I've been thinking about friendship evangelism lately, and I've thought that the phrase is backwards. It should be "evangelistic friendship." You might wonder, What's the difference? A big one, namely:

Friendship evangelism is evangelism that is carried out only in the context of friendship: Without the friendship, the evangelism cannot occur, since it is the essential mark of the evangelism and is intended to be the vehicle or catalyst through which the evangelism takes place. No such type of evangelism is mentioned in the Bible, though.

Evangelistic friendship, however, is friendship that is pursued only in the context of evangelism: The evangelism is the catalyst through which the friendship occurs, and it is the very thing that defines the friendship. Without the evangelism, the friendship will not occur. This is substantiated in Scripture, particularly in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12:

__________________
Jeremy
Member, Christ Church of Arlington (PCA)
Arlington, VA
My blog: http://grammateus.wordpress.com
Ministry web site: http://www.alexandriago.org

For some, this might appear to be using people to score points with God by making converts rather than valuing and loving people for their own sakes. I know that this is not your intention and that you are interested in loving others by giving them the gift above all other gifts - the Gospel.

Again, I know that this is not your intention, but we should avoid even the appearance of having hidden agendas, bait-and-switch tactics or ulterior motives in our kindness and love towards others. Your approach could be a corrective towards this trend, which often occurs in "friendship evangelism" and your approach has the very high merit of always being open and transparent about who you are and what you desire.

I would propose that there is a difference between "witnessing" and "being friends" with people. When you are engaging in vigorous evangelism, you are often leading with the Gospel and engaging those whom you often do not yet have a relationship with, which fits your definition of "evangelistic friendship." In this case, then AMEN to all that you propose. By all means, nurture those witnessing relationships where a listener desires to hear more and learn more.


However, God also puts us into other circles as well. We have families and also past and present unsaved friends.

What may result, if we make our friendship with someone contingent upon whether or not they will allow us to evangelize them is that we will lose our unsaved friends, fall into a Christian bubble and be reduced only to witnessing to strangers.

Instead, we are to lovingly engage and value the relationships around us that God has been pleased to providentially arrange. We are to speak grace and truth into their lives in the normal course of our friendships with them, not starting the friendship merely with the agenda of evangelism and not making their receptivity the sole criteria of whether or not we maintain the friendship (of course, outright hostility is another matter. And also, the old addage is true that "birds of a feather flock together," and so unsaved friends do gradually lose interest and we, sadly, lose touch with them over time).




Your thoughts?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I have a question which I have often thought about.

We are definitely called to share the gospel message with friends and others; and confessionally we believe the primary means that God uses to call someone to repentance is through the preached word, so is the best form of "personal evangelism" to invite our friends to church to hear the word of God preached?

__________________
Mike
PCA
Edmond, OK

"Tomorrow may be our dying day; let this be our repenting day."

-Thomas Watson

Agreed. That's why "evangelistic friendship" is the way to go. It's honest, up front, and avoids flattery, as Paul pointed out in the cited passage. "Friendship evangelism," on the other hand, is often guilty of the hidden agendas and ulterior motives you mention.

Yes, and there are also those with whom we work. None of these types of relationships, though, is what I had in mind. I was attempting to correct (as you discerned) the approach of befriending people for the sake of evangelism, not evangelizing those with whom we have already established friendships outside the context of evangelism.

Aside from friendships that you had outside of evangelism (e.g., family members or coworkers), if the gospel keeps someone from being your friend, then so be it. Would it be wise to pursue an intimate friendship with someone who has no interest in godliness whatsoever and is an enemy of Christ as evidenced by a fierce rejection of the gospel?

I must be misunderstanding. I can't imagine forming many friendships if on the front end I tell them it is my intention to evangelize them.

__________________
Daniel
PCA
Memphis, TN

Cool! I think we are very much agreed! AMEN to all that you are stressing.

I think that we should tell people about Christ whether they are friends or not.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Living the Christian life can indeed be hard.

Of course, that's why we gather with other believers--to encourage one another.

Yes, can the Word be proclaimed in other venues besides the pulpit? What is your view of lay evangelism? Should there be a comma in Ephesians 4:11? Have you done all your duty once you have invited someone to church and have you fulfilled your role in the body of Christ by merely warming a pew and listening to the sermon?

I for one would say no. I'm not sure the gathering of Christians was ever intended to be an evangelistic tool. Was there any particular scripture that made you think of this?

Regarding Ephesians 4:11

From "The Form of Presbyterian Church-Government according to the Westminster Standards"

The Form of Presbyterian Church Government

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the Officers of the Church.

THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.


Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My whole point is confessionally, we believe the primary way God converts a sinner is through the preaching of the word.

Q83 Heidelberg Catechism
Q What are the keys of the kingdom?

A The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance. Both preaching and discipline open the kingdom to believers and close it to unbelievers.

Q84
Q How does preaching the gospel open and close the kingdom of heaven

A Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: (a) according to which testimony of the gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.


I believe all Christians are to articulate the gospel in word and deed daily. I do believe that we should share the gospel message to those God has placed in our paths. I do this regularly with friends, and even Mormons that come to my house. (which used to happen regularly).

