Serving In The Church: Volunteerism… or Responsibility?
“Each one should use whatever spiritual gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:10–11).
Like most churches, ours has a large team of volunteers. We have members who have volunteered to work in the nursery, to clean our building, to keep the grounds mowed, to operate the sound system, to make our tape recordings, to answer incoming phone calls, to teach our classes, to serve as Deacons, Elders and Trustees, to mention but a few. Without these “volunteers” our church could not carry out her ministry.
Yet, when we look into the Word of God, it never speaks of volunteers. It speaks of those who freely serve and who recognize they have a joyful obligation to serve others in whatever manner they are capable (or gifted). In the New Testament the four basic passages dealing with the believers’ use of their gifts are Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 4. In these passages we learn that Christ has sovereignly distributed His gifts to His church through her various members and that they are responsible to use these gifts (interests, talents, training, resources, opportunities) to faithfully serve others.
Nowhere in Scripture do we have the slightest hint that God’s people are to volunteer. Rather, the Scriptures indicate that the use of our gifts should be considered a joyful responsibility. It is for that reason that I do not like the term volunteer when thinking of God’s people serving the body of Christ. The term volunteer may give a believer the idea that he has an option whether or not he is willing to serve in a certain capacity and that if he chooses to serve in that capacity, he is going beyond his actual responsibility (he is “volunteering”)—and therefore has done something meritorious.
Instead, God’s Word tells me clearly that if I have been gifted in a certain area I have no alternative but to use that gift, serving with the strength God gives me, for the good of others. Such service should be performed joyfully, thanking God for giving me the opportunity to serve His body.
Our responsibility is to learn what our gifts are and to use them to the fullest. Our gifts do not have to be perfected in order to serve. That is a mistake made or excuse used by many, which keeps them from serving. Opportunity and need will help determine when our gifts should be exercised. Our abilities to serve in a certain area will surely increase with experience as we exercise our gifts. If we wait until we think were are fully qualified, we may never use that with which God has gifted us.
There are, obviously, believers who are trying to serve in areas in which they are not gifted, or not sufficiently trained or qualified. This is where we need the honest counsel of the church leadership and membership. If I do not have the gift of teaching, I would be wrong to insist that I serve in that capacity. If my voice and mannerisms are unsuitable for the church receptionist, I should instead look for other areas in which help is needed. Thankfully, God has not gifted us all in the same way. Yet, he has placed on all of us the responsibility to serve in the areas for which we are most capable, not as volunteers, but as His children, joyfully accepting the responsibility to serve our brothers and sisters in Christ.
This article is an excerpt from Curtis Thomas’ book – Life in the Body of Christ: Privileges and Responsibilities in the Local Church. A new hardcover edition is now available for pre-order for $19.98 at press.founders.org
You Might also like
-
Shrewd Money for the Sons of Light: How the Church Can Use Bitcoin for Eternal Purposes in a Fallen World
For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:8b-9 ESV)
It is the year 1452. A friend has invited you to attend a lecture on how to spread the gospel and build up the saints more effectively. When you arrive at the lecture, you discover not a theology lecture but a presentation about a newfangled technology called the printing press. You get up and leave in disappointment.
Don’t make that mistake today. Bitcoin is a newfangled technology, but it could potentially have as much impact on the world as the printing press. Christians in particular should be paying attention because of its near- and long-term implications for the church. The printing press enabled the church to disseminate information freely. Bitcoin may enable the church to use its resources freely to make friends for the kingdom (Luke 16:9).
Media coverage of Bitcoin and crypto may have left you confused, intimidated, turned off, or just totally indifferent. So why should Christians give any consideration to Bitcoin? First of all, Bitcoin forces us to think deeply about money, and Christians should have a robust biblical understanding of money. Second, Bitcoin has monetary properties that should be of interest to Christians both defensively and offensively—so we can be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves in our present society. And third, our current monetary system is broken, and it is rapidly being weaponized against Christians and others. The problems with our current system give us good reasons to consider our options.
We need to understand money before we can fairly evaluate the role of Bitcoin. An obvious place to start is Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 6:10: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” This passage teaches us more than meets the eye.
Why does Paul talk about money here instead of possessions? He recognizes that money is dangerous because money is incredibly powerful. In fact, money may be the most important technology ever devised. Economists sometimes define money as the “most salable good”. Money is in a special category because it can always be converted into whatever possession or service that you want the most. And even if you don’t want anything right now, you know you’ll want something soon, and money can store value now and buy it for you later. People will always accept money in a transaction because it is readily exchanged for whatever product or service we want the most. Because of that, it is always as desirable and valuable to us as the product or service we want the most.
