# Advice for dealing with street-preachers



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2014)

Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.

When I respond that it is not an appropriate setting, the usual response is that anywhere there are unbelievers is an appropriate setting. 

I then usually respond that people are trying to shop/get to work/relax with their families and do not want to be disturbed and that Christianity ought to foster politeness and not rudeness. They usually charge me with not being evangelistic or caring for the souls of men. Or something like this...



> believe me you read the scriptures the Prophets preached in what many would say is the inappropriate setting they were stoned and all kinds of stuff. God told them to do certain stuff to cause a scene



Any better ways of answering that I could give these people?


----------



## MW (Nov 28, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Any better ways of answering that I could give these people?



In the absence of ecclesiastical oversight and co-operation, the best means of answering might be by not answering. Let them alone to do the work their way. Each worker will give his own account to his Gracious Employer and the day of judgment will bring all things to light. Bickering among employees as to how to improve customer service does nothing to improve customer service.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2014)

Hmmmm.... thanks. 

I think your advice probably fits many other contexts as well.


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2014)

Any of the comments that I think of would probably get moderated because of their sarcastic tone.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2014)

I am sure there are valid reasons behind any sarcasm-laced critiques that you could mine out as a gem out of a dung-heap perhaps.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 28, 2014)

If you were to Google search "Reverend Charles Cline, Holy Joe, Miami" you would come up with a couple of old 'human interest' news articles on the aforementioned gentleman. I suppose he was my first introduction to the gospel. In the early 1960s he could be found on weekdays, standing on the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue, on Miami Beach. He had a 'sandwich board' with John 3:16 on it. A black satchel, open and filled with small New Testaments.

He would offer free Bibles to pedestrians passing by along with pamphlets promoting the gospel, such as The Romans Road, among others. In that venue he was did not preach, but would witness to anyone who would listen. On the weekend he would go to Haulover Beach, or to 72nd St beach, next to 'the patio' which was an outdoor beer parlor right on the beach. It was a den of iniquity if there ever was one, and I spent a lot of my formative years there.

In that venue he would preach, his satchel of small Bibles open in the sand beside him. I was 13 or 14 and would join the other kids in mocking him. He persevered and no matter how much we kids messed with him he never gave up. He must have felt deeply blessed for the persecution we little miscreants put him through. I left that area for a number of years, and I never forgot Holy Joe. I came back maybe 5 years later and saw him on Lincoln Rd. I had the opportunity to tell him that I was sorry for my behavior and to thank him for his efforts. He smiled and graciously thanked me. That was over 45 years ago. Heaven only knows what street preachers would meet with in todays world.


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 28, 2014)

Well, thank God for Holy Joe.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 28, 2014)

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?


----------



## Andres (Nov 28, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?



Perhaps logically show them that's not possible. God calls us to vocations, families, corporate worship, etc. Instead explain how their efforts might be better used in simply befriending people in our "circles of influence" (neighbors, coworkers, classmates), showing them Christian charity, inviting them to church, and having a ready answer for their questions regarding faith/spiritual things. 

The type of thinking you describe Perg is prevalent today and regrettably I think it's caused by men teaching this new type of "radical" Christianity, where Believers are to live radical lives for Christ. Michael Horton has a new book out that I think looks like a most helpful topic in this area - _Ordinary: The Case Against Radical Christianity_

EDIT: I should also note, I'm definitely not opposed to street preaching, I just think there is a wrong/right way to go about it and that it's not for "everyone, everywhere, all the time."


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 28, 2014)

Outdoor evangelism can be helpful. Some people in England have a type of crowd outdoor evangelism where they tell a Biblical story while they paint a picture... I can see that being effective... I think effforts like that could be helpful

I think God might use a range of things but I prefer trying to convey enough of a message to be helpful as opposed to some buzwords people have already heard.... but God can use anything he want...


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 29, 2014)

I don't care for what I'll call "hit and run" open air preaching. That is to go to some densely populated area, far away from your local congregation, just so you know there will be a large audience. I believe this kind of street preaching is disconnected from potential discipleship. I would mention this to rogues to try to reel them in, and have them work closely with the local Church, rather than go all over the place on their own initiative. Just my opinion.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 29, 2014)

Time for a song.... "Come to the feast" by Jeff Lawson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVb0IkLUx2E

Go to the highway and hedges 
Go to the Farthest of field
Go and compel the sick and the well
For our father's house will be filled


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 29, 2014)

I admit that I have issues with street preaching; especially if it is not sanctioned by a church. And answering people who may question the need for it to be sanctioned by a church I am reminded by two verses in Proverbs 26:4-5; therefore it requires wisdom because someone might be doing it because they care about spreading the gospel effectively in the manner that God desires or other motives may be in play. Either case, remember that God's word never comes back void. And remember what the Apostle Paul said, "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice."


----------



## Philip (Nov 29, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?



I would say "amen, and I try to use words when it's necessary."

I have met one, precisely one, street "preacher" who went about it in a helpful way. He has a table of literature and would engage passers-by in conversation. He wasn't obnoxious but always seemed genuinely interested to meet you and hear your story and talk with you. When I ran into him, we would end up chatting for a few moments before I had to rush off to class or tutorial (this was in England).


