And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…–Ephesians 4:11-12
Most of us are likely familiar with the term “evangelist.” Certainly we have heard about Billy Graham and his crusades, and if you grew up in a Southern Baptist church you likely experienced more than one “revival” in which an “evangelist” came and spoke. Maybe it even had musical evangelists.
Much of our modern conception about evangelists ties to the notion of revivalism in evangelical church life, but does this conception match the Bible’s description?
The Bible does not actually say much about the role of the evangelist. In Acts 21:8, Luke calls Philip “the evangelist.” In Acts 8, Luke presents us with the story of Philip going various places and sharing the Gospel, most famously with the Ethiopian eunuch, but is this what Luke meant years later by the term “evangelist”? After all, Philip was not alone in his ventures. Saul brought persecution to the church at Jerusalem, and the text tells us the body of the church scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. And, “Those who were scattered went about preaching the word” (8:4). Philip was not unique in this task, but was simply the one mentioned by Luke likely because the reader was already familiar with him from Acts 6 and the account of the seven (and also, certainly because the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write about Philip).
In 2 Timothy 4:5, Paul charges Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, this along with faithfully preaching the word. Though we base this most on history and tradition and only hints in Scripture, many commonly understand Timothy to be a pastor in Ephesus at this time. If so, then Timothy would not have traveled around like Philip did in Acts 8.
So all the Bible leaves us with in terms of a sure description of “evangelist” is Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4. The victorious Christ gave certain gifts to his church—and in this case, gifts of “office” including the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. For the life of the church, Paul stated two chapters earlier that the apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the church. Therefore, we can conclude their ministry has not continued throughout history but has come to an end.
Pastor-teacher is simply a synonym for the office of elder/overseer as we find in other texts (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, Acts 20, and 1 Peter 5), which is a continuing office for the church. But what do we do with the “evangelists”?
I contend, based on Ephesians 4, the primary work of the evangelists is not to preach the Gospel to the lost. Now this might seem odd, since the term “evangelist” essentially means “one who tells the good news,” but consider how Paul describes them. They, along with pastor-teachers, equip the saints for the work of ministry, so the body is built.
In other words, instead of mainly preaching to the lost, the evangelists are there to equip the saints (the church body) to do the ministerial work of preaching to the lost. This does not mean that an evangelist never evangelizes, but instead of having a ministry based on “revivals,” “camp meetings,” or “crusades,” the evangelists work within the established church to help the whole body scatter into the world (work, school, home, play, etc.) to preach to the lost.
Now how does this happen exactly? (And this is a bit more speculative, so feel free to disagree and suggest your own ideas!)
I come from the camp that believes God designed each church to have a plurality of elders as its leadership (if you’re uncomfortable with the term “elders” substitute “pastors”). I believe that both evangelists and pastor-teachers fall into the category of church elders. In other words, where a plurality exists some will be gifted more towards issues of evangelism and others will be gifted more towards areas of teaching. This does not mean the teachers do not evangelize or the evangelists do not teach, but their strengths lean to one side or the other.
The teachers oversee the bulk of the teaching ministry in church life (sermons, Sunday Schools, small groups, etc.) while the evangelists oversee the bulk of the evangelistic ministry. The teachers disciple Christians to help other Christians grow, and the evangelists disciple Christians to boldly share the Gospel with the lost.
With both the teaching side and the evangelistic side working together, the body truly is equipped to focus externally by reaching out to those who do not follow Jesus, and to focus internally by investing in those who do follow Jesus.
This is a bit of a straw-man yet also seems to have some validity—a criticism I have heard about churches in several areas: it seems that some are very evangelistic and outward focused but have a rapidly revolving backdoor and provide few avenues of spiritual growth for those within the church; and others are very inward focused and may produce people who know a lot about the Bible and theology but do very little out in the world.
So why don’t we try lifting up the pastor-teachers and the evangelists within local church leadership so as to strike a balance between the external and internal so the saints truly are equipped, do the work of the ministry, and help the church grow?
I believe very much in revivals and have seen them greatly used of God. They continue to be greatly used of God when proper prayer and preparation are made. During this year’s Spring Break SWBTS sent over 100 students, and at least one trustee, to conduct revivals across the USA. Many were saved and churches were strengthened and encouraged.
