# The ethic of leaving people alone versus trying to witness to strangers



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2011)

When I am approached in public by strangers I am always leery and distrustful. 

However, the leading paradigm for much evangelism in the West is still by engaging total strangers and trying to start a spiritual conversation when they are presumably going somewhere and any lasting relationship or conversation of more than a few minutes is highly unlikely.

What is the ethics of leaving people alone and not bothering them versus trying to witness to them?

How do we determine what an appropriate time and place is?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 1, 2011)

What is the appropriate place and time to keep people from walking off of cliffs, or getting hit by a car? I have done both "relational" evangelism, and have witnessed to tens of thousands of strangers. Strangers are nearly ALWAYS more receptive. Friends and close associates go "Dude, I didn't come out with you tonight to get lectured about Jesus. Lets just have fun!" Strangers see you on a street corner, and know what to expect. They are not blind sided. 

The Holy Spirit does not need the help of our modern techniques. Walk up to someone, and tell them the gospel. It is amazing how receptive A LOT of people are. 

One last thing; I had an atheist say that if we really believe that unsaved people go to an eternity of fiery torment after their death, we should be telling every person we meet. He said to do otherwise would be "Morally disgusting," and then noted the silence from most Christians. Funny that an unregenerate man would see something that is so plain, while so many Christians do not. I agree with him.

He (and a bunch of others) told me that this was the first time they had ever heard the gospel.


----------



## Herald (Feb 2, 2011)

There isn't an ethical problem with attempting to share one's faith with others unsolicited. True, you're going to have a lot of people bereft of time; never mind those who may be genuinely fearful or distrustful of your motives. The Holy Spirit is able. That said, I am more comfortable bringing the Gospel into the public square when in a more social setting. I've found that my local Caribou Coffee (a much nicer place than Starbucks) is a place where I am able to connect with other townies and get into conversations. I've had some interesting discussions about the Gospel over a cup o' Joe. The same for my local car mechanic. The Lord provided opportunity in the waiting area to talk with other customers about the Gospel. Is that the same as approaching a stranger in public? In a sense. I've also passed out tracts to strangers on a street corner. For me, I'd rather talk about the Gospel as God brings me into a "divine appointment."


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2011)

Herald said:


> I've found that my local Caribou Coffee (a much nicer place than Starbucks) is a place where I am able to connect with other townies and get into conversations.



I agree with this. I learned this tactic while I was deployed. I would go sit in with a cup of coffee in a place where people hang out, and invariably I would be able to strike up conversations.


----------



## Andres (Feb 2, 2011)

Damon, Since you seem to be a big proponent of the street evangelism or whatever you'd like to refer to it as, I have a few questions for you:

1) What would you say is the mission of your street evangelism? Is it simply putting the gospel out there to as many people as possible? Is it to get people to pray a sinner's prayer? Is it to get people to come to your church?
2) What steps do you and your co-laborers take to ensure the actual discipleship (including church membership) of these people who seem receptive to the gospel?

Just for clarification, I'm not asking these questions in an attempt to corner you or be snarky, rather, these are genuine concerns I have that I would like to see addressed. My hope is to learn something from this thread.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Feb 2, 2011)

In answer to the OP I would have to say that it would depend on the way the stranger is being addressed. 99% of the evangelism I have seen or experienced has been bland handing out of utterly arminianist tracts or cheesy salesman tactic trickery that tries to lull the listener in before preaching some form of the Gospel. 

I personally just cannot stand 'techniques', plans, strategies, methods, they all detract from the Gospel. The only form I have ever seen or heard that I found profitable was street preaching, but even that can come across wrong. 

Modern evangelists take too much cue from loons like Wesley and not enough from solid preachers like Whitefield. 

William Gadsby regularly preached the Gospel to the poor and homeless by giving them food, shelter etc and then when asked, explained how he had been saved out of the things they were experiencing by Christ.

There are many, many methods but I find the modern one is focussed on numbers and making ourselves feel better for not telling more people we meet. I have given tracts out on the street and been in conversations with strangers after giving tracts and I found the whole experience deeply troubling. It was more like trying to sell someone a car than preaching the Gospel.


----------



## JML (Feb 2, 2011)

Interestingly enough. I just listed to a podcast about this from James White & Richard Barcellos. It is only 15 minutes long.

