# Door-to-door evangelism vs "I'm at home, I'm trying to rest. Leave me alone."



## Pergamum

Saw this on Facebook and wanted your thoughts (I sympathize with the poster):



> I am 100% for open air preaching.
> But door to door evangelizing? I really can't get behind that.
> I'm at home, I'm trying to rest. Leave me alone.
> That goes for salesmen too.


----------



## TrustGzus

I'd be glad to have a JW come to my door.


----------



## VictorBravo

I sympathize too. It seems that with our email and our cell phones, we are constantly subjected to demands on our time. At least I am. When I'm home (and not working at home), I turn off the ringer, don't check email, and work on projects. I try to keep a small oasis of time and place safe from interruption.

I remember a time when chatting with people who drop by was normal and pleasant, but those times seem distant to me. But maybe that's just how it works for some folks. Not counting spam, in a day I average 40 or so email exchanges, 30+ actual phone conversations (from 1 minute to a quarter hour each), filter through about 25 voicemails, plus spend around 4-6 hours (depending on whether I'm in court or not) talking to people face to face. Last thing I'd want is someone wanting to talk on my down time.


----------



## Pergamum

Joe,

I don't even like unwelcome phone calls. It seems evangelism ought not to be rude, and that if it means we disrespect someone's privacy, or impose upon somebody, we ought to examine our methods. For this reason, I also oppose amplification and "street-screeching" at passers-by who do not have a choice or not to hear you out.


----------



## johnny

I have often wondered why the cults like Mormons and JW's are so keen on door to door witnessing,
Does anyone see this practice contravening Luke 10:7 or am I pushing the envelope suggesting this.

Luke 7:10 NASB "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; 
for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.


----------



## PhilA

johnny said:


> I have often wondered why the cults like Mormons and JW's are so keen on door to door witnessing,



I have observed that the JWs appear to have changed their approach. They appear to locate a busy spot near a train station, subway entrance and hand out leaflets. I don’t know if this is “official” change of policy. I have seen it across a number of European cities.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I sympathize too.. What are some better ways to go about it?? What about for the introverted? It can be tough.. Curious what a good alternative would be, because the truth is most people hate the gospel and never want to hear it..


----------



## Pergamum

Zach,

Yes. I have really been struggling with some young, reformed-types.... lots of them want to go preach to people on the streets...in venues where people have no choice whether they hear or not.

...And these folks on the streets are just trying to get to work and feed their families a lot of time. They are not just passing by out of hatred to God, they simply have got other places to go and want to live in a society that has an expectation that you can walk down the street without being harassed. 

In other countries, street-vendors and hawkers of cheap goods harangue you on the streets. It is hard to walk in peace in the Third World without being bothered. I believe that some forms of outdoor evangelism cheapens the Gospel to the level of these cheap vending items if it must be hawked in the same manner. In like manner, intrusive vacuum salesmen and door-to-door Gospel salesmen often have much in common.

It appears that people must be persuaded to come willingly to hear the Gospel. I object to anything that takes out that "willingness" factor. George Whitefield would announce the time and place of his meetings and usually pitch a tent or gather out of town. People would go to hear him. If they did not want to hear...well, they didn't have to go. The guy on a soapbox and holding a sandwich board and yelling through a megaphone on a busy intersection in a city is very different.

As far as better ways to evangelize.... I would (1) increase the ways in which people are invited to church, (2) boothes at county fairs where people may voluntarily take literature, (3) ads, websites, free literature, (4) Christian radio and newspaper ads.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What I have found in doing door-to-door evangelism is that these days not very many people are actually home during the work day (almost exclusively shut-ins). So instead of knocking I use door hangers and leaflets on a porch chair, etc...


----------



## Pergamum

Have you got any response?


----------



## Reformed Roman

I don't like pamphlets for sales left on my door. I also find radio advertisements annoying and a nuisance, won't giving the gospel always inconvenience those who hear? With the wickedness of man's heart will any man willingly want to hear? By God's grace a few will, but should our concern for others cause us to put eternity, and the message over their convenience??

Honest questions. I don't like door to door evangelism myself. I have walked the community with my pastor and started conversations with people outside.. Even that is difficult for me as an introvert to start conversations with strangers.. But it is as if nobody wants to be bothered.. Everyone is too busy for the gospel.. At what point do we choose to inconvenience them for the sake of their souls and God's glory?


----------



## Pergamum

> won't giving the gospel always inconvenience those who hear?



Sometimes it is like telling thirsty people where water is located..... but yes, I get your point.

I think we might be able to distinguish an "offer" from an "intrusion" perhaps? Most do not consider it rude to have literature offered, but most would also not want to be forced to walk 5 foot past a guy yelling on a soap-box.

There are places where discussion and debate are expected, such as the Areopagus or Hyde Park. But, on a busy cross-walk in the city might not be the same context.

One problem is that many street preachers are offensive. Then they cast blame for that offense onto the hearer for not wanting to hear the Gospel (when, in fact, they just don't want to hear that particular guy).


----------



## Reformed Roman

As a missionary, I'm assuming you primary work your missions overseas through relationship and service, and use that relationship to build conversation? I feel your missional approach would be good to know. I think much of it could be applied here.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> One problem is that many street preachers are offensive.



