Why Churches still need Evangelists
- 6 views
Agreed that there are evangelists … just not convinced that the itinerant preachers commonly called “evangelists” is what the Lord has in mind.
Some of the shallowest, most manipulative messages with the lamest illustrations have been at the hand of itinerant preachers.
I don’t have the whole world of experience here but I’ve been a Christian for 48 years so I do have some experience.
The best that I’ve experienced was the Life Action Ministries http://lifeaction.org/ with Del Fehselfeld
Funny thing: They never asked for $$ … the people in our church gave generously over those 3 weeks (they did not take an offering at our church - you had to go to a designated room to give). Sadly when the count was made known, some were critical about the amount (the large amount) given.
My experience: Fed me! No emotional appeals.
––- For a negative critique of see https://kimolsen.net/2015/01/02/4537/
When their team visited our church eight weeks later, I was astounded. They used every method of Charles Finney to manipulate the congregation. They also endorsed Keswick Theology. They believed that each Christian had to reach a crisis moment in their life. At this point of crisis, they could achieve a second blessing or filling of the Holy Spirit. The main speaker admitted that he had these revivals down to a “science.” He took many verses out of context in order to achieve his goals.
My experience with them was absolutely NOTHING like this.
The above reference is a good article.
The evangelist is often going to be significantly different than the pastor. That is often a good thing. If the evangelist is just like the pastor, you don’t need him in the first place.
An evangelist is going to emphasize things differently and do things differently. He may step on a few toes. He may express more urgency about salvation and commitment to the Lord. It’s good to have a time of heightened sensitivity about those who are lost and going to Hell. Or heightened sensitivity about the need for revival.
And, the message that does not reach you – may reach the fellow who is sitting behind you. The best campus revival we had in my college was preached by a man who was revivalistic and a little crude. The Holy Spirit moved, students responded. A wise old religion professor later told a faculty meeting, I think in the past we have gotten campus revival speakers that would speak to the faculty; this time we had one that spoke to the students.
Yes, there are good and bad evangelists; and pastors. Use the good ones!
Some evangelists can be found here:
http://evangelists.sbcevangelist.org/
David R. Brumbelow
Took a look through the Scriptures for references to “evangelize” (0), “evangelist” (3 references), and “gospel” (~100 references), and what strikes me is that when someone in the Scriptures is preaching the Gospel, he’s generally Christ or an apostle. Not always, but it does suggest to me that connecting these words inextricably with the practice of modern, itinerant, foot-stompin’ guys I’ve seen is…shall we say, something of a stretch. The one clearly mentioned evangelist who may not be a pastor, apostle, or our Lord Himself would be Philip, really. So let’s just say that…Van Gelderen really needs an itinerant teacher to walk him through Strong’s 2097, 2098, and 2099.
No question that Ephesians details a role for an evangelist, and no question that Paul calls Timothy to exercise that role as pastor in Ephesus, and no question that Philip took on that role as well. No question that Paul taught itinerantly, and that John warns in 3 John about not receiving itinerant teachers.
I just don’t think that Van Gelderen has his finger on the Biblical justification for the role, or its implementation, and quite frankly most of my experiences with itinerant evangelists are pretty negative—lots of emotional manipulation, stompin’ around and shoutin’, precious little actual exegesis or Scripture. Keep the good, yes, but don’t grade on a bell curve.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
What is a missionary?
My view = the evangelist
anagram:
1 : a word or phrase made by transposing the letters of another word or phrase. The word “secure” is an anagram of “rescue.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anagram
–––––––––––––––––-
Some anagrams of “evangelist”:
- “evil’s agent”
- “evilest nag”
Does it occur to anyone that the reason Paul told Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist is because Timothy WAS an Evangelist? (Which forces us to re-think the concept of Evangelist in the NT.)
G. N. Barkman
I did a little work on this for my doctorate at Trinity. It doesn’t make me an expert but I researched the experts. Here are a few citations. I am not convinced of the biblical warrant, the need, or the lasting benefit to churches of a modern-day “evangelist” holding meetings in churches.
