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

[ALAYMAN]

Who here as stated it is inherently wrong? I don't think people who witness door-to-door are doing something inherently evil. I just think they are extremely misguided in their beliefs regarding its effectiveness.

I'll answer the rest of your post at length tomorrow, but want to address this bit about door-to-door being outmoded, which is oft-repeated (earlier in this thread as well) but is usually only criticised with anecdotal evidence (like AmazedbyGrace did earlier).  This interesting citation refutes the idea that we've outgrown that stale 1950's vestige of dead fundamentalism....

In a study of the fastest growing 576 Southern Baptist churches in the U.S., Southern Baptist researcher Dr. Thomas Rainer concluded that traditional door-to-door evangelism was still a very useful evangelistic method. In the churches surveyed, 50.2% of these churches ranked weekly door-to-door evangelism as one of their most effective evangelistic tools. Bill Hohenstreet, of Post Falls Baptist Church in Post Falls, Idaho states that door-to-door visitation was critical to their evangelistic outreach. He explained that their primary outreach efforts were door-to-door, cold-call visitation, and Tuesday evening visitation using a prospect list. This church of two hundred saw forty-eight individuals come to faith in Jesus Christ and baptized in 1996.

 

[rsc2a]

I know what ya mean.  I'm 42 years old.  In the first 15 years of my life I lived in a town of population circa 20K, and not once did a Christian knock our doors.  In the last 27 years, in a pretty rural setting, only the JWs have knocked our doors ( a couple of times).  I think that it is a sad commentary that the vast majority of Christians don't attempt to reach their community who are strangers with the gospel.

False dichotomy.

What you meant to say was you think it's a sad commentary that the vast majority of Christians don't attempt to reach their community who are strangers to the gospel using the means you approve of.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]

False dichotomy.

What you meant to say was you think it's a sad commentary that the vast majority of Christians don't attempt to reach their community who are strangers to the gospel using the means you approve of.
[/quote]


There you go again....


I've said it constantly in this thread that there are a variety of Biblical models for evangelizing the lost.  I don't care what means they use, if they'd just evangelize their neighbors, strangers, and whoever the Lord brings them into contact with consistency and regularity(ie, "the world"/all nations).  It's my opinion from personal experience that most people who call themselves Christians don't proclaim the gospel to nearly anybody, whether stranger, family, or neighbor. 

Do you want to address the quote from Ranier regarding the "effectiveness" (your pragmatic word) of door to door now?

 

[rsc2a]

Who here as stated it is inherently wrong? I don't think people who witness door-to-door are doing something inherently evil. I just think they are extremely misguided in their beliefs regarding its effectiveness.

I'll answer the rest of your post at length tomorrow, but want to address this bit about door-to-door being outmoded, which is oft-repeated (earlier in this thread as well) but is usually only criticised with anecdotal evidence (like AmazedbyGrace did earlier).  This interesting citation refutes the idea that we've outgrown that stale 1950's vestige of dead fundamentalism....

In a study of the fastest growing 576 Southern Baptist churches in the U.S...

First, please cite your sources when you are going to quote someone. It makes it easier for me to check out your stuff.

Secondly, I thought I'd do a little citing of my own:

The most effective efforts to share faith are interpersonal and relationship based. When we asked born-again Busters to identify the activity, ministry event, or person most directly responsible for their decision to accept Jesus Christ, 71 percent listed an individual - typically a parent, friend, another relative, or a teacher. A majority of those decisions were described as conversation and prayer, while about one-third were instances in which their friend or family member took them to a church service or evangelistic event. In the era of mass media, it is easy to believe that the more eyeballs, the more impact. But radio, television and tracts account for a combined total of less than one-half of 1 percent of the Busters who are born again. The clear implication is that most young people come to Christ because of people they know very well, usually in the context of "everyday" interaction.

While you're talking dollars, there is no price too high for a soul. But the problem just isn't the cost. In our research with some of the leading "mass evangelism" efforts, we found that often these measures create three to ten times as much negative response as positive.(emphasis in text) In other words, imagine your church is considering mailing Bibles or videos or other Christian materials to homes in your community. Our research shows that the "collateral damage" of doing so - those whose impressions of your church and of Christianity would be more negative as a result- is significantly greater than the positive impact on those who will respond favorably to these efforts. Moreover, such mass evangelism efforts are most effective with marginally churched adults, while outsiders are usually the ones who respond most negatively.