My preacher dad used to ask in a revival how many had been saved in a revival meeting. A large percentage of hands would go up. He then pointed out that a revival usually is conducted only about one or two weeks of the year, yet so many are saved during that time.
I’ve seen no evidence in this article saying it is biblically wrong to have a revival or an evangelist. Also no biblical evidence for VBS or Bible Conferences that those who oppose revivals often conduct (I’m for them too). A revival brings renewal to the saved and salvation to the lost. I think the Bible affirms that.
Pastors can be used as revival preachers, but God calls and uses vocational evangelists in a great way. A number of the spiritual high points in my life have been in revival meetings.
On the other hand, if an autonomous church decides not to conduct revival meetings, they are perfectly free to do so.
By the way, SBC Today has a good article on this subject: http://sbctoday.com/2011/07/16/keys-to-benefiting-from-a-revival-meeting/
David R. Brumbelow
Setting aside the question if the Bible say anything about “vocational evangelists”, my question is: does the Bible encourage vocational evagelists to wear hideous suits or is that just a SBC Evangelist thing?
😉
What good news is there that an outside evangelist can bring, that’s not to be brought every time the pastor stands in the pulpit?
I agree. On the COSBE website, they blame low baptisms on the decrease in using evangelists and having revivals:
“In recent years the number of baptisms reported by SBC churches has declined. In recent years the number of Revivals or Harvest Events has also declined. The correlation between the two seems obvious.”
http://sbcevangelist.org/Baptism-Assistance.html
Evangelists thus are professional soul winners. When you emphasize revival meetings using revival experts, you communicate “Don’t try this at home, leave it to the professionals.” What we need is southern baptists to take the name of Jesus with them as they go about their daily lives. If there is an evangelist that can bring about this fruit in my congregation, I’ll bring him in!
Yeah, Jared I saw that a while back. That is some spin of which North Korea would be proud. LOL
Side note: the idea of “professional soul winner” seems off, doesn’t it?
Jason, oh yeah, “professional soul winner” is off. That’s my point. They act like they can do something that pastors cannot. They’re “professionals.”
“What we need is southern baptists to take the name of Jesus with them as they go about their daily lives.”
Can you expand on this, please.
Christiane, we need southern baptists to be evangelistic in their daily lives, their daily relationships. Getting people to attend a revival is not really evangelism, although it’s definitely a positive thing. Evangelism takes place when we share Christ with others. This is what the sbc is largely missing.
“What we need is southern baptists to take the name of Jesus with them as they go about their daily lives.”
That’s as true a statement as I have EVER seen on a comment stream.
This is my problem with “revival” meetings. We tell the man we have called, trusted, lived with, and placed ourselves under, to sit down and be quiet, and we bring in someone who has no accountability to us, or anyone else, and give him the pulpit for the week. How does that make sense? We’ve had some disasters I can tell you.
And every night you have the eternal invitation. First of course is a call for salvation. But since most of the people who attend “revival” meetings are already Christians, there isn’t much response. So the next ploy is to try to get people to doubt their salvation with the “are you sure that you’re sure” routine. Once that tactic has been exhausted, he brings out the “rededication” weapon from his arsenal. As an absolute last resort, we do the “eyes closed and hands raised” activity. One way or another, someone is coming to the front. Sometimes people in the front row fall down from exhaustion and they are counted as “decisions”.
Mike, great article. Great points.
I’m a bit surprised by the negative reaction of some of the posts in regard to what they derogatorially call, “professional evangelists.” These are the same people that say to others who differ with them, “Prove it using scripture.”
Well, it seems pretty clear-cut from Eph. 4 that one of the “gifts” God gives to the church (not to be confused with gifts He gives to ones in the church) is an “evangelist.”
I’ve had a commitment to using “all” the gifts God gives to the church, including evangelists, for the last 35 years. I’ve always pastored a church that has grown significantly (minus one that died but not for lack of evangelism and discipleship).
My current church (two years following a four-decade tenure of the previous pastor), has seen a 40% growth in morning worship attendance, about the same in S.S. attendance. Of the 40% growth in attendance, 81% has been from baptism.
This trend can be directly correlated to an “old-fashioned” (though very modern looking) fall evangelism emphasis using a “professional” (meaning full-time) evangelist two years in a row.
The net result has not been “don’t try this at home,” but people reaching out to family and friends all over our community. The exact opposite of the negative comment of at least one post. The best way to teach others to “reach the lost” is to have them view someone who does it with a passion 24/7.
