Do you think this type of "street evangelism" works?

[paculina]

I'm not really sure what to call it, so I'm calling it street evangelism for lack of a better term.

I stood in line for over an hour at the DMV this morning and there were 2 guys there passing out tracts to everyone in line. Then one of them stood towards the front of the line and proceeded to preach a sermon of sorts of the gospel. Must have lasted 5-10 minutes. At some point they moved to the back of the line and started again. I can't tell you what he said, I wasn't listening that closely.

I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train and/or handing out tracts.

Do you think this kind of method of preaching to a captive audience is effective? Do you think it's biblical? Do you think anyone really listens or people just get annoyed and tune out? Does it do the gospel message and/or the church's image more harm than good when people do this?

 

[Tim]

Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.

This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.

Consider this from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25:

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (the scripture reference for this last clause is Acts 2:47)

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

This is not a Roman Catholic doctrine, but a recognition that the church is the organization in which Christians operate. Accordingly, an evangelistic activity such as this should be seen as an activity of the church, not just individuals.

 

[jason d]

We do stuff like that under out church... so it doesn't necessarily mean it is "an ecclesiology-free endeavor".

Going where people are and preaching the gospel is what we see all through Acts is it not?

Is it effective? Well, I would ask was the Word preached? If so then the Holy Spirit can use that to convert can He not?

 

[Herald]

Laurel,

I understand your question of, "is it effective." Personally, that question can lead to some negative conclusions if we are weighing the preaching of the Gospel by it's effectiveness. The Gospel is the means of salvation. Among the Reformed I doubt there is any question as to the quality of a Gospel presentation made from a pulpit as compared to street evangelism. The pulpit preacher has 45-60 minutes (on average) to deliver a message that could explore the Gospel both front and backwards. However, the street evangelist normally is in the place where sinners are found in abundance. I concur with Tim that the Gospel should be proclaimed by competent individuals who are ordained or sanctioned by the church for that very work. But that doesn't mean God will not honor his Word when preached by a layman at the DMV.

If I may be allowed an anecdotal story. In the early 1980's I became aware of the street preaching ministry of Open Air Campaigners. They had a unique method of presenting the Gospel through water color ink on sketch boards. I was fresh out of the military and wanted to see the Lord do a work in my hometown. I prevailed upon the local OAC missionary to come to our town around the holiday season to do some evangelistic work on the main shopping district in town. I had a few volunteers from our church. Together we set up tables, literature, bibles, and handed out hot cocoa to the passing shoppers. The OAC missionary set up his board and went to work. That first Saturday the response to the sketch board was abysmal, or so it seemed. Just one young man stopped by to look and he left right after the message was over. The next week, the Saturday before Christmas, we gave it one more try. The OAC missionary reluctantly came back one more time. There still was a very poor attendance over at the sketch board. However, that young man from the previous week came back. He engaged the missionary in conversation which continued for well over an hour. Our time was up so the other church members and I started packing up. We noticed that the young man was now in the van with the missionary and his assistant and they all had their heads bowed. They were praying. This young man placed his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ on that cold December afternoon. One year later he attended, with me, a bible college in New York State. Two years later he was in my wedding. Today he is serving the Lord faithfully in south central Pennsylvania.

What's the point of my story? Am I trying to defend every type of evangelism; even those types that use questionable tactics? Absolutely not. I am saying the the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). Even though human efforts may be in error, the Gospel is not. If presented truthfully it is able to convert the worst of sinners in the most unlikely of venues.

It's now nearly 25 years later. I'm no longer the fundamentalist Baptist I used to be. I'm a respected Reformed Baptist (insert tongue in cheek here). While I will never embrace error in presenting the Gospel, I pray I never lose the passion to proclaim it to whoever will listen.

 

[Tim]

I am glad that your church oversees such evangelistic activities, Jason.

