Park Evangelism

[Tim]

If one wants to learn more about open air evangelism and open air preaching, go no further than Living Waters - Home.

I can't say enough good things about these guys. In my opinion the examples you see on the website are a faithful witness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Der Pilger]

Hi all,

Good discussion. I thought I'd jump in with a short post. A couple people have made comments about what is effective and what "works" in evangelism, and I think what they mean is whether the evangelism succeeds or not. It is impossible to know, however, whether success has been attained without first clearly identifying one's goal. To use an analogy from our school days: We knew we successfully passed a test when our grade exceeded a certain percentage. Had we not known what that benchmark number was, we would have always wondered whether we passed the test or not. Similarly, we need to define clearly what our goals in evangelism are.
If the goal is an increase in the numbers of church attenders, for example, and the church is not increasing in numerical size, then one can say that one's method was not successful. If one's goal is to see souls make an outward profession of faith, and not a single person makes such a profession, then one can say, again, that the method was ineffective. If, however, one's goal is to be faithful and obedient in proclaiming the good news, to teach the word of Christ thoroughly and accurately and to glorify God, then one's ministry will certainly be successful as long as the gospel is proclaimed fully and correctly.

The only criterion, then, for determining success or failure is the content of one's message, not its results. in my opinion, a ministry needs to be evaluated on the basis of its doctrine, not its fruit. If evangelism is defined as proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly and correctly--and if this is done--then that evangelism has a 0% failure rate.

 

[Kevin]

Jeremy, I (think that I) know what you mean, but I am not sure that i agree 100%.

If I set out to share my faith & I was entirely orthodox in my presentation, and yet by my personal dress, attitude, and manner I was saying something diferent from my words, then I would not consider this to be sucessful.

in my opinion

 

[JBaldwin]

I think that you have to do what works well in the community where you are. In some places park evangelism is offensive. Have you tried getting out to public open air events and inviting folks to a Bible study? Perhaps one where they would get an introduction to Christianity and the Bible?

 

[Der Pilger]

Jeremy, I (think that I) know what you mean, but I am not sure that i agree 100%.

If I set out to share my faith & I was entirely orthodox in my presentation, and yet by my personal dress, attitude, and manner I was saying something diferent from my words, then I would not consider this to be sucessful.

in my opinion

Yes, if we bring shame on God's name by sinful conduct, then we have failed to glorify God. Conducting oneself in a way that is not sinful is essential when doing public outreach, as it is in all areas of our lives. But I'm afraid you may have missed the point of my post, which was to emphasize the difference between determining success by results and determining it by doctrine. The former is embraced by evangelical churches for the most part, IME, while the latter is barely considered, if at all.

-----Added 6/1/2009 at 05:41:33 EST-----

I think that you have to do what works well in the community where you are. In some places park evangelism is offensive.

How do you know?

 

[JonathanHunt]

Pergs

Back in London my friends at the Metropolitan Tabernacle go out to the Parks on Lord's Day afternoons. Approaches vary - one of the deacons, who is a tall, strong, west indian guy, simply walks up to people and says 'hello my friend, how is it with your soul?'

It seems to work for him. Others strike up conversations, but they are up front about what they are doing., For certain communities in London (south american, some parts of africa) people chatting in public places is normal, and so it works quite well.

Where I live 100 miles away, which is nearly 100% white british, talking to people anywhere is weird, although striking up a conversation in public is easier, and less offensive, than knocking on the door of their castle (an Englishman's home is his castle - a truer saying never existed).

 

[Pergamum]

Hi all,

Good discussion. I thought I'd jump in with a short post. A couple people have made comments about what is effective and what "works" in evangelism, and I think what they mean is whether the evangelism succeeds or not. It is impossible to know, however, whether success has been attained without first clearly identifying one's goal. To use an analogy from our school days: We knew we successfully passed a test when our grade exceeded a certain percentage. Had we not known what that benchmark number was, we would have always wondered whether we passed the test or not. Similarly, we need to define clearly what our goals in evangelism are.
If the goal is an increase in the numbers of church attenders, for example, and the church is not increasing in numerical size, then one can say that one's method was not successful. If one's goal is to see souls make an outward profession of faith, and not a single person makes such a profession, then one can say, again, that the method was ineffective. If, however, one's goal is to be faithful and obedient in proclaiming the good news, to teach the word of Christ thoroughly and accurately and to glorify God, then one's ministry will certainly be successful as long as the gospel is proclaimed fully and correctly.