Could it be that accepting God’s gift of called-out evangelists could be a “good strategy?” My vote is, “yes.”
Frank, what’s the name of the evangelist you use?
Frank, based on what you argue, you believe it’s possible for a pastor to be faithful in leading his church, but the church, still “die”?
BTW: How do your churches do once you leave them? The other churches that grew while you were there, are they still doing well today?
Jason,
I’ve learned that you don’t ask questions to get answers, so I won’t bother giving you one.
I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I think you meant Jared.
For the record, I just challenged the term “professional soul-winner” not “evangelist”. So no need to get snippy. You just need to prove that the 2 are the same thing…and that the office of evangelist is understood as a traveling soul-winner who does not pastor or disciple in the local church.
Jason,
Not being near as “snippy” as those of you who are convinced those who disagree with you are wrong.
I don’t know exactly how “evangelists” did there duty in the N.T. I’m old, but not that old.
I’m pretty sure it had something to do with “soul-winning,” but not sure I can “prove” it.
Fair enough.
I’m not against evangelists by any means. I just think the discussion is about figuring out what the office did and not assuming that modern evangelists (read: the guys doing the 1960s style camp-meetings and the like) are the same thing.
I don’t see any reason we can’t think critically on this issue. Unless this really is a sacred cow some are unwilling to examine.
BTW, I seriously laughed out loud at your “I’m not that old” comment.
PS–THERE IS A DOWNSIDE to all the recent baptisms — we have an old baptistry that holds an ocean of water. Our water bills have put us into a “penalty” with the utility company 🙂
Fill it up and lightly chlorinate it: you can use the same water for a couple of weeks and get the utility company off your back!
And at least it’s not a deacon complaining that the water bill is too high to keep baptizing folks. That was an ugly meeting!
Doug,
We have started doing that very thing.
Good problem to have.
Although not the ideal solution, you could also delay baptisms for a week or two and stack them up. At a previous church I served we did this because we outgrew the old sanctuary and were meeting in the family life center, but there was no baptistry in there. So, we would cram everyone into the old sanctuary (total fire hazard) once every so often for a 15-20 minute baptism service before the morning worship service.
Not ideal, but you got to get creative.
Jason,
That is an option. But, I have learned over the years that nothing preaches the gospel like a baptismal service. Personally, I’d rather baptize 1 a week for four weeks rather than 4 in one week.
Plus, scripturally I think the indication is that baptism should follow quickly after the decision — as quickly as practical.
For the record, I’ve used evangelists in the past as well. We have “revivals” as well; one coming up Aug. 26-28. My problem is with those that act like evangelists are professional soul-winners. Like they’re the answer for the decrease in baptisms. God the Holy Spirit is the only professional soul-winner.
“drawing the net” is not a spiritual gift. One southern baptist evangelist was even advertised as able to get hardened sinners to the altar: http://jeffwright.exaltchrist.com/?p=119. You got to be kidding me!
An evangelist in Scripture seems to be more like a missionary or church planter instead of a traveling expert that can “draw the net.”
I am not against evangelists either.
It’s funny that some get so touchy when you dare challenge the modern usage of terms and application of them to certain practices.
PS – To add to the stories of abuses, was it Bailey Smith that proposed to have calculated the amount it takes per soul to see them saved as a fundraising tool?
Jason, I know of one southern baptist evangelist that tells the congregation how many souls are saved per dollar amount that they give. I’m not sure about Bailey. This sbc evangelist wasn’t Bailey.
I know a doctor who molested his female patients — does that then impune all doctors?
Frank, I’ve learned that you expect me to answer your questions, but you aren’t willing to answer mine. You always assume I have some ulterior motive; thus, I will no longer be interacting with you on sbcvoices. Your questions will go unanswered from here on out.
Thank you. It was a rhetorical question.
I wondered when the 5 pt. Calvinists would attack the Evangelists…wait a minute…that’s already been going on….
Especially since a lot of the Evangelists also attack 5 pt. Calvinism…thus, the tension…and the 5 pointers going after the Evangelists….
I agree with Frank and David B….I’ve seen some really great things in the past from using full time Evangelists…many souls have been saved…the Church is always rejuvenated and fired up after revival meetings…a lot of problems are solved during revival meetings…..
