Are we hiding the Gospel?

JBaldwin · #1 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 01:25 PM

The thread on lifestyle evangelism has left me thinking about evangelism, the work of an evangelist and the role of the local church in evangelization. This passage of Scripture comes to mind:

II Corinthians 4:1-6 (esv)
4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, [1] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants [2] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

It was brought out, and I think there is some justification for this position, that the preaching of the Gospel (as it applies to discipleship and baptism) is to be left in the hands of those ordained to preach. (I am still not sure I am completely convinced of this, but I'll save that for another thread.) If this is the case, then preaching of the Gospel should take place from the pulpit.

With that in mind, every reformed church of which I have been a part (with the exception of the one to which I belong now), has almost strictly excluded the Gospel from the sermon's preached on Sunday mornings. The lost are not encouraged to come to church, and if they did, they would hear the Word of God preached, but rarely would they hear the Gospel clearly presented as it should be to a lost individual. Evangelism, it would seem, has been strictly left to the missionaries.

In many of these same churches, there is little or no outreach, and apart from missionaries and church planters, I don't believe I have ever heard of someone within the church doing the "work of an evangelist" (as Timothy was told to do in II Timothy 4:5. What I have seen in these churches is much discipleship, but no little or no concern for the lost. The general attitude seems to be "that's the missionaries' job".

If the role of evangelism is to be in the hands of the preacher, when is he to preach the gospel? If it is not in the hands of the preacher, then how is the gospel to go forth? Are we to treat evangelism the way some do by having gospel meetings? Are we to witness to our neighbors, bring them to Christ and then bring them to church?

I realize that to some, I might appear to be leaning in the direction of the "revivalist" approach, but that it couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, I believe that God chooses, but I also believe that we should be longing to see His lost sheep brought into the fold, ever longing for the kingdom of God to come in the hearts of His chosen ones.

tdowns007 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 02:17 PM

It was my understanding, part of the Reformed tradition, was to Preach, Law and Gospel, each Sunday?

JBaldwin · #3 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:17 PM

While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.

North Jersey Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:33 PM

Interesting thread. It comes at the conclusion of a four week series I just preached titled, "The Gospel: Past, Present and Future." For the most part, preaching from the pulpit is for God's elect. We must assume that we are preaching to the sheep that are able to hear the voice of the Shepherd. We know that unbelievers (whether they be the children of adult members, visitors or otherwise) are present whenever the word of God is declared. There are times when the gospel is to be preached with a call to repent and believe. But even if the topic being preached on is not a gospel message, it's still a gospel message. The gospel is the infrastructure of all preaching. There is no preaching apart from the gospel. Even though the message may not touch on all aspects of soteriology, the gospel should be clearly seen in all preaching. It is this gospel that calls sinners to repentance, even if the sermon is not a specific salvation message. I cannot stress this enough. Christ is the fulcrum upon which all preaching pivots.

As to the exegesis of the passage you cited. In verse five we see the pronouns "we" and "your." "We" is the preaching of the Apostles. "Your" is the audience. So I would stand with Matthew Winzer and state that true gospel preaching is by an ordained minster of the gospel. But this does not mean that the word of God cannot be shared one on one and result in the salvation of the hearer if met with faith. But it is within the sphere of the church that the Word is preached, the sacraments administered and the fellowship of the saints takes place. This is where the validity of a persons faith is proven true.

armourbearer · #5 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.

If you were to ask them for a clear explanation of the gospel they would probably take you through Romans. The irony here is that the epistle to the Romans was written to believers. Spurgon once said to a young preacher who asked him what he should preach on, that he should preach the gospel because sinners need it and saints love it.

JBaldwin · #6 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Interesting thread. It comes at the conclusion of a four week series I just preached titled, "The Gospel: Past, Present and Future." For the most part, preaching from the pulpit is for God's elect. We must assume that we are preaching to the sheep that are able to hear the voice of the Shepherd. We know that unbelievers (whether they be the children of adult members, visitors or otherwise) are present whenever the word of God is declared. There are times when the gospel is to be preached with a call to repent and believe. But even if the topic being preached on is not a gospel message, it's still a gospel message. The gospel is the infrastructure of all preaching. There is no preaching apart from the gospel. Even though the message may not touch on all aspects of soteriology, the gospel should be clearly seen in all preaching. It is this gospel that calls sinners to repentance, even if the sermon is not a specific salvation message. I cannot stress this enough. Christ is the fulcrum upon which all preaching pivots.

