Apologies for posing what, at first glance, may seem an obvious and even silly question, but it’s one I’ve pondering lately: is evangelism a key purpose of Christian assemblies (or ‘churches’)?
Now, at the very least, we would have to say, “Yes, evangelism should and will happen in Christian assemblies, because of their very nature as places where the word of God is prayerfully proclaimed”. In any true Christian gathering, the gospel will be taught and heard, and since outsiders or non-Christians will often be present (by invitation or otherwise), evangelism, by definition, will take place.
There’s another sense in which the answer is yes: the Christian assembly functions as a testimony to Christ by its very existence. This is Paul’s point in Ephesians 3. In the assembly, God’s manifold wisdom is on display as he brings together Jew and Gentile in one new humanity. Mind you, in Ephesians 3, it’s the powers in the heavenly places who receive this testimony, so maybe it doesn’t really qualify as ‘evangelism’ in the normal sense.
However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies. It is certainly not their focus. In the New Testament, churches are characteristically the fruit of evangelism, not its agent. Evangelism usually takes place outside the assembly—in the marketplace, the synagogue, the prison, and in daily gospel conversation.
More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.
This runs counter to the common (although often unspoken) assumption that one of the main aims of a church gathering is to be attractive to non-Christians—to draw them in, to intrigue them, and to evangelize them. Perhaps it’s a legacy of the parish model, where those attending the Sunday assembly were often not Christians at all, and evangelism consisted of preaching the gospel to them. Or perhaps it is the influence of the seeker-service model, where the main aim is to attract and win over unchurched Harry. Or maybe it’s a bit of both.
There is an important difference, it seems to me, between running a Christian gathering whose focus is on evangelizing the outsider, and running a Christian gathering that is welcoming and intelligible for the outsider, but where the focus is on fellowship with Christ, in speaking, hearing and responding to his word.
“There is an important difference, it seems to me, between running a Christian gathering whose focus is on evangelizing the outsider, and running a Christian gathering that is welcoming and intelligible for the outsider, but where the focus is on fellowship with Christ, in speaking, hearing and responding to his word.”
Yes, I think this paragraph makes the point well that church is foremost a gathering of believers. Our Lord Jesus’ mission is to build his church, and those built into his church confess he is the Christ, the Son of God. We are raised with Christ in the heavenly realms as gathered believers.
That said, it is interesting to note that in 1 Corinthians 14 the presence of an unbeliever or untutored person is assumed, hence Paul’s concern that what is said in church be intelligible to such a person. Further, 1 Corinthians 14 expects the gospel will be preached, for how else will an unbeliever be convicted of his sin and exclaim that God is truly among those gathered? But to preach the gospel does not mean that, every week, the sermon is targetted specifically and primarily at unbelievers. Surely, whenever we preach faithfully we are preaching the gospel!
So what does all this mean in practice? I don’t think the answer is to ‘dumb down’ the teaching. It does mean explaining jargon words (apostle, grace, justification, faith etc) and seeking to be clear, but it does not mean we don’t preach on the more complex passages of the Bible.
An old and wise pastor once told me that ‘Sermonettes produce Christianettes’. He was reacting against those who would not preach expository sermons or would only preach for 10 or 15 minutes because they wanted to be seeker friendly. I think he has a point.
Thanks for a clear and encouraging post, Tony. I think your qualifications are well put and show that you are all in favour of doing church in an accessible way.
Thanks for raising the topic Tony. As Philip mentioned 1 Cor 14 indicates the presence of non believers in Christian gatherings and you would like to think they would be informed and challenged through ‘insightful’ words, genuine unity and the ‘proclamation’ effect of the Lord’s Supper to the extent that they would inquire as to the hope within you. Besides it would provide a very natural opportunity to ask what they thought about the service and take it from there.
But my reading of those charged with bearing witnesses to the gospel is that once having established a church through evangelism, teaching, and the appointment of local shepherds, they moved on the next town echoing Jesus’ own approach..
I reckon there must still be Eph 4 type evangelists around still and and if they teamed up with a dedicated prayer support team and perhaps others with some 1 Cor 12 type gifts to compliment their witness that some good things would happen. Mostly I think in the market place and from house to house but also in faith communities where ‘God fearers’ were present (cf. Synagogue type environments)
To help maintain momentum teachers could be deployed to establish new believers thus freeing up the evangelists to do what they were primarily gifted to do. It sounds a bit cavalier but you have to say that Acts shows a bit of that adventuresome spirit don’t you?