As Christians, we have to keep in mind the response rates are not the ultimate goal, but rather the wise and careful stewardship of the image of God. Today's media and technology create unparalleled opportunities, but they also wield the potential to harm the Christian image among many outsiders. If you create more barriers with outsiders because of your tactics, you have not been a good steward of the gospel. How we choose to share Christ is as important as our actually doing it.

Both of these are from a book called UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Things about Christianity...and Why It Matters. I highly recommend it for every Christian. It might actually benefit you to see the results of a lot of very in-depth research done by people who are experts at polling and statistical research. (One of the authors is president of the Barna Group.) I'll leave it with one more quote from the book:

Young outsiders generally do not get the impression that Christians have good intentions when it comes to trying to "convert" them. Most reject the idea that Christians show genuine interest in them as individuals. This was one of the largest gaps in our research: most Christians are convinced their efforts come across as genuine, but outsiders dispute that...Only one-third of young outsiders believe that Christians genuinely care about them (34 percent). And most Christians are oblivious to these perceptions...This is especially significant because Christians were very accurate in anticipating many of the negative perceptions of outsiders, but being perceived as insincere surprised believers...Even if our intentions seem pure to us, outsiders often feel targeted, that we merely want another church member or a new notch in the "get-saved" belt.

...and, honestly, that quote you provided just reinforces the idea that "we merely want another church member or a new notch in the "get-saved" belt."

 

[rsc2a]

I've said it constantly in this thread that there are a variety of Biblical models for evangelizing the lost.  I don't care what means they use, if they'd just evangelize their neighbors, strangers, and whoever the Lord brings them into contact with consistency and regularity(ie, "the world"/all nations).

That's a key difference. I don't think evangelism is the goal. I think restoration, healing, reconciliation, and relationships are the goal. Evangelism will be the result of all these, but it is not what we are after. It is not our job to "save" others. It is our job to be ambassadors for Christ by being ministers of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Notice the "therefore" in there. We are ambassadors because we are ministers of reconciliation. The ministering comes first, and the heralding will follow.

I "evangelize" every day among people I know. I evangelize when I remain kind and optimistic in extremely high stress situations. I evangelize when we have neighborhood kids over for dinner even when we don't want to be bothered. I evangelize when I model hope and faith while burying siblings and grandparents killed in horrible wrecks. I am open about my faith. People I associate with know what I believe. When I show evidence of "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" in everyday life, and especially in the tough situations, they know how and why I can do that even when they can't. That is evangelism.

It's my opinion from personal experience that most people who call themselves Christians don't proclaim the gospel to nearly anybody, whether stranger, family, or neighbor.

It's my opinion that many people who call themselves Christians aren't showing evidence of conversion at all. With that being said, I'd bet my idea of "proclaiming the gospel" probably looks a lot different than yours.

Do you want to address the quote from Ranier regarding the "effectiveness" (your pragmatic word) of door to door now?

Done. (See above.)

 

[FSSL]

What you meant to say was you think it's a sad commentary that the vast majority of Christians don't attempt to reach their community who are strangers to the gospel using the means you approve of.

This is the kind of distortion that Alayman produces over and over again. He reads posts with his own assumptions. He changes important words in our statements to make them sound as if we said something else.

Perhaps he is reading too fast... perhaps his assumptions are blinding him from giving pause and thought to the points on the "other side."

NO ONE is criticizing those who go door-to-door. Alayman wants us to sound like we are critical of those who do so. It is a distortion to try to make our position look absurd.

It simply lacks the biblical support to call it "A Biblical Method." Especially, since the passages he cites are not demonstrating that the apostles practiced the same kind of method practiced today. Did they reach households and communities? No doubt! Can one say that they went "door-to-door?" The evidence is not there.

