Spam Evangelism
In light of my post last week where I interviewed the author of The Shack, I’ve again heard the ongoing battle of how we approach sharing our faith. Recently, I’ve heard different people talk about the damage that can be done by the book. So I want to take the opportunity to voice my concerns with evangelism on the opposite end of the spectrum.
There was an interview that World magazine did with author and speaker Mike Bechtle. In it, he coined a term called “spam evangelism” that I think nails a lot of the current styles of “spreading” Christianity today whenever we try and do it outside of a relationship. He shared a personal story to make his point:
“A college classmate decided to walk down Central Avenue in Phoenix at lunchtime and ask women to kiss him. He wanted to see how many people he would have to ask before someone took him up on it. After being repeatedly cursed, ignored, and slapped a couple of times, the 98th woman gave him a kiss. Using the logic of spam evangelism, he might say, ‘It was worth it, because I actually got one person to kiss me.’ I wondered about the other 97 women who might be more hardened than ever, more suspicious, and more wary of men approaching them on the street. In the same way, I think a lot of unbelievers have been hardened by aggressive witnessing technique.” – Mike Bechtle
Let’s just say that the biggest factor that pushed me into full time ministry was the desire to get the other “97 people” to give God and the Church another chance after being burned by the Spam Evangelism. There’s real meat out there, and it tastes terrific. But it means that you must take the time to earn the right to share your faith with someone.
Tags: Church, Spirituality
March 10th, 2009 at 8:48 AM
AMEN, Jeremy!! Super post that drives home the point!! And Mike’s classmate was a brave soul…great example of what Mike was conveying in the article. But just out of curiousity, what if a female did this, would the response have been different?? Not trying to take away or diminish the point, but it just makes me wonder…
March 10th, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Good point Romi. If it was a lady, she’d have probably gotten a kiss at 2 or 3. But seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with this. High School burned me out on the doom and gloom. People focus too much on scaring people into heaven rather than showing people the loving, caring God that is unwilling that any should perish.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Amen, amen, amen!
March 10th, 2009 at 12:05 PM
AMEN……That Just says if all. I knew there was a reason I liked you.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Jeremy,
I haven’t read The Shack but I do think that the best book of all on the subject of evangelism is the Bible. As I look at it, I don’t see any command to “earn the right” to evangelize. I do see commands that say things like, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, with no qualifiers attached saying “IF you’ve earned the right.”
For some “equal time” on this concept, may I recommend to you a book I wrote recently on this subject? It’s called “Evangelism in the New Testament” and is available at http://www.onemilliontracts.com. If you’d like a free copy, please email me and I’ll get you one.
Best,
Jon
March 13th, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I have read John’s book and he is right. Where does it say we have to earn the right to evangelize? Have you ever read the book of Acts? In my past I lived years next door to a parsonage and none of pasters ever came to talk to me about my faith. If I had died during that time I would have been destined for Hell. How many others are out there just like I was? Ignorant and confused about the Gospel waiting for someone to show me that they care enough about me to talk with me about this. The tone of your post indicates that you may not love your fellow man much. To all who agreed with the blog what EXACTLY are you doing to reach those other 97 people? What actions are you taking? What effort are you making on their behalf?
Earl
March 13th, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Jeremy,
Jon’s book is definitely worth reading even if you don’t agree.
As for wacko overboard evangelists who do more harm than good, there are a few out there. However, there are far more professing Christians who never preach the Gospel and hide behind a facade of friendship evangelism. Always waiting for the “right” moment, but surprisingly enough it seldom or never comes around.
Telling someone you don’t know intimately about sin, eternity, hell, the impending judgment to come, and the grace and love of God cannot be compared to walking down a street and asking someone to kiss you. For starters we are not commanded by scripture in one case, and in the other we are. In addition to that, if we do not do so, we are not only ignoring God’s direct command, but we are standing idly by while the people we are supposed to be lovingly warning are marching swiftly towards hell.
If we are honest about our responsibility to evangelize, and take God at his Word, preaching the Gospel to strangers is the most loving thing we can do, whether they are offended by it or not.
Paul pointed out that Jesus is an offense and a stumbling block (Rom 9:33), and in (1Co 1:18) he said that the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. When people who are loving and practicing their sin are confronted with the truth of the Word of God, they can’t help but be offended. It brings their sin into the light, and they can’t stand it. It is the law and that knowledge of sin however that is the schoolmaster (as Paul puts it Gal 3:24) to lead them to Christ.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Jeremy,
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.(Phil. 2:1,2)
Jeremy, the old nature in me wants to say something unwholesome, but the Spirit restrains me. Jeremy if you truely use friendship evangelism to bring others to Christ brother—LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE, but to demean those of us who take the gospel to the streets and call it spam is offensive, borderline hateful, divisive, and ultimately it is sin. Brother, we’re all in this together and we need to be building each other up not tearing down. My suggestion to you is to find an experineced street evangelist who uses Biblical Evangelism, who speaks the truth in love, and go out with him or her sometime. There is no greater feeling in the world than speaking to a complete stranger, sharing the whole gospel(sin, righteousness,judgement,grace,salvation) and seeing the light go on in that persons eyes when he “gets it”. Its what being a Christian is all about. Love you brother, Mark.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Well, for me personally, I have met lots of people who are a part of the “97″ category. Some of them are my relatives and some are close friends. I know that one of the things that I have done to “reach” them is to have an honest conversation and listen to them tell me about their pain and heartache with either the church or Christians or just life experiences. This conversation has not always happened right away but I know that over time the Spirit will give me an opportunity. My sister was told by someone in a one-on-one conversation that she was going to hell after they explained to her the Law. I have seen her heart harden towards the church and Christians since this conversation. I am sure the Spirit can work in lots of ways and I only hope that I can show her Christ’s love and grace to mend some of the frustrations she has experienced with some believers.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Michelle, God is sovereign. He alone decides who He will draw to himself and graciously save them regardless of hypocrites in the church etc. If someonce witnessed to her in an unloving way, shame on them. But it has nothing to do with her not wanting repent and believe. It is our refusal to believe the Gospel and remain in our sin that is ultimately the problem.
On the other hand, if someone gave her the WHOLE truth, not just a “life enhancement Jesus” and she responded self-righteously, she alone bares the burdon for her hardness of heart.
Ultimately, only God knows her heart. But to give someone the entire gospel is the most loving thing we can do. Holding back would be nothing short of uncaring.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Karl, We are definately active evangelists, but I have to agree with you on the “wackos” that are out there. Especially when they try to allign themselves with us wearing their flaming sandwich boards. Please pray that we continue to preach the gospel in love and that God opens ears and hearts.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Jesus tried to tell them and they did not want to listen; God speaks to us through His Word and He continues to tell “them” and many still do not want to listen to the truth.
I went to church for many years! and no one told me about sin, righteousness and judgment to come; yes, God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life! So, I continued happily in my sins.
And everyone’s biggest problem is sin, not the lack of love, comfort, or food. We can mask sin, fell pain from sin, regret sin, sorrow over sin; but in in the end, it will be our sin that is still our biggest problem; it’s huge; it’s why we die. I had people comfort me because of my pain and sin, and yes, I felt better for while. It wasn’t until a brave and bold born-again evangelist told me the truth about sin and death; he spoke about sin, repentance, and then faith in Jesus Christ. He spoke to me about sin, righteousness and judgment to come. What judgment to come? Yes, it’s in the Bible.
See, my motive for coming to Jesus was selfish, for myself, not to save me from the wrath to come. Did I like his message? NO! But yet, he saw that I was going to die, so he told me the truth. God allowed me to hear and see the truth. This evangelist was doing what he was commanded to do and he was “preaching the word” the way that Jesus did.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Anathema- Blasphemy!
Pastor, I exhort you to repent of your faith in the wisdom of the world and denying the wisdom of God that is demonstrated in the preaching of the gospel and Christ crucified. Man is not to take credit for the work of God. Salvation is by God alone, and man is nothing more than a herald of the gospel. Your relationship is not necessary for salvation, but the power of God is. Please, Pastor, repent. Will you, brother, read 1 Cor chapters 1-4?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:29 PM
sorry i dont agree with you, Jesus called us to Preach the Gospel and make Disciples, no where in the bible will you find paul,peter, or any of the apostles making friends then telling them about Jesus. they didnt have to earn it, they were commanded to… and so are we. we must remember the salvation is a gift from God, it not a desion someone makes. The Holy Spirit is the one who dose all the work, we are called to be a faithful wittness.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:16 PM
I have many thoughts and problems with everything that I have just read above, but let me be clear from the start, I completely agree with the illustration of spam evangelism. I think that its a very real thing that happens everywhere, everyday and it permanently turns off more people than any of us can truly know! What I do know though is that my brother is a student at ASU,he is more and more angry and turned off by Christians and the idea of Christianity everytime I see him and speak with him because of what he deals with on and around the campus. It breaks my heart to hear the way he feels because it completely heightens any walls that I work hard at breaking down to reach out to him. That is my personal experience with it and say what you may about it but it is MY little brother that I watch slipping further and further away everyday. I have an interesting question though for everyone to ponder when they check back in to see whats been put up against their own recent comment… lets just say that my little brother makes his way to this blogsite and comes to these comments and reads them, we are Christians fighting against other Christians here and my brother would see right through all of it and would be worse off for reading any of it! When I think about things that way it really makes me sick to my stomach. For those that feel so strongly about evangelizing without creating any personal relationship, feel free to continue what it is that you feel convicted to do, in the end all of this is between you and God. Maybe its time to stop trying to convince others in our own body here though of the “right” way to evangelize and to start caring for people in general, including each other.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I just don’t understand why there is so much bickering in this comment section. I grew up in church where people did the door to door evangelism and street evangelism and saw so many doors close and so many people become offended. I don’t understand how you people who are arguing against Jeremy’s point don’t see how relational evangelism is important. Why were the people in the Bible attracted to Jesus? It was because of his love. Also look at Paul, all of the letters he wrote dealt with his relationships. Jesus did not go hunting down people to shout and tell them that they were dying and going to hell, this was something he already knew, they came and followed him because they could tell that he cared about him. Jesus shared the Gospel with this people because they were there, they had been following him.
