# Best and worst methods of witnessing in the US



## Pergamum

What are the best and worst methods of witnessing/evangelism in the US, both inside and outside the church? If you're answer for inside the church is "preaching" what are the elements that would be included as helpful to unbelievers.


----------



## jonmo

One of the worst I saw was in New York City on a busy holiday weekend. A group of conservative/fundamentalist church goers from upstate New York descended on the street near Macy's and proceeded to shout at everyone going by about how they were sinners and deserved God's wrath. One of the guy's was wearing a t-shirt depicting the Pope as the antichrist; otherwise everyone else was wearing plain, somber clothing and all the women had long hair and dresses. 

As you might expect, your typical New Yorker doesn't take too kindly to be shouted at (about anything, let alone "religion"). I watched for a while and it was painful as both sides hurled verbal abuse at each other. Those witnessing clearly lacked both grace and love for those they were "witnessing" to and it sadly seemed like they were doing it so they could go back to their little town upstate and be self-satisfied in how they told those evil city dwellers about their sin. 

I tried to speak quietly and respectfully to one of the leaders about their method and he basically told me where to go.

Needless to say, I would put Tim Keller's preaching at the other end of the scale in terms of best methods of witnessing to people in NYC. He has a humble spirit, patience with unbelievers' questions, and gets to the heart of many of the stumbling blocks people have to the gospel.


----------



## KMK

The worst form of evangelism: Church goers who are living in sin, drinking on the weekends, viewing **** on their computers, and cussing like sailors urging their co-workers to just say the sinner's prayer.


----------



## Knoxienne

The whole "God yuvs you and has a speshel [sic] plan for your life" line.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

jonmo said:


> One of the worst I saw was in New York City on a busy holiday weekend. A group of conservative/fundamentalist church goers from upstate New York descended on the street near Macy's and proceeded to shout at everyone going by about how they were sinners and deserved God's wrath. One of the guy's was wearing a t-shirt depicting the Pope as the antichrist; otherwise everyone else was wearing plain, somber clothing and all the women had long hair and dresses.
> 
> As you might expect, your typical New Yorker doesn't take too kindly to be shouted at (about anything, let alone "religion"). I watched for a while and it was painful as both sides hurled verbal abuse at each other. Those witnessing clearly lacked both grace and love for those they were "witnessing" to and it sadly seemed like they were doing it so they could go back to their little town upstate and be self-satisfied in how they told those evil city dwellers about their sin.
> 
> I tried to speak quietly and respectfully to one of the leaders about their method and he basically told me where to go.
> 
> Needless to say, I would put Tim Keller's preaching at the other end of the scale in terms of best methods of witnessing to people in NYC. He has a humble spirit, patience with unbelievers' questions, and gets to the heart of many of the stumbling blocks people have to the gospel.



Sure these werent Black Israelites? They preach in the streets of Newyork every week. Their black males, who teach salvation by works, and deny the deity of Jesus. You can "youtube" them.


----------



## Confessor

Knoxienne said:


> The whole "God yuvs you and has a speshel [sic] plan for your life" line.



This. I can't stand this petty witnessing. There has to be a balance between being truly concerned for the lost, yet explaining how they are currently children of wrath.


----------



## Rich Koster

Knock on a door, hand someone a tract, smile and leave 

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 08:05:57 EST-----



jonmo said:


> One of the worst I saw was in New York City on a busy holiday weekend. A group of conservative/fundamentalist church goers from upstate New York descended on the street near Macy's and proceeded to shout at everyone going by about how they were sinners and deserved God's wrath.  One of the guy's was wearing a t-shirt depicting the Pope as the antichrist; otherwise everyone else was wearing plain, somber clothing and all the women had long hair and dresses.
> 
> As you might expect, your typical New Yorker doesn't take too kindly to be shouted at (about anything, let alone "religion"). I watched for a while and it was painful as both sides hurled verbal abuse at each other. Those witnessing clearly lacked both grace and love for those they were "witnessing" to and it sadly seemed like they were doing it so they could go back to their little town upstate and be self-satisfied in how they told those evil city dwellers about their sin.
> 
> I tried to speak quietly and respectfully to one of the leaders about their method and he basically told me where to go.
> 
> Needless to say, I would put Tim Keller's preaching at the other end of the scale in terms of best methods of witnessing to people in NYC. He has a humble spirit, patience with unbelievers' questions, and gets to the heart of many of the stumbling blocks people have to the gospel.



Were they from Word of Life Bible Institute?


----------



## jwithnell

Anything that _is_ a method. Can you imagine Jesus saying the same thing, or using the same "program" to the woman at the well and the money changers in the temple?


----------



## Kevin

KMK said:


> The worst form of evangelism: Church goers who are living in sin, drinking on the weekends, viewing **** on their computers, and cussing like sailors urging their co-workers to just say the sinner's prayer.



If we drink all week long are we off the hook?


----------



## Caroline

Worst? Oh, there are so many, it's hard to choose ...

Ok, well, there was this time that my mother lined us kids up on the sidewalk on a streetcorner downtown at night and had us sing Christian songs. 

A car going by spun up some small pebbles with its wheels in our direction (accidentally, I'm sure--who could do that on purpose?) and my mother started shrieking, "They are stoning us like Stephen!"

Yeah, that was bad.


----------



## KSon

Among the worst methods is the psychological manipulation method, made famous in IFB. Here you manipulate emotions by scaring the dickens out of them by preaching about the torments of hell and then present Jesus, not as Creator, King, Lord, High Priest, Son of God, but rather as an insurance policy against such misfortune. First you appeal to their pride-driven sense of self-preservation, walk them quickly through the "Romans Road" and then press for a prayer, assuring them that by doing so they have "saved their soul" from eternal torment. Manipulation, misuse of Scripture, and Arminian decisionism all wrapped into one.


----------



## Pergamum

Caroline said:


> Worst? Oh, there are so many, it's hard to choose ...
> 
> Ok, well, there was this time that my mother lined us kids up on the sidewalk on a streetcorner downtown at night and had us sing Christian songs.
> 
> A car going by spun up some small pebbles with its wheels in our direction (accidentally, I'm sure--who could do that on purpose?) and my mother started shrieking, "They are stoning us like Stephen!"
> 
> Yeah, that was bad.



Oh my!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Caroline

KSon said:


> Among the worst methods is the psychological manipulation method, made famous in IFB. Here you manipulate emotions by scaring the dickens out of them by preaching about the torments of hell and then present Jesus, not as Creator, King, Lord, High Priest, Son of God, but rather as an insurance policy against such misfortune. First you appeal to their pride-driven sense of self-preservation, walk them quickly through the "Romans Road" and then press for a prayer, assuring them that by doing so they have "saved their soul" from eternal torment. Manipulation, misuse of Scripture, and Arminian decisionism all wrapped into one.



This is so true. Appeals to self-preservation, making threats ... that's really a horrible way to do evangelism. This is one reason I love Reformed churches, by the way--because they end with a benediction. I'm all burned out on church services that end by telling you to ask yourself whether you are sure you are saved or whether you would go to hell if you died tonight. I have seen 'altar calls' that were just abusive in the way they reduced good, sincere believers to tears and filled them with doubts about their salvation. It might get people to the front to pray, but in the long run, I think it did much more harm than good.

It is so much more helpful to hear at the end, "May God bless you and keep you ... etc" or one of the other peaceful and encouraging blessings from God to His people.


----------



## jonmo

No - it definitely wasn't the Black Israelites! The folks I mentioned were in many ways at the other end of the spectrum. I know the Black Israelites - they are always around Times Square - generally whipping up corn-fed tourists from Kansas. 

The guys I am referring to were definitely all white and, judging by their comments on everyone else in the world, I doubt if they would be that excited about other races, either.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 08:17:06 EST-----



Rich Koster said:


> Were they from Word of Life Bible Institute?



I don't remember for sure (it was about five years ago) but their website/location sort of fits the bill (although the folks on the website look "hipper" - but that's often the way with the web). Thanks.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I think one of the worst might be protesting the funerals of the military with signs that say, "God hates fags." With children holding up the signs with naughty stick figures.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Pergamum said:


> What are the best and worst methods of witnessing/evangelism in the US, both inside and outside the church? If you're answer for inside the church is "preaching" what are the elements that would be included as helpful to unbelievers.



I would argue that while there are times when an unbeliever might be in a church and hear the Word preached, the worship of God's people is NOT the place for trying to reach the lost. A worship service is where those that know God, are called to do the worshipping. That there is a possibility that an elect person that does not yet believe is there is tangential to worship. God is the one "watching" worship, the congregation are the ones "performing" worship, those that lead worship need to do everything in worship so that those that are doing the worship (the congregation) are doing so in a way that pleases God.

That there is a call to repentance as part of worship can be included, but the main thrust of every worship service ought to be the people of God praising and thanking God for his attributes, his acts, and all his blessings toward us.


----------



## VanDood

The best method... I think is a one on one conversation where we spend as much time listening as talking. Begin to work in creation and how all things were created good, move to the fall/sin, and then Christ, while applying all of this practically so that it fits in with their life...


----------



## KMK

Brian Withnell said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the best and worst methods of witnessing/evangelism in the US, both inside and outside the church? If you're answer for inside the church is "preaching" what are the elements that would be included as helpful to unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that while there are times when an unbeliever might be in a church and hear the Word preached, the worship of God's people is NOT the place for trying to reach the lost. A worship service is where those that know God, are called to do the worshipping. That there is a possibility that an elect person that does not yet believe is there is tangential to worship. God is the one "watching" worship, the congregation are the ones "performing" worship, those that lead worship need to do everything in worship so that those that are doing the worship (the congregation) are doing so in a way that pleases God.
> 
> That there is a call to repentance as part of worship can be included, but the main thrust of every worship service ought to be the people of God praising and thanking God for his attributes, his acts, and all his blessings toward us.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the Gospel should not be preached during worship services?


----------



## ubermadchen

The "method" I use, if you can say it is a method, is just telling people that Jesus is a real person who really came to earth, really lived, really died, really rose from the dead, and has really ascended to the right hand of the Father. I didn't know that when I was an atheist. When I found out, it solidified my faith. God was already working in me to hope that the gospel was true and confirmed my hope when I learned that Jesus existed. When I ministered to international students in college, most of those students didn't know He existed. Some may have heard the "story" but it was often clouded in "testimonies" and other personal veils. Unbelievers need to hear the facts and the Good News (i.e. He has risen!). When the first missionaries went out they simply told the world that Jesus rose from the dead; He is the promised one. Opinions don't matter; Rhetoric doesn't matter; I don't matter; only Truth, only God matters. The Good News doesn't have to be complicated.


----------



## Pergamum

I have found testimonies to be a way for people to receive the Gospel with being repulsed due to preachiness. A personal testimony often glorified God, has good results, and is a very biblical way of witnessing to others.


----------



## Der Pilger

Pergamum said:


> I have found testimonies to be a way for people to receive the Gospel with being repulsed due to preachiness. A personal testimony often glorified God, has good results, and is a very biblical way of witnessing to others.



I'm not so sure. Testimonies have been made popular, I believe, due to the influences of postmodernism on our culture, but the Bible never--to my knowledge--affirms testimonies as a means of communicating the gospel. A testimony is at bottom a story about me, but the gospel is the story about Jesus--and more than a story, it consists of the divine command to repent and believe, the explanation of God's character, and teaching on what sin is and its consequences.


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found testimonies to be a way for people to receive the Gospel with being repulsed due to preachiness. A personal testimony often glorified God, has good results, and is a very biblical way of witnessing to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure. Testimonies have been made popular, I believe, due to the influences of postmodernism on our culture, but the Bible never--to my knowledge--affirms testimonies as a means of communicating the gospel. A testimony is at bottom a story about me, but the gospel is the story about Jesus--and more than a story, it consists of the divine command to repent and believe, the explanation of God's character, and teaching on what sin is and its consequences.
Click to expand...