My point was that there is more to this activity than just the message. The Lord also tells us the manner and organization of the evangelism. Our effectiveness (in the Lord's eyes) increases the more we are conformed to His commands about how we are to go about making disciples of all nations. There is a specific organization given in the book of Acts. For example, "going where people are and preaching" (as you wrote) is connected to baptism. Both Baptists and Presbyterians would understand this as involving a formal connection with the visible church, among other things.

 

[Rich Koster]

I'm in agreement with Bill. I would add that some harm the perceived image of the Church when they preach some works based, mean spirited, pseudo-gospel, but they can't hurt the true Gospel because it is backed by God.

 

[SemperEruditio]

Laurel,
As Bill said if the Gospel is preached then it works, regardless of what we see. My problem with this is that when this happens I being a Christian tune them out. I don't take too kindly to being shouted at and if I'm stuck in the area because I'm in line at the DMV it just adds to the frustration. I applaud the courage and passion this takes but my preference is to speak to those around me. Regardless if it's a one-to-one encounter or blasting a crowd with a megaphone in the end it's all a shotgun approach because we don't know who or what method the Holy Spirit will use.

 

[Edward]

I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train

That happened on the train I was on a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was highly ineffective. Most folks looked up when he started, but quickly returned to their books, IPods, and naps. When I looked up a little later, he wasn't standing up at the end of the car anymore.

 

[steadfast7]

Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.

This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.

I've never heard of this view and it's baffling to me. Is there a confessional statement regarding this? Must all instances of evangelism be mandated and overseen by the church? What about casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing? thanks.

 

[Der Pilger]

Were these men who were called by the church and sent to preach the Word as part of the "ministry of the Word" of a local church body? If not, then they fall into the category of people who engage in evangelism solely on a one-on-one basis, without any connection to the Biblically mandated church organization and oversight.

This sort of practice is often an ecclesiology-free endeavor, even if the message itself is doctrinally sound. I don't know about this case, but I am commenting on the common practice.

I generally agree with this. Evangelism ideally should be done in and through the local church and overseen by the church leadership. Earlier this year I shut down an evangelistic ministry because it was not the result of having been sent by the local church. I urged the members to apply the approach/technique/skills they had honed in the ministry to evangelism in their own churches. Currently the only outreach ministry I'm involved in is with my church. I occasionally go out with others I know who do church-free, or parachurch, evangelism, but that is no longer my common practice, as it once was.

Having said that, I should also add that, since we are mandated to bring the gospel to the lost, going the parachurch route would be acceptable if one's own church were disobedient in this area. If I tried time and time again to get outreach ministry going in my church but the church as a whole kept dragging their feet, it would be wrong to let that keep me from helping fulfill the Great Commission. We shouldn't let the disobedience of others lead us to disobey as well.

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

I've also seen this kind of preaching often done on the commuter trains, where someone will just get up and start preaching to the train

That happened on the train I was on a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was highly ineffective. Most folks looked up when he started, but quickly returned to their books, IPods, and naps. When I looked up a little later, he wasn't standing up at the end of the car anymore.

How do you determine whether an evangelistic presentation is "effective" or not--by immediate results? And even if that happened and someone set aside their book/iPod, got out of their seat and expressed interest, how could you know whether real conversion was taking place? The term "effective" needs to be defined here.

A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified. Since the glory of God should be our primary goal in everything we do--including evangelism--then such public ministry is effective in that sense, for God is glorified whenever Christ is lifted up and His message of grace and salvation are proclaimed. That means that all evangelism, when done biblically, has a 0% chance of failure.

 

[Tim]

I've never heard of this view and it's baffling to me. Is there a confessional statement regarding this? Must all instances of evangelism be mandated and overseen by the church? What about casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing? thanks.

Please see my above post, which quoted WCF 25:2. I don't think the problem is with casual conversations that lead to gospel sharing - this would fall under guidance of verses like:

Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

but notice that there is both a pro-active and re-active aspect to this verse.