Jeremy was only voicing a very valid concern and if you are someone who taking offense to this maybe you should ask yourself and then pray and ask God why this comment has made you so flustered.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:02 AM
So I get that people feel called to go out into the streets and spread the good news to people they don’t know. I respect that those people are doing what they think God has called them to.
Questions for those folks:
Why doesn’t it work? Why aren’t droves people coming to Christ like they did when the apostles spread the word in this manner?
The message is the same, right?
March 14th, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Aimee, Reading through the posts, I don’t think I see much of all that is not communicated in an innapropriate way. Loving debate and civil discourse is okay, really it is. Even within the church. There is a phrase that has been coined by someone much wiser than I: “Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and charity (love) in all things.”
Secondly, It is interesting that Jeremy has used evangelism as a response to concerns about The Shack. I really don’t see the connection other than to say that he may have followed a link to my blog upon reading my letter to him concerning this book. But I can’t judge his motive on that.
Concerning your brother. Your concerns are shared by another reader with a similar situation with her sister. You said this: ” it permanently turns off more people than any of us can truly know!” Do you really believe that, Aimee? That anyone at all can usurp God’s plan. That the maker of the Universe and everything in it who has no begining and no end can be squashed by bad preaching or a select few who are not loving in their approach? That would display a belief in a very small God and I know you don’t believe that.
Please let me also respond to this Aimee. You said; “…For those that feel so strongly about evangelizing without creating any personal relationship, feel free to continue what it is that you feel convicted to do…” Historically, evangelism was conveyed by public address (open air). I assume this is what is what is getting to your brother, however, could it be the truth of the message rather than the messanger. If so, praise God! As far as having a relationship with the hearer in a one on one conversation, I couldn’t agree with you more Aimee. Here is what is so great about that. I can create that relationship in about 1 to 2 minutes with an icebreaker such as a tract, and an open ear to see if they are receptive to spiritual things. You know what? I have talked to many people. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I give the same message in the same tone to everyone I meet (while evangelizing). If I get a negative response, it is likely that a person is being more convicted by what he or she knows to be true. If we believe the falacy that we have to build a long term relationship with someone,we will make it harder on ourselves–and them, than ever. It is much harder to share your faith with someone close to you. We should have relationships. We should love people, but what about the rest that you cannot possibly get that close to. The goth or emo, the homeless,the drug addicted, the hungry, the widow, the orphan. They need the gospel too. Will you pass them up because you can’t have lunch with them once a week? As blind people walking toward a cliff, most are stepping into eternity without Christ. What are we doing to tell them wait!Stop! there’s a cliff! Is it nothing because we are afraid of offending them? Of course not. That would be a display of depraved indifference.
Folks, we are not off the hook when it comes to the perishing. It is not enough to wait for someone to ask for the hope that lies within us. Yes, be prepared for that, but can you tall me the last time that has happened? Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. Will you not answer the call to lovingly tell the world about the savior?
This discussion was originally about The Shack. Jeremy brought his concern for evangelism that makes him uncomfortable–and his supporters came to his defense quickly growing this dialogue. Suffice it to say, he does not agree with me and many other mainstream and even high profile wise evangelical leaders. Why he and so many in his flock must flirt with this book is beyond me.
Lastly, Plese know this. I am but a fallible, fallen man capable of sin and mistakes. Don’t believe anything I have written (or Willam P. Young for that matter) if it does not allign with scripture which is the final authority on all things.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:16 AM
P.S. Sorry for all the typos, punctuation and grammar errors.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Robert – you don’t see much that’s not been communicated in an appropriate way? Are you kidding? How about Judy’s post calling Jeremy a blasphemer and calling him to repentance? How about Earl questioning Jeremy’s love for his fellow man? (BTW – The fruits of Jeremy’s faith are evident.)
I wouldn’t call this “loving debate” or “civil discourse”. Unfortunately, these types of personal attacks seem to be common on this blog from Christians espousing the views you hold on evangelism.
That said, I’m interested in your opinion or any other opinions in regards to the question I asked.
Why aren’t people coming to Christ in droves like they did when the apostles spread the gospel through street evangelism?
March 14th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Josh. I am happy to respond to your posted questions (or anyone’s for that matter) however, I will not post it here. I think this thread has already been carried about as far as it can be in a Godly way. Please feel free to contact me at th3zs@aol.com. I would be happy to communicate with you. Nothing secretive here. You may choose to share our communications openly, but I will leave that to the bar of your own conscience.
Rob
March 14th, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Wow! I am pretty much speechless. I can see how in some ways this debate is good and helpful. On the other hand, it saddens me to see so much division amongst believers. The reality is that division has been in the church since it was established. Peter and the apostles had division amongst themselves. Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways. Men are indeed fallible and sinful, including us.
What concerns me so much in this debate is that there is a glaring “right” versus “wrong” argument happening through written word where true motives, intentions and tone often gets miss interpreted. Jeremy has expressed his concerns though his personal blog based off of his own convictions and wrestlings of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. This concern of evangelism is definitely well merited, as there are many broken and hurting people who have been turned off by the Church and Christians.
Robert, you have stated:
“Jeremy brought his concern for evangelism that makes him uncomfortable–and his supporters came to his defense quickly growing this dialogue. Suffice it to say, he does not agree with me and many other mainstream and even high profile wise evangelical leaders. Why he and so many in his flock must flirt with this book is beyond me.”
Really? Is this an open dialog of believers with two conflicting views trying to find unity? I mean, yes we are never going to agree on everything and this is okay, but to take a cheap shot at Jeremy, his flock, and supporters is pretty low. And to try to back it up by saying there are plenty of “high profile” “wise evangelical” leaders who share your opinion? I can tell you that there are plenty of “high profile” (whatever that implies) wise leaders who think The Shack is a brilliant piece of literature that causes people to think deeply about the reality of an All-Loving God. I know there are many more people who would pick up the book and read a good story than will take an impersonal tract and consider following a God who loves them. Yes, the truth is the essential. But the truth without life, without love, and without personal touch, is NOT God’s truth. I recall another wise man who used fictional stories to get people wrestling with spiritual things as well. Didn’t Jesus do that? Please don’t hear what I am not saying here. I am not holding up the Shack next to Jesus. What I am saying is that God knows Paul Young’s heart and if you know anything about Paul then you know that he and God have been through a lot together. After hearing Paul and his story, I am utterly convinced that he has an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ. Aside from that, Paul is not claiming that his book is spiritual truth. He wrote it for his kids (for pity sake) and to help him deal with his past. Who are you to say that it is not God who has blessed Paul and the book and made it a testimony of God’s love and grace? Is it because in your limited, fallible mind it doesn’t agree with what you believe scriptures says is the truth? Well the Bible is the most beautiful and most confusing book in history and people can make it say whatever they want to. So really…is it really beyond you why Jeremy and his “flock” flirt with this book? Flirt? What is that even supposed to mean? Give me a break!
As for evangelism, I never heard of Jesus confronting sinners, telling them they will go to hell if they don’t believe him. Will they all perish? As far as I can tell from scripture, yes, people who choose to reject Christ will perish in hell. Yet, ultimately it is God who will be the judge of all. However, Jesus talks way more about hell to his own disciples and the “religious” leaders, warning them of hell, than he does to sinners. When he ate and drank with the tax collectors, prostitutes etc… the Bible is silent about their topics of conversation. Maybe he did scare them and threaten them with hell. Maybe he didn’t. I can tell a few people he didn’t specifically tell…
In John 4, Jesus encounters the sinful woman at the well. Jesus doesn’t cut to the chase and tell her her eternal destruction if she doesn’t choose to believe in him. Instead he has a loving and caring conversation with her about her life. The love that this woman must have felt must have been overwhelming to her as she was alone that day. Jesus did tackle her sin, but he did so by giving her incredible hope that he could satisfy her emptiness. At the well, he met her where she was at and offered her a better way – living water.
