# Do you think this type of "street evangelism" works?



## paculina

I'm not really sure what to call it, so I'm calling it street evangelism for lack of a better term. 

I stood in line for over an hour at the DMV this morning and there were 2 guys there passing out tracts to everyone in line. Then one of them stood towards the front of the line and proceeded to preach a sermon of sorts of the gospel. Must have lasted 5-10 minutes. At some point they moved to the back of the line and started again. I can't tell you what he said, I wasn't listening that closely. 

I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train and/or handing out tracts.

Do you think this kind of method of preaching to a captive audience is effective? Do you think it's biblical? Do you think anyone really listens or people just get annoyed and tune out? Does it do the gospel message and/or the church's image more harm than good when people do this?


----------



## Tim

Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight. 

This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.

Consider this from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25:


> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (the scripture reference for this last clause is Acts 2:47)





> Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.



This is not a Roman Catholic doctrine, but a recognition that the church is the organization in which Christians operate. Accordingly, an evangelistic activity such as this should be seen as an activity of the church, not _just_ individuals.


----------



## jason d

We do stuff like that under out church... so it doesn't necessarily mean it is "an ecclesiology-free endeavor".

Going where people are and preaching the gospel is what we see all through Acts is it not?

Is it effective? Well, I would ask was the Word preached? If so then the Holy Spirit can use that to convert can He not?


----------



## Herald

Laurel,

I understand your question of, "is it effective." Personally, that question can lead to some negative conclusions if we are weighing the preaching of the Gospel by it's effectiveness. The Gospel is the means of salvation. Among the Reformed I doubt there is any question as to the quality of a Gospel presentation made from a pulpit as compared to street evangelism. The pulpit preacher has 45-60 minutes (on average) to deliver a message that could explore the Gospel both front and backwards. However, the street evangelist normally is in the place where sinners are found in abundance. I concur with Tim that the Gospel should be proclaimed by competent individuals who are ordained or sanctioned by the church for that very work. But that doesn't mean God will not honor his Word when preached by a layman at the DMV.

If I may be allowed an anecdotal story. In the early 1980's I became aware of the street preaching ministry of Open Air Campaigners. They had a unique method of presenting the Gospel through water color ink on sketch boards. I was fresh out of the military and wanted to see the Lord do a work in my hometown. I prevailed upon the local OAC missionary to come to our town around the holiday season to do some evangelistic work on the main shopping district in town. I had a few volunteers from our church. Together we set up tables, literature, bibles, and handed out hot cocoa to the passing shoppers. The OAC missionary set up his board and went to work. That first Saturday the response to the sketch board was abysmal, or so it seemed. Just one young man stopped by to look and he left right after the message was over. The next week, the Saturday before Christmas, we gave it one more try. The OAC missionary reluctantly came back one more time. There still was a very poor attendance over at the sketch board. However, that young man from the previous week came back. He engaged the missionary in conversation which continued for well over an hour. Our time was up so the other church members and I started packing up. We noticed that the young man was now in the van with the missionary and his assistant and they all had their heads bowed. They were praying. This young man placed his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ on that cold December afternoon. One year later he attended, with me, a bible college in New York State. Two years later he was in my wedding. Today he is serving the Lord faithfully in south central Pennsylvania. 

What's the point of my story? Am I trying to defend every type of evangelism; even those types that use questionable tactics? Absolutely not. I am saying the the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). Even though human efforts may be in error, the Gospel is not. If presented truthfully it is able to convert the worst of sinners in the most unlikely of venues. 

It's now nearly 25 years later. I'm no longer the fundamentalist Baptist I used to be. I'm a respected Reformed Baptist (insert tongue in cheek here). While I will never embrace error in presenting the Gospel, I pray I never lose the passion to proclaim it to whoever will listen.


----------



## Tim

I am glad that your church oversees such evangelistic activities, Jason. 

My point was that there is more to this activity than just the message. The Lord also tells us the manner and organization of the evangelism. Our effectiveness (in the Lord's eyes) increases the more we are conformed to His commands about how we are to go about making disciples of all nations. There is a specific organization given in the book of Acts. For example, "going where people are and preaching" (as you wrote) is connected to baptism. Both Baptists and Presbyterians would understand this as involving a formal connection with the visible church, among other things.


----------



## Rich Koster

I'm in agreement with Bill. I would add that some harm the _perceived image_ of the Church when they preach some works based, mean spirited, pseudo-gospel, but they can't hurt the true Gospel because it is backed by God.


----------



## SemperEruditio

Laurel,
As Bill said if the Gospel is preached then it works, regardless of what we see. My problem with this is that when this happens I being a Christian tune them out. I don't take too kindly to being shouted at and if I'm stuck in the area because I'm in line at the DMV it just adds to the frustration. I applaud the courage and passion this takes but my preference is to speak to those around me. Regardless if it's a one-to-one encounter or blasting a crowd with a megaphone in the end it's all a shotgun approach because we don't know who or what method the Holy Spirit will use.


----------



## Edward

paculina said:


> I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train



That happened on the train I was on a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was *highly ineffective*. Most folks looked up when he started, but quickly returned to their books, IPods, and naps. When I looked up a little later, he wasn't standing up at the end of the car anymore.


----------



## steadfast7

Tim said:


> Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.
> 
> This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.


 
I've never heard of this view and it's baffling to me. Is there a confessional statement regarding this? Must all instances of evangelism be mandated and overseen by the church? What about casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing? thanks.


----------



## Der Pilger

Tim said:


> Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.
> 
> This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.



I generally agree with this. Evangelism ideally should be done in and through the local church and overseen by the church leadership. Earlier this year I shut down an evangelistic ministry because it was not the result of having been sent by the local church. I urged the members to apply the approach/technique/skills they had honed in the ministry to evangelism in their own churches. Currently the only outreach ministry I'm involved in is with my church. I occasionally go out with others I know who do church-free, or parachurch, evangelism, but that is no longer my common practice, as it once was.