Being involved in church planting, we have been successful in evangelism without "door-to-door" and have seen churches grow exponentially. Did we penetrate the community? Sure. Do we call our methods "a biblical method." Nope. The Bible does not give a method. It describes (as I would agree with Alayman) activities of the apostles. However, there are no biblical methods described. IF it were "A biblical method," then any church who does not practice that method would, by definition, be disobedient.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
First, please cite your sources when you are going to quote someone. It makes it easier for me to check out your stuff.[/quote]


http://books.google.com/books?id=45tmxRRsBuUC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=Thomas+Ranier+door+to+door+evangelism&source=bl&ots=sYTuhhrJ_5&sig=d-UR5YpLNiAeGsMd3z4AZSAQrPk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gUdpT_mSN-KLiAKS1oDpBg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Ranier%20door%20to%20door%20evangelism&f=false

Secondly, I thought I'd do a little citing of my own:

The most effective efforts to share faith are interpersonal and relationship based. When we asked born-again Busters to identify the activity, ministry event, or person most directly responsible for their decision to accept Jesus Christ, 71 percent listed an individual - typically a parent, friend, another relative, or a teacher. A majority of those decisions were described as conversation and prayer, while about one-third were instances in which their friend or family member took them to a church service or evangelistic event. In the era of mass media, it is easy to believe that the more eyeballs, the more impact. But radio, television and tracts account for a combined total of less than one-half of 1 percent of the Busters who are born again. The clear implication is that most young people come to Christ because of people they know very well, usually in the context of "everyday" interaction.

He mentions radio and other impersonal means of communicating the gospel (though I think those things are ultimately laudable efforts to saturate our culture with the gospel, and don't intend to criticize those impersonal methods), but just as you feel building relationships to be key to conveyance of the gospel, looking somebody in the eye and addressing their questions about the content of the gospel is more effective at making sure they understand the basis for why the proclamation of the gospel is indeed good news ( or bad if they reject it/HIM) for them.  In that regard, I would differentiate between their statistical analysis and Ranier's.  Much of your other subsequent quotes deal with similar impersonal means of conveying the gospel, and I believe as a result of that fact alone make for a significant distinction in analysis of what is "effective".

...and, honestly, that quote you provided just reinforces the idea that "we merely want another church member or a new notch in the "get-saved" belt."

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've said it constantly in this thread that there are a variety of Biblical models for evangelizing the lost.  I don't care what means they use, if they'd just evangelize their neighbors, strangers, and whoever the Lord brings them into contact with consistency and regularity(ie, "the world"/all nations).

That's a key difference. I don't think evangelism is the goal. I think restoration, healing, reconciliation, and relationships are the goal. Evangelism will be the result of all these, but it is not what we are after. It is not our job to "save" others. It is our job to be ambassadors for Christ by being ministers of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Notice the "therefore" in there. We are ambassadors because we are ministers of reconciliation. The ministering comes first, and the heralding will follow.

I "evangelize" every day among people I know. I evangelize when I remain kind and optimistic in extremely high stress situations. I evangelize when we have neighborhood kids over for dinner even when we don't want to be bothered. I evangelize when I model hope and faith while burying siblings and grandparents killed in horrible wrecks. I am open about my faith. People I associate with know what I believe. When I show evidence of "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" in everyday life, and especially in the tough situations, they know how and why I can do that even when they can't. That is evangelism.

It's my opinion from personal experience that most people who call themselves Christians don't proclaim the gospel to nearly anybody, whether stranger, family, or neighbor.

It's my opinion that many people who call themselves Christians aren't showing evidence of conversion at all. With that being said, I'd bet my idea of "proclaiming the gospel" probably looks a lot different than yours.

Do you want to address the quote from Ranier regarding the "effectiveness" (your pragmatic word) of door to door now?

Done. (See above.)

#1 Evangelization doesn't occur without articulating the gospel (cf Romans 10:14)
#2 The very passage you quote in the introductory portion of your response also says that "knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men".
#3 Yes, how we view "proclaiming the gospel" is undoubtedly significantly different, though I agree that being salt and light should serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly "preach the gospel" and "to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear".
#4 (and tying back into your previous discourse(s) on Matt 28:19) Discipleship with your friends must of necessity follow conversion, otherwise cultivating those relationships aren't discipleship but rather loving my neighbor as myself (which I agree we ought to do, regardless of whether it is Marylin Manson, Lady Gaga, atheists, etc)

 

[ALAYMAN]

For objective/curious onlookers, here's a couple of other interesting links that correlate the hard work of door-knocking with conversions (even false conversions to cults).

http://forgiveninchrist.org/doortodoorevangelism.shtml

http://jeffjenkinsocala.blogspot.com/2009/04/door-to-door-evangelism.html

 

[rsc2a]

Thanks for the citation.

