I think one of the worst evangelism tactics is to tell people to write their date and time of "conversion" in the back of their brand new, free bible so that they never fight for assurance.

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

[quote=Der Pilger;647436]Isn't that actually what you did, though? You mentioned letting others see us living godly lives and attributes, and then you mentioned sharing verbally "when prompted." This last phrase pretty strongly implies that the verbal sharing is put on hold, unless I'm misunderstanding you.


No. I did not set a time requirement or minimum. Paul walked into synagogues, he had a general idea where these people were at and addressed them accordingly. I like to know something about a person's viewpoints before I engage them. If I saw someone kneeling in front of their house praying, I now have my springboard to launch a conversation.

I don't know about "overbearing," as that really depends on the individual who does it. I find it interesting that you are against open air when this is actually what Jesus and the apostles did. I'm sure there were times when they had quiet conversations with people, but there were also times when they spoke openly to large groups of people.

I am against obnoxious, overbearing OAEs that denigrate the reputation of Christ, that does not include ALL OAEs Certain loudmouths that point fingers at crowds may contain an element of truth, but their condemning spirit is evidence that they do not fully grasp the truth.

I wonder about this. Does God really expect us to wait for him to "send" us moments that are "set up" for us? Hasn't he told us to go forth with the gospel? And if he has, doesn't that indicate pretty clearly that we are to take the initiative? I don't mean using manipulation or trying to buttonhole people into talking with us, but I do mean seeking to create opportunities ourselves.


How about recognizing opportunities???????????????






-----Added 7/4/2009 at 12:02:31 EST-----

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

Hmmm...

Best method of evangelism:
John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:

The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.

The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

Wasn't King Agrippa "almost persuaded" to become a Christian? I guess Paul failed in his presentation during his personal testimony.

Although, I admit, there is some evidence to think that Agrippa was sneering and mocking Paul, "In just this little short time, you would think I would become a Christian after your short spiel..." "Okay, Dude, I'm convicned!....Whatever" So, this might have been said in jest. I would love to discuss that further.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I can see where this makes sense, but what about making the springboard?

I tend to agree. I've seen these kinds of open-air preachers, and I'm sure there are some who are obnoxious and offensive. Not only that, but I've seen some who actually don't instruct others well but simply get out on a sidewalk and do a tongue-in-cheek presentation.

That's fine as long as you don't limit yourself to that. We are to go forth with the gospel. That involves an attitude of proactively taking the gospel to places. I know you're not speaking against this, but I do feel somewhat cautious about your apparent tendency to lean in the direction of being passive--recognizing opportunities, trying to see where someone is at spiritually so as to have a springboard, etc. Again, these things aren't wrong, but I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to such.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:19:34 EST-----

Well said. Paul was very conscious of this when he wrote, "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10). Our chief aim in our communication of the gospel should be to win God's approval, not to please men. Pleasing men and preaching the gospel are incompatible. Paul did not try to accomplish both; for him it was an either/or proposition when it came to the gospel. Either you please men, or you seek God's approval.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:28:19 EST-----

Good point. Tracts are not a crutch for those who don't know how to share the gospel; they are a means of communicating the gospel message in print and leaving that message with someone after the encounter is over.

__________________
Jeremy
Member, Christ Church of Arlington (PCA)
Arlington, VA
My blog: http://grammateus.wordpress.com
Ministry web site: http://www.alexandriago.org

I would say that Paul absolutely was successful. King Agrippa understood, and while we do not know with certitude his ultimate faith, it seems clear that Paul did in fact have the effect on Festus of having him hate Paul (calling someone crazy is at the least insulting).

I'm convinced that Paul did succeed. If Agrippa was "in a short while convinced" then Paul at least sowed the seeds that would later bloom into saving faith. And unless Festus later repented of the attitude he displayed, he certainly did trample underfoot the Son of God and entered into a more complete condemnation. The gospel goes forth to accomplish what it will. I do not know if Agrippa was of faith. Schaff in his "History of the Christian Church" states that Agrippa gave asylum to the Christians fleeing the destruction of Jerusalem. We don't know why (other than the providence of God) but we might think that perhaps Paul did plant seeds that eventually bore fruit; at least we can hope so. So I would say Paul succeeded. Success in presenting the gospel is not having people converted, but having people exposed to the purifying flame of the gospel.

What do you think of the following approaches?

Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.

Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

I personally use a more flexible approach and depends on the flow or movement of the conversation and where the conversation is taking place. I do not take a formulaic approach. But I think the approach that Ray Comfort used is interesting, especially in light of the fact that I just ran across a tract, thanks to Der Pilger, that uses the exact same approach.

Sometimes however I think we need to switch gears from the self to God and what he has done through the cross. Foreven most "good people" recongize that have sined and that makes them sinners. The problem with their( Comfort and Cameron) method is that it does not show the gravity of their sin against God. In fact many people just try to laugh it off. There needs to be more of the conversation then just talking about the decalouge in our approach, but also on the character and attributes of God. Many times this is missing in our approah, but it is not missing in Paul address at Mars Hill.

__________________
David Jolley
Currently SBC, may change
Confessions: 1680-SLBCF/ 2000-BFAM
Escondido, CA

Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?

I think it would have to be natural or else you would just appear to be phony. It is OKAY to have a conversation with someone that is not about Christ. We want to value people as people, not as evangelistic targets, lest we make people believeus to be using them to gain "conversion points."

That is an excellent approach and completely biblical. It is up front and addresses the crucial issues a person needs to grasp.

I think this is fine, too. Any approach that has as its immediate goal the complete communication of the gospel message is fine.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 10:52:40 EST-----

That's a tough one to answer because it really depends on what exactly is being said in the conversation. It is difficult to say what kind of bridge to build from one topic to another when the original topic is unknown. Here are some suggestions, though:

"What is your religious background?"
"Would you mind if I asked you something on a deeper level?"
If you've been reading a Christian book lately: "I've been reading this really interesting book called _______________________. It has really made me think a lot."

It's helpful to use ice-breakers of some kind. Livingwaters.com publishes some very helpful ice-breaker tools, such as the "Smart Card" and their various million-dollar bills. The gospel presentations on these items are too short, IMO, but they are useful to use as ways of lightheartedly turning a conversation to spiritual matters and proceeding to the gospel more or less immediately.

I was questioning this because back in the 90's, I went to the WOL family campground. They had sign ups for adults to join BI student for bus trips to Lake George and the city for OAE.

I think in fairness to Rich he was only asking a question. I was the one who saw the students and, to be honest, the description from the WOL website is close to that described to me by those "witnessing" in NYC in terms of their background. If anyone should be pulled up on this, it should be me not Rich. I can't say definitely if it was WOL or not.

__________________
Jon
London, UK
Ex-Redeemer PCA, Manhattan
(Now All Souls' Langham Place, London)