Having said that, I should also add that, since we are mandated to bring the gospel to the lost, going the parachurch route would be acceptable if one's own church were disobedient in this area. If I tried time and time again to get outreach ministry going in my church but the church as a whole kept dragging their feet, it would be wrong to let that keep me from helping fulfill the Great Commission. We shouldn't let the disobedience of others lead us to disobey as well.

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------




Edward said:


> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That happened on the train I was on a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was *highly ineffective*. Most folks looked up when he started, but quickly returned to their books, IPods, and naps. When I looked up a little later, he wasn't standing up at the end of the car anymore.
Click to expand...

 
How do you determine whether an evangelistic presentation is "effective" or not--by immediate results? And even if that happened and someone set aside their book/iPod, got out of their seat and expressed interest, how could you know whether real conversion was taking place? The term "effective" needs to be defined here.

A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified. Since the glory of God should be our primary goal in everything we do--including evangelism--then such public ministry is effective in that sense, for God is glorified whenever Christ is lifted up and His message of grace and salvation are proclaimed. That means that all evangelism, when done biblically, has a 0% chance of failure.


----------



## Tim

Nova said:


> I've never heard of this view and it's baffling to me. Is there a confessional statement regarding this? Must all instances of evangelism be mandated and overseen by the church? What about casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing? thanks.


 
Please see my above post, which quoted WCF 25:2. I don't think the problem is with casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing - this would fall under guidance of verses like:



> Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.



but notice that there is both a pro-active and re-active aspect to this verse.

It is rather formal and deliberate evangelism that should be overseen. There should be an assessment of such individuals to ensure that they are able to properly proclaim the gospel (i.e., is this person suitable for this task as part of the body?).


----------



## christiana

People out in the world, on the street, are often attracted and listen to all kind of speakers. Our part is to be faithful in presenting an accurate gospel. God's part is which hearts will be touched and respond!

I often accompanied my father on such street corner preaching, guitar playing, gospel singing adventures but I felt strangely uncomfortable, even embarrassed by it. Obviously this was before God came into my own heart.
When I was a child my father had a neon, gas lit, sign in the back window of our car that had in red, 'Jesus Saves' and in green, 'Heals'. I was quite embarrassed by that as well, having no understanding but preferring to not call such attention to ourselves.
Today I do love telling other about the doctrines of grace and how God saves sinners. It is with humble gratitude that I count myself a 'five point flaming Calvinist', though I'm sure some here would refute the accuracy of that statement in considering that I'm a reformed baptist. Soli deo gloria!


----------



## Edward

Der Pilger said:


> A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified.



A good point. 

But I still say when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Edward said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good point.
> 
> But I still say when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective.
Click to expand...


Read Acts 13:48. Did everyone listen? Did everyone believe? No, only those who were ordained to eternal life.

When the Spirit of God is working on His elect, they will listen. When He is not, they will ignore you regardless what you do, even if they appear to be paying attention.

The fact is, that most of the major reformers preached in the Open Air. John Knox, Charles Spurgeon and George Whitefield preached in the open air. This was HIGHLY unusual and unaccepted at this time in history, especially in Knox's time. I believe it was Whitfield that said he had pieces of dead rotten cat thrown at him.

I also would like to say, that no, Evangelism does not have to be directed by the local church. Now, I am Baptist, so this whole business is one of those places where I disagree with my Presbyterian brothers. But I believe Acts shows very clearly ALL members of the Church sharing their faith, and I rejoice when people do so. 

Now, certainly a person should be at least sanctioned by the body that they are a member of... but in our church, the Pastor not only sanctions all the members evangelizing, he let's them know if they are not doing so, they are being disobedient. If someone's Pastor does not sanction all to share the gospel, my suggestion for that person would be to find leadership elsewhere that does so.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

If you are one to think street preaching is ineffective, then what are you doing that is effective? I ask this as both a challenge and seeking information. I have done street preaching and seen fruit. And I have done street preaching and seen no fruit. I have also sat idle for too long worried about what is effective or not. I do believe going out and preaching Christ under the authority of the local church. But if the local church forbids it they better have a good reason. If they have no good reason then it is biblical to disobey them. 

There are many ways to engage people in preaching the Gospel to them. I am open always to new ideas. I have handed out tracks at city festivals and sought to talk with people about Christ. For example, I wrote a pamphlet on God's ordained standard for marriage and intimacy and handed them out at the Gay Pride day in our city. I am currently writing a booklet entitled "Jesus and the Pagan" and will be handing them out at the Pagan Pride Day in October. I will be putting a warning tract on each mailbox in my neighborhood concerning Jehovah Witness and Mormon doctrine as they have been through recently. And I am stating to think about a postcard campaign to area neighborhoods to invite people to church and engage them one-on-one at their homes. 

If what someone says is, "Well, that doesn't work." My answer is, "Ok. What does and let's go do it."


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*Go, Stand, Speak*



> *Acts 5:17-20*
> 
> Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.



