Should we bring unbelievers to Church?

No, I agree with Paul. But go back and read what I said. I said that God is working in the lives of people through their circumstances to open their hearts and create a desire for him. Acts 17 very clearly talks about people that are seeking God, if perhaps they might find him. Surely you don't doubt that Paul had it right do you? And I could post seven pages of verses that talk about people seeking God.

Sometimes you have a tendency to not read closely enough and think carefully before responding. This appears to be another case of that. You are jumping on me when you know very well what I believe about the nature of man in sin. I am completely committed to the fact that man is totally depraved and hostile towards God and his word. But it is quite plain from Scripture that God does open the hearts of men and lead them to seek him. How else would anyone start coming to church or even asking spiritual questions? If there is no spiritual interest, why would anyone listen to a presentation of the gospel?

Accurate exegesis is not the same as relevance. I have had enough exegesis classes that contained accurate exegesis. It did not show the relevance of the text to life. That wasn't the purpose of the class. Showing the relevance is a step beyond accurate exegesis. The accurate exegesis is the easy part of sermon prep.

The application may well be about the way we think or what we do. The application can be a number of things. But the application must start with accurate exegesis and grow out of that. But it cannot be confused with that. When you say that relevance may be about belief and thinking, I agree. And that is why I disagree with your last statement, and think you contradicted yourself. When you attempt to change people's thinking, that is the application of the text. I fully intend to change people's thinking on Sunday morning. It is my goal to show the relevance of the text to some who are doubting God's faithfulness (an issue of thinking).

 

I know you believe correctly about the nature of man. Those who seek do not seek the biblical God. They might seek their idea of God, or perhaps a god that will satisfy their religious need.

Scripture is propositional truth that is to be believed and everyone is to conform their thinking to the Scriptures. The application is not nearly as important as the exegesis and can hardly be put on the same level. I am not saying you said that exactly.

Take a look at the sermons in the N.T. How many of those had illustrations and applications?

Sorry, this is all getting a bit off topic.

 

Yes.

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto! The primary reason for church services is to glorify God. Each service should flow with a true balance of teaching, preaching, and praise. Sin should be preached, and the gospel as it's remedy. The lost should be considered inside or outside the building we worship in. Evangelization of the lost, and edification of the church glorify God. As a self-governing entity, each congregation has liberty to decide -- with the guidance of the Holy Spirit -- when it will hold which services! The New Testament gives us an example, not a legalistic rule book! I believe that exhorting believers, and witnessing to the lost are equally important to the growth of the church. It would be criminal for me not to invite someone I knew to be lost to come to church! IMHO. In Christ, Word Traveler

 

I agree for some and have long said that. But for some who God is drawing, they will find the true God. We do not know the difference up front. Two people come into church (or wherever we might meet them). God is drawing one and not the other. We cannot tell the difference.

I agree to an extent, but we cannot put application aside. Accurate exegesis is the foundation of the message (whether topical or expository). But if that is all the farther we get, we have given our hearers knowledge, but not told them what to do with it.

I can't think of one that doesn't. At Pentecost, the application was "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins." At Mars Hill is was, "God is calling all men everywhere to repent." The epistles are filled with application, some even down to the nitty gritty like keep your hands of someone that is not your spouse, and keep your mouth under control, etc. What has changed is the social context and we have to build the bridge between then and now and then cross that bridge.

Yes, but let me try to bring it back. In preaching, my goal is to address my audience. I preach a different kind of message in seminary chapel than I do on Sunday morning, simply becuase I have a different audience. You have to know your audience. If you don't, you will miss them. I hate going to doctors who use big medical terms that I don't understand. It means nothing to me and confuses me. Use the big word if you must, but tell me what it means. The same is true in preaching. Use the theology, but tell them what it means.

I have said this: Scripture has two purposes: 1) To tell us who God is; 2) to tell us what to do about that. Too many preachers stop with the first and pretend like they have done their job.

There is no glory in a homiletically perfect message that people don't understand. What Warren has tried to do is communicate and that is good. I don't like some of the ways he does it, but that is not because of the philosophy of "relevancy" (as I use the term). It is because of others things. When people come to church, they need to hear from God and they need to hear it in a manner that they can understand and that tells them what to do with what they have heard.