Think about what a blessing money is when used rightly. It frees us up to pursue our individual callings to rule and subdue according to our own specific gifts and opportunities. We don’t have to spend all our time learning how to make and do everything we need. Instead, we can focus on developing our own special skills and interests and then trade with others to obtain other goods and services we need. In turn, we can bless others with our special skills. Because money serves as a medium of exchange, we can trade effortlessly without the hassle of finding someone who not only has what we want but also wants what we have. When we go to the doctor, we don’t have to worry whether or not he’ll accept the tomatoes we’ve grown in our garden as payment. Without money we would be stuck in subsistence living with very little reason to develop special skills or machinery to bless others outside our own family.
Money gives us a means of saving for the future. Scripture calls us to set aside savings for tithing (1 Cor. 16:2) and for passing down an inheritance (Prov. 13:22). Money also allows us to save for uncertainties so that we can provide for our families (1 Tim. 5:8) and share with others (Eph. 4:28).
However, Paul understands that the very fact that money is so powerful means that it is also incredibly dangerous. It is not dangerous because it is inherently evil. The Bible has many positive things to say about the right use of money. Jesus used it multiple times in his teaching in positive ways, and Scripture provides many examples and directions concerning lawful monetary transactions. In some ways money is like sex. When used rightly, it is a great gift. But it can very easily capture our sinful desires and lead us into all kinds of evil. This is why Scripture repeatedly warns us about the dangers of money and riches.
Money is not only dangerous personally; it is dangerous societally. We need to apply our doctrine of total depravity to the way money operates in the public sphere. Money that’s easy to channel will be channeled for personal gain. Money that’s easy to steal will be stolen. Money that’s easy to use to control others will be used to control others. Money that’s easy to create and spend will be created and spent. All of these things are happening with our current monetary system, and it leads to massive evils in our society.
The ability to use money freely is essential to our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, and our freedom of assembly:
We need to pay for printing and other technologies that amplify speech.
We need to pay for pastors and missionaries and the functioning of our churches.
We need to pay for places to meet and worship, for electricity bills, etc.
We need to save for large purchases and projects and for unforeseen expenses.
At times we may need the freedom to flee unjust rulers and evil circumstances (Prov. 22:3, Luke 21:20-21).
It should not be surprising, then, to find that Satan exploits weaknesses in our monetary system and weaknesses in human nature with respect to money to attack and oppose the church, its mission, and its people. We need to be fully aware of his schemes.
The Federal Reserve controls the monetary policy of the United States. The Board of Governors consists of seven members. That’s a lot of power concentrated in the hands of a few people. They have the ability to expand the money supply by creating incentives for borrowing. When the money supply increases, the money you have in the bank loses value because it’s a smaller fraction of the total. Printing more dollars doesn’t create more real resources in the world that we can buy. It simply divides the claim on those fixed resources into more and therefore smaller pieces, making each dollar shrink in value and causing price inflation.
The federal government can sell bonds to finance spending, and this indirectly creates new money. Congress doesn’t even have to raise taxes to finance new spending. So our already bloated government grows without the discipline of imposing more taxes through the legislative process. In addition, the government exercises a stranglehold on our savings. Most of our money is in the custody of banks, which are subject to all kinds of rules that hinder our ability to use our money freely. Technically, when you deposit your money in a bank, the bank becomes the legal owner of the funds but has a contractual obligation to pay you back when you demand it. Governments—and more recently woke corporations—are increasingly using their power over our accounts to manipulate and punish us.
Our current monetary system is a ticking time bomb. The government owes more money than our country’s total economic output in a year, and we’re constantly digging the hole deeper. There are only three options: massively cutting spending, massively raising taxes, or borrowing more money to pay the interest and allowing inflation to run so they can pay the debt (or just the interest) in cheaper future dollars. We know there’s no political will for the first two options. And at some point the public is going to catch on to the inflation option. So our current system is in massive trouble.
We need better money. Students of the history and philosophy of money have identified several characteristics that make sound money. Sound money must be hard to make, or scarce, so people won’t just keep making more and dilute its value. Sound money must be permissionless so that it’s truly yours to use. If you own it you should be able to use it without someone else having to approve how you use it. We know that our current money fails in both of these respects. Our current money is inflationary, which leads in essence to theft of our savings over time. It is also permissioned, which limits our property rights and makes us vulnerable to our funds being frozen or confiscated if the government or a financial corporation decides they don’t like what we’re doing or what we stand for.