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 29, 2014)

Philip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?
> ...



Comparing Phillip's encounter with street preaching with mine, I suppose it demonstrates there is more than one definition for 'street preaching. I've thought of, or rather fantasized, that I would pick up "Holy Joe's" torch and follow in his footsteps. But as Paul says, "Who is sufficient for these things ?" I was reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones 'Preaching and Preachers' today, looking for a paragraph or so, where he explains why he prefers a Geneva gown at the pulpit. The topic of another thread. I didn't find it, but became engrossed in a lecture he gave explaining his view on who should preach. For any pastors out there who haven't read it, as a layman, I'd highly recommend it. You can also hear he lectures, on tape and free, at MLJtrust.org. 

The Doctor talks about the call to preach. Who thinks they have it, who actually does. One way or the other, there is much responsibility , and there should be much preparation. I personally don't think I am well versed enough in Scripture to preach. Not that I should be, but if I were to step out into the highways and byways proclaiming the Gospel, I ought to know what I'm doing. I have done some one on one witnessing to acquaintances who are unbelievers. On those occasions I've always felt insufficient in giving a reason for the hope that is in me. I can only imagine the pressure a person must feel preaching in front of a group.

What I have done, and still do is invite people to attend church and/or Bible study. People I become acquainted with. I used to go door to door with a Baptist pastor where I was a member before going with the OPC. Knocking on stranger's doors, Jehovah Witness style, and handing them a tract and an invitation to church. This was an interesting experience. I was reluctant to do it at first, and like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, you never knew what you would get when that door opened, but I felt good doing it.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 30, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?



If they are attempting to bind your conscience in that manner, the burden of proof by Scripture is on them. Until they can come up with an argument deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture, you have no need to answer. Such a position is often merely assumed rather than actually argued in which case it holds no compulsion for you.


A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church 

Evangelism and the Church
Charles G. Dennison

Orthodox Presbyterian Church


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2014)

Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?
> ...



My pastor mentioned in a sermon that he's known men to sell everything and travel overseas to be missionaries, and yet they don't love their wives as Christ loved the church. Testimonies are destroyed when the emboldened priorities are sacrificed for "evangelistic work." If the work life or family life is not in order, and the hearer is aware of it, the "evangelist" will never have the full respect of the hearer. Neither will the wife, children, coworkers, or boss(es) who have more Biblical rights to the "evangelist's" time, effort and energy than the man on the street.

John Wesley's marriage may serve as a caution in this regard.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 30, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> A couple of articles that may be helpful:
> 
> Evangelistic Responsibility
> T. David Gordon
> ...



I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by *the ministry of the Word*, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 30, 2014)

The title of this post seems to suggest that there's something wrong with street preaching. I think it's an excellent way of getting the Gospel out. I'm a big fan of Ray Comfort and would like to get into doing some street preaching myself.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 30, 2014)

Michael:

I believe there IS something wrong with street-preaching the way it is normally done.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 30, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of articles that may be helpful:
> ...


I would argue that Gordon and others have overcompensated against the extremes of evangelicalism. While I would not argue that all Christians have the same evangelistic responsibility as a minister of the Gospel, I think it is also unhelpful to respond by stating that there is no such duty incumbent upon those who are not Gospel ministers. Frankly, Dr. Gordon's article smacks of an elitist clericalism to my ears. The "often-bumbling lay-person" is presented as a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel if he speaks. Better just to let the trained professionals handle all such things. Moreover, Christian lay-evangelism offends our pluralistic society. Much better if Christian men and women shut up so that such things may be said by ministers speaking from a pulpit in their own private gatherings.

The Ninth Commandment requires, as a positive duty, our "appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever" (WLC 144). The Third Commandment requires that we "not only by cursing or perjury, but also by rash swearing, must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others" (HC 99). Our Lord commands his disciples without exception to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). So I submit to you that it is most certainly incumbent upon all Christians to speak of the truths of the Gospel to our fellow men, albeit in all these positive duties we recognize that "what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99) and that these duties are to performed in a manner which is appropriate to our places and callings in life.

In reference to street preaching, there most certainly a great danger present in American evangelicalism that many have arrogated to themselves an official representative role as ambassadors for Christ to which they have not been ordained. That being said, let us not so strongly react against this error that we fall into the opposite ditch and deny the importance of ordinary Christians speaking the truths of the Gospel to their friends, family, and co-workers. Certainly let us not treat the Gospel as though it were an arcane knowledge beyond the reach of ordinary men to articulate.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 30, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldCourse said:
> ...



Yes, I agree. I am troubled on one end with street preachers who seem to gauge one's Christianity by zeal in this area alone. I have also been troubled by reactions against David Platt's book _Radical_ (such as articles advocating being an "ordinary" Christian) when most churches in the West seem to be lukewarm so that being "too radical" is sure not our problem. On Judgment Day the American Church will never be faulted for being too radical I don't think. 

