Trying to think about an evangelism video in a mall

[Pergamum]

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/03/watch-this-mall-cop-try-to-kick-a-navy-seal-out-of-a-mall-for-talking-religion/?utm_source=SFATW&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt

I have friends sharing this article and video. I need some help in processing it and what it means. I am not sure I go along with the established narrative. For one thing, it seems irrelevant that the evangelist is an ex-army guy or not. This info seems added merely to prejudice the reader right off the bat.


My questions include, "What constitutes a private conversation?" And when does that become "solicitation"?

If a Muslim man walked up to repeated random strangers (people that they did not come into the mall with and they do not know), and began to ask questions about the glories of the Prophet Muhammad, would this truly be a conversation? Or would this constitute a subtle form of solicitation?

What if a vacuum salesmen did the same, "Have you heard of the wonders of the new Hoover 2000 cleaner?"

If a Muslim guy approaches and asks a random stranger, "Can I ask you a question?" and the random stranger says, "Ok" - has permission now been given to give a clear and protracted presentation of Islam?

What protections are in place for the person who doesn't want to be wrangled into a theological debate while shopping for jeans?

Suppose you own a coffee shop and you have a Muslim guy constantly hanging out in said coffee shop trying to initiate conversations with random patrons as an effort in Islamic evangelism? What if that Muslim guy begins to hurt your business and patrons go someplace else where they can drink their coffee in peace?

Were these evangelists within their rights? And...Even if within our rights, I think we should be careful in how we evangelize. For one thing, the cults may also jump on board. And secondly, do we communicate by our methods that we are basically rude people if we engage in unwanted advances towards strangers with the gospel, or worse, are we being subtly deceptive if we try to twist the commonplace definitions of "conversation" and "solicitation."

The police did issue a ticket. So it appears that a law was broken. Is that law a just law or an unjust law?

Also, how do we prevent the gov't from slowly closing off all avenues and acceptable places for us to evangelize?



Other issues include:

-Many of these videos seem to paint opposing folks in a very bad light. They videotape these persons and then spread the video clips all over the internet.

-What ethical dignities and protections do we owe the mall cop? What legal protections are there for him? I am guessing he is now all over the net without his consent. This doesn't seem a real classy thing to do to a person, especially if you are trying to spread the love of Jesus.


Also,

the issue of "Public Property versus Private Property" seems a big deal. Is a mall private property generally?

--How about a public park? It is public property. It is then okay to pull out your megaphone to the old people throwing bread to the ducks and preach to them?



I am trying to see this issue from both sides. I want the gospel to spread. And I also believe we should treat people well.

 

[Dekybo]

I can't offer much help, but it was an interesting video. I can speak for how I would hope that this country would operate. I don't see intentional conversations as being solicitation. It may be annoying to be bothered while shopping, but you can always say no thanks. I would leave the rights open to everyone if it meant that we could evangelize. It seems to me that it would be worth it to help one person know The Lord even if it meant dealing with other religions or the occasional salesman. I don't know about the actual law being broken. It just appears to be an abuse of power by a mall employee. It was obvious that the mall cop didn't understand one of the most basic commands to every believer.

 

[Jack K]

On the private property issue... the courts have said a shopping mall is private property. Back when I was a journalist, I learned that several years ago there were cases brought by political candidates, news media, etc. arguing that due to the place of a mall in American life it ought to be treated as if it were a public sidewalk when it come to legal access. But the courts ruled that malls are different from public sidewalks. So if the mall thinks you are harassing people, the mall can kick you out (as they did to us anytime we showed up with our cameras without permission). And in this case, it's likely that either someone complained or those guys were approaching stranger after stranger, since mall cops generally don't go around listening in on conversations to see what people are talking about. They respond to complaints of harassment or to obvious rule-breaking.

Was it solicitation? A court would probably say it was. If those guys' purpose for being in the mall was to strike up conversations with multiple strangers, as an evangelism project, then that's an easy call. Yes to "solicitation."