In addition to scarcity and permissionlessness, sound money should be easy to authenticate so that transacting with counterfeits is difficult. Sound money needs to be fungible—units are interchangeable. It should be divisible so you can use the same units for very large and very small transactions. Sound money needs to be durable so that it can store value over a long period. It should also have some level of portability to enable transactions between distant parties. An asset that has all these properties will make great money. But it must still grow in social acceptance to be widely useful as money, since money is inherently a social phenomenon.
Bitcoin is strong exactly where our dollar-based fiat system is weak. It is absolutely scarce and permissionless. Bitcoin is a system that creates digital units that can’t be counterfeited. They can be created only on a schedule that will gradually top out at a total of 21 million units.
How does Bitcoin accomplish this? It uses a distributed ledger, or blockchain, of all bitcoin transactions, duplicated many thousands of times in Bitcoin nodes all over the world. Any computer can participate as a Bitcoin node in verifying transactions or mining (finding a specific numerical pattern) for the remaining supply of bitcoin. The only requirements are that the results must be consistent with the existing blockchain and they must follow the established rules for verifying transactions.
This decentralized ledger and validation process means no one can rewrite the history—and therefore the ownership—without being detected. That prevents new coins from being created, and it prevents the same coins from being spent twice. Any node that tries to change the rules of the system will just be ignored. Bitcoin is ingeniously designed to incentivize its own continued survival and growth and has been doing so for almost 15 years.
You can hold your own bitcoin just by having a secret code called a private key. It is mathematically impossible to steal your bitcoin without access to the private key. So the government can’t confiscate your bitcoin, and the bank can’t freeze it. You could literally leave the country with a memorized code or the number hidden on a piece of paper and access your funds from another country. This is an ideal solution for Christians who may suddenly have to flee persecution.
Because of its digital nature, Bitcoin has all the other properties of sound money as well—verifiable, fungible, divisible, durable, and portable. In many ways it is a nearly ideal money. The only thing Bitcoin lacks is wide adoption. Bitcoin is still difficult to use because it is not widely accepted or trusted yet. Furthermore, the lack of large-scale acceptance causes it to be regarded as more of a speculative asset, which leads to a great deal of price volatility. The price of bitcoin has seen massive swings over its 15-year history, and that is enough to scare many people away. This is not a weakness of the design of Bitcoin itself but simply an evidence of where it is in the adoption cycle. No one would criticize the concept of telephones just because there were few people you could call in the early years.
People often ask how bitcoin can be worth anything. Market participants generally prefer to use a common medium of exchange rather than barter, which creates a demand for a reliable medium of exchange. Bitcoin is worth something because a well-designed medium of exchange is very valuable for free market transactions, and it becomes more useful and valuable the more people recognize its superior monetary properties. The market already recognizes the value of the whole supply of bitcoin at over half a trillion dollars. Bitcoin will grow in utility as more and more people discover and use it, and that will increase its market value.
Bitcoin is often confused with crypto, which is an unfortunate distraction. Crypto has become a catch-all term for all the technologies, projects, and digital tokens that have been inspired by Bitcoin and its core technology. But Bitcoin is not crypto. Putting them in the same category is like talking about the internet and a cat video app in the same conversation. They’re not the same. Bitcoin represents the invention of absolute scarcity. It is the original crypto asset. Over 23,000 crypto assets have been created, and most of them have already failed. Bitcoin has about the same market value as all the other active crypto assets combined. Many of them are scams and Ponzi schemes; bright lights attract big bugs. The relatively few that are serious are mostly trying to solve different problems from Bitcoin. Bitcoin was developed to solve the problem of money, which may be the most powerful technology known to man. It is far more important—and different from—a myriad of lesser financial and other problems that crypto is trying to solve, like a new way to take out a loan or a way to stake ownership of a JPEG.
Bitcoin can help us both defensively and offensively. On the defensive front, Bitcoin addresses three areas of concern about our savings:
The inflationary nature of our system makes it impossible to preserve value in the long term by merely holding dollars. Our savings become gradually less valuable over time.
The fragility of our system due to inflation, borrowing, and interest rate manipulation by the Fed exposes us to the risk of losing our savings in a bank failure—either our individual bank or the banking system as a whole.
The custody of our funds by banks and financial institutions like Paypal expose us to the risk of having our funds confiscated or frozen as Christians and churches are more and more treated as enemies of society.