 

In my last post, I didn't mean to include "illustration" when I mentioned "application".

 

I didn't think you did ...

 

As you know there is a lot of discussion as to the exact role of the pastor as described in the NT. The shepherd role is definitely one. Yet as you say, the "work of the evangelist" is also central to the role. Again, I believe you may a faulty distinction. The roles cannot be separated. It is my role to feed the sheep and my role to share the gospel.

 

Exactly ... NOT. Come on DD. You know better.

I am not criticizing them. I am simply stating reality. Yes I believe they present the gospel. I am simply saying they tend to focus on the discipleship element of the Great Commission. I think this is something they would admit. Their philosophy shapes their approach and as a result their churches have grown primarily thru transfers.

Thanks for your opinion. You are not Warren's audience. And I am thankful we serve a God who is able to use the "weak" to confound the wise. Isn't that a verse? I am sure the many who have come to know Christ or been challenged to go deeper would disagree.

We anticipate your book that fills the void you feel Warren has left.

 

SBC, if the gospel you present is like the one Warren presents, I feel for your church as well. I don't disdain Warren, I feel pity for him.

The gospel he presents in his book is incomplete. This is due to his deplorable arminianism and weak view of depravity. It figures though.

On what grounds do you say that many have come to Christ? Another gospel isn't able to save anyone.

 

SBC,

I think what MacArthur and Piper are doing is building up of the body through guiding them to spiritual maturity. Many are saved from the members' obedience to the gospel in sharing it.(We had 7 baptized this morning) Who says there are only transfers. You must not understand these kinds of churches. I think these pastors are very interested in their members becoming spiritually mature through understanding God's Word and how it does help us in everyday issues. What would happen if a church was so focused on evangelism and not on feeding the flock to maturity,that the church was full of baby christians who never really understood God's Word,but,boy,they sure knew how to run the rollerblading ministry.

I just have not seen evidence of in depth bible study in these seeker sensitive style churches. They are just learning how to bring more people in. granted,they may have some discipleship classes available,but I do not think there is a lot of depth there. I am basing these on what Rick Warren teaches in his books. I do not see how a pastor can truly disciple and grow their church if evangelism is the main focus.

I believe evangelism should be the natural outpouring from hearts who love God.and this love compels them to go out to share Christ with a lost world,not for church membership,but because they understand what Christ has done and they love others.

 

SBC, I'm afraid you'll never gain understanding from people who are sure they know better. I urge you to give this up and let people think what they will. God bless them in whatever outreach they are doing - if any at all.

This all sounds like "Son-Life Radio," where they spend the majority of their time critizing G-12 and the PD movement - as if there are no other important subjects to talk about.

I'd like everyone to know that there's a pastor in a church just up the road that is PD - and the people that have come to know the Lord have been set free - not because of Purpose Driven, but because some Christians decided it was time to do something more than just play church on Sundays. I say "more power to them," as long as they keep presenting the truth of God's Word. Most, but not all, of the people in this bulletin board are not in a position to judge Rick Warren or anybody else.

It's nice to know that so many "anti-s" feel comfortable judging an entire ministry based on a book and the idle prattle that goes on in some of these threads.

8 pages on this thread - is there really any more to say?

 

I agree that 8 pages is long,but this is a movement that has become widespread and affecting many churches. I think it is fine to debate the issues...no harm done...who knows someone may come away with a better understanding of how the church should operate.

I really don't think anyone is judging Rick Warren the person,but we are to examine everything. This is a major book and christians need to learn be more discerning,so that not everything is accepted just because it seems fine.

You are right,though,that we will not come to an agreement on this...that is fine. I happen to think healthy debate over something this serious is necessary and helpful at times.

many churches are faced with these issues all the time. Crucial decisions need to be made on philosphies of ministry...it should not be taken lightly.

 

Actually, those of us who are preachers BETTER be able to judge (or discern if you like) the merits of another persons teaching and/or practice. Those who have been given the oversight must watch out for wolves.

You might not agree with my conclusion. That is up to you. But to dismiss it because I am "judging" is immature on your part. Grow up.

 

In the Bible, Christians had meetings in which they were to edify one another. We see this in I Corinthians 14, particularly verse 26. Hebrews 10:24-25 also shows us that in these meetings, the saints were to 'exhort one another.'

