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

[Ransom]

Ransom, without going into the many ways one can be rude, I tend to expect a little more kindness from christians when I come upon them.

Nothing in your previous post indicated rudeness on the part of the people on the inside of the doors, other than they had no interest in speaking with you.

For my part, I would be equally "rude" - having previously had negative experiences with door-knocking "soul-winners" who seemed to think my soul couldn't properly belong to Jesus unless they closed the deal themselves.

 

[Ransom]

FSSL asked:

What is tl;dr?

A thought-terminating cliche: shorthand for "I have a short attention span and no interest in reading anything longer than three sentences and a smiley."

 

[ALAYMAN]

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.

"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".

 

[Ransom]

Sorry, LAME-O, but when you present door-knocking as a false dichotomy between it and "squishy evangelical," you lose credibility.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sorry, LAME-O, but when you present door-knocking as a false dichotomy between it and "squishy evangelical," you lose credibility.

Don't be a fish if you don't want accused of squish.


Once again the haters of confrontational evangelism/soulwinning shows their bias and ignorance.  If you took notice of my last paragraph it made the point abundantly clear.  Most of the problem with evangelism isn't that people don't knock doors, but rather that they don't have ANY intentional effort to present the gospel to ANYBODY, let alone fulfill the great commission mandate of reaching the whole world (ie, non-relational witnessing).

Here's a voice from your own beloved reformed corner (Banner of Truth)...

Many church leaders tell us that open air evangelism in the form of preaching or door-to-door evangelism is outdated, that it no longer works because people are post-modern, because people no longer care about heaven and hell, and that promising or warning them of such things means nothing to them. We are told, therefore, that we must engage in lengthy 'friendship' evangelism so that lost friends will feel comfortable with us. We will also need to use apologetics to convince people of the validity of Christ and his gospel. It seems, therefore, that many of our churches see very few professions of faith and true conversion. It seems that many of our Reformed churches are very weak on evangelistic outreach.

Certainly we need to build strong, loving, and growing relationships with non-believers, and there is a time and place for apologetics. I am not saying that street evangelism is the only weapon in our arsenal. I am saying, however, that it is one too often neglected today. Some will say the commands to evangelize are given only to the Apostles, after all, Jesus is speaking to his disciples in Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:8, not to the general covenant community. However on the day of Pentecost, after the one hundred and twenty had been praying ten days for the coming of the Spirit, in fulfillment of Joel

 

[rsc2a]

Once again the haters of confrontational evangelism/soulwinning shows their bias and ignorance.  If you took notice of my last paragraph it made the point abundantly clear.  Most of the problem with evangelism isn't that people don't knock doors, but rather that they don't have ANY intentional effort to present the gospel to ANYBODY, let alone fulfill the great commission mandate of reaching the whole world (ie, non-relational witnessing).

So basically because we aren't agreeing with a "fact" that you pulled out of your rear, we are showing bias and ignorance? Nice.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
So basically because we aren't agreeing with a "fact" that you pulled out of your rear, we are showing bias and ignorance? Nice.
[/quote]

No, there's a whole plethora of other reasons that you've got those bases covered, but it appears that hypocrisy is YOUR specialty.

Much of the crap I read on the internet opposing confrontational witnessing uses the same worn out lines that you've trotted out throughout the thread.  It's not effective, it's hard, people will turn further away from Christ, etc, etc, etc, so we give up on reaching those who aren't in our circle of friends and family for the most part and abandon the strangers of our culture to a Christless hell.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Evangelism for today:  If someone wants to be saved, then they had better come and ask me how, because I don't have the inclination to care otherwise, nor the time to fool with them.  I do not cotton to the parable of the great supper in Luke.  It's not my job to invite people to come to Christ.  That it why we have a preacher and an invitation in church. Or let me go to a social gathering where people want to talk about religion, because that way I will not suffer any ridicule or persecution. 

The above way of thinking reveals how totally narcissistic we are as a society and as Christians.  It is wrong and sinful.  Period. 

Door to door witnessing is legitimate, imo.  If someone says they are saved and know it, then just simply give them a church brochure, invite them to church if they don't have a home church, and move on.  I have found that most people do that where I am from.  They are looking for lost people, after all. I know people no longer believe that God has any power, nor can direct anyone to a lost person that needs salvation like he did Phillip, but I have seen it happen.  God prepares a heart, the visit is made, and the sinner is ready, and admits they were wishing and praying that someone would come by.  I know what the scoffers and naysayers will say, and I don't care.  God is able, and if your motive is to bring glory to God, he will lead you to places where that can be done.  Do you get doors slammed, curses directed at you?  Yes.  We are no better than Christ, and people will hate us as well.  That doesn't mean that we shirk our responsibility.  Noah had no converts other than his own family, but he still preached.  I am sure he suffered much ridicule, but knew what God had called him to do.