Bitcoin can be regarded as an insurance policy against all of these scenarios. Bitcoin is non-inflationary. It can also be safely self-custodied by holding a private key. Bitcoin held in self-custody is not exposed to institutional or system-wide collapses, and it protects from government or corporate interference with our assets.
On the offensive front, Bitcoin is a more just, sounder monetary system than our present system. It is designed with a better understanding of fallen human nature. No central authority can create money in this system, and the final amount of money is fixed. Bitcoin can’t be used to grow government without explicit taxation. No one can manipulate others for their own gain by threatening to take or freeze our bitcoin. With bitcoin, people can transact with one another without first having to develop trust. So individual callings can be pursued, specialization can grow, and beneficial commerce can increase with less friction. Love for our neighbor calls us to advocate for more equitable institutions and technologies such as Bitcoin.
No monetary asset has ever been more open and equitable than Bitcoin. Anyone can look at the code and verify the rules. These rules are the same for all. Anyone can set up a node and verify bitcoin transactions. Anyone can mine bitcoin. Bitcoin has no insiders, no president, no board. It protects people from the rich and powerful and blesses society with near-frictionless transactions that require no knowledge or trust between parties. Its current value is real, and its potential future value to society is inestimable.
It is not unlikely that we will experience significant turmoil or a collapse of our broken monetary system. In that circumstance, Christians who understand sound money may be able to take the lead in ushering in a sounder monetary system. Having and understanding bitcoin will give Christians the opportunity to demonstrate mercy to those who suffer from this and to point to a better alternative. Just as the printing press unleashed and protected access to truth, Bitcoin has the potential to unleash and protect access to money and property.
Because Bitcoin is still in a very early, immature phase of adoption, the price can be quite volatile. In fact, Bitcoin has lost over 80% of its value three different times in its 15-year history. This creates a significant challenge for those who would like to employ Bitcoin as a savings vehicle. Two considerations can help us here. First, even though the price is quite volatile, the general trend has been significantly positive. The price has tended to move in a four-year cycle that corresponds to a programmed reduction every four years in the rate at which bitcoin is mined. In the history of Bitcoin, the price has always been higher over every possible four-year period. That is, you could have bought bitcoin at any time in its history and four years later it would be worth more. In most cases, it was worth dramatically more. Because of this, bitcoin is best used as a long-term savings vehicle, with the intention that it won’t be needed for at least four years.
The second consideration is that bitcoin doesn’t have to be your entire savings. A 5% allocation can be regarded as an insurance policy. If the price falls dramatically, you can sleep at night knowing that only 5% of your funds are subject to this fluctuation. On the other hand, if our entire banking system implodes, that 5% hedge might grow dramatically in value as people rush to an alternative system. Since the supply doesn’t increase with growing demand, the only possible result of increased demand would be an increase in price.
Christians need to think more deeply, biblically, and shrewdly about money. Our monetary system is sick, unsuitable for use in a fallen world, and increasingly weaponized against Christians and Christian organizations. Bitcoin provides a promising way to defend ourselves as well as provide a positive alternative.
Be aware that this article is only intended for your education. It is not financial advice. Action should only be taken after due consideration, study, and discussion with a trusted financial professional.
Bitcoin has many facets and implications that can’t be adequately covered in a single article. Anyone interested in Bitcoin should undertake a process of self-education that precedes any financial decisions. If you would like to explore Bitcoin further, I recommend these resources:Thank God for Bitcoin: The Creation, Corruption and Redemption of Money, Jimmy Song et al., Whispering Candle, 2020
Thank God for Bitcoin. An organization for educating and equipping Christians to use Bitcoin for the glory of God and the good of people everywhere
The Bullish Case for Bitcoin, Vijay Boyapati, 2021. You can also access an extremely helpful article-length version of the book
The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking, Saifedean Ammous, Wiley, 2018
Bitcoin and the Bible Podcast, https://bitcoinandthebible.com/ — a series of 26 episodes that masterfully explores the rationale for Bitcoin from a Christian worldview, the economic arguments, the practical implications, and the mechanics of getting into Bitcoin
-
Vaccine Mandates and the Christian's Liberty of Conscience: From 2021 to 1721 and Back Again
June 3, 1777
Dear Sir,
It seems I must write something about the small-pox, but I know not well what: having had it myself, I cannot judge how I would feel if I were actually exposed to it. I am not a professed advocate for inoculation; but if a person who fears the Lord should tell me, I think I can do it in faith, looking upon it as a salutary expedient, which God in his providence has discovered, and which therefore appears my duty to have recourse to, so that my mind does not hesitate with respect to the lawfulness, nor am I anxious about the event; being satisfied, that whether I live or die, I am in that path in which I can cheerfully expect his blessing; I do not know that I could offer a word by way of dissuasion.