He mentions radio and other impersonal means of communicating the gospel (though I think those things are ultimately laudable efforts to saturate our culture with the gospel, and don't intend to criticize those impersonal methods), but just as you feel building relationships to be key to conveyance of the gospel, looking somebody in the eye and addressing their questions about the content of the gospel is more effective at making sure they understand the basis for why the proclamation of the gospel is indeed good news ( or bad if they reject it/HIM) for them.  In that regard, I would differentiate between their statistical analysis and Ranier's.  Much of your other subsequent quotes deal with similar impersonal means of conveying the gospel, and I believe as a result of that fact alone make for a significant distinction in analysis of what is "effective".

Here....I'll quote the extremely telling portions again (of just the one quote you commented on...you really should pay attention to all of the quotes I listed) and sift out the other stuff....

"The most effective efforts to share faith are interpersonal and relationship based. When we asked born-again Busters to identify the activity, ministry event, or person most directly responsible for their decision to accept Jesus Christ, 71 percent listed an individual - typically a parent, friend, another relative, or a teacher. A majority of those decisions were described as conversation and prayer, while about one-third were instances in which their friend or family member took them to a church service or evangelistic event...The clear implication is that most young people come to Christ because of people they know very well, usually in the context of "everyday" interaction."

He mentions radio and other impersonal means of communicating the gospel (though I think those things are ultimately laudable efforts to saturate our culture with the gospel, and don't intend to criticize those impersonal methods)...

This is why I don't believe actually read the quotes even if your eyes went across the words. Didn't you see where the research shows negative perceptions are 3 to 10 times greater than postive ones regarding mass media and evangelism? There are definitely uses for mass media (I podcast multiple pastors), but the benefits are mostly for the believer, not the non-believer. (Speaking specifically about American culture.)

...but just as you feel building relationships to be key to conveyance of the gospel, looking somebody in the eye and addressing their questions about the content of the gospel is more effective at making sure they understand the basis for why the proclamation of the gospel is indeed good news ( or bad if they reject it/HIM) for them.  In that regard, I would differentiate between their statistical analysis and Ranier's.  Much of your other subsequent quotes deal with similar impersonal means of conveying the gospel, and I believe as a result of that fact alone make for a significant distinction in analysis of what is "effective"...

While door-to-door evangelism is more personal than radio, it's definitely only more personal relative to radio/television. The majority of people still see you as a salesman.

...and, honestly, that quote you provided just reinforces the idea that "we merely want another church member or a new notch in the "get-saved" belt."

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Size. Size. Growth. Growth. Numbers. Numbers.

 

[rsc2a]

#1 Evangelization doesn't occur without articulating the gospel (cf Romans 10:14)

You should verbally tell the gospel. Yet, that's not the loudest way you "speak" when it comes to the gospel. That's what I'm trying to show you. I try to "speak" the gospel by very lifestyle. If you ever address the earlier post, you'll hit this when you get to ethos, logos, and pathos.

#2 The very passage you quote in the introductory portion of your response also says that "knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men".

See above.

#3 Yes, how we view "proclaiming the gospel" is undoubtedly significantly different, though I agree that being salt and light should serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly "preach the gospel" and "to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear".

No. We completely disagree. We aren't "salt and light [to] serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly preach the gospel." I've told you repeatedly how disgusting I find that kind of duplicitous behavior. We win people to the Truth by using deception? We are salt and light so that people may see our good works and praise our Father in heaven. We are salt and light because we love God, and we want to please Him. We are salt and light because of what we are, a new creation. We don't act like salt and light so that we can be better salesmen.

