Evangelism involves the presentation of the gospel to sinners with the aim of their becoming Christ’s disciples. Evangelism also includes the ministry of Christ’s Spirit in convicting men of the dreadful reality of their sin against God and the wonderful sufficiency of Christ as Lord and Savior. Seen from the point of view of the church, evangelism is not only the life and witness of Christian individuals, but also the shared testimony of the spiritual life of the Christian community. It is the body of believers together pulling on the gospel net more than it is the single fisherman angling with a pole.
But these observations can easily become truisms, mere words which mean very little if the spiritual state of particular congregations is so low that the Holy Spirit has been quenched and his blessing withdrawn in a substantial measure from pastor and people. When this happens, what we are tends to cancel out what we say. Our talk about the gospel becomes mostly that—talk. And eventually because nothing issues from our talking we quit talking, convinced that we have “no gift” for evangelism.
In such a context, pastors often lapse into retirement long before rheumatism and feeble limbs have qualified them for a rest home. They give up. They have seen little happen and they now expect little to happen. Similarly, members of the congregation learn to expect little from God in general and very little from preaching in particular. To justify the meager harvest of souls, orthodox believers will then say:
“After all, these are the last days, the time of apostasy. And it is God alone who gives the increase. All that our pastor and the church can do is sow the seed. We are not so much interested in great numbers as in good quality members. You may expect the Arminians to appeal to men because they water down the message, but we preach the whole counsel of God and that just doesn’t appeal to people today.”
Against this background, please carefully consider three fundamental propositions, a question, and an answer.
Proposition One: Scripture has inherent power because of its nature as the Word of God.
Its words are the very voice of the living God, the written words of Him who is the living, personal Word. Its premises and prophecies therefore are always realized. Just as it is natural for rain to descend from the clouds, so it is according to the nature of the Word of God to accomplish God’s purposes. Isaiah puts it like this: “For as the rain and snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it (lsa 55:10–11).
When the words of a prophet are powerless—without fulfillment—he is a false prophet (Deut 18:22). But the words and statutes commanded by the prophets of the Lord must inevitably overtake the disobedient (Zech 1:6). For the judgments of the Word of God are like a “two-edged sword” which penetrates the depths of the human heart (Heb 4:12).
As a preached Word, it is the power of God to salvation (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18; 2:4–5; Eph 1:13). It is spirit and life (John 6:63), a seed from God which brings forth spiritual fruit (Matt 13:8, 23), an instrument of God generating new life (James 1:18; 1 Pet 1: 23), a mirror presenting Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), a light of a new creation (2 Cor 4:4–6), a foundation for faith (Rom 10:17), and a means for fully equipping the man of God (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
It is unthinkable that any word of man can stand before its supreme power, a judgment which is given powerful dramatic statement in the book of Acts. Here the Holy Spirit affirms that the preached Word increases, multiplies, and prevails over every word of man. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests of the temple, the man with political authority (Herod), the Gentiles, and the magicians—they are all captured by the Word of the Lord.
First, Luke would have his readers learn what happens in the very shadow of the temple. Here “the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Next, Herod is told by the people that his is “the voice of a god, and not of man” (Acts 12:22). Foolishly, Herod believes this absurd flattery. He sins by accepting the blasphemous notion that his words are divine. [Herod] withholds from God and His Word the glory that is their due (Acts 12:23). Therefore, the angel of the Lord smites Herod and [Herod] fades away like the flower of the field (Acts 12:23).
By dramatic contrast, Luke announces that while Herod dies “the word of God grew and multiplied” (Acts 13:48a). To describe the effects of the Word of Christ in men’s lives, Luke uses language that has now become familiar to us, the language of fruit bearing and growth. He states: “And the word of the Lord spread throughout all the region” (Acts 13:49).
Finally, this all-conquering Word of God overturns the practices of the occult world in Ephesus. God’s speech has triumphed over Jerusalem, over rulers, over the Gentile masses, and now takes control of this great center of magic and witchcraft. Luke says: “And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily” (Acts 19:19–20).