I believe in the public proclamation of the Gospel (street preaching). I like what Spurgeon says to this effect:



> No sort of defense is needed for preaching out-of-doors; but it would need very potent arguments to prove that a man had done his duty who has never preached beyond the walls of his meetinghouse. A defense is required rather for services within buildings than for worship outside of them. Apologies are certainly wanted for architects who pile up brick and stone into the skies when there is so much need for preaching rooms among poor sinners down below.
> 
> C. H. Spurgeon
> _Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323_​



Now many would say, "when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective." And that Spurgeon lived in a different time when this kind of practice wasn't seen as so repulsive. But consider what Spurgeon says here:



> In one case the parish bull was let loose, and in others dogs were set to fight. The preachers needed to have faces set like flints, and so indeed they had. John Furz says: "As soon as I began to preach, a man came straight forward, and presented a gun at my face; swearing that he would blow my brains out, if I spake another word. However, I continued speaking, and he continued swearing, sometimes putting the muzzle of the gun to my mouth, sometimes against my ear. While we were singing the last hymn, he got behind me, fired the gun, and burned off part of my hair.
> 
> After this, my brethren, we ought never to speak of petty interruptions or annoyances. The proximity of a blunderbuss in the hands of a son of Belial is not very conducive to collected thought and clear utterance, but the experience of Furz was probably no worse than that of John Nelson, who coolly says, "But when I was in the middle of my discourse, one at the ouside of the congregation threw a stone, which cut me on the head: however that made the people give greater attention, especially when they saw the blood run down my face; so that all was quiet till I had done, and was singing a hymn."
> 
> C. H. Spurgeon
> _Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323_​



There was never a time when sinners rejoiced to see the man of God in the public square preaching Christ and him crucified. And it is no different today. We must be deliberate, intentional and systematic in our endeavors at open-air preaching. 

An interesting resource on this topic is _Go, Stand, Speak_. They have produced a documentary that is well worth taking a look at. The discription is as follows: 



> The film “Go. Stand. Speak” delves into the doctrine of public preaching with experts such as Pastor Albert N. Martin, Dr. George Grant, Paul Washer, Greg Gordon, Pastor John Reuther, Rusty Lee Thomas, David Legge, Ray Comfort, Stuart Migdon, Michael Marcavage, Jeff Rose, Shawn Holes, Sean Morris and other Christian leaders… and uncovers the big question…is this quiet, new move of public preaching something that is simply a trend, or is it again the beginning of a move of God where He is simply doing what He always has done…calling His ministers to go and preach His message of repentance and faith where the people gather in the public, regardless of culture, current trends, or the popularity of the message and method?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Thank you for the information on Go, Stand, Speak. Wonderful!


----------



## AThornquist

Ohhh I hate evangelism like this. I would much rather everyone in line never hear the Gospel from my lips and thus do all that I humanly can to aid in their damnation. 



Seriously though, is _any_ evangelism effective if the Lord is not giving life to the dead? Good on them for having enough concern for people who may be going to hell to look foolish by sharing the Good News. _Certainly_ that methodology can be easily used wrongly, but I wouldn't say the means itself is ineffective any more than friend-evangelism.


----------



## Damon Rambo

I am actually proud to say that the Street Preaching/Evangelism resurgence that we are seeing right now, is being led mostly by Reformed types. I am a street preacher myself, and know several others, both in the flesh, and on the net: we did a recent poll, and 80 percent of those involved in street ministry (Preaching and Evangelism), are Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. Why? Well for exactly the reason brought out in this thread. The Reformed man asks, "What does God want me to do?" regardless whether the world likes it or not (at least, in theory), whereas those of the Arminian persuasion conclude that since Street ministry doesn't "Work" they will do something else to trick people, er, I mean convince people to come to their churches...


----------



## Kevin

Tim, I disagree with your interpretation of wcf 25.2, off the top my head lc 108 seems to contridict your take on wcf 25. 

I think you are claiming that evangelism is only to be done when authorised by local churches? 

And re the op, no this is not effective. God may use any means to call sinners to himself, but that is not the question.

Just because we all agree that God *may* choose to use the most unclear, or innaudible, or obnoxious, or socially awkward, or culturally insensitive means to save some one. This DOES NOT mean that we then should mumble, or cultivate unclear versions of the gospel. Nor should we intentionally violate the social or cultural norms of our society, just because God may save some inspite of the weakness of his servants.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Kevin said:


> Tim, I disagree with your interpretation of wcf 25.2, off the top my head lc 108 seems to contridict your take on wcf 25.
> 
> I think you are claiming that evangelism is only to be done when authorised by local churches?
> 
> And re the op, no this is not effective. God may use any means to call sinners to himself, but that is not the question.
> 
> Just because we all agree that God *may* choose to use the most unclear, or innaudible, or obnoxious, or socially awkward, or culturally insensitive means to save some one. This DOES NOT mean that we then should mumble, or cultivate unclear versions of the gospel. Nor should we intentionally violate the social or cultural norms of our society, just because God may save some inspite of the weakness of his servants.


 
Jesus said people will hate us for the Gospel. If your gospel is not offensive to unrepentant unbelievers, you are doing something wrong. Street Preaching is biblical, and has been done by great men of God who lived in times when it was even less accepted than now. I do not care if it "violates the cultural norms"...sharing your faith in ANY fashion, violates cultural norms.


----------



## Kevin

Damon, please read my post & interact with what I said.

The fact that I know a miracle story of someone coming to faith in Christ by means of a tract left in a library book (I do) does not mean that leaving tracts in library books is the best way for evangelists to spend their time.

And no, shouting at people in a line-up @ the DMV is not the same as speaking out of doors in a public narket place in the past, when allmost every important message was proclaimed in the same way. There is a reason why we no longer have Town Criers. And it has nothing to do with the offense of the Gospel.

There is a vast difference between being offensive in the name of the Gospel, and the offense of the Gospel. there are many ways that I could be culturally & socially inapropriate in the pulpit on Sunday morning. Not sinfull, just inappropriate. This would be offensive in the name of the gospel, but very diferent from the offense of the gospel. If you could do that in church, how many more ways are there to do so outside of the church, at the DMV?