If another person should say, My times are in the Lord’s hands; I am now in health, and am not willing to bring upon myself a disorder, the consequences of which I cannot possibly foresee. If I am to have the small-pox, I believe he is the best judge of the season and manner in which I shall be visited, so as may be most for his glory and my own good; and therefore I choose to wait his appointment, and not to rush upon even the possibility of danger without a call. If the very hairs of my head are numbered, I have no reason to fear that, supposing I receive the smallpox in a natural way, I shall have a single pimple more than he sees expedient; and why should I wish to have one less? Nay, admitting, which however is not always the case, that inoculation might exempt me from some pain and inconvenience, and lessen the apparent danger, might it not likewise, upon that very account, prevent my receiving some of those sweet consolations which I humbly hope my gracious Lord would afford me, if it were his pleasure to call me to a sharp trial? Perhaps the chief design of this trying hour, if it comes, may be to show me more of his wisdom, power, and love, than I have ever yet experienced. If I could devise a means to avoid the trouble, I know not how great a loser I may be in point of grace and comfort. Nor am I afraid of my face; it is now as the Lord, has made it, and it will be so after the small-pox. If it pleases him, I hope it will please me. In short, though I do not censure others, yet, as to myself, inoculation is what I dare not venture upon. If I did venture, and the outcome should not be favorable, I would blame myself for having attempted to take the management out of the Lord’s hands into my own, which I never did yet in other matters, without finding I am no more able than I am worthy to choose for myself. Besides, at the best, inoculation would only secure me from one of the innumerable natural evils the flesh is heir to; I should still be as liable as I am at present to a putrid fever, a bilious colic, an inflammation in the bowels, or in the brain, and a thousand formidable diseases which are hovering round me, and only wait his permission to cut me off in a few days or hours: and therefore I am determined, by his grace, to resign myself to his disposal. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, (for his mercies are great,), and not into the hands of men.
If a person should talk to me in this strain, most certainly I could not say, Notwithstanding all this, your safest way is to be inoculated.
We preach and hear, and I hope we know something of faith, as enabling us to trust the Lord with our souls. I wish we had all more faith to trust him with our bodies, our health, our provision, and our temporal comforts likewise. The former should seem to require the strongest faith of the two. How strange is it, that when we think we can do the greater, we should be so awkward and unskillful when we aim at the less!
Give my love to your friend. I dare not advise; but if she can quietly return at the usual time, and neither run intentionally into the way of the small-pox, nor run out of the way, but leave it simply with the Lord, I shall not blame her. And if you will mind your praying and preaching, and believe that the Lord can take care of her without any of your contrivances, I shall not blame you. Nay, I shall praise him for you both. My prescription is to read Dr. Watts, Psa. cxxi. every morning before breakfast, and pray it over until the cure is effected. Probatum est.
Hast thou not giv’n thy word,To save my soul from death?And I can trust my LordTo keep my mortal breath.I’ll go and come,Nor fear to die,Till from on highThou call me home.
Adieu!
Pray for Yours, &c. -
The Duty of Evangelism
Duty is a loaded word with many implications. It implies an obligation of action despite obstacles or trials that stand in the way. Duty assumes resistance. It assumes doing something regardless how I may feel on any given day.
In a way, duty is the antidote to pragmatism or a superficial happiness. It is the attitude that says no matter what the outcome, I will do this or that, because it is my duty. No matter how I feel, no matter what the results are, I will do it anyways because it is my duty to do so.
Now, assuming our specific duty is biblical, we have no reason to fear this word. On the contrary, we have every reason to lean into it. It is a good word. No—it is a necessary word. There is a reason why the writings of the Reformers and Puritans are saturated with the word. They realized that regardless of all odds, obstacles, or feelings, they had a responsibility before God to carry out the tasks and behavior which He had assigned to them: whether in the sphere of family, work, church, finances, or even diet and recreation. There is not a realm that exists in which God has not laid before us certain duties. Not so that we can be saved, but because in Christ we have already been saved and there are now expectations of us as His people when it comes to living our lives as “new creations.” An obvious and helpful example of one of these Christian duties comes in the form of evangelism.