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > MCTS Podcast 10: Dr. James White on evangelism


----------



## TimV (Feb 2, 2011)

How much of it has to do with a persons gifting, or authority? I've been thinking about it for a couple reasons. One long term friend has suffered some brain damage and is self medicating. His wife as a last resort and with good, solid advice left him as did his numerous kids. He's been kicked out of pretty much all the churches around here. He then decided to become a street evangelist as is so annoying that it would be hard to exaggerate.

Another is the brother of a dear lady at church. He's a great guy, but a new Christian. And that verse about novice teaching really applies in his case. Watching Youtube videos of what and how he teaches makes me cringe.

So, since this is built into this thread, what kind of person should be involved in that kind of street evangelism? Is it one of those deals where you should pressure your 10 year old daughter into doing it? Or am I looking for excuses to not do it since I'm not gifted or ordained? When I sell my honey at the Farmer's Market and people whom I've built up a relationship talk, I love doing so, but I don't preach the Gospel (the truncated version we're normally talking about in this case) to everyone who buys a bottle.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Feb 2, 2011)

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-12

I think this is seldom spoken of. We are all called to preach, but we are not all called to be evangelists. If we're all called to be dedicating our lives to evangelism in the day to day street preaching, copying the apostles sense, then we're all called to be apostles, all called to be prophets, pastors and teachers. Which we know not to be true.

I think the calling of an Evangelist is separate from the calling of the Great Commission to all believers. We're all called to testify and speak of Christ's work in us, but we're not all called to preach in the streets. Hence your point about your ill equipped friends who need to be shown that their preaching the Gospel when they're not fully prepared to, is damaging, not edifying.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 2, 2011)

PuritanZealot said:


> I personally just cannot stand 'techniques', plans, strategies, methods, they all detract from the Gospel. The only form I have ever seen or heard that I found profitable was street preaching, but even that can come across wrong.
> 
> Modern evangelists take too much cue from loons like Wesley and not enough from solid preachers like Whitefield.



Yet even Whitefield was greatly criticized for showmanship and drama. He too had methods and techniques.



John Lanier said:


> Interestingly enough. I just listed to a podcast about this from James White & Richard Barcellos. It is only 15 minutes long.
> 
> Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > MCTS Podcast 10: Dr. James White on evangelism


 
 That was one of my questions I sent in for Dr. White to answer. I was also the brother who asked Dr. White about using the basketball game for the sake of the gospel; his answer was well-balanced, at least in my meager opinion.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Feb 2, 2011)

> Yet even Whitefield was greatly criticized for showmanship and drama. He too had methods and techniques.


He may have had techniques but he wasn't one for compromising on doctrinal truth. He preached every day all over the world and didn't falter from doctrine. In an effort to save as many people as possible, a lot of modern evangelism waters down or pollutes the Gospel. It's luke warm.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 2, 2011)

Craig, you said that you "cannot stand" techniques and the like because they "all detract from the Gospel" but now you say that Whitefield had techniques but didn't compromise on doctrinal truth.  I think we can agree that _some_, even _many_ techniques detract from doctrinal truth, especially the Gospel, but saying that "all" techniques, methods, etc. do so is simply too broad to be helpful. Besides, though I honestly don't want to be excessively nit-picky, for the sake of accuracy let me be clear that Whitefield was fairly compromising in various doctrinal areas for the sake of the Gospel, _so that_ as many people would be saved as possible. While he was uncompromising in what is _most_ important, he may have been too compromising (or "flexible," if you prefer) in the eyes of many people. He wouldn't be nearly as liked by Reformed people if he were alive but since he is dead we are much more able to look passed his faults. You're right though - he was quite different than much of modern evangelism. Modern evangelism needs to be much more firm in the true gospel, while many other people (such as some Reformed folks) need to learn from Whitefield a certain flexibility that allows the Gospel to be the main issue and other doctrinal matters to be of relative less importance.


----------



## Edward (Feb 2, 2011)

Herald said:


> Caribou Coffee



Now THAT'S an ethical dilemma. snopes.com: Caribou Coffee

But then, I don't frequent Church's Chicken, either.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Feb 2, 2011)

Agreed.

And I apologise for my use of all encompassing terms in the first rant that I then backtracked on!


