City Considering "Do Not Knock List" to Keep Away Unwanted Solicitors

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]

That would reach only a small segment of the population.  To reach the masses I am assuming that you only implore your one method as "the" method and not "a" method.
[/quote]

I just gave you 4 methods of reaching different groups, 5 if you count door to door, and we reach people through several other evangelistic ministries geared to maximize our saturation of the community, so I have no idea what you're getting at.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No, since I was not silent, you may not ignore my answer and replace it with alleged silence.

Sorry, my bad. May I take your evasion as a tacit admission of your false dichotomy (door-to-door salespreaching vs. squish)?

I didn't evade anything, and there was no false dichotomy.  The "squishy" comment was targeted at those who think that lifestyle evangelism (or no evangelism) is sufficient as a means to get out the gospel.  That part should have been obvious when, in regards to our responsibility in the Great Commission, you read...


21 But don't do it if you aren't comfortable with rejection, and especially if the culture would rather not be bothered with being confronted in their sin.

 

[Ransom]

When someone can't consider an alternative between

a) door-knocking; and
b) not being comfortable with rejection or wanting to confront the culture in their sin

then two things come to mind:

1) it's a false dichotomy; and
2) you lack basic thinking skills if you don't recognize it.

 

[FSSL]

...and the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Then the question must be asked, "How much 'door-to-door' is actually evangelism anyways?"

Handing a person a pamphlet inviting them to church or VBS is NOT evangelism. It is marketing.

 

[wheatpenny]

In the 25 years I've lived in my present house, I've only encountered one door-to-door evangelist. All he did was give me a tract and tell me what church he was from. I was a Muslim at the time, and I told him so, and he didn't even try to present the Gospel. Just gave me the tract and left.

 

[ALAYMAN]

When someone can't consider an alternative between

a) door-knocking; and
b) not being comfortable with rejection or wanting to confront the culture in their sin

then two things come to mind:

1) it's a false dichotomy; and
2) you lack basic thinking skills if you don't recognize it.

If I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth I'd be a very rich man.  And, if you could demonstrate that I claimed those are the only two options you'd have a point, as it is, the only point you have is the top of your head. 


Here's the post I made regarding "squishy" folk.

Matthew 28 The Great Commission-According to Squishy Evangelical Cultural Standards

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
21 But don't do it if you aren't comfortable with rejection, and especially if the culture would rather not be bothered with being confronted in their sin.



Quote
"People are finding new places to sit and converse rather than their homes," he told Christianity Today. "Within two blocks of my office, there are six coffee houses. That creates a perfect opportunity for a place to meet with mutual consent. Going door-to-door seems beyond the pale of American culture now."

However, Beougher doesn't believe the changing face of the home should stop evangelism. "I don't see where the Great Commission says to do it as long as the person is comfortable with it," he told Christianity Today....


Some churches have moved away from visitation evangelism, Allison says, because it requires qualities that not everyone possesses. In informal settings, Allison often asks people if they are comfortable evangelizing in such a way. He says the result is always less than 5 percent.


Dollars to donuts, the sad fact of the matter is that if those same people were asked if there were ANY way that they felt comfortable evangelizing they'd say either absolutely not, or yeah..."by watchin' others who are gifted do it".

I cited the great commission for context, and wrapped up the post stating that the squishy types are apprehensive not just about door-to-door, but if they have ANY model it would be some bogus allusion to lifestyle evangelism,  but ultimately they merely use it as a copout and don't share their faith at all.  That, is squishy.  And that, is being charitable.

 

[ALAYMAN]

In the 25 years I've lived in my present house, I've only encountered one door-to-door evangelist. All he did was give me a tract and tell me what church he was from. I was a Muslim at the time, and I told him so, and he didn't even try to present the Gospel. Just gave me the tract and left.

Without knowing more details, I'm hoping he was just ill-prepared and maybe a little new to the daunting challenge of witnessing, and was doing the best he could.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...and the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Then the question must be asked, "How much 'door-to-door' is actually evangelism anyways?"