If you don't feel called to go door to door, then don't.  But why get mad when someone does?  I always tell people that come to my door with the true gospel that I appreciate their concern.  I don't understand how cold and callous of a society of Christians we have become.  We think we know it all, and please don't intrude on my time, I have it all together.  How dare you ask me if I am saved?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well worth repeating, and going to leave a mark!


<and I reserve the right to bump it later on >

Evangelism for today:  If someone wants to be saved, then they had better come and ask me how, because I don't have the inclination to care otherwise, nor the time to fool with them.  I do not cotton to the parable of the great supper in Luke.  It's not my job to invite people to come to Christ.  That it why we have a preacher and an invitation in church. Or let me go to a social gathering where people want to talk about religion, because that way I will not suffer any ridicule or persecution. 

The above way of thinking reveals how totally narcissistic we are as a society and as Christians.  It is wrong and sinful.  Period. 

Door to door witnessing is legitimate, imo.  If someone says they are saved and know it, then just simply give them a church brochure, invite them to church if they don't have a home church, and move on.  I have found that most people do that where I am from.  They are looking for lost people, after all. I know people no longer believe that God has any power, nor can direct anyone to a lost person that needs salvation like he did Phillip, but I have seen it happen.  God prepares a heart, the visit is made, and the sinner is ready, and admits they were wishing and praying that someone would come by.  I know what the scoffers and naysayers will say, and I don't care.  God is able, and if your motive is to bring glory to God, he will lead you to places where that can be done.  Do you get doors slammed, curses directed at you?  Yes.  We are no better than Christ, and people will hate us as well.  That doesn't mean that we shirk our responsibility.  Noah had no converts other than his own family, but he still preached.  I am sure he suffered much ridicule, but knew what God had called him to do.

If you don't feel called to go door to door, then don't.  But why get mad when someone does?  I always tell people that come to my door with the true gospel that I appreciate their concern.  I don't understand how cold and callous of a society of Christians we have become.  We think we know it all, and please don't intrude on my time, I have it all together.  How dare you ask me if I am saved?

 

[rsc2a]

No, there's a whole plethora of other reasons that you've got those bases covered, but it appears that hypocrisy is YOUR specialty.

Much of the crap I read on the internet opposing confrontational witnessing uses the same worn out lines that you've trotted out throughout the thread.  It's not effective, it's hard, people will turn further away from Christ, etc, etc, etc, so we give up on reaching those who aren't in our circle of friends and family for the most part and abandon the strangers of our culture to a Christless hell.

There are other alternatives.  :

Also, you keep trotting out the Matthew 10 passage as your reasoning. I'll mention again:

So when you get a willing listener in a new town, you're forbidden to leave their house and go to the next one. Make sure you follow that one all the way through, ok?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]]

There are other alternatives.  :[/quote]

Alternatives for getting the gospel into the hands/ears of those whom we don't have personal relationships?  If that's your meaning, I'm all ears, and happy that you have such strategies.  No complaints about that, and I might add them to my arsenal.  Please share.

Also, you keep trotting out the Matthew 10 passage as your reasoning. I'll mention again:

So when you get a willing listener in a new town, you're forbidden to leave their house and go to the next one. Make sure you follow that one all the way through, ok?

"Make sure you follow...."  Smarmy much again?  mmmmkay?  I don't mind playin' that way homie, but don't whine like a little school girl when you get it back.

Now to your assertion/flawed and baiting hermeneutic.

The disciples/apostles were sent out to strange lands/places.  It was common to offer hospitality to travelers as was the oriental custom.  Christ simply told them to seek out places that would receive them in such a manner, and when they found such a willing abode they should give the gospel of the kingdom.  Most Jews obviously would balk at such a reprehensible (to their notion) proposition.  At such time, they were to go on immediately to a receptive audience ("shake the dust off").  Of course the implication of their marching orders (hermeneutically and contextually speaking) wasn't to find a place to crash and then bunker down wherever they found free rent, but rather that once their goal of conversion was accomplished to go and make more converts ("filling all Jerusalem <and elsewhere> with their doctrine").  Of course the overarching theme here is to spread the gospel to a whole area, which is likewise accomplished, at least in one way today, by neighborhood canvassing.

What's the problem with contextually understanding it that way?


Also, I have more exegetical and contextual backing, but am waiting for sincere dialogue on the issues I raised before moving on to others.

 

[rsc2a]

Evangelism for today:  If someone wants to be saved, then they had better come and ask me how, because I don't have the inclination to care otherwise, nor the time to fool with them.  I do not cotton to the parable of the great supper in Luke.  It's not my job to invite people to come to Christ.