Is the law a good law? Well, a shopping mall would be a less pleasant place if it were required to allow access to anyone trying to get attention for a cause. It's still plenty easy to share the gospel in this country, so I land on the side of property owners' rights in this case. I know if I owned a mall, I wouldn't want anyone telling me I have to let people in who were there just to strike up conversations with my customers about who-knows-what crazy belief. Since I'd want such rights for myself as a property owner, I ought to be willing to extend the same rights to other property owners.

Were those guys being jerks toward the mall cop? I hate to say it, but I think they were. He had an unpleasant job to do and they seemed to be enjoying the chance to document their "persecution" and indulge in some righteous indignation. I wonder if they went there hoping for a confrontation. It may be that they were naïve, and legitimately surprised to be confronted by security. But if I were looking for a confrontation over soliciting, I would go to a mall. Malls are notoriously quick to deal with solicitation when they catch wind of it.

This is a bad way to introduce people to Jesus. If it were our only way, maybe we would have no choice. But I fear that perhaps, in this case, the evangelists were more interested in drawing attention to their persecution than in bringing honor to Christ. I hate to judge motives from afar, and I may be wrong about them. But if I had a chance to ask those guys to search their hearts over this, I would suggest they consider whether they feel more satisfaction from sharing the gospel or from making a political point.

 

[Pergamum]

On the private property issue... the courts have said a shopping mall is private property. Back when I was a journalist, I learned that several years ago there were cases brought by political candidates, news media, etc. arguing that due to the place of a mall in American life it ought to be treated as if it were a public sidewalk when it come to legal access. But the courts ruled that malls are different from public sidewalks. So if the mall thinks you are harassing people, the mall can kick you out (as they did to us anytime we showed up with our cameras without permission). And in this case, it's likely that either someone complained or those guys were approaching stranger after stranger, since mall cops generally don't go around listening in on conversations to see what people are talking about. They respond to complaints of harassment or to obvious rule-breaking.

Was it solicitation? A court would probably say it was. If those guys' purpose for being in the mall was to strike up conversations with multiple strangers, as an evangelism project, then that's an easy call. Yes to "solicitation."

Is the law a good law? Well, a shopping mall would be a less pleasant place if it were required to allow access to anyone trying to get attention for a cause. It's still plenty easy to share the gospel in this country, so I land on the side of property owners' rights in this case. I know if I owned a mall, I wouldn't want anyone telling me I have to let people in who were there just to strike up conversations with my customers about who-knows-what crazy belief. Since I'd want such rights for myself as a property owner, I ought to be willing to extend the same rights to other property owners.

Were those guys being jerks toward the mall cop? I hate to say it, but I think they were. He had an unpleasant job to do and they seemed to be enjoying the chance to document their "persecution" and indulge in some righteous indignation. I wonder if they went there hoping for a confrontation. It may be that they were naïve, and legitimately surprised to be confronted by security. But if I were looking for a confrontation over soliciting, I would go to a mall. Malls are notoriously quick to deal with solicitation when they catch wind of it.

This is a bad way to introduce people to Jesus. If it were our only way, maybe we would have no choice. But I fear that perhaps, in this case, the evangelists were more interested in drawing attention to their persecution than in bringing honor to Christ. I hate to judge motives from afar, and I may be wrong about them. But if I had a chance to ask those guys to search their hearts over this, I would suggest they consider whether they feel more satisfaction from sharing the gospel or from making a political point.

I agree 100%. Yet, when I say things like this, I get zealous folks questioning my own salvation, saying I hate the gospel or am un-missionary, and that I don't want souls saved. I just merely want to avoid bad methodologies that disrespect other people and other's property.

 

[earl40]

It was obvious that the mall cop didn't understand one of the most basic commands to every believer.

Which is?

 

[Dekybo]

It was obvious that the mall cop didn't understand one of the most basic commands to every believer.

Which is?

The command to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) which was brought out in the video. I understand that we want to evangelize with respect to others, but I don't agree that we should stop doing so in a mall.

 

[earl40]

It was obvious that the mall cop didn't understand one of the most basic commands to every believer.

Which is?

The command to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) which was brought out in the video. I understand that we want to evangelize with respect to others, but I don't agree that we should stop doing so in a mall.