This gospel as a preached Word thus reaches into every tribe and nation. It has come to the brethren at Colossae, “constantly bearing fruit and increasing” in its effects among them, “just as in the whole world” (Col 1:6). And even when its message is rejected, there are powerful consequences which follow. It is a savor of life unto life of those who believe but also a savor of death unto death of those who close their hearts to its message of salvation through a crucified Lord (2 Cor 2:14–16; 1 Pet 2:8). Pierre Ch. Marcel sums it up this way: Thus do Scripture and experience teach us that this word of God does not always accomplish the same work. It is always effective in some way. It is never devoid of power. When it does not lift up, it casts down; when it is not an occasion for restoration, it is an occasion for falling; when it is not a fragrance of life, it is a fragrance of death.1 (1The Relevance of Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), p.32.)
Proposition Two: The Holy Spirit powerfully applies the Word in preaching.
The Word of God is itself “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph 6:17). Accordingly, the Word and the Spirit go together; both are the very breath of God. Thus, Paul says that his gospel does not come in word only “but also in power and in the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess 1:5). It is for this reason that Paul could tell the Thessalonians that it is really “the word of God which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess 2:13). The Spirit was applying it powerfully to their hearts.
This interrelationship between Word and Spirit can be seen by looking at almost any of the passages previously cited. For instance, in 2 Cor. 3:18, Paul explains that the gospel message is a liberating mirror. When we look into it and behold Christ, we are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory. And then he notes the source of power. This comes, he concludes, “even as from the Lord, the Spirit.”
In 1 Cor 1:17–18 Paul emphasized that he preached only the Word of the cross. He was an exclusive cross-preacher. But how did this accomplish its powerful results? Only through the “demonstration of the Spirit and power” (1 Cor. 2:4). Similarly, when the seven proto-deacons were ordained, Luke says: “And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). But this mighty working did not occur without the blessing of the Spirit. For in the same context, Luke says of Stephen: “But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (Acts 6:10).
This intimate connection between the Word and Spirit was realized with the greatest fullness at Pentecost and afterward. The Spirit is given to the Church at Pentecost, and as a direct result the Word of God written and the Word of God ministered through the apostles come to men with great authority and supernatural effects. Knowing that the source of power lies with the risen Lord and His Spirit, the newly born church shortly thereafter prays that the Almighty Lord will look upon the threats of the Jewish leaders and “grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29). What follows in answer to this prayer? Observe how Luke stresses the awesome partnership between God’s Word and God’s Spirit: “The place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the Word of God with all boldness” (Acts 4:31).
But it is of first importance to see that this ministry of the Spirit is Trinitarian, that is, Christocentric. Now think for a moment. In the preaching of the Word of God, we are asking men to believe that a man who appeared to be a crucified Jewish criminal is the Son of God and the Lord of the universe. This is a scandal to the world, which can only be overcome by a special intervention from above. Therefore the exalted Christ who has first received the gift of the Spirit from the Father has shed abroad the Holy Spirit in order to convict the world of the sin of unbelief in the face of God’s mercy manifested in the Son of Man, of God’s righteousness in sending Him into the world and to the cross, and of the judgement and condemnation of Satan in His triumphant death (John. 16:7–11).
To draw upon the line of thought expressed in Leon Morris’ Commentary on the Gospel of John, one may say that the world saw Jesus’ death on the cross as a defeat. Hence God must vindicate His own name over against this supposed scandal. What the Father does to vindicate His Son’s name is to send the Spirit to act as a prosecuting attorney. In commenting on John 16:8, Morris thus says:
We have seen that the word translated “Comforter” is a word with legal implications … Normally it denotes a person whose activities are in favor of the defendant. Here, however, the meaning is that the Spirit will act as prosecutor and bring about the world’s conviction.
Seen in the light of Acts 2, this work of the Spirit can be described concretely as follows: The Spirit of God drives home the Word of God preached in the private courtroom of man’s heart, accusing, softening, and turning. Then when the sinner discovers what his sin did to the Lord Jesus at the cross, that this same Lord is now at the Father’s right hand, and that God has used that same cross to blot out sins, he is moved by the Spirit to trust in the Savior as his only hope. Thereupon guided by the Word of God the repentant man publicly takes Jesus’ name upon himself in baptism.
In this process the salvation of the lost sinner is prominent. But there is much more involved here. For the Spirit’s overriding concern is to bring sinners to baptism and public confession of Jesus Christ through inwardly applying the Word of God to them. In a sense then baptism represents the vindication of the cross. Hence through the preaching of the cross applied by the Spirit men are driven to confess that Jesus is Lord, that His cross is the power of God to salvation and the glorious manifestation of the love of a holy God, and that they now renounce the world and take upon themselves the name of Jesus in the ordinance of baptism.