And many are not. We live in an ever increasingly insulated society. I am uncomfortable taking options off the table simply because some people do it poorly. While I realize that door-to-door evangelism is more confrontational than many are comfortable with, the Mormons and JWs are a testament to the fact that it is effective. It has served as the back-bone of their efforts to bring in new converts. That isn't a reason to do it, but it ought not to be dismissed either. 

What I've heard so far is: street preaching is offensive; people are just trying to get to work. Door-to-door evangelism is intrusive; people don't want to be bothered at home. Leaving literature is annoying and radio adds are a nuisance. I suppose it could likewise be argued that it is problematic to even put an add in the paper or online. After all, who wants to be bothered with an invitation to church when they are just trying to read the news in peace. 

I agree that there are many self-appointed "preachers" accosting people with their less-than-accurate understanding of the Bible. But that does not mean that it can't be done effectively. And we must not remove the agency of God's Spirit from the discussion. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where God's word is truly preached, God's Spirit is able to effectually call the sinner to himself--even if not immediately. 

_“I am persuaded that the more of open air preaching there is in London the-better, if it should become a nuisance to some it will be a blessing to others, if properly conducted. If it be the gospel which is spoken, and if the spirit of the preacher be one of love and truth, the results cannot be doubted: the bread cast upon the waters must be found after many days.” _- C. H. Spurgeon​


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem is that many street preachers are offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many are not. We live in an ever increasingly insulated society. I am uncomfortable taking options off the table simply because some people do it poorly. While I realize that door-to-door evangelism is more confrontational than many are comfortable with, the Mormons and JWs are a testament to the fact that it is effective. It has served as the back-bone of their efforts to bring in new converts. That isn't a reason to do it, but it ought not to be dismissed either.
> 
> What I've heard so far is: street preaching is offensive; people are just trying to get to work. Door-to-door evangelism is intrusive; people don't want to be bothered at home. Leaving literature is annoying and radio adds are a nuisance. I suppose it could likewise be argued that it is problematic to even put an add in the paper or online. After all, who wants to be bothered with an invitation to church when they are just trying to read the news in peace.
> 
> I agree that there are many self-appointed "preachers" accosting people with their less-than-accurate understanding of the Bible. But that does not mean that it can't be done effectively. And we must not remove the agency of God's Spirit from the discussion. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where God's word is truly preached, God's Spirit is able to effectually call the sinner to himself--even if not immediately.
> 
> _“I am persuaded that the more of open air preaching there is in London the-better, if it should become a nuisance to some it will be a blessing to others, if properly conducted. If it be the gospel which is spoken, and if the spirit of the preacher be one of love and truth, the results cannot be doubted: the bread cast upon the waters must be found after many days.” _- C. H. Spurgeon​
Click to expand...


Yes, thank God for those evangelists who do outdoor evangelism well, and in a manner that is gracious and who are sent out with the blessings of their local church.


----------



## Pergamum

Just because faith comes by hearing doesn't justify us forcefully making people listen to our preaching. 

Along the continuum of only preaching inside the church so that only the purely willing can hear and...then, on the other side of the continuum, justifying concert-level amplification systems to force a whole city block to hear whether they want to or not, there must be some guiding principles regarding how to deliver the Word and appeal to sinners while not bringing reproach upon Christ due to our boorish and rude actions.


----------



## Pergamum

Zach Rohman said:


> As a missionary, I'm assuming you primary work your missions overseas through relationship and service, and use that relationship to build conversation? I feel your missional approach would be good to know. I think much of it could be applied here.



I am fairly direct in appealing to people. We do treat the sick...but because they are sick (we try never to think of ourselves as "buying an opportunity" or using medical work as any means to an end beyond simply helping those who need it). We pretty much just show up somewhere and ask people to gather and listen to us. We also preach inside churches that invite us. And also pass out tracts in cities. Our presence is obvious and worthy of note, since we are of a different race and nationality and so this makes it really easy to tell people why we are there. They listen to us because we are different and strange, I suppose, to some degree. 

It is actually so much easier to evangelize overseas than in the US. Does that sound strange?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> It is actually so much easier to evangelize overseas than in the US. Does that sound strange?



Not at all. That has been the overwhelming experience of many overseas missionaries. I envy such a field. 

You have mentioned amplification twice. Once with a reference to Whitfield. While Whitfield had no amplification, it was said he could be heard more than a mile away when preaching outdoors. It would seem he put a premium on being heard. Whatever could be said about our volume, it must be left to a question of wisdom. 

Other things ministers ought to be doing in way of evangelism:

* Preaching to the jails and prisons
* Preaching in the rest homes 
* Holding evangelistic services in public parks
* Holding children's Bible schools in a park
* Administering baptism in public places (rivers and creeks) coupled with gospel preaching 

These are other ways ministers and churches might consider getting the Word out.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

I heard the gospel in a drug and alcohol rehab and ended up repenting and believing there and thus far my conversation has been genuine and enduring.


----------



## bookslover

johnny said:


> I have often wondered why the cults like Mormons and JW's are so keen on door to door witnessing,
> Does anyone see this practice contravening Luke 10:7 or am I pushing the envelope suggesting this.
> 
> Luke 7:10 NASB "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you;
> for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.



(1) Mormons and JW don't care about Luke 7.10. (2) In both cases, I think, they think they're earning brownie points with God based on how many doors they knock on. Totally works-oriented, like all false religions.


