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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is an article from Christianity Today about door-to-door witnessing:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december-web-only/dangers-of-door-to-door-evangelism.html

...he argues that our current social-cultural moment has made the door-to-door model not only less effective, but potentially counterproductive. “Wave after wave of rationalistic, rehearsed (and at times coerced and confrontational) evangelism,” he writes in his preface, “has inoculated, if not antagonized, the broader culture.”
 
I think door to door evangelism was much more effective when it was fresh. I think years of it has caused some extra hostility towards it.
 
Last edited:
Zach,

Do you think the word "inoculate" fits here, that people are "inoculated" against this type of approach? Or have the cults ruined it for us? Or has society just shifted away from community to a more private society where, once the doors of the home are closed, people don't want to receive visit unless you are specifically invited before-hand. Our society seems less tolerant of spam phone calls, door-to-door solicitors, etc, as well. I don't even like receiving phone calls at all...people ought to text first and ask if they can call and talk.
 
I work in banking now.. Even when I'm calling bank customers to ask how everything is, I get some push back. We like to ask questions, try to figure out if a person is in debt, or could benefit from anything else we offer, but most people prefer not to talk... I can only imagine if I called a lot of non bank customers.

I think so many things play apart. Once you've talked to Jehova Witnesses at your door enough times.. You get a little tired of it.. Business is shifting to online sales.. I only help like two customers in the bank per day. Businesses have continued to push sales through phone and spam to gain more business. All while society has turned more towards cell phone texting and social media. A lot of things contribute. Our culture has radically changed and we should consider these things.
 
Zach,

Our culture has radically changed and we should consider these things.

How would you respond to those that would push back and say that "God has already said..." and "the Bible is above culture!" and, therefore, culture should play no role in how we take the Word of God out to others?
 
I used to like to do door-to-door; I even took the week long course to get certified as an EE teacher. But things have changed - gated residential communities; increased crime; more non-English speakers, less civility with the influx of Yankees.
 
I'm a little hesitant to speak, as I am not a minister; but I do have an opinion on the matter.

First, ministers, according to their opportunities, ought to be seeking to reach their communities with the Gospel. The people are probably not going to wander into the church building, so the Gospel must be taken to them.

Second, door-to-door evangelism need not be confrontational. It seems that for a minister to knock on a door, and upon receiving an answer say something like "I am the pastor of ______ _______ Church, and I would like to talk to you about Jesus." If the offer of a conversation is accepted, then wonderful. If not, he can move on. (note--there is a world of opportunity here. The homeowner may be a total stranger to the faith, a confused believer in a mixed-up church, or a solid Reformed believer that finds the conversation encouraging! The possibilities are endless for meeting people where they are.)

Third, I doubt that street preaching has ever been particularly popular with much of society. I know that it has gathered crowds at times, but even in those days (late 1700s and early 1800s) these people were subject to open scorn. But it was God's appointed means for bringing people to saving faith, and it still is. There is no method of evangelism which we should expect more out of than preaching.
 
I've found door to door useful in Australia. People will listen. I've never seen anyone convert there and then on the spot but they listen. TBS calendars, pamphlets, etc., are good to break the ice. I think breaking the ice would be the major difficulty for most people.
 
I've found door to door useful in Australia. People will listen. I've never seen anyone convert there and then on the spot but they listen. TBS calendars, pamphlets, etc., are good to break the ice. I think breaking the ice would be the major difficulty for most people.

So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?
 
So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?

It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.

It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.
 
About the use of the word "preach" used in the KJV:

Strong's Concordance lists "preach" and its word-forms 141 times in the King James Version (KJV). It further lists "preach" as translating 13 different Greek words.

2097 (Preach 1) euangelizo , "Announce good news." Included are "good news" (2098 euangelion) and "good newser" (2099 euangelistes).

1229 (Preach 2) diangello , "Widely announce."

2605 (Preach 3) katangello , "Publicly announce."

4283 (Preach 4) proeuangelizomai , "Previously announced good news."

2784 (Preach 5) kerusso , "Proclaim." Included are "proclamation" (2782 kerugma) and "proclaimer" (2783 kerux).

4296 (Preach 6) prokerusso , "Previously announced."

1256 (Preach 7) dialegomai , "Discuss."

Above are but some. Laleo (2980), or "to speak" is translated "preach," "preached" or "preaching" in Mk.2.2, Act.8.25, 11.19, 13.42, 14.25 and 16.6.

In Acts 20:7, "And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them..." ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων

If we dialegomai/dialegeto (discuss or dialogue) with someone as they let us in and open the door and ask questions about the faith, can it be said that we have "preached" unto them, as the KJV translates?
 