Keep prodding Tony
Rob
Hi Tony,
There are lots of examples in the New Testament when the church (or assembly) was gathered for unbelievers to come and hear God’s word. One of these contains possibly the closest expression of church the church that you would be comfortable with: gathering and the word of God.
And yet who is it that gathers to hear the word of God? It is not Christians and it is not primarily Jews. It is the gentile pagans.
Here is one place where the assembled church is primarily for outsiders.
We need to be careful about making a false dichotomy of our meetings being “Evangelistic” and being “for the Church”. I don’t think that dichotomy exists in the New Testament.
Surely the fellowship of the redeemed, a manifestation of our gathering around Christ in heaven, and the listening to and proclaiming the words of our Lord and Savior as we build each other up – surely this proclaims Christ to the world, and in particular to the unbeliever amongst us? In fact, isn’t one of the primary purposes of the Church to proclaim Christ to the world? And isn’t our Sunday meeting the primary way in which that is done?
Simply put – doing church “right” proclaims Christ to the believer and the unbeliever.
Mike
Tony, I am basically on board with you here too. Church is primarily for building the body, although 1 Corinthians 14 is the obvious example that reminds us that the gospel should be so present as our ‘driver’ that the unbeliever could be converted through hearing it in our assemblies.
However I like Rob’s comments about evangelists. When a Sudanese brother joined our congregation, he said, “I can tell who the pastors are, but where are the evangelists?” As some of us have picked up from a distance, it is standard practice for churches in Africa to employ pastors, but also to employ evangelists whom they send out to neighbouring villages to establish new ministries.
One further thought… Isn’t there room for Christians to be running assemblies that aren’t church, but that still have the purpose of proclaiming the word of God, but especially with the inquirer and evangelism in mind.
That is, Tony, what do you reckon the assembly in Acts 19:9, where Paul held daily discussions (“dialogues”) in the lecture hall of Tyrannus for 2 years.
This is what supplanted his evangelistic efforts in the synagogue after he was edged out.
V10 reports that in this way all the Jews and greeks on the province of Asia heard the Word of the Lord.
Was this Acts 19:9 regular meeting a ‘church’ in the sense we know and love and which you discussed in your original post? Or was this a Christian assembly with a slightly different and more evangelistic nature somehow directed towards persuading people about Christ?
In which case, where do such meetings fit in for us and your contention above?
I agree, broadly speaking. Theologically, Church is for Christians, but must be accessible and understandable for unbelievers who happen to come along. We are still predominately working on an OT model of getting the nations to come in, when the NT model is us going out and gospelling in the world.
However, to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Church, is not the same as to say it should not be done in Church. Despite our best attempts at membership systems that seek to sort out the true believers from the hangers on, until Jesus returns there will always be a difference between the church visible and the church invisible, and even regular members will sometimes remain unconverted. For the sake of these “unconverted christians” we still need evangelism in church.
Sandy makes a good point about evangelists. We don’t expect people in church to teach and pastor themselves in a totally informal way, though they should be doing that as well as the pastors and teachers that God has given to the church as gifts. God has also given evangelists as gifts to his church, so why do we expect church members to do evangelism in a totally informal way without similar ‘professional’ help in the form of designated evangelists? The Sudanese question is an apt one. And perhaps if we did have more specialist evangelists and church planters we wouldn’t have to use ‘church services’ for evangelism so much.
Aside: How bizarre, Philip Griffin said “An old and wise pastor once told me that ‘Sermonettes produce Christianettes’” and I quoted the same line from I presume the same old and wise pastor on another blog just a week or two ago.
There is another sense in which it is right for us to do evangelism in church, I think, on a theological level. I think Tony mentions this in the original post, but it’s worth picking up on.
The church is God’s *goal* rather than a means to another end. But the church is not just a static object. His goal is to gather a people who love him, praise him, serve him, obey him, proclaim him. In that sense part of our gathered identity is being the people God has gathered in order that we might serve in his kingdom.
From that point of view, there is, I think, some legitimacy to say the church has a mission.
Thanks one and all for the comments. Sorry for not responding before this, but the collapse of our server over the past few days has thwarted me more than once.