----------



## jambo

PhilA said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have often wondered why the cults like Mormons and JW's are so keen on door to door witnessing,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have observed that the JWs appear to have changed their approach. They appear to locate a busy spot near a train station, subway entrance and hand out leaflets. I don’t know if this is “official” change of policy. I have seen it across a number of European cities.
Click to expand...


I have seen this over the last couple of years and it would seem there has been a change in Watchtower policy to allow this.


----------



## RamistThomist

I usually look with suspicion when strangers knock on my door (I know that cynical, but). I imagine they see it the same way.


----------



## jambo

I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.


----------



## Miss Marple

I guess we have to be aware of the culture we live in and act accordingly, not DELIBERATELY giving offense.

In the U.S. I'd say tract passing is not offensive. People stand about in the city passing out leaflets and they are not considered offensive. One can refuse a leaflet or tract.

Ads are accepted, whether billboards, radio, whatever.

Door to door, however, is not appreciated. It is perceived of as threatening while the activities above are not.

Subjective, I know, but true I think.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

jambo said:


> I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.




This has been my experience.

And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.


----------



## VictorBravo

bookslover said:


> Mormons and JW don't care about Luke 7.10.



I'm sure there reference is Luke 10:7, not 7:10.

Or I'm really becoming clueless.


----------



## johnny

VictorBravo said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons and JW don't care about Luke 7.10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there reference is Luke 10:7, not 7:10.
> 
> Or I'm really becoming clueless.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry,,,
I quoted that scripture correct first instance, incorrect second instance.
My original question (albeit not asked very clearly) was,

Is there any scriptual mandate to suggest that going door to door 
is discouraged as a means of wittness (based on Luke 10:7) 
Or is this forcing the interpretation and reading out of context?

Also, did any early reformers go "door to door" through the towns?


----------



## bookslover

VictorBravo said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons and JW don't care about Luke 7.10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there reference is Luke 10:7, not 7:10.
> 
> Or I'm really becoming clueless.
Click to expand...


Oops! My mistake - caused by elderly eyes and elderly fingers!


----------



## Pergamum

Here are some possible pros and cons of adopting a door-to-door evangelism strategy for your church (please add or critiue):

PROS:

-Luke 10 and the evangelistic trips of the disciples seemed to go village to village and even into people's homes.
-People need to hear the Gospel.
-This gets people to hear the Gospel
-It is in an intimate setting where people might be more likely to open up and talk
-Most churches who door-to-door ask for church members as volunteers and this enlists the congregation and helps them practice evangelism
-If people don't come to you, you must go to them.
-Unchurched people might not want to initially sit through an hour sermon but would rather do a Q and A approach about their personal questions or hindrances to the faith.


CONS:

-A man's home is his castle; he goes there as a refuge from the world
-People have schedules and a visit of this kind is usually sudden and unexpected, throwing off the schedule of the visitee
-People accuse other people of things; going into a home with only children or a single woman may open one's self up to accusations.
-People in the home are rightly suspicious and, just as it is a good idea to think twice about picking up hitch-hikers, it is also a good idea not to invite strangers into your home.
-Some people work nights, are sick, etc....and don't need to be bothered.
-If someone wanted to hear the Gospel, they could seek it out outside of their homes.
-Most churches who do door-to-door visitation either tire out the pastor or enlist lots of unqualified church members who are just doing this duty out of a sense of guilt. This is a recipe for poor work and witness as well as poor retention of church members if you use them too much in roles to which they are not suited (however, some studies say that the more involved people are in a church, the better the retention).
-You might harden people further against the Gospel by proving that religion is intrusive and impolite.
-If visiting many people, the visitor often lapses into a set spiel or "sales pitch" which can seem ingenuine and turn the visitee away.
-Final reason: It simply doesn't work and is not worth the stewardship of time and effort. Hours and hours spent....with no results.

Here is an example of the only time I received a church visit: I was doing seminary at the time. I had a Independent Fundamentalist Baptist and his deacon visit me in my home. I was busy and didn't have time. I was dressed for bed, I think. I invited them in anyway. I tried to give them soda and a snack. Midway through his spiel he seemed to say something about God wanting us and the devil wanting us, and now we had to decide (we had to choose...cast the deciding vote). When I objected to this concept I think they concluded I was lost rather than merely a Calvinist. I was less likely to visit their church AFTER the visit than I was BEFORE the visit. They got tired and left.


----------



## jambo

johnny said:


> Also, did any early reformers go "door to door" through the towns?



I suppose John Wycliffe and the Lollards came quite close as they visited the towns and villages of England distributing hand written portions of scripture. In all likelihood visiting homes may have formed a part of their work.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is an article from Christianity Today about door-to-door witnessing:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december-web-only/dangers-of-door-to-door-evangelism.html



> ...he argues that our current social-cultural moment has made the door-to-door model not only less effective, but potentially counterproductive. “Wave after wave of rationalistic, rehearsed (and at times coerced and confrontational) evangelism,” he writes in his preface, “has inoculated, if not antagonized, the broader culture.”


----------



## Reformed Roman

I think door to door evangelism was much more effective when it was fresh. I think years of it has caused some extra hostility towards it.


