"Levels" of Evangelists

[Wilson Deaton]

Our Manual calls for three "levels" of evangelists: registered, commissioned, and tenured.

Basically, these levels are based on length of service... (registered--elder or district licensed who declares pursuit of evangelism; commissioned--"registered" for two years; tenured--commissioned for four or more years)

My question is this: What is the purpose of such designations? TO ME it seems rather meaningless except in terms of status.

Among other things, whether we like it our not, if I announce that I have a commissioned evangelist coming, NONE of the laity in my church would have any idea what the "commissioned" qualifier means. I would go so far as to say that MOST of the rest of the laity across the country wouldn't either... (Honestly, I had a general idea but had to look it up for accuracy, myself.)

Can someone here give the actual logic used when these labels were created? What aspect of evangelism makes such designations important but doesn't apply to pastors? That is, why not registered, commissioned, and tenured pastors?

Has the time come to do away this artificial hierarchy? (Remember my mantra: simplify, simplify, simplify...)

Any other thoughts on the issue?

Wilson

[Ryan Scott]

My impression was that they began as a way for pastors to know which evangelists who cold call them for a meeting had been through a denominational accountability process. More practically, it seemed like a way to keep privileged position for those evangelists who had developed a full time ministry. It seems like the number of meetings held each year has a lot to do with getting and maintaining various statuses.

Of course this process went out the window for me when I heard two of the tenured evangelists (who are also on the committee overseeing evangelists) preach revivals with some terrible, hurtful, troublesome theology. If the designations don't actually mean anything, there isn't much point to them.

[Roland Hearn]

Bureaucracy loves labels. At some point it would have made sense to someone but making sense is absolutely no criteria for maintaining an established system. I’m with you we should simplify. Perhaps two categories would suffice: “currently able to afford to eat” and “hey I deserve to get a call to you know,” would help to clarify whether or not an evangelist has even a modicum of ability.

[Michael Flowers]

Our Manual calls for three "levels" of evangelists: registered, commissioned, and tenured.

Basically, these levels are based on length of service... (registered--elder or district licensed who declares pursuit of evangelism; commissioned--"registered" for two years; tenured--commissioned for four or more years)

My question is this: What is the purpose of such designations? TO ME it seems rather meaningless except in terms of status.

Among other things, whether we like it our not, if I announce that I have a commissioned evangelist coming, NONE of the laity in my church would have any idea what the "commissioned" qualifier means. I would go so far as to say that MOST of the rest of the laity across the country wouldn't either... (Honestly, I had a general idea but had to look it up for accuracy, myself.)

Can someone here give the actual logic used when these labels were created? What aspect of evangelism makes such designations important but doesn't apply to pastors? That is, why not registered, commissioned, and tenured pastors?

Has the time come to do away this artificial hierarchy? (Remember my mantra: simplify, simplify, simplify...)

Any other thoughts on the issue?

Wilson

I think it has to do with the fact that anyone can call a church up and offer to preach a revival for their them, how is a pastor to know anything about what this person does in their ministry? By having the three tier system (or any system) it means that they have been recognized by the denomination as those who are called to be evangelists, and not just someone who realized that some churches pay really well for a revival. It also indicates those who have committed their life to evangelism. Now, I'm not exactly certain why "tenured" is used as it promotes security in ones position (which evangelists really do not have). But if I get a call from a tenured evangelist (or even registered or commissioned) and a call from someone who is not recognized as an evangelist by the denomination, I will always incline toward the actual evangelist.

I don't have a problem with pastors preaching revivals, but one of my peeves is that most churches (especially larger) have gone to calling in pastors from other large churches to do their revivals instead of the evangelists whom the Church has confirmed a specific call of to do such work. We have very few evangelists anymore who can keep even half of their dates filled which I find sad.

Honestly, I appreciate the three levels/tiers. It lays everything out nice and neat and does the initial investigative work for me by indicating what this person has done to become an evangelist, aside from feeling inclined to speak in churches (because there are many out people and some evangelists who should not). I think this is one area that really doesn't need simplifying, its already pretty easy to understand. It's much like the pastor side of things: Local Licensed, District Licensed, and then Ordained (all based upon years of service and education). Since the role of evangelist and the role of pastor are entirely different, it makes sense that there would be two different, yet similar, systems for recognizing and authorizing them.