In all of this, the Son of Man proves Himself to be absolute master. He is pleased to use the words of His servants as He anoints their hearts and lips, but the work is entirely His. As Calvin put it, Christ did not “become an idle spectator of the work of his ministers,” but now He “appoints and commissions … ministers and pastors to govern His church under such a condition, however, that He alone retains the complete power in His own possession and that the others attribute to themselves nothing but the ministry” (Commentary on John 20:21).
Proposition Three: Normal preaching is bold preaching in keeping with the character of Scripture as the Word of God and with the life-giving power of the HOLY Spirit.
When the disciples preached after Pentecost, the authorities marveled because they were unlearned men and yet spoke with boldness (Acts 4:13). As already noted, they prayed that this boldness would be granted afresh after their encounter with the authorities (Acts 4:29). They quickly saw their prayer answered (Acts 4:31).
What is to be learned from this passage in Acts? It is that boldness in preaching and confession of Christ is a gift of the Spirit. Thus “boldness” (parrhesia) is practically a synonym for the liberty of the Spirit in the presence of a hostile world.2 (2See Heinrich Schlier, TDNT, V, 882–83.) The newly converted Paul preaches boldly in Damascus and Jerusalem (Acts 9:27–28) and at Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:2). Because the Spirit has come and vindicated Jesus in the glorious resurrection and ascension, things are open all along the line. They are open with God in heaven through Jesus’ intercession and they are open with men through the preaching of the cross. Hence a policy of non-concealment must rule both praying and preaching. Accordingly, boldness in proclamation of the Word of God is now normal. Paul knows this, and for this reason he exhorts the “Ephesians” to pray for him that he will make known the gospel with all boldness as he “ought to speak” (Eph 6:18–20).
Such preaching is to be clear (Col. 4:2–3), confrontational (Acts 2:37; 3:19; 7:51–54; 9:29; 17:30–31), and humble (James 3:1–5). However, this kind of ministry is not exhortation without content. Indeed, it presupposes a consuming passion to declare to the nations the fullness of the Word of God. But it is Biblical content with a cutting edge. As Luther has said in his Table Talk: “A preacher must be both soldier and shepherd. He must nourish, defend, and teach; he must have teeth in his mouth, and be able to bite and fight.”
Accordingly New Testament boldness implies much more that pulpiteering in the grand manner. Essentially it means getting the Word of God near men and their consciences, applicatory preaching, if you will. For preaching is not proclamation plus application or exposition plus application. Instead, the proclamation and exposition are themselves to be application. Stated in terms of the sermon, you can say that the whole message is an application of Scripture to the needs of men, not something reserved for the conclusion. It is preaching with a purpose; the purpose is to change men into the image of Christ.
Reflect a moment and you will see that the very words for preaching used in Scripture indicate that proclamation is always directed toward men, with the intention of changing him through the Word and Spirit. Thus, preaching is heralding the kingdom and its power. It includes announcing, evangelizing, explaining, persuading, and teaching so that men will receive the good news of Christ’s salvation and obey the gospel. It also includes reproving, disciplining, warning, and feeding the people of God.
In a word, bold preaching is normative preaching according to the New Testament, and this normative preaching has as its normal effect the production of spiritual fruit among believers as well as the conversion of the lost. It ought to result in many baptisms into Christ.
A Question: But why is it that contemporary preaching often does not seem to have these transforming effects?
The question can be put in an even more comprehensive form: If the Word of God has inherent power, if the Spirit powerfully applies it, and if the preaching of the Word is to be with a heaven-sent anointing, how do we explain the parched character of the life of so many of our churches? This dryness is to be expected in Christ-denying and Word-denying churches, but how do we explain the slow growth in so many orthodox and conservation denominations?
The answer to these questions has many sides. But a foundational lack is to be found in our failure to define the nature of the church with sufficient Biblical precision. This conclusion certainly covers the situation in broadly evangelical denominations and congregations, but here the concern is with the failure among teachers in the Reformed tradition to understand what the church is all about. This observation may come as a shock just because it is within the Reformed tradition that so much time and energy has been devoted to defining and defending the church. But take up Louis Berkof’s Systematic Theology and peruse the section on the marks of the church. What does the reader discover? First, he is impressed by the substantial disagreement among Reformed scholars as to the exact nature and number of the marks of a true church. Secondly, he will note that the Reformed tradition has tended to define the marks of the church abstractly—almost apart from the life of the church.