----------



## Pergamum

Zach,

Do you think the word "inoculate" fits here, that people are "inoculated" against this type of approach? Or have the cults ruined it for us? Or has society just shifted away from community to a more private society where, once the doors of the home are closed, people don't want to receive visit unless you are specifically invited before-hand. Our society seems less tolerant of spam phone calls, door-to-door solicitors, etc, as well. I don't even like receiving phone calls at all...people ought to text first and ask if they can call and talk.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I work in banking now.. Even when I'm calling bank customers to ask how everything is, I get some push back. We like to ask questions, try to figure out if a person is in debt, or could benefit from anything else we offer, but most people prefer not to talk... I can only imagine if I called a lot of non bank customers.

I think so many things play apart. Once you've talked to Jehova Witnesses at your door enough times.. You get a little tired of it.. Business is shifting to online sales.. I only help like two customers in the bank per day. Businesses have continued to push sales through phone and spam to gain more business. All while society has turned more towards cell phone texting and social media. A lot of things contribute. Our culture has radically changed and we should consider these things.


----------



## Pergamum

Zach,



> Our culture has radically changed and we should consider these things.



How would you respond to those that would push back and say that "God has already said..." and "the Bible is above culture!" and, therefore, culture should play no role in how we take the Word of God out to others?


----------



## Edward

I used to like to do door-to-door; I even took the week long course to get certified as an EE teacher. But things have changed - gated residential communities; increased crime; more non-English speakers, less civility with the influx of Yankees.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I was reminded of Thomas Chalmer's Westport Experiment in another place today and think it would be an excellent resource for this discussion.

Here is a PDF for more on this


----------



## TylerRay

I'm a little hesitant to speak, as I am not a minister; but I do have an opinion on the matter.

First, ministers, according to their opportunities, ought to be seeking to reach their communities with the Gospel. The people are probably not going to wander into the church building, so the Gospel must be taken to them.

Second, door-to-door evangelism need not be confrontational. It seems that for a minister to knock on a door, and upon receiving an answer say something like "I am the pastor of ______ _______ Church, and I would like to talk to you about Jesus." If the offer of a conversation is accepted, then wonderful. If not, he can move on. (note--there is a world of opportunity here. The homeowner may be a total stranger to the faith, a confused believer in a mixed-up church, or a solid Reformed believer that finds the conversation encouraging! The possibilities are endless for meeting people where they are.)

Third, I doubt that street preaching has ever been particularly popular with much of society. I know that it has gathered crowds at times, but even in those days (late 1700s and early 1800s) these people were subject to open scorn. But it was God's appointed means for bringing people to saving faith, and it still is. There is no method of evangelism which we should expect more out of than preaching.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Edward said:


> less civility with the influx of Yankees


----------



## MW

I've found door to door useful in Australia. People will listen. I've never seen anyone convert there and then on the spot but they listen. TBS calendars, pamphlets, etc., are good to break the ice. I think breaking the ice would be the major difficulty for most people.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> I've found door to door useful in Australia. People will listen. I've never seen anyone convert there and then on the spot but they listen. TBS calendars, pamphlets, etc., are good to break the ice. I think breaking the ice would be the major difficulty for most people.



So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?



It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.

It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.


----------



## Pergamum

About the use of the word "preach" used in the KJV:

Strong's Concordance lists "preach" and its word-forms 141 times in the King James Version (KJV). It further lists "preach" as translating 13 different Greek words. 



> 2097 (Preach 1) euangelizo , "Announce good news." Included are "good news" (2098 euangelion) and "good newser" (2099 euangelistes).
> 
> 1229 (Preach 2) diangello , "Widely announce."
> 
> 2605 (Preach 3) katangello , "Publicly announce."
> 
> 4283 (Preach 4) proeuangelizomai , "Previously announced good news."
> 
> 2784 (Preach 5) kerusso , "Proclaim." Included are "proclamation" (2782 kerugma) and "proclaimer" (2783 kerux).
> 
> 4296 (Preach 6) prokerusso , "Previously announced."
> 
> 1256 (Preach 7) dialegomai , "Discuss."



Above are but some. Laleo (2980), or "to speak" is translated "preach," "preached" or "preaching" in Mk.2.2, Act.8.25, 11.19, 13.42, 14.25 and 16.6.

In Acts 20:7, "And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them..." ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων

If we dialegomai/dialegeto (discuss or dialogue) with someone as they let us in and open the door and ask questions about the faith, can it be said that we have "preached" unto them, as the KJV translates?


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.
> 
> It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.
Click to expand...


The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> can it be said that we have "preached" unto them, as the KJV translates?



The AV translation may simply reflect a context in which it was thought "preaching" was taking place. As it is translated "speaking" in other contexts, one would have to define the context more specifically to arrive at "preaching" as a specific function.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.
> 
> It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?
Click to expand...


"Laity" is an unhappy term.

Ruling elders have never been given a license to "preach" in the official sense of the term.

I speak to people all the time without necessarily preaching to them, and this speaking often includes religious topics. As I am charged to "preach the word," it would be unwise to call that preaching which does not open the word of God to people.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.
> 
> It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Laity" is an unhappy term.
> 
> Ruling elders have never been given a license to "preach" in the official sense of the term.
> 
> I speak to people all the time without necessarily preaching to them, and this speaking often includes religious topics. As I am charged to "preach the word," it would be unwise to call that preaching which does not open the word of God to people.
Click to expand...


Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?


----------



## Warren

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my experience.
> 
> And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
Click to expand...

Would you characterize most as lukewarm?