#4 (and tying back into your previous discourse(s) on Matt 28:19) Discipleship with your friends must of necessity follow conversion, otherwise cultivating those relationships aren't discipleship but rather loving my neighbor as myself (which I agree we ought to do, regardless of whether it is Marylin Manson, Lady Gaga, atheists, etc)

Or both. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

...but just as you feel building relationships to be key to conveyance of the gospel, looking somebody in the eye and addressing their questions about the content of the gospel is more effective at making sure they understand the basis for why the proclamation of the gospel is indeed good news ( or bad if they reject it/HIM) for them.  In that regard, I would differentiate between their statistical analysis and Ranier's.  Much of your other subsequent quotes deal with similar impersonal means of conveying the gospel, and I believe as a result of that fact alone make for a significant distinction in analysis of what is "effective"...

I did read it, and my skepticism of the meaning of the statement (ie, "bias" in the study, Hawthorne Effect, etc) kept me from giving much weight to the "3 to 10" negative number.  In other words, what did they measure to determine a negative response?

While door-to-door evangelism is more personal than radio, it's definitely only more personal relative to radio/television. The majority of people still see you as a salesman.

Again, your statement seems that you've already made your mind up.  I'm guessing that your bias about "salesmen" is contingent on the model that you were taught/observed (ie, IFBx).  How do you know that most people view door-to-door folk this way?  Is your opinion anecdotal?  Do you have non-personal evidence?

Size. Size. Growth. Growth. Numbers. Numbers.

It seems that you are speaking out both sides.  You talk about doing what is most effective to reach the most people (pragmatism) but scoff at others when they do the same.  Talking about numbers when determining effectiveness of a particular method is the natural outcome of analyzing which method yields the most fruit.  If the person's motive for doing such analysis is to brag about their part in the conversion then I agree with you that they are misguided, but if it is to demonstrate to others how to do it most efficiently (based on statistical success) then it is a valid means of assessing productivity.

 

[ALAYMAN]

#2 The very passage you quote in the introductory portion of your response also says that "knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men".

See above. 

No, that doesn't answer my challenge to you.  What is Paul referencing here when he says "we persuade"?  He's clearly referencing the power of the gospel, not our own life-changing experience.  The content of the gospel is the spoken word when you see it referenced in Scripture.  Many religions claim that they have a life-changing experience, and some religionists have better ethics than Christians, so if the basis for the gospel is first and foremost a changed lifestyle (more moral, to the observing eye of the "seeker") then many religions can counterfeit the gospel.

No. We completely disagree. We aren't "salt and light [to] serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly preach the gospel." I've told you repeatedly how disgusting I find that kind of duplicitous behavior. We win people to the Truth by using deception? We are salt and light so that people may see our good works and praise our Father in heaven. We are salt and light because we love God, and we want to please Him. We are salt and light because of what we are, a new creation. We don't act like salt and light so that we can be better salesmen.

This is where you interject a false dichotomy again.  The very fact that you think that I mean being salt and light equals "acting" is preposterous.  The life of Christ in us leads us to our witness.  That witness comes in numerous ways, in terms of our changed ethic, but it is completely insufficient to claim that our good works don't provide us a platform to proclaim the gospel.  That is entirely antithetical to what Peter says about being ready to answer every man according to the hope that lies within us.  That is not "acting" or "salesmanship" but rather sincere and pious outworking of our changed view of eternity as well as our compassion (Jude 22) for those who are where we once were. 

To claim that it is deceiving is just crazy.  I love the people in the jail enough to overcome my extreme anxiety of public speaking.  I love them because I have relatives that have been in jail for a variety of reasons, reasons similar to what pu them behind bars, like addiction, and I hate what sin does to people I love, even strangers.  So I go to them, and tell them there is hope.  They don't know me from Adam (the same as the people that I go door to door because I love in Christ).  I tell the men in jail that I love them, and I mean it.  I may not be able to meet their physical needs, or put their marriages back together, or a host of other things, but I can deliver to them the greatest news that they could ever hear, and I do.  That, my friend, is not deception, and it is extremely insulting to the work of Christ and His call to ministry for you to put it in those terms.

 

[rsc2a]

As a sidenote, the statistical population of the study is not cited.  I'm a scientist.  The axiom that statistics lie ought always to be considered when weighing the validity of the numbers.  That's not to say I disagree that a significant portion of people come to Christ through personal contacts, but that further enquiry for validation of what's being communicated and how the study's conclusions were arrived at.  In Ranier's study, it appeared to be a reasonable conclusion that "visitation" and such means of contact cards were indirect methods that might also be lumped under the "building relationships" category.

