The Clash of Cultures: Evangelistic vs. Teaching Approaches

In the Reformed tradition, the worship service is often the centerpiece of Christian life. But there's a split in how these services are structured and what they aim to achieve. On one side, you have the Evangelistic Approach—think fiery sermons, calls to conversion, and a focus on reaching the unchurched. On the other, there's the Teaching Approach—deep dives into scripture, theological reflection, and a focus on the spiritual growth of the congregation. Both have their merits, but they also bring a set of challenges that can create tension within a church community.

The Evangelistic Approach: Saving Souls, One Sermon at a Time

This approach is all about impact. Evangelistic services aim to convert the unsaved and revive the weary. The sermons are often passionate, urgent, and filled with calls to action. There's usually a strong emphasis on personal testimonies, altar calls, and sometimes even a bit of theatrical flair.

Pros:

• Accessible: The language is often straightforward and aimed at people unfamiliar with church jargon.

• Emotional Engagement: The service tends to be emotionally charged, making it memorable.

• Mission-Focused: It keeps the church outward-facing, constantly thinking about the community and those outside the faith.

Cons:

• Shallow Teaching: There's often a lack of depth in scriptural teaching, as the focus is on the basics of the gospel.

• Burnout: Constantly gearing services towards evangelism can lead to fatigue among regular churchgoers who crave deeper teaching.

• Short-Term Focus: Converts may not always be adequately discipled, leading to a high turnover rate.

The Teaching Approach: Building a Robust Faith

On the flip side, the Teaching Approach focuses on discipleship and spiritual maturity. The sermons are often expository, going verse by verse through the Bible, with a heavy dose of theological depth. The goal is to build a solid foundation in the faith, equipping believers to live out their faith in everyday life.

Pros:

• Deep Roots: It fosters a congregation that's well-versed in scripture and doctrine.

• Sustainability: Members are often better equipped to handle life's challenges because of the robust teaching they receive.

• Community Building: The focus on growth and maturity can create a tight-knit, supportive church community.

Cons:

• Inward-Focused: This approach can sometimes become too insular, with little emphasis on reaching out to the community.

• Intellectual Overload: For new believers or seekers, the depth of teaching can feel overwhelming or irrelevant.

• Lack of Urgency: The absence of evangelistic fervor can lead to complacency in sharing the gospel.

The Tension: Can We Have Both?

In a Reformed context, where scripture and doctrine are held in high regard, the tension between these approaches is palpable. The Reformed emphasis on God's sovereignty in salvation lends itself naturally to the Teaching Approach. However, the Great Commission calls for an outward, evangelistic thrust. Where does that leave us?

Some churches try to balance both, but it's not easy. Often, you'll find a pendulum swing—churches that once leaned heavily into evangelism might pivot towards teaching when they realize their members are spiritually shallow, and vice versa.

The Verdict: Honor God and His Word

Ultimately, the choice between these approaches should be guided by the Word of God, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the needs of the congregation, in that order. We do not want to adopt unbiblical practices to appease new converts or unbelieving seekers that are in our church, but we don't want to turn a blind eye to their needs either. The reality is that most parishioners in the church will be Christians, and they need to be fed. The best approach lies somewhere in between. Having small groups where new converts can meet people and have their questions answered is a great idea, and having a solid evangelist teaching program within the church could promote a desire for folks to grow in that area. The sermons should be biblical and theological but not make people want to fall asleep.

In an ideal world, a church would seamlessly integrate both, offering deep, doctrinal teaching that still burns with evangelistic fervor. We will not always get it right, and sometimes, we will lean one way or the other. As long as we remember, the church is called to be both a beacon of light and a pillar of truth.

In the end, the gospel must be proclaimed and taught, not just one or the other. It’s not a matter of choosing sides but of fusing the best of both worlds for the glory of God.