Are all believers called to evangelize?

[Randy Kluth]

I wouldn't blame a pastor for not being "on" all the time. Sometimes pastors are just flawed, as we all are, and gravitate towards personal interests, as opposed to God's burdens. But a pastor, in giving a message, has to be in tune with God, and often is, despite the flaws.

You obviously do not know how some churches operate. I know this to be a fact that one denomination sends the sermon topics and details from the head office to the local churches and that is what they have to preach. How do I know? Because the local minister told me.

That may be true, but at this point it is anecdotal, or may just be the experience in your particular church or denomination. The previous pastor at my church has indicated he gives messages as he feels the Lord lead him. He said on occasion that he was switching his planned message because he felt led otherwise.

I'll be having our new pastor at our house this Friday. I'll ask him and let you know his answer, if you're interested?

I spent quite a few years under a pastor who had been kicked out of his denomination because he believed in "speaking in tongues." He started a non-denominational church that is quite large now--he died recently.

I'm sure he had no denomination telling him what to preach on. His sermons were often teaching-sermons. But in my long experience in various churches, I've seen many different kinds of pastors.

In fact, my brother was a pastor, and started a church. I can ask him, also, if he preached what he was told to preach by his denominational head? That is, I'll find out if you're interested?

 

[Randy Kluth]

"Up to 50% of pastors in the pulpit are there because of rejection." Roundabout 1979 at the South Chard Christian Church Easter Conference on a Saturday evening in the Chard Townhall.

Yea, that's not providing any real context. Do you have a link?

 

[Randy Kluth]

If all believers are to evangelize, why is there an office for it?

I understand we are to give an account for the hope we have in us, be able to defend our faith and answer questions. Even sharing our faith and testimony to those whom God has called us to share it with, but not seeing where we are all given the gift and/or office of evangelists.

Wouldn't an evangelist need to be more mature in their faith, have a strong foundation of knowledge about the faith. I have seen many believers play evangelists and they error in their doctrine when speaking and are not able to defend their faith in a way that is convincing.

Where did this idea originate that we are all evangelists? There are a few "evangelical churches" who should probably revisit foundational doctrine. It seems damage has been caused by these and people who go out and evangelize when God has clearly not called them to do so.

Agree? Disagree?

I might add to that said already that things have changed quite a bit from the Early Church. Initially there was probably just a single local gathering for a city. Later, there may have been meetings in various homes, as Christian numbers grew. But they were largely in communication with one another, since they all held to the same faith.

In our day we have long histories of Christian tradition that emerged in different countries and in different parts of the world. As these groups migrated they tended to stay within their own denomination and culture.

There have also been revivals within older denominations, and splits caused by divergent opinions. What I see today are older churches largely just a shell of what Christianity was meant to be, holding to creeds without much spiritual vitality.

However, there are still many good churches out there, and in a number of denominations or otherwise. And it has been my experience that churches are not just one per city, but from neighborhood to neighborhood, and often several to a single neighborhood.

Some of the churches are fashioned to minister to their environment, inner city ministries taking on that flavor, and country churches taking on another flavor. Sometimes the apostle of a denomination began the church under their leadership as a church focusing on Bible teaching, or on evangelism. I attended a church in S. CA that focused on healing. It often depends on the apostle who started the particular tradition, or on the pastor who leads the church.

But it all assumes the form of evangelism. It's just that if the leader or leaders have particular evangelical gifts, there being a big market for it where they exist, then we see gifts of evangelism. But even a church ministering out in the country or in an ethnic neighborhood minister by reaching out to their associated groups. They don't have to be evangelists to do the work of an evangelist.

 

[marksman]

Yea, that's not providing any real context. Do you have a link?

What link do you want? it is a verbal quote when he was peaching at our church conference. I am sorry I did not write it down with all the details as I did not know that I would be asked to justify what he said and what I heard.

 

[marksman]

That may be true, but at this point it is anecdotal, or may just be the experience in your particular church or denomination. The previous pastor at my church has indicated he gives messages as he feels the Lord lead him. He said on occasion that he was switching his planned message because he felt led otherwise.

I'll be having our new pastor at our house this Friday. I'll ask him and let you know his answer, if you're interested?

I spent quite a few years under a pastor who had been kicked out of his denomination because he believed in "speaking in tongues." He started a non-denominational church that is quite large now--he died recently.

I'm sure he had no denomination telling him what to preach on. His sermons were often teaching-sermons. But in my long experience in various churches, I've seen many different kinds of pastors.

In fact, my brother was a pastor, and started a church. I can ask him, also, if he preached what he was told to preach by his denominational head? That is, I'll find out if you're interested?

Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. Didn't you know that? You should because you said it.

 

[marksman]

No, I didn't ask you to establish your credentials at all. I said you had skated over an issue that was clearly controversial. You discarded sermons and pastors preaching those sermons. All you did was refer to Derek Prince as your source without quoting him--just characterizing his views as if he agreed with what you were saying. You need to quote him if you wish to do that.

I have zero interest in comparing who has done what. As I said, you may or may not be making a legitimate point about sermons having "issues." I gave you my view of it. All I hear from you is that no teaching is done in churches like that, while I informed you that churches that have preachers giving sermons also rely on Bible Studies, etc. No answer?

No, I didn't ask you to establish your credentials at all. REALLY?

I said you had skated over an issue that was clearly controversial. I never skate over issues. Ask anyone on this forum.

You need to quote him if you wish to do that. I did quote him. I said "Derek Prince said..." That is a quote.

All I hear from you is that no teaching is done in churches like that. Churches like what?

No answer? REALLY? My answer is in black and white on this forum as in You obviously do not know how some churches operate. I know this to be a fact that one denomination sends the sermon topics and details from the head office to the local churches and that is what they have to preach. How do I know? Because the local minister told me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Simplistic or rude, it is the truth. I addressed the ministers fraternal in a town near me about being involved in evangelism and spelt out a simple way they could be involved without stretching their resources and allowing them to contribute according to what resources they had.

Their reply was no, we can't get involved in evangelism because we are too busy running our churches. Nuf said.

And I never make a point unless I have some qualifications to do so.

Sorry, I didn't see it. You basically tore down in one swoop the way most churches operate, with pastors preaching Sunday sermons. I didn't see much of a qualification--only a doubling down on the point.

I'd like to get beyond the minor animosity here because you do sound like you're very qualified to have an opinion here. And I at least share some of your sentiment. So if you wish to qualify your opposition to Sunday sermons, please provide it. Thank you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. Didn't you know that? You should because you said it.

Of course I know that! That's why I was marginalizing your claim, because you seem to refer largely to your own experience. Your own experience matters as far as opinions. But establishing truth is another thing entirely. The only thing that is "truth" about anecdotal evidence is that you experienced something.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What link do you want? it is a verbal quote when he was peaching at our church conference. I am sorry I did not write it down with all the details as I did not know that I would be asked to justify what he said and what I heard.

If you're going to cite an important, respected person with a view that diminishes the value of church sermons, you need to provide context for a statement that only you know about.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I didn't ask you to establish your credentials at all. REALLY?

I said you had skated over an issue that was clearly controversial. I never skate over issues. Ask anyone on this forum.

You need to quote him if you wish to do that. I did quote him. I said "Derek Prince said..." That is a quote.

All I hear from you is that no teaching is done in churches like that. Churches like what?

No answer? REALLY? My answer is in black and white on this forum as in You obviously do not know how some churches operate. I know this to be a fact that one denomination sends the sermon topics and details from the head office to the local churches and that is what they have to preach. How do I know? Because the local minister told me.

Your testimony is extremely weak and your backup extremely thin. If you want to double down on that, it's your problem.

1) If you want to quote someone on an important issue, you need to provide in depth context, eg a reference to a link. Otherwise, you're backing up your points only with your own subjective experience. My experience may be very different.

2) When you talk about "how churches operate" and claim superiority on that subject, you are talking, it seems, only about *your experience* and *churches you have been in.*

3) When I said you're "skating over issues," I'm talking about the lack of corroborating evidence, * aside from your own experience.* To add weight to your argument you need *substantive support.*

4) I did not ask you to boast about who you are, what degrees you have, how accomplished you are, and so on. It does help me to know you have lots of experience as a Christian, but no--I have not asked for this information. Personal information should be voluntary, and not coerced.

5) For all of your lengthy Christian experience, you seem very thin-skinned and yes--shallow. If you wish to up your game, provide something substantive to back up your points. I've already told you that I've held some sympathies. But I'm getting less "sympathetic" by the minute.

 

[101G]

May I say this one thing on working for the Lord. there is only one "preacher" in the church of God, and there is only one "teacher, apostle, prophet, and bishop... ect... including the "evangelist", only ONE. he that is in us.

that term "Office" is an western world idea of what is really being signified, that is, an "office" is really a work. and that work is the "GIFT" of God in us all. each "Work" carries a different function, but each function/work is a gift of God. and not all have the same gift/work. but it's the gift giver who is the same one person who gives each a gift or gifts, (the Holy Spirit). and one may have more that one "Gift"/Work.

one might want to look up the word "office" in it's biblical definition and not it's worldy definition.

all these WORKS/Office are in "SERVICE" to others. a WORK, or an office is servitude.

and just because someone is not in your company or been ordained by men, but dose a work of God in the the Faith and name of the Lord Jesus, I say what the Lord said, Luke 9:49 "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us."
Luke 9:50 "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

if someone is for the Lord, instead of being a hindrance, why not help them.