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 2, 2011)

Andres said:


> Damon, Since you seem to be a big proponent of the street evangelism or whatever you'd like to refer to it as, I have a few questions for you:
> 
> 1) What would you say is the mission of your street evangelism?



To obey Christ.


> Is it simply putting the gospel out there to as many people as possible?


In a way, yes. Just as we see in the book of Acts, Peter, Paul and the others preached everywhere. It was a constant thing. In Acts 13:48, we see the apostle preach, and "all who were ordained to eternal life, believed." 

The Gospel is the power of God, unto salvation. The preaching of His word, awakens the elect! I guess that would be the ultimate goal. That through the bringing in of the sheep, God receives glory.



> Is it to get people to pray a sinner's prayer?



I do not believe the "sinner's prayer" is biblical. I preach the gospel, and leave the gathering to the Holy Spirit of God.



> Is it to get people to come to your church?



Not necessarily mine, but certainly a good solid church. Those who are receptive to the gospel, do get an invitation, though.



> 2) What steps do you and your co-laborers take to ensure the actual discipleship (including church membership) of these people who seem receptive to the gospel?



What steps did Philip take with the Ethiopian Eunuch? I do point people to solid churches, including my own, and those who profess faith are not just left on their own. However, evangelism does not demand that every person is discipled by the evangelist, nor that they are pointed towards a church. Paul preached to a LOT of people in the public square, but only went further with a handful.



> Just for clarification, I'm not asking these questions in an attempt to corner you or be snarky, rather, these are genuine concerns I have that I would like to see addressed. My hope is to learn something from this thread.


 
I understand. When Christ saved me, a man at work, an Arminian no less, shared the gospel with me. I gave my life to Christ that day. He did not invite me to Church, but God nevertheless got me to a solid Church. We are commanded to preach the Gospel all the time (in season and out of season); God will take care of the results.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 2, 2011)

I have a member of my church who likes to go door-to-door and witness to people. She told me sometime back that several people she had witnessed to had accepted Christ. I asked her where they are now, where do they live, how are we helping them done? She didn't remember where they lived. 

Not good.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 6, 2011)

Ivan said:


> I have a member of my church who likes to go door-to-door and witness to people. She told me sometime back that several people she had witnessed to had accepted Christ. I asked her where they are now, where do they live, how are we helping them done? She didn't remember where they lived.
> 
> Not good.



I know some pastors who preach the gospel only within the safe confines of their church. They have had a lot of people come and "accepted Christ" (what an abominable statement. As if Christ needs our acceptance!). They also have no idea where the people went. 

The problem is not methodology. The problem is that which the Lord warned us about; tares among the wheat. The WORST thing we can do, is run around trying to keep the unregenerate "confessors" in the church. If they say they believe in Christ, but have no desire for church, they have a spiritual problem that only the Lord can fix. This is certainly not a good _excuse_ not to share the gospel. "Look, I know all of those people are walking off the cliff and dying. But I tried to talk to one, and he ignored me and walked off anyway. Guess I am just gonna give up..."

THAT my friend, is what is "not good."


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2011)

George Whitefield seemed to set up his open air preaching in fields and people voluntarily came to him.

Many street preachers, in contrast, seem to harangue passers-by on the street (i.e. not voluntarily wanting to hear). I just read the blog of one street evangelist that joked about doing evangelism on city buses and cornering folks in the back so that they could not "escape."

The problem does, in fact, appear to be methodological as well.

At one point should we refrain from our practices due to our being annoying to people? A solid Christian will not uneccesarily irritate, right?


----------



## Ivan (Feb 6, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I have a member of my church who likes to go door-to-door and witness to people. She told me sometime back that several people she had witnessed to had accepted Christ. I asked her where they are now, where do they live, how are we helping them done? She didn't remember where they lived.
> ...


 
True. And going door-to-door saying, "God has a wonderful plan for your life", isn't good either, especially when that isn't anymore contact with these people. I call it, "putting another notch in your spiritual six-shooter". I believe it is VERY harmful and NOT good. We need to be much more involved with our neighbors and the community. Frankly, if someone comes up to me (or is standing on a street corner or coming to me via a commerical on TV, etc.) to "sell" me something, I'm going to shut that person down. I will not give them my ear. But if someone wants to sit down with me, talk to me, get to know me, and shows that they care about me, I'm likely to listen then. That's how effective evangelism is done outside the safety of the walls of the church building.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 6, 2011)

My thoughts on the topic is that I do believe the harvest is truly ready. As such, I have no need to "corner" someone into hearing my 4 spiritual laws. If someone shows a cold shoulder or seems irritated with the Gospel presentation, then I simply move to the next person. There are plenty of people who need to hear about Jesus.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Feb 6, 2011)

Edward said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Caribou Coffee
> ...


