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

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
- 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.[/quote]

All good "ice breakers", though inherent in most of them were built-in qualifiers that required that you have some personal <relational> knowledge of the situation.  Again, wonderful ways of making points of personal contact and bridging the gap, but, it presumes that you must first earn the right to speak about religious matters to people by doing good things for them.  There may be some truth that such methods ultimately have more effect of causing the person to hear your voice, but I don't see the absolute requirement in Scriptures to do that before presenting the gospel to people.  Doing both seems to be the right balance.  Doorknocking and tract distribution will reach a greater number of people with the clear articulation of the gospel.  Words are much more objective and unmistakeably clear (in regards to the gospel)  than emotive subjective feelings and deeds, though they go hand in hand for the Christian.


Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas though.  I've read of similar methods, and still mulling them over as options.

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.

I totally agree.  Paul said we ought to become all things to all men that we might reach some.  He spoke to philosophers, kings, jailers, religionists, pagans, and Jews to name a few.  He confronted some, persuaded others, and reasoned in the public square.  That all goes to the point of going where the people are, no matter what their abode, politics, nationality, sex, or belief structure.  Door to door is but one way to do that.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
"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'."
[/quote]

What you just did is a subtle way of introducing a strawman.  I NEVER said it was "THE Biblical model", but rather A Biblical model.  There's a significant difference in the import those two indefinite articles.

Nope, that's inaccurate.  The subsequent post of FSSL certainly is true in some churches, where people are looked down on if they don't do door-to-door, but that's a strawman against anything  I've said.  The whole while I've maintained that of the variety of means and methods to evangelize a person's locale there's no one way, and so long as a person is attempting to be obedient to get the gospel out to friends and strangers in their vicinity then it's all good.

I will however, add one caveat.  Belonging to a church means supporting it, financially, prayerfully, and missionally.  The organized aspect of this extends into the evangelical/missional portion of the church's function.  Whatever means and methods that a church employs, in an organized fashion, ideally ought to be supported by the membership, for a variety of reasons.  For the same reason that our visible participation means something in an organized assembly (encouragement to others, support, etc) it also serves as mentorship, encouragement, discipleship and training for other members who have covenanted to do the work of the ministry.

 

[rsc2a]

Again, wonderful ways of making points of personal contact and bridging the gap, but, it presumes that you must first earn the right to speak about religious matters to people by doing good things for them.  There may be some truth that such methods ultimately have more effect of causing the person to hear your voice, but I don't see the absolute requirement in Scriptures to do that before presenting the gospel to people.  Doing both seems to be the right balance....Words are much more objective and unmistakeably clear (in regards to the gospel)  than emotive subjective feelings and deeds, though they go hand in hand for the Christian.

...not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

(Although I really like the NASB version better: "...not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?")

We love because he first loved us.

"Heaven is a place for those who love God, not for those who just fear Hell." - John Piper

And, if we are the Body of Christ, if we are the hands and feet, the ears and eyes, how do you think He generally shows that kindness?

Doorknocking and tract distribution will reach a greater number of people with the clear articulation of the gospel.

And if it negatively impacts 3-10 times more people than it positively impacts? Again, you are ignoring the culture in which we live and statistically turning more people away from said gospel.

 

[FSSL]

What you just did is a subtle way of introducing a strawman.  I NEVER said it was "THE Biblical model", but rather A Biblical model.  There's a significant difference in the import those two indefinite articles.

Nope, that's inaccurate.  The subsequent post of FSSL certainly is true in some churches, where people are looked down on if they don't do door-to-door, but that's a strawman against anything  I've said.

I agree. You have maintained that it is "A biblical method." I am sure that rsc2a knows that and in the course of discussion little things like that get confused.

YET, IF it is A biblical method, as you maintain, then those who do not participate in it would, by definition, be disobedient. This is not a simple semantics issue (or strawman), but one that many pastors use to manipulate people into a particular method.

I will however, add one caveat.  Belonging to a church means supporting it, financially, prayerfully, and missionally.  The organized aspect of this extends into the evangelical/missional portion of the church's function.  Whatever means and methods that a church employs, in an organized fashion, ideally ought to be supported by the membership, for a variety of reasons.  For the same reason that our visible participation means something in an organized assembly (encouragement to others, support, etc) it also serves as mentorship, encouragement, discipleship and training for other members who have covenanted to do the work of the ministry.

Agreed.

 

[Mathew Ward]

What you just did is a subtle way of introducing a strawman.  I NEVER said it was "THE Biblical model", but rather A Biblical model.  There's a significant difference in the import those two indefinite articles.

Nope, that's inaccurate.  The subsequent post of FSSL certainly is true in some churches, where people are looked down on if they don't do door-to-door, but that's a strawman against anything  I've said.

I agree. You have maintained that it is "A biblical method." I am sure that rsc2a knows that and in the course of discussion little things like that get confused.

YET, IF it is A biblical method, as you maintain, then those who do not participate in it would, by definition, be disobedient. This is not a simple semantics issue (or strawman), but one that many pastors use to manipulate people into a particular method.

