Advice for dealing with street-preachers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have done a lot of street preaching, singing and handing out tracts. I am sure God's Word never returns void. A Christian brother who goes into the town centre here regularly has built a great rapport with the street kids and people there. Some are led to do this I am sure by a burning zeal for the Lord. This cannot be a bad thing. I've never seen Christians behave badly or unkindly in the process either.
 
Street preaching done in love is Biblical (Acts 17:17)! Not everyone is called to this, but for those who are, God bless them. My dad knew someone who heard the gospel from a street preacher and was converted. Hallelujah!

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

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

1. How do I know I am called to street preach? 00:00:44
2. Taping yourself open-air preaching and putting it up on youtube, why? 00:03:40
3. What does bad and good open-air preaching look like? 00:05:43
4. Is "drive by" open-air preaching wrong? How important is a local church? 00:09:00
5. Is it important to be part of a local church and have accountability? 00:12:28
6. How do you respond to the hatred you are met with? 00:13:49
7. How important are one on one conversations? 00:16:15
8. Are you going out in love? 00:17:37
9. Is doing "shock and awe" evangelism biblical? 00:20:12
10. Do people understand the Christian terms that you are using? 00:24:25
11. How important is it to have scripture memorized? 00:25:32
12. Is it important to know the LAWS of the land? 00:26:11
13. Is Christ or Apologetics your Focus in Open-Air Preaching? 00:28:07
14. How do you engage a heckler? 00:33:17
15. Where is a good spot to open-air preach at? 00:36:01
16. Don't let getting large crowds become an idol. 00:40:56
17. Are there open-air preachers who are lost and not saved themselves? 00:42:45
18. Be careful to not appear self-righteousness while open-air preaching. 00:46:17
19. Advice on answering people's questions in the open-air. 00:49:35
20. What should the length of my message be? 00:53:56
21. What makes a solid gospel tract? 00:55:03
22. Is it biblical to hand out cartoon gospel tracts that are gimmicky? 00:56:04
 
Q. 155. How is the word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.

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

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

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

I included QA156 because I think it demonstrates that the Westminster divines were not ignorant of the duties required by others--not simply ministers--when discussing the preaching of the Word. Given that the thread states "street preachers," I wonder if we should be more mindful of exegetical arguments on the 5 Ws and 1 H of "preaching." I thought theoldcourse (silly username, in my opinion) helpfully brought out Romans 10. I'll assume that young man had in mind vv. 14-15 and hopefully in KJV :). So, how do those verses inform and provide advice for dealing with street preachers?
 
"Evangelistic duty" is a somewhat loaded phrase to begin with and is at the least speaking in ways that our Reformed ancestors would not have. They saw "evangelist" as a distinct office of the church that was associated with and ceased alongside apostleship--what remained was the ordinary minister of word and sacrament. See the DPW for an example. Now that office had certain characteristics (as understood both biblically and by the divines) which we don't often associate it with today, but it also suggests that they would be as opposed to the pretending of that office by unqualified men as they would of apostle or minister.

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

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

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

"Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel."
(Mark 5:19-20)

"The man, in a transport of joy, proclaimed, all the country over, what great things Jesus had done for him, Mark 5:20. This is a debt we owe both to Christ and to our brethren, that he may be glorified and they edified."
(Matthew Henry)

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

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

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

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

"Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel."
(Mark 5:19-20)

"The man, in a transport of joy, proclaimed, all the country over, what great things Jesus had done for him, Mark 5:20. This is a debt we owe both to Christ and to our brethren, that he may be glorified and they edified."
(Matthew Henry)

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

As I am sure you were sensible, the work I was referring to is the preaching of law and gospel as the instrumental means of conversion rather than the efficient means which is of course the work and prerogative of the Spirit. That is a burden we lay on the minister of word and sacrament though the fruit thereof is left to the free pleasure of God. "Every member evangelism" lays a parallel burden on the layman if not an even greater one considering how conversion is often regarded by such as occurring most commonly outside of the visible church by the (instrumental) means of laypersons evangelizing. Instead, the perspective of the divines was demonstrated by Mr. Ross's quotation (though impetuously editorialized) of the WLC above. Conversion occurs ordinarily by the public reading and especially the preaching of the word which was to be carried out by those duly called and appointed. Are all teachers? Rather, be not many masters.
 
