Advice for dealing with street-preachers

[Pergamum]

Occasionally I have zealous friends/acquaintances state that we ought to go to national monuments/the Alamo/busy intersections/busy Wal-Marts during Black Friday/public beaches and stand up and preach the Gospel.

When I respond that it is not an appropriate setting, the usual response is that anywhere there are unbelievers is an appropriate setting.

I then usually respond that people are trying to shop/get to work/relax with their families and do not want to be disturbed and that Christianity ought to foster politeness and not rudeness. They usually charge me with not being evangelistic or caring for the souls of men. Or something like this...

believe me you read the scriptures the Prophets preached in what many would say is the inappropriate setting they were stoned and all kinds of stuff. God told them to do certain stuff to cause a scene

Any better ways of answering that I could give these people?

 

[MW]

Any better ways of answering that I could give these people?

In the absence of ecclesiastical oversight and co-operation, the best means of answering might be by not answering. Let them alone to do the work their way. Each worker will give his own account to his Gracious Employer and the day of judgment will bring all things to light. Bickering among employees as to how to improve customer service does nothing to improve customer service.

 

[Pergamum]

Hmmmm.... thanks.

I think your advice probably fits many other contexts as well.

 

[Edward]

Any of the comments that I think of would probably get moderated because of their sarcastic tone.

 

[Pergamum]

I am sure there are valid reasons behind any sarcasm-laced critiques that you could mine out as a gem out of a dung-heap perhaps.

 

[JimmyH]

If you were to Google search "Reverend Charles Cline, Holy Joe, Miami" you would come up with a couple of old 'human interest' news articles on the aforementioned gentleman. I suppose he was my first introduction to the gospel. In the early 1960s he could be found on weekdays, standing on the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue, on Miami Beach. He had a 'sandwich board' with John 3:16 on it. A black satchel, open and filled with small New Testaments.

He would offer free Bibles to pedestrians passing by along with pamphlets promoting the gospel, such as The Romans Road, among others. In that venue he was did not preach, but would witness to anyone who would listen. On the weekend he would go to Haulover Beach, or to 72nd St beach, next to 'the patio' which was an outdoor beer parlor right on the beach. It was a den of iniquity if there ever was one, and I spent a lot of my formative years there.

In that venue he would preach, his satchel of small Bibles open in the sand beside him. I was 13 or 14 and would join the other kids in mocking him. He persevered and no matter how much we kids messed with him he never gave up. He must have felt deeply blessed for the persecution we little miscreants put him through. I left that area for a number of years, and I never forgot Holy Joe. I came back maybe 5 years later and saw him on Lincoln Rd. I had the opportunity to tell him that I was sorry for my behavior and to thank him for his efforts. He smiled and graciously thanked me. That was over 45 years ago. Heaven only knows what street preachers would meet with in todays world.

 

[Miss Marple]

Well, thank God for Holy Joe.

 

[Pergamum]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

 

[Andres]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

Perhaps logically show them that's not possible. God calls us to vocations, families, corporate worship, etc. Instead explain how their efforts might be better used in simply befriending people in our "circles of influence" (neighbors, coworkers, classmates), showing them Christian charity, inviting them to church, and having a ready answer for their questions regarding faith/spiritual things.

The type of thinking you describe Perg is prevalent today and regrettably I think it's caused by men teaching this new type of "radical" Christianity, where Believers are to live radical lives for Christ. Michael Horton has a new book out that I think looks like a most helpful topic in this area - Ordinary: The Case Against Radical Christianity

EDIT: I should also note, I'm definitely not opposed to street preaching, I just think there is a wrong/right way to go about it and that it's not for "everyone, everywhere, all the time."

 

[whirlingmerc]

Outdoor evangelism can be helpful. Some people in England have a type of crowd outdoor evangelism where they tell a Biblical story while they paint a picture... I can see that being effective... I think effforts like that could be helpful

I think God might use a range of things but I prefer trying to convey enough of a message to be helpful as opposed to some buzwords people have already heard.... but God can use anything he want...