Instead of having one man preach a sermon every week, as we see in a lot of Protestant churches these days, the various members of the body would take turns speaking to one another. It was this kind of meeting that Paul wrote about in I Corinthians 14. Paul told the Corinthians how to have their meetings in an orderly manner. He commanded them to let all things be done unto edification.

If the main focus of our church meeting is evangelism, rather than edification of the body of Christ, then we are doing something other than what Paul commanded for church meetings in this chapter. In I Corinthians 14, Christians were to be sensitive to unbelievers who might attend, but the main focus in this chapter is the edification of the body of Christ.

The saints in Troas gathered 'to break bread.' If we want our churches to be spiritually healthy, we need to have meetings which promote mutual edification and in which we participate in the Lord's table.

Here are two common errors in churches today:

1. One-man shows instead of mutual edification. (E.g. Only one man preaching a sermon, with the rest of the body not being allowed to use their gifts in the meetings as scripture teaches us to do.)

2. Repeatedly having meetings geered toward evangelism, and neglecting edification of the body.

The first one is all too common. Before you throw stones, read I Corinthians 14, Hebrews 10:24-25, and Acts 15, and then ask yourself what the Biblical basis is for the type of church meetings you have.

The second type of meeting is common in a lot of small country churches in the Southeast. John Wesley was considered contraversial for preaching outside. During the Great Awakenings, the evangelistic crusade became popular. It was an adaptation of a church service, but with an evangelistic method. In the late 1800's, the practice of having an altar call evolved, and this was added on to the end of the service.

It is extremely unlikely that Peter had the 3000 at Pentecost sing a hymn before hearing the Gospel, or that Paul had the Athenians sing some songs about the Lord before he preached to them. Evangelistic crusades seem more suitable for attracting nominal Christians than people who aren't used to the traditional Christian church service. The modern evangelistic crusade evolved out of an adaptation of church services.

Ironically, some churches that had many congregations birthed out of evangelistic crusades started having evangelistic crusades as their church meeting. Week after week in these churches, the preacher preaches on salvation. Week after week, there is an altar call. Some of these churches have little teaching other than a salvation message from the pulpit.

Clearly it is unhealthy if the only teaching believers recieve is how to get saved.

In the Bible, we must see that it is important that churches meet and participate in mutual edification, with members using the gifts God has given to build one another up in the faith.

Churches can be involved in outreach activities. Apollos debated with Jews, proving that Jesus is the Christ from the scriptures. Some Christians probably attended these debates. Evangelism does not have to be done through a traditional organized evangelistic crusade. This format evolved in recent history, and isn't always suitable for reaching Mslims or Buddhists. In some countries, usually few besides who already call themselves Christians would attend crusades.

In the Bible, evangelists evangelized where the unsaved were. They went outside of church meetings to evangelize. It makes sense, if you really think about it, that there should be more unsaved people outside of church meetings than in them. Philip the evangelist went to Samaria, where there wasn't a church, and told the Samaritans about Jesus. Then he did 'personal evangelism' with an Ethiopian. Timothy, who was told ot do the work of an evangelist, traveled with Paul, preaching the Gospel to unbelieving people, and through their ministry, churches were started. If Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, doesn't it stand to reason that Paul wanted Timothy to evangelize unbelievers, instead of just preach salvation to the saved? We need to recognize the gift of evangelism as it works outside of church meetings, in those who evangelize the unsaved.

I think you make a great point about a shepherd not necessarily being a cheif fisherman, but I would also like to add that I don't see anyone referred to in scripture as 'THE shepherd' of the sheep except for Christ. Ephesians 4:11 mentions people who are 'pastors and teachers.' Notice the plural 's' on those two words. The apostles appointed elders, plural, in every church, not one pastor in every church. There was a plurality of bishops in the church in Philipi, and scripture refers to elders and bishops interchangeably. "Elders" in scripture are charged with _pastoring_ the flock of God, and not merely with handling financial affairs. The practice of having 'elders' in a separate category from 'pastors' came about after the Reformation. If we want to use the common Biblical terminology for those who rule in the household of faith, we should use terms like 'bishops' (overseers) or 'elders' to refer to these men. We see them in groups in scripture, rather than one serving as 'the pastor' over a church.