 
Can't copy and paste from snopes, but the last paragraph of your link renders the point moot. The connection was dissolved in 2002.


----------



## Edward (Feb 6, 2011)

Scottish Lass said:


> Can't copy and paste from snopes, but the last paragraph of your link renders the point moot. The connection was dissolved in 2002.



What connection was dissolved? Certainly not the ties to Islam. 

The company is still owned by Islamic interests. The current claim is that they don't violate US law by giving to banned (terrorist) organizations. That claim is probably accurate. 

The connection to Dr. Al-Qaradari was dissolved, but the ownership structure wasn't changed. When you drink Caribou, Islam profits. 

So I quite disagree that my point is moot.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 6, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> George Whitefield seemed to set up his open air preaching in fields and people voluntarily came to him.



NOT so. Although he certainly did go out in fields and such, he hit the streets as well. Whitefield did, indeed, preach on public street corners and such, and reported that he frequently got pelted with some pretty nasty things for it.




> Many street preachers, in contrast, seem to harangue passers-by on the street (i.e. not voluntarily wanting to hear). I just read the blog of one street evangelist that joked about doing evangelism on city buses and cornering folks in the back so that they could not "escape."



That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement. People do not have the right "Not to be annoyed." That is just stupid. Stephen was so annoying in his public preaching, that he got stoned to death. Paul started a riot from the people who did not want to hear him. Did he shut up? NO! He declared judgment upon them for it! 



> The problem does, in fact, appear to be methodological as well.



Not at all. The same people who complain about sandwich boards, tracts, and public preaching, pull over by the Dominoes pizza guy, who is wearing a sandwich board and shouting about five dollar pizza coupons, grabs a coupon, and buys a pizza. The problem is the message, not the method.




> At one point should we refrain from our practices due to our being annoying to people? A solid Christian will not uneccesarily irritate, right?



Define "unneccesarily". If 20 people are on the street corner, and ten of them are receptive to the gospel, and ten hate it, should you stop?? OF COURSE NOT> The Earth is the Lord's, and everything in it. He has given us all authority. There is NO biblical precedence for evangelistic cowardice.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 6, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> I agree with this. I learned this tactic while I was deployed. I would go sit in with a cup of coffee in a place where people hang out, and invariably I would be able to strike up conversations.


Indeed. And it helps to have your fully-stocked _Calvin Rocks_ bag on the table. 

Calvin Rocks Messenger Bag - CafePress

AMR


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement. People do not have the right "Not to be annoyed." That is just stupid. Stephen was so annoying in his public preaching, that he got stoned to death. Paul started a riot from the people who did not want to hear him. Did he shut up? NO! He declared judgment upon them for it!



My apologies but there is no basis to compare many of the street preachers of today with Paul and Stephen. Paul didn't start a riot...sinful heathens who sought to do him harm did. Stephen was not merely annoying his preaching enraged the sinful listeners because of his faithful message. In fact Stephen was brought before the people. He didn't exactly stand up on a soap box and start passing out Chick Tracts. 
As far as the Un-American comment... with all due respect who cares?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement. People do not have the right "Not to be annoyed." That is just stupid. Stephen was so annoying in his public preaching, that he got stoned to death. Paul started a riot from the people who did not want to hear him. Did he shut up? NO! He declared judgment upon them for it!
> ...


 
How is what Paul and Stephen did different than (biblical!) modern street evangelists? The people who are annoyed (assuming the preacher is not just shouting at them, but actually engaging them), ARE enraged heathens who hate the gospel. I have had atheists come very close to punching me in the face, had so-called liberal "Christians" who believe that Jesus was just a good man shout me down. Stephen was brought before the people because he was preaching publicly! They did not just pick him out of a crowd, and say "Hey, what do you believe?"