Duty as a Compelling Motive
“Duty” as a motive for evangelism may come across as coarse or even legalistic. We typically like to think of other motives when it comes to evangelism, such as seeing people saved or growing our churches. These are noble and biblical motives, sure enough, but they aren’t the only motives. They aren’t even the best motives. There are times when such motives won’t be enough.
For instance, some days we are not euphorically bursting with love for the lost, especially when they have rejected our efforts in hostile or demeaning ways. Our love for the lost is important, but love is a feeling that is prone to fade in and out depending on our circumstances. Also, because we are people who still struggle with sin, including selfishness, evangelizing merely because we love the lost would be a flimsy and even irresponsible foundation upon which to build. We need something else. Likewise, when it comes to the motive of seeing our churches grow through our evangelism. This is something we all desire. But to what ends? What if plain and simple gospel proclamation isn’t “working”? What if our churches aren’t growing despite our consistent evangelism efforts? The temptation will be to either throw in the towel and quit, or to water things down to make the gospel more palatable to the masses. This is where the word “duty” comes in as a protective measure against such temptations.
Duty as an Emboldening Motive
The very nature of evangelism requires such a word as duty. This is because in several respects, evangelism is different from any other Christian practice. It entails intentionally speaking to a lost person about Jesus and sin, even though at present, as far as we can tell, the person has no love for Christ or hatred for sin. And despite our modern assumptions about man, biblically speaking, unless they are being drawn by God, we are sharing Jesus with someone who doesn’t want to hear about Jesus. Evangelism is sharing the good news of Christ with a lost person, and then calling that person to repent and believe the message—not exactly the most pleasant circumstance, at least from the world’s perspective. What other Christian duty is like this? Evangelism is confrontational, uncomfortable, and a catalyst for awkward tension, regardless of how respectfully and gently we do it.
The uniqueness of evangelism can be seen when we compare it to worship services, another Christian duty. If the government were to tell us we can no longer maintain corporate worship of the Lord, that does not terminate our duty of corporate worship. So it is with evangelism. Even if it were illegal, we would still be obligated to do it. In both scenarios, the way we worship or the way we evangelize may be different from how we would ordinarily do things, but we would still do it, hopefully. But there is one remarkable difference about evangelism that can’t be said about regular worship with the saints. I point this out in my book, 10 Modern Evangelism Myths (RHB, 2021):
How would Christians in the West respond if it suddenly became illegal to meet together for church or study the Scriptures or attend prayer meetings? Would we do it anyway? Yes! This scenario is not exactly hypothetical. Such an attempt is likely on the horizon in the West, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. But when it comes to evangelism, things are much different. It is possible to meet in secret when it comes to worship and Bible studies, without society knowing it. But evangelism necessarily involves the unbelieving community knowing what we believe, including the offensive parts, since it is the unbelieving persons of society we are called to evangelize.
Even when evangelism is seen as offensive, distasteful, politically incorrect or illegal, we are still called to do it. This will expose us to harassment and danger, which is why the word “duty” is so essential. It implies doing something despite the difficulty which that thing will cause. And isn’t that what makes evangelism so difficult? It necessarily brings about conflict. This is not to say we must intentionally seek conflict when evangelizing. We shouldn’t be rude or obnoxious. On the contrary, we should be respectful and aware of the contexts in which we are evangelizing. But even if the person we evangelize gets converted, there will be conflict between the new believer and his old way of life, including his relationships. And if he doesn’t get converted, there will now be conflict between himself and us, whether it is open hostility or something more subdued. When it comes to the gospel, there is no neutrality. And hence, when it comes to sharing the gospel, it will cause a response, whether unto salvation or further condemnation, and all because we opened our mouths about Jesus.
Isn’t this why we get nervous before we evangelize? Perhaps nervous is too soft of a word. This is why we get downright terrified. This is why we all have difficulty evangelizing. The flesh doesn’t want the conflict. We recoil from pushback or looking foolish. We’re afraid we won’t have answers to their possible objections. And yet, despite our flesh or the conflict of evangelism, we must do it anyways. Why? Because we are commanded to do so by our Lord. It is His method for saving souls. “Faith comes by hearing.”