As to the exegesis of the passage you cited. In verse five we see the pronouns "we" and "your." "We" is the preaching of the Apostles. "Your" is the audience. So I would stand with Matthew Winzer and state that true gospel preaching is by an ordained minster of the gospel. But this does not mean that the word of God cannot be shared one on one and result in the salvation of the hearer if met with faith. But it is within the sphere of the church that the Word is preached, the sacraments administered and the fellowship of the saints takes place. This is where the validity of a persons faith is proven true.

That makes sense. So where does preaching to the lost fit in? I do not see Paul, Peter or the others apostles always preaching the gospel in the confines of a congregation of believers.

North Jersey Baptist · #7 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

That makes sense. So where does preaching to the lost fit in? I do not see Paul, Peter or the others apostles always preaching the gospel in the confines of a congregation of believers.

There are times when the gospel should be preached with a call to repentance and faith. That is the decision of the preacher. But if the preacher is keeping his preaching Christ centered, then the gospel will be there every Lord's Day. It may not be a specific gospel message, but the gospel will be there. This does not make the personal sharing of our faith with the sinner obsolete. με γενοίτο - may it never be! If the saints share and invite the sinner into church, the word of God, regardless of whether it is a salvation message or not, is able to save.

JBaldwin · #8 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:55 PM

Let me rephrase my question. Paul, Peter and the other apostles often preached the gospel outside the confines of the church. Why don't we do that?

North Jersey Baptist · #9 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Let me rephrase my question. Paul, Peter and the other apostles often preached the gospel outside the confines of the church. Why don't we do that?

If an ordained minister of the gospel is preaching outside the physical walls of the church (say at a nursing home), he actually is preaching within the confines of the church, or more appropriately within the auspices of his authority as an ordained minister of the church.

Should this be done more? Yes. I think it is a wonderful and effective method of preaching the gospel to the lost.

Pergamum · #10 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 10:16 PM

I have been to some churches that believe in God's soveriegnty that resemble theological lectures rather than sermons.

These churches, too, say that it is God's job to convict of sin, and that they will give no invitation for sinners to come to Christ, they will only present the Gospel but will not give an invitation.

However, Jesus Himself invites sinners, "Come unto me..." In a zeal to not be revivalistic they have not only done away with "the invitation", they have entirely stopped being inviting at all. It is as if, for the sake of even looking like a revivalisit they have done away with the persuasive element of the sermon and it becomes more of a intellectual exercise than it does a persuasive argument to close with Christ.

As far as who can preach and who cannot, if the Gospel were restrcited from being "shared", "witnessed" to others except for the pastors, this would be a very sad situation indeed. This may not be "preaching" but many folks trace their conversion to simple "sharing" that is done by relatives and neighbors and an hour-long exposition by the preacher is not the initial encounter with the Gospel.

Again, what is the difference between witnessing, sharing, preaching, testifying, proclaiming and teaching? And how can do what?

We often emphasize what the layman cannot do. What can he do? And what should we call it?

Pergamum · #11 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 10:35 PM

I think perhaps that a lot of the differences here are differences in emphases:

For instance, concerning evangelism, I think it is great that laymen are sharing the Gospel outside the church. We need not call this preaching. Perhaps witnessing or sharing are the best words.

Others think they we should be emphasizing that the new convert or the seeker ought to be directed into closer union with a church where they can be nurtured. The end goal is full discipleship, after all, and not merely getting the foot in the door. Amen to that.

So, when these differences of emphasis are ironed out, we really do not disagree - we just want to stress different things.

