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

[Scott1]

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?

It will be effective if God wants it to be effective, and in the way He chooses it to be effective.

With the facts we have in the post, we might say there are general instances of it being in Scripture, e.g. even those preaching the gospel for wrong reasons, are in one sense commended.

Philippians 1

15Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

16The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

17But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

18What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Some, perhaps many or all will be annoyed and "tune out," but that does not limit God's ability to use it.

Nothing can really harm the gospel message, but circumstances can be used of God to make it more difficult for those who truly share it.

It would be wrong to share the gospel with the intention of harming the church, or its dissemination, but we are not given that as a basis here.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

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.

It would seem that the issue of someone not being connected to a local communion of believers might be separate from the method.

It would be sin, whether by ignorance or rebellion, to live one's life, "ministry" apart from the visible body of Christ (e.g. no discipline, no taking of the Lord's supper, no tithing (giving), no service there).

It's also clear that God has specifically appointed people to carefully teach His Word and administer authority in the covenant community (church).

But we don't have enough information to even know how these folks were tied in to a local church (if at all).

But is it wrong for believers, who are not officers, to ever share the gospel in words in a perhaps unusual manner?

I don't think Scripture would say it is.

Further, even when it is done with wrong motives, the apostle commended it, because He recognized that the power of the Word of God is not dependent on technique, or motives of the person using it.

Those techniques or motives may be wrong biblically, but God is in no way limited in using it.

 

[KMK]

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?

It will be effective if God wants it to be effective, and in the way He chooses it to be effective.

I would agree and add that its effectiveness is also tied to the fervency of the prayers of the church that has called him to preach.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

[BIBLE]Philippians 1:17-18[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]mark 9:38-41[/BIBLE]

 

[Tim]

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?

I am not sure how WLC 108 contradicts my interpretation, but you said this off the top of your head...

What I am claiming is that Christians (i.e., one part of the body) should not "amputate" themselves from the church (i.e., the rest of the body) when they engage in evangelism (i.e., an activity of the body; the church is the entity to which the great commission was given). Since the bible provides many guidelines and qualifications for preaching of the word and formal ministry, the more formal one gets with their evangelism, the more necessary it is that they have the sanction of the Biblically-ordained leadership structure of the church body.

There is a semantic discussion regarding the word evangelism that I don't wish to enter at this time, but when one or two individuals pre-meditate a time of evangelism at a set time and location, I don't see it unreasonable in the least that this be should conducted as an overseen activity of their church body.

 

[calgal]

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?

Did they politely hand out tracts or did they get in people's faces? That would sort of skew my answer (I would be more annoyed or bemused than anything else).

 

[Der Pilger]

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.

In that case, every time Jesus was tuned out, or Paul was tuned out, etc., they were being "ineffective." I think your criterion is off the mark. God measures success with criteria far different from the world's.

The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this: When you think you're ineffective because people are tuning you out, it's a short step from there to an unbiblical kind of pragmatism that uses man-centered, carnal, marketing tactics so as to be "effective" and draw a crowd. What almost always happens then is that the message of Christ ends up taking back seat.

Another problem with it is the limits of our perception and knowledge of what goes on inside other people. How can anyone accurately measure how effective an outreach is? Even visible results can be deceiving. On the other hand, the lack of visible results is not meaningful either: Just because someone doesn't make a visible response does not mean he or she is tuning you out. Neither does it mean that they are not being convicted.

We are called to proclaim the message faithfully and leave the effectiveness up to the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean we should not be strategic or intelligent about how we go about it. It just means recognizing what God's role is and what ours is and not confusing the two.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

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.

This is an excellent point and one I had not considered before. It reminds me of the last presidential election. Back then, I recall walking around Arlington during my lunch break and encountering youthful supporters of the candidates standing on sidewalk corners, holding clipboards and asking, "Do you have a minute for (insert candidate name)?" I've seen various other people doing this, too, such as opponents of global warming and gay rights advocates. The offense is not caused by the medium of presentation; it's caused by the message itself combined with man's hatred of God.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

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?