Also, in John 8 after Jesus comes to the aid of an adulterous woman, he tells her that he does not condemn her and to go and sin no more. It doesn’t say that Jesus gave her an ultimatum that if she didn’t choose right then and there to believe in him that she would spend eternity in hell. Why would he ruin an incredible moment of redemption?
I believe with all my heart that evangelism is so important and that Christians often neglect the responsibility we have to share the gospel. I am including myself in this 100% However, just sharing the gospel is but a mere fraction of what I believe God’s call is for his disciples. In Matt 28, Jesus tells his disciples not to “preach the gospel” but to go and “make disciples” of all nations. If you have done any historical background on the apostles and what was going on in the book of Act, then you will know that just “preaching the word” was only a slice of the pie. They were trying to make disciples to live the way of Jesus, not just save people from eternal destruction. And Paul was incredibly strategic with this. He didn’t just pick a random street corning and try to convince people that Jesus would save their souls, instead he camped out in cities and spent time preaching, making disciples, and building church (communities of believers who shared life together). The majority of the New Testament is made of letters he wrote to these churches whom he evangelized to and discipled. These are the very scriptures you and I quote and use to guide our lives everyday! (thank you Paul)! I am glad that Paul and the rest of the apostles weren’t just about preaching the gospel, but they were about making disciples.
I’m not saying that street evangelism is completely wrong. I’m not sure if it is or not. I do believe that it is not the best and most strategic way to make disciples. If you truly love people and have a heart for the lost then I believe that your desire will be to help them walk the journey to becoming a fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ. I just don’t see that happening with giving someone a tract and having a 5 minute conversation with them, putting the fear of hell in them. You say that they get angry because inside they are really just convicted? After talking to many people and having honest conversations about God, I can tell you that that is not what they are thinking. People need more than just the truth spoken to them. They need to see and experience the love and grace of Jesus Christ first hand. And that is the command Jesus has put on us. To be his hands and feet in this incredible broken world, offering hope and a better way of life here and now, not just when they die. That is the Kingdom of God that Jesus said ‘is at hand.’
I too apologize for any grammar and spelling errors and the length of this comment
March 14th, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Josh,
You asked the question (twice, at least):
“Why aren’t people coming to Christ in droves like they did when the apostles spread the gospel through street evangelism?”
My questions to you are, “If they don’t come to Christ ‘in droves’ does that mean I must switch my evangelism to something that is effective? If so, then what Scriptural proof do you offer to back up this concept?”
Pragmatism has never been a viable rule of thumb. It is proven fact that evangelism that has resulted in huge immediate results has also resulted in huge fall-away rates. That is a fact that cannot be disputed and is verified by countless surveys and ministries, from large crusades down to the local church level.
We need to ask ourselves (all of us) the question, “How are we measuring success?”
It’s ironic that using your own implied standard, friendship evangelism should also be scrapped. Where are the “droves” of people coming to Christ because of friendship evangelism? I’ve been in full time ministry since 1992 and haven’t seen it yet.
Jesus said something interesting about the “many” in His Sermon on the Mount. He said that “many” (the “most” in Greek) will stand before Him on the day of judgment and say “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, do many miracles, etc.” and what does He say in response? “Depart from Me, I never knew you, you who practice lawlessness.” He also says, earlier in the same chapter (7) that broad is the way that leads to destruction and narrow is the way that leads to life. That’s not me, that’s simply what He said.
Aimee,
Do people get turned off by the truth? Absolutely. They might even be people we love. But salvation is not our work. It is solely the work of God through yielded servants who proclaim the Word (Rom. 10; Eph. 1:1-14). If the people who proclaimed the Gospel at ASU did so without love, then I apologize for all evangelists everywhere. They don’t know what spirit they are of. But that does not mean it is wrong to proclaim the Gospel publicly. It means that the way it was done was wrong. 2 Tim. 2:24-25 ought to be the goal of every public evangelist.
A good friend of mine says that friendship evangelism without sharing the Gospel verbally is neither friendship nor evangelism. How can it be friendship? As Penn Gillette (atheist comedian) says, “How much must you hate someone to not tell them the truth if you believe there is a Heaven and Hell?” That’s from an atheist. And it certainly, by definition, is not evangelism.
Christians discussing the Word of God and the practice of it is not “divisive”. It is what we are called to do. Check out the meaning of the word “exhortation.”
I am passionate about this topic. Friendship evangelism as it is taught by most today is patently unbiblical. I’m not saying there isn’t friendship evangelism in the New Testament, but look at the examples. They don’t resemble anything like the typical “barbeque and a beer” approach most people take today. Most of them came directly out of public ministry; in other words, those friendships developed OUT OF the public proclamation of the Gospel first. Not last.
And this is what we do in our own ministry. We have real friendships with people that came OUT OF our public ministry. I’m meeting with a Mormon for lunch on Tuesday for the second time since he heard me preach on the campus of UNT. That’s friendship evangelism.
My ministry partner has seen a friend at work get radically saved and is now turning away from drugs, sexual sin, and getting into the Word. He’s getting discipled. But it all started with a confrontation, not sneaking Christianity in the back door. The best thing about this is that it’s all up front. There are no surprises for these friends when the topic comes up because they have heard the Gospel up front and the relationship is built on that.
Perhaps the difference we have is not between friendship evangelism vs. confrontational evangelism. It is the difference between popular friendship evangelism and Biblical friendship evangelism.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Rob, I don’t want you to feel in any way attacked, or that you have to be the singular voice for the doctrine you and many other Christians (that we know and love) feel lead to live out. You’re in no way responsible for those comments and I didn’t intend to imply that you are.
The objective of my post was two-fold; 1) to call out that on this blog, when it comes to this topic, there is a history of folks making personal attacks against Jeremy when they disagree with him. That’s not OK and should stop. 2) To pose a serious question related to your posts.
I believe that you and I and everyone else who has posted on this topic can continue to have rational discourse and it needs(!) to happen in this forum and be public. We need to learn to discuss, ponder, challenge, and disagree with grace and love. We are not doctrinal factions, we are the body of Christ.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
how many relationships do street evangelists have with the people they preach to? i don’t pretend to know that answer. but some of the people commenting who are street preachers talk a lot about speaking the truth in love, telling about sin, hell, consiquence, and need for Jesus.
i can say that i’ve heard from plenty of people, Christ followers and not, who did NOT feel the love from street evangelists. to blindly talk about Jesus in such a way has been described to me as ignorant of who that person really is, uncaring, and oftentimes offensive. Jesus said stuff like “your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more,” He didn’t shout about hell and sin. and the people he talked with were people that He spent significant time with. Walking around with tracks and Bibles is nothing like what we see Jesus doing in the Bible.
Jesus spent His life earning the right to evangelize with felt love, time spent in community, and sacrifice- even to death. If you think about it, He even earned OUR right to evangelize. But we have the responsibility to follow in His footsteps in doing just as He did.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:34 PM
John,
I appreciate your reply.
I think you’re absolutely correct in that we need to clarify how we measure success. I would define success as “growing the Kingdom of God”.
The point of evangelism, I believe, is to bring unbelieving people into authentic relationship with God, not to force people into making decisions about a God that they don’t know through confrontation.
Whatever the most effect way of bringing people into relationship with God is, let’s spend our time and effort doing that. Do I need scriptural evidence to change or develop new methods of growing God’s Kingdom? I don’t think so. I don’t think of that as compromised pragmatism, just common sense. If the most effective method brings them in droves, great! If they fall away in great numbers like you propose, well, that’s not our desire, but it’s shouldn’t discourage us from continuing to press forward, like it didn’t discourage the apostles when people came and left in droves.
By that measure of success – does friendship evangelism do a better job of bringing people into the Kingdom than street evangelism?
I believe so, and I believe my life is evidence of that.
I was one of the “many” you describe. I had heard the truth. I would have called myself a Christian even. But it wasn’t the folks on Mill Ave. telling me that I was going to Hell, but Christ’s righteousness reflected in the life of my brother John that that got me seeking and eventually finding. He was the one I called when my despair became too much to bare.
My story is much like that of many other believers that I know. I have yet to meet or hear of anyone that has become a brother or sister in Christ as a result of a strangers unsolicited witness. I’m sure there a people out that that have.
So, would you measure success differently?
Also, I still think that it’s important that we understand why the method of street evangelism that at some point was more effective isn’t so effective now. I have thoughts on the subject, but am curious as to what you think about it.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Jason,
A few thoughts on some things you’ve written here:
“I would define success as ‘growing the Kingdom of God’.”
This is a legitimate desire, and noble. However, the question becomes, “How do you know that the Kingdom has grown?” Because Jesus talks about people who appear to be in the Kingdom who are in fact not. The apostles speak clearly about the same subject. This is true of whatever style of evangelism you use.
There is one thing that matters much more than the kind of evangelism that we use and that one thing is: what Gospel are we preaching? Is it the Biblical Gospel or a modern version of it? What is the Gospel you’re communicating? That’s the biggest issue of all.
You said, “The point of evangelism, I believe, is to bring unbelieving people into authentic relationship with God, not to force people into making decisions about a God that they don’t know through confrontation.”