On one hand, I tire of Christians that say every Christian is a missionary and every spot on earth is a mission field, and others who state that only ordained minister can "evangelize" and that the rest of us have no duties in this area. I am against guilting people into "doing more for Christ" and yet I think most churches (even solid churches) should and could be doing more (just not necessarily more street-preaching since this is a deficient method).


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 30, 2014)

x1000



Dearly Bought said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldCourse said:
> ...


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 30, 2014)

I think part of the problem in America is that "busy" defines *everything *we do, and so "radical" really means hyperactive and quantifiable - which is essentially a spiritual assembly line. The flipside is essentially a "we'll preach the Gospel and if someone walks in our doors, great...but we're not really doing anything to have a presence in the community so that someone would come in." And it leaves laity either complacent or frustrated that "maybe I shouldn't be talking about these things to my friend or coworker - I might just bumble and stumble."


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 30, 2014)

Hi Scott! Good to see you around. Hope all is well with you and yours.


----------



## BrimStoneStream (Nov 30, 2014)

Sports Fan Outreach International trains street preachers for an annual Super Bowl ministry and other sporting events during the year. There is information about them on YouTube / Bill Adams
at Super Bowl Outreach '14: http://youtu.be/cpOj9VBzebE


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 30, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldCourse said:
> ...



As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling _hinder_ the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 30, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling _hinder_ the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.



Hi Chris,
I wasn't necessarily advocating for those not ordained to office to engage in street "preaching." I think I was pretty clear that evangelistic duty is appropriate to our places and callings in life. Ministers have a calling beyond the norm to engage the lost world as official ambassadors for Christ, a calling which entails a form of "seeking" the lost which is not incumbent on ordinary church members. However, there is an "evangelism" which is necessary for any Christian. We are not permitted to merely remain silent regarding the things of God and the Gospel unless we are asked specifically for our views. We don't need to seek a broader audience as a minister might, but that audience which we have been given in our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers should hear our testimony to the work of Christ.

To be clear, I am opposed to the sort of universal evangelistic duty along the lines of D.L. Moody searching the streets for someone to evangelize because he hadn't presented the Gospel yet that day. I am also opposed to the relegation of evangelistic duty exclusively to the office of minister of word and sacraments so that those not ordained to office are to refrain from ever intentionally and pro-actively speaking the Gospel message to those around them. I am very sure that Reformed church history bears out my understanding that orthodox churchmen expected all faithful Christians to speak of the Gospel of Jesus Christ constantly out of the abundance of their hearts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2014)

I used to speak publicly on the subways in Manhattan; at first I was scared to do it, so I apprenticed myself to an experienced speaker until I became more comfortable. It bothered me deeply that there were many who never had a chance to hear a winsome and gracious presentation of the gospel of our Savior, and the salvation He offers through the forgiveness of sins for repentant lawbreakers, and the imputing of His righteousness so we might be holy before God. I stopped doing it when I became aware that public speaking on the NYC subway cars was not legal.

In the cultural climate of the present times I think the idea mentioned above of having a table on the street, and giving Bibles or NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs, and talking or praying with people might be more appropriate. Still, to occasionally lift one's voice about the glorious grace of God to the perishing I think would be fine. I'm retired from the pastorate and do know how to present the gospel, plus the pastor of the church I am a member of would heartily approve of me doing this. I just need someone Spanish-speaking with me as my neighborhood is predominantly Hispanic, mostly working-class and families. It would also give me a chance to speak with some of the drug dealers in the area. 

When pastoring the church in Cyprus we – almost the whole (small) church – would go to the oceanside park nearby and sing hymns and speak of Christ and salvation. We were fishing for souls. Proverbs 24:11,12, I think, urges us to have a heart for the perishing,
If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death,
and those that are ready to be slain;
If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not;
doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it?
and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it?
and shall not he render to every man according to his works?​ 
Sometimes all we can do for certain people is pray for them – but that is something! It still grieves me deeply that many people do not know Christ – not having heard the Good News – and are heading to an eternity of torment. My view is that there may be many of God’s elect yet uncalled among these throngs, and who will call them? When I pray for old friends I have lost track of and can’t locate, I ask the Lord that if they’re still alive would He please bring some of His people to them to give them His word, and would He draw them to Him. When we pray for unsaved loved ones far away, do we not hope for the same?

I think Pastor Winzer’s counsel in post #2 is the wisest thing I’ve seen on this.

We sometimes forget that what moves evangelists to do what they do is, in part, the deeply heartfelt feeling for those in danger of eternal torment – “Abandon all hope all ye who enter here” – as well the open floodgates of divine pity and mercy pouring forth the waters of life, calling, “And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17). Also a desire that God's name be hallowed in many hearts, and His will done in their lives, that the Kingdom be enlarged.

I think also of Jesus’ words in Matt 22:8-10,
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.​ 
I do agree that any person desirous of public ministry should have the blessing of his pastor (who should make sure the person is genuinely fit), and even better, a church itself should have some sort of evangelistic ministry to the community, for there are multitudes of folks who would never set foot inside a church. It need not be always _only_ verbal ministry, but giving food or clothing, or other sorts of help.

