is the church for evangelism?….continued

Ken Stewart, professor of theological studies at Covenant College, had a comment posted to Tony Payne’s thoughts that I mentioned in this post. The comment was elevated to the text of this post

Here is the beginning of what Professor Stewart had to say, “In the abstract, the argument of this post is unassailable. It has a weight of NT evidence behind it.” Now I have to admit a bias of mine. Whenever the weight of New Testament evidence is behind something, then so am I. Period.

But Professor Stewart then says that since Constantine’s time due to the “factoring in of historical realities”, evangelism must be a part of church worship. Again, my built in sola scriptura bias automatically puts me in suspicious mode when an argument like this is made. My initial flippant response is to say “so what?” with regard to factored in historical realities. I am quite suspicious of same.

Professor Stewart doesn’t make the argument any more explicit than that. To be fair, he was writing a comment to a blog post, so more meat on the bone can’t really be expected.

The professor does proceed to make three points which help to illuminate his thinking. These three points are:

1. For those ministering in broad, comprehensive churches in which the spiritual status and allegiance of attenders is doubtful, you will have to preach the gospel for conversion Sunday by Sunday or miss your best opportunity….

2. For those determined to follow the counsel set out, please indicate where, and in what other venues you are preaching the gospel with a view to the conversion of your hearers if by your own admission, you will not belabor this in your Sunday services. If you can name open-air gatherings in parks and on beaches, accepted invitations to speak to service club luncheons and so on, then fine. But to fall into line behind this argument with no such preaching program in place is to join company with a very large company of perfectly orthodox preachers who no longer press the gospel on the unbelieving, because they limit their preaching to the edification of those who believe already.

3. Perfectly orthodox churches need to hear the gospel preached and to witness its power in transforming the curious and unbelieving. So many perfectly orthodox churches are ‘starved’ of the opportunity to observe people visibly responding to the gospel because that response is no longer sought. So, years pass into decades during which no one has been known to be effectually called under the preaching of the Word, because the preacher has not sought any such result.

some responsive thoughts:

1. I agree that there will be nonbelievers present in almost every worship service. Christian preaching requires an emphasis on the gospel no matter what topic is being addressed. The only way we can have Godly marriages is through the power of God demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. The only way we can love God with all of our heart soul mind and strength is through His power. The only way we can avoid showing favoritism to the rich and powerful is to see them as Jesus did; lost and afraid like sheep without a shepherd.
Thus, I don’t see how Christian preaching occurs that is not based in the Gospel for its power and application.
In addition, I just disagree that Sunday worship is the “best opportunity” to evangelize the lost. This kind of thinking is what Tony was addressing. Simply asserting it to be so, is not a responsive argument.

2. This is an excellent point. The failure at this point is why churches default to straight proselytizing sermons on Sunday. Pastors who do not expect their members to be ministers of reconciliation will take it upon themselves to bear the full weight of this responsibility. Pastors must insist that their people assume the obligations of being Christ followers and insist that the people share the good news of the Gospel in their neighborhoods, workplaces, gyms, bridge clubs etc. Pastors must be providing specific instruction to their people in this regard. Our preacher Sunday said to the congregation that it is not ok to talk about being missional. We must do it and we must do it now.

3. I agree that churches need to hear the gospel preached. I don’t know what he means by needing to see the curious and unbelieving transformed on Sunday. Sunday service is not the primary place to witness that miracle. In their offices, soccer games, bunko groups is where this miracle should be regularly witnessed by Christ followers. The fact that it isn’t being witnessed in daily life with friends family members and neighbors is the great tragedy and failure of the church today. Again, the professor is assuming the lack of such opportunity and relying on the Sunday service as the last best hope for experiencing the power of God in salvation. This again is the church culture assumption that Tony was arguing against.

My conclusion on this matter is that we need to have a revolution in the church. A revolution of thought and practice that reaches for practices that are unassailable in light of the New Testament. No longer should we be satisfied with churches bound by historical tradition at odds with the example of the church in scripture.

This revolution will never occur if we allow ourselves to keep doing what we have been doing and calling it the best opportunity. It is not the best opportunity. A congregation of believers allowing themselves to be used by God as ambassadors in this world right here and right now can in God’s power transform a city. That is the best opportunity. That is how 11 men plus Paul transformed the Roman empire.

Hat tip to Ramblin’ Pastor Man.