----------



## Damon Rambo

Kevin said:


> Damon, please read my post & interact with what I said.
> 
> The fact that I know a miracle story of someone coming to faith in Christ by means of a tract left in a library book (I do) does not mean that leaving tracts in library books is the best way for evangelists to spend their time.
> 
> And no, shouting at people in a line-up @ the DMV is not the same as speaking out of doors in a public narket place in the past, when allmost every important message was proclaimed in the same way. There is a reason why we no longer have Town Criers. And it has nothing to do with the offense of the Gospel.
> 
> There is a vast difference between being offensive in the name of the Gospel, and the offense of the Gospel. there are many ways that I could be culturally & socially inapropriate in the pulpit on Sunday morning. Not sinfull, just inappropriate. This would be offensive in the name of the gospel, but very diferent from the offense of the gospel. If you could do that in church, how many more ways are there to do so outside of the church, at the DMV?


 


I did read what you read, and I am interacting with it. We are talking about the public proclamation of the Gospel, which is a biblical mandate. Since we are commanded to preach the gospel in the public sphere, what is a "culturally acceptable" way of doing this?

And you are wrong. Public preaching was MUCH more culturally "abnormal" in John Knox's day than it is today. That is a fact. Before the reformers, for the centuries before, there WAS NO such thing. Even preaching itself was abnormal; for centuries the Latin Mass predominated the church. Charles Spurgeon was constantly criticized for his "counter cultural" street preaching. He wrote several defenses of this (which you can still read). Historically, you are simply incorrect.

Also, I challenge your claim that public proclamation is countercultural. Just yesterday, I saw a man with a sandwich board on the sidewalk, announcing 6 dollar pizzas at Dominos. No one seemed the list bit offended or put out that he was doing so.

I will say this; anyone who is not daily sharing their faith with strangers, everyday, do not have standing to criticize how others do it. You don't like how we are doing it? Then you get out and do it.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

I think you are starting off with the wrong question. Start off with, "is it biblical?" And it surely is. The prophets publicly called Israel to repent, John the Baptist did, and Jesus as well. George Whitefield, Spurgeon also had a public ministry. God has used this and continues to. Do people run towards the open-air preacher and gladly accept the message? Not most of the time. I'm sure its happened and am aware of times it has. But many mock, ridicule, and become aggressive. Yet, this is the means God uses to save men.


----------



## Kevin

Damon, one hour before I posted the above comment I had the oppourtunity to see a young man confess his faith in Christ in my study. I have known him for a few years & have shared the gospel with him many times. Does that qualify me according to your standard, to speak to this question?

Or did I disqualify myself by getting to know him and understand him while I introduced him to Christ?


----------



## Austin

Whether it is socially acceptable, or "effective," or not, I would say this falls into the category of preaching the Word in season & out. 

I think it was Dwight Moody who once said, "I like my way of doing evangelism better than your way of not doing it." After all, who knows what means the Lord will use? Scatter widely, trusting the Lord to bring in the harvest, I say. 

Now, that said, I am personally VERY uncomfortable with preaching like this. But then again, if someone else isn't, who am I to tell him to stop?


----------



## Herald

*MODERATOR NOTE*

I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.

There is only _one _means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Herald said:


> *MODERATOR NOTE*
> 
> I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.
> 
> There is only _one _means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.


 
Brother,

Yes, and thank you. I must say for my part, I have no problem with someone not doing it. Not everyone is called to preach, that is for sure. I have a HUGE problem when other Christians start criticizing the ones who are called, and are doing it, however. It is a biblical mandate. To me, its like criticizing people for taking the Lord's supper, or reading their Bibles.


----------



## Michael Doyle

Thank you Bill for your insight. I have street preached over and again and travelled around the country to street preach with the old GNN. I was very troubled in my spirit over the lack of discipline in the outreach. Time and again I found myself questioning these methods. Now to be sure, some who I have witnessed with were very gifted in these areas and had extreme compassion upon the hearers and to me exemplified the gospel message, which is the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord. Others seemed to "get off" at what they would deem shining light on the cockroaches to watch them scatter. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter but from experience agree with Bill`s premise, one should have oversight from his church and be sent.
I do not practice this activity much anymore but what I do is meet with men of my past and present to open the scriptures and discover the glory of the gospel together. In this some grow in Christ, others come to Christ and some have no change at all, and yet my joy is in the Lord for giving me the opportunity to disciple and make disciples in such a way. To His glory alone!
I commend those of you who have been gifted to witness in the street. May you be a true witness to the glory of Christ and the unfolding drama of His redemption as it is laid out in scripture.

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Reading through the posts, I cant find anyone criticizing anyone in the way you suggest Damon. I see debate over what constitutes effective methods bot no one calling you or those who are gifted out as disobedient. That is my observation anyhow.


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MODERATOR NOTE*
> 
> I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.
> 
> There is only _one _means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> Yes, and thank you. I must say for my part, I have no problem with someone not doing it. Not everyone is called to preach, that is for sure. I have a HUGE problem when other Christians start criticizing the ones who are called, and are doing it, however. It is a biblical mandate. To me, its like criticizing people for taking the Lord's supper, or reading their Bibles.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed.



> LBC 26:11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that *others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.*



Those who are gifted and fitted to preach and approved and called by their local church to preach, not only have freedom to preach, but have an _obligation_ to preach. Criticizing someone for performing a moral obligation is dangerous ground.


----------



## Scott1

paculina said:


> Do you think this kind of method of preaching to a captive audience is effective? Do you think it's biblical? Do you think anyone really listens or people just get annoyed and tune out? Does it do the gospel message and/or the church's image more harm than good when people do this?



It will be effective if God wants it to be effective, and in the way He chooses it to be effective. 

With the facts we have in the post, we might say there are general instances of it being in Scripture, e.g. even those preaching the gospel for wrong reasons, are in one sense commended.



> Philippians 1
> 
> 15Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
> 
> 16The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
> 
> 17But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
> 
> 18What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.



Some, perhaps many or all will be annoyed and "tune out," but that does not limit God's ability to use it.