I will however, add one caveat.  Belonging to a church means supporting it, financially, prayerfully, and missionally.  The organized aspect of this extends into the evangelical/missional portion of the church's function.  Whatever means and methods that a church employs, in an organized fashion, ideally ought to be supported by the membership, for a variety of reasons.  For the same reason that our visible participation means something in an organized assembly (encouragement to others, support, etc) it also serves as mentorship, encouragement, discipleship and training for other members who have covenanted to do the work of the ministry.

Agreed.

The question then would be what other Biblical model or method does Alayman's church organizationally adhere to?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Take the bus stop example. This is something my wife has done. She has basically no contact with that family other than at the bus stop. She started talking to the older siblings and now their mother comes out to talk with her. That is how we found out there was a new baby and that she needed a crib. (The mother didn't ask us for one.) The "relationship" aspect consists of all of  five minutes a day that my wife already spends at the bus stop, not a very deep "relationship" there.[/quote]

Yeah, I wasn't meaning that your examples necessarily required spending copious amounts of time in relationship-building, but simply that even most of those things listed would preclude the attempt to talking to complete strangers about the gospel, and I don't want to rule those people out.  Other than that, good suggestions for sure.

...not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

(Although I really like the NASB version better: "...not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?")

We love because he first loved us.

"Heaven is a place for those who love God, not for those who just fear Hell." - John Piper

And, if we are the Body of Christ, if we are the hands and feet, the ears and eyes, how do you think He generally shows that kindness?

Well, we've <both> done it a lot in this thread, but there's some talkin' past each other in this exchange.  I'm not against depicting the gospel through love and care for felt needs and such.  The statement you responded to with these Scriptures however were meant to say that speaking the gospel leaves less room for ambiguity as to what Christ's demands are for salvation.  Yes, gaining a platform by relational love may functionally serve the purpose for being able to speak to somebody about eternal matters, but it simply isn't commanded as the only method.

[quote author=rsc2a]
And if it negatively impacts 3-10 times more people than it positively impacts? Again, you are ignoring the culture in which we live and statistically turning more people away from said gospel.
[/quote]

Well, you have sociological data that comes to one conclusion, and I have <shown> data that concludes something slightly different.  I'm skeptical that simply knocking on somebody's door <if done properly> actually drives them further from Christ.  In short, I'd like to analyze their data to see what "3-10 times" means.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]I agree. You have maintained that it is "A biblical method." I am sure that rsc2a knows that and in the course of discussion little things like that get confused.

YET, IF it is A biblical method, as you maintain, then those who do not participate in it would, by definition, be disobedient. This is not a simple semantics issue (or strawman), but one that many pastors use to manipulate people into a particular method.[/quote]

I disagree with your conclusion by principle.  The "Biblical method" for any given moral imperative may be prescriptive OR descriptive (one allows latitude in implementation, the other is more restrictive/regulative).  For instance, greeting one another with a kiss is descriptive, but showing hospitality, love, and kindness to the brethren is a prescriptive (Jn 13:35...all men will know...if ye love the brethren). 

In regards to "Biblical methods" of evangelism there are many, as we've already noted  We are to speak the truth in love in public, via street preaching and such, and privately as well.  Paul and Silas sung praises to the Lord and gained opportunity to lead men to Christ through song.  We go where people are, bringing first the law then the good news.  We employ principles of wisdom (as noted by rsc2a) dealing with cultural expectations and such.  Even given those considerations however, I'm not going to ultimately judge the motives of a person who preaches the gospel in love, wherever they do it.  Peter said as much in defying legal authorities when he said he would obey God rather than men, and went on preaching in defiance.  Bunyan did the same, as did many others.  At least how I was using the term "Biblical method".


So in summary, "disobedience" would be only in the case of people who refuse to participate in the delivery of the gospel by ANY of these methods, not by omitting the usage of ONE (or more) of these methods.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]
The question then would be what other Biblical model or method does Alayman's church organizationally adhere to?
[/quote]

Jail ministry, nursing homes, hospitals, benevolence, for starters.

 

[FSSL]

I disagree with your conclusion by principle.  The "Biblical method" for any given moral imperative may be prescriptive OR descriptive (one allows latitude in implementation, the other is more restrictive/regulative).  For instance, greeting one another with a kiss is descriptive, but showing hospitality, love, and kindness to the brethren is a prescriptive (Jn 13:35...all men will know...if ye love the brethren).

I completely understand the descriptive/prescriptive issue. I used to be involved in a group of church planters who would confuse the two and ended up making biblical demands over issues where there were not.

I will leave it with this. It is not worth my time to debate this any longer. I'd rather go to the ocean today.

I am against labeling a method "biblical" unless it is matched to Scripture. We don't have a match (prescriptively nor descriptively) in Scripture. You think we do.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]
I will leave it with this. It is not worth my time to debate this any longer. I'd rather go to the ocean today.[/quote]

If I had the choice between the two, well, that's a no brainer.

I am against labeling a method "biblical" unless it is matched to Scripture. We don't have a match (prescriptively nor descriptively) in Scripture. You think we do.