Handing a person a pamphlet inviting them to church or VBS is NOT evangelism. It is marketing.

Of course I never once categorized merely handing out invitations as evangelizing.  There's a place for passing out tracts and giving out invitations.  I prefer to present the gospel, often using the Law and Gospel method similar to Ray Comfort/Living Waters (absent his penchant for confusing "repent of all your sins" terminology).

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

Another Saturday, another cultist at my door.

sigh.

I was out having a life this time, but the jw changed tactics and left a tract under my doormat. They are apparently targeting the Easter crowd with this.

Reads:

How do you view Jesus?

* As a newborn baby?
* A dying man?
* Or an exalted king?

You are invited to hear the answer Thursday, April 5, 2012

A long statement inside the tract saying they will be commemorating Jesus' death. No mention of resurrection.

.
.

The JWs have rented out a public building for this "special day" at their cult, and they are canvassing the entire area with their invitations.

Praying everybody ignores these invitations.

Wishing I was on a Do Not Knock list.

 

[FSSL]

Context is your friend....

"In every house" and "from house to house" takes on a completely different meaning when you consider the fact that the Church actually met in houses at this time. Consider:

Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house... Philemon 1:1-2

Apparently, context IS my friend.  The apostles were busy evangelizing all over Jerusalem: in the streets, in the temple and in every house:

Acts 5:15  Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 
Acts 5:16  There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
Acts 5:20  Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
Acts 5:21  And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Acts 5:25  Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

Yeah...those verses don't say what you think they do. If you want to go to church and preach, by all means, do so.

Acts 5:28  Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Acts 5:42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

It would be quite a stretch to claim that there was a church in every house in Jerusalem. It clearly says in verse 42 that they taught and preached in every house.

It would be a stretch to claim that a dozen guys preached to "every" house in a city the size of Jerusalem. Of course, if you looked at other translations, that would be clear.

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

Alayman... I am struggling to find your position on "euanggelion" and "kerugma" from Acts 5. Can you restate it or put in a link?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]
Alayman... I am struggling to find your position on "euanggelion" and "kerugma" from Acts 5. Can you restate it or put in a link?
[/quote]

Do you think that there's a difference in meaning and usage of the two?  Contextually, shouldn't more weight be given to how a word is used repeatedly in Scripture?  If that be the case, and I'm assuming you agree with those simple assertions, then the choice of "evangilize" the gospel in Acts 5:42 seems to lead plausability to the fact that they were attempting to win people to the Lord through the preaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, just like they did in numerous other venues, public and private, eh?

 

[FSSL]

[quote author=FSSL]
Alayman... I am struggling to find your position on "euanggelion" and "kerugma" from Acts 5. Can you restate it or put in a link?

Do you think that there's a difference in meaning and usage of the two?  Contextually, shouldn't more weight be given to how a word is used repeatedly in Scripture?  If that be the case, and I'm assuming you agree with those simple assertions, then the choice of "evangilize" the gospel in Acts 5:42 seems to lead plausability to the fact that they were attempting to win people to the Lord through the preaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, just like they did in numerous other venues, public and private, eh?
[/quote]

The words in Acts 5:42 "teaching" and "proclaiming the good news" are done in the context of believers' homes. See Acts 2:46 which describes this activity more fully:

"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

It is obvious that unbelievers were in the homes of these believers. No doubt unbelievers were in the temple courts. The topic of this thread is about "house to house" activity. The discussion about "door-to-door" involves finding new converts. This is not described for us in the NT. Going to the homes of believers is described in this context (Act 2:42).