It's great that you shared the gospel with him, but if you made the gospel anything other than the first step, then you were wrong. The Bible never supports the idea of making the proclamation of the gospel step 2 or step 3 or some later stage. It is always step 1, and rightly so: Without divine revelation, sinful man can know nothing about God and hence has nothing to believe in for salvation. Since revelation takes such a principal, vital place in man's salvation, I find it alarming that so many are so willing to postpone it to a later stage.

 

[kvanlaan]

I found this one to be very effective, but I'm not sure how he got the crowd to gather - maybe being a Spanish-speaking gringo in downtown Lima is enough.

[video=youtube;OjYLUpHQaiE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYLUpHQaiE[/video]

 

[Edward]

The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this

OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,

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

My answer: No.

I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to. So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train. And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.

 

[Kevin]

To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".

I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?

 

[Der Pilger]

The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this

OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,

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

My answer: No.

I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to.

I kind of agree that that would be wrong, although I would say in the situation at the DMV line, one could simply walk up and down the line and hand out tracts. That wouldn't be forcing them to receive anything.

So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train.

Again, there is a way to do that on the train that is not obnoxious. We have to be discerning as to the best means in a given situation, but our "discernment" should never cause us to place the gospel second.

And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.

Where are we commanded in the Bible to "ask permission" before sharing the gospel? Don't get me wrong--if somebody makes it clear that they don't want to hear it, we shouldn't force it on them but politely leave or change the subject. But to have to get permission before proceeding with the gospel message? I don't see that model anywhere in Scripture.

---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".

So do I sometimes. But when I do, it's not evangelism. It's a relationship. Nowhere--nowhere--in the Bible is the model of "relationship first, then gospel" recommended or commanded. I know that most books on evangelism hold that forth as effective, but strangely enough, in spite of all the books that speak highly of such approaches, God's word is silent on it. The Bible doesn't even hint at the idea of building a relationship as a means to share the gospel. For Jesus and the apostles, their relationships with others grew out of their teaching ministry, not the other way around. Why? Because they knew that telling others the truth was of paramount importance. Holding back the truth from someone is not love.

I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?

Which Bible characters? Could you cite some text for that?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I don't see anything wrong with this approach, if it is done well and with the right compassion for dying sinners. The worship services in Calvin's Geneva was also a captive audience because every resident had to be there, Christian or not, upon pain of civil penalty. What's wrong with having a captive audience? Nothing, in my book.

The pitfall with the way you're looking at it is this

OK. Let me simplify my response to the original posted question,

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

My answer: No.

I never did 'street evangelism' where a person couldn't move away if they wanted to.

I kind of agree that that would be wrong, although I would say in the situation at the DMV line, one could simply walk up and down the line and hand out tracts. That wouldn't be forcing them to receive anything.

So, in airports, in the corridor, but not in the gates. At the rail line - at the end of the platform, not the boarding area, and certainly not on the train.

Again, there is a way to do that on the train that is not obnoxious. We have to be discerning as to the best means in a given situation, but our "discernment" should never cause us to place the gospel second.

And I always asked permission and interacted with them, rather than preaching AT them.

Where are we commanded in the Bible to "ask permission" before sharing the gospel? Don't get me wrong--if somebody makes it clear that they don't want to hear it, we shouldn't force it on them but politely leave or change the subject. But to have to get permission before proceeding with the gospel message? I don't see that model anywhere in Scripture.

---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

To be clear Jeremy, I often begin relationships & converstions with some topic other then "the gospel".

So do I sometimes. But when I do, it's not evangelism. It's a relationship. Nowhere--nowhere--in the Bible is the model of "relationship first, then gospel" recommended or commanded. I know that most books on evangelism hold that forth as effective, but strangely enough, in spite of all the books that speak highly of such approaches, God's word is silent on it. The Bible doesn't even hint at the idea of building a relationship as a means to share the gospel. For Jesus and the apostles, their relationships with others grew out of their teaching ministry, not the other way around. Why? Because they knew that telling others the truth was of paramount importance. Holding back the truth from someone is not love.