This second point now must be taken up as the crucial issue before the Reformed churches today. Read Berkhof’s summary of the various Reformed exegetes and creeds and the impression is left that the three standard marks of the church (pure preaching of the Word, proper administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of church discipline) are hardly related to the organic abundance that Christ has planted in His people. But read the New Testament and you discover that fullness of life is a distinguishing feature of the church. From the ascended Christ a heavenly life streams into the church, so that in all her embattled suffering the victory is hers (Col 3; Rom 8). In the Scriptures you discover a pervasive emphasis on the mighty working of God’s grace among His people at Pentecost and thereafter.
The reader may be inclined to say, however, that this conclusion rests too heavily upon the book of Acts. Is it not true, so the argument sometimes runs, that what takes place in Acts is to be seen as unique to that age? Obviously, there are developments in the book of Acts which are not repeated in later church history. Pentecost, for instance, is a once-for-all event. But Pentecost also has the utmost importance for the life of the church today. Why? Because as a once-and-for-all event Pentecost includes the church today. The baptism of the Spirit which took place at Pentecost now embraces everyone who truly believes in the Lord Jesus. Furthermore, it is of the first importance to see that as a definitive accomplishment Pentecost is not finished in the way that artifacts in a museum are finished. That is, the book of Acts is not to be approached as a divine museum containing materials largely of historical interest, but which have no bearing on the present. One certainly may not read God’s work at Pentecost in that deadening way. No, at Pentecost the resurrection life of Jesus Christ was imparted to the church by the Father as permanent and ongoing.
But if the reader has doubts against reading the book of Acts this way, let him study the epistles of Paul. Take the book of Romans for a beginning. Here you meet in the opening chapter a description of the gospel as the power of God to salvation for all who believe (Rom 1:16). In chapter 10, the apostle sets forth how this gospel power changes fundamental relationships and transforms lives. Then in chapter 15, he begins to talk about the pleromas (fullness) of God bringing into being the church and filling it with power and life and knowledge (Rom 15:13–19). What he says, in effect, is this: I have fully preached Christ in every place, and every place where I have preached Christ are men “filled with all joy and peace.” They are able to abound in hope through believing (v. 13), just as the church in Rome is made up of men filled with goodness and knowledge (v. 14).
Is this language of abundant life in the church confined to Romans? Not at all. In Ephesians and Colossians, for instance, Paul rises to new heights of eloquence in describing the church as “His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph 1 :23). Or approach the matter from yet another angle. Only consider how the church is described in the New Testament. The rich range of metaphors include fruitful branches united to Christ the true vine (John 15). In the Old Testament (Psa 80; Isa 5; Ezek 15), Israel proved to be a fruitless vine because the root was rotten. But a new vine has come, Jesus, the true Israel. To those who abide in Him the promise is sure. Because He is divine life, so they in turn must have life. That is why the promises in verses 7 and 8 can be so sweeping. For only a Living Vine could say: “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you. By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and so become my disciples.”
Again, reflect on the metaphor of the living temple used in Scripture. As Edmund Clowney has phrased it, Christ himself is “the final temple.”3 (3“The Final Temple,” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973), 156-189.) Yet God has been pleased to constitute believers [as] stones in this “spiritual house,” with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Now note the emphasis of 1 Pet 2:5. Here believers are called “living stones.” It could not be otherwise, since they are in vital union with Christ, the Prince of life. Clowney sums it up thusly:
“When we view the glory of the spiritual temple of the New Covenant, it would seem that no further heightening is possible. The true Son of David and true Son of God has come. All that the temple means is fulfilled in Him and in His people. The Gentiles are brought in and the temple of living stones grows in glory and holiness“4 (4Ibid, pp 186–187).
“The temple of living stones grows in glory and holiness”—that almost says it all. But not quite. Read the verses which follow, and you learn that the radiant life which is in the church cannot be concealed:
- First, in v. 9a, the church is defined as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.” On a practical level, then, the theology of church order for the average Reformed Christian is tied in with the acquisition, maintenance, and use of physical property called a “church.”