I would always encourgae yall to get good Evangelists…I have heard the horror stories…..
The only thing I said that could be construed as an attack is my comment about hideous suits…but, come on, that is in good fun.
If anything it’s an attack on fashion sense. Booyah.
BTW, I think everyone should note who it is that always seems to bring calvinism into the discussion. In fact, it gets old, brother. Time to stop beating that drum.
Are we really unable to analyze current church practices without bringing that into the discussion?
just calling it like I see it….most of the people I see crying out against the Evangelists are ….welll….you know…..
I’m calling it like I see it too…only person I see bring calvinism into the discussion is…well…you know…
I know it’ll be hard for you, but maybe you can try and honestly evaluate the issue under discussion, without making it a clavinism issue. Simply discuss the biblical reference to “evangelist”.
sorry for bringing it up….but, it is an observation…but, forget I said it….
You know, reading the comments I gotta say: I’m thinking most people are missing the point.
The question is not whether or not to have evangelists but whether we are using/labeling them correctly based on Paul’s description in Ephesians 4.
If the Bible says they are there to equip the saints for the work of ministry, then why don’t we as churches use such gifted men as a daily part of the church to disciple the people to reach the lost?
I would actually call guys who go around and help w/ revivals “itinerant preachers” as opposed to what Paul describes as evangelists. Paul’s definition of evangelist is clearly someone in a church-equipping ministry.
So can we maybe discuss the point of the article which is basically: how do we bring the evangelist back “home” where they belong to equip the saints?
Mike, I’ve seen some evangelists do this. I definitely prefer someone to come in and equip the saints instead of them coming in and “doing evangelism” for us.
Really, revival is for the Saints….to be revived, you have to be vived? amen? so, I really like bringing in someone, who will preach to the Saints about being revived….on fire for the Lord, again….to get things right with God…
But, of course, it’s also good to have someone come in every now and then, who does have a “gift” for bringing people to salvation….I know that I’ve had 2 or 3 evangelists that just seemed to have a “knack” for harvesting….in fact, my daughter was saved during one of these meetings…she’s married to a Student Pastor today, and she loves the Lord…
David
Just a few questions:
Is evangelism something we need to farm out to the “pros”?
Is the one doing the saving really the evangelist? (I think we all know the answer to this. But I ask because I think it helpful to think through the “this guys is better than me at evangelism” mentality.)
Is “harvesting” the same thing as “seeing people saved”? (Again, I think we know the answer, but I can reap a great “harvest” at VBS…and none of the kids could be saved. Some can get a “harvest” in any group, but the same reality.)
Is the fact that someone is saved at a revival meeting proof that we should do them, or simply anecdotal?
Are revivals for believers or unbelievers? Because that seems very confusing in the discussion.
I think you pose some good questions. I personally think that the office of evangelist in the scriptures is what we would call a missionary today. Gospel and evangelist come from the same root word and an evangelist is simply someone who shares the gospel, we see Phillip doing this in Acts 8.
We some times get our terms a little mixed up, but I use the term revival for a meeting to call the church back to a greater devotion to God. I use the word crusade for an evangelistic meeting. But people, of course, can come to Christ no matter what our thrust is. Yesterday we had a 29 year old woman profess faith in Christ, but my message was on Hebrews 12:1-4 on running the Christian race.
I think I agree with your terminology here, John.
Evangelist is more of a missionary or church planter. Of course, all of us are to be evangelists, but I think a distinction is made between the office and practice, like apostle.
So, then “evangelist” as an office would not refer to the guys that go around to churches, they would be more (as David says) a “travelling preacher”?
Who is going to tell the SBC evangelists? LOL
A blog post I did on revivals awhile back…
http://gonefishin1.blogspot.com/2008/01/baptist-press-recently-reported-on-jan.html
You raise some good points, Josh. I appreciate you posting that link.
I agree with John Wylie….I think we see an Evangelist when we see a missionary. Paul and the others would go to towns and cities and stay a couple of years…maybe less sometimes? maybe more sometimes? and they would start churches. There are some people, who just have a gift for winning people to Jesus and starting Churches. Of course, this does not mean that we all shouldnt be out there trying to win souls.
Also, Jason, it’s not that anyone is farming it out to the pros…its just using a preacher, who is a gifted preacher, whom God uses in a special way….