You do realize there are ways to talk about Jesus with people that don't require knocking on their door, right?

That it why we have a preacher and an invitation in church. Or let me go to a social gathering where people want to talk about religion, because that way I will not suffer any ridicule or persecution.

Actually, I don't think "church" is for the non-believer, but that's another topic. 

The above way of thinking reveals how totally narcissistic we are as a society and as Christians.  It is wrong and sinful.  Period.

Good thing no one is adhering to that straw man you set up, isn't it?

Door to door witnessing is legitimate, imo.  If someone says they are saved and know it, then just simply give them a church brochure, invite them to church if they don't have a home church, and move on.  I have found that most people do that where I am from.  They are looking for lost people, after all.

That's just it...I (and others, I believe) are not knocking those that do it. We are saying it's not an effective method today and that proponents of this form of evangelism have a inflated view of how many people they really impact. I personally believe there are better ways to get the gospel out on a Saturday morning.

I know people no longer believe that God has any power, nor can direct anyone to a lost person that needs salvation like he did Phillip, but I have seen it happen.

You've seen God teleport someone?

I thought most people on here were cessationists. (I'm not.)

God prepares a heart, the visit is made, and the sinner is ready, and admits they were wishing and praying that someone would come by.  I know what the scoffers and naysayers will say, and I don't care.  God is able, and if your motive is to bring glory to God, he will lead you to places where that can be done.  Do you get doors slammed, curses directed at you?  Yes.  We are no better than Christ, and people will hate us as well.  That doesn't mean that we shirk our responsibility.  Noah had no converts other than his own family, but he still preached.  I am sure he suffered much ridicule, but knew what God had called him to do.

Of course this applies to any form of witnessing...

If you don't feel called to go door to door, then don't.  But why get mad when someone does?  I always tell people that come to my door with the true gospel that I appreciate their concern.

People aren't getting mad that others do. People are staying that calling it "the Biblical model" is wrong. They are also objecting to others implicitly condemning those that don't go cold-calling as somehow "less than". (Kind of like the first snippet of yours I quoted and the one directly below this.)

I don't understand how cold and callous of a society of Christians we have become.  We think we know it all, and please don't intrude on my time, I have it all together.  How dare you ask me if I am saved?

So Christians who don't knock on doors are "cold and callous" now?

 

[rsc2a]

Also, you keep trotting out the Matthew 10 passage as your reasoning. I'll mention again:

So when you get a willing listener in a new town, you're forbidden to leave their house and go to the next one. Make sure you follow that one all the way through, ok?

"Make sure you follow...."  Smarmy much again?  mmmmkay?  I don't mind playin' that way homie, but don't whine like a little school girl when you get it back.

Now to your assertion/flawed and baiting hermeneutic.

The disciples/apostles were sent out to strange lands/places.  It was common to offer hospitality to travelers.  Christ simply told them to seek out places that would receive them in such a manner, and when they found such a willing abode they should give the gospel of the kingdom.  Most Jews obviously would balk at such a reprehensible (to their notion) proposition.  At such time, they were to go on immediately to a receptive audience.  Of course the implication of their marching orders (hermeneutically and contextually speaking) wasn't to find a place to crash and then bunker down wherever they found free rent, but rather that once their goal of conversion was accomplished to go and make more converts ("filling all Jerusalem <and elsewhere> with their doctrine). 

What's the problem with contextually understanding it that way?


Also, I have more exegetical and contextual backing, but am waiting for sincere dialogue on the issues I raised before moving on to others.

So basically, we don't understand the passage because we don't think it means the exact opposite of what it actually says, and your exact opposite reading is obviously the correct one?

And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. As you enter the house, greet it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

I'm curious...do you know the significance of them shaking the dust off their feet?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Did you even read what I was replying to?
[/quote]

Yes, would you care to explain where I responded in a way that was amiss according to what your intent was?

So basically, we don't understand the passage because we don't think it means the exact opposite of what it actually says, and your exact opposite reading is obviously the correct one?

And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. As you enter the house, greet it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

I'm curious...do you know the significance of them shaking the dust off their feet?

No, maybe I spoke incorrectly or without enough specificity, they weren't to wander from house to house in order to stay with each one who would welcome them, but their purpose for going to the house was to set up shop in order to saturate the area with the gospel, per Christ's command.  Of course this speaks to reaching whole towns, not just those who they might have been familiar with.

 

[rsc2a]

No, maybe I spoke incorrectly or without enough specificity, they weren't to wander from house to house in order to stay with each one who would welcome them, but their purpose for going to the house was to set up shop in order to saturate the area with the gospel, per Christ's command.  Of course this speaks to reaching whole towns, not just those who they might have been familiar with.

