New Testament Evangelist
Who is the New Testament Evangelist?
By Keven E Brownfield
If you want to get into a good argument these days in the circles of fundamentalism just bring up the office or ministry of the Evangelist at a pastor’s fellowship or go into a men’s dorm setting at a Bible college and ask who their favorite evangelist is (although I would warn you to we4ar appropriate armored and fireproof clothing). The subject has become one of great debate, division, and even ridicule. Surprising enough the debate does not normally take place outside our theological framework like Charismatic’s nor a number of evangelicals who have embraced Billy Graham or Luis Palau, but a huge revulsion has erupted among those who are of a covenant theological position or of those who adhere to a reformed theological stereological paradigm. So again we find our subset of fundamentalism and historic fundamentalism deeply fractured over another issue. There has developed a love them or hate them mentality which has impacted us in many ways. I have found no lack of opinion on this subject whether it concerns camp meetings or weekly church meetings. I believe at the root of much of the confusion over the ministry, office, and work of the evangelist is a fundamental misunderstanding of who he really is, and what his gifts are his relationship to the local New Testament church.
Rick Flanders sums up this crisis.
“…The office of the evangelist, however, has become controversial among certain bible-believers, and even among fundamentalists. Some churches no longer invite evangelists to preach for them or to lead them in revival campaigns. Some seminaries teach future pastors that the evangelist is a gift that has passed away. The evangelist is being rejected because of two different but equally mistaken kinds of voices. One comes from pastors of good evangelistic churches that see no need for periodic revival meetings since their soul-winning programs go on year-round. Sometimes they say that the Bible term “evangelist” means what we call a missionary today, and that those we have called evangelists actually have no place in the New Testament program. The other voice comes from an entirely different segment of the fundamentalist movement that has been overly influenced by Calvinism. They see the modern “evangelist” as what Dr. Louis Chafer called one of the “false forces” in evangelism, and they consider his campaigns, style of preaching, and altar calls as blasphemous insults to the sovereignty of God. These brethren believe that the New Testament evangelist has ceased as an office in the work of God. …Although many men still travel and preach under the title “evangelist” around the world, their calling and work is in serious danger of being undermined in the minds of future fundamentalists. Already we are finding few evangelists in places they once were commonly seen: in conferences as speakers, in churches leading revival campaigns, in the leadership of the fundamentalist movement. We are also finding evangelists misused and their office misunderstood and demeaned. The first and most important place to find the evangelist, however is in the New Testament, because if we cannot find him there, the n we should all stop looking for and using him. But we do find him in the New Testament, and our need of him among the fundamentalist churches is greater than ever!”[1]
While I do not agree with Dr. Flanders on several key points of his theological perspective, I believe he has assessed some of the vital signs in the bigger picture of the conflict.
My challenge in this brief paper is going to be a feeble attempt to bring my limited perspective to the debate. As someone who has traveled for many years in the role of an evangelist, I might be perceived as having a bias in my presupposition. However, I have come to some conclusions in my own investigation which do not necessarily agree with the typical perspective of the modern fundamental American evangelist.
The Driving Motivation behind my Investigation
About 12 years ago, I was ministering in a larger fundamental church (I will not divulge any descriptive terms for the sake of anonymity); as the week unfolded I did something “unconventional” for the “typical” evangelist. Rather than preaching a text of Scripture for one night I decided to preach on the same text for three nights in a row. One of the assistant pastors and I went out for lunch mid-week, and he dropped the bomb. He said that the church pastoral staff had concluded that I was not a biblically-called evangelist. I was stunned, and that statement shook my world upside down. Was it true? Because I preached in the same text for three nights in a row did that mean I did not have the calling of God on my life as a biblical evangelist? This encounter although difficult at the time, yielded great insight in my journey toward the Biblical Evangelist, because it challenged me to define the evangelist and what he is to do. This personal journey has set my heart free to function in the gifting that God has given, and I trust it will help to clear some of the confusion that exists in some small way.
May I say at the outset that I do not consider myself to be an “expert,” or that I have all the answers? Above all else this work is without contradiction or need for further investigation. In the end this is more of a journey for me – a roadmap as it were, telling what preliminary conclusions I have come to at this stage of my life journey.
A Very Brief History
We must begin with the Ante-Nicene Fathers: the writings of the Church Fathers from the close of the apostolic times down to A.D. 325. The Church Fathers use the title evangelist quite extensively; however I can only mention a couple for space and time.
Apostles
When the Ante-Nicene Fathers referred to the apostles they seem to frequently call them evangelists – let me give you a brief demonstration.
Here in a listing of names you will see how John is spoken:
“Mary the mother of the Lord: (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James;” (Emphasis mine) [2]
Another reference to John as an evangelist:
“For the Lord god has given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know when I ought to speak the word which I actually speak. Even as the father hath said unto me, so do I speak? Now in what way these things were said to Him, the evangelist and beloved disciple John knew better than Praxeas; and therefore he adds concerning his own meaning: Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God, and was going to God.”[3]
Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablous. The year of his birth is uncertain, but is commonly reported to be at about A.D. 114. His father and grandfather were in all probability citizens of Rome. Before his conversion to Christ he studied in the schools of the philosophers, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. Having come to faith in Christ, Justin was impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament. This is a brief history of Justin Marty, in the ancient documents he is referred to as fulfilling the office of an evangelist. Here is how he is described in one text.