I know a woman who bakes goods and gives them out to certain local people – doctors, supermarket employees, neighbors, people in various shops she frequents – and when occasion arises she asks if they need prayer for anything, and if appropriate prays for them right there. She, although quite reserved, seeks to make friends in the community, and as Christ is much in her life, seeks to share Him.

It was a woman, who was an employee of a camp for disturbed children I had worked at, who spoke of Christ to me, and through that witness the Holy Spirit shone Christ's glory in my heart and turned an enemy into a beloved son.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 30, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling _hinder_ the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.
> ...



"Evangelistic duty" is a somewhat loaded phrase to begin with and is at the least speaking in ways that our Reformed ancestors would not have. They saw "evangelist" as a distinct office of the church that was associated with and ceased alongside apostleship--what remained was the ordinary minister of word and sacrament. See the DPW for an example. Now that office had certain characteristics (as understood both biblically and by the divines) which we don't often associate it with today, but it also suggests that they would be as opposed to the pretending of that office by unqualified men as they would of apostle or minister. 

Regardless, as far as I'm aware of (and I'm happy to be shown otherwise), the Reformed men of the 16th and 17th centuries conceived of conversions ordinarily taking place through the preaching of the Word by a duly ordained and called minister (drawing on Romans 10). To have a conversion take place apart from that--through the casual encouragement of a lay-person in this case--may occur but it is an extraordinary rather than an ordinary occurrence and would certainly not be placed upon the believer's back as a common duty or expectation. Gordon in his article doesn't seem to be so much arguing that speaking of the Gospel with friends in co-workers is wrong (although in some cases it may be--I think street preaching qualifies), but that it is not something that can be required of a lay-person as part of his religious duty by a minister as it cannot be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. To that point I agree with him and seem to find it substantiated in older Reformed writings. 

This is a subject that, particularly from a historical perspective, has interested me for some time and I would be pleased to be pointed towards any 16th-17th c. sources that controvert (or confirm) Gordon and Dennison's arguments. Far too many modern treatments of such sources unfortunately fall guilty of anachronism.


----------



## pilgrimmum (Nov 30, 2014)

I have done a lot of street preaching, singing and handing out tracts. I am sure God's Word never returns void. A Christian brother who goes into the town centre here regularly has built a great rapport with the street kids and people there. Some are led to do this I am sure by a burning zeal for the Lord. This cannot be a bad thing. I've never seen Christians behave badly or unkindly in the process either.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 30, 2014)

Street preaching done in love is Biblical (Acts 17:17)! Not everyone is called to this, but for those who are, God bless them. My dad knew someone who heard the gospel from a street preacher and was converted. Hallelujah!

The problem is not with preaching in the marketplace or street but in the way many people do it. I thought this video really had some excellent suggestions:

[video=youtube_share;wChq3jHyLjI]http://youtu.be/wChq3jHyLjI[/video]

1. How do I know I am called to street preach? 00:00:44
2. Taping yourself open-air preaching and putting it up on youtube, why? 00:03:40
3. What does bad and good open-air preaching look like? 00:05:43
4. Is "drive by" open-air preaching wrong? How important is a local church? 00:09:00
5. Is it important to be part of a local church and have accountability? 00:12:28
6. How do you respond to the hatred you are met with? 00:13:49
7. How important are one on one conversations? 00:16:15
8. Are you going out in love? 00:17:37
9. Is doing "shock and awe" evangelism biblical? 00:20:12
10. Do people understand the Christian terms that you are using? 00:24:25
11. How important is it to have scripture memorized? 00:25:32
12. Is it important to know the LAWS of the land? 00:26:11
13. Is Christ or Apologetics your Focus in Open-Air Preaching? 00:28:07
14. How do you engage a heckler? 00:33:17
15. Where is a good spot to open-air preach at? 00:36:01
16. Don't let getting large crowds become an idol. 00:40:56
17. Are there open-air preachers who are lost and not saved themselves? 00:42:45
18. Be careful to not appear self-righteousness while open-air preaching. 00:46:17
19. Advice on answering people's questions in the open-air. 00:49:35
20. What should the length of my message be? 00:53:56
21. What makes a solid gospel tract? 00:55:03
22. Is it biblical to hand out cartoon gospel tracts that are gimmicky? 00:56:04


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Dec 1, 2014)

Q. 155. How is the word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.

Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.

Q. 157. How is the Word of God to be read?
A. The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.

Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.