> Mark 5
> 1And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
> 
> 2And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
> 
> 3Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
> 
> 4Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
> 
> 5And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
> 
> 6But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
> 
> 7And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
> 
> 8For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
> 
> 9And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
> 
> 10And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
> 
> 11Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
> 
> 12And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
> 
> 13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.
> 
> 14And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
> 
> 15And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
> 
> 16And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
> 
> 17And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.
> 
> 18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
> 
> 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, *Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. *
> 
> 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.



Jesus commands personal testimonies!


----------



## AThornquist

XBlackWaterX said:


> Sure these werent Black Israelites? They preach in the streets of Newyork every week. Their black males, who teach salvation by works, and deny the deity of Jesus. You can "youtube" them.




The Black Israelites went against the KKK on Jerry Springer! LOL. (It's on Youtube, which is the only reason I know. Seriously! )


----------



## AThornquist

The worst witnessing I have seen has been done by groups like the Westborough Baptist "church." Megaphones, ignorant hate speech, signs with hate, youtube videos filled with hate and poor doctrine, websites filled with hate and poor teaching... all under the name of orthodox, calvinistic Christianity. UGH. 
The best witnessing I have seen was done by my father. He brought a fifteen year old boy into our home when I was almost ten and mentored, discipled, and fathered him because he had a horribly broken home. Through my dad's love to this boy the Lord brought salvation to him. Then the boy died shortly thereafter, my dad performed his funeral, and others came to Christ through it, including this guy who I posted a prayer request for.


----------



## Der Pilger

Pergamum said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found testimonies to be a way for people to receive the Gospel with being repulsed due to preachiness. A personal testimony often glorified God, has good results, and is a very biblical way of witnessing to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure. Testimonies have been made popular, I believe, due to the influences of postmodernism on our culture, but the Bible never--to my knowledge--affirms testimonies as a means of communicating the gospel. A testimony is at bottom a story about me, but the gospel is the story about Jesus--and more than a story, it consists of the divine command to repent and believe, the explanation of God's character, and teaching on what sin is and its consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, *Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. *
> 
> 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus commands personal testimonies!
Click to expand...


As a means of communicating the gospel? No. It is unthinkable that the Lord Jesus would command somebody to use their testimony as the *gospel* message--not only because this text doesn't warrant that view but also since the apostle Paul focused on Christ alone in his preaching. He preached Christ and him crucified, and he did so because he knew that a charge was laid upon him to do so.


----------



## raekwon

Worst: bumper stickers and church signs

"God reads knee-mail!"
"In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

UGH.


----------



## AThornquist

raekwon said:


> Worst: bumper stickers and church signs
> 
> "God reads knee-mail!"
> "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
> "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
> 
> UGH.



Real Christians at least have a fish or two on the back of their car though. Maybe one could even have a big Christian fishy swallowing a Darwin fish. That seems like the Christian thing to do.


----------



## Grimmson

worst- the track method, it may be granted that it could use people starting out as a tool to prolaiming the Gospel, but they should not be doing in front of bars, leaving it in bathrooms, or knocking on doors and just giving to people.

best way- get into conversations with people about what they believe and why and move that into the Gospel. You can use general revelation to reveal God and his character. This method can take years, but it produces stronger and more firm christians then the track format.


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure. Testimonies have been made popular, I believe, due to the influences of postmodernism on our culture, but the Bible never--to my knowledge--affirms testimonies as a means of communicating the gospel. A testimony is at bottom a story about me, but the gospel is the story about Jesus--and more than a story, it consists of the divine command to repent and believe, the explanation of God's character, and teaching on what sin is and its consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, *Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. *
> 
> 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus commands personal testimonies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a means of communicating the gospel? No. It is unthinkable that the Lord Jesus would command somebody to use their testimony as the *gospel* message--not only because this text doesn't warrant that view but also since the apostle Paul focused on Christ alone in his preaching. He preached Christ and him crucified, and he did so because he knew that a charge was laid upon him to do so.
Click to expand...


This text adequately supports the practice of many laymen telling people how God has has blessed them in their lives. It is Biblical, it is effective. It is not the same as preaching from a pulpit, nor does it need to be.


----------



## Brian Withnell

KMK said:


> Are you saying the Gospel should not be preached during worship services?



I'm saying that evangelism is ancillary to worship. The whole of the gospel (if you mean all of God's word) should be preached, but the object is not the proclamation to the lost so they might hear and repent. The preaching of the word is the element of worship that brings God's message to God's people.


----------



## KMK

Brian Withnell said:


> the object is not the proclamation to the lost so they might hear and repent.



When are the lost going to hear the preaching of preachers sent by God so that they might be saved? (Rom 10)



Brian Withnell said:


> The preaching of the word is the element of worship that brings God's message to God's people.



Which includes the call. Are you saying that preaching of the word is not for the lost, but only for the converted?


----------



## Der Pilger

Pergamum said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus commands personal testimonies!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a means of communicating the gospel? No. It is unthinkable that the Lord Jesus would command somebody to use their testimony as the *gospel* message--not only because this text doesn't warrant that view but also since the apostle Paul focused on Christ alone in his preaching. He preached Christ and him crucified, and he did so because he knew that a charge was laid upon him to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This text adequately supports the practice of many laymen telling people how God has has blessed them in their lives. It is Biblical, it is effective. It is not the same as preaching from a pulpit, nor does it need to be.
Click to expand...


Preaching from a pulpit is irrelevant; that's not what this thread is about. You're right: The text supports telling people how God has blessed them, *but that only*. There is nothing said here about communicating the *gospel message*; evangelism is completely foreign to the text--unless evangelism consists simply of telling people, "Look at what great things God has done in my life." If that were the case, though, Paul was greatly--and tragically--mistaken.

Be wary of replacing the gospel message with personal testimony. The two are not identical or interchangeable. Church culture has generally become very afraid of proclaiming the good news for fear of turning off people, being rejected, or being irrelevant (though the gospel is actually the most relevant message for man because it addresses his greatest need). Nevertheless, and in spite of contemporary trends, God's means of saving people--the gospel--has not changed. It is effective all on its own; there is no need for us to strive to find new ways to communicate it. Just communicate it. Tell it. Proclaim it. Announce it.

-----Added 7/2/2009 at 08:51:50 EST-----



Grimmson said:


> worst- the track method, it may be granted that it could use people starting out as a tool to prolaiming the Gospel, but they should not be doing in front of bars, leaving it in bathrooms, or knocking on doors and just giving to people.



It's spelled "tract," by the way. 

Why? In principle, this is precisely what Jesus and the apostles did--communicate the truth, i.e., "just giving to people."



> best way- get into conversations with people about what they believe and why and move that into the Gospel. You can use general revelation to reveal God and his character. This method can take years, but it produces stronger and more firm christians then the track format.



Any approach that has as its goal the complete, accurate communication of the gospel message is sound. It is the approaches that fall short of that which need to be cautioned against.


----------



## Rich Koster

To me, the best way takes a while. Let others see us living with godly attributes as we communicate the message _verbally_when we are prompted.


----------



## Der Pilger

Rich Koster said:


> To me, the best way takes a while. Let others see us living with godly attributes as we communicate the message _verbally_when we are prompted.



So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:

Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.

Is that what you mean?


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a means of communicating the gospel? No. It is unthinkable that the Lord Jesus would command somebody to use their testimony as the *gospel* message--not only because this text doesn't warrant that view but also since the apostle Paul focused on Christ alone in his preaching. He preached Christ and him crucified, and he did so because he knew that a charge was laid upon him to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This text adequately supports the practice of many laymen telling people how God has has blessed them in their lives. It is Biblical, it is effective. It is not the same as preaching from a pulpit, nor does it need to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preaching from a pulpit is irrelevant; that's not what this thread is about. You're right: The text supports telling people how God has blessed them, *but that only*. There is nothing said here about communicating the *gospel message*; evangelism is completely foreign to the text--unless evangelism consists simply of telling people, "Look at what great things God has done in my life." If that were the case, though, Paul was greatly--and tragically--mistaken.
> 
> Be wary of replacing the gospel message with personal testimony. The two are not identical or interchangeable. Church culture has generally become very afraid of proclaiming the good news for fear of turning off people, being rejected, or being irrelevant (though the gospel is actually the most relevant message for man because it addresses his greatest need). Nevertheless, and in spite of contemporary trends, God's means of saving people--the gospel--has not changed. It is effective all on its own; there is no need for us to strive to find new ways to communicate it. Just communicate it. Tell it. Proclaim it. Announce it.
> 
> -----Added 7/2/2009 at 08:51:50 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst- the track method, it may be granted that it could use people starting out as a tool to prolaiming the Gospel, but they should not be doing in front of bars, leaving it in bathrooms, or knocking on doors and just giving to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's spelled "tract," by the way.
> 
> Why? In principle, this is precisely what Jesus and the apostles did--communicate the truth, i.e., "just giving to people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best way- get into conversations with people about what they believe and why and move that into the Gospel. You can use general revelation to reveal God and his character. This method can take years, but it produces stronger and more firm christians then the track format.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any approach that has as its goal the complete, accurate communication of the gospel message is sound. It is the approaches that fall short of that which need to be cautioned against.
Click to expand...


You are being too rigid. The Gospel of Mark DOES give us Jesus' approval of personal testimony, if you disagree, take it up with him.

Every Gospel presentation need not be a complete Gospel presentation. THat's nearly impossible given the fleeting nature of some of our encounters. What IS a complete Gospel presentation anyway? It usually means talking AT someone until you finish a spiel, and the person trying to be polite but really wanting to get away, if you try to give the WHOLE presentation to a total stranger in one sitting. Jesus did not do a GOSPEL DUMP on people when he met them; he dialogued with them and I am merely trying to follow his example.

Also, personal testimonies are a good entry point into deeper conversations. It helps to get the person open and ready to hear more. I have had people ask me follow up questions afterwards due to the non-threatening nature of personal testimonies.

Finally, personal testimonies are not devoid of Gospel or theology. During my personal testimonies that I have given, I told them why I came to believe in God, why I believed and what it was that I was reading (Romans 1 through 4) that persuaded me when I believed. 

The key is that this is dialogue and not one-way witness of trying to cram as much down someone's throat as possible during the short time in which they will politely endure you. This is a talk about changes in life, and about how my life improved, and it draws people in rather than repels them like much witnessing does in our day. We want interaction with those we are trying to reach, we are niot giving them an entire sales pitch or spiel...that closes doors.

Besides, I bet that former-demoniac had a lot of Gospel to tell his neighbors and I think Jesus wouldhave approved his words.


----------



## Brian Withnell

KMK said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the object is not the proclamation to the lost so they might hear and repent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are the lost going to hear the preaching of preachers sent by God so that they might be saved? (Rom 10)
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The preaching of the word is the element of worship that brings God's message to God's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes the call. Are you saying that preaching of the word is not for the lost, but only for the converted?
Click to expand...


The preaching of the word is not specifically for the lost. The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth, those that are not covenant members come to Christ through the preaching of the word, but a well established church is negligent if it is always preaching messages geared toward the lost. That all of scripture speaks of Christ is enough. Those that are elect will be saved ... it is the job of the leaders to build up the church. The model in Eph. 4:11-16 is a picture of a fully functioning church.


> And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.


In the Eph 4 model, the preacher is there for the equipping of the saints, then as the whole body does its function, "causes the growth of the body". The lost do come to hear, but the service isn't for the lost. They hear the proper function of the body and see the love of Christ in the body and believe. The message of course contains elements of evangelism, but that is not its chief end.

If the chief end of the preaching is calling the lost to Christ, the message of God to his church is muted (not lost, but not what it ought to be). The purpose of all the gifts of God to his church (evangelists, pastors, teachers) is to equip the saints, the building up of the body ... so that the body does the works of service. Yes, the lost hear the preaching as they are being brought into the church by the body, but it is the body that is being equipped, not the lost being explicitly called.