You wrote,
"Although he is to perform the role of the evangelist"

I don't see where the Bible says that a pastor is to perform the role of the evangelist. Timothy was told to perform the role of an evangelist, but scripture does not even refer to him as a pastor. It doesn't call him a bishop or elder either. The letters to Timothy and Titus came to be refered to as 'the pastorals' in the late 1800's, and repeatedly I have heard people repeat the idea that Timothy and Titus were 'pastors' or even 'bishops.' But it is clear from scripture that these men were to _appoint_ the local bishops.

Scripture does not refer to Timothy as a 'pastor' and he certainly wasn't in the modern sense of the word- as a settled salaried minister over one congregation. (He may have had a gift for caring for others, which may be what the word means _in scripture_ anyway, rather than as a church office of authority.)

The Bible does indicate that Timothy was among the 'apostles of Christ' as we see in I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6. He likely shared in a 'measure of rule' in the cities where he helped Paul bring the Gospel. Because of this, and/or Paul's instructions, he had authority to appoint the local elders/bishops who would pastor the church in Ephesus. Apparently some were already there when I Timothy was written.

So part of Timothy's ministry was 'pastoral' in that he tended to people in the church and taught them. So was Paul's. But this was a necessary part of the itinerant, evangelistic, apostolic, church planting ministry that he did. Timothy would travel with Paul, and evangelize. While Timothy was taking care of church affairs, Paul still wanted him to 'do the work of an evangelist.' He probably wanted to remine Timothy not to stop evangelizing unbelievers, even though he was doing a lot of work to edify (build up) those who were already believers as well.

So if Timothy, a man in itinerant apostolic ministry, was told to do the work of evangelist, then it doesn't make much sense to use his example to say that non-itinerant local pastors will have a special charge to do the work of an evangelist. As mature men of God, they should be mature in doing the kind of evangelism any believer should do.

 

So, we should all do as the Plymouth Brethren do, then!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I happen to think that the Plymouth Brethren have it right

 

Just to get back on track and I don't know if anyone mentioned this passage:

1 Corinthians 1:
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

So, the Scripture makes room for the unbeliever coming into the local Church. Also its noteworthy that the unbeliever falls on his face and worships God.

HankD

 

So why are you a Baptist, then, Richard? Seriously, on this participatory point, the Brethren have got it more right and more Scriptural than us, I think ( with the exception of the 'no wimmin' bit - but we can debate that elsewhere if you like), which raises the question - to what extent can and should we modify our services to make these more participatory without abandoning Baptist distinctives? And, while the Brethren may have it 'more right' theologically when it comes to evangelising outside their meeting rooms, I still cringe somewhat when I see one of them in Fareham Shopping Precinct 'preaching' at one of the pillars of said precinct. Not exactly effective...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

We talked about that about 4 days ago on this thread. If you want to go back and read it, you'll see that this passage is talking about how unbelievers respond to a service that focuses on building up believers. Paul's very argument in this passage is AGAINST the gathering of believers being used for a "seeker" service. And there's also no indication in this passage that we are supposed to invite unbelievers, or even that these particular unbelievers were invited. That doesn't make it a bad thing, but it does emasculate most of the arguments for making church services the center of evangelism in the local church.

 

DD -- are you truly as asinine as your posts present you at times?

On what grounds can I say that you have come to Christ?

Is this a quote from your pastor? Rest assured Molly, I have spent more time studying this subject matter than you can imagine. I have lived in your world. I have spent one-on-one time with MacArthur, Piper, Dever, etc. I would have offered the same arguments that you try to offer. I am thankful for the day my eyes were opened to the fundamental flaws in my previous mindset.

Maybe one day you will grasp the reality that one can do things differently than you and be just as spiritual, biblical, concerned about discipleship, etc. Sometimes I don't think you even grasp how insulting and flawed your "our position is more spiritual than yours" mentality is.

I can't believe you can type these things with a straight face. Do you even see the absurdity of making these type statements???

But it is so entertaining for me. It is so amusing to see how inconsistent, illogical, and judgmental someone can be w/o even grasping it.

Actually debate must involve logic, statements of reality, and rational arguments. This is hardly a debate.

And we all know that you are the greatest discerner of all.

DD -- do you pastor?