I included QA156 because I think it demonstrates that the Westminster divines were not ignorant of the duties required by others--not simply ministers--when discussing the preaching of the Word. Given that the thread states "street preachers," I wonder if we should be more mindful of exegetical arguments on the 5 Ws and 1 H of "preaching." I thought theoldcourse (silly username, in my opinion) helpfully brought out Romans 10. I'll assume that young man had in mind vv. 14-15 and hopefully in KJV . So, how do those verses inform and provide advice for dealing with street preachers?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> "Evangelistic duty" is a somewhat loaded phrase to begin with and is at the least speaking in ways that our Reformed ancestors would not have. They saw "evangelist" as a distinct office of the church that was associated with and ceased alongside apostleship--what remained was the ordinary minister of word and sacrament. See the DPW for an example. Now that office had certain characteristics (as understood both biblically and by the divines) which we don't often associate it with today, but it also suggests that they would be as opposed to the pretending of that office by unqualified men as they would of apostle or minister.
> 
> Regardless, as far as I'm aware of (and I'm happy to be shown otherwise), the Reformed men of the 16th and 17th centuries conceived of conversions ordinarily taking place through the preaching of the Word by a duly ordained and called minister (drawing on Romans 10). To have a conversion take place apart from that--through the casual encouragement of a lay-person in this case--may occur but it is an extraordinary rather than an ordinary occurrence and would certainly not be placed upon the believer's back as a common duty or expectation. Gordon in his article doesn't seem to be so much arguing that speaking of the Gospel with friends in co-workers is wrong (although in some cases it may be--I think street preaching qualifies), but that it is not something that can be required of a lay-person as part of his religious duty by a minister as it cannot be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. To that point I agree with him and seem to find it substantiated in older Reformed writings.
> 
> This is a subject that, particularly from a historical perspective, has interested me for some time and I would be pleased to be pointed towards any 16th-17th c. sources that controvert (or confirm) Gordon and Dennison's arguments. Far too many modern treatments of such sources unfortunately fall guilty of anachronism.



Chris,
I marvel at the proposition that speaking of the Gospel with friends and co-workers cannot be required of a lay-person as part of his religious duty. Consider the following:



> "Howbeit 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. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel."
> (Mark 5:19-20)
> 
> "The man, in a transport of joy, proclaimed, all the country over, what great things Jesus had done for him, Mark 5:20. This is a debt we owe both to Christ and to our brethren, that he may be glorified and they edified."
> (Matthew Henry)



I would also mention that I do not wish to put the work of conversion upon the believer's back as a duty _at any time_. Conversion is the Spirit's work.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > "Evangelistic duty" is a somewhat loaded phrase to begin with and is at the least speaking in ways that our Reformed ancestors would not have. They saw "evangelist" as a distinct office of the church that was associated with and ceased alongside apostleship--what remained was the ordinary minister of word and sacrament. See the DPW for an example. Now that office had certain characteristics (as understood both biblically and by the divines) which we don't often associate it with today, but it also suggests that they would be as opposed to the pretending of that office by unqualified men as they would of apostle or minister.
> ...



As I am sure you were sensible, the work I was referring to is the preaching of law and gospel as the instrumental means of conversion rather than the efficient means which is of course the work and prerogative of the Spirit. That is a burden we lay on the minister of word and sacrament though the fruit thereof is left to the free pleasure of God. "Every member evangelism" lays a parallel burden on the layman if not an even greater one considering how conversion is often regarded by such as occurring most commonly outside of the visible church by the (instrumental) means of laypersons evangelizing. Instead, the perspective of the divines was demonstrated by Mr. Ross's quotation (though impetuously editorialized) of the WLC above. Conversion occurs ordinarily by the public reading and especially the preaching of the word which was to be carried out by those duly called and appointed. Are all teachers? Rather, be not many masters.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

In relation to doing good to our enemies, Thomas Boston teaches that we must be ready to do them good "in their spiritual interest, contributing our utmost endeavours as we have access for their eternal happiness, Prov 11:30, He that winneth souls is wise. Thus Christ and his apostles gave us an example in their thirsting for the soul-good of the Jews, their declared enemies. When the winning or losing of a soul comes in competition with any wrong done to us, that wrong is not worth noticing; for the redemption of the soul is precious above all."

Yes, that's right. "Soul-winning" isn't just some Fundamentalist Baptist thing.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

You are begging the question. The argument isn't whether soul-winning is a thing to be done, but who ought to be doing it. In the work from which you quote, Boston has a whole discourse on the ordinary calling of ministers and how even Christ did not preach without such a call, as to do so would be improper. To Boston, insofar as Christ and his apostles are an example for men to follow in soul-winning, they are to be followed by duly called and ordained ministers. "They that run unsent, that take on the work [of being a fisher of men] without a call from God cannot expect to do good to a people, Rom x. 14, Jer XXIII."

Edit: I mistook the work you were quoting Boston from as from "The Art of Man-Fishing" whereas it was actually from "A Persuasive to Love our Enemies". Nevertheless, the first work qualifies what Boston was thinking of when he called on men to follow in the example of Christ and the apostles.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> You are begging the question. The argument isn't whether soul-winning is a thing to be done, but who ought to be doing it. In the work from which you quote, Boston has a whole discourse on the ordinary calling of ministers and how even Christ did not preach without such a call, as to do so would be improper. To Boston, insofar as Christ and his apostles are an example for men to follow in soul-winning, they are to be followed by duly called and ordained ministers. "They that run unsent, that take on the work [of being a fisher of men] without a call from God cannot expect to do good to a people, Rom x. 14, Jer XXIII."