It is rather formal and deliberate evangelism that should be overseen. There should be an assessment of such individuals to ensure that they are able to properly proclaim the gospel (i.e., is this person suitable for this task as part of the body?).

 

[christiana]

People out in the world, on the street, are often attracted and listen to all kind of speakers. Our part is to be faithful in presenting an accurate gospel. God's part is which hearts will be touched and respond!

I often accompanied my father on such street corner preaching, guitar playing, gospel singing adventures but I felt strangely uncomfortable, even embarrassed by it. Obviously this was before God came into my own heart.
When I was a child my father had a neon, gas lit, sign in the back window of our car that had in red, 'Jesus Saves' and in green, 'Heals'. I was quite embarrassed by that as well, having no understanding but preferring to not call such attention to ourselves.
Today I do love telling other about the doctrines of grace and how God saves sinners. It is with humble gratitude that I count myself a 'five point flaming Calvinist', though I'm sure some here would refute the accuracy of that statement in considering that I'm a reformed baptist. Soli deo gloria!

 

[Edward]

A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified.

A good point.

But I still say when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective.

 

[Damon Rambo]

A far better criterion to go by is whether God was glorified.

A good point.

But I still say when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective.

Read Acts 13:48. Did everyone listen? Did everyone believe? No, only those who were ordained to eternal life.

When the Spirit of God is working on His elect, they will listen. When He is not, they will ignore you regardless what you do, even if they appear to be paying attention.

The fact is, that most of the major reformers preached in the Open Air. John Knox, Charles Spurgeon and George Whitefield preached in the open air. This was HIGHLY unusual and unaccepted at this time in history, especially in Knox's time. I believe it was Whitfield that said he had pieces of dead rotten cat thrown at him.

I also would like to say, that no, Evangelism does not have to be directed by the local church. Now, I am Baptist, so this whole business is one of those places where I disagree with my Presbyterian brothers. But I believe Acts shows very clearly ALL members of the Church sharing their faith, and I rejoice when people do so.

Now, certainly a person should be at least sanctioned by the body that they are a member of... but in our church, the Pastor not only sanctions all the members evangelizing, he let's them know if they are not doing so, they are being disobedient. If someone's Pastor does not sanction all to share the gospel, my suggestion for that person would be to find leadership elsewhere that does so.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

If you are one to think street preaching is ineffective, then what are you doing that is effective? I ask this as both a challenge and seeking information. I have done street preaching and seen fruit. And I have done street preaching and seen no fruit. I have also sat idle for too long worried about what is effective or not. I do believe going out and preaching Christ under the authority of the local church. But if the local church forbids it they better have a good reason. If they have no good reason then it is biblical to disobey them.

There are many ways to engage people in preaching the Gospel to them. I am open always to new ideas. I have handed out tracks at city festivals and sought to talk with people about Christ. For example, I wrote a pamphlet on God's ordained standard for marriage and intimacy and handed them out at the Gay Pride day in our city. I am currently writing a booklet entitled "Jesus and the Pagan" and will be handing them out at the Pagan Pride Day in October. I will be putting a warning tract on each mailbox in my neighborhood concerning Jehovah Witness and Mormon doctrine as they have been through recently. And I am stating to think about a postcard campaign to area neighborhoods to invite people to church and engage them one-on-one at their homes.

If what someone says is, "Well, that doesn't work." My answer is, "Ok. What does and let's go do it."

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Go, Stand, Speak

Acts 5:17-20

Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

I believe in the public proclamation of the Gospel (street preaching). I like what Spurgeon says to this effect:

No sort of defense is needed for preaching out-of-doors; but it would need very potent arguments to prove that a man had done his duty who has never preached beyond the walls of his meetinghouse. A defense is required rather for services within buildings than for worship outside of them. Apologies are certainly wanted for architects who pile up brick and stone into the skies when there is so much need for preaching rooms among poor sinners down below.