I did read it, and my skepticism of the meaning of the statement (ie, "bias" in the study, Hawthorne Effect, etc) kept me from giving much weight to the "3 to 10" negative number.  In other words, what did they measure to determine a negative response?

Again, your statement seems that you've already made your mind up.  I'm guessing that your bias about "salesmen" is contingent on the model that you were taught/observed (ie, IFBx).  How do you know that most people view door-to-door folk this way?  Is your opinion anecdotal?  Do you have non-personal evidence?

Non-personal evidence....I just cited a ton of it. You can criticize the numbers for "bias" all you want because you work in a scientific field. Seeing as how I've mentioned one of the co-authors is the president of the Barna Group, I think I'll trust their analysis of their data more than yours. I am citing out of one chapter of a book where evangelism isn't even the main issue, and you're calling out bias when your primary source is an article specifically written to defend your methodology? I think it's pretty clear which source is most likely biased.

It seems that you are speaking out both sides.  You talk about doing what is most effective to reach the most people (pragmatism) but scoff at others when they do the same.  Talking about numbers when determining effectiveness of a particular method is the natural outcome of analyzing which method yields the most fruit.  If the person's motive for doing such analysis is to brag about their part in the conversion then I agree with you that they are misguided, but if it is to demonstrate to others how to do it most efficiently (based on statistical success) then it is a valid means of assessing productivity.

No....our focuses are completely different. You seem to be advocating for a "If they come (via "evangelism"), you can build it" mentality regarding restoration, relationship, and Biblical community whereas I am advocating a "If you build it, they will come". I'm focusing on the restorative and relational aspect because that is of primary importance (for this conversation). Those aspects are the message of the gospel. The evangelism is a natural outflow of this. I just have the added benefit of the Bible, history, statistical evidence, personal experience, and basic common sense supporting me.

 

[ALAYMAN]

As a sidenote, the statistical population of the study is not cited.  I'm a scientist.  The axiom that statistics lie ought always to be considered when weighing the validity of the numbers.  That's not to say I disagree that a significant portion of people come to Christ through personal contacts, but that further enquiry for validation of what's being communicated and how the study's conclusions were arrived at.  In Ranier's study, it appeared to be a reasonable conclusion that "visitation" and such means of contact cards were indirect methods that might also be lumped under the "building relationships" category.

I did read it, and my skepticism of the meaning of the statement (ie, "bias" in the study, Hawthorne Effect, etc) kept me from giving much weight to the "3 to 10" negative number.  In other words, what did they measure to determine a negative response?

Again, your statement seems that you've already made your mind up.  I'm guessing that your bias about "salesmen" is contingent on the model that you were taught/observed (ie, IFBx).  How do you know that most people view door-to-door folk this way?  Is your opinion anecdotal?  Do you have non-personal evidence?

Non-personal evidence....I just cited a ton of it. You can criticize the numbers for "bias" all you want because you work in a scientific field. Seeing as how I've mentioned one of the co-authors is the president of the Barna Group, I think I'll trust their analysis of their data more than yours. I am citing out of one chapter of a book where evangelism isn't even the main issue, and you're calling out bias when your primary source is an article specifically written to defend your methodology? I think it's pretty clear which source is most likely biased.

It seems that you are speaking out both sides.  You talk about doing what is most effective to reach the most people (pragmatism) but scoff at others when they do the same.  Talking about numbers when determining effectiveness of a particular method is the natural outcome of analyzing which method yields the most fruit.  If the person's motive for doing such analysis is to brag about their part in the conversion then I agree with you that they are misguided, but if it is to demonstrate to others how to do it most efficiently (based on statistical success) then it is a valid means of assessing productivity.

No....our focuses are completely different. You seem to be advocating for a "If they come (via "evangelism"), you can build it" mentality regarding restoration, relationship, and Biblical community whereas I am advocating a "If you build it, they will come". I'm focusing on the restorative and relational aspect because that is of primary importance (for this conversation). Those aspects are the message of the gospel. The evangelism is a natural outflow of this. I just have the added benefit of the Bible, history, statistical evidence, personal experience, and basic common sense supporting me.