So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?

It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.

It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.

The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?
 
can it be said that we have "preached" unto them, as the KJV translates?

The AV translation may simply reflect a context in which it was thought "preaching" was taking place. As it is translated "speaking" in other contexts, one would have to define the context more specifically to arrive at "preaching" as a specific function.
 
So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?

It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.

It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.

The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?

"Laity" is an unhappy term.

Ruling elders have never been given a license to "preach" in the official sense of the term.

I speak to people all the time without necessarily preaching to them, and this speaking often includes religious topics. As I am charged to "preach the word," it would be unwise to call that preaching which does not open the word of God to people.
 
So to be clear on your view. You believe it is a proper thing to do for pastors to preach and evangelize "door to door" but not for the laity? Or that it is an OK for the laity to do this but simply do not call the "door to door" preaching or evangelism but instead call it witnessing?

It is a free country here in Australia. The so-called "laity" are free to knock on anyone's door and talk to people as long as the householders are willing.

It obviously isn't "preaching" to speak about your religion in an informal manner. Nor is it "evangelising" if it has no outward means whereby the individual may make formal profession of faith. Why may it not be called a simple act of "speaking?" That seems the most obvious word for it.

The so-called laity I was referring to was simply to distinguish elders from non elders and the role of who ought to be preaching in an official capacity. I suspect the "door to door" of the "so-called" laity is indeed "simply speaking" which I agree with you here. So is laity a bad word? Also if you, as a pastor, speak outside the church of Who Jesus is and what He has done is that preaching or just simply speaking since it is done outside of the institution of the church?

"Laity" is an unhappy term.

Ruling elders have never been given a license to "preach" in the official sense of the term.

I speak to people all the time without necessarily preaching to them, and this speaking often includes religious topics. As I am charged to "preach the word," it would be unwise to call that preaching which does not open the word of God to people.

Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?
 
I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.


This has been my experience.

And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
Would you characterize most as lukewarm?
 
I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.


This has been my experience.

And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
Would you characterize most as lukewarm?

Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.

If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.
 
If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.

You ought to not "give up" even if all the seed falls on bad soil. We "expect" God to do as He pleases and sometimes this is not what we "expect".
 
You ought to not "give up" even if all the seed falls on bad soil. We "expect" God to do as He pleases and sometimes this is not what we "expect".

Agreed. this is the point I was trying to make. Whether it is preaching from a pulpit or a street corner we must have the conviction that this is the means ordained by God to gather people into the kingdom and to nurture and train people up. God's ways are not our ways and how we assess things may not be the way the Lord does. But when it is tough going we should take encouragement that God is at work rather than be discouraged thinking he is not because we see no visible signs of that work.

Preaching or evangelism should always be done with conviction and to lose that conviction undermines everything we are trying to say and leads to discouragement, losing heart then giving up
 
I think door to door is great as it gives you the opportunity to speak to every resident in a given street. If a person does not want to talk I respect that, offer them a tract and move on to the next house. I would not let a dozen discouraging houses put you off the next house where the person has just been waiting for someone like you to call; and this has often been the case.


This has been my experience.

And to Pergs question to me above, my door-to-door stuff as not provided any fruit as far as new members go, mostly because (to Rev. Sheffield's point) one of the underlying problems of doing evangelism in the Christ-saturated South is that 95% of people down here think they are a Christian of some sort.
Would you characterize most as lukewarm?

Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.

If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.


Amen
 
Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?

If at some point a door opens to preach the word in a person's home, or on the street, or anywhere, that should definitely be called preaching in the proper sense.

If "laity" is used in the generic sense of "the people," there is no problem, and that is the way I took your use of it; but I find it often has hierarchical overtones. It is much safer to simply say "the people."
 
Ordinary things in service of the LORD are "great things" and a congregation should heavily value and appreciate what you may call "ordinary things"
 
Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.

If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.

While the sentiment is wonderful, and I agree completely with the principle, the topic at hand isn't the general principle of sowing seeds to all, but of a very specific method of sowing them, that is going door-to-door indiscriminately and unsolicited to strangers.

