The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity (Pt 2)
The Revolution outlined in Part 1 is important for our understanding. We must see the cause and effect of ungodliness in the Family and in the Church. In both instances, the solution to an apparent failing of one party was to either rebel against or subjugate the other party. At no point were the Scriptures studied or Biblical counsel brought to the fore.
The consequence of this Revolution has been nothing short of needless destruction and the ultimate failure to reach the stated goal. Why? Precisely because it is Humanism!
To illustrate the issue, let us look at one further example from Feminism. As we know, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” So what! This is Biblical. God tells us that there are differences (Male / Female) in our similarity (Man). However, God also tells us that we are better and more potent as a team (Marriage). Humanism, in the form of Feminism, recognised the differences, but their response was to start a war between the sexes. Rather than see the potential of the two combined in compatibility, they chose a fight to the death.
The same is true of evangelism. God’s plan was never one or other; us or them; laity against Officer. God’s plan emphasised both! Throughout Scripture God had both Witness (laity) and Proclamation (Elders / Prophets / Apostles). Sadly, this point is missed because the Dodgy Theology Brigade have rent the Scriptures and once again insisted that the New Testament is brand new, full of differences, rather than complete by means of consistency.
When we look to both Testaments, we see that God appointed his commissioned to speak and act. These were those who rightly and properly held office. They are God’s officers and to them belong both the right and obligation to speak authoritatively from God and in His Name. This is not something, contrary to Church Growth, that belongs to all Christians. It is a particular call to hold an authoritative office within God’s Church.
Thus, in the Old Testament, we have kings, priests, judges, and prophets. In the New Testament, we have prophets, apostles, and preachers.
Alongside of these, there have always been those who make up the Church. Their job is to be a consistent witness to the truth of what the commissioned proclaim. What point is there for the proclaimer to state anything, if he has no tangible proof to back his claims? Therefore, the consistent living and obedience of God’s people has always been of manifest importance as a witness in support of the authoritative proclamation.
When the preacher says, “If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed;” we testify, stating that “we are freed prisoners.” When the preacher says, “God sent His Son into the world to save sinners”; we shout together, “and such were we, but we have been washed and sanctified”. When the world looks to us, they should see this explicit demonstration of freedom and of righteousness, which confirms and witnesses to the preached word.
Through our role as living epistles, we have the power to witness and show forth the radiance of the glory of Jesus Christ. This is potent. It is a genuine tool in the hands of God. Sadly, though, the moderns have despised this because they seek for themselves the more prestigious position of proclaimer.
In God’s order, He has appointed His men to preach. Equally, in God’s order, He has appointed us all to live! The proclamation is witnessed to and verified by obedient living. Both must exist in harmony. Unlike the previous articles, you are not being asked to make a choice of one or other. Today, you are being asked to accept both as God’s means of mission in the world. You are being asked to respect God’s design and to not covet positions to which you have not been called or adopt methods that God has not ordained. The analogy is again one taken from your homes. Fathers, do not act as children. Wives, do not usurp your husbands. Children, be children and do not seek to rule. Fulfil your God-appointed roles!
My plea is this: Preachers, understand your God-given role. Take His commission to heart. Climb back into your pulpits and begin to thunder with the voice of authority. Laity, go home! Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husband’s; children, obey your parents; families, honour God – and thereby shine and redound to the absolute glory of God. Preachers, call the lost; edify the saint. Laity, learn righteous and radiate Christ in all of life. Together, testify that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh!
The true power of transformation can only be unleashed when God’ people work in unity by self-consciously fulfilling their respective calls. Anything else is, fluff, bubble, smoke and mirrors – it is usurpation; it is unholy!
“Thy word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee.” Psalm 119:11
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3
Murray
Thank you for the article. As always there is much in your blog which warrants earnest consideration. I endorse your exhortation that preachers should preach with authority and that we all should live holy lives as witness to the veracity of The Word preached and as demonstration of the Holy Spirit enabling power in that preaching.
If, after you have responded to Isaac’s questions you have time, can you clarify for me the role of personal evangelism?
If by my life as an obedient loving Christian I draw a non-believer into a consideration of the claims of Christ. And if in the course of that consideration I make clear to the unbeliever that all have sinned and are without hope except for Christ’s atoning work (thereby creating opportunity for the Holy Spirit to create a despair which results in conviction concerning sin), have I testified, evangelised or preached?