- The pastor is instinctively viewed as the only real worker among God’s people. No one would be happy with his being called “father,” but he nonetheless often is given and accepts a priestly role. As a religious professional he is paid to pray for the people, to study the Bible for them, to visit the sick, to discipline the erring, and to evangelize the lost. Besides all this, he is chief administrator for the church. He is the key figure in maintaining “church order.”
- The elders as a whole are regularly understood to be policy-makers and decision-makers on “important matters.” But rarely do they get involved in teaching the Scriptures to men so as to disciple them in obedience to Christ or in visiting the sick or in evangelizing the lost.
- The deacons, if they even exist in the congregation, may do the work of trustees in caring for the building or taking up the offering. Occasionally, they may visit the sick or minister to the poor. But they have no consistent plan or program for finding needs in their own congregation, much less in the community.
- In this setting, the members of the Reformed congregation are often characterized by passivity. They know better, but they witness infrequently, and sometimes not at all. Perhaps it would be overstating things to say they come to worship in order to watch the pastor or mechanically to follow his leading. But nonetheless their participation in worship may become habitually routine and distant, the sure path to complacency and zero growth. Why? The answer is that “good order” seems to require that the worship service follow exactly the same outline week after week. The gods of cultural order also insist that the service be no longer than one hour in length, with the sermon limited to twenty-five or thirty minutes at the most.
This situation may appear to be harmless. But remember: No one can be neutral before God’s Word. Religious man in the presence of God’s Word either believes and lives or disbelieves and dies. The refusal to apply the Word of God to ourselves concretely is, in reality, a dangerous rejection of its authority over our lives.
In such a context, all things may seem to be calm and safe. For a time, the congregations may not be troubled either by blasphemous heresies or by gross immorality. But then it gradually becomes apparent that a withering dryness has crept into many lives. The preaching may be excellent in many respects, but it does not come like healing water to thirsty ground. Practical atheism begins to dominate once godly homes. Hearts fill up with anxieties. Increasingly men and women live for material comforts. They begin to forget how to pray and hardly know what is meant by the cry: “Abba, Father.” And if they continue to read the Bible, they do so with anesthetized minds.
In some congregations the winter of cold orthodoxism soon covers all the spiritual landscape; in other churches the spiritual body is progressively lulled into the deadly sleep of Laodicean lukewarmness. In Hebrews this hardening is called “the deceitfulness of sin” which, in turn, is closely related to “an evil, unbelieving heart.” In Romans Paul calls this a proud “conceit.” In Acts Paul and Barnabas described this evil trend in its full realization as man’s thrusting the Word of God from himself.
This last passage is worth a second look because it is the context for the previously cited triumph of the Word of God over the Gentiles. The Gentiles glorified the Word of the Lord and experienced its transforming power throughout “the whole region.” But we learn a sad, frightening fact: Men also may thrust the Word of God from themselves without realizing what they are doing. Sin, in a word, always moves men toward apostasy of heart unless checked by the mercy of God. In this instance God’s Word was rejected by Jews who had all the tradition and religious order of the elders. The very possession of this heritage makes it so difficult for them to see that they were far from God and the grace which is conferred upon men through faith in the Lord Jesus.
Thus, a false Judaism prevailed, a Judaism which proved to be both legalistic and Unitarian. It abandoned the Immanuel-principle of the history of redemption, with the emphasis on the nearness of the Triune God in the person of the Son. In such a theological setting, God’s written Word cannot be near the heart, nor can God come into the world in the personal Word. Jesus Christ may be honored by our lips, but He is no longer gripping our souls with the knowledge that He came to seek and save the lost.
But what we must see is that this repudiation of the Word of the Triune God has happened repeatedly in Reformed churches as well as other denominations. Reformed movements in Poland, France, England, Switzerland, and New England have seen deism and Unitarianism sweep the churches. For instance, a book like Joseph Haroutunian’s Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology, provides a case study of the decline of the New England congregational churches into a Unitarian “moral respectability” as a substitute for eternal life in Christ.
Now what is this heresy but the outward expression of hearts that refuse to submit to the Word of God and to the grace of God manifested in a crucified Savior. It is, moreover, a process difficult to detect if the viewer separates the three marks of the church from the vital growth generated through the preaching of the Word. In a word, we may unconsciously come to accept the uniform order of the cemetery as a substitute for the ordered life of Christ’s own body.