To me, the broader question in this instance seems to be is this method culturally appropriate, or is it seen as generally offensive and rude, or is it somewhere in-between? For better or worse, in America the days of door-to-door solicitations are almost gone. It may not yet be seen as rude by all, but it is heading there fast. So in that context, what if the majority of the "indifference, hostility, antagonism, etc" that you encounter is not because you are naming Christ, but because you are seen as rude and insensitive for coming to their door unsolicited in the first place? It's one thing for someone to be annoyed at me or disgusted because they hate Christ, but it's entirely different for them to be annoyed or disgusted because I'm being insensitive and rude. If I'm in a culture that universally sees shouting in the street as horribly offensive, but I insist on shouting in the streets for Christ, then arguably I am grossly disrespecting the very people whom I claim to love and care about. Many of these very same people might be happy to discuss Christ with me if I approach them in a more culturally respectful manner.

But in the end, I think the question is still subjective and depends greatly upon the community being visited, the demeanor of the "solicitor," and so on. In some communities people might not mind it at all, and even love having people come to their door. But in others it might be equivalent to poking them in the eye with your finger and then saying, "Now that I've got that out of the way, do you mind if I talk to you about Jesus once your eye stops watering and the throbbing goes away?" I can't really recommend the Poke-Them-in-the-Eye-for-Christ Evangelism method. :)
 
Yes most are lukewarm and unconcerned about Christianity not wanting anything to upset their nice cosy lives. But just because they are does not mean that we don't continue on. Jesus told the parable of the sower and whenever we sow seeds we know some, or even a lot, of the seeds will land amongst weeds, shallow or stony ground. People seem to be obsessed with these soils and this leads to discouragement and then giving up doing the work. Yet Jesus spoke about the good soil which yields a harvest 30, 60 100 times what was sown. I am convinced that after a session of door knocking, regardless of how I have felt it has gone, I am convinced that some of the seeds have fallen on good soil and although I may never know the fruit of such labours, the Lord in his own good time will bring it to fruition.

If we believe the Lord is at work reaching out to people drawing them into the kingdom then we press on despite the indifference, hostility, antagonism etc we encounter. If we think God won't bless evangelistic endeavour then I would just give up. William Carey's famous dictum, "Expect great things; attempt great things" ought to be our attitude.

While the sentiment is wonderful, and I agree completely with the principle, the topic at hand isn't the general principle of sowing seeds to all, but of a very specific method of sowing them, that is going door-to-door indiscriminately and unsolicited to strangers.

To me, the broader question in this instance seems to be is this method culturally appropriate, or is it seen as generally offensive and rude, or is it somewhere in-between? For better or worse, in America the days of door-to-door solicitations are almost gone. It may not yet be seen as rude by all, but it is heading there fast. So in that context, what if the majority of the "indifference, hostility, antagonism, etc" that you encounter is not because you are naming Christ, but because you are seen as rude and insensitive for coming to their door unsolicited in the first place? It's one thing for someone to be annoyed at me or disgusted because they hate Christ, but it's entirely different for them to be annoyed or disgusted because I'm being insensitive and rude. If I'm in a culture that universally sees shouting in the street as horribly offensive, but I insist on shouting in the streets for Christ, then arguably I am grossly disrespecting the very people whom I claim to love and care about. Many of these very same people might be happy to discuss Christ with me if I approach them in a more culturally respectful manner.

But in the end, I think the question is still subjective and depends greatly upon the community being visited, the demeanor of the "solicitor," and so on. In some communities people might not mind it at all, and even love having people come to their door. But in others it might be equivalent to poking them in the eye with your finger and then saying, "Now that I've got that out of the way, do you mind if I talk to you about Jesus once your eye stops watering and the throbbing goes away?" I can't really recommend the Poke-Them-in-the-Eye-for-Christ Evangelism method. :)

I love this post... You put it in a better perspective for me... As I am still unsure. It is very subjective.. But I still appreciate the distinction between being disliked for rudeness and disliked for Christ
 
I found some videos on making door hangers.

That's doing it the hard way. Take your printed card, use a hole punch to put a single hole in the top middle, thread a rubber band through the hole and through itself, and hang the rubber band over the knob. If your card is printed on one side, you can write a brief note on the other.
 
Laity an unhappy term? Also if you do go "door to door" and if by God's providence you come across a person who listens to you would you not open the Word and preach to him or her and encourage them to attend church to hear the rest of The Council of God? Or is preaching only done by pastor while in church?

If at some point a door opens to preach the word in a person's home, or on the street, or anywhere, that should definitely be called preaching in the proper sense.

If "laity" is used in the generic sense of "the people," there is no problem, and that is the way I took your use of it; but I find it often has hierarchical overtones. It is much safer to simply say "the people."



I thank you for your precious time for we all only have a few moments here on this earth before we meet The Lord, and I do not want to have the presupposition that I hold to any other office within the church other than a humble servant under good Pastors who I am grateful to Our Lord for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top