----------



## jambo

Warren said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my experience.
> 
> And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you characterize most as lukewarm?
Click to expand...


Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition. 

If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.


----------



## earl40

jambo said:


> If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.



You ought to not "give up" even if all the seed falls on bad soil. We "expect" God to do as He pleases and sometimes this is not what we "expect".


----------



## jambo

earl40 said:


> You ought to not "give up" even if all the seed falls on bad soil. We "expect" God to do as He pleases and sometimes this is not what we "expect".



Agreed. this is the point I was trying to make. Whether it is preaching from a pulpit or a street corner we must have the conviction that this is the means ordained by God to gather people into the kingdom and to nurture and train people up. God's ways are not our ways and how we assess things may not be the way the Lord does. But when it is tough going we should take encouragement that God is at work rather than be discouraged thinking he is not because we see no visible signs of that work.

Preaching or evangelism should always be done with conviction and to lose that conviction undermines everything we are trying to say and leads to discouragement, losing heart then giving up


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

jambo said:


> Warren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my experience.
> 
> And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you characterize most as lukewarm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.
> 
> If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.
Click to expand...



Amen


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?



If at some point a door opens to preach the word in a person's home, or on the street, or anywhere, that should definitely be called preaching in the proper sense.

If "laity" is used in the generic sense of "the people," there is no problem, and that is the way I took your use of it; but I find it often has hierarchical overtones. It is much safer to simply say "the people."


----------



## TheOldCourse

jambo said:


> William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.



Seems like a dictum likely to cause mischief amongst a people generally called to attempt ordinary things.


----------



## Reformed Roman

Ordinary things in service of the LORD are "great things" and a congregation should heavily value and appreciate what you may call "ordinary things"


----------



## Dwimble

jambo said:


> Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.
> 
> If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.



While the sentiment is wonderful, and I agree completely with the principle, the topic at hand isn't the general principle of sowing seeds to all, but of a very specific method of sowing them, that is going door-to-door indiscriminately and unsolicited to strangers.

To me, the broader question in this instance seems to be is this method culturally appropriate, or is it seen as generally offensive and rude, or is it somewhere in-between? For better or worse, in America the days of door-to-door solicitations are almost gone. It may not yet be seen as rude by all, but it is heading there fast. So in that context, what if the majority of the "_indifference, hostility, antagonism, etc_" that you encounter is not because you are naming Christ, but because you are seen as rude and insensitive for coming to their door unsolicited in the first place? It's one thing for someone to be annoyed at me or disgusted because they hate Christ, but it's entirely different for them to be annoyed or disgusted because I'm being insensitive and rude. If I'm in a culture that universally sees shouting in the street as horribly offensive, but I insist on shouting in the streets for Christ, then arguably I am grossly disrespecting the very people whom I claim to love and care about. Many of these very same people might be happy to discuss Christ with me if I approach them in a more culturally respectful manner. 

But in the end, I think the question is still subjective and depends greatly upon the community being visited, the demeanor of the "solicitor," and so on. In some communities people might not mind it at all, and even love having people come to their door. But in others it might be equivalent to poking them in the eye with your finger and then saying, "Now that I've got that out of the way, do you mind if I talk to you about Jesus once your eye stops watering and the throbbing goes away?" I can't really recommend the Poke-Them-in-the-Eye-for-Christ Evangelism method.


----------



## Reformed Roman

Dwimble said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.
> 
> If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the sentiment is wonderful, and I agree completely with the principle, the topic at hand isn't the general principle of sowing seeds to all, but of a very specific method of sowing them, that is going door-to-door indiscriminately and unsolicited to strangers.
> 
> To me, the broader question in this instance seems to be is this method culturally appropriate, or is it seen as generally offensive and rude, or is it somewhere in-between? For better or worse, in America the days of door-to-door solicitations are almost gone. It may not yet be seen as rude by all, but it is heading there fast. So in that context, what if the majority of the "_indifference, hostility, antagonism, etc_" that you encounter is not because you are naming Christ, but because you are seen as rude and insensitive for coming to their door unsolicited in the first place? It's one thing for someone to be annoyed at me or disgusted because they hate Christ, but it's entirely different for them to be annoyed or disgusted because I'm being insensitive and rude. If I'm in a culture that universally sees shouting in the street as horribly offensive, but I insist on shouting in the streets for Christ, then arguably I am grossly disrespecting the very people whom I claim to love and care about. Many of these very same people might be happy to discuss Christ with me if I approach them in a more culturally respectful manner.
> 
> But in the end, I think the question is still subjective and depends greatly upon the community being visited, the demeanor of the "solicitor," and so on. In some communities people might not mind it at all, and even love having people come to their door. But in others it might be equivalent to poking them in the eye with your finger and then saying, "Now that I've got that out of the way, do you mind if I talk to you about Jesus once your eye stops watering and the throbbing goes away?" I can't really recommend the Poke-Them-in-the-Eye-for-Christ Evangelism method.
Click to expand...


I love this post... You put it in a better perspective for me... As I am still unsure. It is very subjective.. But I still appreciate the distinction between being disliked for rudeness and disliked for Christ


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This thread caused me to look around and I found some videos on making door hangers. 

http://www.time2reach.org/how-to-make-a-door-hanger


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I found some videos on making door hangers.