If I have preached, wherein is the usurpation of which you speak?
If I have testified or evangelised, how are my actions and co-operation with the Holy Spirit different in effect to preaching?
Many blessings
Chris
Good day, Chris.
Thank you for the feedback and the questions.
Without wanting to sound harsh, I need to follow the Biblical pattern and start with the “Rebuke”. As I noted in my reply to Isaac, we are led astray on this topic because phraseology has entered our vocabulary that simply does not have Biblical warrant. So, in this case, the interesting phrase “personal evangelism”.
Thus, my plea and command, directed to all who will listen, is, “Stop muddying the waters by using false language and introducing non-Biblical terms.”
This now leads to the “Correction”. Many will baulk and hiccup when reading those words. Yet, sternness in the loving rebuke is necessary. If you look up a Biblical concordance, you will not find the word “evangelism”. Nor will you find the term “personal evangelism”. Now, one must tread carefully, but I am very wary of the propensity within our day to use terms that do not occur in Scripture. Equally, I am very wary of the propensity in or day to use terms and then fill them with meanings that are not found in Scripture.
We hail the magnificence of the Bereans. Noble they were, not because of a great heritage but because of the Biblical wisdom they displayed – they measured everything by God’s revealed Word. Sadly, we use this text and laud the “noble ones”, but we seem unable or reluctant to imitate their actions.
“Training in Righteousness” is the next step. Please note the absolute lack of lay participation when it comes to ‘proclamation’ in Scripture. When Jesus began His work on earth, He chose 12 disciples. These then became the 12 Apostles (clarification needed, but not within scope). On several occasions Jesus sent out men to preach and proclaim. These were always “Commissioned” and given “Authority” (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 9:1-6; Luke 10:1 ff). When Jesus task on earth had ended, He once more “Commissioned” with “Authority” His men and sent them out with a similar task (Mathew 28:16-20; Acts 1:6-8). Added to this we have the Biblical evidence that the terms “proclaim / preach” or “preach the good news” are almost exclusively found to be references to the “commissioned”.
Then we have other narratives that confirm the Biblical pattern of message via the “commissioned”. For example, when Paul received certain instruction concerning his future, it came from a bona fide OT prophet in the form of Agabus. It was not Joe Christian from down the street upon whom the Holy Spirit came and who was thereby convicted to speak to Paul. When Cornelius found God’s blessing, he was not instructed to search out Joe Christian from down the street and ask for instruction. No, he was told to call for the Apostle, Peter.
More could be added, but this should suffice to show the overall pattern. Thus, the term “personal evangelism” is a modern misnomer. Biblically, what we label as “evangelism” is never seen as personal that is, belonging to lay people. Evangelism is always viewed as authoritative. It always stands beside an office and an officer of Christ’s Church.
Our inability or unwillingness to yield to this Biblical pattern has cost the Church dearly. This error has had a negative impact, not only in terms of the many errant forms of evangelistic practice today, but in the modern thrust toward women in the ministry and the removal of preaching in favour of puppet shows and entertainment. All stem from the failure to recognise God’s pattern of Office, Officer, and Authority.
As to your questions, the answers are as follows:
No, you have not preached! (I take the “I” here to be indicative and not personal.) In consistency with that outlined above, preaching properly belongs to the commissioned. Therefore, the term should be protected from abuse and applied only to those whose right it is to use it.
The “usurpation” comes from the uncommissioned insisting that their activities are identical in calling, form, and power, to those of the commissioned. It is once more, the abuse of God’s order. In consistency with the article, let us look at marriage to illustrate. If I “wimp out” of my duties as husband and head of the family, my wife may step up and assume those duties. My wife is a very capable woman and I have little doubt that she could “organisationally” run the show very well. However, as God’s covenant pattern is not being followed, God’s blessing can never fully descend upon such a situation. My wife’s skills in organisation may give “the appearance” that all is well, but, measured Biblically, we have to say that such an endeavour is disobedience and, therefore, something upon which God frowns.
This is where much today goes astray. We measure not by what is Biblically and in accord with God’s revealed order, but with pragmatism; with “what works”. Your argument, Chris, even mirrors this. So, we have a female preacher. She runs the Church really well. Her organisational skills surpass any male that has ever been there previously. Wonderful; but what is missing?
