Looking over your post, I tend to agree with you, especially since I think the Church’s popular concept of evangelism is off-base. You’re right — there’s little to no support for the “personal evangelism” currently espoused in most churches.

But of course I agree with Begg’s statement about evangelism being the church’s top priority (you knew I would! ;-). The reason is that I define evangelism as “making disciples,” which encompasses a whole lot more than sharing the 4 Spiritual Laws (if it includes that at all) or marking down Sinner’s Prayer conversions on a scorecard.

I think there is a real gift of evangelism that some people have but that most don’t. Just like any other spiritual gift. There are people, I think, who have an uncommon ability to convert others in short periods of time, using “out-dated” methods like street preaching or going door to door or handing out tracts or whatever.
But I’m not one of them.
And since this is the common concept of what evangelism is, the Church has put a lot of pressure on people — youth, in particular — to do and be things they cannot and are not. Feel uncomfortable, Jimmy? Good! You need to get out of your comfort zone!

But I think all people are called to be witnesses for Christ. (Again, the term “witnessing” has been misconstrued by the popular church to be synoymous with evangelism, which in turn has become synonymous with proselytization.)
We are to “let our good works shine before men that they may glorify our Father in heaven.” We are to be salt and light. We are to carry out the Great Commission primarily through obeying the Great Commandment.

And I think the corporate Church (and the local church) takes the burden off the individual layperson by making evangelism its priority — proclaiming Christ crucified, not just in a weekly sermon, but in the life and community of the believers attending. Think Acts 2 or any of the other “measures of faith” the NT writers give (showing the fruits of the spirit, clinging to faith/hope/love but especially love, etc).
If the mature members of the community of faith used their spiritual gifts for the edification of the church in its seeking to save that which is lost, they are truly mimicking what Jesus’ disciples did — growing as they follow Him.

IMHO

Heh, I anticipated probably 90% of what you wrote!

Let me go a little bit further (or is it farther? what’s the difference?) and say that I also don’t see much emphasis on being “seeker sensitive” or getting unbelievers in church at all (except 1 Cor 14:23-25), or of “investing in the lives of unbelievers” or “building bridges” or “developing relationships with pre-Christians” or anything like that.

I see a whole lot of emphasis on theology, obedience, church order, church discipline, encouraging one another, and so on. But there’s virtually nothing on ANYTHING that we currently call “evangelism”.

Aside from the public preaching (including foreign missions) of the gospel, evangelism seems almost unintentional. Like it almost happens by accident, or at least, it happens naturally, as we love God with all we have and all we are. As we know Christ, we will also make Him known.

used their spiritual gifts for the edification of the church in its seeking to save that which is lost

This is what I’m starting to question, is that last phrase “in its seeking to save that which is lost”. Not that the church shouldn’t be about this, but that it almost seems like something that just happens without us trying too hard.

Could we say “If the mature members of the community of faith used their spiritual gifts for the edification of the church, they are truly mimicking what Jesus’ disciples did — growing as they follow Him — and this will naturally produce disciples in accord with the Great Commission as lost men see their good works, glorify God, and seek to share the abundant life evident among the Christians”?

I’m also very interested in anybody who wants to support the traditional idea of evangelism. I want to be able to stand up in the theological class I’m going to teach and scripturally explain the church’s mission, as well as what evangelism is and how it works. Right now I don’t think I could do that scripturally.

Well, depending on what you mean by these things, I personally see a lot of emphasis on them in the life and ministry of Jesus.
Acts and the epistles are great at telling us about the mechanics of church. But Jesus is great at showing us about the purpose and mission of Church. I just tend to think the Body of Christ ought to be about the business the body of Christ was.

Could we say “If the mature members of the community of faith used their spiritual gifts for the edification of the church, they are truly mimicking what Jesus’ disciples did — growing as they follow Him — and this will naturally produce disciples in accord with the Great Commission as lost men see their good works, glorify God, and seek to share the abundant life evident among the Christians”?

Yes, I think we could say this. In fact, it sounds a whole lot like my ideas of “organic discipleship” and “organic evangelism.” (Not that every ecclesiological theory must conform to my judgment!)
The only thing I would be cautious about is that you don’t define here where you are following Jesus to.
It’s almost like cart before the horse (but not quite): “if we use our gifts in the church then we are ipso facto following Jesus.” But that mentions nothing of what Jesus is doing as we follow Him.
I think perhaps we clarify the mission first, and then we use our gifts to follow Him as He does it.