C. H. Spurgeon
Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323​

Now many would say, "when folks tune you out, you aren't being effective." And that Spurgeon lived in a different time when this kind of practice wasn't seen as so repulsive. But consider what Spurgeon says here:

In one case the parish bull was let loose, and in others dogs were set to fight. The preachers needed to have faces set like flints, and so indeed they had. John Furz says: "As soon as I began to preach, a man came straight forward, and presented a gun at my face; swearing that he would blow my brains out, if I spake another word. However, I continued speaking, and he continued swearing, sometimes putting the muzzle of the gun to my mouth, sometimes against my ear. While we were singing the last hymn, he got behind me, fired the gun, and burned off part of my hair.

After this, my brethren, we ought never to speak of petty interruptions or annoyances. The proximity of a blunderbuss in the hands of a son of Belial is not very conducive to collected thought and clear utterance, but the experience of Furz was probably no worse than that of John Nelson, who coolly says, "But when I was in the middle of my discourse, one at the ouside of the congregation threw a stone, which cut me on the head: however that made the people give greater attention, especially when they saw the blood run down my face; so that all was quiet till I had done, and was singing a hymn."

C. H. Spurgeon
Lectures to My Students, pp. 280-323​

There was never a time when sinners rejoiced to see the man of God in the public square preaching Christ and him crucified. And it is no different today. We must be deliberate, intentional and systematic in our endeavors at open-air preaching.

An interesting resource on this topic is Go, Stand, Speak. They have produced a documentary that is well worth taking a look at. The discription is as follows:

The film “Go. Stand. Speak” delves into the doctrine of public preaching with experts such as Pastor Albert N. Martin, Dr. George Grant, Paul Washer, Greg Gordon, Pastor John Reuther, Rusty Lee Thomas, David Legge, Ray Comfort, Stuart Migdon, Michael Marcavage, Jeff Rose, Shawn Holes, Sean Morris and other Christian leaders… and uncovers the big question…is this quiet, new move of public preaching something that is simply a trend, or is it again the beginning of a move of God where He is simply doing what He always has done…calling His ministers to go and preach His message of repentance and faith where the people gather in the public, regardless of culture, current trends, or the popularity of the message and method?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Thank you for the information on Go, Stand, Speak. Wonderful!

 

[AThornquist]

Ohhh I hate evangelism like this. I would much rather everyone in line never hear the Gospel from my lips and thus do all that I humanly can to aid in their damnation.



Seriously though, is any evangelism effective if the Lord is not giving life to the dead? Good on them for having enough concern for people who may be going to hell to look foolish by sharing the Good News. Certainly that methodology can be easily used wrongly, but I wouldn't say the means itself is ineffective any more than friend-evangelism.

 

[Damon Rambo]

I am actually proud to say that the Street Preaching/Evangelism resurgence that we are seeing right now, is being led mostly by Reformed types. I am a street preacher myself, and know several others, both in the flesh, and on the net: we did a recent poll, and 80 percent of those involved in street ministry (Preaching and Evangelism), are Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. Why? Well for exactly the reason brought out in this thread. The Reformed man asks, "What does God want me to do?" regardless whether the world likes it or not (at least, in theory), whereas those of the Arminian persuasion conclude that since Street ministry doesn't "Work" they will do something else to trick people, er, I mean convince people to come to their churches...

 

[Kevin]

Tim, I disagree with your interpretation of wcf 25.2, off the top my head lc 108 seems to contridict your take on wcf 25.

I think you are claiming that evangelism is only to be done when authorised by local churches?

And re the op, no this is not effective. God may use any means to call sinners to himself, but that is not the question.

Just because we all agree that God *may* choose to use the most unclear, or innaudible, or obnoxious, or socially awkward, or culturally insensitive means to save some one. This DOES NOT mean that we then should mumble, or cultivate unclear versions of the gospel. Nor should we intentionally violate the social or cultural norms of our society, just because God may save some inspite of the weakness of his servants.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Tim, I disagree with your interpretation of wcf 25.2, off the top my head lc 108 seems to contridict your take on wcf 25.