Eric Alexander, in his little booklet, “What is Biblical Preaching?” under the heading, “Biblical Preaching is Spiritual in Its Essence”, makes these comments:
“So it is possible to be homiletically brilliant, verbally fluent, theologically profound, biblically accurate and orthodox, and spiritually useless … It is very possible for us to be deeply concerned about homiletical ability and fluency and theological profundity and biblical orthodoxy, but know nothing of the life-giving power of God with the burning anointing of the Holy Spirit upon our ministry … Alan Redpath used to say that the most penetrating question you could ask about any church was, “What is happening in this place that cannot be explained in merely human terms?”
As a consequence of viewing the work of the Church from a pragmatic standpoint, we have forgotten about God’s form and order and simply gone with “what works”. Now, here comes the provocation: You can fill a church without the Holy Spirit!!! Yet, today, we have equated “numbers”, or to put it colloquially, “bums on seats” with the activity of the Holy Spirit. Hence, many people attending or many people responding must mean that God is blessing this work through the Holy Spirit.
However, if we were to measure the same place by the Biblical standard, one would get a very different result. Thus, we should not equate “outcome” with “conformity to Biblical principle”.
Yes, you have testified, which is probably the better term. The difference is a very simple one. It comes back to role and authority.
The problem with the modern concept of “evangelism” is that it has a narrow and perverted view. In the Biblical model of testimony, my role as husband and father are equally aspects of my testimony. They are a valid and potent witnesses to the truth of Christ’s life-changing blood and of God’s Law-Word as the rule of life. In the modern view, these are discounted because I have not said anything orally to anyone. In fact, many would view me as an “evangelistic” failure because I have not challenged anyone with words.
The modern view rends life from belief. Jesus says that we are to let our “good works” shine before men so that they will glorify God. Today, we have forgotten this text or translate it as “let your good words” so shine. The point of this is simple. We have a lot of people running about today supposedly speaking, but we have very few that are “living”. Christian homes are in disarray. They no longer shine. So what do we have to attract people to our “words” if we have no works? Nothing. Thus, many new strategies are brought up like “cold canvassing”, “buttonholing”, or – like a recent occurrence at our local store – a fake $100 note with the face of Jesus and a text!
A Christian’s works are what gives credibility to his Christianity. If my life is in disarray, why would anyone ask me for advice? If my world has fallen apart, what foundation do I have to offer to anyone else? So, the appeal and beauty of the Biblical model is that you have proclamation and testimony working together.
As to speaking, I am aware that Peter tells us that we should be “able to give a reason for the hope that is in us.” Sadly, many Christians today cannot explain some of the basic aspects of their faith. Thus, we seem to be dropped the ball –Twice!! Our testimony is to the truth. Our changed lives are that testimony which constantly radiates Christ into the world. It is the radiation of Christ’s light and righteousness that may provide an opportunity to “give the reason”. However, even without the speech, we still testify by the power of our good works. Thus, it seems to me that we have reversed the Biblical order.
To answer you last question more precisely, I will use a commercial illustration (Disclaimer: all points not relevant!). You see a product advertised. You decide on the evidence of what you have witnessed to try the product. Having tried the product you like it. So impressed are you with it that you recommend it to your friends. However, simply because you like and use the product, you are not automatically entitled to speak authoritatively on behalf of the company, its president, or board; enter into contracts on behalf of the company; or promote yourself as an official representative of the company. Neither are you authorised to create your own adverts in accord with what you think will really promote the product and take it to the next level.
Similarly, being born again sees you free to promote a product (please excuse the terminology and its deficiencies). However, that radical change does not grant you the right to speak authoritatively or assume to yourself responsibility for marketing strategies. Recommend the product – testify to its benefits. Show how the product has transformed your existence into life. By all means, tell people when questioned concerning the product. However, understand well your limitations as an end user and do not ever confuse them with the rights of the Owner. To the Owner alone does the right of appointing spokesmen belong – those rightly employed and empowered to speak for and on behalf of the company.
I hope these words of explanation help, Chris.
Regards,
Murray
Murray
Your response is useful.