 

[Rich Koster]

I don't care for what I'll call "hit and run" open air preaching. That is to go to some densely populated area, far away from your local congregation, just so you know there will be a large audience. I believe this kind of street preaching is disconnected from potential discipleship. I would mention this to rogues to try to reel them in, and have them work closely with the local Church, rather than go all over the place on their own initiative. Just my opinion.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Time for a song.... "Come to the feast" by Jeff Lawson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVb0IkLUx2E

Go to the highway and hedges
Go to the Farthest of field
Go and compel the sick and the well
For our father's house will be filled

 

[Grimmson]

I admit that I have issues with street preaching; especially if it is not sanctioned by a church. And answering people who may question the need for it to be sanctioned by a church I am reminded by two verses in Proverbs 26:4-5; therefore it requires wisdom because someone might be doing it because they care about spreading the gospel effectively in the manner that God desires or other motives may be in play. Either case, remember that God's word never comes back void. And remember what the Apostle Paul said, "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice."

 

[Philip]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

I would say "amen, and I try to use words when it's necessary."

I have met one, precisely one, street "preacher" who went about it in a helpful way. He has a table of literature and would engage passers-by in conversation. He wasn't obnoxious but always seemed genuinely interested to meet you and hear your story and talk with you. When I ran into him, we would end up chatting for a few moments before I had to rush off to class or tutorial (this was in England).

 

[JimmyH]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

I would say "amen, and I try to use words when it's necessary."

I have met one, precisely one, street "preacher" who went about it in a helpful way. He has a table of literature and would engage passers-by in conversation. He wasn't obnoxious but always seemed genuinely interested to meet you and hear your story and talk with you. When I ran into him, we would end up chatting for a few moments before I had to rush off to class or tutorial (this was in England).

Comparing Phillip's encounter with street preaching with mine, I suppose it demonstrates there is more than one definition for 'street preaching. I've thought of, or rather fantasized, that I would pick up "Holy Joe's" torch and follow in his footsteps. But as Paul says, "Who is sufficient for these things ?" I was reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones 'Preaching and Preachers' today, looking for a paragraph or so, where he explains why he prefers a Geneva gown at the pulpit. The topic of another thread. I didn't find it, but became engrossed in a lecture he gave explaining his view on who should preach. For any pastors out there who haven't read it, as a layman, I'd highly recommend it. You can also hear he lectures, on tape and free, at MLJtrust.org.

The Doctor talks about the call to preach. Who thinks they have it, who actually does. One way or the other, there is much responsibility , and there should be much preparation. I personally don't think I am well versed enough in Scripture to preach. Not that I should be, but if I were to step out into the highways and byways proclaiming the Gospel, I ought to know what I'm doing. I have done some one on one witnessing to acquaintances who are unbelievers. On those occasions I've always felt insufficient in giving a reason for the hope that is in me. I can only imagine the pressure a person must feel preaching in front of a group.

What I have done, and still do is invite people to attend church and/or Bible study. People I become acquainted with. I used to go door to door with a Baptist pastor where I was a member before going with the OPC. Knocking on stranger's doors, Jehovah Witness style, and handing them a tract and an invitation to church. This was an interesting experience. I was reluctant to do it at first, and like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, you never knew what you would get when that door opened, but I felt good doing it.

 

[TheOldCourse]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

If they are attempting to bind your conscience in that manner, the burden of proof by Scripture is on them. Until they can come up with an argument deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture, you have no need to answer. Such a position is often merely assumed rather than actually argued in which case it holds no compulsion for you.


A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Evangelism and the Church
Charles G. Dennison

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

 

[Solparvus]

If someone strongly insisted that you should be "out evangelizing...everyone and everywhere...all the time" how would you answer?

Perhaps logically show them that's not possible. God calls us to vocations, families, corporate worship, etc. Instead explain how their efforts might be better used in simply befriending people in our "circles of influence" (neighbors, coworkers, classmates), showing them Christian charity, inviting them to church, and having a ready answer for their questions regarding faith/spiritual things.

The type of thinking you describe Perg is prevalent today and regrettably I think it's caused by men teaching this new type of "radical" Christianity, where Believers are to live radical lives for Christ. Michael Horton has a new book out that I think looks like a most helpful topic in this area - Ordinary: The Case Against Radical Christianity

EDIT: I should also note, I'm definitely not opposed to street preaching, I just think there is a wrong/right way to go about it and that it's not for "everyone, everywhere, all the time."