As I mentioned, Boston states this in the context of the universal duty of enemy-love, without the qualification which you add. I'd also like to point out that you are adding a qualification on Larger Catechism 155 which is not present in the text, arguing that it specifies "public" reading. I just looked over Thomas Ridgely's commentary on the Larger Catechism and can't find a hint that he understood there to be such a qualification.

Again, I'm not arguing for preaching without a call. But you appear to be claiming with Dr. Gordon that there is no duty pressed upon non-ordained Christians to speak of the Gospel to our friends, family, and co-workers. This runs contrary to the whole tenor of the Scriptures.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

The universal duty is expressed diversely, and Boston is quite clear in his other works that the imitation of Christ and his apostles in soul-winning is the prerogative of minister alone. The qualification I'm adding to WLC 155 is merely that of WLC 156. My point is that the sense which modern interpreters give to evangelism today would have been considered as "preaching" by our older Reformed writers and they were resolutely opposed to preaching without an ordinary call. In virtually all of the every-member evangelistic proof texts used today you'll find older commentators taking a much more ecclesiastically oriented interpretation. Perhaps Thornwell's argument in the church boards debate is applicable here too: neither can the constituted church properly delegate to other persons or bodies the duties which God has entrusted to it, nor can those not qualified or called properly take up such duties.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> The universal duty is expressed diversely, and Boston is quite clear in his other works that the imitation of Christ and his apostles in soul-winning is the prerogative of minister alone. The qualification I'm adding to WLC 155 is merely that of WLC 156. My point is that the sense which modern interpreters give to evangelism today would have been considered as "preaching" by our older Reformed writers and they were resolutely opposed to preaching without an ordinary call. In virtually all of the every-member evangelistic proof texts used today you'll find older commentators taking a much more ecclesiastically oriented interpretation. Perhaps Thornwell's argument in the church boards debate is applicable here too: neither can the constituted church properly delegate to other persons or bodies the duties which God has entrusted to it, nor can those not qualified or called properly take up such duties.



Once more, I think I've been very, very clear that I am not advocating for lay-preaching and neither am I placing a burden on every non-ordained person to go out seeking the lost in the manner appropriate to ministers. I agree that many of the Scriptures employed in modern arguments for evangelistic duty have ordained office as the immediate terminus of the command or example. It is contrary to the Scriptures for one to act in such a manner that he usurps the public representative function of the ministerial office.

However, I find Gordon's argument abhorrent because it goes to the other extreme. As you have agreed, the claim is made that there is no duty to speak of the Gospel to friends, family, and co-workers. Gordon's argument rests on the ineptitude and incapability of the ordinary Christian to properly do so. I am adamantly asserting that this smacks more of Papalism than it does of Reformed attitudes towards the perspicuity of the Word and the ability of ordinary Christians to comprehend it.

The office of Evangelist is not given to all. The office of Minister of the Word is not given to all. The office of Deacon is not given to all. The Ministry of the Word, Evangelism, and Diaconal Ministry are not to be taken up by every member of the church. But evangelism, ministering the word to others, and service to the Body of Christ are also duties of all Christians in a manner appropriate to their places and callings.

It is not "destructive" for an unordained Christian to present the Gospel to a lost sinner. To suggest so is frankly a form of ministerial malpractice.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > The universal duty is expressed diversely, and Boston is quite clear in his other works that the imitation of Christ and his apostles in soul-winning is the prerogative of minister alone. The qualification I'm adding to WLC 155 is merely that of WLC 156. My point is that the sense which modern interpreters give to evangelism today would have been considered as "preaching" by our older Reformed writers and they were resolutely opposed to preaching without an ordinary call. In virtually all of the every-member evangelistic proof texts used today you'll find older commentators taking a much more ecclesiastically oriented interpretation. Perhaps Thornwell's argument in the church boards debate is applicable here too: neither can the constituted church properly delegate to other persons or bodies the duties which God has entrusted to it, nor can those not qualified or called properly take up such duties.
> ...



Gordon's primary argument--and why he spends so much time determining the proper referent of the Scriptural passages--is that of liberty of conscience. In this he is well within the mainstream of Reformed thought where he requires that any such burden placed on a laymen must be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture and the arguments interacted with fail that test. In each passage you'll find the interpretation he gives them is the dominant one in historical Reformed commentators. This is the major thrust of his argument: that the burden of proof remains on those who argue for every-member evangelism and that burden has yet to be met. He does append some practical considerations at the end which one may find to be more or less persuasive but to say that "Gordon's argument rests on the ineptitude and incapability of the ordinary Christian to properly do so" is to ignore four fifths of what he has written in the argument. While I don't agree with everything he says in his third practical consideration, at some level what he says is quite similar to what I quoted of Boston above. Would you agree that "They that run unsent, that take on the work [of being a fisher of men] without a call from God cannot expect to do good to a people, Rom x. 14, Jer XXIII."? 