I am often reminded of a story told to me by a friend who went to a very large church. As is the way with large churches the pastoral function was administered (I hesitate to say delegated) via cell groups. My friend spoke of one cell group attendee for whom the group prayed regularly. The attendee battled with depression, much of which was caused by her home situation. It was only after many weeks of prayer and compassionate, supportive fellowship that it was ascertained that the depressed attendee was in a de facto relationship.
I do not know of the final outcome but I do know that the cell group leader was unable to exercise authoritative pastoral input. In consequence the attendee was neither counselled nor urged to repent. Here is an instance where the uncommissioned was unable, either by conferred authority or calling, to deal appropriately with a grievous matter.
Thus your plea for correct recognition of office and the preservation of God’s order is an important one. I get the impression that today’s church has revised/distorted “the priesthood of all believers” to mean “every person a leader”.
The reason for my question(s) was that as I read your articles I was wondering whether you were dealing with a distinction without a difference. By which I mean, if the outcome of witnessing and preaching are similar, does one really need to divide between them as to which constitutes evangelism. In your response I find that your concern is that … ‘The “usurpation” comes from the uncommissioned insisting that their activities are identical in calling, form, and power, to those of the commissioned.’ An assessment with which, if it were so, I would agree.
However none of those whom I know to evangelize (whether it be expressed as testifying, witnessing or preaching) would consider themselves as operating in the calling, form or power of a commissioned evangel. This indeed harkens back to my qualm about your initial article which alluded to the rebellious masses, who having been inflamed by the ideas of humanistic autonomism, were now itching to get from their pew into the street to preach. I found that notion unsustained by the reality of any of the churches or Christians with which I am acquainted. To whit I found your assessment of experience unconvincing when you responded :
“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.”
It would seem that the rebellious individualistic evangels of which you speak are a possibility. Added to this your unsupported assumption that the uncommissioned see themselves identical in calling, form and power as those who are ordained for such a task then it seems that you have based your argument on an incorrect perception of current heart and practice.
Thus I write for two reasons:
FIRSTLY ~ As indicated in the opening paragraphs of this response I agree with you that there is a tendency for today’s churchmen to denigrate office for the sake of an over-developed view on the priesthood of all believers. My concern is that you have chosen the wrong function to exemplify this malaise. Which concerns me because:
SECONDLY ~ By seeking to place the authority for evangelism (whether personal, didactic or kerygmatic) exclusively in the pulpit you may serve to diminish what little tendency there is in most ‘lay’ Christians to speak openly of their faith.
Thus I would characterize your last two articles as: Right concern but wrong example.
This is in no way to diminish your distress as to disorder and lack of godliness evidenced in many parts of the church and in many Christian lives. Nor is it to deny the importance of a righteous life as an exemplar to the veracity of the gospel. To this end I would like to offer an excerpt from a sermon by Charles Spurgeon in which he brings together the both works and preaching in the life of the lay Christian. Spurgeon preached this in The Metropolitan Tabernacle on Sunday March 20th 1864, a time well ahead of the insidious affects of the church growth movement and a time when the rampant individualism of today’s humanism was at most nascent, not widespread.
“Like Gideon’s men let us rally under our Church-officers, and follow where a warm heart leads the way. Gideon took his men, and bade them do two things; covering up a torch in an earthen pitcher, he bade them, at an appointed signal, break thine pitcher and let the light shine, and then sound with their trumpets, crying, “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon! The sword of the Lord and of Gideon!” This is just what all Christians must do. First, you must shine; break the pitcher which conceals you; throw aside the bushel which has been hiding your candle, and shine. Let your light shine before men; let your good works be such, that when they look upon you, they shall know that you have been with Jesus. There is much good done by the shining. Then there must be the sound, the blowing of the trumpet. O dear friends, the great mass of London will never hear the gospel, unless you go and blow the trumpet in their ears. Many who are members of this Church never heard a gospel sermon, until they heard some of you preaching in the street. “Why,” said one “I never went to a place of worship; but I went down a street, and there stood a young man at the corner; I listened to him, and God was pleased to send His arrow to my conscience, and I came into the house of God afterwards.” Take the gospel to them; carry it to their door; put it in their way; do not suffer them to escape it; blow the trumpet right against their ears. In the name of God, I pray you do this.”
Brother Spurgeon seems less affronted by the threat to the pulpit or office than your articles allow.