In relation to doing good to our enemies, Thomas Boston teaches that we must be ready to do them good "in their spiritual interest, contributing our utmost endeavours as we have access for their eternal happiness, Prov 11:30, He that winneth souls is wise. Thus Christ and his apostles gave us an example in their thirsting for the soul-good of the Jews, their declared enemies. When the winning or losing of a soul comes in competition with any wrong done to us, that wrong is not worth noticing; for the redemption of the soul is precious above all."

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

Edit: I mistook the work you were quoting Boston from as from "The Art of Man-Fishing" whereas it was actually from "A Persuasive to Love our Enemies". Nevertheless, the first work qualifies what Boston was thinking of when he called on men to follow in the example of Christ and the apostles.
 
Last edited:
You are begging the question. The argument isn't whether soul-winning is a thing to be done, but who ought to be doing it. In the work from which you quote, Boston has a whole discourse on the ordinary calling of ministers and how even Christ did not preach without such a call, as to do so would be improper. To Boston, insofar as Christ and his apostles are an example for men to follow in soul-winning, they are to be followed by duly called and ordained ministers. "They that run unsent, that take on the work [of being a fisher of men] without a call from God cannot expect to do good to a people, Rom x. 14, Jer XXIII."

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

Again, I'm not arguing for preaching without a call. But you appear to be claiming with Dr. Gordon that there is no duty pressed upon non-ordained Christians to speak of the Gospel to our friends, family, and co-workers. This runs contrary to the whole tenor of the Scriptures.
 
The universal duty is expressed diversely, and Boston is quite clear in his other works that the imitation of Christ and his apostles in soul-winning is the prerogative of minister alone. The qualification I'm adding to WLC 155 is merely that of WLC 156. My point is that the sense which modern interpreters give to evangelism today would have been considered as "preaching" by our older Reformed writers and they were resolutely opposed to preaching without an ordinary call. In virtually all of the every-member evangelistic proof texts used today you'll find older commentators taking a much more ecclesiastically oriented interpretation. Perhaps Thornwell's argument in the church boards debate is applicable here too: neither can the constituted church properly delegate to other persons or bodies the duties which God has entrusted to it, nor can those not qualified or called properly take up such duties.
 
The universal duty is expressed diversely, and Boston is quite clear in his other works that the imitation of Christ and his apostles in soul-winning is the prerogative of minister alone. The qualification I'm adding to WLC 155 is merely that of WLC 156. My point is that the sense which modern interpreters give to evangelism today would have been considered as "preaching" by our older Reformed writers and they were resolutely opposed to preaching without an ordinary call. In virtually all of the every-member evangelistic proof texts used today you'll find older commentators taking a much more ecclesiastically oriented interpretation. Perhaps Thornwell's argument in the church boards debate is applicable here too: neither can the constituted church properly delegate to other persons or bodies the duties which God has entrusted to it, nor can those not qualified or called properly take up such duties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We both grant regarding our enemies, as you quote Boston: "that we must be ready to do them good 'in their spiritual interest, contributing our utmost endeavours as we have access for their eternal happiness, Prov 11:30'". We also both grant that some means of doing so are proper to one's station and some, even though they are good, are only proper to those appropriately called. The distinction appears to be in where that propriety is laid.
 
I passed a gentleman holding up a sign that said 'treasure Christ' on the way to work this morning. Not a bad choice for a sign
Maybe a pre-evangelism for some, an encouragement for others. All Christians are object lessons of truth in one way or another to the world

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

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

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

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

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

Are we called to pull our enemy's ox out of a ditch and yet not to speak the simple Gospel message to our perishing neighbors? My message is simple: you don't have to go looking for oxen in ditches, but you should know what to do when you see one.
 