[Chuck Millhuff]

I was a part of creating the TENURED classification. It is for the pastor that wants to find the experienced LIFE TIME evangelist when looking for an evangelist to call. It was never ment to be a title but information for the pastor. It has worked to a degree. Still hearing the evangelist, talking with him or her and recamodations are still the best approach.
Dr Chuck Millhuff
Revivalism Coordinator Ret

[Chuck Millhuff]

Dan BOHI is a layman and has by far the largest slate in the church preaching on district tours and in our largest and smallest churches. In my 50 years of evangelizing I have never seen a servant meteor like him. Thus proving the point that revivals get you revivals and always have not titles. He is self taught to a remarkable degree with a board guiding him that is renound in our Zion.
Donald Owens, Gordon Wetmore, David Felter, and a few outstanding lay persons. Tenured ? Like Billy Sunday he isn't even ordained. If you want to keep up with him go to DANBOHI@AOL.COM and sign up to pray for him as the spirit leads you. I wish he was Tenured and I also wish I had his slate. He is the exception and the rest of us should follow the denominational path as I did all the way through the earned NTS Doctorate.('98) The day of revival meetings is suffering to be sure as statistics show. Yet there are wonderful evangelists out there that are both gifted and anointed. How to let you know who they are is the challenge. God help us all !

[Michael Flowers]

Dan BOHI is a layman and has by far the largest slate in the church preaching on district tours and in our largest and smallest churches. In my 50 years of evangelizing I have never seen a servant meteor like him. Thus proving the point that revivals get you revivals and always have not titles. He is self taught to a remarkable degree with a board guiding him that is renound in our Zion.
Donald Owens, Gordon Wetmore, David Felter, and a few outstanding lay persons. Tenured ? Like Billy Sunday he isn't even ordained. If you want to keep up with him go to DANBOHI@AOL.COM and sign up to pray for him as the spirit leads you. I wish he was Tenured and I also wish I had his slate. He is the exception and the rest of us should follow the denominational path as I did all the way through the earned NTS Doctorate.('98) The day of revival meetings is suffering to be sure as statistics show. Yet there are wonderful evangelists out there that are both gifted and anointed. How to let you know who they are is the challenge. God help us all !

Thanks for the reminder, I had completely forgotten about him as I posted. Once again though, he is an individual who has been specifically called to evangelism, to going to churches and reigniting the fire within them. I was skeptical (and freaked out) when I first heard him speak at M11 but in the past 14 months as I have listened to some of his audio (a friend loaned me) and such, I have grown to appreciate what he is doing, and the passion with which he speaks. I do personally wish that he had more formal theological training, but ultimately the fruit is the testament to his call from God. This is the same for any evangelist.

[Roy Richardson]

Thanks for the reminder, I had completely forgotten about him as I posted. Once again though, he is an individual who has been specifically called to evangelism, to going to churches and reigniting the fire within them. I was skeptical (and freaked out) when I first heard him speak at M11 but in the past 14 months as I have listened to some of his audio (a friend loaned me) and such, I have grown to appreciate what he is doing, and the passion with which he speaks. I do personally wish that he had more formal theological training, but ultimately the fruit is the testament to his call from God. This is the same for any evangelist.

From a small-church pastor perspective, it is really hard to know how to find an evangelist who will fit your church. I have seen some evangelists come in and make a mess that required significant cleanup by the staff. I have also seen others come in and provide a significant word from the Lord at that moment. But, if you don't know the folks, it is hard to gauge them.

Would it be out of line to have a LinkedIn kind of rating system where past customers (pastors) could provide insight into how they work? Otherwise, I only have those whom I have heard as my reference points.

[Wilson Deaton]

It's much like the pastor side of things: Local Licensed, District Licensed, and then Ordained (all based upon years of service and education). Since the role of evangelist and the role of pastor are entirely different, it makes sense that there would be two different, yet similar, systems for recognizing and authorizing them.

Actually, you have stumbled upon part of the problem (as I see it).

The evangelists use these three tiers IN ADDITION to the local, district licensed, elder designation. That is, "registered evangelists, commissioned evangelistsss, or tenured evangelists," must already be district licensed or an elder.

Wilson

[Mike Schutz]

Thanks for the reminder, I had completely forgotten about him as I posted. Once again though, he is an individual who has been specifically called to evangelism, to going to churches and reigniting the fire within them. I was skeptical (and freaked out) when I first heard him speak at M11 but in the past 14 months as I have listened to some of his audio (a friend loaned me) and such, I have grown to appreciate what he is doing, and the passion with which he speaks. I do personally wish that he had more formal theological training, but ultimately the fruit is the testament to his call from God. This is the same for any evangelist.

Actually, you have stumbled upon part of the problem (as I see it).

The evangelists use these three tiers IN ADDITION to the local, district licensed, elder designation. That is, "registered evangelists, commissioned evangelistsss, or tenured evangelists," must already be district licensed or an elder.

Wilson

I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem.

While such information may not be sufficient in calling an evangelist, it does communicate some information.