This is basically asking “what would Jesus do?”. I am quite uncomfortable with that, since so many of Christ’s actions are open to so much misinterpretation. And I’m not convinced that we’re to imitate all we see in Christ’s life (although 1 Cor 10:31-11:1 sheds some light on this). For instance, I think few Christians are called to be itenerant preachers.

The question becomes, just what was the business of Christ? To call sinners to repentance, right? But not only could one spin that particular statement many different ways with many different and significant connotations, one could also make convincing arguments that Christ’s mission was something else entirely.

Not that I disagree with you at all, by the way. I don’t.

This ambiguity related to Christ’s life and the significance of what He did is why I lean more heavily on the epistles, which are far clearer than any inferences I might draw from Christ’s actions. And when I look to the epistles, I see a lack of emphasis on intentional evangelism, aside from sincere obedience to God.

you don’t define here where you are following Jesus to.

Hmm, that’s a good point. Is Ephesians 4:14-16 a reasonable answer:

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

It does explain that our service is for “the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love”, but in the context of growing “up in all aspects into … Christ”, so I guess I’m back at square one.

But this is a practical distinction from missional purpose.
I’m not saying we should do literally what Jesus did, but that we should be about the business he was about.

This ambiguity related to Christ’s life and the significance of what He did is why I lean more heavily on the epistles, which are far clearer than any inferences I might draw from Christ’s actions.

I guess I don’t find His actions near as ambiguous as you do.
I see Jesus saying things like “It is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick.” I see Him saying things like “I have come to seek and save that which is lost.” I see Him saying things like “I would leave the 99 to find the one lost sheep.”
I see Him looking square at the religious leaders of the day and telling the “Lost Parables” — the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost sheep — which is the only time He tells three parables in a row, by the way. It is almost as if He’s saying, “Don’t you get it? This is why I’m here. This is what is important.”

And when I look to the epistles, I see a lack of emphasis on intentional evangelism, aside from sincere obedience to God.

I think the primary reason for this is — and don’t laugh — that it almost went without saying. In the early church, quest for converts was pretty much a given.
Paul himself went on missionary journeys, preaching the Gospel to the Jews and the Greeks. His letters I think have this evangelistic purpose implicit. It’s like, “Okay, you guys are trying to do church, but this is how you should be going about it.” I have to believe there was a foundational purpose in there about the growth of the church. The purpose just couldn’t have been to learn more or to “just get along.”
There’s a world of meaning in “For I have been crucified with Christ,” and a lot of it reflects an outward focus.

The last few times you’ve cited Ephesians 4, I have gone there to see if I can find what you are implying is there. I’m not sure I understand what you’re pointing out there.
I guess I’m saying I’m unclear as to how the stuff in that chapter is contrary to the stuff I’ve been saying.
I think “that the body of Christ may be built up” (v12) and “attaining to the full measure of the fullness of Christ” (v13) have direct evangelistic significance.
Not to mention that the context of the chapter includes Ephesians 3, which Paul begins with emphasis of the Gospel call to the Gentiles.
Ephesians 3:1-10 are almost directly about evangelism (as I understand it).

You know what I suspect?
I suspect we agree on more than either you or I think we do. But I think you may see a phrase like “seeker sensitive” or “seeker targeted” and interpret that according to assumptions you have about what they really mean. (Or according to assumptions you have based on the abuses of some lame “Entertainment” churches out there.)
Am I anywhere close in that regard?

I agree that Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost, and I agree that we are also to be about the business of calling sinners to repentance. One hundred percent agreement.

Unfortunately, the areas where me *possibly* disagree are pretty subtle and it’s very hard for me to put into words, particularly in a forum such as this one. It’s very prone to misinterpretation. I think that, like I have biases and preconceptions about what I think you mean, you probably have biases and preconceptions about what you think I mean, which makes it real difficult to talk!

If you knew the people I knew, I could just say “I think we should be more like Steve and less like Todd” and you’d completely understand what I meant, and more than likely agree. :-) Not that I have anything against Todd.

I’m not nearly as Pharisaical as I probably sound like online – I’m just a poor communicator. But I will give it a try. Please be patient and charitable with me.

I don’t think we can assume that evangelism is implied in the epistles. And I don’t think we can appropriate Jesus’s mission as our own without some careful consideration of what it should look like in our own lives.