Dearly Bought said:
The office of Evangelist is not given to all. The office of Minister of the Word is not given to all. The office of Deacon is not given to all. The Ministry of the Word, Evangelism, and Diaconal Ministry are not to be taken up by every member of the church. But evangelism, ministering the word to others, and service to the Body of Christ are also duties of all Christians in a manner appropriate to their places and callings.
I remember an old thread where it was said that we do by charity what they do by duty (i.e., office in the etymological sense). Since charity can also be seen as a duty, this may be one point of confusion? In a technical conversation on this subject, "evangelism" or "evangelizing" is usually restricted to the Biblical sense, which is tied to the office, not lay people. Of course, in common terminology, parts of "godly conference," "living for Christ," "loving our neighbor," and so forth, are often called by the name of "evangelism." This may be another point of confusion? (Although it has been a while since I read Gordon's paper, so I ask my questions in general, rather than of the article in particular.)
 
Here is an explicit use of the term "evangelize" by a 17th century Presbyterian with a double-reference to both the work of ordained ministers and ordinary Christians:
"They went evangelizing the world, preaching the word of the gospel; it was this which filled them, and which they endeavoured to fill the country with, those of them that were preachers in their preaching, and others in their common converse."
(Matthew Henry, commenting on Acts 8:4)
 
Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

Not everyone is morally obligated to go to those specific places to preach the gospel. Not everyone is morally obligated to go to a public beach; not everyone is morally obligated to go a national monument. One can tell non-Christians about how God saves His people from their sins without going to those specific places.
 
I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel
 
I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel

I do, too. Who believes that that verse is directed mainly to clerical ministers? I have never encountered anyone that believes that.
 
I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel

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


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

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

Col 4:6 "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
 
I have alot of trouble believing 'always be prepared to make a defense of your faith' was directly mainly to clerical ministers of the gospel

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


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

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

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

For what it's worth + 1. I don't call that street preaching. I call that witnessing and if I'm asked I can and I will, as the Scripture advises ; 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
 
Dearly Bought said:
Here is an explicit use of the term "evangelize" by a 17th century Presbyterian with a double-reference to both the work of ordained ministers and ordinary Christians
You might have something there. However, I don't see how the passage could refer to ordinary Christians without promoting lay-preaching (although I realize some take the "evangelizing" in this passage to be so in a non-technical and informal sense, which hence presupposes "evangelizing" in the technical sense refers to ordained ministers)? And I know Matthew Henry's commentary sometimes mixes exposition with application seamlessly (although I don't see how what it says is anything other than an exposition of the text). Anyway, it would seem that it is indeed the case that "evangelize" is a word that is causing some confusion.

Edit: In connection with the point of confusion concerning "duty" (one I haven't sorted out yet), there is a necessity placed on an ordained minister that is not placed on the ordinary Christian. Nevertheless, "duties" are necessary. So it seems there is a distinction to be made here too between the different kinds of duties and necessities, although I don't know what it is.
 
Last edited:
Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.

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

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

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

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

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

If invited to participate in open air/street preaching I would politely decline and explain why. It may be easier to just deflect the question but it doesn't provide the opportunity to instruct.
 
Yes, I agree. I am troubled on one end with street preachers who seem to gauge one's Christianity by zeal in this area alone. I have also been troubled by reactions against David Platt's book Radical (such as articles advocating being an "ordinary" Christian) when most churches in the West seem to be lukewarm so that being "too radical" is sure not our problem.

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

On Judgment Day the American Church will never be faulted for being too radical I don't think.
Well I'd disagree. I see obvious abuses in the modern Evangelical church in attempts to reach the lost beyond that which God has ordained. Word and sacraments are sufficient. American churches continually disagree with this by their sinful attempts to add to worship services sinful items which God has not commanded. This includes the areas of evangelism/outreach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top