“From this time he acted as an evangelist, taking every opportunity to proclaim the gospel as the only safe and certain philosophy, the only way to salvation. It is probable that he travelled much. We know that he was some time in Ephesus, and he must have lived for a considerable period in Rome. Probably he settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. While he was there, the philosophers, especially the Cynics, plotted against him, and he sealed his testimony to the truth by martyrdom.” [4]
The account given under Irenaeus tells of Polycarp sending Pothinus into Celtic Gaul as a messenger of the good news.
“[A.D. 120-202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist.” [5]
Christ even referred to as an Evangelist
“He who rescued from the lowest hell the first-formed man of earth when he was lost and bound with the chains of death: He who came down from above, and raised the earthy on high: He who became the evangelist of the dead, and the redeemer of the souls, and the resurrection of the buried, - he was constituted the helper of vanquished man, being made like him Himself, (so that) the first-born Word acquainted Himself with the first-formed Adam in the Virgin; He who is spiritual sought out the earthy in the womb; He who is the ever-living One sought out him who, through disobedience, is subject to death; He who is heavenly called the terrene to the things that are above; He who is nobly-born sought, by means of His own subjection, to declare the slave free; He transformed the man into adamant who was dissolved into dust and made the food of the serpent, and declared Him who hung on the tree to be Lord over the conqueror, and thus through the tree He is found victor.” [6]
The English Reformation
We must now pass over quite a bit of history – that does not mean that the title is not used; we just do not have the space to cover it here. While hundreds of volumes have been dedicated to the history of the church and biographical sketches of those whose lives have been intertwined with the work of God on earth in His church, this history will be woefully incomplete and only a blip on the radar screen of the church. But because of its relevance to the western mentality we must make a brief stop here for a fuller understanding about the evangelist.
It appears to me that the spotlight of history really intensifies its beam on the evangelist in the modern church paradigm in those years from 17000 to 1799 which have become known to us as the English Reformation. It is during these years that two names rise to prominence in the work of God, George Whitefield and John Wesley. These men impacted the demeanor of the true church and were used of God to see great numbers added to the Church. We do not have the time to debate the theological differences of these men, but it is good for us to know that they were itinerate evangelists whose lives by the infinite grace of God left an indelible mark on the world.
Iain H. Murray in his work, Revival and Revivalism, focuses on the 16th and 17th centuries in America. While focusing on this time period, Murray draw attention to evangelists such as Asahel Nettleton, along with many others, whose lives[7] were firmly used of God in what he calls revival. He also addresses Charles Finney and others from the northeast who moved into what he refers to as revivalism. [8] It is so significant to mentioned Finney at this point because much of today’s animosity towards evangelists seems to be traceable back to him. Granted, Finney said some great things about the reviving work of God in his writings. However, his methodologies which were rotted in flawed theological premises are what, in my opinion, have awaked such a backlash in our time, although, I would also have some deep differences with the man on a theological level as well. One of Finney’s great emphases in his ministry was the “mourners’ bench,” it was an invitation system designed to move people into the proper mourning spirit that Finney believed was essential for the reviving work. While I would completely agree with Finney on the broken spirit that must be present for the reviving work of God, I would firmly disagree on the means used. Men cannot produce that spirit by any means; it is a work of Christ. [9]
D.L. Moody is the next prominent evangelist. I will not belabor the story of how this Sunday school teacher became a world-renowned figure, because it is well told in a number of biographies. But I will point out one pertinent part of the story. Moody always held a great burden to see people trained and disciplined in the faith, to be educated in the things of God. However, he always felt at a loss himself, frequently bemoaning his own lack of education training. This resulted in frequent statements in his sermons about the fact that he was not a proper theologian. That spirit for him was one of genuine humility, but consequently some would take it as a marching mantra that theology and doctrine were stuffy and unnecessary in the ministry of an evangelist.
Now by the roaring twenties a young drunkard yet famous baseball player exploded on the scene – literally. His name was Billy Sunday. Having talked to those who heard him preaching in both Iowa and Indiana – they said “His messages were like going to the Friday night fights to watch him swing it out with the Devil.” His preaching antics were outlandish and bombastic to say the least. He was well-known for his lengthy, very manipulative invitations which would eventually become known as simply the “sawdust trail.” He did not take a humble stand on his lack of training in theology but bragged that he had not been spoiled by theologians ruining his preaching. I heard a clip of him one time saying that he did not get sidetracked by preaching on “long-haired theological foolishness, I just preached the Bible.” With over three thousand young aspiring evangelists that came to his meeting for training evangelist in Winona Lake, Indiana, his anti-theology rhetoric became marching orders, thus creating a generation of men who felt an antipathy for delving into the deep things of God and the preaching of great theology. They rather became driven by political issues, shallow sentiments, and current issues.
Last, we will mention Billy Graham. From his very conservative roots in North Carolina and his honorary doctorate given by Bob Jones University, he covered an unbelievable theological gambit. After his discipleship by Dr. Steven Olford, Graham moved into an arena of ecumenism that made him a walking lightning rod. While he was held up by some as the only prototypical model of a New Testament evangelist, others condemned him for blatant heresy and apostasy.
Accusations Leveled
At the heart of the issue there are number of accusations which are leveled at the men who call themselves “God-called evangelists.”