Many thanks for taking the time to write
Chris
Greetings Chris,
Thank you for the critique of my position.
What I hear you saying is that I am right in principle even if by erroneous reasoning. One may hark back to mathematics at school – I have a half mark because I arrived at the right answer, even if my working out was faulty!
So be it.
In the end, if the principle is right, what are we going to do with it? If it is indeed evident that the “priesthood of all believers” is misconstrued to mean that every person is a leader / minister, we must ask about the necessary consequences of such a belief.
So, wrong as I may be in my theory, if the principle is sound, “How has this change impacted upon the offices and officers of the Church?” “What practical impact has been had in the area of evangelism?”
As your own illustration shows, people are suffering because of the removal of authority and because most modern churches no longer esteem that authority. The very shift from eldership to lay leadership is one more example of the trend.
So what is the effect of this shift and how do we counter it?
We cannot acknowledge that the principle is right and then pretend that there is no impact. We cannot acknowledge this shift in thinking and carry on as though there has not been or will not be a significant impact.
Consequently, as wrong as my working out is, there has to have been an impact upon evangelism and authority by this shift.
Then, whilst I have used evangelism as a hook, much of what was argued for was the recognition of authority. First, the recognition that the Bible is our final authority and the source for faith and life. Second, that in the Bible we see God’s commissioned men as those given the authority to speak.
Now here comes the problem – modern invention! Your yourself evidence that problem when you seek to divide God’s word into pieces and give each piece a different title. The Bible does not know such a concept.
Paul, for example, was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Most then interpret this to mean it was Paul’s job to save Gentiles. If this be his job descriptor, why was he so unfaithful by spending so much time writing to Christians?
The simple reality is that both were legitimately within view and both were a part of his commission.
So, let me reiterate. You will not find the word evangelism in an English Bible. The Greek term is translated as “preach …”. Such terms are found in the mouths of the commissioned. So why do we continue to have discussions contrary to the evidence presented in Scripture?
It seems that we here are taken back to the issue of authority – we do not believe the Word of God to be binding upon us. So we invent categories and terms, implement them, place them in popular usage, and thereby dig a hole for ourselves.
Again, this is reflected by the constant plea to experience rather than the pattern revealed in God’s authoritative word. Your second reason illustrating my error is not based on revelation, but fear and concern.
You are worried that my view may stop what little lay evangelism there is. Did you stop to consider that the opposite may in fact be true? Did it occur that by ordering our practices according to God’s revelation that we may indeed see power and effect return?
I have not written this series to stifle the call to the lost. I have not had some secret revelation from on high urging me to confuse things for a bit because there is a queue at the gate. Rather, I write these things that, by the grace and mercy of God, we may return to the Biblically ordained pattern and indeed create a queue!!
My friend, the simple reality is that the transition in thought in regard to the “priesthood of all believers” has had an impact, is having an impact, and will continue to have an impact until corrected.
That impact implicitly attacks the officers of the Church. You use the words “every person a leader”. I have also heard them as “every person a minister”. I have heard it phrased so as to pointedly illustrate that there is no difference between any. Argue if you will, but the term “minister” was always reserved for the one or a one who had the authority to administer sacraments, marry, preach, etc. So when these new philosophies take over that term and apply it to everyone, it is very hard to see exactly how there is not usurpation.
I am afraid that you also misrepresent some of what was taught. Never did I say that these people loosed themselves from the pews to race into the “street to preach”. I deliberately avoided that term and spoke of mission. I did so precisely because the shunning of Biblical authority has led to an “everyman does what is right in his own eyes philosophy.”
Evangelism can now be a bowl of soup; sending $20 to a “misso” on a ‘foreign field’ or some other thing. The legitimacy of the activity cannot be questioned because it is subjective. I illustrated that point in my reply by looking at statements given by Mission organisations.
Thus, it would be an error to equate the lack of activity seen – measured by the subjective expectation – with the idea that “evangelism” is not a thought or motive present for the most part.
Again, the destruction of authority has led to the destruction of leadership, which has led to the destruction of rule. This has seen the flock scattered, each to do his own thing. It has destroyed any real concept of submission to Biblical or Ecclesiastical authority on most matters, but especially on personal matters.