Rom 10 is a model for going into the world without a church ... verse 14 is immediately followed by verse 15, sent means out from the church and why would someone be sent to a place with a church already existing? Once a church is in place, the model shifts to Eph. 4 as the preaching is there, the body is there, and the body grows more as a result of the natural function of the body than the preacher continually preaching what does not build the body, but births a body in an area in which there was no body before. Is the church established? Are there elders? Then the missionary is either sent on to another place, or changes from missionary to pastor of a church responsible for the growth of the body.


----------



## Pergamum

Maybe we should have two split-off threads, one on (1) who preaching is for and one on (2) personal testimonies.


----------



## Herald

Rich Koster said:


> Knock on a door, hand someone a tract, smile and leave
> 
> -----Added 6/30/2009 at 08:05:57 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> jonmo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the worst I saw was in New York City on a busy holiday weekend. A group of conservative/fundamentalist church goers from upstate New York descended on the street near Macy's and proceeded to shout at everyone going by about how they were sinners and deserved God's wrath.  One of the guy's was wearing a t-shirt depicting the Pope as the antichrist; otherwise everyone else was wearing plain, somber clothing and all the women had long hair and dresses.
> 
> As you might expect, your typical New Yorker doesn't take too kindly to be shouted at (about anything, let alone "religion"). I watched for a while and it was painful as both sides hurled verbal abuse at each other. Those witnessing clearly lacked both grace and love for those they were "witnessing" to and it sadly seemed like they were doing it so they could go back to their little town upstate and be self-satisfied in how they told those evil city dwellers about their sin.
> 
> I tried to speak quietly and respectfully to one of the leaders about their method and he basically told me where to go.
> 
> Needless to say, I would put Tim Keller's preaching at the other end of the scale in terms of best methods of witnessing to people in NYC. He has a humble spirit, patience with unbelievers' questions, and gets to the heart of many of the stumbling blocks people have to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they from Word of Life Bible Institute?
Click to expand...


Rich, please don't insinuate that students of WOLBI are like that. They aren't. I know because I am a graduate. Word of Life uses the Open Air Campaigners method of street evangelism. They do not shout in the streets and call people sinners. Word of Life is not Reformed nor Calvinistic. They are within the main stream Baptist genre. Good people who have a sincere desire to see sinners converted. Is their soteriology off base? Sure it is. I am not defending aberrant doctrine, but I have witnessed first hand genuine conversions in spite of their free will leanings. I just want to set the record straight on my Alma Mater.


----------



## JBaldwin

The best way to witness outside of the church (and the family) is to live like Christ and personal testimony. As it has already been said, sometimes it takes a long time. I go to the local open air market in my community every week to sell things, and I am amazed at the number of opportunities I've had to share the Gospel with people every week. Sometimes it starts with nothing more than a discussion about something completely unrelated to the Gospel. 

Within the church and apart from the preaching of the word (and yes it would make a great thread to discuss this), I think the personal lives of the believers, their personal testimony and behavior toward those who come into the church from the outside is the greatest witness to the lost.


----------



## MrMerlin777

One of the worst: Going to a heavy metal concert carrying a huge cross on one's back that has a little wheel at the bottom to make it easier to transport. Then start telling all the metal heads they're are hell bound because they listen to heavy metal.


----------



## KMK

Brian Withnell said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the object is not the proclamation to the lost so they might hear and repent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are the lost going to hear the preaching of preachers sent by God so that they might be saved? (Rom 10)
> 
> 
> 
> Which includes the call. Are you saying that preaching of the word is not for the lost, but only for the converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preaching of the word is not specifically for the lost. *The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth*, those that are not covenant members come to Christ through the preaching of the word, but a well established church is negligent if it is always preaching messages geared toward the lost.
Click to expand...


I don't want to touch that with a 10 foot pole.

However, what I think I hear from you is frustration over a trend in churches to be 'seeker sensitive' and provide only milk and never strong meat. This I agree with.

I think it would be good to stay away from such a rigid distinction between 'lost' and 'saved'. The Puritans saw several distinct groups within a church, all of which needed to be addressed on a regular basis. Puritan preaching was heavy on application and would be 'geared' to many different types of hearers in each sermon. (See Perkins "The Art Of Prophesying"

The bottom line is, the lost and the saved need to hear the same things, law and gospel, but the applications need to be varied.


----------



## Confessor

MrMerlin777 said:


> One of the worst: Going to a heavy metal concert carrying a huge cross on one's back that has a little wheel at the bottom to make it easier to transport. Then start telling all the metal heads they're are hell bound because they listen to heavy metal.



I'm seeing Judas Priest tonight.


----------



## Grimmson

Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst- the track method, it may be granted that it could use people starting out as a tool to prolaiming the Gospel, but they should not be doing in front of bars, leaving it in bathrooms, or knocking on doors and just giving to people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's spelled "tract," by the way.
> 
> Why? In principle, this is precisely what Jesus and the apostles did--communicate the truth, i.e., "just giving to people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best way- get into conversations with people about what they believe and why and move that into the Gospel. You can use general revelation to reveal God and his character. This method can take years, but it produces stronger and more firm christians then the track format.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any approach that has as its goal the complete, accurate communication of the gospel message is sound. It is the approaches that fall short of that which need to be cautioned against.
Click to expand...


First of all thank you for correcting my spelling error; I make many in here and grammar mistakes, which I have confessed in the past. 

“Jesus and the apostles did” NOT “communicate the truth” by sending out tracts and in five minutes or less. They reasoned with the Jews to the truth of the gospel. They were not leaving little notes in the grounds or in the Roman Baths, but communicated the truth by going straight to the masses or with individual people. 

The point of this thread was to cover the best and worst methods of doing evangelism and there are good and bad ways to do just that. I just went forth from my own experience and my experience has shown that tracts typical create shallower Christians. The American culture wants everything quick and fast instead of having the time to seriously process the information and make a decision; they should not be manipulated by using a sensational or psychological means of individuals of Finney’s tradition that act on carnal man so that they do not look and count the cost. 

Even the Apostle Paul had an approach towards evangelism and we see that clearly in Acts. He would reason with the Jews in the Synagogues first off and then he would he would go to the marketplace, where he may then be invited to speak else where as we see Athens. We also see him working individually and with a family with the Philippian jailer.

The reason why I thought the conversational approach is the best approach is because I have seen more positive results and received more feedback then just going out and proclaiming a message to mass of people. You start them off slowly and explain the basics instead of necessarily using a formula, using their and our experience to shape the message. You should always know your audience before you get into a conversation or preach. You want them to understand what your saying and not go over their head. Nor do you want to be superficial in your approach, for we serve a holy God and should not look at evangelism in a superficial way that some methods implore, such as the giving of tracts on the street corner. They may take one look at the tract and then thrown it on the ground or in the nearest garbage can, that why the word coming forth from the mouth is so important and the normal ordained means of communicating the Gospel.

Does our method or approach matter? Yes, if we believe God is holy and had ordained the means as well as the ends. Does this mean we cannot be creative in proclaiming the message? No, for God in his grace uses us as vessels despite of what we are to communicate his truth, but it should be done in humbleness because we will be giving an account on that day. This means that we should act solely on people emotion and not on their ability to reason or ignore people apologetic questions; especially regarding history, for are claims are historical claims. It is Finney approach of acting on emotions that brings in my option more damage to the Gospel then anything else the world could fire against up. Because emotions can change quickly, unlike logical arguments based upon simple facts. Not only does it bring damage by introducing superficialism, not putting into account the holiness of God, and result into a burnout or a religion of no value towards their sin, but also licentious towards sin and thus creating false converts that think themselves to be Christians, but refuse to repent of their lifestyle because of the type of Gospel they were given.

I do agree we need to be complete and accurate, but part of that process is the ability to answer questions they have, which tracts cannot provide. The Gospel message is to be delivered by us the Church and we must do so by sending a complete sound message. 

If you want me to speak more on this I will.


----------



## Pergamum

Brian Withnell said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> the object is not the proclamation to the lost so they might hear and repent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are the lost going to hear the preaching of preachers sent by God so that they might be saved? (Rom 10)
> 
> 
> 
> Which includes the call. Are you saying that preaching of the word is not for the lost, but only for the converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preaching of the word is not specifically for the lost. The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth, .
Click to expand...






_"The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth"_




 


It is one form, true, but most assuredly not THE MAIN one, or else we are looking at a very sick church, indeed.


----------



## steven-nemes

A conversation with a friend over coffee is nice; an awkward street-side question-and-answer session is not so nice.


----------



## Rich Koster

Der Pilger said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, the best way takes a while. Let others see us living with godly attributes as we communicate the message _verbally_when we are prompted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:
> 
> Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
> Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.
> 
> Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't separate the two into a formula.. I just refuse to be like the open air evangelists who make an overbearing first impression. Let your life and your message be consistent and speak when those God sent moments are set up for you. I have been given opportunities to go into a full discourse by people asking just the right questions, either inquisitive OR antagonistic. I have had mockers at work give me an open door to turn the tables on them, in a proper manner, while many were listening.


----------



## Confessor

Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish? If so, why?


----------



## Gloria

Confessor said:


> Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish? If so, why?



*eagerly awaiting responses to this question*


----------



## Pergamum

Colossians 4, we are to walk in wisdom with outsisders and have grace in our speech. Yelling at people is not wise nor is it speaking to people graciously. We can make a good message sound very bad if we appear angry and deranged.

In cultures, times and places where such open air discourse is normal, than we should do it. Hyde Park is one example. People gather voluntarily to hear, they come to you....they are not harangued while helpllessly waiting for a light to change. The aeriopolis is another place...and Paul spoke there, and it was accepted for people to gather and hear open-air discourse.. At a cross-light in Manhattan perhaps not so much so.


----------



## Confessor

For the record, I did not mean to imply that "repent or perish" needs be delivered angrily or with yelling.

I ask this because it seems like sometimes we will not care about church growth or a wave of converts that much, so long as the Word is preached faithfully. But on the other hand we think that street preaching must be avoided at all costs instead for personal conversation, and this seems to be because the latter yields "nicer" results.

Let us always keep these verses in mind:

Luke 6:22 - _Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man._

Luke 6:26 - _Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets._


----------



## Gloria

Pergamum said:


> Colossians 4, we are to walk in wisdom with outsisders and have grace in our speech. Yelling at people is not wise nor is it speaking to people graciously. We can make a good message sound very bad if we appear angry and deranged.
> 
> In cultures, times and places where such open air discourse is normal, than we should do it. Hyde Park is one example. People gather voluntarily to hear, they come to you....they are not harangued while helpllessly waiting for a light to change. The aeriopolis is another place...and Paul spoke there, and it was accepted for people to gather and hear open-air discourse.. At a cross-light in Manhattan perhaps not so much so.



What if there is no yelling?

Example: Today my husband and a few other brothers went to a college campus. They approached people and asked them if it was okay to ask a few questions. The conversations progressed from there. 

After that, they recited spoken word pieces (poetry) that contained the gospel at a place on campus called "The Rotunda." A few people stopped to listen. They used this as a way to break the ice, explain the tracts, discuss the gospel and exchange contact information.

-----Added 7/2/2009 at 02:23:33 EST-----



Confessor said:


> For the record, I did not mean to imply that "repent or perish" needs be delivered angrily.
> 
> I ask this because it seems like sometimes we will not care about church growth or a wave of converts that much, so long as the Word is preached faithfully. But on the other hand we think that *street preaching must be avoided at all costs *instead for personal conversation, and this seems to be because the latter yields "nicer" results.
> 
> Let us always keep these verses in mind:
> 
> Luke 6:22 - _Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man._
> 
> Luke 6:26 - _Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets._



My thoughts exactly as I read all the posts for this thread.


----------



## Herald

Confessor said:


> Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish? If so, why?