My pastor mentioned in a sermon that he's known men to sell everything and travel overseas to be missionaries, and yet they don't love their wives as Christ loved the church. Testimonies are destroyed when the emboldened priorities are sacrificed for "evangelistic work." If the work life or family life is not in order, and the hearer is aware of it, the "evangelist" will never have the full respect of the hearer. Neither will the wife, children, coworkers, or boss(es) who have more Biblical rights to the "evangelist's" time, effort and energy than the man on the street.

John Wesley's marriage may serve as a caution in this regard.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?

 

[MichaelNZ]

The title of this post seems to suggest that there's something wrong with street preaching. I think it's an excellent way of getting the Gospel out. I'm a big fan of Ray Comfort and would like to get into doing some street preaching myself.

 

[Pergamum]

Michael:

I believe there IS something wrong with street-preaching the way it is normally done.

 

[Dearly Bought]

A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?

I would argue that Gordon and others have overcompensated against the extremes of evangelicalism. While I would not argue that all Christians have the same evangelistic responsibility as a minister of the Gospel, I think it is also unhelpful to respond by stating that there is no such duty incumbent upon those who are not Gospel ministers. Frankly, Dr. Gordon's article smacks of an elitist clericalism to my ears. The "often-bumbling lay-person" is presented as a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel if he speaks. Better just to let the trained professionals handle all such things. Moreover, Christian lay-evangelism offends our pluralistic society. Much better if Christian men and women shut up so that such things may be said by ministers speaking from a pulpit in their own private gatherings.

The Ninth Commandment requires, as a positive duty, our "appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever" (WLC 144). The Third Commandment requires that we "not only by cursing or perjury, but also by rash swearing, must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others" (HC 99). Our Lord commands his disciples without exception to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). So I submit to you that it is most certainly incumbent upon all Christians to speak of the truths of the Gospel to our fellow men, albeit in all these positive duties we recognize that "what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99) and that these duties are to performed in a manner which is appropriate to our places and callings in life.

In reference to street preaching, there most certainly a great danger present in American evangelicalism that many have arrogated to themselves an official representative role as ambassadors for Christ to which they have not been ordained. That being said, let us not so strongly react against this error that we fall into the opposite ditch and deny the importance of ordinary Christians speaking the truths of the Gospel to their friends, family, and co-workers. Certainly let us not treat the Gospel as though it were an arcane knowledge beyond the reach of ordinary men to articulate.

 

[Pergamum]

A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?

I would argue that Gordon and others have overcompensated against the extremes of evangelicalism. While I would not argue that all Christians have the same evangelistic responsibility as a minister of the Gospel, I think it is also unhelpful to respond by stating that there is no such duty incumbent upon those who are not Gospel ministers. Frankly, Dr. Gordon's article smacks of an elitist clericalism to my ears. The "often-bumbling lay-person" is presented as a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel if he speaks. Better just to let the trained professionals handle all such things. Moreover, Christian lay-evangelism offends our pluralistic society. Much better if Christian men and women shut up so that such things may be said by ministers speaking from a pulpit in their own private gatherings.

The Ninth Commandment requires, as a positive duty, our "appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever" (WLC 144). The Third Commandment requires that we "not only by cursing or perjury, but also by rash swearing, must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others" (HC 99). Our Lord commands his disciples without exception to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). So I submit to you that it is most certainly incumbent upon all Christians to speak of the truths of the Gospel to our fellow men, albeit in all these positive duties we recognize that "what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99) and that these duties are to performed in a manner which is appropriate to our places and callings in life.

In reference to street preaching, there most certainly a great danger present in American evangelicalism that many have arrogated to themselves an official representative role as ambassadors for Christ to which they have not been ordained. That being said, let us not so strongly react against this error that we fall into the opposite ditch and deny the importance of ordinary Christians speaking the truths of the Gospel to their friends, family, and co-workers. Certainly let us not treat the Gospel as though it were an arcane knowledge beyond the reach of ordinary men to articulate.

Yes, I agree. I am troubled on one end with street preachers who seem to gauge one's Christianity by zeal in this area alone. I have also been troubled by reactions against David Platt's book Radical (such as articles advocating being an "ordinary" Christian) when most churches in the West seem to be lukewarm so that being "too radical" is sure not our problem. On Judgment Day the American Church will never be faulted for being too radical I don't think.