Accusation Number 1 – The office is invalid
Much of debate relating to this issue revolves around the biblical validity of the Evangelist and who he really was. Was he really a God-called servant to the church? Was he someone else now who serves in another capacity? Many well-known men have weighed in on the subject and have swayed other to their point of view.
James M. Gray
“A bringer of good tidings” Eph. 4:11 “ All may possess the gift of the evangelist in some measure, and be obligated to exercise its privilege and duty; but some are specially endued with it…the evangelist has no fixed place of residence; moves in different localities preaching the gospel to THOSE IGNORANT OF IT BEFORE. [10]
So in Brother Gray’s world-view the only genuine ministry event that an evangelist seems to be able to accomplish is preaching the gospel where it has never been preached before.
Philip Schaff
“Not congregation officers, nor stationed like the presbyters and later bishops at particular posts, but traveled about freely wherever their services were needed. The apostles employed them as messengers for various purposes to all points of their vast field:
(1) Sending them for further propagation of the gospel.
(2) Carrying letters.
(3) Visiting, inspecting, and strengthening congregations already established. [11]
Patrick Fairbarin
“…a distinctive class in the early church…the word implies that those who bore it as a term of office, must have had to do especially with the facts of redemption, with the announcement of things already accomplished and capable of being made known as tidings of good to men…hence, in their work, they would naturally approach nearer to missionaries than to stated laborers in a particular place…” [12]
Merrill F. Unger
“…sent forth as a missionary, preachers of the Gospel and preparing the way for the labors of the pastor teacher.”
“…denotes a work rather than an order.” [13]
H.W. E. Vine
“…a messenger of good: denotes a preacher of the Gospel (Acts. 21:8); Ephesians 4:11 makes clear the distinctiveness of the function in the churches: II Timothy 4:5 – to proclaim the glad tidings…Missionaries are evangelists as being essentially preachers of the Gospel…”[14]
John MacArthur
“The New Testament picture of an evangelist is of a man who goes from place to place where the Gospel has not been preached. He preaches Christ, leads people to faith in Him, and starts a little group of believers. He teacher them basic Doctrine, appoints Elders, and moves on to the next place. He is basically a planter of churches. The New Testament evangelist is not a person who comes to towns for a week of meetings and then leaves. His work isn’t finished until he has founded a church. Timothy and Phillip are examples.” [15]
As you can clearly surmise there is no shortage of opinions on the subject and this is but a few of the heavyweights of the modern church era.
Accusation Number 2 – the Methods are Manipulative
Outside of the entire discussion of the validity of the office of the evangelist is the more acidic discussion of the methodologies used by evangelists. There has been a huge backlash as to the methods used by some evangelists. While many methods can be assessed, probably the number one reason on the top ten lists for any theological hit squad would have to be the use of the invitation.
I will at this point need to reveal my cards. I will have to declare that I do not agree with every conclusion of Iain Murray in his very informative works. I believe his whole concept of “Revival vs. Revivalism” [16] is an accurate one borne out by clear evidence through the history of the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. There must be a guilty as charged verdict upon many who call themselves God-called evangelists in that they have become man-centered in their theology and believe it is their cleverness and power of personality and the ability to get hoards of people to come forward in a meeting that will define both revival and their legacy. In all honesty there is something horribly wrong with that philosophy of ministry. I was discussing this point with a pastor some years ago who had a very well-known evangelist into his church for a meeting. During the meeting there were about 100 professions of faith. But about a year later after intensive attempts at discipleship absolutely none of the 100 people had been added to the church. The pastor had come to a great time of disillusionment because he wondered what the point was. I had to agree with him
If you will indulge me, I would like to give a bit of a personal illustration to define more clearly. I am no stranger to preaching in the South. I have enjoyed for many years my treks around this country and numerous places in the world. Every place you preach you find cultural milieu that plays into the real world of ministry. As I preached in the South, I began to notice that the invitation was almost a rite of passage at the end of every message. The success of the meeting or camp was judged by how many people came forward. That was the “talk of the town,” to use the vernacular. But after many years of traveling in those circles and preaching to the same kids year after year of camp, I clearly noticed a phenomena we would eventually call “camp decisions.” The same kids would come forward year after year for the same struggles and vices, and pray a prayer never really experiencing the transforming power of the Gospel or truth. Now that is not to say that no lives were changed – such a conclusion is foolish. But the larger numbers were in a form of Baptist-ritualism, using the altar like their confessional. With the movement of people forward as the end-game, the playing field was changed. The old Puritans evaluated a good meeting based on whether the Word of God was clearly and powerfully preached. But now it was evaluated on the tangible and physical evidences that could be counted, and the number of decision cards filled out. Thus changing the focus of the meeting from powerful and clear preaching of theology to the methods we can utilize to get people to move. May I say that we have reaped what we have sown! We have designed our preaching around flag waving issues and while we have philosophically rejected pragmatism, in reality we are using that pragmatic philosophy exclusively to gain results.
My interest was piqued recently in reading a series of articles published by Kevin Bauder in his weekly blog emphasizing part of the point I am articulating in this clip:
“For nearly two centuries, American Christianity has been overpowered by a fascination with visible effectiveness. At the latest, this fascination stems from Charles Finney, who made visible success (defined in terms of the number of decisions) into the test of spiritual wisdom. Finney himself succeeded wildly in these terms, and he created a mythology of success that has become the very atmosphere of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Finney argued, and many American Christians have agreed, that the spirituality of any preacher, program, church, or method should be gauged by the results that it produces.