Ben, there is nothing unbiblical about open air preaching. But if one's idea of open air preaching is to simply scream, "Repent!" then I think that person's time would be better spent elsewhere. Too many lose but well meaning cannons appoint themselves as ministers of the gospel when they are anything but. I have been involved with open air preaching that was cogent, biblical, and appropriate for the venue selected. 

I strongly disagree that the primary means of evangelism is to have children born into covenant families, and thus preach to the choir. That is one means of the gospel. The Apostles preached Christ wherever they were able. The Calvinist knows only the elect will believe, but how presumptous it is for us to think that we know who the elect are. Preach to all men. Plead with all men to be reconciled to Christ. Do not neglect the sanctifying work of the gospel in the life of the believer, but do not hinder the saving work of the gospel by shackling it only to the four walls of the church.


----------



## KMK

Gloria said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish? If so, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *eagerly awaiting responses to this question*
Click to expand...




> 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.



Preachers do not have to be officeholders, but they should be approved of and called by the church. They not only 'may' preach, but 'ought' to. If you have been approved of and called by your church to take it to the streets, you better get out there. 

If you have not been approved of and called by your church, it could be because you are just not ready, or it could be because you haven't asked. If you have a burning desire to do what you say, go to your elders and tell them!


----------



## Gloria

Herald said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish? If so, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben, there is nothing unbiblical about open air preaching. But if one's idea of open air preaching is to simply scream, "Repent!" then I think that person's time would be better spent elsewhere. Too many lose but well meaning cannons appoint themselves as ministers of the gospel when they are anything but. I have been involved with open air preaching that was cogent, biblical, and appropriate for the venue selected.
> 
> I strongly disagree that the primary means of evangelism is to have children born into covenant families, and thus preach to the choir. That is one means of the gospel. The Apostles preached Christ wherever they were able. The Calvinist knows only the elect will believe, but how presumptous it is for us to think that we know who the elect are. *Preach to all men. Plead with all men to be reconciled to Christ.* Do not neglect the sanctifying work of the gospel in the life of the believer, but do not hinder the saving work of the gospel by shackling it only to the four walls of the church.
Click to expand...


ITA! 

I'm against "preachers" who go out and scream "repent" at everyone because "repent" isn't the gospel.

Good points here!


----------



## Der Pilger

Grimmson said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst- the track method, it may be granted that it could use people starting out as a tool to prolaiming the Gospel, but they should not be doing in front of bars, leaving it in bathrooms, or knocking on doors and just giving to people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's spelled "tract," by the way.
> 
> Why? In principle, this is precisely what Jesus and the apostles did--communicate the truth, i.e., "just giving to people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best way- get into conversations with people about what they believe and why and move that into the Gospel. You can use general revelation to reveal God and his character. This method can take years, but it produces stronger and more firm christians then the track format.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any approach that has as its goal the complete, accurate communication of the gospel message is sound. It is the approaches that fall short of that which need to be cautioned against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all thank you for correcting my spelling error; I make many in here and grammar mistakes, which I have confessed in the past.
> 
> “Jesus and the apostles did” NOT “communicate the truth” by sending out tracts and in five minutes or less.
Click to expand...


I never said they did. I said that *in principle * they accomplished the same thing a tract does--give the gospel to people directly without beating around the bush.



> I just went forth from my own experience and my experience has shown that tracts typical create shallower Christians.



But any ministry should be evaluated based on what it teaches, not on its results.



> The American culture wants everything quick and fast instead of having the time to seriously process the information and make a decision; they should not be manipulated by using a sensational or psychological means of individuals of Finney’s tradition that act on carnal man so that they do not look and count the cost.



I pass out tracts from time to time, and I never use anything sensationalistic, manipulative, or otherwise Finney-like.



> Even the Apostle Paul had an approach towards evangelism and we see that clearly in Acts. He would reason with the Jews in the Synagogues first off and then he would he would go to the marketplace, where he may then be invited to speak else where as we see Athens. We also see him working individually and with a family with the Philippian jailer.



Precisely. And tracts are a way to reason with people in that they present a reasoned explanation of the gospel (assuming it is done well, of course).



> The reason why I thought the conversational approach is the best approach is because I have seen more positive results and received more feedback then just going out and proclaiming a message to mass of people.



The trouble with evaluating a certain approach or method by its results is that you can never be quite sure that the results you see are trustworthy. You could be perceiving them incorrectly based on biases of your own, or you could simply be misled by appearances that cover up reality.


----------



## Wannabee

I recall the story of Moody,


> One day a lady criticized D.L. Moody for his methods of evangelism in attemptint to win people to the Lord. Moody's reply was "I agree with you. I don' tlike the way I do it either. Tell me, how do you do it?" The lady replied, "I don't do it." Moody responded, "Then I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it."



I know the OP sort of asked for it, but there sure is a lot of subjective criticism here. God does not specify A WAY of evangelizing. We are to be ready to give testimony of the hope within us. We are to proclaim the good that God has done on our behalf. We are to proclaim Christ and Him crucified. We are to make disciples. We are to be living examples/testimonies.

Some of us are strong in certain areas and need to grow in certain areas. Some of us live in the country, some in the city. Most of us live in western cultures, but other cultures would not accept some of our methods. By the way, everyone has a method. It's a matter of philosophy.

What it comes down to is what our message is, regardless of whether we do it over coffee, a meal, on a street corner, house to house, through CDs, using tracts and standing on a soap box at the park. It has to start with the heart. Do we do it because the love of Christ compels us? Do we do it because we desire to please Him first? Do we have a burden for the souls of men? Also, do we measure our success by our faithfulness or by numbers? The former points to a heart for God, the latter to pride. Ask Jeremiah. 

Finally, what sort of flavor is left on the tongues of those who hear, what sort of scent do we leave in their nostrils. Do we leave them with the sweet aroma of Christ, or the stench of the self-righteous and arrogant? Do we leave those who are persuaded with a vision of love for God and man? Do we leave gainsayers mocking, but having no credible confession against us? If they deride us, let them do so because of our faithfulness.

And, as Moody pointed out, are we doing it? Or, do we gain more pleasure criticizing how others are doing it and attempting to put evangelization into a box of our own making, as if the glorious Gospel of our infinite King could be contained by the mechanizations of men? I'd rather make a mistake striving to glorify God in faithfulness than sit on my throne and tell everyone else how they're doing it wrong while failing to walk in faithfulness. The kids carrying a cross were trying. People singing in the town square are trying. Handing out tracts door to door is trying. Perhaps they're misguided. But who is more misguided, them in their methods or us who are shaking our heads and muttering under our breaths in self-righteousness?

May God raise up a generation that fears Him, loves man, is not ashamed of the Gospel and is burdened for the glory of God.


----------



## AThornquist

Great words, Joe.


----------



## Der Pilger

Pergamum said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being too rigid. The Gospel of Mark DOES give us Jesus' approval of personal testimony, if you disagree, take it up with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with you, not with the text. I'm just trying to let the scripture speak for itself. No teaching pertaining to Christian faith and practice carries any authority whatsoever unless it echoes what God says in scripture. Therefore, since you seem convinced that Jesus approved of the use of personal testimonies--not just to share what God has done in one's life but also to communicate the gospel message--please show *out of the text itself* that this is so. Until you do that, all your thoughts about
> 
> 
> sharing your testimony to get people open and ready to hear more
> your personal experiences
> testimonies drawing people rather than repelling them like much witnessing in our day
> possible negative results from trying to present the gospel completely and accurately
> 
> are all just that--your thoughts--and carry no authority whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Grimmson

I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.



Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Jesus and the apostles did” NOT “communicate the truth” by sending out tracts and in five minutes or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did. I said that *in principle * they accomplished the same thing a tract does--give the gospel to people directly without beating around the bush.
Click to expand...


Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response. I do not think the tracts in principle accomplish the same level of communication of truth that the Apostles or Jesus applied. In fact many of the tracts I have seen are formulaic, instead of constructed and delivered keeping in mind the audience. A well trained mature individual can also go in front of the person he or she is speaking to without “beating around the bush”. The staying on topic or on track to the message should not be an issue or a legitimate defense. 



Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just went forth from my own experience and my experience has shown that tracts typical create shallower Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But any ministry should be evaluated based on what it teaches, not on its results.
Click to expand...


I agree what is taught is extremely important, but obviously you do not get my concern for the shallow believers that it produces. How we do things are important and to ignore that fact is to ignore regulative principle that many of us reformed keep to. God has ordained certain means and those means for making disciples is to proclaim the Gospel in boldness and love and then baptize them and continue to teach them all the Lord God has commanded. Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ. If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly. I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold. 





Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American culture wants everything quick and fast instead of having the time to seriously process the information and make a decision; they should not be manipulated by using a sensational or psychological means of individuals of Finney’s tradition that act on carnal man so that they do not look and count the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pass out tracts from time to time, and I never use anything sensationalistic, manipulative, or otherwise Finney-like.
Click to expand...


I do not think you got my point here. We as Americans want everything fast instead of taking the time to let people process it. We are not giving a sales pitch. Tracts are formulated to be just that a fast way to do evangelism which requires little or no interaction from the one that gives it. The reason why I mentioned sensational or psychological means was because we take that as a short cut in our presentation instead of letting the Holy Spirit do he job. 

One common acronym I have seen in some tracts regarding how to be saved is CALL. 
Call upon the name of the Lord. 
Admit you are a sinner, you are the one who deserves the judgment. 
Let Christ bear the penalty for your sins. 
Let your faith in him be your righteousness.

I am ignoring the issue of issue of works based righteousness by one’s faith instead of coming from God for this conversation and instead focus on one item. There no mention of repentance and daily continued repentance. It is not something that implied in these tracts. Quite a few of them are designed to pray that prayer, the Sinner’s prayer. 

Another very common tract that used is called the Four Spiritual Flaws, woops I mean Laws. You all probably are familiar with it
1) God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life
2) Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.
3) Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life.
4) We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives.

First issue, can we say for sure that God has a wonderful plan for your life, does this not not act on the desires of carnal man?

Second, man is indeed sinful and separated from God, but sin and is hardly ever defined in relation to breaking the law of God, but instead defines as not hitting the mark, a literal translation that does not carry over its full meaning or impact,

Third, Christ is God’s provision for man’s sin, however are listeners or presenters using it to mean that Jesus actually paid for your sins or just provided opportunity so you can be saved? You know, limited versus unlimited atonement controversy. Before I am called as a heretic I do believe God has paid for the sins for all of his elect, not just provide opportunity for salvation. I am a five pointer. 

Forth issue, what does it mean to the reader or listener for Jesus to be Savior and Lord? Is that something we should assume? No, it something we should explain the meaning there of. 

The last issue with this tract same as the first formulaic tract we looked at and that is the lack of explaining repentance and what that means to a believer. 

In regards to some sensational tracts, I have seen of chick tracts that were pretty sensational that act on fear of judgment; instead of explaining why something is sinful and use the mind that the Lord has given us in the process. The mind is a very important process in salvation, in fact the actual definition of repentance is a changing of the mind to one side or another. We need to let people think salvation through and count the cost.

You find passing out tracts helpful, why? Why cant you just lead the conversation without them? Or memorize key scripture passages that you like to use? What happens if you no longer have tracts to use anymore? For they do not always reasonable explain the gospel as I have just shown. 



Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I thought the conversational approach is the best approach is because I have seen more positive results and received more feedback then just going out and proclaiming a message to mass of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble with evaluating a certain approach or method by its results is that you can never be quite sure that the results you see are trustworthy. You could be perceiving them incorrectly based on biases of your own, or you could simply be misled by appearances that cover up reality.
Click to expand...


Like it or not experience over a period of time can prove to be trustworthy regarding a particular approach. You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print. People need to hear gospel, not have in be regruted to them from a blooklet or card. We cannot expect them to have the same vocabulary as us, so we need to teach it. The approach I am advocating is more flexible to meeting the needs of the hearer, and leaves it opens for questions; instead of a mindless acceptance.