And, I do believe harvesting is seeing people getting saved. Look unto the fields…they are white unto harvest….yes, it’s seeing people getting saved.
BTW, an travelling Preacher used to go from town to town a long time ago…He had some big, big meetings…
David
David W.,
That “traveling Preacher” you mention is a great point.
David R. Brumbelow
So if one views the “evangelist” office as one of missionary, how would you apply that in regards to the relationship of evangelists to established churches?
Josh,
Why couldnt an Evangelist(missionary) come to a church for a week of preaching? to help them out? What would be so wrong about that? I mean, maybe they feel that that’s their calling..to go to established Churches to relight a fire in them for soul winning? to relight a fire in that Church to fall in love with Jesus, again? Maybe they feel that’s their calling….
I believe the Apostle Paul and the other missionaries of the NT went back to established Churches to do that very thing…and, to set some of them straight….
David
David,
I didn’t say they couldn’t or that there was anything wrong with it. I think you read more “objection” into my question than I intended. I was just asking based on your earlier statement how you would view that working out. I don’t think there is anything wrong with missionaries working with established churches (even ones they didn’t found, such as Paul in Romans 1 longing for fruit among the church in that city).
But if one does view the gifted office of evangelist as missionary, then is there a point in which one’s work would be to not only preach in established churches from time to time, but to labor in unreached areas where churches don’t exist and in effect plant churches there as people become Christians and are gathered together? There may be vocational evangelists who do such a thing already during the times they are not at churches. If so, I would love to hear from them.
I know of some that do….they not only preach in established churches in the states…but they’re also heavily involved in mission work, as well.
Revivals are for the saved and for the lost. Get the saved revived and lost folks will be saved. Get lost folks saved and the saved will be strengthened and encouraged. It can even get the pastor revived. Few things can help a church more than to concentrate your prayers, efforts, publicity on one week, or half week of revival. By the way, isn’t that what we do in VBS and other special events?
It does your church good to get someone other than the pastor to preach every now and then. They need to hear someone else who has gifts and a ministry somewhat different from the pastor. Pastor, don’t expect the evangelist to do things just like you. Vocational evangelists are great at getting through to the people in their sermons, and winning the lost. What’s wrong with that? And don’t get intimidated when the people compliment the evangelist’s preaching; that’s good, just enjoy it and know that you will have them the next 51 weeks of the year.
This is not farming out soul winning to the evangelist. We are all called to win souls. But an evangelist can often emphasize that better and can equip the saints to do so. The article mentioned previously at SBC Today points out that on average churches that use revivals usually have more baptisms. Again, if done properly, revivals are greatly used of God.
Check with a pastor who has used evangelists over the years. Get his advice. And pray for revival.
Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE) website: http://www.sbcevangelist.org/
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks David – You have clearly defined the benefits of having gifted evangelists in our churches. I would also endorse COSBE as a source of evangelists God has given to us today.
As I reviewed Ephesians 4 in various Bible translations, I was struck by the KJV expression of certain parts of this passage: “He gave … evangelists … for the perfecting of the saints … till we all come in the unity of the faith”. Could it be that God has called forth all the offices to operate together and if we allow that to happen, the saints will experience perfecting (equipping) and unity … and if we don’t, we will be divided and only partially perfected?
But isn’t that the question of “in our churches”? Is a guy coming to us one week a year “in our church”?
To me, this is the heart of the issue…is this gift something that is/should be/will be present within the gifting of the local body, or is it something we have to bring someone in to do for us?
You see what I am asking?
Jason – I truly believe that God desires to bless a church with all the gifting it needs for a given time and place and that a healthy church would have the office of evangelist in operation. While all saints are called to “evangelize” in the Great Commission call, there are those specifically called as “evangelists” who have this gift burning in their bones … an anointing to evangelize. All pastors may evangelize, but not all are evangelists … just as all pastors may teach, but not truly operate in the gifting of teacher.
I have been in churches where God has blessed the flock with a resident evangelist in addition to the offices of pastor and teacher … tremendous work of God in those places! However, I have been in other works where God has chosen to use itinerant evangelists to come alongside resident pastors/teachers to spark revival among their members and help reach the lost in their communities. We should pray and remain open to God’s leading in either direction. It’s amazing what God can do in one week’s time when He is flowing through a gift He has given to the church!