Equally, I have not argued for a “pulpit” only concept. This, Chris, is a gross misrepresentation. The following was written in reply to a question by Isaac:
“Preaching outside the walls? This is a yes / no answer. I have conceptualised a situation, if I were in the ministry, in which I would have a midweek evangelistic service within the church walls. It would not be a worship service. It would therefore be constructed differently. God’s word would be preached to the explaining of key doctrines or the refutation of a modern error. This is not to be hypocritical and to go against what was said previously, but to allow for a more apologetic outlet in which the unregenerate may come or be brought by other Christians.
Then there is a text of Scripture which the Church largely ignores. It says this: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13)
I focus here upon the “evangelist”. How many today recognise this office? In my theological tradition we have clung tenaciously to the nonsense of “doctors” etc that do not find Biblical warrant. However, we do not employ these fellows. Note that the evangelist, like the others, is given to the Church to build her up. I understand this person to be a preacher who has no pastoral responsibility. I do not call him a missionary because that term implies another country or another culture. He is the evangelist because he is to preach the Gospel.
In terms of office, he is no different to the pastor teacher, thus the p/t could easily complete this task. The difference would be that the p/t primarily looks after the sheep, while the evangelist primarily looks for the sheep. However, as both preach the whole counsel of God the Word preached can have any Biblical effect.
At this point comment needs to be added on preaching for a covenantal result. When God’s word is preached, broadly speaking, there are three outcomes: 1. The sinner is hardened; 2. The sinner is converted; 3. The saint is edified, rebuked, exhorted. This needs to be mentioned because it has become all too common to see successful preaching measured by “conversions”.”
Thus, the commissioned should and must operate outside the four walls and distance themselves from the “Church doors”. It is instructive that most missions, say several hundred years ago, sent out commissioned men – preachers – to reach people. Now we send doctors, nurses, teaches. We still say they are ‘commissioned’ and in so doing misappropriate the word. Yet, they have not been called to preach. They have not been set aside to be authoritative mouthpieces of God.
Here again, a concrete example of the shift in thinking and its impact upon what is termed evangelism.
When we mess with the Biblical paradigm, we mess with God’s design and with the blessings and promises He associates with His design. The erosion of authority through individualism and rebellion has brought disaster to the Church and Her mission.
The road back is simple: “Repent! Let us listen to what the Spirit says to the Church.”
My plea to all is, Read the Bible. Implement its programme. Be done with the powerless and insipid methods of men!
My Bible speaks of us having access to the very Power of the Age to come. Where is that Power displayed today? We can argue about many things, but we know implicitly that the Spirit cannot work with or through disobedience. Rather, he must leave it and implement judgement. The lack we see is precisely because we do not pursue a Biblical paradigm in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for taking the time to critique my work. I appreciate it as it is food for thought. However, as stated some time back, it seems that we are at cross purposes.
Regards,
Murray.
Thank you for the article Murray.
I’ll kick of the discussion if I might.
Firstly, an issue somewhat peripheral to the main points. Do you think that a factor in the rise of feminism was that there had been abuses of masculinity? That it was the wrong response to some real problems? While I agree to a point that it is the rage against God’s plan for men and women, I also think the failure of men to be men played a real part. If the men were truly being men, I think that would have an impact.
Secondly – when it comes to the authoritative preaching of the word, do you think the pulpit is the place for evangelism? I know some who do not believe this to be the case; that the pulpit is for addressing the children of the covenant. Any thoughts on this? And perhaps any thoughts on whether the modern day preacher has a responsibility to preach outside of the walls of the church as well?
God be with you,
Isaac
Peace be to you Isaac! Thank you for your questions.
The short answer to your question in regard to Feminism is, “Yes!” This is implied in my statements: “In both instances, the solution to an apparent failing of one party was to either rebel against or subjugate the other party” (Part 2) and “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.” (Part 1)
However, the longer answer is, in most paradigm shifts there are a multiplicity of contributing factors and it is not always easy to identify “cart” and “horse”. Whilst there were no doubt deficiencies on the part of some men in regard to their actions toward women, there is not enough evidence to substantiate the implied claim that the majority of men were abusive of women – thus sparking the rebellion known as “Feminism”.