If you think that street evangelists “force people into making decisions”, I’m not sure what street evangelism you’re talking about. In doing this full time for the last five years, I haven’t seen such a thing. Is it possible you are either: a) portraying a stereotype that you’ve been taught or b) creating a stereotype based on something you’ve seen which you don’t agree with?
If I wanted to work with the flip side stereotype I could say, “The point of evangelism, I believe, is to bring unbelieving people into authentic relationship with God, not to manipulate people into making a decision for Christ because of emotional attachments to friends or offering a false gospel.” But that wouldn’t be fair either, would it?
You say, “Do I need scriptural evidence to change or develop new methods of growing God’s Kingdom?”
After 2000 years of Christianity, somehow we think we’ve grown beyond the Bible. This is common practice in the evangelical church at large today. Brother, that’s messed up. Everything we do has to be evaluated by the only standard of truth we have as Christians (2 Tim. 3:16-17). There are people out there, in mega-churches in the city I live in (Dallas\Fort Worth), who think it’s cool to preach with a toilet as a pulpit. Others who think that using vulgarity from the pulpit is acceptable. It’s all done in the name of relevance, but the world isn’t buying the junk we’re selling. For proof of that fact, Google the “ARIS Survey” that was released this past week and reported on by USA Today on Monday (March 9th). The American church is “upside down” in its church growth. The whole seeker-sensitive, relevant model has failed.
You ask, “So, would you measure success differently?”
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that success in evangelism is not measured in results. It’s measured in faithfulness to the Biblical message of the Gospel (because that matters according to the apostles and Jesus Himself), it’s measured in Biblical attitudes and motivations on the part of the evangelist, and it can only be called a success, Biblically speaking, inasmuch as the method gives glory to God and not to man.
No method ever saved anyone. The Lord saves sinners. If your brother had not been a faithful witness (BTW at some point someone shared the actual message of the Gospel with you, the Gospel does not consist of just letting our little lights shine) the Lord still would have saved you. And He might have even used a street evangelist.
The fact that you don’t know anyone who was saved this way does not change the fact that people are saved this way. To conclude no one is saved this way because: a) you weren’t and b) you don’t know anyone who has been just borders on arrogance. It almost assumes omniscience.
It also does not change the fact that street evangelism is the method that Jesus, the apostles and most of the church used throughout church history as the predominant method of evangelism.
Your last point, “Also, I still think that it’s important that we understand why the method of street evangelism that at some point was more effective isn’t so effective now. I have thoughts on the subject, but am curious as to what you think about it.”
It’s a moot issue. I don’t think street evangelism has EVER been “effective” by the definition that you’re using. My point is that it’s eminently Biblical and that matters more than “results” because no one truly knows what the results of evangelism are, other than the Lord Himself.
Jon
March 14th, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Jason,
Brother, I say this with no disrespect, but I would lovingly urge you to go back and read the New Testament again. Jesus did indeed “go around yelling about sin and Hell.” His first sermon was “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Considering the definition of “repent”, He was preaching about sin. He called the Pharisees vipers, whitewashed tombs, and He talked about Hell (Lk. 16). He warned about judgment in Matthew 7 and 25. And He told people, “Likewise, unless you repent you will perish.” When He told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more” He dealt with her about her sin. He called it sin. And the woman at the well He confronted, lovingly, about her sin. He told her that she had had five husbands and that the man she was with was not her husband. What else is that but confronting her sin? Yes, lovingly. And He lovingly confronted people with the 10 commandments (Mk. 10).
On the other hand, the modern church does not tell people to repent, does not talk about hell or judgment, and seems content to let sin slide and even use it to attract the lost.
One challenge: please prove from the Bible, using it in context, that Jesus “earned the right”. He was God in the flesh, in whom all authority was committed (Matt. 28:18). He did not “earn the right.” He simply spoke and He did so with authority. Also, with love, but His authority was unmistakable.
If you want to play the relevance card, that is one thing. But you cannot use the Bible to support the idea that the topics of hell, judgment, sin, and repentance should not be addressed.
Jon
March 14th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Jon,
I believe God called us to be faithful to the proclamation of the gospel, as you’ve mentioned, in order to achieve growth in His kingdom, not as an end unto itself. Yes, there will be some people who don’t know God who say they do. But because we can’t precisely determine who those people are doesn’t change the end goal what were called to do.
I do agree some tend to water down the gospel, or ignore the scary parts, but I don’t believe that to be the case at all at CCEV, which I would certainly consider part of modern church. We discuss repentance, the consequences of sin in our lives, and the reality of hell, just as Christ did. But more emphasis is placed on grace, and what Christ did for us on the cross, which I would argue is where the New Testament also places the most emphasis. That’s what makes it Good News.
As far as confrontational evangelists attempting to force people into decisions, I’ve experienced this personally on a number of occasions. I guess I don’t look much like a Christian to some. I’m sure other folks who have taken a stroll down Mill Ave. on ASUs campus on a Friday night have had a similar experience.
Like I said in my previous post, I’m sure people do come to Christ as a result of street evangelism. I didn’t mean to sound as if my scope of experience was all encompassing, which is why I mentioned that I’m sure people had.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it matters which Gospel is being preached. I think part of the reason non- believers aren’t greatly receptive to unsolicited discussion is because so many distorted versions of the Gospel have been preached in this manner. Since they don’t know the truth, it might all sound the same to them.
I’ve said as much on this topic as I can take today. I have really enjoyed hearing your viewpoint. I’ll pray that God blesses your ministry and that he’ll keep our minds open to changing to be in line with his will.
Josh
March 15th, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Who were the original street evangelists? The old testament prophets, Jesus and the disciples as far as I can figure from the Bible. Most were blasted, tortured, stoned and imprisoned, but they continued until God took them home.
The first recorded words of Christ’s ministry were “REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NEAR!” There are some that would label this “wacky.”
The gospel truth will get to those God intends – even the multitude that hate God must hear it. They will come up with all sorts of reasons to reject the Truth whether their “friends” refuse to tell them the truth or the truth comes from a tract or the street.
GO and preach the Gospel to every creature.
In His Service,
rob
March 16th, 2009 at 5:33 AM
Josh,
What Scriptural proof would you offer for this statement?
“I believe God called us to be faithful to the proclamation of the gospel, as you’ve mentioned, in order to achieve growth in His kingdom, not as an end unto itself.”
If this is true, what was Jesus thinking when He whittled down the size of the crowds that were following Him instead of confirming them in their wrong belief?
You say, “As far as confrontational evangelists attempting to force people into decisions, I’ve experienced this personally on a number of occasions.”
My question here is what did they do to “force people into decisions?” Did they threaten you to convert to Christianity or die? Did they force you into a (physical) corner and not let you leave until you prayed a sinner’s prayer? Did they abduct you and do a forced baptism? The word “force” has a definition. How did they “force people into decisions”?
If they were aiming for “decisions” I’d have a problem with that too. I believe the concept of “decisional regeneration” as it is practiced in evangelical churches today is completely aberrant. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that someone’s decision saves them without fail. I cannot speak for any other street evangelist, but for myself I can say we don’t do that. We don’t do sinners prayers and we don’t do altar calls. We preach and witness and the Lord saves people every now and then.
If by “forcing people to make decisions” you mean, preaching the Gospel, calling people to repentance, and pleading with them about their souls I guess we disagree about your definition of “forcing people.” If you call THAT forcing people, then I guess I’m guilty too. Then again, so would the apostle Paul. He said, “Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”
I am from Dallas, but I know some of the people who preach out at Mill very well (I assume you mean in Phoenix) and I know that they do not force anyone to make a decision because their methodology and theology does not support that concept in the least. BTW, what were you doing out at Mill?
The ultimate evangelism manual is the Bible. It is not what some cool youth pastor says, or what some hip looking emergent guy says, it’s the inspired Word of God.
Blessings,
Jon
March 16th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
“BTW what were you doing out at Mill?” Are you kidding me?!?!
March 16th, 2009 at 11:27 AM
I think at this point Jon and I will have to agree that we disagree.
As far as what I was doing on Mill – I was at the bars. Either drinking with my friends or playing gigs with my band. Played every Wednesday night at Long Wong’s for 2 years. The street evangelist used to stand on the opposite corner while we played and shout to the people eating wings and drinking beers “You’re going to Hell!!”. I’m sure peoples lives were changed as a result.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Oh my how this post has grown!! I apologize in advance if what I contribute has already been addressed…mind you there’s a buttload of long posts to wade through, but I appreciate what everyone has had to share. I think we need to bear in mind that God hardwired each and everyone of us differently which means each of us will perceive, interpret, process, experience life in a variety of ways. Likewise, we all learn differently, with no two people learning in exactly the same way. Some of us are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and some are kinesthetic learners. Visual learners want to see how something is done. Auditory learners prefer to hear explanations and like to talk their way through things. Kinesthetically oriented people want to get a lot of hands-on experience so they can feel how something is done. So because we learn differently, there are obviously different ways to teach and convey what we want others to understand. Soooo, all that to say there are some people that probably do respond better to street evangelism than to friendship evangelism and vice versa. I guess my point is that we should take those things into account before we’re quick to diss and dismiss people as being unyielding and stubborn to the Gospel if they don’t respond to our particular method of evangelism. Remember it is a two way street because after all, didn’t God wire us to be relational beings??