Faircloth states that “the express purpose of evangelists and apostles during the apostolic age was to see local churches planted in ever increasing numbers all over the known world” (Faircloth 1991, 19).
Campbell, in treating the three occurrences of “evangelist” in the New Testament (Eph 4:11, Acts 21:8, 2 Tim 4:5), suggests that originally the evangelist, although not an apostle, “went about preaching that message and by means of it bringing new communities of believers into being” (Campbell 1992, 121-22). Concerning Ephesians 4:11, he maintains that “the apostles and prophets have passed on and their work is now performed by the evangelists and pastor-teachers” (Campbell 1992, 125).
Combs argues that “the NT evangelist was primarily a church planter” and “any ministry of itinerant evangelism that does not lead to new converts being formed into local congregations is foreign to the NT” (Combs 2002, 28). He further asserts the probability that “the placing of evangelists in Ephesians 4:11 after apostles and prophets and before pastors and teachers is because of their function in the church,” that is, “they carried on this foundational work by taking the gospel to new groups of people and ‘extended the work of the apostles’” (Combs 2002, 38).
O’Brien sustains that New Testament evangelists “carried on the work of the apostles” (O’Brien 1999, 299).
Bruce notes that although the apostolic office has ceased, “the various functions which they discharged did not lapse with their departure, but continued to be performed by others—notably by the evangelists and the pastors and the teachers” (Bruce 1984, 347).
Wood sees the evangelists as “missionaries who pioneer outreach in areas where the faith has not as yet been proclaimed” (Wood 1978, 58).
Hoehner states in reference to the “evangelists” that “their function resembles modern missionaries who bring the message to new territories” (Hoehner 2002, 543). He further comments: In the early church it was thought that the evangelists were those who preached the gospel and were the successors to the apostles in that they laid the foundations of the faith in new areas, appointed shepherds, and then moved to other lands and peoples. (Hoehner 2002, 543)
This one particular comment struck me (in the wrong way).
“With a little frustration, and yet, with a smile, a pastor commented that both he and an evangelist preached the gospel on a missions trip, but there were more people saved when the evangelist preached.”
What might have made the difference? Good stories, urgency and loud voice, mannerisms, hanky on a sweating brow? Maybe it was just God’s way of honoring his word in his way, in his time.
My experience with “traveling evangelists” hasn’t been good. I think some people are more naturally gifted than others in this area. However, evangelism is a local church responsibility and each church needs to provide training and vehicles for its members to carry out the great commission. I don’t see a need or warrant for traveling evangelists:
- You have no idea of their orthodoxy (doctrinal statements are meaningless).
- You have no idea of their soteriology, theology proper, and anthropology.
- You have little idea who they are.
- They’re largely unaccountable to anybody. Yes, they have a “sending church,” but give me a break. They’re on their own, essentially.
If someone has a true gift for evangelism, exercise that calling in your local church. There is a mission field in your own city. Traveling evangelists can work out, I suppose. I just haven’t seen it work well.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The churches were healthy and sane / nice GARBC state fellowship / great fun at New Life Island
Loved “the shore” and the pine barrens
I grew up 45 minutes from Ocean City and would heartily recommend it as a vacation spot. Make sure you get to Mack and Macros for the pizza - it’s terrific! Avoid Wildwood and be careful with Atlantic City. Cape May in NJ is also really nice.
As for Evangelists, I really agreed with this paragraph by TylerR:
If someone has a true gift for evangelism, exercise that calling in your local church. There is a mission field in your own city. Traveling evangelists can work out, I suppose. I just haven’t seen it work well.
Having been out of school for about fifteen years now, it has been interesting to contrast the work of parachurch orgs with the work of churches in different avenues. I am much more comfortable with running ministries through local churches than I was even five years ago.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Note: There is a difference between a biblical evangelist, and the revivalist. There is a historic difference as well. The revivalist is a fairly new phenomena (early 1800s), coming out as a combination between the Methodist circuit riding preachers, camp meetings, and Finney’s tent-meeting revivalism.
Discussion