The respect for the preaching office must be maintained. Yet, every believer does have gifts of the Spirit and different callings and may be very impactful for the Gospel. While every member is not a Minister, with a Big M, there is a gifting that each Christian does have to work out in their God-given sphere - whether as mothers, employees, etc. Each one can serve ('minister') others with the Gospel in a way that fits their calling in life. The neighbor can share, the preacher preach, the evangelist proclaim.

Some baptists churches fall to one extreme and try to make little preachers out of all the layman and then the laypeople feel guilty for not gathering in more souls to the kingdom. Some reformed, on the other hand, stress what the laypeople cannot do and are so concerned for order that sometimes ambitious out-of-the-church outreaches are not done.

Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant.

Bill: What venues in today's western culture are there for preachers to actually get out there and minister to the lost? Fairs, nursing homes, funerals... where do we get into the most contact with the most lost people?

Also, can a preacher in his outreach bring laymen on a trip withhim to train and to help him minister? Is there a danger that this "helper" will "preach" even though he is not a preacher. If he wants to go, should we encourage him to stay home rather than risk the danger that he will go from "sharing" or "witnessing" to "preaching"?

I.e. a Gospel preacher goes to Hyde Park every week (a recognized forum where debates can occurin open air). A member of his church wants to go with him to witness. They both do the same thing pretty much, tell people about the Gospel. Is the preacher then, as he does this same activity really "preaching" and the layman really just "witnessing" or has the laymen crossed the line and committed that which was not committed unto him, namely the office of preaching?

JBaldwin · #12 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I have been to some churches that believe in God's soveriegnty that resemble theological lectures rather than sermons.

These churches, too, say that it is God's job to convict of sin, and that they will give no invitation for sinners to come to Christ, they will only present the Gospel but will not give an invitation.

However, Jesus Himself invites sinners, "Come unto me..." In a zeal to not be revivalistic they have not only done away with "the invitation", they have entirely stopped being inviting at all. It is as if, for the sake of even looking like a revivalisit they have done away with the persuasive element of the sermon and it becomes more of a intellectual exercise than it does a persuasive argument to close with Christ.

As far as who can preach and who cannot, if the Gospel were restrcited from being "shared", "witnessed" to others except for the pastors, this would be a very sad situation indeed. This may not be "preaching" but many folks trace their conversion to simple "sharing" that is done by relatives and neighbors and an hour-long exposition by the preacher is not the initial encounter with the Gospel.

Again, what is the difference between witnessing, sharing, preaching, testifying, proclaiming and teaching? And how can do what?

We often emphasize what the layman cannot do. What can he do? And what should we call it?

This is much of what is at the root of my questions. Personally, I believe the layman can and should share his faith with others as the Lord gives opportunity. We are to be ready to give an answer for the reason of the hope that is in us. I suppose we could call it witnessing to our faith or sharing the gospel.

Since I do see in Scripture that the gospel is always connected with preaching, perhaps the actual "preaching" is to be left in the hands of the ordained, but I don't see (as I stated above) that they were only preaching in a Lord's day worship service. They were going out into the highways and byways and compeling them to come in.

In short, evangelizing should be a combination of preaching the gospel and the layman testifying to, witnessing and sharing his faith with the lost as God gives opportunity.

JBaldwin · #13 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 10:44 PM

Pergamum, thanks, I see you pretty much said what I just did (and a little better).

armourbearer · #14 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant.

Certainly. The context of referring to Romans was the statement that some churches don't preach the gospel in services because those services are supposed to be for believers. I was pointing out the irony that the gospel is so clearly presented in this NT letter to a church. The gospel should be preached to believers as well as unbelievers. But of course when I say "gospel" I'm not speaking of steps one, two, and three in order to be saved. The reality is that the person and work of Jesus Christ impacts all of life. Hence the apostle's oft repeated reference to being "in Christ." Marital counsel requires the grace of Jesus Christ as equally as feelings of personal guilt.

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 01:06 AM

It is interesting, isn't it, that Hebrews 4 states that the Israelites in the desert had the Gospel preached to them. They were unbelievers.

I agree with the OP and the observation that there should be the Gospel proclaimed to believers and unbelievers. I love that Spurgeon quote. The Gospel is not news we have within our selves but must come from the outside - the announcement of the work of Christ and His Kingdom.