The only criterion, then, for determining success or failure is the content of one's message, not its results. in my opinion, a ministry needs to be evaluated on the basis of its doctrine, not its fruit. If evangelism is defined as proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly and correctly--and if this is done--then that evangelism has a 0% failure rate.

If that is 100% true then the Fundy preachers that stand at steet corners and yell at people are successful, even though they make the Gospel appear to be an offensive thing.

-----Added 6/1/2009 at 10:34:06 EST-----

Pergs

Back in London my friends at the Metropolitan Tabernacle go out to the Parks on Lord's Day afternoons. Approaches vary - one of the deacons, who is a tall, strong, west indian guy, simply walks up to people and says 'hello my friend, how is it with your soul?'

It seems to work for him. Others strike up conversations, but they are up front about what they are doing., For certain communities in London (south american, some parts of africa) people chatting in public places is normal, and so it works quite well.

Where I live 100 miles away, which is nearly 100% white british, talking to people anywhere is weird, although striking up a conversation in public is easier, and less offensive, than knocking on the door of their castle (an Englishman's home is his castle - a truer saying never existed).

Yes, Hyde park (and maybe other parks in England, I don't know) seem to be like modern areopagus's and provides a means of public discourse not usually appropriate now in the West.

 

[JBaldwin]

I think that you have to do what works well in the community where you are. In some places park evangelism is offensive.

How do you know?

By experience. I live in a community where the local college kids from a certain fundy university go to a nearby park weekly for park evangelism and the only people who come to listen are the other fundies. This is the same for standing on the street corners passing out tracts, street preaching and just about any kind of "in your face" public evangelism. The people in my community are so hardened to it, that they refuse to listen.

On the other hand, I have a friend who is doing church planting a city in New Hampshire, a city that has few believers, and their park evangelism is well-recieved.

I saw the same thing traveling from village to village in rural France doing open air evangelism in the markets. In some villages the people were responsive, in other places they passed by and jeered and disrupted us.

Even Jesus experienced different responses to the Gospel and approached it different ways.

 

[CharlieJ]

This is a very interesting thread. In my lifetime, I've witnessed all sorts of things be effective and ineffective. I've spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in door-to-door, street, and mall evangelism. I can't think right now of any growth from street evangelism. I know of one teenage boy who came to Christ from Satanism from mall evangelism. I've known of many people who came to church at least from door to door work that focused primarily on friendly first contact and an information packet. I know of two teenage girls who came to Christ at a church-sponsored youth event

But, I think I've had equal "success" by accident. My next door neighbor came to Christ through my witness when we were both teens on the basketball court. One of my best friends at BJU realized he wasn't a Christian; I was able to be a part of his coming to Christ. Several more relationship-oriented circumstances come to mind.

On the other hand, my dad has had more results through street evangelism, a drug addiction program, and preaching in prison. Would your suburban church be open to convict growth?

In short, I'll never know how much my street-type of evangelism actually accomplished. Probably more than I can see, but it still seems like a lot of effort for sparse results. However, the biggest change was in me. God used those times to give me and the people with me a burden for the lost. Because of those experiences, I think about the souls of people around me more. The street evangelism was good training for those relationship moments. These days... I feel like I hardly do any evangelism. I would like to do more.

 

[LawrenceU]

I haven't been paying attention to this thread for some reason. Shame on me. I firmly believe that God uses different people in different ways in sharing the gospel within the same congregation. Some people can be effective in sharing the gospel in a park, others are effective in their relationships at work, and so on.

In congregations that I have served we have seen a variety of methods result in conversions and church growth, although at different rates at different times. One of the most effective realities is that of 'oikos'. Everyone has relationship networks, their oikos. Sharing the gospel within that oikos can be very effective. Hopefully, you have credibility as a bearer of the message as a Christian. Having said that, it bears noting that a Christian should be intentional in developing relationships with the unsaved.

Another note, all too often Christians forget the role of prayer and fasting in evangelism. We are confronting spiritual death and blindness when we share the gospel. We should fast and pray for effectiveness in our endeavours.

 

[Pergamum]

I haven't been paying attention to this thread for some reason. Shame on me. I firmly believe that God uses different people in different ways in sharing the gospel within the same congregation. Some people can be effective in sharing the gospel in a park, others are effective in their relationships at work, and so on.