In my church I am not allowed to baptize but am encouraged to preach The Gospel. I am happy we get half that command right. I suspect most think I am saying we in the pew ought to baptize along with evangelizing which is not the case. Sorry but this is becoming a pet peeve of mine. To place the burden (yes it is a burden and work) of preaching people into the kingdom is your job and not your congregation.

 

[Dekybo]

[/QUOTE]In my church I am not allowed to baptize but am encouraged to preach The Gospel. I am happy we get half that command right. I suspect most think I am saying we in the pew ought to baptize along with evangelizing which is not the case. Sorry but this is becoming a pet peeve of mine. To place the burden (yes it is a burden and work) of preaching people into the kingdom is your job and not your congregation.[/QUOTE]

I suppose I never thought about that passage not being applicable to all believers. Are you saying that this command is reserved for the pastor and elder position in the church?

 

[Tom Hart]

In the video, the comment from the evangelist that he is a combat veteran who fought for freedom, seems quite irrelevant. (This aside from even addressing the platitude that participating in an overseas war constitutes fighting for freedom.)

Moreover, how appropriate is it to engage the mall cop so openly and aggressively? Peter and John were frank with the Jews, but they didn't film the encounter and post it online.

I understand that this video might be an attempt to encourage Christians who sense their beliefs under attack (this is true, I think), but taking the action that this man did does not seem like a surefire way to win converts. He might at least have had the grace to blur the mall cop's face!

 

[earl40]

I suppose I never thought about that passage not being applicable to all believers. Are you saying that this command is reserved for the pastor and elder position in the church?

Yes, though I would place it solely on the pastor of a church to preach and baptize. Your elders have plenty of other things to do.

 

[Dekybo]

Yes, though I would place it solely on the pastor of a church to preach and baptize. Your elders have plenty of other things to do.

If I had elders . It's just me myself and I for now unfortunately.

 

[earl40]

Yes, though I would place it solely on the pastor of a church to preach and baptize. Your elders have plenty of other things to do.

If I had elders . It's just me myself and I for now unfortunately.

Then I hope one day your church grows, I assume it is a very small church, and elects other elders one one day, and becomes a church that follows the biblical model of proper government.

 

[Edward]

It was obvious that the mall cop didn't understand one of the most basic commands to every believer.

I think perhaps you have that backwards. The self-proclaimed Navy Seal was the one who missed one of the basic commands. "Thou shalt not steal". He was appropriating the property of another for his own use, contrary to the express wishes of the owner of the property. Arguably a violation of the 5th Commandment, as well, as one with authority over the property directed one with inferior rights to the property to leave, which direction was refused.

Question for you - Would you let an ISIS evangelist expound on the joys of jihad in your church?

 

[Pergamum]

I am drawn to these videos because I think many of these video-recorder evangelists miss something. For the sake of the Great Commission they do things that, in other areas of life, would be considered rude and impolite, but somehow the gospel gives them a free pass. A free pass to: intrude on private property and people's private space, treat people as the vilest of enemies when they merely oppose your evangelistic methods, classify those that disagree with you as rank unbelievers (I've been sentenced to hell a number of times because I've said some videos were rude), film these people without consent and post them online in a way that negatively portrays them.

The "evangelist's" Youtube site is called "SEAL of God" and he seems to mention his position/status as a Seal to the mall cop as well. Somehow this is relevant to the Gospel?

Exhibit A is the mocking picture produced from the film made by one follower:

 

[Pergamum]

I have gotten to the point where I mistrust many people who are in a regular habit of posting their evangelistic videos online. Except maybe Ray Comfort (he seems to treat people with respect).

 

[Parakaleo]

He was appropriating the property of another for his own use, contrary to the express wishes of the owner of the property.

I saw this video a few weeks ago and thought the same thing. This is the same reason I skip any house with a "No Solicitation" sign out front whenever I have gone door-to-door inviting people to church.

 

[Dekybo]

I think perhaps you have that backwards. The self-proclaimed Navy Seal was the one who missed one of the basic commands. "Thou shalt not steal". He was appropriating the property of another for his own use, contrary to the express wishes of the owner of the property. Arguably a violation of the 5th Commandment, as well, as one with authority over the property directed one with inferior rights to the property to leave, which direction was refused.

Question for you - Would you let an ISIS evangelist expound on the joys of jihad in your church?