Three quick responses:
1. When we talk about ‘Christian assembly’, are we talking about any assembly of Christian for Christian purposes (such as a big evangelistic assembly in the town hall)? Or about the local, regular assembly of the believers to whom Paul addresses his letters. Both are assemblies of course (by definition!), and we see both of different kinds in the NT, but I was talking mainly about the latter in my post.
2. That’s where I’d probably disagree with you, Mike D. I’ve come to think that the local, regular assembly of the believers is not the primary focus for evangelism—that is, for breaking new ground and preaching the gospel to unbelievers. (And see all the caveats in my post re 1 Cor 14 and the rest—thanks for noticing them, Mikey!).
3. What’s the cash value of all this? We need to focus on getting our regular assemblies to meet their fundamental purposes, and if we do so in a way that is culturally accessible and intelligible to the believers, it will be likewise to the visitors or unbeleivers present. The only strange or offensive thing should be the Word of God.
I fear that by thinking of our regular Sunday assemblies as a (or the) primary theatre for evangelism/outreach, we fail on both counts—the assemblies fall short of their purposes for the believers, but also aren’t really that compelling for the unbelievers.
More to be said, no doubt.
TP
Tony it occurred to me that healthy churches are the best thing that can happen for evangelism……and the evangelist. I’m thinking of what Paul said to the Thessalonican church; ‘your faith has gone forth everywhere…….we don’t have to say anything!’….I’m sure they did, but we know what he meant.
Therefore the better we strengthen the church in holiness, unity (John 17:20-21), good works (Eph 2:10), growth in a knowledge of God (Col 1:10), disinterest in worldly pursuits, hope in the return of Christ, the greater the advance of the gospel.
That is providing we accept and use what God has given his church by way of evangelists. They are able to win people to Christ through their very giftedness….providing they have support. Are we saying the local church can do evangelism better?…..‘that we have no need of you’ – the evangelist?’
There used to be idea that multiplication would win the world; an exponential effect caused by a majority of believers and converts being able to convert others, as distinct from simply being a witness to and support the gospel. I can’t see it. My reading of Acts is that the first century world was won primarily through apostles and evangelists. There were people movements of course but the few won the many whether at a local or itinerant level.
It can be done.
Rob
I want to niggle a little bit more.
I wonder if we need to be a little bit tighter on how we define “purpose” and what “church” actually is. Once we define (theologically) what church is, and what its purpose is, we can then work out what happens as a result of what we “are” and what our purpose is.
I suppose I’m suggesting that building up Christians (and I would argue evangelism) comes as a result of what we are and what our purpose is.
Mike
Thanks Tony for posting this topic. I am in agreement with your thoughts.
I also think where some confusion may enter in is looking at the evangelist outside of the context of Ephesians 4. That particular gift is described there as an “equipper of the church,” just as much as the pastor or teacher. Hence, his primary function is to teach\train the church, the believer, to “do evangelism,”…by precept and example of course.
You know you’ve made it among Christian blogs when your post gets posted on Justin Taylor’s blog, Between Two Worlds.
Good post, Tony, thanks for clearing some of my misconceptions.
Hi Mike
You’re right—clarity about definitions and purposes is very important.
A Report that seeks to do just that is being presented to this year’s Sydney Anglican Synod (by the Doctrine Commission). Stay tuned.
TP
Tony,
I understand the need to get away from the seeker sensitive models of doing church. The Gospel should not be substituted for a market driven message which plays the itching ears of those who really need to hear the law of God and how they have failed to obey it and how they stand in danger of eternal judgement unless they flee to Christ for salvation.
But, I think you have slighlty over played this. You said, “However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies.” I think you protest too much. I certainly think from the context of your post that you would agree that evangelism should be *a* main purpose of Christian assemblies among other purposes.
Again you said, “It is certainly not their focus.” I think this is overstated. I think that evangelism should be *a* focus of Christian assemblies amoung other focuses. I agree with Mike when he said, “We need to be careful about making a false dichotomy of our meetings being “Evangelistic” and being “for the Church”. I don’t think that dichotomy exists in the New Testament. “
I think maybe we fall to easily sometimes for “either, or” categories of thinking instead of “both, and.”
The bottom line for me is this, the apostles routinely preach the gospel in their epistles which are meant to teach the Christian assemblies. They knew that the visible church contains both the invisible church and hypocrites who need salvation. So, they offer meat to those who are mature, milk to those who are babes, and the Evangel to those who are still dead in their sins. They did all of this.