On one hand, I tire of Christians that say every Christian is a missionary and every spot on earth is a mission field, and others who state that only ordained minister can "evangelize" and that the rest of us have no duties in this area. I am against guilting people into "doing more for Christ" and yet I think most churches (even solid churches) should and could be doing more (just not necessarily more street-preaching since this is a deficient method).

 

[Theoretical]

x1000

A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?

I would argue that Gordon and others have overcompensated against the extremes of evangelicalism. While I would not argue that all Christians have the same evangelistic responsibility as a minister of the Gospel, I think it is also unhelpful to respond by stating that there is no such duty incumbent upon those who are not Gospel ministers. Frankly, Dr. Gordon's article smacks of an elitist clericalism to my ears. The "often-bumbling lay-person" is presented as a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel if he speaks. Better just to let the trained professionals handle all such things. Moreover, Christian lay-evangelism offends our pluralistic society. Much better if Christian men and women shut up so that such things may be said by ministers speaking from a pulpit in their own private gatherings.

The Ninth Commandment requires, as a positive duty, our "appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever" (WLC 144). The Third Commandment requires that we "not only by cursing or perjury, but also by rash swearing, must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others" (HC 99). Our Lord commands his disciples without exception to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). So I submit to you that it is most certainly incumbent upon all Christians to speak of the truths of the Gospel to our fellow men, albeit in all these positive duties we recognize that "what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99) and that these duties are to performed in a manner which is appropriate to our places and callings in life.

In reference to street preaching, there most certainly a great danger present in American evangelicalism that many have arrogated to themselves an official representative role as ambassadors for Christ to which they have not been ordained. That being said, let us not so strongly react against this error that we fall into the opposite ditch and deny the importance of ordinary Christians speaking the truths of the Gospel to their friends, family, and co-workers. Certainly let us not treat the Gospel as though it were an arcane knowledge beyond the reach of ordinary men to articulate.

 

[Theoretical]

I think part of the problem in America is that "busy" defines everything we do, and so "radical" really means hyperactive and quantifiable - which is essentially a spiritual assembly line. The flipside is essentially a "we'll preach the Gospel and if someone walks in our doors, great...but we're not really doing anything to have a presence in the community so that someone would come in." And it leaves laity either complacent or frustrated that "maybe I shouldn't be talking about these things to my friend or coworker - I might just bumble and stumble."

 

[Mushroom]

Hi Scott! Good to see you around. Hope all is well with you and yours.

 

[BrimStoneStream]

Sports Fan Outreach International trains street preachers for an annual Super Bowl ministry and other sporting events during the year. There is information about them on YouTube / Bill Adams
at Super Bowl Outreach '14: http://youtu.be/cpOj9VBzebE

 

[TheOldCourse]

A couple of articles that may be helpful:

Evangelistic Responsibility
T. David Gordon

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

I have not read the other essay, but the T. David Gordon article was immensely helpful. I think our own Josh H holds basically the same position. Another thing I have noticed is that when people adopt an "very Christian is an evangelist" mindset the definition of evangelism gets stretched and "new" means of grace are invented. Whereas WCF 14.1 helpfully reminds us that, "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened." To whom is the ministry of the word committed? To every Christian or to ministers of the gospel?

I would argue that Gordon and others have overcompensated against the extremes of evangelicalism. While I would not argue that all Christians have the same evangelistic responsibility as a minister of the Gospel, I think it is also unhelpful to respond by stating that there is no such duty incumbent upon those who are not Gospel ministers. Frankly, Dr. Gordon's article smacks of an elitist clericalism to my ears. The "often-bumbling lay-person" is presented as a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel if he speaks. Better just to let the trained professionals handle all such things. Moreover, Christian lay-evangelism offends our pluralistic society. Much better if Christian men and women shut up so that such things may be said by ministers speaking from a pulpit in their own private gatherings.

The Ninth Commandment requires, as a positive duty, our "appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever" (WLC 144). The Third Commandment requires that we "not only by cursing or perjury, but also by rash swearing, must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others" (HC 99). Our Lord commands his disciples without exception to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). So I submit to you that it is most certainly incumbent upon all Christians to speak of the truths of the Gospel to our fellow men, albeit in all these positive duties we recognize that "what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times" (WLC 99) and that these duties are to performed in a manner which is appropriate to our places and callings in life.