It SADDENS me, that evangelists today get as much resistance from (some so-called) Christians who have been brainwashed by modern politically correct, anti biblical beliefs, as from people who hate the Gospel. If you truly believe the scriptures, that "Faith comes by hearing" and that "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation," you should rejoice at your brothers and sisters who are faithfully doing it. Not attack them. Believe me, we have enough people trying to silence us; the atheists don't need your help!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement.



Can you explain the American part?

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> It SADDENS me, that evangelists today get as much resistance from (some so-called) Christians who have been brainwashed by modern politically correct, anti biblical beliefs, as from people who hate the Gospel.



Could you give examples?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

Wow, my patriotism is being questioned?

I am living in a country right now where the Muslim call to prayer sounds 5 times a day, whether I want to hear it or not. 

I am against anyone invading my personal space or my silence with any message, whether it be Muslims, Dominoes Pizza or a "Street Preacher" waving his bible at me from a lampost or trying to corner me on a bus. 

If we do not show respect and politeness to strangers, what does this say about our message? 

I believe there are ways to do street evangelism whereby people are free to approach us or not (setting up booths, etc) and we can maintain our respect for others even while being available to tell them of Jesus should they want to hear.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

P.s., I get annoyed...am I, too, an enraged heathen?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement.
> ...



Sure. The first amendment. Our country was built on the idea of freedom of speech. The "Public sphere" is an avenue for the exchange of ideas. You have the right not to get annoyed in your home. Not on a Street Corner, by someone who is simply proclaiming their cause.




> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > It SADDENS me, that evangelists today get as much resistance from (some so-called) Christians who have been brainwashed by modern politically correct, anti biblical beliefs, as from people who hate the Gospel.
> ...


 
Sure. You are seeing one now.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

A SCENARIO: 

If I were walking on a street in urban America, where crimes often occur, and I am approached by a total stranger who is VERY earnest about something, my first conclusion is that they are mentally ill or want to do me harm or they want something from me. If they begin to talk about my death ("If you died right now, where would you go?"...what, Wait?....why would I be dying right now)...that can be seen as very threatening. A natural response therefore, would be to want to punch that guy in the face and move on, in order to avoid the threat. 

BUT, to most street evangelists, they are not being punched or threatened because they are annoying and irritating, but they get extra points for "sufffering for Jesus." and the guy on the street who responds out of alarm and threatens back or does not receive the message of the street preacher..well, he is not merely a decent man trying to get to work and not be hassled by a stranger or a possible freak..he becomes an "enraged heathen" or a "liberal" that "hates the truth".


I have been approached on the street by just such people. I did not welcome their message because I did not trust the messenger. They looked sort of crazy, actually.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Wow, my patriotism is being questioned?
> 
> I am living in a country right now where the Muslim call to prayer sounds 5 times a day, whether I want to hear it or not.
> 
> I am against anyone invading my personal space or my silence with any message, whether it be Muslims, Dominoes Pizza or a "Street Preacher" waving his bible at me from a lampost or trying to corner me on a bus.



You do not have a right to silence in the public arena. You encounter messages constantly throughout the day, but have learned to tune them out. Apparently the only ones that bother you, are your brothers and sisters proclaiming Christ.



> If we do not show respect and politeness to strangers, what does this say about our message?



It says we care enough about them to give them a warning. It says "Hey, I don't care about the false, satanic, politically correct garbage. I want you to have life." Do you realize how ridiculous your argument sounds? People are dying and going to an eternity of torment, and you are more concerned about "Offeding" people?

How did Paul, Peter, and Stephen do it? Public proclamation. That is the Biblical method. To PREACH the gospel, not to set up booths, and try to trick the heathens into coming to you.




> I believe there are ways to do street evangelism whereby people are free to approach us or not (setting up booths, etc) and we can maintain our respect for others even while being available to tell them of Jesus should they want to hear.



#1 The Biblical method is public preaching. You cannot give me one example, New Testament or Old, where the messenger worried about "offending" people with his message. #2 I think it is the epitome of disrespect, to worry so much about what others think, that you would allow them to go to hell rather than making them (or you) feel "uncomfortable" for a moment.



> P.s., I get annoyed...am I, too, an enraged heathen?



I cannot answer this question. That is between you and God. However, the Bible is clear that the people of God rejoice when the Gospel is proclaimed. If someone is proclaiming the gospel rightly, and it annoys a person, I suggest they have a spiritual problem of some sort.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Sure. The first amendment. Our country was built on the idea of freedom of speech. The "Public sphere" is an avenue for the exchange of ideas. You have the right not to get annoyed in your home. Not on a Street Corner, by someone who is simply proclaiming their cause.