Gloria said:


> I'm against "preachers" who go out and scream "repent" at everyone because "repent" isn't the gospel.
> 
> Good points here!



I agree Gloria, it’s the response to the Gospel. Nor do we need to yell out that “God hate…” this group and has damned them or “God hates…” that group and damned them. We need to show are love to the people, which is why were out there to present the gospel. Gloria even though I said I agree with you that it is not the Gospel, but the response, I think it is necessary to include how we are to respond to the Gospel in our message, because otherwise were just leaving the people hanging and not explaining what God requires all men everywhere to do now that Christ has come and now at the right hand of the Father.


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with you, not with the text. I'm just trying to let the scripture speak for itself. No teaching pertaining to Christian faith and practice carries any authority whatsoever unless it echoes what God says in scripture. Therefore, since you seem convinced that Jesus approved of the use of personal testimonies--not just to share what God has done in one's life but also to communicate the gospel message--please show *out of the text itself* that this is so. Until you do that, all your thoughts about
> 
> 
> sharing your testimony to get people open and ready to hear more
> your personal experiences
> testimonies drawing people rather than repelling them like much witnessing in our day
> possible negative results from trying to present the gospel completely and accurately
> 
> are all just that--your thoughts--and carry no authority whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, too, am just trying to let the Scripture speak for itself.
> 
> 
> Mark 5 has Jesus commanding the former demoniac to go spread his story around.
> 
> Then, Paul on several occasions gives the personal testimony of his conversion, the time before King Agrippa being most noteworthy.
> 
> The psalms also command us to tell about what the Lord has done. Testifying to the Lord's goodness is only right and natural.
> 
> 
> There are thus multiple precedents for personal testimony in Scripture. These do not need to be theologically shallow, perhaps this is an assumption you are making.
> 
> 
> Personal testimonies are one of the best ways to open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Der Pilger

Grimmson said:


> I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.



If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.



> Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.



To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.



> I agree what is taught is extremely important, but obviously you do not get my concern for the shallow believers that it produces. How we do things are important and to ignore that fact is to ignore regulative principle that many of us reformed keep to. God has ordained certain means and those means for making disciples is to proclaim the Gospel in boldness and love and then baptize them and continue to teach them all the Lord God has commanded.



I agree.



> Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ.



I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.



> If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly.



I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.



> I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold.



What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.



> I do not think you got my point here. We as Americans want everything fast instead of taking the time to let people process it. We are not giving a sales pitch. Tracts are formulated to be just that a fast way to do evangelism which requires little or no interaction from the one that gives it.



I do agree that interaction is important. But the trouble is you might not always have a chance to have adequate interaction with everyone you have an opportunity to share the gospel with. Leaving them with a printed gospel message--well written, thorough and accurate--is better than leaving them with nothing at all.



> The reason why I mentioned sensational or psychological means was because we take that as a short cut in our presentation instead of letting the Holy Spirit do he job.



I could just as easily argue that using tracts is allowing the Holy Spirit to do the job by working through the gospel presentation in the tract.



> One common acronym I have seen in some tracts regarding how to be saved is CALL.
> Call upon the name of the Lord.
> Admit you are a sinner, you are the one who deserves the judgment.
> Let Christ bear the penalty for your sins.
> Let your faith in him be your righteousness.
> 
> I am ignoring the issue of issue of works based righteousness by one’s faith instead of coming from God for this conversation and instead focus on one item. There no mention of repentance and daily continued repentance. It is not something that implied in these tracts. Quite a few of them are designed to pray that prayer, the Sinner’s prayer.



I agree. Those are examples of bad tracts. I don't use them. Once again, you are focusing on bad examples and then using them to build your case against tracts as a whole.



> You find passing out tracts helpful, why?



Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.



> Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?



Why should I?



> Like it or not experience over a period of time can prove to be trustworthy regarding a particular approach.



To a point, but not nearly as trustworthy as scripture, I'm sure you'll agree. 



> You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print.



You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:45:43 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, too, am just trying to let the Scripture speak for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that you *first* had the idea of using personal testimonies to share the gospel and *then* looked to the text in Mark to confirm your idea. That's why I asked you in my last reply to get your interpretation *out of* the text. You still haven't done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark 5 has Jesus commanding the former demoniac to go spread his story around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but for what purpose? Evangelism? to communicate the gospel? Did Jesus actually commission that man to be his witness as he commissioned the apostles with the gospel message? You need to show that from the text. You can't just leap from
> 
> Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around
> 
> to
> 
> Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around as a means of communicating the gospel.
> 
> The second statement does not follow from the first--unless, of course, Jesus intended this man to tell people the gospel. If that is true, please show it from the text. Don't just say it; get it out of the text. If you can't do that, then it is probably your idea, not God's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, Paul on several occasions gives the personal testimony of his conversion, the time before King Agrippa being most noteworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Paul on trial when he did that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The psalms also command us to tell about what the Lord has done. Testifying to the Lord's goodness is only right and natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I never said it was wrong. I am disagreeing with your idea that testimonies are a valid way of communicating the gospel. Now if you say that you share a testimony for a few minutes after you share the gospel, I think that's fine. But to say that it should be done first and possibly even in place of the gospel (I hope you don't believe that!) is going too far. As I said before, and as I still maintain, the gospel is a story about Christ, not about me. As wonderful as a testimony as I may have, and as much as I could share with others what the Lord has done for me, it would be foolish for me to place that on an equal footing with the gospel message or even to delay the gospel message in favor of my story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal testimonies are one of the best ways to open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may be a good way to get a conversation started, but I wouldn't spend much time on them at all. People need to hear the gospel, and that is what they need most. If you truly love them, you will give them what they need. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the One who "open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things." God makes the message relevant and opens people up; you don't have to take that task upon yourself.
> 
> -----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:49:33 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.
> 
> 
> 
> What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree that interaction is important. But the trouble is you might not always have a chance to have adequate interaction with everyone you have an opportunity to share the gospel with. Leaving them with a printed gospel message--well written, thorough and accurate--is better than leaving them with nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I could just as easily argue that using tracts is allowing the Holy Spirit to do the job by working through the gospel presentation in the tract.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Those are examples of bad tracts. I don't use them. Once again, you are focusing on bad examples and then using them to build your case against tracts as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I?
> 
> 
> 
> To a point, but not nearly as trustworthy as scripture, I'm sure you'll agree.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.
> 
> -----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:45:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that you *first* had the idea of using personal testimonies to share the gospel and *then* looked to the text in Mark to confirm your idea. That's why I asked you in my last reply to get your interpretation *out of* the text. You still haven't done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but for what purpose? Evangelism? to communicate the gospel? Did Jesus actually commission that man to be his witness as he commissioned the apostles with the gospel message? You need to show that from the text. You can't just leap from
> 
> Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around
> 
> to
> 
> Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around as a means of communicating the gospel.
> 
> The second statement does not follow from the first--unless, of course, Jesus intended this man to tell people the gospel. If that is true, please show it from the text. Don't just say it; get it out of the text. If you can't do that, then it is probably your idea, not God's.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Paul on trial when he did that?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I never said it was wrong. I am disagreeing with your idea that testimonies are a valid way of communicating the gospel. Now if you say that you share a testimony for a few minutes after you share the gospel, I think that's fine. But to say that it should be done first and possibly even in place of the gospel (I hope you don't believe that!) is going too far. As I said before, and as I still maintain, the gospel is a story about Christ, not about me. As wonderful as a testimony as I may have, and as much as I could share with others what the Lord has done for me, it would be foolish for me to place that on an equal footing with the gospel message or even to delay the gospel message in favor of my story.
> 
> 
> 
> They may be a good way to get a conversation started, but I wouldn't spend much time on them at all. People need to hear the gospel, and that is what they need most. If you truly love them, you will give them what they need. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the One who "open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things." God makes the message relevant and opens people up; you don't have to take that task upon yourself.
> 
> -----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:49:33 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was well aware of Mark 5 before you made me dig up evidence.
> 
> 
> One of the things marring "witnessing" in our day is the "cold contact" - the stranger (i.e. Soul-Winner) who takes a sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim (i.e. "hell-bound sinner, the target) who happens to be polite enough to smile or appear open to the Gospel. The preacher then tries to download as much Gospel truth in a 3-5 minute spiel before the Target flees or politely tries to cut off your spiel.
> 
> A personal testimony is a good way to start. It opens doors. It creates a bond so that the hearer is drawn in to a greater degree than they would be if they were merely being harangued by someone who seemed compelled to talk AT them, instead of WITH them.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul communicated the Gospel in his personal testimonies. I am sure the demoniac did too.
> 
> My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?
> 
> 
> A testimony is a bridge that takes us deeper into relationship with others so that heart issues may come to the fore. They do not have to be about ourselves, they are about what God has done. Every conversion story is a personal testimony and their is power in the telling of one's conversion story, and it can be VERY theological.
> 
> The Holy Spirit works through us so that we would be wise in our methods. Don't use God's sovereignty as an excuse for not engaging in things that glorify God and help us to connect and communicate truth to unbelievers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kalawine

raekwon said:


> Worst: bumper stickers and church signs
> 
> "God reads knee-mail!"
> "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
> "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
> 
> UGH.



Amen Brother! Back when I was a Charismatic Fundy I was going to lunch with a lost guy I worked with. We were taking my car. 

As we approached the car (from behind) he saw my "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!" bumper sticker. He asked for my keys. I asked why. He said, "You know... in case of the rapture I want to be driving!"


----------



## Grimmson

Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.
Click to expand...


It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches. 



Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.
Click to expand...


I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument. 


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.
Click to expand...


See there your not using tracts alone and you’re engaging in conversations. Your just using it as a tool to lead you into such, but over time you learn ways of not having to use a piece of paper of a card as a hook to begin such conversations as you mature in Christ and continue in Evangelism. 



Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.
Click to expand...


I like to see the good ones your using, please provide an example. But my statement still stands that your pastor or local missionary needs to train people how to do evangelize and the people need to be able to ask questions , which many of the tracts cannot answer. They cannot talk back audibly and say this is the answer to your question. 


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold.
> 
> 
> 
> What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.
Click to expand...


The problem with handing out tracts is that it is NOT preaching. And Pergamum is right there no real biblical basic for the handing out of tracts as a method nor do I know of anything in the ancient times of the use of tracts to proclaim Christ. It was done by word of mouth.


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find passing out tracts helpful, why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.
Click to expand...

How do you judge the right ones, what your clear example of a good one? The ones I used are the two most common tracts used and even Chick is well used in certain circles.


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I?
Click to expand...

You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This 
”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts. We can go many more years too if Christ does not come back yet. Not to say the way things have always been done is the way we should do it, but I think good evidence and reason must be given why you changed what has been done. Because to some degree such changes could lead to heterodoxy as we can see in the legacy of Finney. 


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.
Click to expand...

 I look at the majority representative and how the people respond to such. I do not want to see a bad name give to Christ or his Church. If tracts and its abused lead one towards a improper look at the Gospel and thus a improper look of Christ, then of course I would want to separate myself from the method of use. Who wouldn’t? I care about the testimony of the church as a whole

In regards to the whole debate regarding personal testimonies, I think it is misused in the church. I am not against them and can see them as being a helpful gateway segments to bridge relationships and to bring encouragement; I also agree it should not replace the gospel. Personally I think we all have the same testimony and that a sinner saved by God’s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. And in the end inst that who we want to glorify and worship?


----------



## Wannabee

kalawine said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worst: bumper stickers and church signs
> 
> "God reads knee-mail!"
> "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
> "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
> 
> UGH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen Brother! Back when I was a Charismatic Fundy I was going to lunch with a lost guy I worked with. We were taking my car.
> 
> As we approached the car (from behind) he saw my "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!" bumper sticker. He asked for my keys. I asked why. He said, "You know... in case of the rapture I want to be driving!"
Click to expand...