In reference to street preaching, there most certainly a great danger present in American evangelicalism that many have arrogated to themselves an official representative role as ambassadors for Christ to which they have not been ordained. That being said, let us not so strongly react against this error that we fall into the opposite ditch and deny the importance of ordinary Christians speaking the truths of the Gospel to their friends, family, and co-workers. Certainly let us not treat the Gospel as though it were an arcane knowledge beyond the reach of ordinary men to articulate.

As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling hinder the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.

 

[Dearly Bought]

As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling hinder the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.

Hi Chris,
I wasn't necessarily advocating for those not ordained to office to engage in street "preaching." I think I was pretty clear that evangelistic duty is appropriate to our places and callings in life. Ministers have a calling beyond the norm to engage the lost world as official ambassadors for Christ, a calling which entails a form of "seeking" the lost which is not incumbent on ordinary church members. However, there is an "evangelism" which is necessary for any Christian. We are not permitted to merely remain silent regarding the things of God and the Gospel unless we are asked specifically for our views. We don't need to seek a broader audience as a minister might, but that audience which we have been given in our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers should hear our testimony to the work of Christ.

To be clear, I am opposed to the sort of universal evangelistic duty along the lines of D.L. Moody searching the streets for someone to evangelize because he hadn't presented the Gospel yet that day. I am also opposed to the relegation of evangelistic duty exclusively to the office of minister of word and sacraments so that those not ordained to office are to refrain from ever intentionally and pro-actively speaking the Gospel message to those around them. I am very sure that Reformed church history bears out my understanding that orthodox churchmen expected all faithful Christians to speak of the Gospel of Jesus Christ constantly out of the abundance of their hearts.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I used to speak publicly on the subways in Manhattan; at first I was scared to do it, so I apprenticed myself to an experienced speaker until I became more comfortable. It bothered me deeply that there were many who never had a chance to hear a winsome and gracious presentation of the gospel of our Savior, and the salvation He offers through the forgiveness of sins for repentant lawbreakers, and the imputing of His righteousness so we might be holy before God. I stopped doing it when I became aware that public speaking on the NYC subway cars was not legal.

In the cultural climate of the present times I think the idea mentioned above of having a table on the street, and giving Bibles or NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs, and talking or praying with people might be more appropriate. Still, to occasionally lift one's voice about the glorious grace of God to the perishing I think would be fine. I'm retired from the pastorate and do know how to present the gospel, plus the pastor of the church I am a member of would heartily approve of me doing this. I just need someone Spanish-speaking with me as my neighborhood is predominantly Hispanic, mostly working-class and families. It would also give me a chance to speak with some of the drug dealers in the area.

When pastoring the church in Cyprus we – almost the whole (small) church – would go to the oceanside park nearby and sing hymns and speak of Christ and salvation. We were fishing for souls. Proverbs 24:11,12, I think, urges us to have a heart for the perishing,

If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death,
and those that are ready to be slain;
If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not;
doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it?
and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it?
and shall not he render to every man according to his works?​

Sometimes all we can do for certain people is pray for them – but that is something! It still grieves me deeply that many people do not know Christ – not having heard the Good News – and are heading to an eternity of torment. My view is that there may be many of God’s elect yet uncalled among these throngs, and who will call them? When I pray for old friends I have lost track of and can’t locate, I ask the Lord that if they’re still alive would He please bring some of His people to them to give them His word, and would He draw them to Him. When we pray for unsaved loved ones far away, do we not hope for the same?

I think Pastor Winzer’s counsel in post #2 is the wisest thing I’ve seen on this.

We sometimes forget that what moves evangelists to do what they do is, in part, the deeply heartfelt feeling for those in danger of eternal torment – “Abandon all hope all ye who enter here” – as well the open floodgates of divine pity and mercy pouring forth the waters of life, calling, “And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17). Also a desire that God's name be hallowed in many hearts, and His will done in their lives, that the Kingdom be enlarged.