Finney’s pragmatism is the carrot that lures American Christians. The stick that drives them is the crisis mentality. This mentality shows up in a variety of ways. You have surely encountered more than one of them. If we don’t send more missionaries (now!), then the doors will surely close in the 10-40 window. If you fail to persuade your neighbor to trust Christ (today!), then he will certainly blame you publicly on Judgment Day. If we don’t vote for our candidate (in this election!), then America will be gone beyond retrieval.”[17]
Accusation Number 3 – The messages are shallow and theologically unsound
Michael Gott, on his blog, gives a very brief characterization of how people typically view evangelists.
“The idea some have of evangelistic preaching is totally negative and completely distorted. This includes a screaming preacher telling people they are all wrong and destined for judgment and offering very little hope until the last three minutes of a forty-minute sermon.”[18]
The old axiom “if you have no substance, shout louder” is a very interesting statement and even bears some truth. I disagree that intensity in personality means you have nothing rich to say. There are many evangelists who have had very little biblical truth to exegete, so they will give their three points and series of stories often with great loudness because the intensity will be a mile marker for certain people to say amen.
I remember when I first went to Bible college I was faced with the choice of what I would choose as my major. The major that grabbed my attention was the one called “Evangelism.” I began to look at it with great interest because I had a great burden for it and inclination for it. As I examined it I discovered some strange things about it. There was absolutely nothing in the major of biblical languages. The idea seemed to be as follows. “If you’re going to be an evangelist you don’t need to know anything about biblical languages.” To me that was an invitation for shallow, non-theological preaching. So even with the heart for being a messenger of good news and function in the ministry of a biblical evangelist, I majored in pastoral Theology because it allowed me to minor in Biblical Languages. I personally had no intention of being a shallow, non-theological preacher.
Overall, I believe we are in a time of crisis. As I see it, we will either come to a biblical understanding of who the New Testament Evangelist was, and what his gifts and ministry really were and therefore are to be today. Or the other option is that we will abandon this person and the gifts as an irrelevant meaningless aberration of history and thereby may irrevocably damage the Church in our time.
Accusation Number 4 –as a whole they are theologically abnormal because the means and methods and philosophy are of Armenian bent.
In the world of Evangelical Theology there is a very interesting series of changes taking place. As I view things there are those in the “fundamental” subset of evangelicalism who are drawing up battle lines in some key areas. There are those who call themselves pure fundamentalists with no qualifiers to the name. Fundamentalism as a modern movement developed in the early 1900s when liberalism was becoming a commanding force within the traditional denominations and seminaries. Those evangelicals that opposed liberalism from within their denominations and eventually chose to separate from their denominations came to be known as Fundamentalists. A major influence in Fundamentalist thinking was a set of books titled, The Fundamentals. These books covered such topics as salvation, creationism, and inspiration.
Douglas McLachlan describes the authors:
“…these essays, which defended the absolutes of Scripture against liberal assault and unbelief, were written by world-class intellectuals who were experts in their respective fields of thought. They wrote with a beautiful combination of grit, grace, and scholarship. They spoke with grit because they were not about to take the trashing of the Bible by the hubris of the age lying down. They spoke with grace because there was no ugliness of disposition in their presentation of data. And they spoke with scholarship because it was the weight of their argument not the heat of the rhetoric which defined the discourse. Their words were doctrinally sound and dispositionally gracious. Both the truth and the love of the Holy Spirit shone through. This is a model which Spirit-filled fundamentalists should not find difficult to imitate since the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (John 16:13) and His first fruit is “love” (Galatians 5:22).” [19]
From another perspective that is not necessarily a friendly one, Grant Wacker, from the Duke University Divinity Schools National Humanities Center, gives a broad brushing characterization. He divides the fundamental side of things into two groups – Generic fundamentalism and Historic Fundamentalism. And here is how he defines Generic Fundamentalism.
“Generic fundamentalism refers to a global religious impulse, particularly evident in the twentieth century that seeks to recover and publicly institutionalize aspects of the past that modern life has obscured. It typically sees the secular state as the primary enemy, for the latter is more interested in education, democratic reforms, and economic progress than in preserving the spiritual dimension of life. Generic fundamentalism takes its cures from a sacred text that stands above criticism. It sees time-honored social distinctions and cultural patterns as rooted in the very nature of things, in the order of creation itself. That means clear-cut and stratified roles for men and women, parents and children, clergy and laity. On the other hand, generic fundamentalism seeks to minimize the distinction between the state and the church. To hold that the state should operate according to one set of publicly shared principles, while individuals should operate according to multiple sets of privately shared principles, is morally pernicious and ends up harming everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike. Religious truths are no different from the truths of medical science or aeronautical engineering: if they hold for anyone they hold for everyone.” [20]
From the time of those fundamental forefathers we have journeyed far from home and fractured into many smaller groups some sound and theologically astute and other obnoxious and theologically deviant.