Abortion is legal also, but that does not mean we should partake of it.



Damon Rambo said:


> Sure. You are seeing one now.



I am seeing people discuss how to be more effective in their evangelism. They are promoting evangelism, not resisting it. Have I missed something?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> A SCENARIO:
> 
> If I were walking on a street in urban America, where crimes often occur, and I am approached by a total stranger who is VERY earnest about something, my first conclusion is that they are mentally ill or want to do me harm or they want something from me. If they begin to talk about my death ("If you died right now, where would you go?"...what, Wait?....why would I be dying right now)...that can be seen as very threatening. A natural response therefore, would be to want to punch that guy in the face and move on, in order to avoid the threat.
> 
> ...


 
This is why street preaching is so important. It gives people the chance to see that you are not some wild eyed, monster crier, nor someone wishing to do them harm. Yes, if you just ran up to someone throwing tracts at them, that might scare them. But I have never had anyone scared by my, or the groups I work with, approach.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> How did Paul, Peter, and Stephen do it? Public proclamation. That is the Biblical method. To PREACH the gospel, not to set up booths, and try to trick the heathens into coming to you.



They preached in the synagogues where theological discussion occured. Can you show where they were standing on a street corner preaching?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. The first amendment. Our country was built on the idea of freedom of speech. The "Public sphere" is an avenue for the exchange of ideas. You have the right not to get annoyed in your home. Not on a Street Corner, by someone who is simply proclaiming their cause.
> ...



Right. Just as political correctness is legal, but we should not participate it. However, Gospel preaching in the public sphere is both legal, and biblical.



> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. You are seeing one now.
> ...


 
People are resisting biblical methods, for modern man-invented methods, that remove a great deal of the offense of the cross.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> People are resisting biblical methods, for modern man-invented methods, that remove a great deal of the offense of the cross.



So it is biblical to corner someone in the bus?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > How did Paul, Peter, and Stephen do it? Public proclamation. That is the Biblical method. To PREACH the gospel, not to set up booths, and try to trick the heathens into coming to you.
> ...


 
Are you serious? Yes, they went to the synagogue first, but then went to the streets. Too many examples to list, but...

Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...




Your quote:



> Sure. You are seeing one now


 
You are seeing one now?

That is classic. The street preacher gets all fired up. If people are annoyed..well, then they hate the Gospel. If their methods are questioned and more effective means are suggested, well, those naysayers just do not value evangelism. 

I have seen it time and again.

Rather than accept the possibility that other means of evangelism might be more effective, many street evangelists come back with the other responses you have. Rather than a discussion of the best means, it becomes an issue of not loving the Gospel...etc....the naysayer becomes un-evangelistic and even now.... un-American.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > People are resisting biblical methods, for modern man-invented methods, that remove a great deal of the offense of the cross.
> ...


 
Define "corner"? If I start talking to them, and they say "Leave me alone," I move to someone else. If you are talking about preaching, how does it hurt anyone to stand up and give a quick 3 minute gospel presentation, and an exhortation to investigate these things? WHY are they bothered? Because of the message.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...


 
Because the Bible is supposed to be our guide, not Rick Warren, seeker sensitive, WORLDLY "techniques." You are criticizing people for being Biblical in their approach instead of being "enlightened" like you. Sorry, but I'll do it the way Jesus said to do it i His Word, and leave the Rick Warren style to you...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

> Many street preachers, in contrast, seem to harangue passers-by on the street (i.e. not voluntarily wanting to hear). I just read the blog of one street evangelist that joked about doing evangelism on city buses and cornering folks in the back so that they could not "escape."





Damon Rambo said:


> That is an unbiblical, and Un-American statement. People do not have the right "Not to be annoyed." That is just stupid.



This is what you responded to earlier, so at that point you seemed to have an idea of what cornering in the bus meant and you felt it was unbiblical and un-American to speak out against this cornerning.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

*Chicken evangelism versus Fish Evangelism:*

The chicken only lies one egg at a time. It sits and then, after a long wait, it begins to cluck and dance and very visibly announces that egg for all who are around.

The fish, on the other hand, goes underwater and deeply lays many small eggs. No sound is made and this is not very public. But, hundreds of fish hatch.