I think also of Jesus’ words in Matt 22:8-10,

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.​

I do agree that any person desirous of public ministry should have the blessing of his pastor (who should make sure the person is genuinely fit), and even better, a church itself should have some sort of evangelistic ministry to the community, for there are multitudes of folks who would never set foot inside a church. It need not be always only verbal ministry, but giving food or clothing, or other sorts of help.

I know a woman who bakes goods and gives them out to certain local people – doctors, supermarket employees, neighbors, people in various shops she frequents – and when occasion arises she asks if they need prayer for anything, and if appropriate prays for them right there. She, although quite reserved, seeks to make friends in the community, and as Christ is much in her life, seeks to share Him.

It was a woman, who was an employee of a camp for disturbed children I had worked at, who spoke of Christ to me, and through that witness the Holy Spirit shone Christ's glory in my heart and turned an enemy into a beloved son.

 

[TheOldCourse]

As far as I understand you in differing with Gordon on this point, you're reading into the standards something that isn't intended. Certainly it's all well within the compass of an ordinary lay-person's responsibilities to hold godly conference with neighbors and family members regarding the teachings of the Holy Writ. However, to laden the lay-person's conscience with the responsibility of intentionally and proactively evangelizing the lost in the sense of the original post (especially but not exclusively as regards street preaching) is a novelty of the last couple of centuries. In fact, Luther and the magisterial Reformers would likely decry one who does such as usurping the authority of ordained ministers. Luther actually wrote that those who presume to preach without a ministerial calling hinder the Word of God just as much as one who refuses to preach despite such a calling. It was never a question of capability--whether they are able to articulate something is a rather different question as to whether they are called to do the same. Evangelicalism often conflates the two, but our Reformed forebears did not and we ought not to either.

Hi Chris,
I wasn't necessarily advocating for those not ordained to office to engage in street "preaching." I think I was pretty clear that evangelistic duty is appropriate to our places and callings in life. Ministers have a calling beyond the norm to engage the lost world as official ambassadors for Christ, a calling which entails a form of "seeking" the lost which is not incumbent on ordinary church members. However, there is an "evangelism" which is necessary for any Christian. We are not permitted to merely remain silent regarding the things of God and the Gospel unless we are asked specifically for our views. We don't need to seek a broader audience as a minister might, but that audience which we have been given in our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers should hear our testimony to the work of Christ.

To be clear, I am opposed to the sort of universal evangelistic duty along the lines of D.L. Moody searching the streets for someone to evangelize because he hadn't presented the Gospel yet that day. I am also opposed to the relegation of evangelistic duty exclusively to the office of minister of word and sacraments so that those not ordained to office are to refrain from ever intentionally and pro-actively speaking the Gospel message to those around them. I am very sure that Reformed church history bears out my understanding that orthodox churchmen expected all faithful Christians to speak of the Gospel of Jesus Christ constantly out of the abundance of their hearts.

"Evangelistic duty" is a somewhat loaded phrase to begin with and is at the least speaking in ways that our Reformed ancestors would not have. They saw "evangelist" as a distinct office of the church that was associated with and ceased alongside apostleship--what remained was the ordinary minister of word and sacrament. See the DPW for an example. Now that office had certain characteristics (as understood both biblically and by the divines) which we don't often associate it with today, but it also suggests that they would be as opposed to the pretending of that office by unqualified men as they would of apostle or minister.

Regardless, as far as I'm aware of (and I'm happy to be shown otherwise), the Reformed men of the 16th and 17th centuries conceived of conversions ordinarily taking place through the preaching of the Word by a duly ordained and called minister (drawing on Romans 10). To have a conversion take place apart from that--through the casual encouragement of a lay-person in this case--may occur but it is an extraordinary rather than an ordinary occurrence and would certainly not be placed upon the believer's back as a common duty or expectation. Gordon in his article doesn't seem to be so much arguing that speaking of the Gospel with friends in co-workers is wrong (although in some cases it may be--I think street preaching qualifies), but that it is not something that can be required of a lay-person as part of his religious duty by a minister as it cannot be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. To that point I agree with him and seem to find it substantiated in older Reformed writings.

This is a subject that, particularly from a historical perspective, has interested me for some time and I would be pleased to be pointed towards any 16th-17th c. sources that controvert (or confirm) Gordon and Dennison's arguments. Far too many modern treatments of such sources unfortunately fall guilty of anachronism.