Evangelism: Not my Job?
December 14th, 2007 by Dustin
If you are a parent, worker, or anyone who deals with authority, I am confident that you have heard at one time or another the following: “It’s not MY job!” People are quick to let others know that they are not responsible for any work that is not clearly defined in their job description. Granted, we could take into account work loads and lazy coworkers, but generally the tendency is lack of going-above-and-beyond.
I can venture a guess that more than 1/2 of people attending church in America, if asked to do something out of their comfort zone, would reply with “That’s not MY job.” The question is, is it really?
“Go into all the world and make disciples…….teaching them to observe all that I’ve commanded you.” Matt. 28:19-20
Jesus here give a clear command to the church at large. It is OUR responsibility to be working in the direction of (in particular) doing two big things. First, we are to be making disciples. Second is to teach them to observe all that I have commended.
A few thoughts come to mind: “How many people to venture to church honestly understand their specific mission in life is to (in some sense) contribute to the task of making disciples?” Think about it? Do you have this command from the risen lord seared onto your heart as your personal mission, or do we just expect the clergy to take care of those things?
Another thought: “Do I have the burden on my heart to (in some sense) teach others what Jesus has taught me?” It would seem that everyone who claims to be a Christian has some responsibility to teaching others and passing on the faith.
How many of us think of these two commands as realities in our lives? Or do we just reply “That’s not MY job?”
Hi Dustin,
you wrote above
Was this really a command to the church at large?
If you understand it that way, have you packed your bags and “gone into all the world” to do what you then define as the “two big things”, or have you “stayed at home” (which would be contrary to what Jesus said, would it not?) to do what you think you could do at home, neglecting the first part of what Jesus said there?
I’d suggest that we first read the Scriptures in their proper context, observing who said what to whom and when … and after understanding what we read correctly, that we then determine correctly how what we have read and understood correctly applies or does not apply to us today
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
If we are to “observing who said what to whom and when” - then we have nothing in Christianity to do. Because no one said anything to Wolfgang Schneider of Germany in 2007. Your criteria of “who said what to who” are far too tight to accomplish anything.
Hi John O.,
You are correct, NOTHING in the Bible was said or written to any of us in 2007, whether we live in Germany or the USA …
BUT you seem to have either not read or seem to have missed the next point of my earlier comment, which was:
When folks do not get that first part right of recognizing “who said what to whom and when”, they will be bound to get this second part of what does really apply to them wrong.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Then it seems that the Christians of the first church all misunderstood Jesus’ command, and you have correctly? Because all of the first church evangelized. They all spoke the Gospel. Whereas your interpretation means to say that only the apostles of the Church should. Arguing that Jesus never told anyone else to evangelize is an argument from silence, not to mention the Church never existed while Jesus walked the earth. Not to mention that there are many who preach (Barnabas, Timothy, Stephen, Priscilla and Aquilla) who are not apostles. This hermaneutic you propose is the foundation of Dispensationalism. I know that you have, in the past, stated you are not one. But you seem to think very much like one.
Hi John O.,
you said above
From where do you get the idea that “all of the first church evangelized”? how many of the several thousand who believed at Pentecost packed their bags and left Jerusalem during the following weeks or months and went to other countries to evangelize?
Reading Mt 28,19 read in context supports that Jesus did indeed commission his apostles to go to all nations and evanglize …
As for “dispensationalism … it seems that once again you follow some idea about dispensationalism and its foundations which is not holding up to truth. What does reading and understanding Jesus’ words correctly in light of to whom he spoke and when have to do with “foundations of dispensationalism”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Evangelizing does not only mean uprooting oneself and going to a foreign country. Evangelism started in Judea, moved into Samaria, Galilee, and from there, the rest of the world.
The foundations of dispensationalism is the starting point that “some words are not meant for me”, the assumption that we need not bother with something. Rather than accepting all the data and facts that we have, and working out the truth from them. This ends up with the results that God has two people, with two destinies. Instead of one world, with one destiny.
Gentlemen, gentlemen!
No one is making the assumption that “we need not bother” with anything. At the acension, Jesus was most certainly speaking to his closest associates, the ones whom he had chosed during his time in ministry, to be the chief apostles (ones sent forth) of the good news of the Kingdom. It’s absolutely clear and in context.
Most of the people we read about in Acts and the letters are either travelling minsters and preachers, or home church folks and their leadership. Paul speaks very clearly that being an apostle or an evangelist is a specific spiritual gift. We can all seek to live out the gospel of the Kingdom in our daily lives, no matter what we do or where we are, but that does not negate the fact that some are specifically called to the evangelising/sent forth function. The home folks support the apostles and the work gets done.
Leah, of course some are set apart to be evangelists where their mainstay is to preach. However, that does not negate the responsibility the rest of the Church has to also preach the Gospel. Wolfgang’s position is that only the apostles preach.
Hi John O.,
my position is that we do what we are called to do … and that we read accurately instead of telling people things that are not so, such as “all the church evangelized”, etc. and applying passages of scripture to folks to whom they do not apply …. your original post gave the impression that every believer is called to be an evangelist and that all believers are to go into all the world to make disciples … BUT is that true or is that the type of interpretation which does not take into account who said what to whom and when?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I think that it was what Matthew implied by making this small discourse the climax of his gospel. It was intended to carry on the ministry that Jesus had been given by God.
Look at these Scriptures:
John 20:21 “As the Father has sent me, I now send you”
Luke 4:43 “I must preach the gospel of the kingdom, for that reason I was sent.”
It would seem that Jesus wants us to be doing the same things he did during his ministry. If it were meant for the 11 apostles standing there in the 28th chapter of Matthew, then the problem of unbiblical dispensational theology comes up.
Dustin