Nothing can really harm the gospel message, but circumstances can be used of God to make it more difficult for those who truly share it.

It would be wrong to share the gospel with the intention of harming the church, or its dissemination, but we are not given that as a basis here.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------




Tim said:


> Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.
> 
> This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.



It would seem that the issue of someone not being connected to a local communion of believers might be separate from the method.

It would be sin, whether by ignorance or rebellion, to live one's life, "ministry" apart from the visible body of Christ (e.g. no discipline, no taking of the Lord's supper, no tithing (giving), no service there).

It's also clear that God has specifically appointed people to carefully teach His Word and administer authority in the covenant community (church).

But we don't have enough information to even know how these folks were tied in to a local church (if at all).

But is it wrong for believers, who are not officers, to ever share the gospel in words in a perhaps unusual manner?

I don't think Scripture would say it is.

Further, even when it is done with wrong motives, the apostle commended it, because He recognized that the power of the Word of God is not dependent on technique, or motives of the person using it.

Those techniques or motives may be wrong biblically, but God is in no way limited in using it.


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> paculina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this kind of method of preaching to a captive audience is effective? Do you think it's biblical? Do you think anyone really listens or people just get annoyed and tune out? Does it do the gospel message and/or the church's image more harm than good when people do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be effective if God wants it to be effective, and in the way He chooses it to be effective.
Click to expand...

 
I would agree and add that its effectiveness is also tied to the fervency of the prayers of the church that has called him to preach.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

[BIBLE]Philippians 1:17-18[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]mark 9:38-41[/BIBLE]


----------



## Tim

Kevin said:


> Tim, I disagree with your interpretation of wcf 25.2, off the top my head lc 108 seems to contridict your take on wcf 25.
> 
> I think you are claiming that evangelism is only to be done when authorised by local churches?


 
I am not sure how WLC 108 contradicts my interpretation, but you said this off the top of your head...

What I am claiming is that Christians (i.e., one part of the body) should not "amputate" themselves from the church (i.e., the rest of the body) when they engage in evangelism (i.e., an activity of the body; the church is the entity to which the great commission was given). Since the bible provides many guidelines and qualifications for preaching of the word and formal ministry, the more formal one gets with their evangelism, the more necessary it is that they have the sanction of the Biblically-ordained leadership structure of the church body. 

There is a semantic discussion regarding the word _evangelism_ that I don't wish to enter at this time, but when one or two individuals pre-meditate a time of evangelism at a set time and location, I don't see it unreasonable in the least that this be should conducted as an overseen activity of their church body.


----------



## calgal

paculina said:


> I'm not really sure what to call it, so I'm calling it street evangelism for lack of a better term.
> 
> I stood in line for over an hour at the DMV this morning and there were 2 guys there passing out tracts to everyone in line. Then one of them stood towards the front of the line and proceeded to preach a sermon of sorts of the gospel. Must have lasted 5-10 minutes. At some point they moved to the back of the line and started again. I can't tell you what he said, I wasn't listening that closely.
> 
> I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train and/or handing out tracts.
> 
> Do you think this kind of method of preaching to a captive audience is effective? Do you think it's biblical? Do you think anyone really listens or people just get annoyed and tune out? Does it do the gospel message and/or the church's image more harm than good when people do this?


 
Did they politely hand out tracts or did they get in people's faces? That would sort of skew my answer (I would be more annoyed or bemused than anything else).


----------



## Der Pilger

Edward said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good point.
> 
> But I still say when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective.
Click to expand...

 
In that case, every time Jesus was tuned out, or Paul was tuned out, etc., they were being "ineffective." I think your criterion is off the mark. God measures success with criteria far different from the world's.

The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this: When you think you're ineffective because people are tuning you out, it's a short step from there to an unbiblical kind of pragmatism that uses man-centered, carnal, marketing tactics so as to be "effective" and draw a crowd. What almost always happens then is that the message of Christ ends up taking back seat.

Another problem with it is the limits of our perception and knowledge of what goes on inside other people. How can anyone accurately measure how effective an outreach is? Even visible results can be deceiving. On the other hand, the lack of visible results is not meaningful either: Just because someone doesn't make a visible response does not mean he or she is tuning you out. Neither does it mean that they are not being convicted.

We are called to proclaim the message faithfully and leave the effectiveness up to the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean we should not be strategic or intelligent about how we go about it. It just means recognizing what God's role is and what ours is and not confusing the two.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> Also, I challenge your claim that public proclamation is countercultural. Just yesterday, I saw a man with a sandwich board on the sidewalk, announcing 6 dollar pizzas at Dominos. No one seemed the list bit offended or put out that he was doing so.



This is an excellent point and one I had not considered before. It reminds me of the last presidential election. Back then, I recall walking around Arlington during my lunch break and encountering youthful supporters of the candidates standing on sidewalk corners, holding clipboards and asking, "Do you have a minute for _(insert candidate name)_?" I've seen various other people doing this, too, such as opponents of global warming and gay rights advocates. The offense is not caused by the medium of presentation; it's caused by the message itself combined with man's hatred of God.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------




Kevin said:


> Damon, one hour before I posted the above comment I had the oppourtunity to see a young man confess his faith in Christ in my study. I have known him for a few years & have shared the gospel with him many times. Does that qualify me according to your standard, to speak to this question?
> 
> Or did I disqualify myself by getting to know him and understand him while I introduced him to Christ?



It's great that you shared the gospel with him, but if you made the gospel anything other than the first step, then you were wrong. The Bible never supports the idea of making the proclamation of the gospel step 2 or step 3 or some later stage. It is always step 1, and rightly so: Without divine revelation, sinful man can know nothing about God and hence has nothing to believe in for salvation. Since revelation takes such a principal, vital place in man's salvation, I find it alarming that so many are so willing to postpone it to a later stage.


