finally garbed in ecclesiastical pluriformity. Here, in relevance to our article, we have applied it to evangelism. The consequence of this spirit of individualism is that each man does what is right in his own eyes. God’s instruction and form have been jettisoned for the instruction and form of the individual.
Then, in a momentary focus upon the pulpiteers, we see that they may have also been part of the problem. Faced with the dreary, convinced they should have been doing more, it is very possible that they began to preach un-Biblically on this topic. I have been goaded more than once in my life with the words of the GC by men zealous to empty the pews onto foreign fields. “Go!” and if you are not “Going” then the clear implication is that you are a second rate Christian and we are back to “teary eyes”, “shaky voice”, and that question.
Take the quote of your pastor. Methinks it erroneous. The Great Shepherd does beget sheep. The under-shepherd finds the sheep. The sheep, sheep the sheep. In other words, the sheep are to be good sheep to the Glory of the Great Shepherd and thereby declare His awesome wonder. The sheep teach those new to the fold how to be better sheep. They also show the wolves and foxes that there is a better way. They show the wolves and the foxes that their existence is delinquent because it is lived outside of Christ.
Allow me now to address your questions:
Minister’s Livelihood: My belief is that there is certainly a “truth” to this statement. However, I am not convinced that it is the whole explanation.
Ministers have become fond of money. Biblically, they are entitled to support. However, I have come across many who are dependent upon this to a point where compromise and other ills are entertained. This should never be the case. A true under-shepherd should never be afraid of depravation for the sake of truth nor should he be concerned with depravation in order to better serve the sheep. However, these attitudes are rare. As ministry has deviated from “calling” to “vocation” we have seen these lofty principles slip. Thus, there is truth to your question.
However, I see greater explanation in the continual desire within man to “do” something toward or for God. One of the popular aspects of Arminianism is that you get a warm feeling about “your choice” for God. You can then go out and urge others to make a similar choice. This makes man feel good. It is the reason that most false religions are focused on works. Man does something for God.
With the encroachment of individualism into the Church, it was only a matter of time before ministers succumbed to this mood. Thus, it seems to me that the modern trend does three critical things: One, it absolves of responsibility; two, it encourages experimentation; three, it gives credit to man.
Let’s unpack this a little. Traditionally, the minister felt a great weight for many reasons. Now, this weight is lifted. The minister is seen more as an administrator or an organiser than an authority figure with real governance and all the attendant responsibility. Second, with the jettisoning of Biblical form, the minister, like the congregants, must now be allowed latitude to implement and experiment. Thus, the supposed dry dusty sermon comes under even more pressure. First, it is culturalised, then minimised, and eventually it is vaporised. Having invented a new form, the minister is now able to enjoy the fruits of his labour far more freely. This is especially so, if his experiment works. If numbers increase and there is more money in the plate, then he can step up and take a bow. This guy is now so chuffed with himself that instead of singing “And can it be” in the shower every morning, he is now heard to mutter Frank’s tune, “I did it my way!”
It may be worth noting that this thribble replicates in most instances, even when speaking of the laity. Although the issue of responsibility may be lessened, it is nonetheless still present.
Church Growth Movement: I hate this concept with a passion, so what follows is extremely biased. Some of what is mentioned above is equally attributable to and seen in CG. However, to illustrate more passionately, I would like to make some specific links to how the modern pragmatic view – CG – has robbed the Church of glory and effectually nullified her impact.
Before being ignominiously kicked out of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, I conducted a review of the mission organisations supported by our local congregation. This was in response to a new “mission’s statement” by the Session. That congregation supported quite a number of missionaries and mission organisations. I reviewed over ten missions societies. Here is what I found:
Only one organisation on the list agreed that the “preaching of the Word of God” was God’s appointed means for the salvation of sinners.
This being the case, among the others there was found some abysmal statements, including:
“We are committed to nurturing an atmosphere of mutual acceptance, open communication and trust. To that end, people are given the freedom to experiment with new ideas and implement creative methods and even if they fail, they can try again. This “ethos of grace” touches all that we do, say and seek to accomplish.”
“We encourage men and women to use whatever means will be effective in communicating the gospel. Creative ideas, innovative strategies and unique concepts are being employed everyday by [Name withheld to protect the guilty] teams around the world.”
“The development of strategies for world evangelization calls for imaginative pioneering methods.”
“Our goal is not to “convert people” from one religion to another.”
“We use whatever methods that are glorifying to God, seeking to minister to the whole person as a testimony to God’s love and mercy.”
“We do not encourage the espousing of doctrinal emphases that could and would divide us and distract us away from our objectives.”
I would hope that most Christians would find these statements disagreeable. Even if you do not agree with my perspective, it is impossible to deny that preaching is at least “a” God ordained form with Biblical warrant. Hence, even if you believe in other means, preaching should be present. Yet, for the most part it is not.
Then we need to note the emphasis on human “creativity” and “experimentation”. From whence does this come? I did not see Jesus, James, or Luke, having to experiment. Was Pentecost a euphemism for “brain-storming session”? Methinks not. It seems that, in consistency with sinful behaviour, God’s methods are thrown out in favour of man’s.
This leads, of course, to the final heresy – let’s not allow doctrine to get in the way!! Pray tell, how are people to be saved if we do not understand doctrine? In fact, why do people need to be saved? Thus, we have made great strides backwards! We are back in the 70’s with the bumper sticker of “Jesus unites. Doctrine divides!”
With this picture in mind, we simply say: CG feeds the desire for autonomy within man. Let from the leash, man is grateful to be allowed to run around the park. This has the strange effect of evoking a sense of gratitude toward the emancipator. Thus, the emancipated gives some homage and loyalty to the emancipator. This then becomes a bizarre symbiotic relationship in which the need for autonomy and credit in both parties is fed and nurtured.
The problem is that very little of this is Biblical. It is therefore powerless. This then leads back to a previous statement that ‘we have never before seen so much “mission” or “evangelistic” effort for so little impact.’
I hope this helps in some manner. I may not have answered your question as well as you like in regard to cause. However, I hope that I have illustrated that in terms of “consequence” the modern methods, being un-Biblical, have done more harm than good. I hope that part two will shed some light on this aspect, but for now it will suffice to say that CG has robbed the individual of a proper emphasis upon personal righteousness and thereby taken from him a right form of the declaration of the righteousness of God.
Kind Regards,
Murray
Murray
Thanks for your response. I had written some further comment but the exigencies of internet connections mean that they were lost!
Rather than repeat my endeavour, it will suffice for me to await your next installment with interest. No doubt there will be further insight into the deleterious consequences of individualism and its relationship to the important task/ministry of evangelism.
Many thanks
Chris