Many Western methods of evangelism are very Chicken. I suspect that the chicken-style occurs sometimes among street evangelists. Very loud and showy, but usually not much lasting fruit. On the other hand, discipleship of those who are already deep friends, more slowly and thoroughly, and letting the Gospel spread along family and relational lines often is more quiet and fish-like...but I have seen this more effective.

That, of course, is not to say that mass evangelism or a public witness should not be done. But, it is far from the most effective method in many contexts, especially if targetting total strangers with no follow-up in an obstrusive way that offends the recipient.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Because the Bible is supposed to be our guide, not Rick Warren, seeker sensitive, WORLDLY "techniques." You are criticizing people for being Biblical in their approach instead of being "enlightened" like you. Sorry, but I'll do it the way Jesus said to do it i His Word, and leave the Rick Warren style to you...



I think you should really calm the tone. Perg is the farthest from Rick Warren. When the world has their kids watching TV, Perg is teaching his kids how to know if the water would have crocodiles in it. Why? Because he has forsaken the nice things of life for the sake of the Gospel.


----------



## JML (Feb 7, 2011)

I am thankful that both of you have a zeal for evangelism. Damon, I am glad that you are not ashamed of the gospel and willing to preach it anywhere to anyone. Pergamum, your love of Christ has you living in a foreign land preaching the gospel to others. You both may disagree with the other's methods but I don't think we can question either one of you in your zeal for evangelism and your desire to see souls saved.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> How is what Paul and Stephen did different than (biblical!) modern street evangelists?



Well Paul, for example, was duly called to his office. Many street evangelists, as they are called, are not. One cannot simply go out and call his or herself a preacher. Once again I have to point out that Stephen was brought before the High Priest before his famous exhortation. He was on trial so to speak. In Acts 6 we know that Stephen was going around performing miracles and wonders. This indicates a special status he held at a particular time in Church history. Again I submit that modern street preachers need not be compared to these men. 



Damon Rambo said:


> ARE enraged heathens who hate the gospel


As the Perginator already mentioned not all who are annoyed by street preaching tactics are heathens...some of us are right here on the Puritan Board.

Lastly Damon, since you love to bring up the first amendment, we actually do have a right to _reasonable_ expectation of privacy.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

Colossians 4:




> Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
> 
> 4That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.
> 
> 5Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.



Much street preaching does not seem to fit in with Colossians 4 of walking in wisdom with unbelievers. Nor is the speech of many always seasoned with grace.


Some common scenarios:

-A street preacher shouting loudly at a corner or lamp-post where he knows many people must pass.

-Setting up in a subway and speaking loudly to a mass of people who are just trying to wait on their train and cannot really get out of earshot if they do not like the message.

-Cornering people on a bus, as one man bragged about.

-Positioning themselves in front of some big event, thereby forcing people to pass them unless they want to walk way out of their way to avoid the street preacher.

-Approaching strangers in an urban setting and trying to engage them while reaching into their pockets and looking very intent on the "target"



Some reasonable scenarios:

-Outdoor preaching where people voluntarily gather to hear preaching. City permits can be obtained.

-Passing out tracts at appropriate venues where this is accepted practice,

-Setting up a booth or a stand allowing people to come and dialogue if they so wish or to take literature.

-Public preaching or debate in those places where such things are common, such as the Areopagus or Hyde Park. Not the crowded crosswalk as folks are rushing to work.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > How is what Paul and Stephen did different than (biblical!) modern street evangelists?
> ...


[/quote]

That's fine. I am duly ordained and called by my Church. God calls preachers, though.



> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > ARE enraged heathens who hate the gospel
> ...


 
Reasonable expectation of privacy applies to illegal search and seizure of one's person and belongings. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right of Public Proclamation. We are guaranteed the right to publicly proclaim our message, whatever that message might be.

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Colossians 4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Paul preached in the Market place, in a jail cell, and on a boat full of soldiers. That is about as crowded as one can get. There is simply no debating that Paul and the apostles preached WHENEVER and WHEREVER there were people.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Reasonable expectation of privacy applies to illegal search and seizure of one's person and belongings. It has absolutely nothing to do with the right of Public Proclamation. We are guaranteed the right to publicly proclaim our message, whatever that message might be.