It is worth remembering that by the time we get to the modern “Women’s Liberation” movement, women had been voting in this country for over sixty years. Thus, what was really witnessed was a constant agitation on the part of women – most being led by radicals – to throw off the Biblical order with the intent of assuming control.
Just recently, I saw a Q&A on the ABC that was looking at feminism. One woman – apologies for not recording her name – asked about the term “liberation”. Her point was subtle but spot on – the modern movement was supposedly to “liberate” women and to empower them to choose. What is witnessed now is the ostracising of the female who chooses to have a husband and to bear children instead of assembling a world dominating career; better still having children, a husband, and a career and thereby becoming the liberated woman par excellence!
I say this to illustrate what I believe was the crux of that particular paradigm shift and which I believe to be evidenced in most shifts. It can be summed up in the Biblical text – My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge!
Simply put, men and women continued to act and behave in accord with a set of norms that had been handed down generationally. Whilst the external pattern continued, internally the philosophic basis was eroded. In this case, a true belief in God’s word as the final arbiter was denied in the hearts of the successive generations. Thus, our culture was acting upon mere externalism.
Consequently, when challenges came, the patriarchal, “because I told you so!!” did not motivate or convince for long. Wave after wave of questions battered upon a generation that finally realised that it had no philosophical underpinning with which to answer the constant barrage of questions. In such a situation, it will not be long before change comes. However, as with WL, the new direction taken is equally without foundation. Whilst the battle rages people stay true to the cause. However, as ground falls to the new philosophy, people begin to question when the goal will be realised. In the end, they realise that this new philosophy has gained them little. Gains may have been made, but they have also racked up significant losses.
The conclusion of the matter would be, in my estimation, that the battle was lost because we turned our back on God’s word and His order. Thus, when Individualism, Feminism, etc, etc, came, all men had to answer the question with was a hollow cultural norm. No one any longer understood the concept, its Source, or its value for society. They had no argument for why this particular form was better than any other. They had no means by which to predict the horrors that would be unleashed by the new system.
As to your second set of questions, the answer is, “Yes!”
Fundamentally, we have a corrupt view of evangelism because we have adopted a corrupt view of God’s word. As a result, we end up asking illegitimate questions such as the one posed. Please understand, you are not the target here. You are simply repeating the oft asked question.
Where on God’s good earth did the Church ever find the heretical belief that God has two Words? What passage of Scripture informs us that these texts are God’s word for Evangelism and those over there are God’s word of Edification (used as in ‘the sanctification of the Saint’)? Do tell! Anyone?
Where on God’s good earth did the Church discover the concept that the Robes of Office belonging to the preacher came with two hats – one labeled Evangelism, the other, Edification? What passage of Scripture proclaims to us that God’s authoritative Word inside four walls is Edification and outside those four walls is Evangelism? In a previous response to Chris, I picked up on this same theme when mention of the “church door” was made.
These concepts are absolute nonsense and do not find any basis in Scripture. What we witness in these questions is the unfolding of an erroneous position where Evangelism is promoted as both the prime and only activity of the Church; rather than the Biblically declared fact that the Church is appointed to the glory of God Almighty in Jesus Christ.
In opposition to this modern nonsense, consider the statement by the Westminster Divines:
“The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; //// of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.” (WLC 155)
The gap and the four forward slashes are placed in the text deliberately. What I want people to see is the seamless transition from Evangelism to Edification. The Divines are in essence speaking of “Effectual Calling”, but move on to topics that rightly fall under “Christian living”. They do so because they take a “long view” with regard to the term ‘salvation’. However, the point is very simple. It is God’s One Word that accomplishes both.
Hence, the emphasis – attempted emphasis – throughout these articles has been upon returning to God’s order in which His One Word is proclaimed by His appointed and Commissioned men. The desire has been to encourage Christians, in general, to return to their calling and allow God to do what He wills with that calling. Man has sinned greatly in our generation by rationalising God off His throne and on to the sidelines. We think that we can overcome the blindness of sin, the deadness of man’s heart, and the sinner’s innate hatred of God, by tricks, creativity, and entertainment. Yet, it is the authority of God’s word alone that changes hearts and minds – why will we not believe this?