That's doing it the hard way. Take your printed card, use a hole punch to put a single hole in the top middle, thread a rubber band through the hole and through itself, and hang the rubber band over the knob. If your card is printed on one side, you can write a brief note on the other.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If at some point a door opens to preach the word in a person's home, or on the street, or anywhere, that should definitely be called preaching in the proper sense.
> 
> If "laity" is used in the generic sense of "the people," there is no problem, and that is the way I took your use of it; but I find it often has hierarchical overtones. It is much safer to simply say "the people."
Click to expand...




I thank you for your precious time for we all only have a few moments here on this earth before we meet The Lord, and I do not want to have the presupposition that I hold to any other office within the church other than a humble servant under good Pastors who I am grateful to Our Lord for.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found some videos on making door hangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's doing it the hard way. Take your printed card, use a hole punch to put a single hole in the top middle, thread a rubber band through the hole and through itself, and hang the rubber band over the knob. If your card is printed on one side, you can write a brief note on the other.
Click to expand...


Those 1 1/2" hole punchers are only $10 at Walmart and skips having to buy rubber bands.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If at some point a door opens to preach the word in a person's home, or on the street, or anywhere, that should definitely be called preaching in the proper sense.
> 
> If "laity" is used in the generic sense of "the people," there is no problem, and that is the way I took your use of it; but I find it often has hierarchical overtones. It is much safer to simply say "the people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thank you for your precious time for we all only have a few moments here on this earth before we meet The Lord, and I do not want to have the presupposition that I hold to any other office within the church other than a humble servant under good Pastors who I am grateful to Our Lord for.
Click to expand...


You are very welcome, Earl. It is always a pastor's privilege and pleasure to be an helper of your joy, though it is in the painful awareness that he is not sufficient of himself. Blessings!


----------



## Presbuteros

I say that we should use any means necessary to further the Gospel. We shouldn't be afraid of offending. We shouldn't care if we look like fools. We are the scum of the world. The love of Christ should control us.


----------



## johnny

Presbuteros said:


> I say that we should use any means necessary to further the Gospel. We shouldn't be afraid of offending. We shouldn't care if we look like fools. We are the scum of the world. The love of Christ should control us.




Without reading too much into your previous statement
Perhaps we should also be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Looking foolish just for the sake of it falls into the unwise category.


----------



## Presbuteros

johnny said:


> Presbuteros said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say that we should use any means necessary to further the Gospel. We shouldn't be afraid of offending. We shouldn't care if we look like fools. We are the scum of the world. The love of Christ should control us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without reading too much into your previous statement
> Perhaps we should also be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
> Looking foolish just for the sake of it falls into the unwise category.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. As long as it is a biblical approach (Law, Gospel, Count the Cost). My point was that anytime we open our mouths to proclaim the Gospel, we will look like fools to the unbelievers, because the natural man cannot comprehend spiritual things. We serve a big God with a big Gospel, who will save His elect through us and in spite of us.


----------



## Pilgrim

As noted by Rev. Winzer and perhaps others, the effectiveness of door to door can vary greatly depending on location. 

I've never engaged in door to door evangelism or ministry. But from my sales career, I've learned that there are some general patterns, at least in my state. Rural areas are typically better than urban. Small towns are generally better than large cities. (Thus, Backwoods Presbyterian is likely to get a better reception than someone in a larger city, especially in the suburbs. Small town folks are also more likely to know their neighbors and others in the town.) Those in lower income neighborhoods tend to be more receptive than those in higher income areas. (The higher in income you go, the more you run into the "My home is my castle, leave me alone" mentality that Pergamum described.) Older neighborhoods can be better than suburbs. One Southern Baptist church planter of my acquaintance has been very effective in lower income apartment complexes and trailer parks that are populated by whites as well as minorities. He says he likes to go "where the church isn't." (He is comfortable doing that. Others from a different background might be less so.) He has also been involved in prison ministry and has had family members of prisoners visit his church. Due to fears about crime, some may not open the door. 

These are broad generalizations. There are exceptions to be sure. 

I haven't regularly gone door to door in over 10 years. I'm guessing that people in general are less receptive but the above is probably still generally true. There may also be regional differences. My experience is in the Deep South. I suspect that there may be differences on the West Coast, the Northeast, the Midwest and so on. 

Door hangers can be effective also, but a good many will end up in the trash without being looked at. A bag with goodies that you can hang on a door is a little more effective but also more expensive. Most people love pens. 

Investing in a good website (which isn't that expensive) and being active on social media, especially FB, is more likely to be effective. YouTube might be worth looking into as well. Posting sermons online (including podcasting) is also highly recommended. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## RBBen

Pergamum said:


> If someone wanted to hear the Gospel, they could seek it out outside of their homes.



When will an unregenerate person want to hear the Gospel? Furthermore, when would a unregenerate person seek the Gospel out?

It is agreeable that we should rethink and possibly consider alternate ways of evangelism to avoid imposing, but the aforementioned quote might lead us to laziness. Fundamentally, this "con" is biblically refutable. If we only share the Gospel when someone (unregenerate) wants to hear it, then we might never share it. Also, I think its unbiblical to wait for an unregenerate person to "seek it out outside their homes." Perhaps if they have already been regenerated, this might be a possible conclusion, but otherwise, this con is invalid.