Okay another thing I don’t believe has been addressed is the importance of establishing trust. In as much as street evangelism and friendship evangelism share the common goal of bringing others to Christ, one of the differences between the two (at least to me) is the issue of trust. SE doesn’t bother to establish that and FE does. Can a bond of trust be readily established between 2 strangers on a busy street in a matter of minutes? Or will you tell me establishing trust isn’t important? Don’t you think people came to trust Jesus and his apostles by their words and actions first? I think if I’m not mistaken that was/is called having a personal relationship, right?? To me, why would I trust and believe a total stranger telling/shouting at me from the street or across the street to repent or I’m going to hell, etc (sorry, whatever street evangelists normally say). First off you’re invading my personal space, so I’m already miffed with you and my defenses are going up so that anything you say I’m going to be suspicious of (whether it’s the Gospel or you’re telling me I’d just won a million dollars). Honestly you’d probably have more success with me if we were in line at a coffeeshop because it’s just more conducive to relationship versus the hustle and bustle of a street. True you reach less people, but isn’t it about reaching the 1 of 99 for Christ?
And didn’t Jesus also tell us the most important thing to do is love God, love others? I mean maybe shouting at people that they’re doomed and going to hell is your way of showing love, but that’s not the way I believe we show love. Love is investing in another human being and getting to know them and it is through this relationship of trust that God can be shared and it is also through our actions that God can be reflected to this person so that he/she will learn in a variety of ways what it looks like to have a personal, intimate relationship with God.
Okay take what Paul had to say in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
The failure to live this way may be the most profound reason in my mere opinion why unbelievers don’t want to have much to do with street evangelists. Not only does a lack of empathy separate you from other people, but so does the holier-than-thou attitude that often is lorded over those unlike yourselves.
Realize that Paul became weak to win the weak. He didn’t lounge in his position of strength and judge others by saying “See how strong I am, while you are weak. Don’t you want to be like me?” He didn’t act like a salesman or pitchman on a street corner. Or what if Paul said “Listen up, you philosophers, repent or die in your sins.” Instead he took THE TIME to consider the discussion of the philosophers and their ideas and used their same ideas and language to point to Christ. HE USED RELATIONSHIP to connect with them!
So my question to the street evangelists…when you talk to others about Christ, do you do so as one of them?
March 16th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
There are a lot of claims for “Spam Evangelism” being scriptural here, and I think these are misguided. See, biblically, the places where the word was spoken out in public were places designated for learning, such as Mars Hill or the Synagogue. In some of these cases, Paul and the apostles (or even Jesus) had what would have been seen by those around them as a purely theological or intellectual discourse, which would then lead those who had been convinced (yes, by the Spirit, because we know that there was more going on that mere discourse, as there often is) to join the groups of believers in their towns.
However, more often than not the spreading of the gospel was preceeded by an act of service, the meeting of a need, and/or the revelation of the power of God. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus clearly outlines not what salvation is, but what salvation does. The gospel, in this parable, meets people where they are, and meets their physical and emotional needs.
I am not speaking against street preaching. I was with a group of people handing out pizza on Mill Ave. Friday night, and I saw what true street evangelism looks like. A young lady in our group took the time to see the needs of another young lady she met, asked permission to share with her, and simply told her story, slowly and patiently. The young man with her was argumentative, and the attempts I saw to reach him in ways reminiscent of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron were going nowhere. She, however, was truly touched and crying as the man with her pressured her to leave.
The young lady in our group was crying as well. They had connected.
I think if this were the case with every street preacher, if they were each investing time rather than blanketing the area and disturbing the fun of others, then there would be no need to worry about “Spam Evangelism”. However, systematic tract distribution or scripted exchanges do not reflect this personal connection, or the meeting of a need.
Therefore, they are not biblical. They do nothing to show the love of God, only disseminate information, and there is an appropriate time for the dissemination of information. “In your face” is not the appropriate venue.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:12 PM
The words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer come to mind with all of this:
“Perhaps it would be just as well to ask ourselves whether we do not in fact often act as obstacles to Jesus and His word. It is not possible that we cling too closely to our own favourite presentation of the gospel, and to a type of preaching which was all very well in its own time and place for the social set-up for which it was originally intended. Let us try to get away from the poverty and pettiness of our own little convictions and problems, and seek the wealth and splendour which are vouchsafed to us in Jesus Christ.”
March 16th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Josh,
I’ll definitely agree to disagree. It’s fairly obvious that we’re approaching this issue from different views of the authority of the Word of God.
Romi,
How long does it take to establish trust? Does it always take giving something materially? Can trust be established because of credibility? It doesn’t always take a pizza to establish credibility. Whatever your perceived experience is at Mill (of street preaching) I can tell you from my experience that it is simply amazing how much a perfect stranger will open up to you, hear the Gospel and (occasionally) repent using the simple method of preaching the Gospel. The beauty of it is that I know a gift did not manipulate them emotionally, but the power of the Word of God did it.
If someone has an emotional reaction to a witness, does that mean that they have rightly understood and responded to the Gospel? If so, then how does that square with what Jesus said in Mark 4:15-17?
If you believe that there is a Hell, the most loving thing you can do is warn someone passionately about it, in the context of the holiness of God and His demands as well as His amazing grace. As I said earlier, I agree with the atheist comedian Penn Gillette on that one.
A couple of years ago a good friend of mine from Flag was down on Mill with a team that had been trained in Way of the Master for the first time that day (Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s material). A guy wandered into the street, was hit by a car and died right there on the street. My friend is a nurse. She ran across the street where he lay. It was obvious he was about to die, there was nothing she could really do for him, so she quickly shared the Gospel with him. He didn’t have time for a piece of pizza. He didn’t need pizza. She had no time to establish trust. At that moment, only one thing mattered and she cut to the chase.
But the truth is that is how it is for everyone out on Mill, laying in the street dying or not. Many people will not have a death bed opportunity like he did. An atheistic teenager in our area, who was witnessed to every week by a team of street evangelists, died in a car accident when he hit a telephone pole. Unless he repented and believed the Gospel before that accident, he is in hell. He heard the Gospel every week for a couple of months because street evangelists were there. This is in Southlake, TX, the wealthiest community in the USA. Offering him a piece of pizza would be an insult. They didn’t need to anyway. They had a hearing with him and his respect.
If you knew that either of these people were about to die, would you give them a piece of pizza and drink a beer with them or would you plead with them about their eternal destiny? How do you know that the next person you speak to won’t be in the same situation before the day is out? This is not hypothetical. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Jon
March 16th, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Jon,
You are addressing my statements and saying it is for Romi. I will respond.
The problem is systemic, as we want to be able to step out of our bubbles just long enough to lead someone to obtain their very own bubble, but only if it happens in one night, one conversation. No, an emotional reaction is not equivalent to salvation, and neither is a piece of pizza… but it will surely be beneficial in our relationship with them.
I think as far as your rather morbid immediate death justification, I would implore you to trust in the Sovereignty of God, rather than treating evangelism as a transaction to be repeated as many times as possible. God wants a relationship with us, and for us to be in relationship with each other… the covenant, the transaction of our depravity for His grace, is merely the beginning.
You seem to be quite disturbed by the pizza, as if the time eating pizza were time wasted. In the Hebrew culture, breaking bread together is something that was greatly valued, and Jesus broke bread with “sinners” long before he ever preached to them.
Pizza is made of bread.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Richard
March 17th, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Richard,
Sorry about the mix up. My bad.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about when it comes to bubbles. Too much Lawrence Welk? But as far as the Sovereignty of God goes, what you’re postulating sounds a lot like hyper-Calvinism. God is Sovereign, therefore I don’t need to be very concerned about the immediacy of death. I can be easy going about this whole “eternity thing” because, after all, if the Lord will save someone then it doesn’t really matter what I do. Maybe that will be the title of my next book: “When Friendship Evangelism Goes Hyper-Calvinist.”
Only problem with that being that we still have those pesky statements in Scripture that speak to my accountability to actually preach the Gospel. Funny, there’s no mention of pizza. Maybe it’s in the Greek.
Not that I’m against pizza. I’m planning on eating some tonight. Although it doesn’t agree with my diet; I’m trying to keep my carbs separate from my proteins, but that’s another story.
My comments may be morbid, but they also deal with this little issue of “reality.” Death is morbid. Since that sounds like I’m being redundant, let me just say that life is morbid. It all ends in death. Worse, it results in judgment (Heb. 9:27). Now with that great reality in view, I can either talk trivia to people or I can share with them the most important message in the universe.
Your comments do beg the question: when did Jesus break bread with the rich young ruler in Mark 10? How about the Sermon on the Mount? The Olivet discourse?