I have noticed that some "bible characters" also meet people within their context before moving on to the "important stuff". Do you think that these "bible characters" were "wrong"?

Which Bible characters? Could you cite some text for that?

 

[Kevin]

Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank!

That sounds exactly like building relationships.

Read Acts & notice how St Pauls methods changed depending on the city. In some he became a teacher. In some he worked in the market place. In some he debated at the local philosophers club. In others he met strangers at therir place of work.

When he preached publicly it was not at the 1st cent equivalent of a DMV line-up! He went to places that were known for the practice of public speaking.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank!

That sounds exactly like building relationships.

Read Acts & notice how St Pauls methods changed depending on the city. In some he became a teacher. In some he worked in the market place. In some he debated at the local philosophers club. In others he met strangers at therir place of work.

When he preached publicly it was not at the 1st cent equivalent of a DMV line-up! He went to places that were known for the practice of public speaking.

I mean this in all sincerity so I have a few questions.

Where can I go to share the Gospel with people in America that is known for the practic of public speaking?

How can I engage with people I don't know, so that I can get to know them while sharing the Gospel with them?

If public preaching is not the way to do it, then what is the way to do it?

How do we publish the Gospel to the unbeliever. I am not concerned with the 99 who don't need the doctor. How do I get to the lost sheep?

 

[Herald]

How do we publish the Gospel to the unbeliever. I am not concerned with the 99 who don't need the doctor. How do I get to the lost sheep?

You go where the lost sheep are found.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Jeremy, try reading the gospels again with some focus on what is discribed as happening as well as what is recorded as being said. Jesus spent time in peoples homes & ate with them. So much time thaqt he was criticised for how much he ate & drank!

Yes, but only AFTER teaching and preaching. Frankly, we are TOLD how to do it. We do not have to guess.

Luk 14:21 So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, 'Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.'

Sitting around in Church and waiting for people to come in is not Biblical. We are commanded to go out. Without an intentional evangelism outreach, people such as the homeless, who hang it in places where no one just "happens to run into them," go without the gospel.

To me (and I do not mean this as a remark against you. I simply do not know any other way to state this fact more plainly), there is nothing more evil, hateful, and shameful than to let someone go without hearing the gospel. It is akin to blithely sitting by why a blind man walks unknowingly into traffic and into his own destruction. These people are going to hell. They do not need a friend. They do not need food. They need the gospel, and they need it now...not after building a relationship with them for 3 months.

YouTube - A Letter fom Hell

Although the above video is about someone that is known, it could apply to every single person that you pass every day without sharing the gospel.

 

[Leslie Koster]

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?

My Church has been watching the video of Go, Stand, Speak in Sunday School.. Our Leaders back this Ministry and want us all to understand and get involved if called.

 

[Austin]

If y'all want to know where to go to preach to a captive audience, in an environment akin to street preaching, try your local prison or jail. My work at the Arizona State Prison is like this. And frankly, I'm ashamed that it took 4 years of acquiring an M.Div., plus 10 years of parish ministry, then the loss of the same, for me to go to prison to minister.

As I have acquainted myself with my new position, one thing strikes me above all else: the men in my prison are HUNGRY for Good News. They are, quite literally, the "lost & least." And the second thing that stands out to me is that the vast majority of people looking to minister in the prison (vocationally or voluntarily) are Pentecostals & uneducated but well-meaning Arminians and Baptists.

Where are the Presbyterians in the Prisons? Where are the Reformed folk? I know of two Reformed Presbyterians in the entire state prison system here in Arizona, and we're both EPC. (And one, not me, is fixing to retire.)

I had a man in my office today asking to be baptized a THIRD time. When I asked him why, he said that the previous times he came up out of the water & didn't pray in tongues, so he must not be truly saved. This then led to a nice long discussion about what being saved is really about (namely, trusting Jesus' words), and what the meaning of baptism is.