----------



## Pergamum

RBBen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone wanted to hear the Gospel, they could seek it out outside of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will an unregenerate person want to hear the Gospel? Furthermore, when would a unregenerate person seek the Gospel out?
> 
> It is agreeable that we should rethink and possibly consider alternate ways of evangelism to avoid imposing, but the aforementioned quote might lead us to laziness. Fundamentally, this "con" is biblically refutable. If we only share the Gospel when someone (unregenerate) wants to hear it, then we might never share it. Also, I think its unbiblical to wait for an unregenerate person to "seek it out outside their homes." Perhaps if they have already been regenerated, this might be a possible conclusion, but otherwise, this con is invalid.
Click to expand...


Ben,

I know "street preachers" who have bragged to me about getting on public buses and "trapping people" (their words, not mine) by sitting in the aisle while the "target" of evangelization was next to the window, unable to switch seats, and then preaching to them throughout their bus ride. This seemed coercive, but their rationale was the same as yours...unregenerate people don't willingly listen to the Word, so you must give it to them whether they like it or not. 

Another preacher I know is aware of certain townships where the noise ordinances are lax and so he is able legally to blare his amplification system in a way that is bothersome to passers-by and local businesses. Some complain, but legally they cannot do anything and so the street-preacher carries on... In the name of Christ, he is turning people against the gospel everyday by obnoxious activities. His rationale, again, was the same as yours, plus the added rationale of, "I can't truly turn people anymore against the Lord than they already are, since they are already unregenerate..." But I disagree with this.

I believe in the past, people politely sat and listened to evangelists or even the cults, despite having their private space violated. However, now people often lash out at street preachers and those who invade their private space. Sadly, some smug street preachers often then use this response by people as further evidence that, "those people hate the gospel" when, in reality, they are just tired of rude people bothering them. 

Whenever it comes to forms of evangelism where we intrude upon another person's property or personal space or break the peace of their silence (i.e., they are sitting alone or listening to an ipod with earbuds on a bus or engrossed in reading a book), I think we ought to rethink our methods to see if they are befitting a servant of the Lord who is to be gentle and speak with grace and serve others.


----------



## Presbuteros

Pergamum said:


> In the name of Christ, he is turning people against the gospel everyday by obnoxious activities. His rationale, again, was the same as yours, plus the added rationale of, "I can't truly turn people anymore against the Lord than they already are, since they are already unregenerate..." But I disagree with this.



Scripture supports the idea that we can't truly turn people against God more than they are. The unbelievers are DEAD (Ephesians 2:1). They can't be dead more than they already are.

Do you have any Scripture to support your disagreement? I'm not saying that all reason must come from explicit verses, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing something.

Kind Regards,


----------



## RBBen

Again, I am in agreement with you that we should be respectful. 
My rationale and overarching point was as follows:


Pergamum said:


> It is agreeable that we should rethink and possibly consider alternate ways of evangelism to avoid imposing, but the aforementioned quote might lead us to laziness.



I think we need to be careful expecting unregenerate people to seek us out for the Gospel, and that is why I think that particular "con" is not valid. There is certainly a right and wrong way, but respectfully approaching a person with the purpose of sharing the Gospel should not be avoided.


----------



## Pergamum

Presbuteros said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the name of Christ, he is turning people against the gospel everyday by obnoxious activities. His rationale, again, was the same as yours, plus the added rationale of, "I can't truly turn people anymore against the Lord than they already are, since they are already unregenerate..." But I disagree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture supports the idea that we can't truly turn people against God more than they are. The unbelievers are DEAD (Ephesians 2:1). They can't be dead more than they already are.
> 
> Do you have any Scripture to support your disagreement? I'm not saying that all reason must come from explicit verses, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing something.
> 
> Kind Regards,
Click to expand...


I suppose one cannot be made two-fold the son of hell, then, as Matthew 23 purports?


> Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.


----------



## Pergamum

RBBen said:


> Again, I am in agreement with you that we should be respectful.
> My rationale and overarching point was as follows:
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is agreeable that we should rethink and possibly consider alternate ways of evangelism to avoid imposing, but the aforementioned quote might lead us to laziness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to be careful expecting unregenerate people to seek us out for the Gospel, and that is why I think that particular "con" is not valid. There is certainly a right and wrong way, but respectfully approaching a person with the purpose of sharing the Gospel should not be avoided.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree.

Can you define "respectfully" then? That is the vital question now, isn't it? I support evangelism....that is respectfully done. Many will say that it must be done, whether respectful or not. Or they will play with words and say, "It is most disrespectful to let the sinner go to hell unwarned..." as a justification for rude actions.


----------



## Pilgrim

It seems to me that door to door evangelism/outreach and open air preaching (especially with amplifiers) are two different things that shouldn't necessarily be equated.


----------



## Presbuteros

Pergamum said:


> Presbuteros said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the name of Christ, he is turning people against the gospel everyday by obnoxious activities. His rationale, again, was the same as yours, plus the added rationale of, "I can't truly turn people anymore against the Lord than they already are, since they are already unregenerate..." But I disagree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture supports the idea that we can't truly turn people against God more than they are. The unbelievers are DEAD (Ephesians 2:1). They can't be dead more than they already are.
> 
> Do you have any Scripture to support your disagreement? I'm not saying that all reason must come from explicit verses, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing something.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose one cannot be made two-fold the son of hell, then, as Matthew 23 purports?
> 
> 
> 
> Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't see how that passage would apply to Christians that evangelize. I see this passage giving warning to unbelievers who are hypocrites.