It is my prayer that God would show me how the church ought to relate to the world, and that’s what I’m trying to work through – partially because I need to be sure I teach correctly, and partially because I need to be sure I live correctly. My real purpose in posting this was simply to get feedback on whether there’s a New Testament emphasis on traditional forms of evangelism. But you’re the only one who’s responded so far, and the discussion has kind of morphed into something different, which is OK with me. But it wasn’t my original intent.

I believe you and I are in agreement that the New Testament forms of evangelism are:
1. A minority of Christians are called to things like foreign missions, working as evangelists, and so on.
2. All Christians are called to live godly lives as an example to the lost of this world, with the intent that God would be glorified and the lost would be attracted to Christ.

I think what we might disagree on is that you define “godly lives” to include “seeking to save that which is lost” in the manner you believe to be congruent with what Christ did. I am not convinced of what I think you think was the manner Christ went about His mission. I am also not convinced that His mission is identical to ours, or at least not that His manner of carrying out our mission is the same as ours. That last sentence doesn’t sound quite how I mean it. Maybe the next few sentences will clarify.

Speaking of Ephesians 4, you said I’m unclear as to how the stuff in that chapter is contrary to the stuff I’ve been saying. I don’t think it’s contrary, just perhaps has a slightly different emphasis but without being flat out opposed. I don’t think “building up of the body of Christ” is referring to increasing the number of converts, but instead refers to the maturity of the existing ones. An increase of depth, not breadth. Not that increasing in breadth is bad, and not that evangelism isn’t part of it (maybe), but it’s not the point. The point is for the body to build itself up in love (v 16).

When I read the verses following Eph 4:1-16, I don’t see anything that sounds even vaguely like “being nice to non-Christians” (which I know is an unfair oversimplification). Instead, I see instructions on living lives of obedience to God that really has nothing to do with intentionally sharing life with unbelievers.

I read things like:
* lay aside the old self and put on the new self (4:22-24)
* speak truth with your neighbor since we are all members of one another. The last phrase makes me think this is not a reference to evangelism, but instead primarily how we treat one another. (4:25)
* be angry and do not sin, and don’t let the sun go down on your anger (4:26)
* do not steal, but work instead (4:28)
* be edifying in your speech (4:29)
* but away all bitterness and wrath and malice (4:31)
* be kind to _one another_ (cf 4:1-6; this is primarily about Christians interacting) and forgive one another (4:32)
* avoid immorality, impurity, and greed (5:3)
* no filthiness, no silly talk, no coarse jesting, but rather thanksgiving (5:4)
* do not participate in evil deeds, but expose them instead (5:11)

and so on.

It seems like our primary business ought to be:
* living a life of personal holiness
* treating other Christians so well the world is jealous (to paraphrase a co-worker of mine)

I think as the world sees us treating each other as we ought to, and living holy and sanctified lives that show the authenticity of the gospel, they will be attracted to Christ.

I see absolutely NO emphasis on being nice to unbelievers.

Look, I know that I am the freak here. This is not the typical evangelical way of looking at things. And it just “sounds” wrong in my gut. It’s not how I was raised to believe, not by a long shot. But I’m really trying to look at Scripture with an open mind, and honestly this is what I see. Thanks for helping me sort through it. At the very least, you’re the “loyal opposition” and won’t let me build a flimsy case!

“Why should I witness?”

First, because Jesus commands you to: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matt. 28:19). Also, Ezek. 3:11 says, “And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.”

Second, you must witness because you love the unsaved (if you don’t, you should). The most loving thing you can do is present the gospel in hopes of bringing others to salvation. Galatians 5:22 lists love as one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is love’s nature to give. Take for example John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” Love gives, and if you have only a small portion of His love, you will want to give to others.

Third, witness because it is a wise thing to do. Prov. 11:30 says, “…he that winneth souls is wise.” Now, I know I am not a very wise person. But, since God says I’ll be wise to win souls, or try to, then great, let me at it. I want to be wise in God’s sight.

Fourth, witness to keep people out of hell. Hell is a terrifying place of utter anguish and eternal separation from God. Those who are not saved go there. Witnessing is an attempt to keep them out of hell.

Fifth, witness because it pleases God and brings glory to His name.

And finally, and most important, witness so they may find the love and fellowship of God (1 John 1:3), the greatest of all treasures. I can think of no greater gift than salvation. It frees the sinner from sin, it delivers the lost from damnation, and it reveals the true and living God to those who don’t know Him.