Of course, and that does require going door-to-door which means using it for the prooftext for door-to-door witness is clearly reading something into the text that is not there.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You said that people who don't prefer "confrontational witnessing" give up on reaching people outside our direct circle of influence and "abandon the strangers of our culture to a Christless hell."

As if those are the only options...[/quote]

If you have other options for reaching people outside of your influence then quit beating around the bush and share them.  The point of my statement was that "relational evangelism" doesn't meet the entirety of the demands of the great commission.  Those who resort to that wonderful method, but abandon reaching people outside their social network are not doing a full-orbed duty to Christ's command.

Of course, and that does require going door-to-door which means using it for the prooftext for door-to-door witness is clearly reading something into the text that is not there.

We're talking about reaching and saturating the whole globe.  Door to door is one way to do that in your own Jersualem.  There may be other ways to reach strangers, and if you use them, then good on you.  That has been my point from the beginning and I've made that clear.

 

[FSSL]

Of course, and that does require going door-to-door which means using it for the prooftext for door-to-door witness is clearly reading something into the text that is not there.

'Cause we all know that the apostle Paul did not go door-to-door doing the following: "If someone says they are saved and know it, then just simply give them a church brochure, invite them to church if they don't have a home church, and move on."

In all... we have not seen the modern "door-to-door" practices demonstrated in the NT.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You said that people who don't prefer "confrontational witnessing" give up on reaching people outside our direct circle of influence and "abandon the strangers of our culture to a Christless hell."

As if those are the only options...

If you have other options for reaching people outside of your influence then quit beating around the bush and share them.  The point of my statement was that "relational evangelism" doesn't meet the entirety of the demands of the great commission.  Those who resort to that wonderful method, but abandon reaching people outside their social network are not doing a full-orbed duty to Christ's command.[/quote]

- Maybe you mow the lawn of the neighbor you never met and perhaps don't even get to talk to him.
- Maybe you clean the gutters for the old couple down the road.
-  Maybe you grab a bunch of sandwiches and go have lunch with the guys under the bridge. Maybe you start doing this regularly and don't bring the Jesus hammer every time.
- Maybe your wife starts a ("non-religious") conversation with the other mothers at the kids' bus stop. Maybe you even drop off clothes and a crib when one of them has a new baby.
- Maybe you bring meals and a children's picture Bible to another neighbor who just had a newborn.
- Maybe you prayer-walk the neighborhood (if you want something overtly "religious")  and let people first approach you.

...and after you've invested some of your time in their lives, you present the Gospel.

I have no idea what that would look like of your neighborhood. It would probably look more similar to my neighborhood than if you lived in Uzbekistan, but our areas are still different from each other. Different contexts require different approaches. Some of those things would work around here and others wouldn't. Some we have done. Others we haven't. The point is people need to know that you care for them as people before they really have any interest in anything "deep" you have to discuss with them. You don't have to become their best friend to show that either, just take a little (or a lot of) extra time showing a little (or a lot) more kindness to strangers.

It is not your job to preach to the entire world. It is your job to to proclaim Christ to those around you. If you took the time you spend knocking on doors and instead spent it on really discipling twelve other guys, pouring into their lives, and they, in turn, discipled twelve more and those discipled twelve more....the entire would would hear Christ proclaimed, because the Church would be doing its job of proclaiming Christ to the entire world.

There isn't a magic bullet. There was never intended to be. Read the New Testament. Paul addressed different people in different ways depending on the context and culture into which he was speaking. There are four gospels for a reason. You have to be willing to adapt your approach to the culture without adapting your message.

 

[rsc2a]

Of course, and that does require going door-to-door which means using it for the prooftext for door-to-door witness is clearly reading something into the text that is not there.

We're talking about reaching and saturating the whole globe.  Door to door is one way to do that in your own Jersualem.  There may be other ways to reach strangers, and if you use them, then good on you.  That has been my point from the beginning and I've made that clear.

"People aren't getting mad that others do [knock on doors]. People are staying that calling it 'the Biblical model' is wrong. They are also objecting to others implicitly condemning those that don't go cold-calling as somehow 'less than'."

 

[FSSL]

"People aren't getting mad that others do [knock on doors]. People are staying that calling it 'the Biblical model' is wrong. They are also objecting to others implicitly condemning those that don't go cold-calling as somehow 'less than'."

Yep! Here is the reality of how it is in a typical door-to-door church:

--Those who do not show up for Thursday night visitation are not viewed as committed as those who do.
--Those who do not go "door-to-door" are considered disobedient (from a book called The Pastor & Evangelism calls door-to-door "organize obedience"
--Some refer to "door-to-door" as "Shameless Sharing" which implicate those who do not go out as if they are ashamed of the gospel.

The above is just pure manipulation which has no basis in the Scripture.