Not only do we see this example of obedient evangelism in the Acts of the Apostles, but throughout the early church as well. They too likely withered at the thought of conflict, especially knowing it would likely result in their death, torment, or loss of property. But time and again, in spite of intense and present threats, we see them evangelizing. What was their secret? Yes, the Holy Spirit. Yes, prayer. Yes, a supernatural devotion to Christ. All of these things are critical. But it was also their sense of duty. Speaking of the early church’s evangelism, one historian comments, “The conflict was inevitable, the direct result of the genius of Christianity. A Christianity which had ceased to be aggressive would speedily have ceased to exist. Christ came not to send peace on earth but a sword; against the restless and resistless force of the new religion the gates of hell should not prevail. But polytheism could not be dethroned without a struggle; nor mankind regenerated without a baptism of blood. Persecution, in fact, is the other side of aggression, the inevitable outcome of a truly missionary spirit; the two are linked together as action and reaction.”[i]
What was the result of such evangelism? Yes, scores of martyred Christians. Yes, many tense and awkward conversations. But also scores of new converts. The growth of the early church came mostly through ordinary Christians sharing the gospel in their everyday environments, despite the conflict it would bring: “Where, then, could believers make contact with unbelievers to win them over? Surely the answer must somehow lie where the Christians themselves direct our attention…in quiet obscure settings of every day.”[ii] Or again, “Being excluded from the normal social gatherings, their points of contact with non-Christians lay quite inevitably at street corners or at places of employment, or in the working quarters of dwellings.”[iii] “Evangelizing in private settings” was one of the most influential contexts for bringing about conversions to the Christian religion “en masse.”[iv] Kenneth S. Latourette confirms that “the chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession…but men and women who carried on their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those they met in this natural fashion.”[v]
Duty as a Universal Motive
Hence, we see that the duty to evangelize is not only for ministers, but it is for all who name the name of Christ. We also see how important every Christian is to the work of evangelism, whether they are ordained ministers or not, and how God uses His people in every walk of life to add to His church. Believers are called to profess the name of Christ to the lost. Backlash against such a message has always been the norm, but so are conversions. We must not be silent about our Lord. We may lose friends or look silly because of it. But we must not be ashamed of the gospel. This is one way to understand Christ’s promise that “everyone who acknowledges me before men I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Christ is here speaking of people who deny their Lord as an attempt to protect themselves from harm. Even in a climate where we are not actively being killed for our faith, we are still persecuted through societal isolation, loss of job, friends, or even family whenever we take seriously the command to evangelize the lost. The next verse promises that Jesus did not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (Matt. 10:34).
To know that every Christian should be evangelizing can cause disturbance and shame for many Christians. Most of us feel inadequate when it comes sharing the gospel. But consider the demoniac, who was told right after his conversion to go and tell all about what Jesus had done for him (Mark 5:19). He knew enough of the gospel to share it with others. His sense of duty to Christ drove him on to do it. His feelings or emotions wanted to go with Christ across the lake. His allegiance to Christ’s command helped him overcome such feelings and catapulted him into what must have been an awkward and challenging mission field. These people had just demanded Christ leave their region. They had seen this man naked and crazed. They had lost property on account of his demons being exorcised. This was no easy task that Jesus put him up to. Yet there he goes, telling everyone what great things Jesus had done for him. Why? Because Christ had told him to do it. It was his duty to do it. So, he does it.
Duty as Pure Motive
Evangelizing without a sense of duty can also lead to pragmatism. When we are governed more by emotions or even “success,” we make the cross less offensive, our churches more worldly, and our evangelism less gospel-centered. In the West today, Christians often have the mindset that if we are going to be relevant in the culture, we must keep quiet outside our homes and churches about the gospel, or at the very least, come up with ways and methods that will allow evangelism to be inoffensive. Christians today are often so plagued by the fear of what outsiders think of us that we assume evangelism is not done properly if it creates any kind of scandal or outrage from the unbelieving world. This would be a mark of woeful ineffectiveness. Again, this is not to say we should be rude or intentionally brash or scandalous. Not at all. Rather, it is assuming that the truth is offensive in a culture that despises truth. It assumes that the perishing still thinks the cross is foolish. But in attempting to accommodate our evangelism to the culture, we have lost the appeal of being a savor of death to the dying (2 Cor. 2:16).