PICJAG.

 

[Randy Kluth]

May I say this one thing on working for the Lord. there is only one "preacher" in the church of God, and there is only one "teacher, apostle, prophet, and bishop... ect... including the "evangelist", only ONE. he that is in us.

that term "Office" is an western world idea of what is really being signified, that is, an "office" is really a work. and that work is the "GIFT" of God in us all. each "Work" carries a different function, but each function/work is a gift of God. and not all have the same gift/work. but it's the gift giver who is the same one person who gives each a gift or gifts, (the Holy Spirit). and one may have more that one "Gift"/Work.

one might want to look up the word "office" in it's biblical definition and not it's worldy definition.

all these WORKS/Office are in "SERVICE" to others. a WORK, or an office is servitude.

and just because someone is not in your company or been ordained by men, but dose a work of God in the the Faith and name of the Lord Jesus, I say what the Lord said, Luke 9:49 "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us."
Luke 9:50 "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

if someone is for the Lord, instead of being a hindrance, why not help them.

PICJAG.

That's a really important point, and one that I think Paul was trying to make. The sectarianism that produces a false focus on "offices" is of the same spirit that said "I follow Paul," or "I follow Peter." When we begin to look to men, instead of seeing God through men, we begin to fail to appreciate what God meant when He said to Israel, "do not make of Me any graven images."

God remains transcendent, even in the people gifted with His Holy Spirit. We must always keep God both transcendent and the object of our worship--not His works, but *Him.*

Wonderful sentiment, brother!

 

[marksman]

Your testimony is extremely weak and your backup extremely thin. If you want to double down on that, it's your problem.

1) If you want to quote someone on an important issue, you need to provide in depth context, eg a reference to a link. Otherwise, you're backing up your points only with your own subjective experience. My experience may be very different.

2) When you talk about "how churches operate" and claim superiority on that subject, you are talking, it seems, only about *your experience* and *churches you have been in.*

3) When I said you're "skating over issues," I'm talking about the lack of corroborating evidence, * aside from your own experience.* To add weight to your argument you need *substantive support.*

4) I did not ask you to boast about who you are, what degrees you have, how accomplished you are, and so on. It does help me to know you have lots of experience as a Christian, but no--I have not asked for this information. Personal information should be voluntary, and not coerced.

5) For all of your lengthy Christian experience, you seem very thin-skinned and yes--shallow. If you wish to up your game, provide something substantive to back up your points. I've already told you that I've held some sympathies. But I'm getting less "sympathetic" by the minute.

That is OK. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinion never interests me.

 

[marksman]

If you're going to cite an important, respected person with a view that diminishes the value of church sermons, you need to provide context for a statement that only you know about.

The context was the Saturday evening meeting at the South Chard Christian Church at their annual Easter Conference.

 

[marksman]

Of course I know that! That's why I was marginalizing your claim, because you seem to refer largely to your own experience. Your own experience matters as far as opinions. But establishing truth is another thing entirely. The only thing that is "truth" about anecdotal evidence is that you experienced something.

I haven't used anecdotal evidence.

 

[marksman]

Sorry, I didn't see it. You basically tore down in one swoop the way most churches operate, with pastors preaching Sunday sermons. I didn't see much of a qualification--only a doubling down on the point.

I'd like to get beyond the minor animosity here because you do sound like you're very qualified to have an opinion here. And I at least share some of your sentiment. So if you wish to qualify your opposition to Sunday sermons, please provide it. Thank you.

I don't wish to qualify anything if it leads people up the garden path.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't wish to qualify anything if it leads people up the garden path.

I haven't used anecdotal evidence.

That is all that you have given me--your own experience and what you say has happened, what you say Derek Prince said, etc. That is not anything better than saying, "Believe me because I'm believable." You'll have to do better than that. But I'm done for now.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is OK. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinion never interests me.

Oh yea? That's all you've given me, your opinion that sermons aren't worthy of you.

 

[marksman]

Oh yea? That's all you've given me, your opinion that sermons aren't worthy of you.

As I said, you are eltitled to your opinion.

 

[marksman]

That is all that you have given me--your own experience and what you say has happened, what you say Derek Prince said, etc. That is not anything better than saying, "Believe me because I'm believable." You'll have to do better than that. But I'm done for now.

I am so glad you are done for now because your constant criticism was getting tiresome.