An Answer: Let us humbly study the Scriptures with renewed zeal in order to bring ourselves and our congregations into a radical, new obedience to the Word of God. From a renewed obedience of faith effective evangelism will inevitably grow and bear fruit.
One major purpose of our study has been to show that the Word of God is a hammer, a fire, a sword, and food. It changes people. It saves the lost and builds up believers. It does not change men in the abstract, apart from application. A hammer suspended in the air never broke a rock, a fire must burn something, a sword must cut, and food must be eaten.
Therefore, this means that first of all we ourselves must open our lives to the Word of God. It’s tremendous truth must continue to drive us to our knees before the majesty of Christ. Otherwise, we may end up like Eli, the priest, who was satisfied with a half-way obedience in disciplining his sons and thus came under the wrath of a holy God who always calls His servants to a total obedience (1 Sam. 2–4). In setting forth what he calls “elenctics” (“the conviction and unmasking of sin, and the call to responsibility”), J.H. Bavinck speaks vigorously and perceptively to this issue in the quotation which follows:
Elenctics receives the greatest support from its repeated awareness that the sharpest weapons must in the first place be turned against ourselves. We have frequently pointed out that the various tendencies embodied in the history of religion repeatedly occurred and still occur. To make it more concrete: the four tendencies we have just discussed are to be found within ourselves each day. It is not easy to have real fellowship with God. We can much more easily bury Him under a concept, shove Him away to an endless distance, dissolve Him in all sorts of secular realities, and make Him into a nice fairy tale of boundless beauty. Anyone who knows himself to any extent knows the finesse with which a man can escape from God and wrestle free from His grasp. To be really able to convict anyone else of sin, a person must know himself, and the hidden corners of his heart very well. There is no more humbling work in the world than to engage in elenctics. For at each moment the person knows that the weapons which he turns against another have wounded himself. The Holy Spirit first convicts us, and then through us he convicts the world.5 (5An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960), pp. 271–72.)
Let us now apply this principle to our method of selecting and training those who minister the Word of God. What God wants is men who are mature enough to turn “the sharpest weapon” against themselves, men who have let God’s Word search out “the hidden corners” of their own hearts. But what we have often done is emphasize qualifications for pastoral calling that are primarily intellectual and educational—and minimizing the Scriptural insistence that the gospel be a disciplinary force in the preacher’s life (1 Cor 9:2–27). But do the Scriptures say anything about educational requirements of a scholastic sort? Indeed, the Scriptures put the spotlight on the man’s proved ability to hold “fast the faithful word in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it” (Tit 1:9). But God’s Word does not tell us what particular form the training should take to qualify the man to perform this ministry.
But our theological tradition and denominational forms of government place much more emphasis on academic training. They would require that preachers of the gospel have university and seminary training and that anyone seeking ordination without this kind of background has substantial burden of proof resting on his shoulders. My purpose is not to conclude there is no value in classroom instruction, but to raise a question: Using the standards advocated by Charles Hodge, Robert Dabney, and Abraham Kuyper, could we accept into the pastoral office Peter and John, who are clearly described by Luke as “unschooled, common men” (Acts 4:13 NIV)? They were men who lacked the schooling supplied by rabbinical education.
We could say in reply, “It might seem that our standards for receiving pastors differ from the standards of the Word of God. But you must remember that Peter and John were apostles uniquely qualified by the gifts and calling of the Spirit to fulfill their office. Therefore, you cannot apply to pastors what must be confined to apostles.”
But it is still of great interest that the Lord chose a company of apostolic leaders who, with the exception of Paul, were not trained in the schools of the rabbis. Similarly, it is of great interest that in the description of the elder-bishop in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 3 nothing is said about formal educational requirements for this office. And nothing is said anywhere in Scripture about academic standards as prerequisites for ordination.
What the Scriptures do say is:
- Elder-bishops must know the Word of God thoroughly as a matter of earnest conviction (Tit 1:9; 2 Tim 3:15–17). Like Ezekiel, servants of the Word must “eat” God’s message and then bring to men what has become part of their innermost being (Ezek 2:8–3:4). How a man receives the Scriptures, i.e., the way in which they enter into his life and claim him, will largely determine his communication of them to others.
- They also must know it in such a way that they can use it in teaching sound doctrine and refuting heretics (Tit 1:9). Above all, they must know and love the system of doctrine that lifts up salvation by sovereign grace.