Trevin Wax had two posts sometime the last year on his blog related to what the future may hold for vocational evangelists. They are worth reading.
http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/08/why-is-vocational-evangelism-on-the-decline/
http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/09/a-future-for-vocational-evangelism/
I think we could find a both/and situation that would do justice to both Eph. 4’s emphasis on equipping the saints and what the name “evangelist” itself means. One simple thing might be to have the evangelist show up at your church a day or two before any meetings take place and host a training time. I think there are many good evangelists who could not only help share insights into the ways they share their faith personally, but would also provide encouragement to the members in some way. The mistake is not in using evangelists or having church gatherings specifically designed as opportunities for sharing the Gospel with those invited, but doing so in a way that essentially teaches the average church member that “evangelism” is best left up to the hired guns who have “the gift of the harvest” (still looking for that as a particular personal gift in Scripture, btw) , not our duty and privilege as Christians.
Josh said: “The mistake is not in using evangelists or having church gatherings specifically designed as opportunities for sharing the Gospel with those invited, but doing so in a way that essentially teaches the average church member that “evangelism” is best left up to the hired guns who have “the gift of the harvest” (still looking for that as a particular personal gift in Scripture, btw) , not our duty and privilege as Christians.”
Well said.
It looks to me that many of you are talking past each other…
Wasn’t the premise of the article that the gift of evangelism was given primarily to the local church ministry instead of primarily to the parachurch ministry?
Most of the comments I see in this thread seem to operate on the extremes, i.e. no parachurch evangelists versus no baptisms because of no parachurch evangelists.
“the gift of evangelism was given primarily to the local church ministry instead of primarily to the parachurch ministry”
Exactly…which was why I questioned “farming it out”.
That is the premise.
I guess the question could be worded this way: is para-church evangelism equal to evangelists equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.
I think no.
As I argued above, I would place the evangelists in as a particular leaning among the church elders/overseers. You have some who (mainly) equip the saints for outreach/outward growth; and others who (mainly) equip the saints for inward growth.
Since evangelism and discipleship are both daily processes, I think we actually hurt ourselves to limit the work of the evangelist in a local church to a “revival” meeting or two a year. Rather, what might be accomplished if the evangelists worked constantly among a local church alongside the pastor-teachers, and daily equipped the saints?
First, I don’t think we ever know exactly how the offices in the N.T. period really looked. We surmise and speculate. We exegete and imagine — but I think we think we know more than what we do.
I doubt very seriously that there was a first century equivalent of Billy Graham, for example.
However, there were clearly traveling preachers. So, I don’t think there is any injunction against “evangelists” as we see them today–as a matter of principle.
”’Since evangelism and discipleship are both daily processes, I think we actually hurt ourselves to limit the work of the evangelist in a local church to a “revival” meeting or two a year.”’
Why does it have to be an “either/or” dichotomy. I’ve always been kind of a “both/and” minister. We don’t have to be “against one thing” in order to be “for something else.”
It seems we humans have a much easier time with division than we do with multiplication.
Well, if you want to focus on superior descriptions of evangelists and their work, take a thorough look at St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John.
Who were these men?
How did they come to their role as ‘evangelists’ of the Good News of Jesus Christ, and how did they live out that role in the Church ? Why does the CHURCH honor them with the title of the Four Evangelists?
By identifying these men in detail, their roles in the early Church, and the effect that they had on declaring the ‘Good News’ of Our Lord;
some sense of what an ‘evangelist’ in the early Church can be formed, even if they are simply relegated to a category of ‘proto-evangelists’ in the minds of modern Christians, still there is a ‘pattern’ they have contributed to the Church from which much guidance can come, if modern Christians feel a valid connection to them and to their mission.
I have absolutely no problem with revivals or traveling evangelists who visit any given church from time to time.
I do, however, have a huge problem with evangelists who sole schtick is to cause believers to doubt their own faith to trump up “rededication” numbers and show outright disrespect to the traditions and methods of the church who was gracious enough to host the evangelist.
I point to Ken Freeman as my example to name names.
Mike,
I am in total agreement that according to the only biblical definition of their responsibilities, the evangelist is to work along with the pastor to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. That is the very reason we developed Every Believer a Witness. It is an Evangelism Training Revival to motivate and train Sunday morning attendees to actively share their faith!
For all those who espouse a similar belief in the role of the evangelist, I encourage you to check out our web site, http://www.everybelieverawitness.org.