In congregations that I have served we have seen a variety of methods result in conversions and church growth, although at different rates at different times. One of the most effective realities is that of 'oikos'. Everyone has relationship networks, their oikos. Sharing the gospel within that oikos can be very effective. Hopefully, you have credibility as a bearer of the message as a Christian. Having said that, it bears noting that a Christian should be intentional in developing relationships with the unsaved.

Another note, all too often Christians forget the role of prayer and fasting in evangelism. We are confronting spiritual death and blindness when we share the gospel. We should fast and pray for effectiveness in our endeavours.

One suggestion to take advantage of this relational approach towards evangelism: List 20 unsaved friends and family members that you already have a relationship with, and then make them a "spiritual project" of deliberate prayer and try to bless them in all ways possible.

 

[LawrenceU]

I haven't been paying attention to this thread for some reason. Shame on me. I firmly believe that God uses different people in different ways in sharing the gospel within the same congregation. Some people can be effective in sharing the gospel in a park, others are effective in their relationships at work, and so on.

In congregations that I have served we have seen a variety of methods result in conversions and church growth, although at different rates at different times. One of the most effective realities is that of 'oikos'. Everyone has relationship networks, their oikos. Sharing the gospel within that oikos can be very effective. Hopefully, you have credibility as a bearer of the message as a Christian. Having said that, it bears noting that a Christian should be intentional in developing relationships with the unsaved.

Another note, all too often Christians forget the role of prayer and fasting in evangelism. We are confronting spiritual death and blindness when we share the gospel. We should fast and pray for effectiveness in our endeavours.

One suggestion to take advantage of this relational approach towards evangelism: List 20 unsaved friends and family members that you already have a relationship with, and then make them a "spiritual project" of deliberate prayer and try to bless them in all ways possible.

.

Absolutely. We keep a list as a congregation which contains all of our 'targets' that we have individually.

 

[Der Pilger]

Hi all,

Good discussion. I thought I'd jump in with a short post. A couple people have made comments about what is effective and what "works" in evangelism, and I think what they mean is whether the evangelism succeeds or not. It is impossible to know, however, whether success has been attained without first clearly identifying one's goal. To use an analogy from our school days: We knew we successfully passed a test when our grade exceeded a certain percentage. Had we not known what that benchmark number was, we would have always wondered whether we passed the test or not. Similarly, we need to define clearly what our goals in evangelism are.
If the goal is an increase in the numbers of church attenders, for example, and the church is not increasing in numerical size, then one can say that one's method was not successful. If one's goal is to see souls make an outward profession of faith, and not a single person makes such a profession, then one can say, again, that the method was ineffective. If, however, one's goal is to be faithful and obedient in proclaiming the good news, to teach the word of Christ thoroughly and accurately and to glorify God, then one's ministry will certainly be successful as long as the gospel is proclaimed fully and correctly.

The only criterion, then, for determining success or failure is the content of one's message, not its results. in my opinion, a ministry needs to be evaluated on the basis of its doctrine, not its fruit. If evangelism is defined as proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly and correctly--and if this is done--then that evangelism has a 0% failure rate.

If that is 100% true then the Fundy preachers that stand at steet corners and yell at people are successful, even though they make the Gospel appear to be an offensive thing.

Pergamum, please see my response to Kevin about the issue of sinful conduct when sharing the gospel.

-----Added 6/4/2009 at 01:17:25 EST-----

Absolutely. We keep a list as a congregation which contains all of our 'targets' that we have individually.

I wonder...By targeting a limited number of people--a subset of the population--are we actually missing something about the Great Commission, which has as its target the entire world? Now I know that one church cannot reach the entire world all on its own, so please don't think that's what I'm implying. But I still can't help having doubts about this kind of limitation of the gospel audience. Surely we can target more than just the people we already know?

-----Added 6/4/2009 at 01:33:01 EST-----

I think that you have to do what works well in the community where you are. In some places park evangelism is offensive.

How do you know?

By experience. I live in a community where the local college kids from a certain fundy university go to a nearby park weekly for park evangelism and the only people who come to listen are the other fundies. This is the same for standing on the street corners passing out tracts, street preaching and just about any kind of "in your face" public evangelism. The people in my community are so hardened to it, that they refuse to listen.