----------



## kvanlaan

I found this one to be very effective, but I'm not sure how he got the crowd to gather - maybe being a Spanish-speaking gringo in downtown Lima is enough.

[video=youtube;OjYLUpHQaiE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYLUpHQaiE[/video]


----------



## Edward

Der Pilger said:


> The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this



OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,



> Do you think this type of "street evangelism" works?



My answer: No. 

I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to. So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train. And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.


----------



## Kevin

To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".

I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?


----------



## Der Pilger

Edward said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this type of "street evangelism" works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My answer: No.
> 
> I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to.
Click to expand...


I kind of agree that that would be wrong, although I would say in the situation at the DMV line, one could simply walk up and down the line and hand out tracts. That wouldn't be forcing them to receive anything.



> So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train.



Again, there is a way to do that on the train that is not obnoxious. We have to be discerning as to the best means in a given situation, but our "discernment" should never cause us to place the gospel second.



> And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.



Where are we commanded in the Bible to "ask permission" before sharing the gospel? Don't get me wrong--if somebody makes it clear that they don't want to hear it, we shouldn't force it on them but politely leave or change the subject. But to have to get permission before proceeding with the gospel message? I don't see that model anywhere in Scripture.

---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------




Kevin said:


> To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".



So do I sometimes. But when I do, it's not evangelism. It's a relationship. Nowhere--nowhere--in the Bible is the model of "relationship first, then gospel" recommended or commanded. I know that most books on evangelism hold that forth as effective, but strangely enough, in spite of all the books that speak highly of such approaches, God's word is silent on it. The Bible doesn't even hint at the idea of building a relationship as a means to share the gospel. For Jesus and the apostles, their relationships with others grew out of their teaching ministry, not the other way around. Why? Because they knew that telling others the truth was of paramount importance. Holding back the truth from someone is not love.



> I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?



Which Bible characters? Could you cite some text for that?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

I don't see anything wrong with this approach, if it is done well and with the right compassion for dying sinners. The worship services in Calvin's Geneva was also a captive audience because every resident had to be there, Christian or not, upon pain of civil penalty. What's wrong with having a captive audience? Nothing, in my book. 



Der Pilger said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this type of "street evangelism" works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My answer: No.
> 
> I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of agree that that would be wrong, although I would say in the situation at the DMV line, one could simply walk up and down the line and hand out tracts. That wouldn't be forcing them to receive anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, there is a way to do that on the train that is not obnoxious. We have to be discerning as to the best means in a given situation, but our "discernment" should never cause us to place the gospel second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are we commanded in the Bible to "ask permission" before sharing the gospel? Don't get me wrong--if somebody makes it clear that they don't want to hear it, we shouldn't force it on them but politely leave or change the subject. But to have to get permission before proceeding with the gospel message? I don't see that model anywhere in Scripture.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I sometimes. But when I do, it's not evangelism. It's a relationship. Nowhere--nowhere--in the Bible is the model of "relationship first, then gospel" recommended or commanded. I know that most books on evangelism hold that forth as effective, but strangely enough, in spite of all the books that speak highly of such approaches, God's word is silent on it. The Bible doesn't even hint at the idea of building a relationship as a means to share the gospel. For Jesus and the apostles, their relationships with others grew out of their teaching ministry, not the other way around. Why? Because they knew that telling others the truth was of paramount importance. Holding back the truth from someone is not love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Bible characters? Could you cite some text for that?
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank! 

That sounds exactly like building relationships.

Read Acts & notice how St Pauls methods changed depending on the city. In some he became a teacher. In some he worked in the market place. In some he debated at the local philosophers club. In others he met strangers at therir place of work.

When he preached publicly it was not at the 1st cent equivalent of a DMV line-up! He went to places that were known for the practice of public speaking.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Kevin said:


> Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank!
> 
> That sounds exactly like building relationships.
> 
> Read Acts & notice how St Pauls methods changed depending on the city. In some he became a teacher. In some he worked in the market place. In some he debated at the local philosophers club. In others he met strangers at therir place of work.
> 
> When he preached publicly it was not at the 1st cent equivalent of a DMV line-up! He went to places that were known for the practice of public speaking.



I mean this in all sincerity so I have a few questions. 

Where can I go to share the Gospel with people in America that is known for the practic of public speaking? 

How can I engage with people I don't know, so that I can get to know them while sharing the Gospel with them? 

If public preaching is not the way to do it, then what is the way to do it? 

How do we publish the Gospel to the unbeliever. I am not concerned with the 99 who don't need the doctor. How do I get to the lost sheep?


----------



## Herald

Reformed Baptist said:


> How do we publish the Gospel to the unbeliever. I am not concerned with the 99 who don't need the doctor. How do I get to the lost sheep?



You go where the lost sheep are found.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Kevin said:


> Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank!


 
Yes, but only AFTER teaching and preaching. Frankly, we are TOLD how to do it. We do not have to guess.

Luk 14:21 So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.' 

Sitting around in Church and waiting for people to come in is not Biblical. We are commanded to go out. Without an intentional evangelism outreach, people such as the homeless, who hang it in places where no one just "happens to run into them," go without the gospel.

To me (and I do not mean this as a remark against you. I simply do not know any other way to state this fact more plainly), there is nothing more evil, hateful, and shameful than to let someone go without hearing the gospel. It is akin to blithely sitting by why a blind man walks unknowingly into traffic and into his own destruction. These people are going to hell. They do not need a friend. They do not need food. They need the gospel, and they need it now...not after building a relationship with them for 3 months.

YouTube - A Letter fom Hell

Although the above video is about someone that is known, it could apply to every single person that you pass every day without sharing the gospel.