- And they must manifest a personal and family life brought to Christian maturity through the transforming power of the Word of God (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit 1: 5–8). From Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 we learn that God is majoring in mature men, men with commendable home relations who have had time to bring up believing children and have earned a public reputation for godliness, hospitality, wisdom, and personal discipline.
Still even these standards were probably not intended to represent the ceiling of maturity but to provide minimum safeguards against “weak and ignorant men” abusing the church of God. On the positive side, the New Testament depicts office-bearers as men filled with the Holy Spirit. All believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18), but office-bearers must be filled with the Spirit (2 Tim 1:6–7; 1 Tim 4:11–16; Acts 6:3–5).
In Acts 6, for instance, the proto-deacons, whose first task was to wait on tables, were chosen on the basis of visible evidence of the Spirit’s prominence in their lives. The apostles directed the church: “But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom …” (Acts 6:3). In the verses which follow, Stephen in particular is characterized as “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5) and “full of grace and power” (Acts 6:8).
Now if these are the spiritual qualifications for men who are to wait on tables how much more important it is for the men who minister God’s Word to be filled with the Spirit—and with the wisdom, faith, grace, and power which He alone imparts?
What it comes down to is that we have established an order, a method, for men to “enter the ministry” which minimizes the order set forth in Scripture. As a consequence, some men gifted for the ministry of the Word of God have been kept from Reformed pulpits, while others who have been able to meet the formal academic requirements have been ordained to the gospel ministry with sad results.
For an example of the problem this can create, the present writer knows a “ruling elder” who is one of the ablest preachers and Bible teachers in his own denomination. He has an excellent knowledge of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Nevertheless, a prominent leader in the denomination said to this man that the effective exposition and defense of the Scriptures makes necessary a long formal training. He also wondered whether it was wise, considering the elder’s age, size of family, and years of study ahead, for him to seek the pastoral office.
How surpassingly strange! But the leader was right. Under the present system, maturity, a believing household [with] five children, and a life spent in earning a fine public reputation in business really counted against the man’s becoming a pastor. The very qualities that the Scripture commends as necessary for the pastor are inadvertently converted into barriers to his ever becoming a fully recognized gospel preacher.
But suppose the standards set for pastors by the present systems of government in Reformed churches were modified by clearly defined biblical norms. In such a situation the Spirit-filled businessman mentioned above would be carefully examined as to faith, life, and knowledge. Then he would be put in possession of the office to which God has called him. His remarkable gifts for Bible teaching, personal counseling with families, and his fervent devotion to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster standards would enrich any church that he would serve.
In our own Philadelphia area, black pastors who in many instances are manifesting a considerable interest in the Reformed faith would be virtually compelled to serve in non-Reformed churches because they lack the formal educational requirements of our present system.
Thus, with pastors no longer drawn almost exclusively from among university men, the academic tone of so much of our preaching would likely be changed for the better. For example, the devout simplicity and vigorous faith of the black pastors could, through close association, help quicken the lives of us academically trained but sometimes rather joyless white ministers. In turn, the scholarly gifts of Reformed white pastors would enrich the lives of the black brothers, many of whom are passionately committed to acquiring a thorough knowledge of Scripture and systematic theology. It would then become apparent that training for pastors is a lifelong process which engages the whole man within the context of the missionary life and fellowship of the church of the Lord. Such training would not discard biblical content or minimize the need to know sound teaching. Instead, its aim is to combine clear intellectual knowledge with a heart hot for Christ and His glory.
The point is that with the man God has chosen and anointed to preach God’s Word, the transforming power of grace will be there. Evangelism will not be something forced upon the churches but the natural overflow of blessings which ensue when pastors speak with a holy authority (1 Pet 4:10–11).
But here we face another serious problem. Sometimes local congregations have less spiritual life than theological seminaries and Bible colleges. Consider for a moment how the life and order are expressed in typical congregations. What we find here is that life is firmly structured along the lines of the established “program.” If the congregation is somewhat enfeebled, the program will be fixed and yet rather minimal in its demands. Perhaps there will be two Sabbath services, Sunday school, prayer meeting, and women’s missionary society. If, however, the church is newly planted or led by a vigorous pastor, the program may include a proliferating series of children’s meetings, youth groups, recreational gatherings, adult training seminars, and a committee for plant expansion.