Yes, there are a few examples of Jesus eating with sinners, but He did not compromise His message to them. He did not compromise His holiness either. Eating with sinners and not sharing with them the Gospel is just a meal. Eating with sinners, modeling a holy life and then sharing the truth with them would be true friendship evangelism. I’m not against that. I am against spending months “earning the right” before I say anything. That just flies in the face of the reality of death as well as the commands and examples of Scripture.
To try to swing this whole thing back to the original issue, my beef with Jeremy’s article is this patently unbiblical concept that one has to earn the right to share the Gospel. When Jesus gave the Great Commission He sent us out based on His own authority (Mt. 28:18). Since He is Lord, we don’t need permission, we’ve been commissioned. That doesn’t mean we’re rude; we MUST exemplify 2 Timothy 2:24-25. But, with Paul we say, “Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”
If that’s morbid, then I’ll be morbid.
Now, here’s the kicker that no friendship evangelist proponent can escape. Using very conservative estimates, if you examine all of the examples we have of Jesus evangelizing in the Gospels, 86.5% of them were confrontational in nature. No “earned right”, no “breaking pizza”, nothing. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, that means only 13.5% of them could be called “friendship evangelism.” Of those examples, most of them came directly out of Christ’s public, confrontational ministry.
In the book of Acts, we have more of the same. There, 87% are confrontational and only 13% are “friendship”. However, in Acts the friendship evangelism looks more like intense small group Bible studies and nothing like the typical “beer and a barbeque” approach.
I’ll take what Jesus and the apostles actually did and taught any day over and against what the modern evangelical talking heads are saying. No matter how cool they dress or how much they congratulate one another on their perceived relevance.
Now for the real irony. I have to drop this so I can get ready to go “break burger” with a Mormon. Imagine that! A street evangelist doing friendship evangelism. And all because he stopped to listen to me open-air preach one day at University of North Texas. Go figure.
Jon
March 17th, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Jon,
(Personal sidenote… I went to The Village for the two months I was living in Dallas, you ever been there? I have a friend at UNT, do you know people there?)
First of all, I assumed the idea of a “personal bubble” of space in which people feel comfortable would be universally understood. I apologize for not using the more Christian-ese term “comfort zone”. My bad.
Secondly, I don’t think we will agree on the issue of whether to live focused on life or death. I believe there is a value to living a life that brings the healing and selflessness of the Kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven”, but I also see the worth in what you are saying about the “commissioning” and why you would be so adamant about the need to actually share the gospel. However, the discounting of a method of sharing that is not your own is not permissable on any means. Jeremy doesn’t say that your method is entirely ineffective, simply that it turns some people off (the 97% came from the story, and was a figurative rather than a literal, statistical term).
You discount the “beer and barbecue” approach… and see, I find that funny, considering that the intense bible study going through the book of James that I’ve been going through started with… you guessed it, beer and barbecue!
Also, side note… Jesus’ ministry wasn’t necessarily “confrontational”. It was the crowds who followed He who chased the crowds with a megaphone or a shouted word (although He did call out to Zaccheus (sp?) in order to… eat… with… never mind).
Speaking of the crowds, do you think those 87% came simply because Jesus looked good? Jesus was known for “healing their sick” repeatedly. Perhaps it wasn’t “friendship evangelism”… perhaps it was service evangelism, but He still earned the trust and respect of those around Him. Those signs followed the believers wherever they went… those signs were the attraction to them, the meeting of a need.
Finally, to address your point about my “hyper-calvinism”… I like your inclusion of the “OOHHH SNAP!” theological term, but I don’t think it really applies if you actually look at what I said from anything other than an offensive posture. God will bring who He wants into our lives at the time He appoints, and He would have us treat them with love and respect… and too often we are simply trying to get their intellectual assent or concession to our point of view, in which case people are willing to be wrong if only to get you off their back (I highly recommend the Kinnaman and Lyons book “Unchristian” to address this).
These views that Jeremy has on evangelism are not without result. Out of the 600 or so people involved in our congregation (which is about 1/16 of this church, and yes I do attend the same church), 60 have been evangelized and baptized this year alone, and the church as a whole has had nearly 700 baptisms since September.
Still, in all of this, good luck with your new Mormon friend. I hope you are successful, that you show Him the love of Christ and not only a superior argument. I pray that He comes to know Christ, and the healing found in Him.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:51 AM
I heard this great comment from a man who’s led a relational evangelism and discipleship college ministry for 20 years:
“Many people like to go fishing, but it’s harder to find people who want to stick around and clean the fish.”
March 18th, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Richard,
Answer to the aside: I have never been to The Village, but three members of our evangelism team go there. I have been preaching on the campus of UNT on and off for about four years and been doing so every week for the last three semesters.
You wrote, “However, the discounting of a method of sharing that is not your own is not permissable on any means.”
When did I do that? In point of fact, I did write, “Eating with sinners, modeling a holy life and then sharing the truth with them would be true friendship evangelism. I’m not against that. I am against spending months “earning the right” before I say anything.”
My whole point is “let’s keep this evangelism thing Biblical”. Biblical in its motives and methods (wow, I haven’t alliterated in a long time). The “earn the right” concept is not Biblical, in context. The burden of proof rests squarely on the “earn the right” camp’s shoulders because of the plain, literal meaning of the abundant commands of Scripture and examples of Scripture of public, “confrontational” (for lack of a better term) evangelism.
You wrote, “Speaking of the crowds, do you think those 87% came simply because Jesus looked good? Jesus was known for “healing their sick” repeatedly.”
Jesus Himself knew that the miracles He performed drew a crowd that was insincere. The point of the miracles was not as a gimmick for drawing a crowd. Most any theologian will tell you that they were to prove His deity. After Jesus performed many of these miracles, He made bold, strong statements to thin the crowd out! Now there’s a church growth strategy to try in your church next week. For proof of this, consider what the text says about Jesus in John 2:23-25. And then consider what Jesus did in John 6:53-65.
You wrote, “God will bring who He wants into our lives at the time He appoints, and He would have us treat them with love and respect…”.
You’ll get no argument from me on the love and respect issue. I’m a proponent of modeling the attitude of 2 Tim. 2:24-25, as already stated.
Richard, are you saying that the Sovereignty of God extends only to those that we are friends with? Does God, in His Sovereignty, direct our paths to people we do not know to share the Gospel with them? Is it possible, or perhaps even very likely considering the Scriptural examples, that God in His Sovereignty uses His children who obey the commands (and follow the examples) to preach the Gospel in public venues?
If you’re suggesting that the Sovereignty of God only extends to people we know, then you’re making His Sovereignty something much less than what it is. Further, and much more importantly, you are making His demands as Lord much less than what they are.
Romi,
The statement on fishing and fish cleaning is catchy, but it lacks truth on at least two fronts.
1) Where are these “many” who like to go fishing? Sorry, you’ll have to go the long way around to prove that one, statistically and Scripturally. Even Jesus said that the laborers are few (Mt. 9:37).
2) The people that I know who actually do this engage in active discipleship. All that many people see is what we do in public; the street preaching\passing out tracts angle. They don’t see our Tuesday night Bible study with new converts, our lengthy email correspondences with atheists, our lunch meetings with Mormons, etc. This quote operates from a very faulty assumption and a stereotype.
Granted, sometimes those of us who are excited about evangelism sometimes don’t do much to change the stereotype. The recent resurgence of banners and sandwich boards makes me nauseous. But most street evangelists that I know (and I know a lot of them, mostly from the Way of the Master camp) work to fulfill the Great Commission in both the evangelism and discipleship end. In fact, we’re so busy doing it, we see the need for more help. We can’t keep up with all that still needs to be done. And we get frustrated when theorists try poking holes in (or flat out insult) what we do based on stereotypes.
Blessings,
Jon
March 18th, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Jon,
Here is the thing about relational evangelism and discipleship: it’s regenerative. You ask whether God’s sovereignty only extends to the people we know, and my answer is “often, yes.” In what we do, we let those we reach go and reach the people they know (make disciples who make disciples), while still pouring our lives into those who are now pouring their lives into others.
I am sorry that you are so affected by stereotypes… I know from actually seeing you have mostly civil discussions about this rather than pure confrontation (the whole pizza, beer, and barbecue thing got a little cheeky, but that was both of us). I would just ask you to not worry about a “burden of proof” or the winning of an argument. What you do, if done with respect and care and with a focus on discipleship and friendship afterwards, is to be commended.
However, I am pretty sure you are among the minority, at least from what I’ve seen. If those who purely practice “spam evangelism” are not the majority, they are certainly the most vocal and noticeable, and they create wounds and rifts and theological bugaboos that take many years and many tears to heal.
Jesus “thinned the crowd” because the things he said were unprecedented, and there was no resurrection at that point to speak of. The proof of His deity is one thing… but how do you explain the disciples being followed by miracles and works that made others jealous and angry? They had no deity of their own to worry about. And what about Stephen and the deacons? Their entire job, their entire gospel, was the feeding and clothing of those less fortunate among them, making sure everyone got something.