I would not allow it. I can see your point, and I agree that the Seal did not conduct himself in a respectful manner. I'm just having a hard time reconciling the idea that if someone enters a place then that restricts me from sharing the gospel with those willing to listen.

 

[Pergamum]

I think probably the "Public space" versus "Private property" issue is a key one.

Also, I'd like to define "solicitation" a little better. At what point does it become a "Solicitation" and when does it morph into a "conversation?" The cops did give the guy a ticket. Were the cops wrong?

Being approached by random strangers when I am trying to shop or be with family is never pleasant.

I was once approached in St Louis close to dark (dusk) and given a tract. It seemed almost threatening. I remember that I made a fist and was ready to punch the guy. How do you respond to the question, "If you died tonight....were would you go?" WHAT? Are you gonna try killing me tonight or something?

If a stranger approaches you, it is not usually for your own good. And even with street preachers, sometimes you merely become their next object or target instead of a person worthy of respect. Otherwise, why would they vilify you or mock you on the internet afterwards?

 

[Dekybo]

I think probably the "Public space" versus "Private property" issue is a key one.

I agree

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There's probably a fair comparison here to the stories that have come down from the first couple centuries A.D., to a certain % of Christians seeking martyrdom. It was a way for nobodies to become famous, at least within the Christian community.

Men crave glory. Politicians and Generals exploit this tendency all the time to their own ends. While I suspect that if there was REAL persecution today, there would be less of both the acting and the cheerleading (did this "incident" really cost Mr.Tough anything? Was even his EGO bruised?); still I think that there would be glory-seeking Christians willing to risk health-and-life for a chance at immortalization among the pantheon of saints in some quarters. Living through would only enhance the prospect.

Don't believe me? What is the lottery, but a slim chance at glory, even if it costs the farm? A profession of faith doesn't wipe the pride out of a man, unfortunately.

I'd put this whole business (charitably) in the category of Php.1:18, "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." Of course, Paul was not pleased by the envy, rivalry, or selfish ambition of the vainglorious. He could never countenance sectarian men or congregations. He knew that the activities of some would bring his own ministry into disrepute. Nonsense obscures the gospel message.

Still, the sovereignty of God reigns. The Spirit and the gospel could succeed, despite the perverseness of the instrument and the garbled presentation. Of course, that admission doesn't wipe out the offense. We must try to let the offense be all in the cross, and as little as possible in us.

Video of glory-seeking, obnoxious and pushy "evangelism" is contrary to Peter's dictum, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," 1Pet.3:15. My advice is to look for the silver lining. And do it yourself, the right way.

 

[Edward]

The cops did give the guy a ticket.

Failure to leave private property when told to do so is trespass in most states. Didn't the video say it was in Texas?

Texas Penal Code Sec. 30.05

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner

 

[Miss Marple]

as an aside I love Ray Comfort's videos. Really beautifully done.

 

[Pergamum]

as an aside I love Ray Comfort's videos. Really beautifully done.

He always seems nice and respectful to others.

 

[Pergamum]

An additional aspect of this all:

A guy made this photo-shop picture of the featured mall cop:

I thought the photo was tasteless and responded that, "I am sure the cause of Christ is advanced by this picture." [sarcasm]

And asked, " So you get a free pass to make fun of and mock unbelievers and post defaming pictures of them on the internet?"

The response was:

Let's not try removing the spec in someone else's eye before removing the log in your own by violating your BLC commentary in baring false witness against ______person___. Chill out and laugh a little.

and also:

How is that a defaming picture? It's commentary rooted in popular cultures understanding of certain stereotypical personalities. This guy ironically fills the stereotype perfectly. So perfectly that you can substitute his face on a famous movie poster and it works. Ridiculing that which is patently ridiculous is perfectly on the table for Christians to do.

Now, I can just imagine this mall cop browsing the internet and discovering himself on there being made fun of by Christian evangelists. Or the guy's wife or family. This isn't a well-known Prosperity Preacher like Benny Hinn.... this is a working class Joe just trying to do his job.

I often believe that the net effect of the efforts of many of these evangelists is to turn many away from the Gospel. If a teacher's students are jerks, then what of the Master?