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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top