----------



## Leslie Koster

C. M. Sheffield said:


> *Acts 5:17-20*
> 
> Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the public proclamation of the Gospel (street preaching). I like what Spurgeon says to this effect:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sort of defense is needed for preaching out-of-doors; but it would need very potent arguments to prove that a man had done his duty who has never preached beyond the walls of his meetinghouse. A defense is required rather for services within buildings than for worship outside of them. Apologies are certainly wanted for architects who pile up brick and stone into the skies when there is so much need for preaching rooms among poor sinners down below.
> 
> C. H. Spurgeon
> _Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now many would say, "when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective." And that Spurgeon lived in a different time when this kind of practice wasn't seen as so repulsive. But consider what Spurgeon says here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one case the parish bull was let loose, and in others dogs were set to fight. The preachers needed to have faces set like flints, and so indeed they had. John Furz says: "As soon as I began to preach, a man came straight forward, and presented a gun at my face; swearing that he would blow my brains out, if I spake another word. However, I continued speaking, and he continued swearing, sometimes putting the muzzle of the gun to my mouth, sometimes against my ear. While we were singing the last hymn, he got behind me, fired the gun, and burned off part of my hair.
> 
> After this, my brethren, we ought never to speak of petty interruptions or annoyances. The proximity of a blunderbuss in the hands of a son of Belial is not very conducive to collected thought and clear utterance, but the experience of Furz was probably no worse than that of John Nelson, who coolly says, "But when I was in the middle of my discourse, one at the ouside of the congregation threw a stone, which cut me on the head: however that made the people give greater attention, especially when they saw the blood run down my face; so that all was quiet till I had done, and was singing a hymn."
> 
> C. H. Spurgeon
> _Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was never a time when sinners rejoiced to see the man of God in the public square preaching Christ and him crucified. And it is no different today. We must be deliberate, intentional and systematic in our endeavors at open-air preaching.
> 
> An interesting resource on this topic is _Go, Stand, Speak_. They have produced a documentary that is well worth taking a look at. The discription is as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The film “Go. Stand. Speak” delves into the doctrine of public preaching with experts such as Pastor Albert N. Martin, Dr. George Grant, Paul Washer, Greg Gordon, Pastor John Reuther, Rusty Lee Thomas, David Legge, Ray Comfort, Stuart Migdon, Michael Marcavage, Jeff Rose, Shawn Holes, Sean Morris and other Christian leaders… and uncovers the big question…is this quiet, new move of public preaching something that is simply a trend, or is it again the beginning of a move of God where He is simply doing what He always has done…calling His ministers to go and preach His message of repentance and faith where the people gather in the public, regardless of culture, current trends, or the popularity of the message and method?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
My Church has been watching the video of Go, Stand, Speak in Sunday School.. Our Leaders back this Ministry and want us all to understand and get involved if called.


----------



## Austin

If y'all want to know where to go to preach to a captive audience, in an environment akin to street preaching, try your local prison or jail. My work at the Arizona State Prison is like this. And frankly, I'm ashamed that it took 4 years of acquiring an M.Div., plus 10 years of parish ministry, then the loss of the same, for me to go to prison to minister. 

As I have acquainted myself with my new position, one thing strikes me above all else: the men in my prison are HUNGRY for Good News. They are, quite literally, the "lost & least." And the second thing that stands out to me is that the vast majority of people looking to minister in the prison (vocationally or voluntarily) are Pentecostals & uneducated but well-meaning Arminians and Baptists. 

Where are the Presbyterians in the Prisons? Where are the Reformed folk? I know of two Reformed Presbyterians in the entire state prison system here in Arizona, and we're both EPC. (And one, not me, is fixing to retire.) 

I had a man in my office today asking to be baptized a THIRD time. When I asked him why, he said that the previous times he came up out of the water & didn't pray in tongues, so he must not be truly saved. This then led to a nice long discussion about what being saved is really about (namely, trusting Jesus' words), and what the meaning of baptism is. 

And where did he get his wacky ideas? From the only people willing to go to the prison-- Oneness Pentecostals and wacky Charismatics & Dispensationalists. 

Okay so the pay is peanuts ($32,000 plus benefits), but do we truly go into the ministry to get rich? And my congregation inside the prison is composed of people most folks wish dead. (They are sex offenders, who are so hated even by the dregs of the rest of the prison that they have to be segregated in their own yard or else their life span will be quite short.) Indeed, "good," "solid," churchgoing Evangelicals here in town have told me that they wish my parish residents would go off, die, and rot in hell. 

And... (and perhaps this is the kicker for us Reformed types) ...no one serving Christ & His people in prison will become well known, write books, be invited to speak at some conference somewhere on how to "do ministry right." What's more, prison chaplains are looked down upon by other ministers & by laypeople as ministers who are incapable of "serving fruitfully" in "church work." Oh, and don;t forget that they are overwhelmingly people who will never understand (or even see the point in understanding) words like "lapsarianism," "adiaphora," "Regulative Principle," or "eschatology." In other words, they are poorly educated folk from gangs, blue-collar families, and broken homes. 

Not exactly the kind of people we Presbyterian & Reformed people gravitate to, huh? 

But... aren't these the people to whom Jesus commanded us to take the Gospel? And isn't it through folks like these that He says He will reach the nations? 

If you want to speak to a place where the sinners are, where you have a captive audience, and where there is an amazing harvest waiting to be brought in, then go to the prisons. 

Who will go? Will you?


----------



## Kevin

Damon, if you can stop proof-texting Lk 14 & read the entire chapter you might notice that the servant was not sent out to yell at people in a line-up. But to invite them back for a feast! This is probably a multi-day event. Sounds more like "getting to know" someone, to me.

This is in my opinion a very fruitless discussion. Some people have a view of "evangelism" that they consider the only faithful way to "preach the gospel". Others don't believe that it is the most wise or faithful method, but are prepared to admit that God can use even our weakness to draw his people. I am in the latter group.