But how do you know that it is really the method that is offensive? Have you asked them? And even if you asked them and their answers confirmed your thoughts, how do you know they were being entirely sincere? Perhaps what they really found offensive was the requirement to do something they don't want to do--repent and believe. Perhaps not. The trouble is we can never really know the reason for sure beyond what scripture tells us. That's the problem with rejecting or accepting a particular approach because of the manner in which people respond to it--we'd be making a decision on how to present the vital message of the gospel based on insufficient information.

Even Jesus experienced different responses to the Gospel and approached it different ways.

Really? While he did experience different responses to the Gospel, I thought the common denominator throughout all his ministry was teaching the truth--everywhere he went. I thought it was the same with the apostles, too. I don't recall their ever changing their approach because of the manner in which people responded.

 

[Pergamum]

Hi all,

Good discussion. I thought I'd jump in with a short post. A couple people have made comments about what is effective and what "works" in evangelism, and I think what they mean is whether the evangelism succeeds or not. It is impossible to know, however, whether success has been attained without first clearly identifying one's goal. To use an analogy from our school days: We knew we successfully passed a test when our grade exceeded a certain percentage. Had we not known what that benchmark number was, we would have always wondered whether we passed the test or not. Similarly, we need to define clearly what our goals in evangelism are.
If the goal is an increase in the numbers of church attenders, for example, and the church is not increasing in numerical size, then one can say that one's method was not successful. If one's goal is to see souls make an outward profession of faith, and not a single person makes such a profession, then one can say, again, that the method was ineffective. If, however, one's goal is to be faithful and obedient in proclaiming the good news, to teach the word of Christ thoroughly and accurately and to glorify God, then one's ministry will certainly be successful as long as the gospel is proclaimed fully and correctly.

The only criterion, then, for determining success or failure is the content of one's message, not its results. in my opinion, a ministry needs to be evaluated on the basis of its doctrine, not its fruit. If evangelism is defined as proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ thoroughly and correctly--and if this is done--then that evangelism has a 0% failure rate.

If that is 100% true then the Fundy preachers that stand at steet corners and yell at people are successful, even though they make the Gospel appear to be an offensive thing.

Pergamum, please see my response to Kevin about the issue of sinful conduct when sharing the gospel.

-----Added 6/4/2009 at 01:17:25 EST-----



I wonder...By targeting a limited number of people--a subset of the population--are we actually missing something about the Great Commission, which has as its target the entire world? Now I know that one church cannot reach the entire world all on its own, so please don't think that's what I'm implying. But I still can't help having doubts about this kind of limitation of the gospel audience. Surely we can target more than just the people we already know?

-----Added 6/4/2009 at 01:33:01 EST-----

By experience. I live in a community where the local college kids from a certain fundy university go to a nearby park weekly for park evangelism and the only people who come to listen are the other fundies. This is the same for standing on the street corners passing out tracts, street preaching and just about any kind of "in your face" public evangelism. The people in my community are so hardened to it, that they refuse to listen.

But how do you know that it is really the method that is offensive? Have you asked them? And even if you asked them and their answers confirmed your thoughts, how do you know they were being entirely sincere? Perhaps what they really found offensive was the requirement to do something they don't want to do--repent and believe. Perhaps not. The trouble is we can never really know the reason for sure beyond what scripture tells us. That's the problem with rejecting or accepting a particular approach because of the manner in which people respond to it--we'd be making a decision on how to present the vital message of the gospel based on insufficient information.

Even Jesus experienced different responses to the Gospel and approached it different ways.

Really? While he did experience different responses to the Gospel, I thought the common denominator throughout all his ministry was teaching the truth--everywhere he went. I thought it was the same with the apostles, too. I don't recall their ever changing their approach because of the manner in which people responded.

Jesus and Paul both tailored their approach with people to fit their audience. A separate thread could be devoted to this full topic.

 

[Der Pilger]

Jesus and Paul both tailored their approach with people to fit their audience. A separate thread could be devoted to this full topic.

They both consistently took the approach of proclaiming truth directly, immediately and up front. They may have changed the starting point of their message depending on their audience, but they did not change the manner in which they communicated the message. For example, Paul's starting point in the synagogues was the scriptures since his audience was Jewish; on Mars Hill, his starting point was to talk about their idolatry and the one true God. In both cases, though, his approach was proclaiming and teaching truth directly.