I think you are claiming that evangelism is only to be done when authorised by local churches?

And re the op, no this is not effective. God may use any means to call sinners to himself, but that is not the question.

Just because we all agree that God *may* choose to use the most unclear, or innaudible, or obnoxious, or socially awkward, or culturally insensitive means to save some one. This DOES NOT mean that we then should mumble, or cultivate unclear versions of the gospel. Nor should we intentionally violate the social or cultural norms of our society, just because God may save some inspite of the weakness of his servants.

Jesus said people will hate us for the Gospel. If your gospel is not offensive to unrepentant unbelievers, you are doing something wrong. Street Preaching is biblical, and has been done by great men of God who lived in times when it was even less accepted than now. I do not care if it "violates the cultural norms"...sharing your faith in ANY fashion, violates cultural norms.

 

[Kevin]

Damon, please read my post & interact with what I said.

The fact that I know a miracle story of someone coming to faith in Christ by means of a tract left in a library book (I do) does not mean that leaving tracts in library books is the best way for evangelists to spend their time.

And no, shouting at people in a line-up @ the DMV is not the same as speaking out of doors in a public narket place in the past, when allmost every important message was proclaimed in the same way. There is a reason why we no longer have Town Criers. And it has nothing to do with the offense of the Gospel.

There is a vast difference between being offensive in the name of the Gospel, and the offense of the Gospel. there are many ways that I could be culturally & socially inapropriate in the pulpit on Sunday morning. Not sinfull, just inappropriate. This would be offensive in the name of the gospel, but very diferent from the offense of the gospel. If you could do that in church, how many more ways are there to do so outside of the church, at the DMV?

 

[Damon Rambo]

Damon, please read my post & interact with what I said.

The fact that I know a miracle story of someone coming to faith in Christ by means of a tract left in a library book (I do) does not mean that leaving tracts in library books is the best way for evangelists to spend their time.

And no, shouting at people in a line-up @ the DMV is not the same as speaking out of doors in a public narket place in the past, when allmost every important message was proclaimed in the same way. There is a reason why we no longer have Town Criers. And it has nothing to do with the offense of the Gospel.

There is a vast difference between being offensive in the name of the Gospel, and the offense of the Gospel. there are many ways that I could be culturally & socially inapropriate in the pulpit on Sunday morning. Not sinfull, just inappropriate. This would be offensive in the name of the gospel, but very diferent from the offense of the gospel. If you could do that in church, how many more ways are there to do so outside of the church, at the DMV?

I did read what you read, and I am interacting with it. We are talking about the public proclamation of the Gospel, which is a biblical mandate. Since we are commanded to preach the gospel in the public sphere, what is a "culturally acceptable" way of doing this?

And you are wrong. Public preaching was MUCH more culturally "abnormal" in John Knox's day than it is today. That is a fact. Before the reformers, for the centuries before, there WAS NO such thing. Even preaching itself was abnormal; for centuries the Latin Mass predominated the church. Charles Spurgeon was constantly criticized for his "counter cultural" street preaching. He wrote several defenses of this (which you can still read). Historically, you are simply incorrect.

Also, I challenge your claim that public proclamation is countercultural. Just yesterday, I saw a man with a sandwich board on the sidewalk, announcing 6 dollar pizzas at Dominos. No one seemed the list bit offended or put out that he was doing so.

I will say this; anyone who is not daily sharing their faith with strangers, everyday, do not have standing to criticize how others do it. You don't like how we are doing it? Then you get out and do it.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

I think you are starting off with the wrong question. Start off with, "is it biblical?" And it surely is. The prophets publicly called Israel to repent, John the Baptist did, and Jesus as well. George Whitefield, Spurgeon also had a public ministry. God has used this and continues to. Do people run towards the open-air preacher and gladly accept the message? Not most of the time. I'm sure its happened and am aware of times it has. But many mock, ridicule, and become aggressive. Yet, this is the means God uses to save men.