Consider the following Scriptures,
” that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you.”* Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” 2 Cor 5:19-6:2
“12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,” Hebrews 3:12-14
The apostles offered real assurance to those who are truly saved, but also evangelized in the assemblies knowing that not every one there was saved. There are those in our assemblies that have “recieved the grace of God in vain,” that is, they have never been truly born again and need to hear the Gospel, repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus so they may be saved.
Let us continue to preach forgiveness of sins through our Lord Jesus to each other and all who will listen and compel them to come and drink of the water of life freely……………..
In Him,
Alan
Great post!
I’m battling the notion in the denomination that I’m a member of that Sunday School is not an “evangelism tool”. The idea is that we invite and plug in a bunch of lost people into a Sunday School class and by teaching them the Bible and meeting their needs, they will come to Christ. I understand the premise behind this, mainly Christ’s example in meeting people’s needs and preaching the Gospel, but I argue that if we must have Sunday School, then it must be a time of training Christians to go out into the world and preach the Gospel as well as minister to the needs of people. If the purpose of Sunday school and church in general is to evangelize the lost, when are the saints suppose to gather in fellowship and worship God?
Also, isn’t the regeneration of a lost man only something that the Holy Spirit can do, no matter how much they are taught and ministered to by us?
Soli Deo Gloria!
Brother, will have to respectfully disagree with you on this post because I fear that your view of the gospel is a message that is only necessary to introduce a person to the Christian life. In reality, the entire life of a Christian is born of the gospel – not just one’s justification. So, evangelism, which is the announcement and the proclamation of the gospel is not only necessary for the lost, it is always necessary – at all times and in every way – for every person, be they saint or sinner; young or old.
If we are not constantly evangelizing the saints in Christ, the saints in Christ will strive to merit God’s grace on their own strength. Very likely, the church in Galatia stopped evangelizing itself. Hence, having begun by the Spirit, they were trying to be perfected by the flesh (Gal. 3:3).
In short, we ought to never stop preaching the gospel – whether the audience is saints, sinners or only ourselves.
I share my thoughts with Alex above and also some of what Alan has said.
However, I don’t think Tony is saying that we do not require to preach the gospel within the church. I think he is simply saying that the purpose of church is not evangelism, as in, “to preach the gospel to the unbelievers”. I think Tony will say that “preaching the gospel to the believers” is not only something that happens within a church, but something a church must do.
If Tony is saying that we do not need to hear the gospel once we are converted, hence no need for preaching the gospel within the church, then I would strongly disagree with him.
Again, I don’t think Tony is saying that in this post.
Thanks one and all for these really thoughtful comments.
Tim is entirely right. I was indeed saying that the gospel should be preached when we gather (see paragraph 2). The gospel is indeed not just something for the beginning of the Christian life but is the ongoing foundation and source of what follows as well. Hence the various caveats in my post. Because the gospel will (or should!) be proclaimed in our gatherings, they will be ‘evangelistic’ gatherings in this sense. And because we want to be welcoming and helpful for outsiders, people will come, and become Christians through our church gatherings.
So I’m right with you on these points Alex and Alan.
And I’m not at all interested in a version of Christianity (or of church) which consists of a holy huddle of believers happily edifying themselves while the lost people around them go to hell in a handbasket. Don’t mishear me.
What I’m challenging is something that seems to be increasingly assumed—and that is that our regular church gatherings should be the LOCUS of evangelism, the place where it mostly happens. So that our evangelistic energy (and strategy) is directed towards getting non-Christian people into our church gatherings, and designing or modifying our church gatherings accordingly.
Hope this clarification helps.
TP
Hi Tony
If your aim was to encouraged evangelism outside of church, rather then seeing our evangelistic energies focused on getting people into church – I wonder if you went about it the wrong way.
Perhaps we don’t want to de-emphasize the church meeting as a Locus of Evangelism, but emphasize the need of going to our community with the Gospel.
But of course – ultimately we want our church meeting to be what the bible tells us what they should be – evangelism being “a” locus, “the” locus, or perhaps just an added bonus.