The fact is, relationalism and intentionality merely result in clubs and cliques without a biblical basis… but when you are missing the relational aspect, you might as well be running a seminary or university class, because you are merely disseminating information. Both methods have pitfalls that must be addressed and avoided. You could write a post about Christians with so many non-Christian friends who don’t spread the gospel, just as easily as this “Spam Evangelism” post was written. Neither of you would be wrong…
But the fact that both of you are partially right should make us all weary and mindful of what can happen when we care more about being right than being a light.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Richard,
Wow, I did not expect you to come right out with it and admit that you’re limiting the Sovereignty of God to people we know. At least it’s consistent, but I’d hate to have to try to prove that one from the Scriptures.
Consider what Will Metzger writes in his book, “Tell the Truth” (Metzger is a proponent of friendship evangelism, but is clearly not afraid of confrontational evangelism either):
“Since we do not want only to be hearers of the Word, it is necessary to place ourselves in insecure situations in which we must lean hard on God. We are not saying that contact evangelism is the only way or that everyone will be equally gifted at it. But it is right to seek opportunities with strangers, and it is an important training experience for Christians in developing an ongoing life of evangelism. Jesus said, ‘I will make you fishers of men.’ Let’s throw out our nets broadly, expecting God to respond. We do not need to manipulate or force people; we merely tie in with the work that God is doing in the hearts of those we meet…We need to learn how to be friendly, draw people out and confront them with the truth in a loving way.” (page 225)
All I can say to that is, “Amen.”
You say, “However, I am pretty sure you are among the minority, at least from what I’ve seen.”
This begs the question, “What have you seen?” How can you be “pretty sure” simply because of your own experience? Again, this borders on a pretty serious presumption of omniscience. There can be NO DOUBT that there are those who have done damage in street evangelism. If you like, I will provide you with my own examples. But this in no way invalidates a) the Biblical nature of street evangelism or b) the rest of us who do it to the glory of God.
I wonder how some who read this blog would like it if I took the examples of some seeker sensitive churches and painted you all with the same brush? I’ve already mentioned preachers who use toilets as pulpits, but how about the pastors who set up WWE style wrestling rings on their platforms and come out dressed as a wrestler? Or the pastors who have fully decked out clowns serve communion? Would that be fair?
My experience is this: I worked on staff with a ministry (two years) which at one time (not now) was a sister ministry of Way of the Master. We did evangelism boot camps for them. We also organized teams of street evangelists around the nation. My role was as coordinator of those teams. At our height, we had about 150 teams in nine countries. I am still in contact with many of those team leaders, receive their email updates and talk to them from time to time. I say all of this only to point out that my experience is not limited to one city on a Friday night.
From what I know of these teams and their leaders, most of them do the same kind of work we do here in Dallas. They evangelize, they disciple, and they do it in love. I know the team in Las Vegas helped a homeless man get off of the street and get trained to go back to work. It all started when he got a Gospel tract (and was subsequently saved) on the street. Or the man in Atlanta who came to Christ when he got a Million Dollar Bill tract and a meal at McDonalds. He was plugged into a local church and also discipled. Or the sister I know in Tampa who stands outside of abortion clinics and successfully pleads with women to not murder their babies. She gets them the help they need, opens her home to some of the unwed mothers. That doesn’t include people with the same ministry (who use Way of the Master) in Orlando, Lubbock, Virginia Beach, and elsewhere.
Richard, let me say this plainly and with no animosity in spite of the strong words I am using to make this point: you (and others who have responded to this thus far) really have no clue about all of the real discipleship that takes place in the context of street evangelism. You pass by a preacher, catch a 10 second sound byte, and then pass judgment on the methodology (as well as the rest of his message, which you did not hear) of us all without knowing anything else about what we do.
Brother, you need to take another look at the deacons in Acts. Two of them were evangelists (Stephen and Phillip). Stephen did not preach a seeker sensitive message when it was his time to make his stand. He did not “earn the right”. He told them that they had murdered the Messiah and he was stoned to death. He was a successful preacher; he had one convert, but he never knew it. He planted a seed with some guy named Saul, who became Paul and ended up writing most of the New Testament.
Phillip (another deacon) was used of God to share the Gospel with an Ethiopian whom he had never met. He had the audacity to infringe on his personal space and ask him if he understood what he was reading. Where’s the “earning the right” there?
And here’s the thing. The “earn the right” proponents can make unbiblical claims about Biblical subjects and most every other Christian who doesn’t take the time to examine what they’re saying buys into it. Why? It sounds nice in our tolerant culture. It goes along with their comfort zones or bubble or whatever, and keeps them “safe.”
Jeremy is wrong. Period. He’s not partially wrong. I know it’s not popular to say anyone is wrong these days, especially not to believe it passionately. But I’ll step out on a limb here and do both. I’m sure he’s a great guy. I’ve never met him. But I don’t need to meet him to know that on what he’s written, he’s wrong.
Jon
March 18th, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Okay dude, seriously, you just crossed the line to “jerk-face” status. Honestly, I just got tired of reading what you said. I would rather be wrong than a jerk.
Okay, now I took a bit of time and came back.
I was not “limiting the sovereignty of God” in any way, merely our parts in it… by the simple fact that we CANNOT minister to most people we do not know, because we have no idea of their needs or often even of their existence. To try and drop a theological elbow on me like “limiting the sovereignty of God” is petty, but I know you’ll probably just keep on going back to it and raising your hands in the air in victory, having completely missed the point.
As far as the deacons (and don’t be calling me brother when you are trying to attack me, you cheapen the word), I am not saying that there is never a time to be bold, but there are proper venues for each instance, not just anytime, anywhere.
The way you throw the one example I presented as my only experience… it is truly sickening. I have been involved with many evangelistic ministries and methods, you do not hold the monopoly on experience.
The point of my response was the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF STEREOTYPES, on both ends of the spectrum. I was trying to create peace.
You took what I said and made it an attack, just because I tried to see both sides and bring peace. You are not a person of peace, so I will shake your dirt from my feet and walk on. You can definitely find that in scriptures.
I’m out,
Richard
March 19th, 2009 at 4:45 AM
Richard,
I’ve done just about all I can do to reason with you from the Scriptures, which is all we have as a standard of truth. I’m not “raising my hands in victory”. It’s not about me. The thing is that it’s not about any of us. It’s about Him and because it’s about Him, we need to be careful to do things His way, not ours.
The name-calling and the false accusation that I am attacking you is offensive. I did not call you any names, make any false accusations against you and yet I am your enemy because I tell you the truth? You wrongly judge my motives; I did not make the claim that I had a “monopoly on experience”. I simply shared mine. If that’s what you think I did, or intended to do, I apologize for giving that impression.
Having said that, I stand by that last post.
Blessings,
Jon
March 19th, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Jon,
You did, in fact, question my experience by asking “what have you seen?” The name-calling is meant to be offensive, because I am offended. You know darn well that a statement like “Wow, I did not expect you to come right out with it and admit that you’re limiting the Sovereignty of God to people we know.” is an attack to anyone with two theological cents to their name.
Your use of churchy words doesn’t make your words any less offensive. Heck, to me that is even more offensive, to cheapen the words in such a way.
Also, your assumption that you have some sort of grasp on an infallible interpretation of the absolute truth WE SHARE is offensive. Perhaps this is where I am most offended by you, at the fact that you refuse to look at the other side because you are convinced that your own opinion and interpretation is fact. I would never read a book by a man who was unwilling to test everything, and cling to what was good, to anyone who would be so sure of themselves.
-Richard
March 19th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Richard,
We disagree on what is and is not an attack. I’ll just leave that issue there.
Words have meaning that can be understood. The Bible is meant to be understood. I reject this concept that it cannot be. If it cannot, then let’s sell the mega-churches to Walmart and party hardy because we have nothing left. It is our revelation of God and His Gospel.
Jon
March 19th, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Jon,
Yes, the Bible is meant to be understood (to a point… even the Bible states that we only see now as a “dim reflection”). My contention is with your claim to be one who understands, and the inference that those who disagree with you do not.
There are truths… that God is One in three persons, that He created the universe and everything in it, that He created us, that we were separated from Him by the fall, that He foreshadowed His redemption plan and gave *hints* of his personality in His relationship with Israel and the writings in the Old Testament, that He sent His Son, the God-Man dwelling in what John calls a “flesh tent”, that His Son died and rose again for our forgiveness and redemption, that He desires relationship with all people and at the same time knows that some will not receive Him, and that He will return. This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.
Then there are our interpretations of the things we cannot fully know or understand, the profound mysteries of Kingdom life that our Earthly minds cannot comprehend (and these are put there to humble us… an inference, to be sure, but one with precedent in Job 38 and much of the writings of the prophets). To think that one can fully understand the bible, which John pretty much calls Jesus Christ in book form (since Jesus is spoken of in the phrase “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”), is devastatingly prideful to the person and the Kingdom.
The Bible contains 100% truth, but we are not 100% people. We are broken, finding healing and wholeness in the Savior that will be made perfect at the completion of our lives. We will understand as much as we can, but we should be humble enough to know that some things, such as exact evangelical strategy for the current time and place (the idea of being “all things to all people, that some might be saved”) or the value of outside wisdom (the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but Paul sought the wisdom on the writers of His day and Jesus spoke in the context His audience would best comprehend, to relate to people where they were (and the words are still applicable, but there is much to be seen from the means as well as the ends).