 

[Kevin]

Damon, one hour before I posted the above comment I had the oppourtunity to see a young man confess his faith in Christ in my study. I have known him for a few years & have shared the gospel with him many times. Does that qualify me according to your standard, to speak to this question?

Or did I disqualify myself by getting to know him and understand him while I introduced him to Christ?

 

[Austin]

Whether it is socially acceptable, or "effective," or not, I would say this falls into the category of preaching the Word in season & out.

I think it was Dwight Moody who once said, "I like my way of doing evangelism better than your way of not doing it." After all, who knows what means the Lord will use? Scatter widely, trusting the Lord to bring in the harvest, I say.

Now, that said, I am personally VERY uncomfortable with preaching like this. But then again, if someone else isn't, who am I to tell him to stop?

 

[Herald]

MODERATOR NOTE

I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.

There is only one means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.

 

[Damon Rambo]

MODERATOR NOTE

I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.

There is only one means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.

Brother,

Yes, and thank you. I must say for my part, I have no problem with someone not doing it. Not everyone is called to preach, that is for sure. I have a HUGE problem when other Christians start criticizing the ones who are called, and are doing it, however. It is a biblical mandate. To me, its like criticizing people for taking the Lord's supper, or reading their Bibles.

 

[Michael Doyle]

Thank you Bill for your insight. I have street preached over and again and travelled around the country to street preach with the old GNN. I was very troubled in my spirit over the lack of discipline in the outreach. Time and again I found myself questioning these methods. Now to be sure, some who I have witnessed with were very gifted in these areas and had extreme compassion upon the hearers and to me exemplified the gospel message, which is the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus the Lord. Others seemed to "get off" at what they would deem shining light on the cockroaches to watch them scatter. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter but from experience agree with Bill`s premise, one should have oversight from his church and be sent.
I do not practice this activity much anymore but what I do is meet with men of my past and present to open the scriptures and discover the glory of the gospel together. In this some grow in Christ, others come to Christ and some have no change at all, and yet my joy is in the Lord for giving me the opportunity to disciple and make disciples in such a way. To His glory alone!
I commend those of you who have been gifted to witness in the street. May you be a true witness to the glory of Christ and the unfolding drama of His redemption as it is laid out in scripture.

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Reading through the posts, I cant find anyone criticizing anyone in the way you suggest Damon. I see debate over what constitutes effective methods bot no one calling you or those who are gifted out as disobedient. That is my observation anyhow.

 

[KMK]

MODERATOR NOTE

I am amazed at the childish argumentation and petty bickering that is going on about this issue. We should not be impugning motives or insulting another brother.

There is only one means of salvation and that is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The proclamation of the Gospel in the public square requires a conviction and boldness that not every preacher possesses. But that does not provide Carte Blanche, to every self-appointed preacher, to use belligerent methods. I have witnessed both approaches used out in the street. Both are often met with scorn and ridicule. The former because it is the offense of the cross that is being preached. The latter because it is the offense of the person. That is why I am convinced that men must be qualified and appointed to this task by the local church. If a preacher does not feel convicted to preach in the open air, so be it. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit from their pulpits. There have been many faithful men of God who have been used by the Spirit on the street corner. The same Gospel is what saves sinners in both instances.

Brother,

Yes, and thank you. I must say for my part, I have no problem with someone not doing it. Not everyone is called to preach, that is for sure. I have a HUGE problem when other Christians start criticizing the ones who are called, and are doing it, however. It is a biblical mandate. To me, its like criticizing people for taking the Lord's supper, or reading their Bibles.

Agreed.

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.

Those who are gifted and fitted to preach and approved and called by their local church to preach, not only have freedom to preach, but have an obligation to preach. Criticizing someone for performing a moral obligation is dangerous ground.