The Office of the Evangelist
That particular Scripture which refers to the office of the evangelist is found in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, the fourth chapter and the eleventh verse, “And he gave some apostles; and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.”
It is true that there is some difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of this passage of Scripture, and there are those who hold that the word “Evangelist” refers more to a principle than to a person, but it is likewise true that if a general consensus of opinion be taken of those who have labored conspicuously in the church in the past and present, that that interpretation would be favored which considers the evangelist as a person and his office as of divine appointment.
Wishing to know the interpretation given concerning Eph. 4: 11, by a recognized scholar in the church, Prof. W. G. Moorehead of the 179
United Presbyterian Theological Seminary, of Xenia, Ohio, has by request written as follows:
1. Christ alone is the source of all ministry; he gives both the gifts and the men; “he gave,” etc.
2. Four classes of ministries and ministers are enumerated:
{a) Apostles, Both here and in i Cor. 12: 28, these stand at the head. The apostle had certain qualifications and marks, seven in all;
1. Had seen the Lord, i Cor. 9:1.
2. A witness of his resurrection. Acts
I 22.
3. Received his commission directly from Christ. Galatians 1:1.
4. Inspired. John 14:26; 16:13; Gal. i:
13, 14.
5. Had miraculous powers. 2 Cor. 12: 12.
6. Founded the Church, i Cor. 3: 10, 11; Ephesians 2: 20.
7. Had supreme authority. John 20: 22, 23; I Cor. 5:4, 5-
{b) Prophets, Described in i Cor. 14. He seems to have been one who had a special divine message, and this did not alway refer to future events; it had often to do with present
OFFICE OF THE EVANGELIST 18i
conditions, and also with the past. I think the prophet was inspired in his utterances. Both prophet and apostle were extraordinary offices, and had no successors.
(r) Evangelists. Compare Acts 8. I believe this office was as distinct and definite as that of apostle or prophet, though both the latter may have had evangelistic gifts, as no doubt they had. But the primitive church recognized the office of evangelist, as the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” belonging almost certainly to the first century proves. The evangelist corresponded somewhat closely with our modern missionary. He preached the gospel to the unsaved, as Philip did in Samaria, as Timothy was exhorted to do. 2 Tim. 4:5.
He was specially set apart, at least sometimes, for his mission, as the passages in Timothy above indicate. Perhaps Paul and Barnabas were also. Acts 13: i, 2. In the case of Philip there appears to have been no action; but we must remember that he with the other six had been “set apart” by the apostles before he went to Samaria. Acts 6.
(d) Pastors and Teachers, This clearly is a single office, not two. He who held it fulfilled both its functions, though no doubt his chief work was to teach, /. e.y build up the saints in the faith and godliness. I think, therefore, that in this passage in Ephesians we have the list of ministries of the Christian Church; viz.: Apostles, who under Christ founded it; prophets, who declared the will of God for the guidance of the Church; evangelists, who carried the Gospel everywhere, “for the obedience of faith.” Pastors and teachers, whose duty it was to feed and guide the flock of God. I believe, also, that the modern Church has lamentably failed to recognize the office of the evangelist and accordingly has reaped its harvest in weakness and limitations of increase and growth. I believe that if the Church would solemnly recognize this gift, and set it apart, and use it for the glory of the Lord and the salvation of men, there would be far less of complaint than there now is. But there is an evangelistic gift, which is of the spirit, and that alone justifies such recognition. Neither a university, nor a theological seminary, nor a presbytery, nor a bishop can “make either a pastor and teacher, or an evangelist. Only the glorified Christ can.” With the desire that we might have also the opinion of a successful and highly reputed pastor evangelist, the following has been sent to me for this chapter.
“With regard to the field, as a matter of course, many men are disposed to contend that they are not evangelists who work in the home field; that the Scriptural evangelist is only one who works in unoccupied territory, where the churches have not yet been organized. This contention I do not believe could possibly be maintained. Paul’s first missionary journey was establishing churches; his second missionary journey was largely strengthening churches already organized. He was as much of an evangelist at one time as the other. The evident mark of God’s approval which rests upon the work as it is being conducted by those workers who labor in the organized Church is a clear proof of, not only the need of such a work, but of God’s desire to have it done by special messengers. I believe that there is nothing more needed to-day than that the churches, as such, should be warned against the old and hurtful practice of employing any one who might choose to term himself an evangelist. The very reason why evangelism is in such disrepute, and has so many difficulties to meet in its work to-day, is because the churches persist in making use of inexperienced and unordained men.
*’ Formerly, the evangelist need know only the word of God in its spiritual import; he oiust now know the organized Church and how to make use of it in all its several dQ>artments — the Young People’s societies, the Sabbath-school work and all men’s organizations as well as women’s.
“For an untrained man to come into a pastorate, who has never had experience hiipself in organizing and constructing the machinery of a churchy will almost surely result in a disrupting of the pastoral relation in that fiekL He charges the pastor with his failure to accomplish large results, and is himself unable to appreciate the real cause of the difficulty, because he has never himself been a pastor. The ordained evangelist should be one who has formerly been a pastor. I once heard Mr. Moody make this strong statement: that no one should be an evangelist who had not previously been a pastor. He himself recognized that he had his pastoral training in Chicago which was true. Then, too, the modern evangelist must necessarily be a trained organizer. If he is not thus gifted naturally, he must be so acquainted with methods of others as to be able to put them into use.”