You are right. I did not explain my thinking. I had in my mind door to door and loud bull horn style evangelism in mind when I mentioned privacy.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> God calls preachers, though



My point exactly. Although I don't want to downplay any aspect of the external call. 

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> Paul preached in the Market place. That is about as crowded as one can get. There is simply no debating that Paul and the apostles preached WHENEVER and WHEREVER there were people.



The market place was also a common place of public speaking and even debate in those days in addition to commerce. It is not like our malls today.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon,

I love your zeal. This is a discussion of best methods, not a discussion of whether or not we should be zealous. I would rather see thousands of yous than have folks NEVER want to engage anyone with the Gospel.

And YES Jesus did speak to the crowds. And they followed him. I don't see many people following after some of the street preachers I have seen, but I have seen a few cases of street evangelists hounding folks who are trying to avoid or walk away.

p.s., in some countries public preaching is VERY accepted and will gather willing crowds very easily. Especially if you are a foreigner or have white skin. If you ever get tired of street preaching in the States, this is an open invitation to come and set up and let people come and crowd around to hear you here. It WILL happen here. And if it happens still in US cities, that is great also (as long as they are voluntarily doing so).

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

Jails: There are accepted ways to arrange prison ministries. We should do more to take full advantage of these opportunities.

Boats: Many chaplains and missionaries have asked permission of the ship's captain and have set aside times and places for divine services.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Damon,
> 
> I love your zeal. This is a discussion of best methods, not a discussion of whether or not we should be zealous. I would rather see thousands of yous than have folks NEVER want to engage anyone with the Gospel.
> 
> ...


 
I have seen people, and know people, who have came to Christ through not only street preaching, but gospel tracts. God's Word is effective, regardless of method, because the power is in the message, through the Spirit, not in the method. 

Thanks for the invitation. If the creek ever dries up here, I might take you up on that. I know some folks who are doing this in Jamaica.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon,

If we are to try to proclaim the Gospel whenever and wherever there are people, then what do you think of Fred Phelps as he pickets the funerals of gays? Do you think there are times and places that are more or less appropriate for such activities?

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

Damon,

Yes, God's Word is effective, but also I believe that God blesses good methodology and that we should critically examine all that we do and seek out the best methods:

Here is William Carey:




> We are firmly persuaded that Paul might plant and Apollos water, in vain, in any part of the world, did not God give the increase. We are sure that only those ordained to eternal life will believe, and that God alone can add to the church such as shall be saved. Nevertheless we cannot but observe with admiration that Paul, the great champion for the glorious doctrine of free and sovereign grace, was the most conspicuous for his personal zeal in the word of persuading men to be reconciled to God. In this respect he is a noble example for our imitation. Our Lord intimated to those of His apostles who were fishermen, that he would make them fishers of men, intimating that in all weathers, and amidst every disappointment they were to aim at drawing men to the shores of eternal life. Solomon says: "He that winneth souls is wise," implying, no doubt, that the work of gaining over men to the side of God, was to be done by winning methods, and that it required the greatest wisdom to do it with success.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Feb 7, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Damon,
> 
> If we are to try to proclaim the Gospel whenever and wherever there are people, then what do you think of Fred Phelps as he pickets the funerals of gays? Do you think there are times and places that are more or less appropriate for such activities?




This is hardly a good comparison. Fred Phelps does not preach the gospel. And we are not talking about a private funeral service, we are talking about a public sidewalk. Shouting "God hates F"'s" at people is not evangelizing. 



> Damon,
> 
> Yes, God's Word is effective, but also I believe that God blesses good methodology and that we should critically examine all that we do and seek out the best methods:



I agree. But we should not examine it against what is acceptable to the World, or even what "appears" to work (as we might only be producing "tares" with our modern techniques, which only appear to be wheat). "Good Methodology" is to be defined Biblically. What methods are used in the Bible?

#1 Public Proclamation: More than any other method
#2 One on One: Mostly with strangers, though.

So, yes, we should use good, Biblical methodology.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 7, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> This is hardly a good comparison. Fred Phelps does not preach the gospel. And we are not talking about a private funeral service, we are talking about a public sidewalk. Shouting "God hates F"'s" at people is not evangelizing.



To be fair they stand on public property outside of the funeral home or funeral procession. You are right though, they are not preaching the Gospel. The free speech issue still stands.


----------