Also, a very important thing needs to be noted about the word "εὐαγγελιζόμενοι." We use it as a technical term for the "gospel" as you did above by noting that "they were attempting to win people to the Lord through the preaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ." However, the word εὐαγγελιζόμενοι has far more meaning than just the gospel message for the unbeliever. It is the proclamation of all good news. It is a word that includes everything from the birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:19) to the coming of the Messiah (Lk 16:16). When we are giving Sunday School Lessons, devotionals, sermons, chats, talks at the local bar  or home Bible studies, whenever we teach about God, we are engaged in εὐαγγελιζόμενοι EVEN if there are no unbelievers and EVEN if we are not focused on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ during a given session. It is impossible to teach anything about God without fulfilling εὐαγγελιζόμενοι.

So, my point is that there is no intent of Luke to use the word εὐαγγελιζόμενοι as a technical term that refers to only the message for the unsaved. The word "gospel" certainly includes that message but is broader and includes the message that Christ is the Messiah and will usher in the Kingdom.

As a result of these house meetings, believers "ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

To say that this passage teaches a "door-to-door" method that is used by churches today, really overlooks the context of Acts 2:42 and narrows the definition of εὐαγγελιζόμενοι to a point where Luke uses it more broadly.

For further study, see:
New American Commentary, Acts
Luke: The Historian, the Book of Acts by Utley

 

[rsc2a]

Also, a very important thing needs to be noted about the word "εὐαγγελιζόμενοι." We use it as a technical term for the "gospel" as you did above by noting that "they were attempting to win people to the Lord through the preaching of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ." However, the word εὐαγγελιζόμενοι has far more meaning than just the gospel message for the unbeliever. It is the proclamation of all good news. It is a word that includes everything from the birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:19) to the coming of the Messiah (Lk 16:16). When we are giving Sunday School Lessons, devotionals, sermons, chats, talks at the local bar  or home Bible studies, whenever we teach about God, we are engaged in εὐαγγελιζόμενοι EVEN if there are no unbelievers and EVEN if we are not focused on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ during a given session. It is impossible to teach anything about God without fulfilling εὐαγγελιζόμενοι.

I'd also add that it's the same word used by the Roman Empire when the Empire would "proclaim the good news" that they had won battles, etc.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'd also add that it's the same word used by the Roman Empire when the Empire would "proclaim the good news" that they had won battles, etc.

How can you in good conscience decontexutalize Scripture that way?  It would be like saying that in Scripture the word ekklesia merely means some ordinary business meeting.  That's an absurd abuse of Scripture.

 

[rsc2a]

I'd also add that it's the same word used by the Roman Empire when the Empire would "proclaim the good news" that they had won battles, etc.

How can you in good conscience decontexutalize Scripture that way?  It would be like saying that in Scripture the word ekklesia merely means some ordinary business meeting.  That's an absurd abuse of Scripture.

You have a really funny definition of "context".

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]The words in Acts 5:42 "teaching" and "proclaiming the good news" are done in the context of believers' homes. See Acts 2:46 which describes this activity more fully:[/quote]

I'm <probably> going to address your answer/post in totality tomorrow, but for now, just some food for thought.  I don't think you need to resort to the Acts 2 passage for proper context.  The Acts 5 passage follows on the heals of Peter preaching publicly to those who crucified Christ, and clearly he was evangelizing, not teaching doctrine to believers in any church context.  The continuity of that thought, that Peter was preaching publicly, filling Jersualem, and going to the Temple to tell them to trust in the Messiah, lends great plausability to the continuation of that same evangelistic message into the homes of unbelieving Jews.  Your whole framework of interpretation is built on the concept that where Peter mentions houses that they were all churches.  That seems to be forced, and imposition onto the Scriptures, speculation at best.  Merely because the Acts 5:42 passages mentions that they were in houses does not mean that it must of necessity mean house churches.

You have a really funny definition of "context".

Yeah, funny as in, ekklesia used in classical Greek writings might allude to some civic meeting of a governing body of people about any legal proceedings, but in Scripture it has the overwhelming explicit contextual usage to refer to an organic institution of the risen Christ.  That's some real stretching.  Give me a break.  You decontextualized the meaning of the word by going to secular context in order to say that a word can have multiple meanings.  I don't deny that context determines meanings, but I do deny that "evangelize" in the Scriptures under consideration has ANYTHING do with proclaiming something about Roman occupation. 