Yes, we can agree to disagree, just like that is possible over respective (non full-preterist ) eschatalogical positions.

But, and there's always a but, we never got to discuss euaggelizo in Acts 5:42.  (nor Acts 20:20, and, and....)

 

[FSSL]

But, and there's always a but, we never got to discuss euaggelizo in Acts 5:42.  (nor Acts 20:20, and, and....)

Okay... let's do that tomorrow... remind me.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

On your thread about women and ereaders you lamented that you used to be able to leave your doors unlocked and now would never dare to. You noted how society has changed for the worse.

Why then are you so shocked that a Christian does not care to have strangers on their doorstep?

Perhaps you really do understand why society is now choosing to live in gated communities, having locked gates on apartment complexes, installing  security doors and camera systems in their homes and considering "Do Not Knock" registries to keep strangers away.

As society has become more uncomfortable with strangers arriving on their doorstep unannounced, many churches have adapted to the times and have chosen methods of evangelism that work best for their neighborhood.

Thankfully, door knocking is not a biblical mandate so Christians have options.

 

[Ransom]

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

May I take your silence as a tacit admission of your false dichotomy (door-to-door salespreaching vs. squish)?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Why then are you so shocked that a Christian does not care to have strangers on their doorstep?

I understand that people are more insular, and on their property they can restrict access.  Currently they have an effective way to do that with signs, or tell people to go away else be prosecuted, so the measure you propose makes no sense, as it only seems to lead to more government intrusion, with no perceptible benefits in lieu of current legal options available.

On your thread about women and ereaders you lamented that you used to be able to leave your doors unlocked and now would never dare to. You noted how society has changed for the worse....

Thankfully, door knocking is not a biblical mandate so Christians have options.

Do you think that the No Knock ordinance will have more teeth than a No Trespassing sign?  What will it do that can't already be accomplished with a sign, or a big dog?

May I take your silence as a tacit admission of your false dichotomy (door-to-door salespreaching vs. squish)?

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

 

[Izdaari]

You've seen God teleport someone?

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

I also am an exception to the cessationist norm here. Former Assemblies of God Pentecostal, about to become a charismatic Episcopalian.

 

[OZZY]

You've seen God teleport someone?

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

I also am an exception to the cessationist norm here. Former Assemblies of God Pentecostal, about to become a charismatic Episcopalian.

Thanks for the chuckle , I needed one today

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

Why then are you so shocked that a Christian does not care to have strangers on their doorstep?

I understand that people are more insular, and on their property they can restrict access.  Currently they have an effective way to do that with signs, or tell people to go away else be prosecuted, so the measure you propose makes no sense, as it only seems to lead to more government intrusion, with no perceptible benefits in lieu of current legal options available.

On your thread about women and ereaders you lamented that you used to be able to leave your doors unlocked and now would never dare to. You noted how society has changed for the worse....

Thankfully, door knocking is not a biblical mandate so Christians have options.

Do you think that the No Knock ordinance will have more teeth than a No Trespassing sign?  What will it do that can't already be accomplished with a sign, or a big dog?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, the Do Not Knock registry has teeth to it (and won't get me sued like a dog bite would). Once I put my address on the registry any solicitor who violates the registry will be subject to a fine. All I have to do is get the literature or name from the solicitor and then I can report them. I would take a quick picture too. Few solicitors will want to rack up a bunch of fines for ignoring the wishes of the homeowners who put their addresses on the registry.

If someone violates my No Soliciting or No Trespassing signs and knocks on my door it is not like it is okay to just shoot them...Try explaining that to the judge! LOL! There are no real teeth in signs. Again, if my dog chewed on a trespasser I would most likely get sued (I live in CA!). Even if I won the suit it would still cost me time and money to defend myself.

As the Do Not Call registry simply reflects the wishes of the homeowner to keep strangers off their property, I think this will trump any religious objection the Mormons, JWs or door-knockers of other religions will be able to argue. Can you show me a case where someones religious liberty trumped anothers private property rights...I can't think of one.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=AmazedbyGrace]
Yes, the Do Not Knock registry has teeth to it (and won't get me sued like a dog bite would). Once I put my address on the registry any solicitor who violates the registry will be subject to a fine.......

As the Do Not Call registry simply reflects the wishes of the homeowner to keep strangers off their property, I think this will trump any religious objection the Mormons, JWs or door-knockers of other religions will be able to argue. Can you show me a case where someones religious liberty trumped anothers private property rights...I can't think of one.
[/quote]

Well, the left coast does a lot of odd and unconventional legal things, so anything's possible.  In my limited knowledge of liability regarding dog bites, I don't think you'd have much legal issue if you had clearly marked No Trespassing signs, even in California.

It seems to me that most people who solicit already know the laws and respect them, including religious types, so this law wouldn't keep them from doing anything that they already aren't going to do if you just put up the sign(s).  The criminal type, they're not concerned about fines.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Jail ministry, nursing homes, hospitals, benevolence, for starters.

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.

 

[Ransom]

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)?