The value of some of these activities may be beyond dispute. But this is not the central issue. The central issue is: Has the program of the church been planned under the guidance of the Word of God? Or did it just grow? Did it originate as a matter of long-established habit? And, does it function as a channel for the salvation of non-Christians and the growth of God’s people?
But if God’s people desire to experience the fruitfulness which comes when they submit everything to His Word, they must be prepared to follow His order no matter what the cost. For His order alone can and does foster the life of the church.
However, what do we mean by God’s order? To answer this is first of all to see what God puts first in the life of the church. Take up the book of Acts again and even a cursory reading will disclose that God puts first the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5, 16:26). The fundamental principle is that God gives the Holy Spirit “to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32). However, Acts also makes clear that prayer is at the center of this obedience. Earlier Jesus had commanded His disciples to ask for the gift of the Spirit (Luke 11:9–13). In obedience to this command and to His directive to wait for the Spirit’s descent (Luke 24:49), the disciples came together for prayer (Acts 1:13–14). Perhaps they recalled that the Lord had received the Spirit while praying (Luke 3:21–22). But, however that may be, they “were continually devoting themselves to prayer” before Pentecost (Acts 1:14). The thought here is that they gathered together in one place and spent a great deal of time in prayer as a group of disciples. What defined them are the words: “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer” (NASB).
After Pentecost, prayer together continues to be the dominant feature of the life of the newly born church. The church prays daily (Acts 2:42), before preaching with power (Acts 4:24–31), before ordaining Stephen and the other proto-deacons (Acts 6:6), at the time of Peter’s release (Acts 12:12), and upon the occasion of sending out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (Acts 13:3).
If one examines the context of the passages cited above, he will note that prayer is followed either by a powerful ministry of the Word of God or by some distinctive work of God. What becomes indisputably clear is that the Word of God comes with power when believing prayer precedes and accompanies it. The conclusion is inescapable. Do men want preaching to manifest God’s own transforming power? They can never get this by mutual criticism or self-flagellation. For effective preaching of a Biblical kind depends entirely on God’s blessing, and God’s blessing is secured by God’s people praying together.
What Reformed leaders must emphasize anew is that prayer in private and prayer as a body is not a matter of subjective preference. By teaching and example, the pastor must show the people of God that prayer is a calling upon the Father’s name in sure faith, based upon God’s covenant promises, and that believing prayer is itself a manifestation of kingdom presence and power (Luke 1:10, 13, 54; 3:31; 6:12–19; 9:18, 29-36; Matt 18:18–20; Mark 9:14–29). Before I became a pastor, a retired Christian Reformed pastor urged me, “Pray constantly, and whenever you gather with two or three believers, before you leave pray with them for God’s reviving work to take place.”
Here then is the answer to our need for biblical church renewal. The ministry of the Word falters among us because we neglect God’s way. Preaching is not magic, nor is the Bible a magical book which automatically confers a blessing upon those who read it or hear it read. Therefore, what must be done is to correct ourselves and keep prayer and the ministry of the Word of God together after the example of the apostles (Acts 6:4).
Therefore, pastors must study the Scriptures prayerfully, organize sermons prayerfully, and preach them prayerfully. This also means that the pastors must plead with the congregation to intercede most earnestly on behalf of their preparation and proclamation of the Word of God. To do otherwise is to mislead ourselves and the people of God as to the source of blessing and to foster an unconscious trust in the powers and gifts of leaders.
In terms of church order, we must establish our priorities in such a way that the life of the church is planned so that sufficient time is devoted to private and public prayer. Pastors and sessions must take much time to pray together; the program of the church must be planned to make sure that every believer is in at least one weekly prayer meeting; and prayer meetings must be structured so that there is time for prayer. Small groups in the church should expect to spend almost one-half their time in prayer. Small groups become centers of missionary life and grow a fervent heart for the harvest when the participants are taught how to pray according to 2 Thess 3:1: “Finally, brothers, keep praying for us that the message of the Lord may keep running rapidly and being glorified, even as it was with you” (my translation).
“May the Word of the Lord keep running rapidly in your life and ministry and bring glory to our exalted Father! In Jesus’ glorious name. Amen.”
C. John Miller. “The Word of God in the Life of the Church” (Unpublished). The C. John Miller Manuscript Collection, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO (1976).