Christians who want to accommodate evangelism to the culture disregard the fact that this was never Christ’s approach, nor was it the way of the early Christians. George Whitefield, John Wesley, David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards and even William Carey were all considered scandalous renegades by the church their community for their refusal to compromise with current evangelism practices. They were seen as “zealots.” They were see as radicals. But they were men compelled to evangelize by a sense of duty. They were willing to be fools for Christ’s sake, even when the church was embarrassed by them. Consider John Ryland’s response to the criticism of William Carey by other clergymen in their day: “I am almost worn out with grief at these foolish cavils against some of the best of my brethren, men of God, who are only hated because of their zeal.”[vi] Michael A.G. Haykin notes that one of the hurdles William Carey had to overcome was “the lack of support by fellow Christians in England.”[vii]
Reproach and scoffing are the responses we should expect when it comes to biblical evangelism. In some contexts, so are arrests, confiscation of property, or loss of life. In fact, why would we assume any other response? The world’s eyes are veiled to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:3). There are none who seek God (Rom. 3:11). But a church culture that sees salvific success as the most important reason to evangelize will also claim that any approach that brings conflict or polarization must necessarily be jettisoned—especially if there is no “one” who is saved. The underlying motive behind such an approach, whether or not it is acknowledged, is a fear of man and fear of conflict. Such fear is normal, but it doesn’t mean it is correct. What must drive us onward to evangelize is our duty to Christ, even when afraid of man or conflict.
It is one thing for the world to hate the Christian, especially for his bold evangelism. Christ Himself told us we should expect it. But why do Christians shy away from confrontation? The answer is easy. We are still in the flesh. We are prone to want to protect ourself from looking dumb or losing friends, even if this means to not evangelize. The flesh is still very powerful. Therefore, duty is essential. Consider examples from the Scriptures. R. C. Sproul notes that “Jesus’ life was a storm of controversy. The apostles, like the prophets before them, could hardly go a day without controversy. Paul said that he debated daily in the marketplace. To avoid controversy is to avoid Christ.”[viii] Do we think that Paul, the prophets, or even Christ delighted in being harassed, maligned, and eventually killed for what they believed? Surely it wasn’t an enjoyable situation to be in much of the time, if ever. So what drove them to keep pressing on, regardless of ill health, prison or loss of life? Duty. What must drive us on to evangelize, even when we don’t feel like it? Duty. Even when it might cause outrage or social inconveniences? You got it. Duty.
Duty as a Transcendent Motive
There are many biblical motives for doing evangelism: our love of Christ, our love for our neighbors, our desire to see our churches grow, our passion to see God’s kingdom advance on earth. But notice these all have to do with some type of emotion: love, desire, passion, etc. Emotion is not a bad thing. God has wired us to be creatures who experience and are influenced by emotions. But emotions can be fickle and unreliable. Other times, especially when it comes to evangelism, emotions such as fear can drive out more proper emotions such as love for our neighbor. Fear is a powerful force that can utterly quench any drive to do evangelism. And in such moments, it is duty which must carry the day. We evangelize because our Master tells us to do so, regardless of our feelings about it or the pushback it may lead to. Even if we feel unequipped or inadequate—and we always are—we must evangelize because it’s our duty to do so, trusting God will use our weak and fallible attempts to do great things for His name.
The power of Christianity has always been its bold, uncompromising gospel proclamation. It has proclaimed the gospel directly into the teeth of the fiercest, most ruthless societies ever known to man. And despite the persecutions such action brings upon the church, Christians have always dug in and preached even harder. The early Christians were considered aggressive and imprudent by the surrounding culture, even while other religions were taking steps to avoid persecution. There has always been a relentless zeal for gospel proclamation among God’s people. Some periods of church history demonstrate this more brightly than others, but it has been there, somewhere, even in the darkest ages. But it wasn’t boldness for the sake of being bold that drove them on. It wasn’t recklessness for the sake of recklessness. It was because the Master had told them to do it, regardless of how they felt or what would be the outcome. We must have the same mindset.
Evangelism is a duty we have to Christ. As society in the West becomes more and more like ancient Rome, it is important we are equipped with not only a passion for evangelism, a love for the lost, and a desire to see God’s kingdom advance on earth—it is also necessary we are equipped with the time-honored weapon of remembering that evangelism is a duty, no matter the consequences, and no matter how we feel.
[I] Herbert B. Workman, Persecution in the Early Church (Bloomington, IL: Clearnote Press, 2014), 39.
[ii] Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984), 37.
[iii] MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 40.
[iv] MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 29.
[v] Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity (New York: Harper, 1944), 1:230.
[vi] Cited in A. de M. Chesterman, “The Journals of Daniel Brainerd and of William Carey,” The Baptist Quarterly 19 (1961-62): 151-52.
[vii] Michael H.G. Haykin, The Missionary Fellowship of William Carey (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2018), 5.
[viii] R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), xv.