----------



## rickclayfan

Presbuteros said:


> I don't see how that passage would apply to Christians that evangelize. I see this passage giving warning to unbelievers who are hypocrites.




Pergamum is simply using that text as confirmation of the fact that people can be hardened even more than they already are. There are varying degrees of spiritual deadness. We are all totally depraved, but some are more hardened than others. This is due to various factors (e.g. varying level of conviction of conscience) that ultimately stem from God's common grace.


----------



## Presbuteros

rickclayfan said:


> Presbuteros said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how that passage would apply to Christians that evangelize. I see this passage giving warning to unbelievers who are hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum is simply using that text as confirmation of the fact that people can be hardened even more than they already are. There are varying degrees of spiritual deadness. We are all totally depraved, but some are more hardened than others. This is due to various factors (e.g. varying level of conviction of conscience) that ultimately stem from God's common grace.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, but can we find anywhere in Scripture that says there are 'varying degrees of spiritual deadness'? There might be, but I don't know of any.

If there isn't, then it would dangerous to insert foreign details in our doctrines. We shouldn't make doctrine out of our experiences, but out of the Word of God alone. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but just throwing that out there for others that are reading this.

Kind Regards,


----------



## rickclayfan

Presbuteros said:


> rickclayfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbuteros said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how that passage would apply to Christians that evangelize. I see this passage giving warning to unbelievers who are hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum is simply using that text as confirmation of the fact that people can be hardened even more than they already are. There are varying degrees of spiritual deadness. We are all totally depraved, but some are more hardened than others. This is due to various factors (e.g. varying level of conviction of conscience) that ultimately stem from God's common grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, but can we find anywhere in Scripture that says there are 'varying degrees of spiritual deadness'? There might be, but I don't know of any.
> 
> If there isn't, then it would dangerous to insert foreign details in our doctrines. We shouldn't make doctrine out of our experiences, but out of the Word of God alone. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but just throwing that out there for others that are reading this.
> 
> Kind Regards,
Click to expand...

We could use Hebrews 3:7-11 (Ps. 95 quoted) as a scriptural confirmation of this, where we read in verse 8, "do not harden your hearts." Or in the case of Pharaoh in which his heart was hardened. We are all spiritually dead, but we can be further hardened. Even experience shows that some are more receptive to the Gospel than others. The difference lies not in the default nature of those people, but in the work of God in them. Some have their conscience excited more, some are convicted by the Holy Spirit more, while others are hardened (grow more stubborn). In hell there will be no such work of God in the souls of men, but not here on earth. Therefore, the rationale that people cannot be more "dead" is unwarranted in the light of the fact that people can be more hardened than they already are. We must be wise and prudent in our methods of evangelism. I hope I was able to convey my thoughts clearly and biblically.


----------



## Pergamum

It seems that (1) some unbelievers can be hardened, (2) some can be made two-fold the sons of hell, and (3) the sins of some groups can become worse than Sodom, such that the guilt of all is not equal. 

These 3 points can all be proven by Scripture. It also seems that (4) one of the reasons for this hardening is an ill-response to the light of the Gospel. The more light rejected, the greater the guilt. This can also be proved.

I believe yelling at folks through a megaphone on a busy street might cause the unbeliever's mind to be more prejudiced against the Gospel due to the real or perceived rudeness of the messengers of the Gospel. People may build a wall in their hearts. While some street screechers may claim, "It's not my fault they hate God!"...at least in a sense, yes, it is their fault for giving them a false view of what the Gospel demands. 

Regarding door-to-door evangelism, I believe there are good practices to cultivate and bad practices to avoid.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> I believe yelling at folks through a megaphone on a busy street might cause the unbeliever's mind to be more prejudiced against the Gospel due to the real or perceived rudeness of the messengers of the Gospel. People may build a wall in their hearts. While some street screechers may claim, "It's not my fault they hate God!"...at least in a sense, yes, it is their fault for giving them a false view of what the Gospel demands.



You've not addressed another group - believers who may be brought to ill thoughts or violence due to obnoxious street evangalists.


----------



## zackskrip

I was reading this: 
Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, *in the temple and from house to house,* they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

(Acts 5:41-42 ESV)

This was after the apostles were beaten for preaching Christ. Door to Door is in fact biblical and apostolic. We cannot make someone dead on floor more dead. All preaching is effective, but some of it adds to their condemnation. Should people partake of street "screeching"? No. Most aren't sent by a church either. But men like Tony Miano are sent by their local church and preach the biblical gospel to scores of people who would never have heard it and, if we are reformed and believe our bibles, then we know that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation and that it is more powerful than my potential to be socially awkward or deemed irrelevant.

Dead sinners hate God and his people. The gospel message is one of death to those who are perishing. Obviously we shouldn't go out to offend--the offence should only be that of the gospel message--but this doesn't mean we have to ask their permission to share the gospel. Paul was involved in open air preaching and it routinely involved him running for his life. It seems more that our proclamation of the gospel should be suspect if we DON'T fear for our lives.

I'm not a keyboard commando. I'm entirely deficit in more areas than I can count, and this in no way is to say that I am obedient in these areas, but let's not talk people out of sharing the true, pure, lovely gospel even if they are doing it in a way that we personally wouldn't.

With much respect,

Zack


----------