And yes, we do disagree on what is and is not an attack. I have heard that we base our judgments of others based on our interpretation of their words and actions, but judge ourselves based on our intent, so if I was actually wrong, I apologize.
However, based on the context of this conversation, I do not believe I was wrong.
-Richard
March 19th, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I have read every one of the previous posts and have to say that I am disturbed. Richard, for someone to take the side of “Friendship” you sure aren’t very friendly with your brother, and he is your brother, for disagreeing with you. I understand that both of you are passionate about your point of view but do it in a civilized manner. Do you treat your friends this way when they reject your evangelism attempt? Someone once told me that “Pointing out negative behavior in others to justify your own is not acceptable.” We are each responsible for our own words so let’s be responsible. The tone of these posts is becoming offensive.
I’ve always wondered about “Friendship Evangelism”. How many friends do you have at once? How much time do you spend with each one? What happens when they tell you the don’t believe in God and to not mention it again? Are you still be their friend afterwards? Do you move on to the next potential friend? Do you tell them up front that you are being their friend to share the gospel with them three months from now? Is your friendship genuine or does it feel fake since there is a motive and a goal? Is it really honest to make friends with someone to further a goal, even if it is a good one? How do people react when they find out your motives?
Before you slam me, know that I am new to evangelism and have only tried The Way of the Master approach and not the friendship approach but I believe these are legitimate questions. I know how I would feel if someone were being my friend just to further an agenda. I also know how I would feel about their agenda afterwards if I didn’t buy into it.
Earl D. Spires Jr.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I can assure you that my friendship with those around me is genuine, and that I do not have an agenda for every friendship with a non-christian I have.
However, you are pretty correct in rebuking me for kinda jumping on this guy who ticked me off, and I can understand why this exchange could have led you to question my motives in other areas of my life. I wouldn’t treat anyone in person this way, so I guess I need to see this guy as more than just a Way of the Master puppet bent on my utter demise. He’s a person, and my brother.
Yo Jon, I’m sorry. I lost the point of the discussion when I started feeling attacked, and gave in to the argumentative nature of the comments. You aren’t a jerk-face. Next time I’m in Dallas we should have coffee or something.
-Richard
March 20th, 2009 at 8:05 AM
Richard,
Apology accepted. My email is jon@lostcauseministries.com. When you’re in town, please let me know, and we’ll get together.
Jon
March 20th, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I realize this post has been long and at times fiery. I don’t wish to add to the fire for flames sake, so please know that my motive is love, and I wish to relate some of my experience with preaching on Mill Ave.
I have been to Mill numerous times. Every time was to preach the Gospel. With that said, I have had great conversations with people who I had never met before that night. The majority of those people thanked me and shook my hand after we were done conversing. Many conversations lasted 30 or more minutes, and I was twisting no ones arm to keep them engaged.
Although we (confrontational evangelists)use a biblical principle (using the law to bring a knowledge of sin) so as to make Christ’s death and resurrection make sense, no 2 conversations I have ever had were alike.
Obviously the Gospel is not our idea, and is a not up for debate. Therefore there are elements of every conversation where the Gospel is preached that will be the same. That being said, when I talk to someone about eternity, death, life, sin, hell, judgment to come, the amazing grace God pours out on believers who repent and trust in Him etc. I am asking questions about that person, finding out a part of their life story, seeing what their views on eternity are. It’s never just a (this is what I have to say, and now I’m on to the next opportunity). People are people and I respect them as such, and it is always (when one on one) a conversation, not a speech. The whole reason any of us take time out of our lives and families to drive miles and miles to talk to people about eternal things is because we are motivated by God’s love.
Each witnessing encounter is as different as each unique person that I am speaking with. Do I have an agenda? You bet. I want to proclaim the everlasting Gospel, the only hope any human can have in this world to this person I’m talking to before it is too late. Does that make my efforts meaningless or not worth while because I have never met this person before, or because I haven’t developed a friendship with that person. No, it doesn’t.
Now, I’m not saying that most people I speak with on the street repent on the spot and believe the Gospel, but most are genuinely thankful that I took the time to share something so important with them. Most are happy to take the time to speak with me. The only experience on Mill I’ve had that was argumentative in a person to person conversation was with a very inebriated man who was bent on being irrational being adversly affected by the alcohol.
Have I been rejected on Mill handing out tracts? Sure. Does that make me a bad guy. Turning off people to the Gospel left and right? I don’t think people think badly of the guys on Mill handing out tickets to a free show, or for discount drinks. I believe the main issue people have with evangelists on Mill is the message. The bible clearly says that people who love their sin, (most on Mill Ave. will proclaim their open love for their sin with no shame)are enemies with God. How should we expect them to act towards the Gospel message?
Just ask any of the atheists that gather there to come against the word of God. They hand out tracts, they engage people on the street, they even have speakers and open air preach their garbage, but it isn’t the fact that the Christians are on Mill doing what the Lord commanded us to do that offends them, it is what they see as an ignorant message that is offensive to them.
I have spoken with Muslims, homeless street kids, ladies selling flowers, sports fans, drunks, ASU party kids, business men, etc. Did I know any of these people? Nope. Did I hold any at gunpoint to listen to my Gospel message? Nope. Was the Gospel preached to someone who may have not heard it otherwise? Was I loving them by warning them of wrath to come? Food for thought. You make your own determination.
It isn’t my responsibility or any of ours as followers of Christ to save anyone. God alone is capabable and responsible for that. It is however our responsibility as believers to preach the Gospel to all creation. Why not Mill Ave? It is a dark place where sin abounds. What better place for the light of the Gospel to shine brightly. It won’t shine however if it isn’t preached. People can see our good works, kind acts, etc. which are inherently good, but they will still perish on the day of judgment without hearing and responding to the Gospel.
Just thought I’d give you a side of Mill Avenue Gospel preaching you may not be aware of.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:41 AM
And see, it is those thirty minute conversations that are what it should be all about. That isn’t spam evangelism, I don’t think. In Jeremy’s post, he talks about a guy just asking girls to kiss him. I think that is what the tract stuff is without backing, with a focus on dissemination of info, would be akin to. That is the spam.
Now, when you are having conversations, getting to know people, it’s as if the guy were on the street looking for a date instead of just a kiss. He would take time to get to know a little bit about a girl, try to put his best foot forward, be presentable and sensitive to whatever her words and body language may be telling him… a beautiful, intricate interplay of two personalities.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I myself have actually done that, and I see beauty in that. Especially in the follow through, where the relationship blossoms into a discipleship relationship and a true friendship. That is not spam.
I think perhaps this argument has been a bit misguided, looking back on it. It became a bickering between two methods of sharing the gospel that can both be amazingly effective if done right, and horribly detrimental if done from the wrong heart.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Tracts can go where you can’t. That’s part of the point. A dashboard, nightstand, book mark, pocket. It continues speaking when you cannot. I don’t think that’s spam, do you.
Zoe
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 PM
The point is though Richard, that the 30 minutes conversations began with a tract to a person walking down the street that I didn’t know.
All the street evangelists that I know are looking for conversations. Unfortunately, not everyone is open to a conversation, and that is cool. We aren’t forceful, if someone will take a tract but not stop long enough to have a meaninful conversation, at least the Word of God has been placed into their hands, and the Gospel has been presented.
Many times I have to hand out many tracts, and watch the majority of the people continue on before someone is open to having a conversation.
Is it unsolicited? Yes. So in that sense, I guess you could call it SPAM. Is it unwarranted? I’d say definitely not.
Those who are perishing are blinded by the god of this world, the Bible tells us in 2Cor 4:4. It is truly as if these people walking down Mill Ave. or any street for that matter, are walking toward a cliff with a 1000 foot drop to their destruction, and they don’t see it. If we see the reality of it, the frailty of life, and the end that waits for the majority of the people around us on a daily basis, it doesn’t seem out of place or strange to lovingly get their attention and warn them of the impending danger, even if they didn’t ask to be warned.
I have a couple of audio clips of a friend of mine witnessing on the street to complete strangers. You may be interested to listen to them to hear the message being presented as well as the response of the person. I think you may be surprised.
http://www.calvarychapelchandler.org/Portals/0/streetfishing/interviews/mp3/Joey%20at%20CGCC%202_23_09.mp3
http://www.calvarychapelchandler.org/Portals/0/streetfishing/interviews/mp3/_Micah%20at%20CGCC%202_23_09.mp3
I hope you find these informative. These are indicitive of the kind of street witnessing that the people that I run with are involved in.
As I stated in my original post on this blog, there are crazies out there who regardless of motive are not accurately or biblically presenting the Gospel. I think many of the posts on this site by people who are engaged in and proponents of unsolicited or confrontational or street style evangelism may have been sensitive to this issue becuase they felt lumped into a group of people or a generalization that isn’t representative of their style of ministry.
Hope that helps.