Recently there has been a very strong movement toward what is called Historic Fundamentalism. This is only my observation but it seems that those who use the more descriptive term of “historic” come from a bit of a different biblical genre as those who don’t. They seem for the most part to embrace some or all of the doctrines of Grace, or in other words they are reformed in their Soteriology. There is also among a great tendency to be in a multiplicity of camps as it relates to Eschatological paradigms. That said it seems that there has been a wholesale abandonment of the itinerant evangelist among them. I believe this is primarily because the evangelists have traditionally come from either more of an Arminean theological persuasion or the evangelists have fallen into an invitation system that is not rooted in the theology of true sanctification but man oriented movement. I must relate a personal anecdote for further elucidation. A number of years ago I was with a very famous evangelist on a mission’s trip to the Far East. We got into a healthy discussion of the Doctrines of Grace (which I hold to); his response was very predictable for me. He attacked “that it would change the way I did invitations at the end of my preaching” – I retorted “I hope so.” Knowing where he was going, I decided to cut him off at the pass. I turned in my Bible to 2 Corinthians 5:11 because I knew that is where we would end up. I read “Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…” Then I looked at his and said, “here is the difference between us, you believe the invitation persuades; I believe the message does.” To get to the core of this paper, I believe the church will be damaged if we abandon what I think is a New Testament model. I think the evangelist is a real gift and calling of God that is without repentance. I do not believe the answer to the current crisis is as I am seeing – the abandonment of the gift and office- but the answer is to train a generation of men who understand who this man is and what his calling is and what his theology must be.
The Models We Embrace – The Biblical Dimensions of the Evangelist
If one is going to broach the subject that we are in this adventure, invariably the discussion will turn to the book of Ephesians because here is a passage that is the focal point for much of the debate today. Is the office of the evangelist valid? Very aware that I may be speaking to those who will disagree with me, I will give a very simple explanation of how I see this passage so there can be a point of reference.
Paul lists for us in Ephesians 4:11-12 several kinds of preachers that God has given to the churches for their edification in the New Testament age. There were “apostles” (sent one), particularly the witnesses of His resurrection chosen by the Lord Jesus himself. There were “prophets” (forth-speakers), and there were “evangelists” (messengers-sent ones and carriers of good news). Then there were “pastors” (shepherds) and “teachers.” Of course, the Bible-believing churches of our day still have pastors, whom many think are the same as the teachers according to the Greek syntax in this passage. The original apostles passed off the scene before the dawn of the second century, but their ministry remains with us in the Scriptures they wrote by the inspiration of God. The others who wrote the New Testament Scriptures (such as Mark and Luke) were prophets who spoke God’s Word, and their gift has also passed away. Some see aspects of the apostolic gift in missionary efforts, since the word “apostle” has essentially the same meaning as “missionary.” Some see Spirit-directed and empowered speech short of divine inspiration as a form of the prophetic gift, citing verses in I Corinthians 11, 12, 13, and 14. But basically, Bible students see the apostle and the prophet as first-century gifts to the churches continuing their ministry only in Scripture, and the evangelist and pastor as present-day instruments of God among His people.
Let me propose some opinions in agreement and diversity to my own:
“Next to them come the Evangelists, who were closely allied in the nature of their office, but held an inferior rank. To this class belonged Timothy and others; for while Paul mentions them along with himself in the salutations of his epistles, he does not speak of them as his companions in the apostleship, but claims this name as peculiarly his own, the Services in which the Lord employed them were auxiliary to those of the apostles, to whom they were next in rank.” [21]
“Evangelists (v. 11c) Bearers of the Good news.” These men traveled from place to place to preach the Gospel and win the lost (Acts 8:26-40; 21:28). All ministers should “do the work of an evangelist,” but his does not mean that all ministers are evangelists (2 Tim. 4:5). The Apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the church, and the evangelists built on it by winning the lost to Christ…” [22]
“Evangelists and pastors and teachers are now in place in God’s plan for the advancement of the kingdom. Evangelists (eunagelistes) are men who proclaim good news. The specific term evangelist issued only in this text in Ephesians; in Acts 21:8, where Philip is called an “evangelist” (see Acts 8:4-40 for details on one of Philip’s evangelistic efforts); and in 2 Timothy 4:5, where Timothy is told to “do the work of an evangelist.” But these limited references describe a vital, extensive, and far-reaching ministry, indicated by the use of the verb euangelizo (to proclaim the good news) 54 times and the noun euangelion (good news) 76 times. God was the first evangelist, since He “preached the gospel beforehand” (from proeunagelizomai; Gal. 3:8). Even the angel evangelized (“I bring…good news,” [from euangelizomai]) in announcing the birth of Christ (Luke 2:10), as did the apostles in “preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).
The work of the evangelist is to preach and explain the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ to those who have not yet believed. He is a proclaimer of salvation by grace through faith in the Son of God.” [23]
While I do not disagree with any of these profound men of God on their disseminations here, such as in the case of Dr. MacArthur I do not agree that the only thing the evangelist did was to proclaim the Gospel to those who had never heard it before. That brings us to the matter at hand-what did these men do, and how do we define them.
Philip the Evangelist – Proclamation – Central part of the Work of the evangelist
The office or ministry of the evangelist is introduced to us in Scripture through a man named Philip. In Acts 21, we are told that “Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and…entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.” (verse 8)
This was not Philip the Apostle, but Philip the deacon, “one of the seven” chosen for that responsibility in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 6). It was during the persecution of Saul that this Philip entered into his evangelistic work. Three times in Acts 8, where his early evangelistic work is recorded, the Greek word euangelizomai is used. This is the word from which we get our words evangelize, evangelism, and evangelist. It means “messenger of the good news.” It is used in Acts 8:12; 35; and 40.
