Best and worst methods of witnessing in the US

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

 

[Der Pilger]

Jesus commands personal testimonies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rich Koster]

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

 

[Der Pilger]

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

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

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

Is that what you mean?

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were they from Word of Life Bible Institute?

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

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

 

[MrMerlin777]

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

 

[KMK]

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

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



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

The preaching of the word is not specifically for the lost. The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth, those that are not covenant members come to Christ through the preaching of the word, but a well established church is negligent if it is always preaching messages geared toward the lost.

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

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

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

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

 

[Confessor]

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

I'm seeing Judas Priest tonight.

 

[Grimmson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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



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

The preaching of the word is not specifically for the lost. The main form of bringing people into the church is through birth, .

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







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

 

[steven-nemes]

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

 

[Rich Koster]

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

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

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

Is that what you mean?

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

 

[Confessor]

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

 

[Gloria]

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

*eagerly awaiting responses to this question*

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

 

[Confessor]

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

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

Let us always keep these verses in mind:

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

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

 

[Gloria]

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

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

What if there is no yelling?

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

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

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

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

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

Let us always keep these verses in mind:

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

*eagerly awaiting responses to this question*

LBC 26:11 Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

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

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

 

[Gloria]

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

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

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

ITA!

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

Good points here!

 

[Der Pilger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Jesus and the apostles did” NOT “communicate the truth” by sending out tracts and in five minutes or less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wannabee]

I recall the story of Moody,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AThornquist]

Great words, Joe.

 

[Der Pilger]

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

I disagree with you, not with the text. I'm just trying to let the scripture speak for itself. No teaching pertaining to Christian faith and practice carries any authority whatsoever unless it echoes what God says in scripture. Therefore, since you seem convinced that Jesus approved of the use of personal testimonies--not just to share what God has done in one's life but also to communicate the gospel message--please show out of the text itself that this is so. Until you do that, all your thoughts about

• sharing your testimony to get people open and ready to hear more
• your personal experiences
• testimonies drawing people rather than repelling them like much witnessing in our day
• possible negative results from trying to present the gospel completely and accurately

are all just that--your thoughts--and carry no authority whatsoever.

 

[Grimmson]

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

“Jesus and the apostles did” NOT “communicate the truth” by sending out tracts and in five minutes or less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good points here!

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

 

[Pergamum]

I disagree with you, not with the text. I'm just trying to let the scripture speak for itself. No teaching pertaining to Christian faith and practice carries any authority whatsoever unless it echoes what God says in scripture. Therefore, since you seem convinced that Jesus approved of the use of personal testimonies--not just to share what God has done in one's life but also to communicate the gospel message--please show out of the text itself that this is so. Until you do that, all your thoughts about

• sharing your testimony to get people open and ready to hear more
• your personal experiences
• testimonies drawing people rather than repelling them like much witnessing in our day
• possible negative results from trying to present the gospel completely and accurately

are all just that--your thoughts--and carry no authority whatsoever.

I, too, am just trying to let the Scripture speak for itself.


Mark 5 has Jesus commanding the former demoniac to go spread his story around.

Then, Paul on several occasions gives the personal testimony of his conversion, the time before King Agrippa being most noteworthy.

The psalms also command us to tell about what the Lord has done. Testifying to the Lord's goodness is only right and natural.


There are thus multiple precedents for personal testimony in Scripture. These do not need to be theologically shallow, perhaps this is an assumption you are making.


Personal testimonies are one of the best ways to open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things.