The angels of heaven rejoice greatly when anyone passes from judgment into salvation (Luke 15:10). Shouldn’t we as Christians rejoice too? Shouldn’t we weep over the lost? Shouldn’t we ask the Lord of the field to send laborers into His harvest (Luke 10:2)? Certainly! The salvation of others is the goal of your efforts. The love of God is your motive. Is there anything greater? So, give.

As for the lack of writing in the epistles, perhaps its part of God’s wisdom to not write down the “how to’s” of witnessing. There are so many different ways and means to witness and what works for you might not work for me or vise-versa.

Remember we are to love our neighbor as ourself (Luke 10:27, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31). As the parable of the Good Samaritan shows us, our neighbor is anyone we come in contact with.

Hope this helps.

Robert, I’m glad to be the loyal opposition.
Maybe I should point out a real-life contrast to illustrate where our practical differences lie:
I think the church should look more like Willow Creek than Thomas Road Baptist (Jerry Falwell’s church).
Not that Willow Creek is a perfect church. And not that Thomas Road is “bad.”
But that I see more of an Acts 2 community in the former than I do the latter.

I am not convinced of what I think you think was the manner Christ went about His mission. I am also not convinced that His mission is identical to ours, or at least not that His manner of carrying out our mission is the same as ours.

What exactly do you think His mission was? And why should ours be different?
Came across these verses last night in my prep for small group this week:
“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.” — John 17:18
“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” — John 20:21

These verses seem to me to imply that Jesus’ intent is for us to be about the same mission he was.

As for no evidence of being “nice” to unbelievers. I refer again to Jesus’ ministry, in which His ire was often reserved for the religious leaders and His own disciples. He had compassion on the sick and hurting, the diseased, the fornicators, the tax collectors, etc etc.

I also think there’s more in the epistles about evangelism than is apparent right now. (For one thing, we should look beyond Ephesians 4!)
I will come back later to report my “findings.”
Baby needs a bottle.

First, I want to go back to your semi-take on using Jesus as our model for evangelism. I want to ask you: If it’s inappropriate to model our efforts after His, whose do we model ourselves after?
And if the early church to which the epistles were written did not have evangelism primary, would this not be disobedience to the Great Commission, Jesus’ final order to the founders of His Church?

I’m not sure how to keep “defending” my view about Jesus’ mission and our debt to it. I’d like to just paste the Gospels in here, but that would be too much support. ;-)

Anyways, I looked through the later NT this afternoon, with a skimming eye for evangelistic emphasis. I want to re-state that I think evangelism was implicit in the charge of the letters for the most part, and that the preaching of the Gospel pretty much “went without saying” for the early church.
I mean, it was growing like a weed. So somebody was sharing Christ somehow.
I also want to talk about purpose. If the whole point of Christian growth is just personal holiness or spiritual maturity, I have to ask, For what reason? For what purpose?
To glorify God? But doesn’t it glorify God more if we let our lights shine, if we preach Christ crucified, if we be imitators of His Son, rather than if we treat Christianity as a way to be “better people”?
The building up the Body is not about just learning a lot or even being well-adjusted and spiritually mature (depth). It is about the reason for that depth — the breadth of God’s election of His children, the building the Body, really growing the Body. This is the fullness of God’s salvation — all who are chosen are saved; all who are saved are sanctified.

But anyhoo, here are some passages from the epistles in which I find particular evangelistic significance. Some of them are explicitly about evangelism, some of them are about the church’s Gospel mission, and some of them are about imitating Christ.
Let me highlight one:

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake — the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God– even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
– 1 Corinthians 10:22-11:1

Others:
Romans 1:13-17
Romans 10:14-15
Romans 12:4-21
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
1 Corinthians 9:16-23
1 Corinthians 15:1-5
2 Corinthians 4:1-15
2 Corinthians 5:11-20
Ephesians 5:1-2
Philippians 2:5-11 (hymn)
Colossians 1:18-29
Colossians 2:1-2
Colossians 4:3-6
1 Thessalonians 1:6-8
1 Timothy 1:15-17
1 Timothy 4:9-16
2 Timothy 1:8-13
2 Timothy 2:8-10
Titus 2 (notice all the teaching and good works service the gospel)
1 Peter 1:6-9
1 Peter 3:15-4:1
1 John 3:16-23
Jude 22-23