“But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
Acts 8:12 (NKJV)
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
Acts 8:35 (NKJV)
“But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.
Acts 8:40 (NKJV)
Then in Acts 21 we find Philip in Caesarea where he is called “the evangelist.” It is obvious that Philip’s work typifies the elements of the work of an evangelist since the word in its various forms is so closely associated with him. Albert Barnes gives this helpful designation.
“The evangelist, this word properly means one who announces good news. In the New Testament it is applied to a preacher of the gospel, or one who declares the glad tidings of salvation. It occurs only in two other places, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Timothy 4:5. What was the precise rank of those who bore this title in the early Christian church cannot perhaps be determined. It is evident, however, that it is used to denote the office of preaching the gospel; and as this title is applied to Philip, and not to any other of the seven deacons, it would seem probable that he had been entrusted with a special commission to preach, and that preaching did not pertain to him as a deacon, and does not properly belong to that office. The business of a deacon was to take care of the poor members of the church, Acts 6:1-6. The office of preaching was distinct from this, though, as in this case, it might be conferred on the same individual.” [24]
And what was this work that Philip was called to do? He moved from place to place in order to proclaim the Gospel (“good new”) of Jesus Christ. The evangelist’s ministry follows naturally the mandate of our Lord that we preach the Gospel to everyone in the world. With this command dominating our life and work, it would be expected that some of us would be gifted to proclaim the Gospel to the masses in a clear, scriptural, and convincing way. Philip was one man who had such a gift. But let us be perfectly clear the special gift and office does not in any way remove the responsibility of all the true church in the proclamation of the glorious gospel. There is just a class of called men to lead the way.
So without any stretching we can see that one thing an evangelist is to do in his work is to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe it is a stretch to say that he must do it to those who had never heard it before as that would be most everyone in the first century paradigm. However as some suggested in the earlier section I do not believe that an evangelist is to only share the gospel with those who have never heard – for I need to preach the Gospel to myself every day – the church is in need of a constant hearing of the Gospel for it is the centrality of our theology
Proclamation
And they were preaching the gospel there. (Greek Word: euangelizo)
Acts 14:7 (NKJV)
And saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach (Greek Word: eunagelizo) to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Acts 14:15 (NKJV)
And when they had preached (Greek Word: euangelizo) the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch,
Acts 14:21
Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching (Greek Word: didasko) and preaching (Greek Word: euangelizo) the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Acts 15:35 (NKJV)
Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached (Greek Word: eunangelizo) to them Jesus and the resurrection.
Acts 17:18 (NKJV) [25]
The word Paul seems to greatly embrace for his proclamation is the word from which we get evangelism and evangelist; it is what Paul by divine inspiration called his own work in the Greek of Romans 1:15, Romans 15:20, I Corinthians 9:16, I Corinthians 15:1-2, II Corinthians 10:16, II Corinthians 11:7, Galatians 1:8-11, Galatians 1:15-16, Galatians 1:23, Galatians 4:13, and Ephesians 3:8. Ephesians 3:8 says,
“Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach [evangelize] among the Gentiles…”
Initiation – Church Planting
What was the work Paul as well as Barnabas and Titus and Timothy were doing? It was in a large part, church initiation through evangelism, traveling from place to place, publicly proclaiming the Gospel and seeing churches planted. It believes this is very much the part of the gifting of the evangelist.
There are two Greek words commonly used by the New Testament writers to describe preaching. They are kerusso and euangelizo (another form of which is euangelizomai). The former conveys the general idea of heralding or proclaiming. The latter means delivering good news or a joyful message. Of course, the title “evangelist” refers by definition to a man who delivers good news which, in Biblical context, is what we call the Gospel (“euangelion”). Although believers other than evangelists preached the Gospel, the use of the verb repeatedly to describe a man’s work is significant in identifying and defining him as an evangelist. In fact, euangelizo is almost always used in the New Testament to describe an evangelist’s work.
The intention was very clear – the giving of the Gospel was to see men and women saved, and their households and to see churches planted. Obviously each book written in the New Testament documents was to a specific church plant or a series of churches such as Peter’s work. I believe that the ministry of the evangelist must be utilized by the modern church in seeing churches planted all over our Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. I know there is often a resistance to this idea. I believe it is imperative that we truly be shaken to the core with the staggering numbers. We have some centers where churches have multiplied like rabbits. The sad fact is that many of them have come to be because of what I call “Baptist church planting.” I am familiar of one town in the south in which there are 17 Baptist Churches in one small city of 700 people. Most of the churches are a result of a church split. I have personally driven out west and driven through a dozen towns with a friend of mine and in the 12 cities there is not one Bible preaching church. There really is an overwhelming need in certain sections of the United States of America.
Missions – Preaching the Gospel in a foreign setting
Clearly, Paul was an Apostle—but he modeled the ministry of an evangelist, and a man obsessed with missions as well. He was heavily involved in missions too, in that he was sent many places to preach the Gospel (the words apostle from Greek and missionary from Latin both mean “one sent”), but his work was that of an evangelist. That work is described in Acts 17:2-4 (KKJV).