I grant that you have continually disclaimed lay-preaching. I still wonder how exactly you are distinguishing "seeking the lost in the manner appropriate to ministers" with what you are advocating for laypersons, other than by virtue of the call itself. Perhaps if you could clarify it would be helpful for our mutual understanding and would enable us to see precisely what you are binding the lay-person unto. My argument has been that the popular conception of evangelism, such as that advocated in character (and not just in frequency) by Moody, is the unique responsibility of the minister. The fact of the matter is advocates of every-member evangelism (even Reformed ones) typically prescribe the exact same methods of evangelism to laypersons as they do to ordained ministers, whether they are systems like Evangelism Explosion or more informal approaches. 

We both grant regarding our enemies, as you quote Boston: "that we must be ready to do them good 'in their spiritual interest, contributing our utmost endeavours as we have access for their eternal happiness, Prov 11:30'". We also both grant that some means of doing so are proper to one's station and some, even though they are good, are only proper to those appropriately called. The distinction appears to be in where that propriety is laid.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 1, 2014)

I passed a gentleman holding up a sign that said 'treasure Christ' on the way to work this morning. Not a bad choice for a sign
Maybe a pre-evangelism for some, an encouragement for others. All Christians are object lessons of truth in one way or another to the world

A minister of the gospel should be equipping the saints to share the gospel


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> Gordon's primary argument--and why he spends so much time determining the proper referent of the Scriptural passages--is that of liberty of conscience. In this he is well within the mainstream of Reformed thought where he requires that any such burden placed on a laymen must be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture and the arguments interacted with fail that test. In each passage you'll find the interpretation he gives them is the dominant one in historical Reformed commentators. This is the major thrust of his argument: that the burden of proof remains on those who argue for every-member evangelism and that burden has yet to be met. He does append some practical considerations at the end which one may find to be more or less persuasive but to say that "Gordon's argument rests on the ineptitude and incapability of the ordinary Christian to properly do so" is to ignore four fifths of what he has written in the argument. While I don't agree with everything he says in his third practical consideration, at some level what he says is quite similar to what I quoted of Boston above. Would you agree that "They that run unsent, that take on the work [of being a fisher of men] without a call from God cannot expect to do good to a people, Rom x. 14, Jer XXIII."?
> 
> I grant that you have continually disclaimed lay-preaching. I still wonder how exactly you are distinguishing "seeking the lost in the manner appropriate to ministers" with what you are advocating for laypersons, other than by virtue of the call itself. Perhaps if you could clarify it would be helpful for our mutual understanding and would enable us to see precisely what you are binding the lay-person unto. My argument has been that the popular conception of evangelism, such as that advocated in character (and not just in frequency) by Moody, is the unique responsibility of the minister. The fact of the matter is advocates of every-member evangelism (even Reformed ones) typically prescribe the exact same methods of evangelism to laypersons as they do to ordained ministers, whether they are systems like Evangelism Explosion or more informal approaches.
> 
> We both grant regarding our enemies, as you quote Boston: "that we must be ready to do them good 'in their spiritual interest, contributing our utmost endeavours as we have access for their eternal happiness, Prov 11:30'". We also both grant that some means of doing so are proper to one's station and some, even though they are good, are only proper to those appropriately called. The distinction appears to be in where that propriety is laid.



Gordon certainly spends a great deal of time showing that the primary referent of many of these passages is those who hold ordained office, with which I would generally agree. As you have noted, it is only briefly at the end that he actually engages with the argument from duty to neighbor and he dismisses it with the aforementioned references to lay ineptitude. If you notice, I haven't been arguing anything based on the commissions given to ordained persons. I have cited our duties regarding the Ninth Commandment to positively speak truth, our duties regarding the 3rd Commandment to rebuke blasphemy, our Saviour's exhortation to neighbor-love in Matt. 5:44, and, most directly speaking to the question, our Saviour's command to an unordained man to share the Good News with his friends and his approved example of doing so in Mark 5:19-20. Gordon's only response to the plethora of Biblical passages that speak of the duties of neighbor-love and the application to eternal things is this concept of lay ineptitude.

It is the duty of all Christians to positively speak the truth of Gospel to friends, family, and co-workers. We are not left in the position of waiting to lend "solicited advice." This doesn't mean that we constantly harangue others or abandon the duties of our ordinary callings to share the Gospel message 24/7. Wisdom first puts the Gospel out there and then winsomely works to accompany that truth with the testimony of a holy life. I don't believe that all Christians have a duty to go out and intentionally seek an audience beyond their ordinary circles of family/friends/etc. as a minister does. We do have a positive duty to speak up whenever our Lord is blasphemed, which certainly makes us as unwelcome as Jehovah's Witnesses in our pluralistic age.

Are we called to pull our enemy's ox out of a ditch and yet not to speak the simple Gospel message to our perishing neighbors? My message is simple: you don't have to go looking for oxen in ditches, but you should know what to do when you see one.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 1, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> The office of Evangelist is not given to all. The office of Minister of the Word is not given to all. The office of Deacon is not given to all. The Ministry of the Word, Evangelism, and Diaconal Ministry are not to be taken up by every member of the church. But evangelism, ministering the word to others, and service to the Body of Christ are also duties of all Christians in a manner appropriate to their places and callings.