And where did he get his wacky ideas? From the only people willing to go to the prison-- Oneness Pentecostals and wacky Charismatics & Dispensationalists.

Okay so the pay is peanuts ($32,000 plus benefits), but do we truly go into the ministry to get rich? And my congregation inside the prison is composed of people most folks wish dead. (They are sex offenders, who are so hated even by the dregs of the rest of the prison that they have to be segregated in their own yard or else their life span will be quite short.) Indeed, "good," "solid," churchgoing Evangelicals here in town have told me that they wish my parish residents would go off, die, and rot in hell.

And... (and perhaps this is the kicker for us Reformed types) ...no one serving Christ & His people in prison will become well known, write books, be invited to speak at some conference somewhere on how to "do ministry right." What's more, prison chaplains are looked down upon by other ministers & by laypeople as ministers who are incapable of "serving fruitfully" in "church work." Oh, and don;t forget that they are overwhelmingly people who will never understand (or even see the point in understanding) words like "lapsarianism," "adiaphora," "Regulative Principle," or "eschatology." In other words, they are poorly educated folk from gangs, blue-collar families, and broken homes.

Not exactly the kind of people we Presbyterian & Reformed people gravitate to, huh?

But... aren't these the people to whom Jesus commanded us to take the Gospel? And isn't it through folks like these that He says He will reach the nations?

If you want to speak to a place where the sinners are, where you have a captive audience, and where there is an amazing harvest waiting to be brought in, then go to the prisons.

Who will go? Will you?

 

[Kevin]

Damon, if you can stop proof-texting Lk 14 & read the entire chapter you might notice that the servant was not sent out to yell at people in a line-up. But to invite them back for a feast! This is probably a multi-day event. Sounds more like "getting to know" someone, to me.

This is in my opinion a very fruitless discussion. Some people have a view of "evangelism" that they consider the only faithful way to "preach the gospel". Others don't believe that it is the most wise or faithful method, but are prepared to admit that God can use even our weakness to draw his people. I am in the latter group.

However, in this thread, those of you in the former seem to be maintaining a position that only your way is the "faithful" way. I disagree.

In fact I would go so far as to say that you are misreading the text & drawing the wrong lessons from it. That does not bother me. frankly i will keep on trying to see the lost come to faith in Christ by following what I am convinced is the NT method.

You can keep yelling at people lined up at the DMV, and I will keep on inviting 75-100 people to a large community meal (called a feast in the NT) every 60 days or so, meeting people in pubs (had 13 for a bible study last night), preaching 2 or 3 times a week, teaching english to immigrants by studying the book of Acts, holding small group studies in homes (up to 4 this fall), spending time with muslem students, spending hours on Saturday @ the farmers market meeting new people, volunteer at the food bank, etc.

It seems from this thread that some of you consider this a waste of time, since I don't raise my voice, or try to "preach" to people while they are doing something else, or becaus I believe that I must live the gospel in front of those that I am trying to preach Christ.

Just remember that we all are reponsible for our own actions, to our own master. Peace.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Damon, if you can stop proof-texting Lk 14 & read the entire chapter you might notice that the servant was not sent out to yell at people in a line-up. But to invite them back for a feast! This is probably a multi-day event. Sounds more like "getting to know" someone, to me.

The feast is the marriage supper of the lamb. The invitation is to salvation. He is not inviting them to some emergent church "dialogue."

This is in my opinion a very fruitless discussion. Some people have a view of "evangelism" that they consider the only faithful way to "preach the gospel". Others don't believe that it is the most wise or faithful method, but are prepared to admit that God can use even our weakness to draw his people. I am in the latter group.

We are commanded to preach the gospel, not just in a church building, but on the streets. The "friendship evangelism" position is not the historic reformed view. There is not a single Reformed theologian or pastor, up until maybe the last 50 years, that has advocated such; they all stress the biblical position that public proclamation of the gospel is a mandate straight from the Lord.