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
He went from place to place, proclaiming the Gospel publicly in a reasonable, scriptural, clear, and decisive way. The results of his work were converts to Christianity and new local churches.
Church Edification, Correction and Restoration
At this point we begin to leave the paved road for the off road adventure. There is a very common philosophical premise that the pastor is the only one that can care for the sheep. But if you closely examine the New Testament documents, you will see that there are some aspects of the ministry of the evangelist that have been completely ignored in our paradigm and thus deeply weakening the health of the true church.
We commonly refer to the books of First and Second Timothy as well as Titus as the Pastoral Epistles. While I will not debate their purpose to guide, guard, and correct the theology, philosophy and behavior in local New Testament Churches. I will debate with ever core of my being that the men whose names mark the books were pastors. They were men who ministered in the same capacity as the beloved Apostle Paul. They were men who were not apostles but itinerate preachers who ministered on a very wide scale. The amazing thing we can see at this point is how different the men really are. Neither of these men seems as immensely gifted as Paul, as a matter of fact each of them seems to be differently motivated.
Timothy
Timothy first appears in (Acts 16:1-3) as Paul’s disciple whose mother “was a believer; but his father was a Greek” (v 1). He was a third-generation Christian after his mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois (2 Tim 1:5). The apostle Paul, undoubtedly Timothy’s spiritual father, refers to him as “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2); he perhaps converted Timothy on his first or second missionary journey. The son of a Greek (or Gentile) father, Timothy was yet uncircumcised; however, when Paul decided to take Timothy with him on the second journey, he had him circumcised so as not to hinder their missionary endeavors among the Jews.
Timothy, who was well spoken of by the believers at Lystra and Iconium (Acts 16:2) became Paul’s companion and assistant on his second evangelistic endeavor at Lystra. He traveled with Paul into Europe following the Macedonian vision. When Paul decided to go to Athens, he left Salas and Timothy at Berea to establish the church there (Acts 17:14). Timothy and Salas eventually joined Paul in Corinth (18:5). He next appears with Paul in Ephesus on his third evangelistic endeavor (Acts 19:22), from where Paul sends him into Macedonia ahead of himself. In the last mention of Timothy in (Acts 20:4), he was included in the list of goodwill ambassadors who were to accompany Paul to Jerusalem with the offering for the Christian Jews.
Timothy is most often spoken about in the Pauline letters. His name is integrated in the preliminary greeting of 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Timothy’s company with Paul when he penned these letters substantiates the precision of the references to him in Acts. He was in Corinth on the second evangelistic endeavor when Paul wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians, at Ephesus on the third evangelistic endeavor when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, and in Rome during Paul’s first Roman incarceration, when he wrote Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, He is mentioned in the introductions of 1 and 2 Timothy as the recipient of these two letters.
In the closing salutations of Romans 16:21, Timothy is listed along with others who send their greetings and blessings to the believers in Rome. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 and 16:10, Paul speaks words of praise for Timothy as he sends him with a message to Corinth (Phil 2:19-23; I Thes 3:2-6). In 2 Corinthians 1:19 Timothy is named, along with Paul and Salas, as men who were preaching. Paul put Timothy in charge of the church as Ephesus and wrote him tow pastoral letters to help him perform those responsible tasks of correction and edification.
Titus
Titus was one of Paul’s converts—“my true child in a common faith”; who became a close and trusted associate of Paul in his Evangelistic mission throughout the Mediterranean world (2 Cor. 8:23: 2 Tim 4:10; Titus 1:4-5), mentioned frequently in Paul’s letters eight times in 2 Corinthians, twice in Galatians, once each in 2 Timothy and Titus, his name is found nowhere in the book of Acts. This is a very perplexing silence that some scholars have wanted to explain with the captivating, but doubtful, impicaton that he was a brother of Luke, the author of Acts.
Distinct from Timothy, who was half Jewish, Titus was born of gentile parents. Nothing is recorded of the state of affairs surrounding his conversion and early encounter with Paul. He is first introduced as a travel companion of Paul and Barnabas on a visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:3). The circumstance appears to have been the Jerusalem Council, about AD 50, which Paul and Barnabas attended as representative delegates from the church at Antioch not long after the apostle’s first evangelistic endeavor (Acts 15).
Titus in all probability accompanied Paul from that time on, but he does not come into view again until Paul’s crisis with the church at Corinth for the duration of his third evangelistic endeavor. While Paul was conducting an extended ministry in Ephesus according to 2 Corinthians, he received worked that the Corinthian church has become hostile toward him and renounced his apostolic authority. Other attempts at reconciliation having failed, he sent Titus to Corinth to try to repair the breach. When Titus rejoined Paul somewhere in Macedonia, where the apostle had traveled from Ephesus to meet him, Titus brought the good news that the attitude of the Corinthians has changed their former love and friendship were not restored (2 Cor. 7:6-7). In view of this development Paul sent Titus back to Corinth, carry 2 Corinthians, which included instructions to complete the collection of the relief offering for the Jewish Christian s of Judea (8:6, 16). In this venture also Titus was apparently successful (Romans 15:25-26).