Not all Gospel Preaching is going to be focused around a few key areas of Scripture that spell it out as Rev. Winzer noted. The imperatives of the Scripture ought to be exposited as they occur in the preaching of the Word. I believe, though, that all imperatives need to have a "bookend" that provides the "context" for them - the "why", the underlying motivation that impels the believer - that is a reminder of their place in Christ and their adoption as Sons.

I don't agree that this is artificial for the Scripture because the various Books of the Bible were not inspired with Chapters and Verses. These have been added for ease of reference but some treat certain texts as if Romans 12-16 can be treated without any reference to what the "therefore" is referring to. Hence, I believe it is warranted, to always provide that backdrop since the lens of exposition can only focus on small portions of Scripture at times.

Augusta · #16 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant.

Certainly. The context of referring to Romans was the statement that some churches don't preach the gospel in services because those services are supposed to be for believers. I was pointing out the irony that the gospel is so clearly presented in this NT letter to a church. The gospel should be preached to believers as well as unbelievers. But of course when I say "gospel" I'm not speaking of steps one, two, and three in order to be saved. The reality is that the person and work of Jesus Christ impacts all of life. Hence the apostle's oft repeated reference to being "in Christ." Marital counsel requires the grace of Jesus Christ as equally as feelings of personal guilt.

I am very thankful that preaching the gospel every Sunday is the main focus at my church. We do need to hear it over and over again. And even if our service is like a theological lecture it will still have the gospel proclaimed in it. I totally agree with Rev. Winzer that the gospel is for all aspects of life and the answer to all our maladies.

Grymir · #17 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 02:21 AM

Yea, It's the hearing of the Gospel that sanctifies believers, not the 3 steps to a better marriage that is spewed forth from most of our pulpits.

It also will drive the unbelievers out of the church or convert them. The clear preaching of the gospel helps to keep the church pure.

North Jersey Baptist · #18 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Bill: What venues in today's western culture are there for preachers to actually get out there and minister to the lost? Fairs, nursing homes, funerals... where do we get into the most contact with the most lost people?

Also, can a preacher in his outreach bring laymen on a trip withhim to train and to help him minister? Is there a danger that this "helper" will "preach" even though he is not a preacher. If he wants to go, should we encourage him to stay home rather than risk the danger that he will go from "sharing" or "witnessing" to "preaching"?

I.e. a Gospel preacher goes to Hyde Park every week (a recognized forum where debates can occurin open air). A member of his church wants to go with him to witness. They both do the same thing pretty much, tell people about the Gospel. Is the preacher then, as he does this same activity really "preaching" and the layman really just "witnessing" or has the laymen crossed the line and committed that which was not committed unto him, namely the office of preaching?

Pergy, you just named some of the best venues for preaching the gospel outside of Lord's Day worship. Funerals, nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, youth camps, rescue missions, fairs, schools (when allowed) are all excellent opportunities for the ordained minister to preach.

As to bringing trained layman - absolutely! These men may not be ordained ministers but they are under the authority of a trained minister. In that regard they are an extension of the rightful authority that the ordained minister possesses. Perhaps, because of the size of the audience, they participate in counseling after the gospel is presented. Maybe they perform acts of mercy and compassion. They may also be ordained men, such as elders or even evangelists.

As far as the layman "crossing the line", I think that fear is dismissed by the fact that he should be trained and under the authority of an ordained minister. This does not mean that the ordained minister must be standing right over him. The gospel is not about restriction, it's about freedom. When the gospel message is held onto with a choke-hold by the ordained minister it rarely goes forth outside of the Lord's Day worship service. Folks, it really is okay to go where the sinners are. Yes, under the authority of the ordained preacher, but brining along trained men to minister under the extended authority of the minister.

By the way, I use the term "men" in a generic fashion. If the minister is preaching in a female prison (and this does happen), it may be wise to bring some godly sisters along. Do I even need to illiterate the reasons for this? Sisters in Christ are not to preach but that does not mean they cannot provide mercy, compassion or encouragement to those seeking it.