My friend, you are falling into the same trap that so many in "popular" church circles have fallen into. You believe that you alone, contrary to to 2,000 years of church history, have the proper interpretation of the scriptures. You are in a dangerous position. The people that are standing with you are individuals like Rob Bell. Does it not set off some sort of warning off in your mind, that the people with whom you share an opinion, are heretics that stand in opposition to the historic reformed position?

Fruitless the discussion may be; only God can open minds. However, it is nevertheless necessary. People need to open their eyes.

However, in this thread, those of you in the former seem to be maintaining a position that only your way is the "faithful" way. I disagree.

Its not "my way." It is the Biblical way, and the historic interpretation of the Church. Find me a single reformer that advocates "developing a relationship" with someone, before sharing the gospel. You will not find them.

In fact I would go so far as to say that you are misreading the text & drawing the wrong lessons from it. That does not bother me. frankly i will keep on trying to see the lost come to faith in Christ by following what I am convinced is the NT method.

It bothers me that you are interpreting the Bible in line with known heretics, against the historic view of evangelism. Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Knox, and in the broader reformed camp, Spurgeon, Whitefield, and more, ALL disagree with you. I believe it was Sproul who gave a resounding warning to those who suddenly "discover" something in the scriptures that no one else has noticed for 2,000 years.

You can keep yelling at people lined up at the DMV,

What a disingenuous remark. Do you preach? I can likewise say "You can keep yelling at the people in your pews..." Preaching is not yelling. I do not "yell" at people. I preach a sermon (gospel oriented), the same way I preach in the pulpit. It is slanderous to label street preachers as wild eyed people that are just screaming at people. We street preach, JUST how Jesus and the apostles street preached.

and I will keep on inviting 75-100 people to a large community meal (called a feast in the NT) every 60 days or so, meeting people in pubs (had 13 for a bible study last night), preaching 2 or 3 times a week, teaching english to immigrants by studying the book of Acts, holding small group studies in homes (up to 4 this fall), spending time with muslem students, spending hours on Saturday @ the farmers market meeting new people, volunteer at the food bank, etc.

That's all great. But its not the gospel. You are bordering on a Liberation theology here. The Gospel is primary. You can feed people all you want; if they die without hearing the gospel, they are still going to hell.

It seems from this thread that some of you consider this a waste of time, since I don't raise my voice, or try to "preach" to people while they are doing something else, or because I believe that I must live the gospel in front of those that I am trying to preach Christ.

You cannot "live" the gospel; not in the way you are describing it. The Gospel consists of information, and you can sit their with a beautiful look on your face, and people can clap you on the back and tell you how wonderful you are; without the Gospel told to them in words, they will die and go to hell. Giving a blind man that is about to walk off a cliff a sandwich, and telling him how much you like him, all the while not warning him of the cliff, is an indefensible position. The Gospel is First.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

What does it say? "From that time on, Jesus began to invite people to dinner?" No. Even situations like with Zacchaeus, it is clear that he had already heard the gospel proclaimed, and THEN Jesus had dinner with him. There is nothing wrong with the things you have said that you do; great! But the Biblical model is to FIRST preach/share the gospel, and THEN develop a relationship, invite them to dinner to explain it more fully, etc.

Just remember that we all are reponsible for our own actions, to our own master. Peace.

Yes. And as an ordained, commissioned minister of the Gospel, it is my responsibility to correct incorrect teaching wherever I find it. Everyone will be held responsible, yes; including for every person that they pass without sharing the gospel, because it makes them "uncomfortable."

 

[Herald]

Okay, enough. This thread is digressing. The Gospel is to be proclaimed, "...in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). If you are not actively engaged in preaching the Gospel, pray for its success. The Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation regardless of where it is preached. If you differ in methodology than your brother don't allow that to diminish your praying that God will redeem His elect.

This thread is now closed.