I remember an old thread where it was said that we do by charity what they do by duty (i.e., office in the etymological sense). Since charity can also be seen as a duty, this may be one point of confusion? In a technical conversation on this subject, "evangelism" or "evangelizing" is usually restricted to the Biblical sense, which is tied to the office, not lay people. Of course, in common terminology, parts of "godly conference," "living for Christ," "loving our neighbor," and so forth, are often called by the name of "evangelism." This may be another point of confusion? (Although it has been a while since I read Gordon's paper, so I ask my questions in general, rather than of the article in particular.)


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 1, 2014)

Here is an explicit use of the term "evangelize" by a 17th century Presbyterian with a double-reference to both the work of ordained ministers and ordinary Christians:


> "They went _evangelizing_ the world, preaching the word of the gospel; it was this which filled them, and which they endeavoured to fill the country with, those of them that were preachers in their preaching, and others in their common converse."
> (Matthew Henry, commenting on Acts 8:4)


----------



## Toasty (Dec 1, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.
> 
> When I respond that it is not an appropriate setting, the usual response is that anywhere there are unbelievers is an appropriate setting.
> 
> ...



Not everyone is morally obligated to go to those specific places to preach the gospel. Not everyone is morally obligated to go to a public beach; not everyone is morally obligated to go a national monument. One can tell non-Christians about how God saves His people from their sins without going to those specific places.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 1, 2014)

I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Dec 1, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel



I do, too. Who believes that that verse is directed mainly to clerical ministers? I have never encountered anyone that believes that.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 1, 2014)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> whirlingmerc said:
> 
> 
> > I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel
> ...




I'm pleased that there is some level of agreement. 

Everyone has people around them they interact with and judgment should be shown in letting your speech be seasoned with grace as if with salt. We might agree that dumping the whole saltshaker on the meal might not always be an improvement.

Col 4:6 "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."


----------



## chuckd (Dec 1, 2014)

Van Til street preaching on Wall Street.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 1, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> Ryan J. Ross said:
> 
> 
> > whirlingmerc said:
> ...



For what it's worth + 1. I don't call that street preaching. I call that witnessing and if I'm asked I can and I will, as the Scripture advises ; 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 2, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> Here is an explicit use of the term "evangelize" by a 17th century Presbyterian with a double-reference to both the work of ordained ministers and ordinary Christians


You might have something there. However, I don't see how the passage could refer to ordinary Christians without promoting lay-preaching (although I realize some take the "evangelizing" in this passage to be so in a non-technical and informal sense, which hence presupposes "evangelizing" in the technical sense refers to ordained ministers)? And I know Matthew Henry's commentary sometimes mixes exposition with application seamlessly (although I don't see how what it says is anything other than an exposition of the text). Anyway, it would seem that it is indeed the case that "evangelize" is a word that is causing some confusion.

Edit: In connection with the point of confusion concerning "duty" (one I haven't sorted out yet), there is a necessity placed on an ordained minister that is not placed on the ordinary Christian. Nevertheless, "duties" are necessary. So it seems there is a distinction to be made here too between the different kinds of duties and necessities, although I don't know what it is.


----------



## Herald (Dec 3, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.
> 
> When I respond that it is not an appropriate setting, the usual response is that anywhere there are unbelievers is an appropriate setting.
> 
> ...



I used to participate in street preaching. I was present when a young 18 year old man came to faith in Christ. He became one of my closest friends. That was 28 years and he has a wonderful family with children who are walking in faith. So, I know that God can use street preaching to call His elect, but it is not always the proper method. When I was involved with street preaching it was under the oversight of my local church. Without that oversight it leads to a myriad of problems that have already been mentioned in this thread. 

If invited to participate in open air/street preaching I would politely decline and explain why. It may be easier to just deflect the question but it doesn't provide the opportunity to instruct.


----------



## Andres (Dec 3, 2014)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I agree. I am troubled on one end with street preachers who seem to gauge one's Christianity by zeal in this area alone. I have also been troubled by reactions against David Platt's book Radical (such as articles advocating being an "ordinary" Christian) when most churches in the West seem to be lukewarm so that being "too radical" is sure not our problem.



I'd like to challenge you to be more specific in your condemnation of the articles advocating ordinary Christianity. Can you reference any specific articles and/or specifically your issues with them? I ask because all the articles I've read in favor of the "ordinary" Christian walk were very scriptural. None of the articles I'm thinking of ever denied the importance of evangelism, nor did they advocate Christians _not _doing anything to reach the lost. Instead, what those men and their articles condemned were the idea of radical Christianity that somehow if one isn't a missionary to a foreign land or selling off all their belongings to support said missionaries, they were somehow not serving Christ properly. 



Pergamum said:


> On Judgment Day the American Church will never be faulted for being too radical I don't think.


Well I'd disagree. I see obvious abuses in the modern Evangelical church in attempts to reach the lost beyond that which God has ordained. Word and sacraments are sufficient. American churches continually disagree with this by their sinful attempts to add to worship services sinful items which God has not commanded. This includes the areas of evangelism/outreach.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 4, 2014)

See also:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/evangelism-church-office-75841/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/whom-great-commission-given-67810/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/question-evangelism-8809/


----------