My point is that since the preaching of the word is the primary means of bringing someone to repentance, I believe we should be extending invites to our unbelieving friends to come to church with us, along with our "Personal evangelism". In other words, I think personal evangelism should necessarily result in hoping the the person comes to church and hears the preaching of the gospel, which is the opening and closing of the kingdom of God.

My main contention with lay evangelism programs, are they "evangelize" without incorporating the local church body.

I also would not want to evangelize without assembling believers into local bodies. I just want to make sure that your desire to invite people into church is not a substitute for personal evangelism.

[quote=Soonerborn;712309][quote=Pergamum;712295]I understand that you're getting this more or less from Eph. 4, but I wonder if you're perhaps applying Paul's words in that passage wrongly. It's as if you're saying:

1. God has ordained that pastors, apostles, evangelists, etc., are to preach the gospel.
2. Therefore, laypeople should invite unbelievers to church, where those ordained men are proclaiming the gospel.

If I have represented your thinking accurately, I'm not so sure that your conclusion necessarily follows from your premise.

In your view, does personal evangelism involve you sharing the gospel with someone, or do you leave that up to the pastors to do at church?

Depends what you mean by "incorporating the church body."

In my view, personal evangelism does involve a proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My point is, personal evangelism should not be divorced from the local church as it usually is in the USA.

Para-church groups all over the USA make evangelism a priority, which is good. But most of the groups are acting almost as a substitute to the local church, and they do not see the centrality of the church in a believers life. They would not believe that the ordinary means of grace are found only in the church. I know this from first hand experience. A leader I know in a local para church group ministry told me he doesn't feel like he needs to go to church as he is intimately involved in the para-church. Additionally, as the following J.I. Packer quote summarizes, most para church groups are heavily Arminian and they concentrate more on methodology and presentation, and are very results oriented.

" If we regard our job, not simply to present Christ. but actually to produce converts — to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also successfully — our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and calculating. Techniques would become ends in themselves . . . But it is not right when we take it on us to do more than God has given us to do. It is not right when we regard ourselves as responsible for securing converts, and look to our own enterprise and techniques to accomplish what only God can accomplish. To do that is to intrude ourselves into the office of the Holy Spirit, to exalt ourselves as the agents of the New Birth—thus: only by letting our knowledge of God's sovereignty control the way in which we plan, and pray, and work in His service, can we avoid becoming guilty of this fault."



As believers, we are to proclaim the gospel to people. And yes, I believe that God can use that to convert someone. I do proclaim the gospel to those God has put in my path, but one of the first things I do is to invite them to church.

The Great Commission was given to the Church. I think the church needs to take a more active role in local evangelism. The church sometimes can exclusively focus on evangelizing the people in foreign lands, but neglect the people in their own neighborhoods.

I don't think there is a need on this thread to get into Para-church bashing. I am thankful for groups like RUF, aren't you?

Also, the Great Commission was, in fact, given to the Church. Let's not forget about the universal aspect of the church.

Personal evangelism, ideally, incorporates new believers into local assemblies.

However, I can think of valid evangelism that does not end with an assembled church, take Phillip and the Ethiopian for instance. I would not discount his efforts because he targetted a traveller for evangelism. Also, radio stations in the arab world do wonderful works of evangelism. Also, I have helped distribute a lot of literature and audio cds and have spent much time and effort into efforts that are not direct church-planting.

Example of a valid ministry that does not result in a long-term local church: My friend in a major US City ministers among Chinese students. As these students believe and learn in Bible studies, they are mentored on how to take the Gospel back to China. No US churches result, but I wholeheartedly support this ministry because it is reaching people and making a difference and contributes to Big C Church Building.


So, I praise God for Christians telling others about our King, whether an "incorporation" into a local church body is a result. And this is much of what personal evangelism consists of.

I am thankful for RUF. I don't consider them a para-church. They are an extension of the PCA, and have accountability to the denomination. That is my point. Most Para-churches aren't accountible to any denomination. We have great RUF ministries in OK and we support them greatly. But they do not divorce their ministry from the local church. They want to get their kids into the congregations to recieve the means of grace.


I am not bashing Para-churches, simply stating the fact that most of them not affiliated with churches do not see the centrality of the church in their ministry.

Confessionally, we believe that the ordinary means of grace are only in the visible church so shouldn't our goal to get unbelievers where is Christ is preached.

I think that inviting people to a church as your MAIN evangelistic strategy is to severely limit the full arsenal of what we may do in evangelism.

The assembled church is for believers, mainly (though an unbeliever might come in, as the Apostle Paul speaks about). The emphasis in the NT is of us going out to them.

The Word preached does not need to be the Word preached inside a church building, and the ordinances come later.

I agree completely. Lone rangers and mavericks who strike out on their own to bring the gospel to the lost, while accomplishing some good, are not doing things as biblically as they could.

I'd like to challenge you with three thoughts in direct response to this:

1. It is not that God merely "can use" the gospel to convert someone. He actually does use the gospel to convert people, and in fact it is the only means he has given to us for evangelism.
2. I would encourage you to make the communication of the gospel your very first step in outreach. That is biblical.
3. Inviting people to church is not a New Testament paradigm as far as I can tell. It has been added by men--well-meaning men, perhaps, but it has been added nevertheless.

How right you are!