Paul’s letter to Titus, one of his three instructional letters, was written somewhat later to encourage Titus in his Cretan ministry. The letter closes with the apostle’s request that Titus join him at Nicopolis, a town on the west coast of Greece, where he planned to spend the winter (Ti 3:12). Most likely it was from Nicopolis, or else later from Rome that Paul sent Titus on the mission to Dalmatia, A Roman province in what is now Yugoslavia (see 2 Tim 4:10). If later tradition is correct, Titus returned to Crete, where he served as bishop until he was an old man.
Some will say to this that the evangelist is just a church-planting missionary. But method of Paul was different from the method of most missionaries today. Paul did not begin with a home Bible study; he began with public synagogue services. He did not live for years in one location while nurturing a little flock of young believers into a self-sustaining independent church. He usually moved from place to place holding evangelistic meetings. Those meetings generally resulted in Christian congregations, over which he appointed pastors before he left the area.
“And when they [Barnabas and Paul] had ordained them elders in ever church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23)
Acts 20:1-7 (NKJV) 1After the uproar had ceased, Paul called the disciples to himself, embraced them, and departed to go to Macedonia.
2 Now when he had gone over that region and encouraged them with many words, he came to Greece
3 and stayed three months. And when the Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia.
4And Sopater of Berea accompanied him to Asia—also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychiucus and Trophimus of Asia.
5These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas.
6But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
7Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
To summaries my supposition the gifting of the evangelist is not just “to take the Gospel to those who have never heard” but there is biblical evidence that Paul and all his companions went back to already well founded churches and did at least these three things.
Confrontation
It seems that there was some difficulty in the leadership dimension in the first century church model. I would say that the same accountability is essential for our time as it was then. Timothy and Titus were instructed by Paul to inculcate these essential qualities in the local pastors in the churches where they traveled and ministered. In 2 Corinthians 7 the first encouragement Paul received was the coming of the young evangelist Titus after they had been separated from each other. It was not easy to communicate or to travel in those days, and Paul had to depend on the divine intervention of God for his plans to work out regarding the visit of Titus to Corinth.
Paul was overwhelmingly encouraged by the report that Titus gave of his reception at Corinth. They had read Paul’s “painful letter” and had repented of their sins and there has been a great reviving work of Christ among them. It is unfortunate that the King James Version translate two different Greek works as “repent,” for they have different meanings. The word repent in 2 Corinthians 7:8 means “regret,” and repented in 2 Corinthians 7:10 means “to be regretted”.
Paul had written them a stern letter, and then had regretted it. But the letter achieved its purpose and the Corinthians repented, and this made Paul rejoice. Their repentance was not merely a passing “regret” it was a true godly sorrow for sin. “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves not regret, but worldly sorrow brings death”. The difference is seen in Judas and Peter. Judas “repented himself (was full of regret) and went and committed suicide, while Peter wept and repented of his fall (Matt 26:75-27:5).
In my own opinion it was Titus who delivered the message to the church of Corinth that was important also. His giftedness I believe was used by God to help in the reviving work of God’s people at the confused church.
Edification
While Titus was very capable of edification it really seems he was more of a bulldog and Timothy was one for encouragement. Timothy was more timid and Paul really had to help him see the need and develop the stomach for confrontation. Titus seemed at home in that arena of confrontation as well as encouragement. But Paul modeled for both of them that his itinerant ministry was not one of “Blow in, blowup blowout” but one of one term commitment to help the churches in conforming people to the likeness of Christ.
Although Paul was the greatest human evangelist the world has ever known, he without doubt did not fit the twentieth-century typecast. The modern conception of an evangelist is someone who travels from city to city preaching the gospel, leaving his converts to be followed up by others. Paul, however, was a biblical evangelist. He saw his responsibility as not only proclaiming the saving gospel but also establishing churches and maturing the new converts in their faith. It is not surprising, then, that he planned for his second evangelistic endeavor to retract his first one. His goals were to visit the brethren in every city in which they had proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they were. Paul understood clearly that the ultimate priority for the Evangelist is also discipleship—teaching believers to obey all that Christ has commanded.
Acts 15:36-41 (NKJV)
36 Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the Word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”
37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.
38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.
39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus;
40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Conclusion
For me this has been a bit frustrating because there is so much more that needs to be said on each section. As this is the skeletal outline for my doctoral thesis I am relieved that there will be time in that document to explore these thought more fully.
To recap, there is a crisis in the modernal church as it relates to the gift and person of the evangelist. There have been many accusations towards evangelists and my aberrations by evangelists. The crisis has resulted in many churches jettisoning the model altogether. I believe that the biblical evangelist is an itinerant preacher, but not in the sense that many view him, i.e. “Blow in, blowup, blowout”. I believe that ministry of the evangelist is a gift to the church.
Gospel
I believe that evangelist are men who are gifted and obsessed with the Gospel of Christ and men called to lead the church in Glorifying God in staying on message with the Gospel.
Church Planting
I believe biblically that evangelists are to use their energies and gifts in the proclamation of the Gospel to see local New Testament churches planted.
Missions
I believe that evangelists should be using their giftedness to impact other nations with the Gospel and training the nationals to do the same.
Confrontation
I believe like Timothy and Titus the evangelist should be used to lovingly confront the people of God over issues of sin.
Rescue
I believe that churches without pastors can greatly benefit from the ministry of an evangelist—in solving problems dealing with relationship issues and then he can help them bring in God’s shepherd.
Edification
I believe the gift of the evangelist is essential for the building of the flock to do the work of the ministry.