One of the things I love about my current church (A Korean church) is the church meeting is the locus of evangelism. People bring their friends along – because they want their friends to hear about Jesus. It’s fantastic. Each week of the year a full “Tough Questions” course is run. Of course I’m arguing pragmatics (or from experience) – but it seems like a very healthy culture. There’s no dichotomy between evangelism and edification. The services aren’t any different from most Sydney services (despite it being in Korean, with lots of Koreans there) – it’s a cultural difference, and I think a theological view that Church is where Jesus is preached, so Church is where I bring my friends.
To Andrew’s point: The book of Acts is historical narrative and is not to be taken as didactic per se. Not that we don’t learn principles, but that it’s primary purpose was not prescriptive. Unique things were happening with the formation of the church and Luke puts it all out there for us. In the passages you quoted, we see the plan of redemption beautifully described. God’s plan for it to go to the Gentiles arousing the jealousy of the Jews. This was a radical change for that time, especially for the Jews, that salvation and the Word of God would be for the Gentiles. But he’s not saying, “This is how church should be done”. Maybe I’m off on this one. Please correct me where I’m errant.
Hi Todd. I agree with you on the whole about Acts, but I still think it has something to teach us about mission and church planting (surely).
I brought up those passages in Acts because I think that Tony seems to:
1. Have a broad definition of church as an assembly around God’s word.
2. He raises the question as to whether this assembly should be focused on outsiders.
3. But then he wants to define the church that he is talking about as only the local, regular, established assembly talked about in Paul’s letters.
Isn’t this assuming the answer in your definition? Ie. Christian focused meeting should be Christian focused or something of the sort.
The Acts passages that I raised show examples of Christian assemblies that are not established. They are local and some are regular (Sabbath by Sabbath). I’m interested as to know if these are Christian assemblies? Are these churches that Christ is building? or will they only become Churches once they are established?
When a missionary goes into deepest darkest Tokyo or Paris, preaches the gospel in a hired hall and leaflets the whole neighbourhood. What if lots of people came. Is what he is doing a Christian assembly? Is it church? What if it happened regularly as an outreach group – is that church? or does it only become Church when it becomes settled? Do the majority need to be converted for it to be church? etc..
I feel like in some of the comments here there’s been an equivocation on the word ‘church’. (I’m posting here because I’m responding to others’ comments, but perhaps it would go better under DBK’s article.)
So, firstly, sometimes I mean ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’ when I say ‘church’. Hence, the church is gathered around Christ’s throne in the heavenlies; I’m going to church tomorrow morning.
But when we say ‘church’ in English (or ‘ekklesia’ in Greek, <i>pace</i> DBK), we <i>don’t</i> just mean an assembly — at least, not when we’re talking about a local church. Rather, we also mean a more or less definable group of people to whom and for whom we are more or less responsible, by virtue of geographical or relational closeness. They are our ‘Christian neighbours’ whom we can love in particular, concrete ways, and with whom we can show the love of Christ to the world.
These people can be called a church, whether they are gathered or not (<i>e.g.</i> Acts 8:1, 3; 9:31; 14:23; 1 Cor 1:2; 11:18 (by implication); 12:28, <i>etc.</i>).
This all becomes clearer if we shift away from a myopic word-study on ‘ekklesia’: ‘gathering’ is not the only important NT image, here. For example, local churches are also said to be God’s household (1 Tim 3:15). This analogy must have some content: in my biological family, we have relational privileges and obligations to one another because we are a family. My family is my family when we have Sunday lunch together, but it doesn’t cease to be my family when we dissipate for various tasks throughout the week. So too in God’s household.
And this is the big pitfall of the equivocation on ‘church’: when you ask, “Is church for evangelism?”, it seems from the comments that most of us think straight away about Sunday — that is, a regular gathering. But we are the church (a local community of believers) whether we are gathered or not, and we can (must!) spur one another on outside the Sunday meeting. The Sunday-centric view means that church is an event to attend, not a community to belong to. Frankly, I fear two hours on a Sunday is inadequate for us both in edifying believers (when was the last time you had a chance to confess your sins to someone else and ask them to encourage you to stay on track in a Sunday meeting?) and in blessing the unbelievers around us.
If we have a ‘people’ view of church, rather than an ‘event’ view of church, then we might say that church is for Christian life and mission — encouraging one another in Christlikeness, and proclaiming the good news of Jesus’s lordship to those who don’t yet know him — all the more as we see the Day approaching.