Well, I bow to your superiority complex.

 

[ALAYMAN]

By the by rsc2a, I'm well enough acquainted with Barna, but I wonder if you don't know about the cred of Ranier, and if you did you wouldn't so quickly out of hand dismiss him and his work.

 

[rsc2a]

No, that doesn't answer my challenge to you.  What is Paul referencing here when he says "we persuade"?  He's clearly referencing the power of the gospel, not our own life-changing experience.

Those two are not separable. 

The content of the gospel is the spoken word when you see it referenced in Scripture.

The content of the gospel is the Word. (See the difference?)

Many religions claim that they have a life-changing experience, and some religionists have better ethics than Christians, so if the basis for the gospel is first and foremost a changed (more moral, to the observing eye of the "seeker") then many religions can counterfeit the gospel.

Good thing Paul never had any problems with false religion counterfeiting the gospel...
(See Galatians.)

No. We completely disagree. We aren't "salt and light [to] serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly preach the gospel." I've told you repeatedly how disgusting I find that kind of duplicitous behavior. We win people to the Truth by using deception? We are salt and light so that people may see our good works and praise our Father in heaven. We are salt and light because we love God, and we want to please Him. We are salt and light because of what we are, a new creation. We don't act like salt and light so that we can be better salesmen.

This is where you interject a false dichotomy again.  The very fact that you think that I mean being salt and light equals "acting" is preposterous.

I'm just basing it on your words. You are the one that claimed "salt and light [to] serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly preach the gospel." 

The life of Christ in us leads us to our witness.  That witness comes in numerous ways, in terms of our changed ethic, but it is completely insufficient to claim that our good works don't provide us a platform to proclaim the gospel.  That is entirely antithetical to what Peter says about being ready to answer every man according to the hope that lies within us.  That is not "acting" or "salesmanship" but rather sincere and pious outworking of our changed view of eternity as well as our compassion (Jude 22) for those who are where we once were.

Which is what I have been saying all along...

 

[rsc2a]

By the by rsc2a, I'm well enough acquainted with Barna, but I wonder if you don't know about the cred of Ranier, and if you did you wouldn't so quickly out of hand dismiss him and his work.

I don't dismiss him. I actually have read a bit of his work. But, I'm also aware of which source is most likely to have the greater bias...

 

[rsc2a]

Well, I bow to your superiority complex.

Is this just your way of avoiding (another) post that shows how erroneous your statements are?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Address the previous post (that you skipped over) and we can discuss.[/quote]

I have no idea what this means.

Those two are not separable.

But you're foisting an agenda onto the passage.  Paul is talking about persuading men via the preached word, just as he was in Romans 10:14, not an iota there about any absolute necessity to gain cred via relationships or demonstrations of changed lives.

The content of the gospel is the Word. (See the difference?)

Christ is presented to you and me via the word, otherwise you'd never have known Him.  It's that same word/Word that serves as the converting of the soul, not our good works on display.

Good thing Paul never had any problems with false religion counterfeiting the gospel...
(See Galatians.)

You missed the point.  People being moral, ala the Mormons, isn't the basis for conversion.  God has appointed the preached word as the means of salvation.  I can't even believe this is being debated on an evangelical/fundamental forum.  If Balaam preached the gospel people could get saved.  I know for a fact that many conversions have taken place at the preaching of a man/men  who himself/themselves weren't even saved when they preached it.

I'm just basing it on your words. You are the one that claimed "salt and light [to] serve the purpose of providing a platform to explicitly preach the gospel." 

They do provide a platform for corroboration of the truth, ie, give cred to the message, but ultimately they are not necessary to the converting of the soul, only word is ordained for that.

Which is what I have been saying all along...

No, you are saying that a person MUST have the accompanying good works and display them before the prospective convert in order to have a platform, whereas I'm saying that those things do provide credibility for the messenger, but ultimately they are not needed for the message to be effective.  God, by the Spirit, through the word, is the effective agent in the conversion of the soul.

Is this just your way of avoiding (another) post that shows how erroneous your statements are?

I've been excessively longsuffering and patient with you, so no, that's far from what it means.  It means that you can be a smarmy, condescending and pompous little fella, nothing more nothing less.