The evangelist is frequently spoken of as being professional I do not at all like the word professional as applied to the evangelist, and only use it in the sense in which one niight speak of the pastor a3 professional and for want of a better expression.
I have known the Church long enough to know that he is needed and his work is absolutely necessary to the well rounded out experience of the Church. I have studied my Bible with sufficient care to know that his office is of divine appointment and can no more be obliterated than the office of pastor or teacher, and yet as a matter of fact the real soul winner is the pastor, his first assistant is the church-member and the evangelist is the specialist who comes to perform a needed service at a critical time. If he is a man with a message he ought to be received with wide-open arms and with true heartfelt sympathy by those with whom he comes to labor.
There is no question at all but what the evangelist has fallen in the past into disrepute and for various reasons. Possibly because in these days any one can be an evangelist if he wishes to be. If he grows weary of his pastorate, if he has failed in other walks of life, then he constitutes himself an evangelist and frequently does harm to the sacred office and works havoc among the members of the church. It is quite true that there are some men who are evangelists as some one has put it, for revenue only, but it is my privilege to know as many evangelists as possibly any other man and this criticism no more applies to the evangelist than to the pastor. There are men in both positions who reflect little credit upon the office they hold. There are many men in the position who have really an honest desire to do good and yet work harm because they are not trained for the position, but at whose door shall we place the responsibility for this, if not at the door of those who have in charge the educational work of the church of Christ. We train our ministers and give them special oversight. They are not licensed if they are not orthodox. Their license is recalled if at any time they become heterodox either in living or teaching. We train our Young Men’s Qiristian Association secretaries, and we are coming more and more to train the superintendents of our Sunday-schools, but who knows of a place where evangelists may be thoroughly trained? There are institutions it is true sending forth pastor’s helpers, but the real evangelist who may rank side by side with the pastor intellectually and socially, where is he being trained to-day? It ought to be a part of the work of the theological seminaries. I cannot understand how it can at all be inconsistent with the highest scholarship to train men to evangelize, nor why the seminary should not be a place where men’s souls would be set on fire for God. It is because the church has exercised little oversight in this matter that irresponsible evangelists have gone forth into the church, sometimes doing a work it is true which causes the very angels to rejoice, but frequently leaving the church in a worse condition than when they found it, but when all this has been said, still it is true that there are men who are called of God to be evangelists. I am quite sure as a rule that they ought to have a pastoral experience in order that they may be in sympathy with pastors whom they help. However there are notable isxceptions to this — but whether ordained or not
—they ought to be free to preach wherever God may call them, and yet in every way responsible to the church with which they may be identified. They are evsigelists because their peculiar gifts are along evangelistic lines, their messages are frequently too intense for the regular life of the church, they are sometimes not careful enough in matters of detail without which the church is weak; they are not cUways pastors without which service up church is strong. They chafe under restriction like birds beating their wings against the bars of a cage, and they are called of God to go forth from city to city as Paul went, as the Wesleys went, as Finney, Whittle, Moody, and a host pf others have gone. The church ought to bid them Godspeed, but there are certain rules which should govern the evangelist of the chuirch.
First: They ought to be men under control of the courts of the church so far as their preaching and teaching is concerne4.
Second: They ought to be men with the sympathy and confidence of their brethren with whom they have labored.
Third: They ought to be men with a message. There ar hundreds of such men to-day in the church who are but waiting for an indication that the church would stand by them if they should attempt this work, and their going forth would mean a mighty revival of religion from one end of the country to the other.
There are certain places where evangelists are needed.
First: On the western frontier. To assist the men who are pastors of our home mission churches who are so busy in the work which has been committed to their care that they have almost no time and frequently are too weary to make a personal appeal to the unsaved, an evangelist would be an inspiration and in many cases lift liie church free from the support of the Boards of Home Missions.
Second: They are needed in the smaller cities and towns where pastors easily grow discouraged because they must of necessity move in a comparatively small circle. They are in many cases away from the centres of life and influence, in some of the rural churches they meet few men knowing more than themselves in their own line of work, and in such places it is the easiest thing in the world for a minister to lose his zeal and have the power taken from his message. Not infrequently it is in such a condition that they turn away from the old well-trodden paths of the orthodox and seek after the liberal interpretation of truth. They think this may draw the people to them and restore their old position of effectiveness and power but alas what a mistake. An evangelist well equipped mentally and spiritually would be an untold blessing in such a community and would save the church not only but the man too who preaches, and if scores of souls should be saved yet the still greater work would be the inspiration and hope breathed into the soul of the discouraged preacher.
Third: They are needed in the larger and more successful churches, in the rich and influential communities, by the pastor who has toiled for years and has led a certain number of people to the border land of the kingdom and for some reason can lead them no further. These men almost break the minister’s heart, and not infrequently a new voice telling the old story, a new way of conducting the service will arouse conviction and quicken the desire to know the Saviour. It was my privilege to stand side by side with one of the distinguished pastors in this country who introduced me in this way, “I have been twenty-five years in this church. I have married the most of you, baptized your children, and buried your dead. I have preached to you faithfully and I have seen many of you come into the Kingdom of God, but I can count a score or more this morning who are still unsaved. It is an awful thing to be together for a quarter of a century with those whom you love and then away from each other for eternity. It is with the hope that I might win you that I have asked my friend here to come and preach, not a new Gospel, but the old story, in perhaps a new way,” With tears and much emotion he sat down. I have reason to believe that his heart was made glad by the coming of some of these at least for whom he was concerned.