That's classic. Actually, I still have the rapture sticker on my truck. I don't think it's legible any more, but it's there. "Real Men Love Jesus" is on the side of my cap too. It's true, you know. 

The first sticker is reminiscent of Spurgeon, talking of kneework. I kinda like it. But, the last one is just bad theology - classic humanism cloaked in Christianese. And the fish... well, it is what it is. Few have a clue what it signifies. We have them on our cars (which we've had for about 13 years), but I don't think I'll put one on a car again. I always thought it might be fun to try to put together a sort of aquarium of fishies on my tail gate though.


----------



## Der Pilger

Grimmson said:


> It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches.



I guess I misunderstood you. I'm not for relying on tracts to the exclusion of interaction. Oftentimes I use them as a means of starting a conversation. In fact, most of my evangelism in recent years has been done using a quiz that is specifically designed for conversation and interaction. But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.



> I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument.



Then the sum of the conclusion is this: Use tracts, but use good ones and don't use them to the exclusion of personal interaction and teaching, when possible.



> See there your not using tracts alone and you’re engaging in conversations. Your just using it as a tool to lead you into such, but over time you learn ways of not having to use a piece of paper of a card as a hook to begin such conversations as you mature in Christ and continue in Evangelism.



Grimmson, there is a problem with this reasoning:

You're *assuming* that using a tract or a card as a hook is an immature practice, but that is only your assertion. Once again you set up your own personal standard as the rule by which other things are evaluated. Since I don't measure up to your standard, you go on from there to make the bold assertion that I should move on to more mature things. You begin with a conclusion and then make your argument from there, as you have shown a pattern of doing in this thread. You need to first show that using a tract to start a conversation is immature. I find it to be quite mature, actually. It takes boldness and genuine agape love for someone to approach them when they are a complete stranger, knowing they might reject you and even mock you. Taking the easy way, on the other hand--the way of ensuring a lesser chance of being rejected and mocked--would better be classified as an immature practice as it is selfish, unloving and doesn't have the best interest of others at heart.

This is why I try to stick to a biblical criterion for evaluating evangelistic approaches: It is the only sure standard.



> I like to see the good ones your using, please provide an example.



I don't have electronic copies of some of these, but:

"The Christian Message" by James White. (I don't think this is in print any longer, but I'd be happy to mail you a copy if you like.)
The two quizzes on this site, which can be made into a tract-sized document (I've done that with one of them): Morgue
Are You Good Enough? Living Waters - Are You Good Enough?



> But my statement still stands that your pastor or local missionary needs to train people how to do evangelize and the people need to be able to ask questions , which many of the tracts cannot answer. They cannot talk back audibly and say this is the answer to your question.



Yes, that is a valid concern, and I can't fault you for that. However, I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this. If the gospel message is presented thoroughly and accurately in a tract, and God saves people through the communication of the gospel message, then it stands to reason that it is something the Holy Spirit will use to convert some people. 



> The problem with handing out tracts is that it is NOT preaching. And Pergamum is right there no real biblical basic for the handing out of tracts as a method nor do I know of anything in the ancient times of the use of tracts to proclaim Christ. It was done by word of mouth.



Ummm...no. That just doesn't work. They didn't have printing presses or any means of mass duplication, so it's not surprising that the thought of handing out literature did not occur to them. There is a biblical basis for handing out tracts because it is the gospel message that God uses to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as a tract contains that message, handing it out is biblical.



> How do you judge the right ones, what your clear example of a good one? The ones I used are the two most common tracts used and even Chick is well used in certain circles.



Good questions. I evaluate any gospel presentation on the basis of whether the following doctrines are presented: God, sin and its consequences, man, Christ, faith and repentance, and counting the cost. Within those categories, God's attributes should be presented in a well-rounded manner, i.e., not just his love and mercy but also his holiness, justice, and wrath. Judgment must also be explained, including hell. Hell should be fully described, i.e., not just a separation between God and man but also eternal, conscious punishment. Sin must be explained by using the 10 commandments to dispel any attempts at self-justification (e.g., "I'm a good person because I've never killed anybody and I'm trying my best"). Christ's person and work should be explained, and man's responsibility to repent and believe should be explained. To avoid easy-believism, people should be exhorted to count the cost, explaining to them that Christ demands that his followers deny themselves and take up their cross daily. Sinner's prayers should be avoided like the plague, as well as any assurance of salvation based on a single response.



> You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This ”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts.



It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread. 



Grimmson said:


> I look at the majority representative and how the people respond to such.



Those are your mistakes: You make a final evaluation based on only select examples and on people's responses to them. Bad tracts are not an argument against using tracts, just like bad cars are not an argument against driving in general. Similarly, human responses don't constitute an argument against tracts because I know of people who have been saved through reading printed material alone. Your argument just doesn't work.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 11:47:54 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> I was well aware of Mark 5 before you made me dig up evidence.



Evidence? I never asked you for that. I asked you to exegete the passage to back up what you claimed.



> One of the things marring "witnessing" in our day is the "cold contact" - the stranger (i.e. Soul-Winner) who takes a sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim (i.e. "hell-bound sinner, the target) who happens to be polite enough to smile or appear open to the Gospel.The preacher then tries to download as much Gospel truth in a 3-5 minute spiel before the Target flees or politely tries to cut off your spiel.



Sharing the gospel in public with strangers directly is not a "sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim." You are describing it in negative terms to try to establish that the approach is bad, but at the end of the day this is just your assertion. You, like Grimmson, have set up your own personal standard for witnessing--based on what you have observed and your own experiences--and then proceed to critique witnessing methods based on that. That is specious argumentation. You need to start with the Bible as your criterion, and I don't mean taking passages out of their context, either.



> A personal testimony is a good way to start. It opens doors. It creates a bond so that the hearer is drawn in to a greater degree than they would be if they were merely being harangued by someone who seemed compelled to talk AT them, instead of WITH them.



Again, this is just your own personal standard. Your model is as follows:

Step one: Begin with sharing your personal testimony to "open doors" and "create a bond."
Step two: Communicate the gospel.

There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles used personal testimonies as an integral first step in their outreach. In addition, your idea is wrong because it relies on human interaction to "open doors" and "create a bond so that the hearer is drawn to a greater degree than...if they were merely being harangued." That connection you are talking about is created by the Holy Spirit through the gospel message, through the word of God, which is living and active. What mars witnessing in our day is the fact that Christians have taken it upon themselves to accomplish what only the Holy Spirit can do--open hearts and create ears to hear.



> Paul communicated the Gospel in his personal testimonies.



You have shown one example of this: and it was a very peculiar, special circumstance, hardly enough to build a case out of.



> I am sure the demoniac did too.


 You're sure? How? You have yet to draw that out of the passage. You're merely asserting it.



> My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?



You are the one who brought up the Mark passage, so naturally I asked you to show how that passage defends your point. You have yet to do so. Your reluctance to do so is very interesting. 

This has all been very interesting, Pergamum, but until you draw your conclusions out of scripture this entire discussion will continue to involve nothing more than building arguments out of personal experience and personal standards, none of which are reliable, regardless of whose they are (excepting God's standards, of course).

I look forward to reading your exegesis of the Mark passage.


----------



## Mushroom

The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:

1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -

2. Beating them over the head with it.

I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.


----------



## Pergamum

Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I misunderstood you. I'm not for relying on tracts to the exclusion of interaction. Oftentimes I use them as a means of starting a conversation. In fact, most of my evangelism in recent years has been done using a quiz that is specifically designed for conversation and interaction. But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the sum of the conclusion is this: Use tracts, but use good ones and don't use them to the exclusion of personal interaction and teaching, when possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson, there is a problem with this reasoning:
> 
> You're *assuming* that using a tract or a card as a hook is an immature practice, but that is only your assertion. Once again you set up your own personal standard as the rule by which other things are evaluated. Since I don't measure up to your standard, you go on from there to make the bold assertion that I should move on to more mature things. You begin with a conclusion and then make your argument from there, as you have shown a pattern of doing in this thread. You need to first show that using a tract to start a conversation is immature. I find it to be quite mature, actually. It takes boldness and genuine agape love for someone to approach them when they are a complete stranger, knowing they might reject you and even mock you. Taking the easy way, on the other hand--the way of ensuring a lesser chance of being rejected and mocked--would better be classified as an immature practice as it is selfish, unloving and doesn't have the best interest of others at heart.
> 
> This is why I try to stick to a biblical criterion for evaluating evangelistic approaches: It is the only sure standard.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have electronic copies of some of these, but:
> 
> "The Christian Message" by James White. (I don't think this is in print any longer, but I'd be happy to mail you a copy if you like.)
> The two quizzes on this site, which can be made into a tract-sized document (I've done that with one of them): Morgue
> Are You Good Enough? Living Waters - Are You Good Enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is a valid concern, and I can't fault you for that. However, I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this. If the gospel message is presented thoroughly and accurately in a tract, and God saves people through the communication of the gospel message, then it stands to reason that it is something the Holy Spirit will use to convert some people.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...no. That just doesn't work. They didn't have printing presses or any means of mass duplication, so it's not surprising that the thought of handing out literature did not occur to them. There is a biblical basis for handing out tracts because it is the gospel message that God uses to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as a tract contains that message, handing it out is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> Good questions. I evaluate any gospel presentation on the basis of whether the following doctrines are presented: God, sin and its consequences, man, Christ, faith and repentance, and counting the cost. Within those categories, God's attributes should be presented in a well-rounded manner, i.e., not just his love and mercy but also his holiness, justice, and wrath. Judgment must also be explained, including hell. Hell should be fully described, i.e., not just a separation between God and man but also eternal, conscious punishment. Sin must be explained by using the 10 commandments to dispel any attempts at self-justification (e.g., "I'm a good person because I've never killed anybody and I'm trying my best"). Christ's person and work should be explained, and man's responsibility to repent and believe should be explained. To avoid easy-believism, people should be exhorted to count the cost, explaining to them that Christ demands that his followers deny themselves and take up their cross daily. Sinner's prayers should be avoided like the plague, as well as any assurance of salvation based on a single response.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are your mistakes: You make a final evaluation based on only select examples and on people's responses to them. Bad tracts are not an argument against using tracts, just like bad cars are not an argument against driving in general. Similarly, human responses don't constitute an argument against tracts because I know of people who have been saved through reading printed material alone. Your argument just doesn't work.
> 
> -----Added 7/3/2009 at 11:47:54 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence? I never asked you for that. I asked you to exegete the passage to back up what you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> Sharing the gospel in public with strangers directly is not a "sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim." You are describing it in negative terms to try to establish that the approach is bad, but at the end of the day this is just your assertion. You, like Grimmson, have set up your own personal standard for witnessing--based on what you have observed and your own experiences--and then proceed to critique witnessing methods based on that. That is specious argumentation. You need to start with the Bible as your criterion, and I don't mean taking passages out of their context, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is just your own personal standard. Your model is as follows:
> 
> Step one: Begin with sharing your personal testimony to "open doors" and "create a bond."
> Step two: Communicate the gospel.
> 
> There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles used personal testimonies as an integral first step in their outreach. In addition, your idea is wrong because it relies on human interaction to "open doors" and "create a bond so that the hearer is drawn to a greater degree than...if they were merely being harangued." That connection you are talking about is created by the Holy Spirit through the gospel message, through the word of God, which is living and active. What mars witnessing in our day is the fact that Christians have taken it upon themselves to accomplish what only the Holy Spirit can do--open hearts and create ears to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown one example of this: and it was a very peculiar, special circumstance, hardly enough to build a case out of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure the demoniac did too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're sure? How? You have yet to draw that out of the passage. You're merely asserting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who brought up the Mark passage, so naturally I asked you to show how that passage defends your point. You have yet to do so. Your reluctance to do so is very interesting.
> 
> This has all been very interesting, Pergamum, but until you draw your conclusions out of scripture this entire discussion will continue to involve nothing more than building arguments out of personal experience and personal standards, none of which are reliable, regardless of whose they are (excepting God's standards, of course).
> 
> I look forward to reading your exegesis of the Mark passage.
Click to expand...