However, in this thread, those of you in the former seem to be maintaining a position that only your way is the "faithful" way. I disagree. 

In fact I would go so far as to say that you are misreading the text & drawing the wrong lessons from it. That does not bother me. frankly i will keep on trying to see the lost come to faith in Christ by following what I am convinced is the NT method.

You can keep yelling at people lined up at the DMV, and I will keep on inviting 75-100 people to a large community meal (called a feast in the NT) every 60 days or so, meeting people in pubs (had 13 for a bible study last night), preaching 2 or 3 times a week, teaching english to immigrants by studying the book of Acts, holding small group studies in homes (up to 4 this fall), spending time with muslem students, spending hours on Saturday @ the farmers market meeting new people, volunteer at the food bank, etc.

It seems from this thread that some of you consider this a waste of time, since I don't raise my voice, or try to "preach" to people while they are doing something else, or becaus I believe that I must live the gospel in front of those that I am trying to preach Christ.

Just remember that we all are reponsible for our own actions, to our own master. Peace.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Kevin said:


> Damon, if you can stop proof-texting Lk 14 & read the entire chapter you might notice that the servant was not sent out to yell at people in a line-up. But to invite them back for a feast! This is probably a multi-day event. Sounds more like "getting to know" someone, to me.



The feast is the marriage supper of the lamb. The invitation is to salvation. He is not inviting them to some emergent church "dialogue."



> This is in my opinion a very fruitless discussion. Some people have a view of "evangelism" that they consider the only faithful way to "preach the gospel". Others don't believe that it is the most wise or faithful method, but are prepared to admit that God can use even our weakness to draw his people. I am in the latter group.



We are commanded to preach the gospel, not just in a church building, but on the streets. The "friendship evangelism" position is not the historic reformed view. There is not a single Reformed theologian or pastor, up until maybe the last 50 years, that has advocated such; they all stress the biblical position that public proclamation of the gospel is a mandate straight from the Lord. 

My friend, you are falling into the same trap that so many in "popular" church circles have fallen into. You believe that you alone, contrary to to 2,000 years of church history, have the proper interpretation of the scriptures. You are in a dangerous position. The people that are standing with you are individuals like Rob Bell. Does it not set off some sort of warning off in your mind, that the people with whom you share an opinion, are heretics that stand in opposition to the historic reformed position?

Fruitless the discussion may be; only God can open minds. However, it is nevertheless necessary. People need to open their eyes.



> However, in this thread, those of you in the former seem to be maintaining a position that only your way is the "faithful" way. I disagree.



Its not "my way." It is the Biblical way, and the historic interpretation of the Church. Find me a single reformer that advocates "developing a relationship" with someone, before sharing the gospel. You will not find them.



> In fact I would go so far as to say that you are misreading the text & drawing the wrong lessons from it. That does not bother me. frankly i will keep on trying to see the lost come to faith in Christ by following what I am convinced is the NT method.



It bothers me that you are interpreting the Bible in line with known heretics, against the historic view of evangelism. Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Knox, and in the broader reformed camp, Spurgeon, Whitefield, and more, ALL disagree with you. I believe it was Sproul who gave a resounding warning to those who suddenly "discover" something in the scriptures that no one else has noticed for 2,000 years.



> You can keep yelling at people lined up at the DMV,


What a disingenuous remark. Do you preach? I can likewise say "You can keep yelling at the people in your pews..." Preaching is not yelling. I do not "yell" at people. I preach a sermon (gospel oriented), the same way I preach in the pulpit. It is slanderous to label street preachers as wild eyed people that are just screaming at people. We street preach, JUST how Jesus and the apostles street preached.




> and I will keep on inviting 75-100 people to a large community meal (called a feast in the NT) every 60 days or so, meeting people in pubs (had 13 for a bible study last night), preaching 2 or 3 times a week, teaching english to immigrants by studying the book of Acts, holding small group studies in homes (up to 4 this fall), spending time with muslem students, spending hours on Saturday @ the farmers market meeting new people, volunteer at the food bank, etc.



That's all great. But its not the gospel. You are bordering on a Liberation theology here. The Gospel is primary. You can feed people all you want; if they die without hearing the gospel, they are still going to hell.



> It seems from this thread that some of you consider this a waste of time, since I don't raise my voice, or try to "preach" to people while they are doing something else, or because I believe that I must live the gospel in front of those that I am trying to preach Christ.



You cannot "live" the gospel; not in the way you are describing it. The Gospel consists of information, and you can sit their with a beautiful look on your face, and people can clap you on the back and tell you how wonderful you are; without the Gospel told to them in words, they will die and go to hell. Giving a blind man that is about to walk off a cliff a sandwich, and telling him how much you like him, all the while not warning him of the cliff, is an indefensible position. The Gospel is First.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 

What does it say? "From that time on, Jesus began to invite people to dinner?" No. Even situations like with Zacchaeus, it is clear that he had already heard the gospel proclaimed, and THEN Jesus had dinner with him. There is nothing wrong with the things you have said that you do; great! But the Biblical model is to FIRST preach/share the gospel, and THEN develop a relationship, invite them to dinner to explain it more fully, etc.



> Just remember that we all are reponsible for our own actions, to our own master. Peace.


 
Yes. And as an ordained, commissioned minister of the Gospel, it is my responsibility to correct incorrect teaching wherever I find it. Everyone will be held responsible, yes; including for every person that they pass without sharing the gospel, because it makes them "uncomfortable."


----------



## Herald

Okay, enough. This thread is digressing. The Gospel is to be proclaimed, "...in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). If you are not actively engaged in preaching the Gospel, pray for its success. The Gospel is _still _the power of God unto salvation regardless of where it is preached. If you differ in methodology than your brother don't allow that to diminish your praying that God will redeem His elect.

This thread is now closed.


----------