 

[rsc2a]

You have a really funny definition of "context".

Yeah, funny as in, ekklesia used in classical Greek writings might allude to some civic meeting of a governing body of people about any legal proceedings, but in Scripture it has the overwhelming explicit contextual usage to refer to an organic institution of the risen Christ.  That's some real stretching.  Give me a break.

Actually, I think people would have a much better understanding of what the Church is actually is (and is not) if they did consider what the word ekklesia actually meant, an assembly. If you look at the use of "ekklesia" in the Septuagint, this becomes apparent.

The Church isn't a building, isn't an idea, a set of doctrines or a single believer...it's an assembly of believers whether we are talking about the local church or the universal Church. In fact, it might even be more helpful if, every time someone runs across the word "church" in your Bible, they instinctively insert "congregation of believers" in that spot because of the baggage associated with the word "church".

You decontextualized the meaning of the word by going to secular context in order to say that a word can have multiple meanings.  I don't deny that context determines meanings, but I do deny that "evangelize" in the Scriptures under consideration has ANYTHING do with proclaiming something about Roman occupation.

So we understand what what the authors of Scripture meant by certain words by ignoring the way those words were used in the times and places in which the authors were living? Yeah...that makes a lot of sense.  :

Context: The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. (Just so you know, those "circumstances" would include cultural setting, time period, and location.)

This is basically a KJVO argument with a particular spin on it.  :-\

I don't deny that context determines meanings, but I do deny that "evangelize" in the Scriptures under consideration has ANYTHING do with proclaiming something about Roman occupation.

That's not what I said. Read more carefully.

 

[FSSL]

Without getting off point too much, it is helpful to know the transition of word meanings. Rsc2a rightly notes that euanggelion has its roots as a generic secular phrase used for all good news.

Luke uses the word a bit more particularly to refer to ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom.

Paul used it even more specifically.

The word took on a more distinctly Christian term.

Since we are looking at Luke's writings, it would be wrong to suggest that he was referring to a message for the unsaved as Alayman suggests. It was part of Luke's usage, but Luke used it far more broadly.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Without getting off point too much, it is helpful to know the transition of word meanings. Rsc2a rightly notes that euanggelion has its roots as a generic secular phrase used for all good news.

Luke uses the word a bit more particularly to refer to ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom.

Paul used it even more specifically.

The word took on a more distinctly Christian term.

Since we are looking at Luke's writings, it would be wrong to suggest that he was referring to a message for the unsaved as Alayman suggests. It was part of Luke's usage, but Luke used it far more broadly.

No offense, but it is absolutely utter rubbish to assume that Luke, the author of all of the book of Acts, had just written (ie, context, context, context, in the immediate sense)...

Act 5:19  But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,
Act 5:20  Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
Act 5:21  And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Act 5:22  But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,
Act 5:23  Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.
Act 5:24  Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Act 5:25  Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Act 5:26  Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Act 5:27  And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28  Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32  And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Act 5:33  When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
Act 5:34  Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Act 5:35  And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Act 5:36  For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37  After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Act 5:40  And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Act 5:41  And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

and then wrote "evangelize" in Acts 5:42 only to mean he was merely speaking of "ALL the good news of God's providence including that of John the Baptist's birth to the eagerly awaited Kingdom".  What in the world was Luke referring to when he told of Peter's preaching of repentence and faith towards Jesus Christ?  If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[rsc2a]

If that isn't the explicit meaning of evangelism, then we indeed are asking what the meaning of "is" is.

The explicit meaning of "evangelize" in Luke's time was "to proclaim good news" regardless of what that good news was.

Now word meanings have changed since then (with evangelize taking on a distinctly religious flavor), but when Luke wrote evangelize, this distinction would not have ever entered his mind.