You are demanding more evidence of me than you are for yourself. 

We can all play your game and demand a detailed exegesis of every passage proving the opponent's point, but I don't have time; especially when you are throwing out the examples of Paul as non-normative and the demoniac as well.


What I see in Scripture is Paul and others using a variety of means to tell others about the Gospel. Paul testified before Agrippa, Paul spoke in public speaking forums, Paul (gasp) even tailored his presentation to his audience even while keeping the content of the Gospel intact. And, Paul and others spoke of what the Lord had done for them.

Mark 5:
_18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 

19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 

20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. _

In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.

How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.



p.s. Let me see you produce evidence and exegete it in-depth for your own views on tracts.


----------



## Pergamum

P.s.S. Let us also add the following passage to our list of biblical examples of personal testimony: John 4:29, 39; 9:25.


----------



## Spinningplates2

AThornquist said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worst: bumper stickers and church signs
> 
> "God reads knee-mail!"
> "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
> "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
> 
> UGH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Christians at least have a fish or two on the back of their car though. Maybe one could even have a big Christian fishy swallowing a Darwin fish. That seems like the Christian thing to do.
Click to expand...


The fish is a old and historic Christian sign. I, for one, grow weary of people who think it is "uncool" to show our faith by displaying it. Like the people who don't witness because they "just let people see me living the Life is my witness." I know many strong and great Christian who have fish on their mini vans that live the life, and witness effectivly.

Please do not respond by saying you were not mocking people who try to witness by putting fish decals on their car.


----------



## chbrooking

Brad said:


> The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:
> 
> 1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -
> 
> 2. Beating them over the head with it.
> 
> I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.



Why not a hard-cover for both? Sure it's more work, but it's worth it!


----------



## AThornquist

Spinningplates2 said:


> The fish is a old and historic Christian sign. I, for one, grow weary of people who think it is "uncool" to show our faith by displaying it. Like the people who don't witness because they "just let people see me living the Life is my witness." I know many strong and great Christian who have fish on their mini vans that live the life, and witness effectivly.
> 
> Please do not respond by saying you were not mocking people who try to witness by putting fish decals on their car.



Why would I say that I was not trying to mock them? I _was_ mocking them! Actually mocking is probably not the right word. "Poking fun" would be much better suited. Some of my very good friends who are godly individuals have dem fishies. My mom even has her "Put Christ Back Into Christmas" bumper magnet. Yay!

Here's why I think bumper fish are so silly (and it has nothing to do with coolness): that stupid little fish is about the extent of "Christianity" in some people's lives. As an example there was this guy at work who was just a rank pagan and one day in the parking lot I watched him get into his little BMW with a "Christian" fishy on it. It wasn't the best so-called witness for Christianity and we both know this sort of thing is not uncommon. Really, it's about as Christian as wearing a cross necklace, which a *lot* of unbelievers do as well. Is it wrong to have them? No one has said such a thing. Am I entitled to my opinion that they are worthless just as you are entitled to your opinion that they may be of value is some way? Of course. 

But if we need such ways to identify ourselves as Christians, why don't you deck out your wardrobe with "HI, I'M A CHRISTIAN!" shirts just to be sure that everybody knows? Is there any precedent for demonstrating our faith with fish in Scripture or was the Word alone preached and taught in power and in truth and godly living clearly shown to put haters to shame? I could just as equally say "Well you don't wear big ol' signs and walk up and down the streets screamin' and waving your Bible so you obviously you think it's uncool to demonstrate your faith." There are much more practical ways to demonstrate your faith that have a whole lot less cheese goin' on. Oh yeah, plus they have _Biblical_ precedents.


----------



## Curt

AThornquist said:


> But if we need such ways to identify ourselves as Christians, why don't you deck out your wardrobe with "HI, I'M A CHRISTIAN!" shirts just to be sure that everybody knows? Is there any precedent for demonstrating our faith with fish in Scripture or was the Word alone preached and taught in power and in truth and godly living clearly shown to put haters to shame? I could just as equally say "Well you don't wear big ol' signs and walk up and down the streets screamin' and waving your Bible so you obviously you think it's uncool to demonstrate your faith." There are much more practical ways to demonstrate your faith that have a whole lot less cheese goin' on. Oh yeah, plus they have _Biblical_ precedents.



Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.


----------



## Pergamum

chbrooking said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:
> 
> 1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -
> 
> 2. Beating them over the head with it.
> 
> I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not a hard-cover for both? Sure it's more work, but it's worth it!
Click to expand...


The little Gideon NTs can be used better as projectiles. King David felled the giant with a smooth stone....fell that recalcitrant sinner with a Gideons!


----------



## AThornquist

Curt said:


> Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.



Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before. All of this is making me consider t-shirt evangelism though. Wear an XL with a Christian message in big font and then just walk around so people see you. One could release blood-curdling screams every now and then just so people look in your direction and are given no opportunity to avoid seeing a t-shirt evangelist in action. That Calvinist t-shirt "Hey baby, is your name Grace? 'Cause your irresistible!" would really come in handy.


----------



## Curt

AThornquist said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before.
Click to expand...


Actually it was a serious reference to the "Jude" stars worn by the Jews in several European countries during WWII.


----------



## AThornquist

Curt said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was a serious reference to the "Jude" stars worn by the Jews in several European countries during WWII.
Click to expand...


Ahhh. Gotcha.


----------



## Grimmson

I am at times a theological nitpicker as one can observe in some of my previous writing, along side s few other issues such as a high view of the local church which Pergamum can attest to in his own personal testimony. 

When I was in college I saw the quiz method being used and the various reactions. Some people depending on their demeanor and respect would take the test while others would immediately go into social or theological debate. One thing I have to say about the method, I can not name a single person that it actually worked on to my knowledge that was an unbeliever to begin with for Campus Crusade for Christ in my four years. I was actually involved in IV, but I had extremely close interacting relationship with CCC, so which were my room mates from time to time. Does this make tracts bad, no. But I think that particular reality should be looked at more closely. 

The quizzes on to the go are designed for more of a high paced environment; however I saw do we need to be moving so fast. We should slow down and let people examine what being said, instead of it being thrown out there. 


Der Pilger said:


> But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.


Just because they accept the tract does not mean that read it. In most cases am sure that just accept it out of politeness as if you were a Jehovah Witness and then throw it away. I think it’s a waste of paper if you do not sit down and go over it with them. For me the issue isn’t that its showing agape love, for if such is the case have you done the same to your fellow co-workers, your family, your neighbors down the street? If not I would suggest starting off with them, its not far and as one reaches another then those who you would pass a tract on the street would perhaps hear it from their neighbor or sister-in law or such

I personally avoid tracts because the most popular ones are extremely bad and I do not want to associate myself with them. I want to take a look at one of these tracts that you use and I am going to be slightly critical for the moment and do not take it personally.

I looked at the first one called Morgue which is a combination of two quizzes, which CCC would have called initially surveys. And I had one concern and that was the hook or focus was regarding if people were going to heaven. I think that something we need to be careful about in our Gospel presentation because the focus must be on sins now and not the upcoming reality in Christ. People of course will want to say yes there going to heaven and not want to keep to scripture because it a emotional issue. For us issue should not be going to heaven, but being with our Lord. Maybe my distinction is not making sense, but are focus needs not be on a place, so as to use God to get there, but on the one who saves. The content of the tract not to bad, but one other issue besides the titles that I have is there no mention of a need to attend Church. Another thing that grieves my heart is when I hear 50 people came to the Lord, however you have no idea where or ir their attending church.


Der Pilger said:


> I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this.


I am not overlooking the divine element here. I see that God has ordained certain means for us to evangelize. I quoted it earlier that faith comes from hearing and hearing the word of God. Therefore the methods we use are important and significant. Reading tracts is not the normative means applied by scripture. People could have written down tracts, their not long and a printing press would not be needed. But no, it was through the foolish of preaching, oral communication that the word was spread and continues to be spread around the world. If you need scripture, do it with open bible in hand so that people can read the context and understand, instead of machine gun scripture quoting that the people are not familiar with. And use a translation people can understand and will be harder to take out of context. 


Der Pilger said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This ”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts
> 
> 
> 
> It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread.
Click to expand...


One of my concerns, whether be in here or evangelism, we should do it with the holiness of God in mind. I made it clear at the beginning that I was alright with using tracts as a training process, but as one matures in the faith the dependence of tracts should wean. What happens if the people are dependent on them and in the future we can no longer use them for some legal issue? Then we have lost the art of classical evangelism, where conversational approach falls under. My purpose was not to insult you but to show that type of answer was immature. I imagined a 14 year old kid after being told how to work on a math problem and why would then turn around and say, “Why should I?” Out of a sense of rebellion, especially in light of the following question of “Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?” Which was “Or memorize key scripture passages that you like to use?” Nor did you cover “What happens if you no longer have tracts to use anymore?” Does that mean your done evangelizing. 

I may have acted inappropriately, but you yourself even admitted that you jumped the gun in thinking they I was totally against the use of tracts. I just see their use as a training exercise for those young in the faith that are still learning about the key scripture passages for providing a defense for the hope that is within you, something Christians have been doing and was commanded to do prior to the development of tracts. Further more I want to add I do not think it is a mistake to make judgment on the majority use of tracts and the shallowness of Christians that are produced after believing in these tracts. I am sure you agree that as being Christians and teacher in the faith, entrusted with souls, that the souls of whom we reach and are reaching are our responsibility and we will give account on that day regarding what we did and why. Therefore if a method produces a certain level of commitment or lack there of it should be examined closely so be can better proclaim Christ, because salvation is a miracle and work of God, but God had ordained the means to that end. And regardless of our efforts we must remember God saves despite of what we are and how poor of a technique we apply. However like I said, we will still give an account to God and I want my conscience clear, which is why based upon what I have seen I use the methods I use.


----------



## Der Pilger

Rich Koster said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, the best way takes a while. Let others see us living with godly attributes as we communicate the message _verbally_when we are prompted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:
> 
> Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
> Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.
> 
> Is that what you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't separate the two into a formula.
Click to expand...


Isn't that actually what you did, though? You mentioned letting others see us living godly lives and attributes, and then you mentioned sharing verbally "when prompted." This last phrase pretty strongly implies that the verbal sharing is put on hold, unless I'm misunderstanding you.



> I just refuse to be like the open air evangelists who make an overbearing first impression.



I don't know about "overbearing," as that really depends on the individual who does it. I find it interesting that you are against open air when this is actually what Jesus and the apostles did. I'm sure there were times when they had quiet conversations with people, but there were also times when they spoke openly to large groups of people. 



> Let your life and your message be consistent and speak when those God sent moments are set up for you.



I wonder about this. Does God really expect us to wait for him to "send" us moments that are "set up" for us? Hasn't he told us to go forth with the gospel? And if he has, doesn't that indicate pretty clearly that we are to take the initiative? I don't mean using manipulation or trying to buttonhole people into talking with us, but I do mean seeking to create opportunities ourselves.