To illustrate how we have become double minded, please allow an illustration. The story is told in our family of a family friend who was longing to witness to another. There was prayer and invitation. Eventually the person responded to the invitation. Led by our friend to the church service, our friend sat down expectantly waiting to hear a great evangelistic sermon that would rock this unsaved person to the core. To his dismay, the sermon for the day was on a genealogy and so the reading of God’s word began: “He begat … and he died. He begat … and he died. He begat … and he died.” Our friend was furious that after all his efforts to bring this man to Church that there was not a sermon on Christ Jesus and his wonders.
Anyway, some weeks later, the two encountered each other. Our friend was met with the news that the man he took to church had become a Christian. Our friend was excited, but obviously puzzled. The new believer went on to explain that the genealogy had perplexed him. He listened to: “He begat … and he died. He begat … and he died.” This went around and around in his head and at the end of the genealogy was a statement – “and you’re going to die!”
Now, I am fully aware of the dangers of “urban legends” and “stories” handed down within families. Nonetheless, this story would hold true for many. If you took someone to church to hear the gospel, would you be concerned if the message was a genealogy? In the modern world, most would. They would be perplexed precisely because they have been taught to believe that “salvation” can only be found in New Testament passages that explicitly speak of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet, this is not a Biblical perspective. Take Paul at “Mars Hill”. Yes, he does mention the resurrection, but he nowhere mentions Jesus’ name. In effect, Paul preaches on creation and every man’s obligation to believe the creator God. Yet, people believed.
It is of prime importance that the Church immediately recaptures the Biblical position of God’s One Word proclaimed by His Commissioned as the primary means of the Salvation of the Sinner and the Sanctification of the saint. One Word preached with power and conviction. Then trust. Rest in the fact that God’s word will accomplish that for which it has been appointed (1 Corinthians 3:6-7).
Okay, this said there are some secondary issues to address.
I do believe that the Sunday worship service is properly the domain of the covenant community. I reject all efforts to turn this day and time into some type of “pagan appreciation” ceremony. This is simply wrong at so many levels. As stated in previous replies on this topic, the sinner is dead. He does not seek God. In Scripture, it is Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, the modern “seeker service” is an oxymoron and an abomination.
Equally, there is no better place for the unregenerate to be than under the preaching of God’s word. Thus, I would never turn the heathen away from the Sunday worship of God by the exultant covenant community. Nor would I see the sinner and change the sermon. I would allow the testimony of the worship of God’s people and the proclamation of God’s word to do what God has planned. Always works out better that way!!
Preaching outside the walls? This is a yes / no answer. I have conceptualised a situation, if I were in the ministry, in which I would have a midweek evangelistic service within the church walls. It would not be a worship service. It would therefore be constructed differently. God’s word would be preached to the explaining of key doctrines or the refutation of a modern error. This is not to be hypocritical and to go against what was said previously, but to allow for a more apologetic outlet in which the unregenerate may come or be brought by other Christians.
Then there is a text of Scripture which the Church largely ignores. It says this: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13)
I focus here upon the “evangelist”. How many today recognise this office? In my theological tradition we have clung tenaciously to the nonsense of “doctors” etc that do not find Biblical warrant. However, we do not employ these fellows. Note that the evangelist, like the others, is given to the Church to build her up. I understand this person to be a preacher who has no pastoral responsibility. I do not call him a missionary because that term implies another country or another culture. He is the evangelist because he is to preach the Gospel.
In terms of office, he is no different to the pastor teacher, thus the p/t could easily complete this task. The difference would be that the p/t primarily looks after the sheep, while the evangelist primarily looks for the sheep. However, as both preach the whole counsel of God the Word preached can have any Biblical effect.
At this point comment needs to be added on preaching for a covenantal result. When God’s word is preached, broadly speaking, there are three outcomes: 1. The sinner is hardened; 2. The sinner is converted; 3. The saint is edified, rebuked, exhorted. This needs to be mentioned because it has become all too common to see successful preaching measured by “conversions”.
Therefore, in an attempt at consistency, I think it is most important that we return to the Biblical concept of God’s One Word preached by God’s Commissioned in the Power of the Holy Spirit as God’s means for Evangelism and Edification. This is the priority; an urgent priority. The discussion of “Within or without the walls of the church?” is, in my mind, largely a distraction from the central issue.
Isaac, I hope this helps. If I have not answered specifically enough, let me know and I will make a better attempt.
Regards,
Murray