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 12:02:31 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> What I see in Scripture is Paul and others using a variety of means to tell others about the Gospel. Paul testified before Agrippa, Paul spoke in public speaking forums, Paul (gasp) even tailored his presentation to his audience even while keeping the content of the Gospel intact. And, Paul and others spoke of what the Lord had done for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with most of this, but none of it says that he used his personal testimony to share the gospel. The only instance of this is when he stood before Agrippa, but I've already pointed out that he was on trial, which makes it a special circumstance. And besides, did Luke intend that account as a lesson on a way to share the gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark 5:
> _18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
> 
> 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.
> 
> 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. _
> 
> In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.
> 
> How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pergamum, you persist in reframing the issue. From the beginning of our exchange, the question has not been, "Did Jesus command personal testimonies?" but rather "Did Jesus command personal testimonies as a means of communicating the content of the gospel message?" You persist in answering the former question while ignoring the latter. Now the former demoniac was not told to communicate the gospel.The text does not even come close to saying that or even hinting at it. Jesus simply told him to share with others what good things God had done for him. Telling others what God has done for me is most assuredly not the gospel message; therefore, this passage cannot be used to affirm the use of personal testimonies as a tool to communicate the gospel. The only way anyone could interpret it in such a way would be if he made up his mind about it prior to reading the text and then imposed his view on the passage.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gloria

Tracts are for the person you're talking to, not necessarily the person sharing the gospel. It gives the person, who is more than likely unfamiliar with scripture, something to look at once the encounter is over. You can also leave contact information with the person on the tract if they want to have further discussion about God...


----------



## charliejunfan

I think one of the worst evangelism tactics is to tell people to write their date and time of "conversion" in the back of their brand new, free bible so that they never fight for assurance.


----------



## Rich Koster

Der Pilger said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:
> 
> Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
> Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.
> 
> Is that what you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't separate the two into a formula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that actually what you did, though? You mentioned letting others see us living godly lives and attributes, and then you mentioned sharing verbally "when prompted." This last phrase pretty strongly implies that the verbal sharing is put on hold, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
> 
> 
> No. I did not set a time requirement or minimum. Paul walked into synagogues, he had a general idea where these people were at and addressed them accordingly. I like to know something about a person's viewpoints before I engage them. If I saw someone kneeling in front of their house praying, I now have my springboard to launch a conversation.
> 
> I don't know about "overbearing," as that really depends on the individual who does it. I find it interesting that you are against open air when this is actually what Jesus and the apostles did. I'm sure there were times when they had quiet conversations with people, but there were also times when they spoke openly to large groups of people.
> 
> I am against obnoxious, overbearing OAEs that denigrate the reputation of Christ, that does not include _ALL _OAEs Certain loudmouths that point fingers at crowds may contain an element of truth, but their condemning spirit is evidence that they do not fully grasp the truth.
> 
> I wonder about this. Does God really expect us to wait for him to "send" us moments that are "set up" for us? Hasn't he told us to go forth with the gospel? And if he has, doesn't that indicate pretty clearly that we are to take the initiative? I don't mean using manipulation or trying to buttonhole people into talking with us, but I do mean seeking to create opportunities ourselves.
> 
> 
> How about _recognizing_ opportunities???????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 7/4/2009 at 12:02:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with most of this, but none of it says that he used his personal testimony to share the gospel. The only instance of this is when he stood before Agrippa, but I've already pointed out that he was on trial, which makes it a special circumstance. And besides, did Luke intend that account as a lesson on a way to share the gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark 5:
> _18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
> 
> 19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.
> 
> 20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. _
> 
> In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.
> 
> How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pergamum, you persist in reframing the issue. From the beginning of our exchange, the question has not been, "Did Jesus command personal testimonies?" but rather "Did Jesus command personal testimonies as a means of communicating the content of the gospel message?" You persist in answering the former question while ignoring the latter. Now the former demoniac was not told to communicate the gospel.The text does not even come close to saying that or even hinting at it. Jesus simply told him to share with others what good things God had done for him. Telling others what God has done for me is most assuredly not the gospel message; therefore, this passage cannot be used to affirm the use of personal testimonies as a tool to communicate the gospel. The only way anyone could interpret it in such a way would be if he made up his mind about it prior to reading the text and then imposed his view on the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Brian Withnell

Hmmm...

Best method of evangelism:
John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:



> As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”



The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.

The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.


----------



## Pergamum

Brian Withnell said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Best method of evangelism:
> John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.
> 
> The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.
Click to expand...


Wasn't King Agrippa "almost persuaded" to become a Christian? I guess Paul failed in his presentation during his personal testimony.

Although, I admit, there is some evidence to think that Agrippa was sneering and mocking Paul, "In just this little short time, you would think I would become a Christian after your short spiel..." "Okay, Dude, I'm convicned!....Whatever" So, this might have been said in jest. I would love to discuss that further.


----------



## Der Pilger

Rich Koster said:


> No. I did not set a time requirement or minimum. Paul walked into synagogues, he had a general idea where these people were at and addressed them accordingly. I like to know something about a person's viewpoints before I engage them. If I saw someone kneeling in front of their house praying, I now have my springboard to launch a conversation.



I can see where this makes sense, but what about making the springboard? 



> I am against obnoxious, overbearing OAEs that denigrate the reputation of Christ, that does not include _ALL _OAEs Certain loudmouths that point fingers at crowds may contain an element of truth, but their condemning spirit is evidence that they do not fully grasp the truth.



I tend to agree. I've seen these kinds of open-air preachers, and I'm sure there are some who are obnoxious and offensive. Not only that, but I've seen some who actually don't instruct others well but simply get out on a sidewalk and do a tongue-in-cheek presentation. 



> How about _recognizing_ opportunities???????????????



That's fine as long as you don't limit yourself to that. We are to go forth with the gospel. That involves an attitude of proactively taking the gospel to places. I know you're not speaking against this, but I do feel somewhat cautious about your apparent tendency to lean in the direction of being passive--recognizing opportunities, trying to see where someone is at spiritually so as to have a springboard, etc. Again, these things aren't wrong, but I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to such.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:19:34 EST-----



Brian Withnell said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Best method of evangelism:
> John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.
> 
> The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.
Click to expand...


Well said. Paul was very conscious of this when he wrote, _"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" _(Gal. 1:10). Our chief aim in our communication of the gospel should be to win God's approval, not to please men. Pleasing men and preaching the gospel are incompatible. Paul did not try to accomplish both; for him it was an either/or proposition when it came to the gospel. Either you please men, or you seek God's approval.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:28:19 EST-----



Gloria said:


> Tracts are for the person you're talking to, not necessarily the person sharing the gospel. It gives the person, who is more than likely unfamiliar with scripture, something to look at once the encounter is over. You can also leave contact information with the person on the tract if they want to have further discussion about God...



Good point. Tracts are not a crutch for those who don't know how to share the gospel; they are a means of communicating the gospel message in print and leaving that message with someone after the encounter is over.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Pergamum said:


> Wasn't King Agrippa "almost persuaded" to become a Christian? I guess Paul failed in his presentation during his personal testimony.
> 
> Although, I admit, there is some evidence to think that Agrippa was sneering and mocking Paul, "In just this little short time, you would think I would become a Christian after your short spiel..." "Okay, Dude, I'm convicned!....Whatever" So, this might have been said in jest. I would love to discuss that further.



I would say that Paul absolutely was successful. King Agrippa understood, and while we do not know with certitude his ultimate faith, it seems clear that Paul did in fact have the effect on Festus of having him hate Paul (calling someone crazy is at the least insulting).

I'm convinced that Paul did succeed. If Agrippa was "in a short while convinced" then Paul at least sowed the seeds that would later bloom into saving faith. And unless Festus later repented of the attitude he displayed, he certainly did trample underfoot the Son of God and entered into a more complete condemnation. The gospel goes forth to accomplish what it will. I do not know if Agrippa was of faith. Schaff in his "History of the Christian Church" states that Agrippa gave asylum to the Christians fleeing the destruction of Jerusalem. We don't know why (other than the providence of God) but we might think that perhaps Paul did plant seeds that eventually bore fruit; at least we can hope so. So I would say Paul succeeded. Success in presenting the gospel is not having people converted, but having people exposed to the purifying flame of the gospel.


----------



## cih1355

What do you think of the following approaches?

Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.

Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"


----------



## Grimmson

cih1355 said:


> What do you think of the following approaches?
> 
> Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.
> 
> Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"



I personally use a more flexible approach and depends on the flow or movement of the conversation and where the conversation is taking place. I do not take a formulaic approach. But I think the approach that Ray Comfort used is interesting, especially in light of the fact that I just ran across a tract, thanks to Der Pilger, that uses the exact same approach. 

Sometimes however I think we need to switch gears from the self to God and what he has done through the cross. Foreven most "good people" recongize that have sined and that makes them sinners. The problem with their( Comfort and Cameron) method is that it does not show the gravity of their sin against God. In fact many people just try to laugh it off. There needs to be more of the conversation then just talking about the decalouge in our approach, but also on the character and attributes of God. Many times this is missing in our approah, but it is not missing in Paul address at Mars Hill.


----------



## cih1355

Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?


----------



## Pergamum

cih1355 said:


> Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?



I think it would have to be natural or else you would just appear to be phony. It is OKAY to have a conversation with someone that is not about Christ. We want to value people as people, not as evangelistic targets, lest we make people believeus to be using them to gain "conversion points."


----------



## Der Pilger

cih1355 said:


> What do you think of the following approaches?
> 
> Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.



That is an excellent approach and completely biblical. It is up front and addresses the crucial issues a person needs to grasp.



> Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"



I think this is fine, too. Any approach that has as its immediate goal the complete communication of the gospel message is fine.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 10:52:40 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?



That's a tough one to answer because it really depends on what exactly is being said in the conversation. It is difficult to say what kind of bridge to build from one topic to another when the original topic is unknown. Here are some suggestions, though:

"What is your religious background?"
"Would you mind if I asked you something on a deeper level?"
*If you've been reading a Christian book lately:* "I've been reading this really interesting book called _______________________. It has really made me think a lot."

It's helpful to use ice-breakers of some kind. Livingwaters.com publishes some very helpful ice-breaker tools, such as the "Smart Card" and their various million-dollar bills. The gospel presentations on these items are too short, in my opinion, but they are useful to use as ways of lightheartedly turning a conversation to spiritual matters and proceeding to the gospel more or less immediately.


----------



## Rich Koster

Herald said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knock on a door, hand someone a tract, smile and leave
> 
> -----Added 6/30/2009 at 08:05:57 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> jonmo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the worst I saw was in New York City on a busy holiday weekend. A group of conservative/fundamentalist church goers from upstate New York descended on the street near Macy's and proceeded to shout at everyone going by about how they were sinners and deserved God's wrath.  One of the guy's was wearing a t-shirt depicting the Pope as the antichrist; otherwise everyone else was wearing plain, somber clothing and all the women had long hair and dresses.
> 
> As you might expect, your typical New Yorker doesn't take too kindly to be shouted at (about anything, let alone "religion"). I watched for a while and it was painful as both sides hurled verbal abuse at each other. Those witnessing clearly lacked both grace and love for those they were "witnessing" to and it sadly seemed like they were doing it so they could go back to their little town upstate and be self-satisfied in how they told those evil city dwellers about their sin.
> 
> I tried to speak quietly and respectfully to one of the leaders about their method and he basically told me where to go.
> 
> Needless to say, I would put Tim Keller's preaching at the other end of the scale in terms of best methods of witnessing to people in NYC. He has a humble spirit, patience with unbelievers' questions, and gets to the heart of many of the stumbling blocks people have to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they from Word of Life Bible Institute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, please don't insinuate that students of WOLBI are like that. They aren't. I know because I am a graduate. Word of Life uses the Open Air Campaigners method of street evangelism. They do not shout in the streets and call people sinners. Word of Life is not Reformed nor Calvinistic. They are within the main stream Baptist genre. Good people who have a sincere desire to see sinners converted. Is their soteriology off base? Sure it is. I am not defending aberrant doctrine, but I have witnessed first hand genuine conversions in spite of their free will leanings. I just want to set the record straight on my Alma Mater.
Click to expand...


I was questioning this because back in the 90's, I went to the WOL family campground. They had sign ups for adults to join BI student for bus trips to Lake George and the city for OAE.


----------



## jonmo

I think in fairness to Rich he was only asking a question. I was the one who saw the students and, to be honest, the description from the WOL website is close to that described to me by those "witnessing" in NYC in terms of their background. If anyone should be pulled up on this, it should be me not Rich. I can't say definitely if it was WOL or not.


----------

