Why is Christianity declining?

[Merrill]

Depends on what is meant by that, because it's clear from Biblical data like the book of Job that this isn't always the case. There is no direct link between a person's sins and their suffering, though the general principle that suffering exists because sin exists is true.

Depends on how the statement is understood.

Not to speak for @2PhiloVoid, but here's how I understand that statement. One of the chief difficulties of a pastor is accurately identifying human needs. Standing on personal interpretations of the Bible tends to lead to making the real human needs of the congregation an abstraction, and leads to a disconnect between theology and praxis. So if pastors want to truly be effective in their role, they need to take the time to study the dynamics of human behavior and apply it to their teachings. It doesn't mean discarding Biblical truth, but supplementing the understanding we gain from it with insights gleaned from secular study. Allowing empiricism to color our understanding of what the Bible is saying, as much as we allow the Biblical data to color our understanding of empiricism.

Serious questions, because I am not a theologian:

1. While all suffering is not the consequence of our personal sin, there was no suffering in Eden correct?
2. So a distinction needs to be made between personal sin, and "original" or conceptual sin--the former is contingent upon the latter

Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)

While Job's suffering was not a consequence of his personal sin, it depended upon original sin.

3. The assertion that someone can be free from original sin, and cannot be held accountable for the sins of others (aka humanity) is Pelagianism

 

[doughtz]

I suppose it's true it's not a strict either/or situation. Though my main point is that part of the equation is our willingness to adapt what we mean by church to fit with modern social dynamics. Our current social context seems to fit far better with a structuring like the pre-Constantinian church than how it has operated during the time of "Christendom."

I'm not sure we can say that so easily, even though I agree with you. Popular image certainly seems to be that being a Christian means interpreting the Bible in a direct literal way. Especially where protestantism dominates, since belief in the Bible serves as the justifying precondition for belief in Christ for many. I certainly agree that a lot of it comes down to living like faithful disciples, but if the Bible doesn't seem credible to people who don't already believe in Jesus than they'll never even bother considering believing in Him for salvation. So having debates and making it clear that such things are debateable within the faith rather than essential to it is an important part of helping the unchurched be open to belief.

Yeah I think at the very least have more discussion surrounding these things would be great.

 

[Fervent]

Serious questions, because I am not a theologian:

We are all theologians, though all of us need engagement with the knowledge base of each other to come to a fuller picture of God.

1. While all suffering is not the consequence of our personal sin, there was no suffering in Eden correct?

This question is theologically loaded, because there are positions open that don't believe Eden was a real place. Though assuming it was a real place, suffering would have been absent prior to the fall. As I said, it's fair to say that suffering results from sin in a theoretical manner. But we can't personalize that theoretical position, so a lot of pastors who rail against sin in this way often come across as tone deaf.

2. So a distinction needs to be made between personal sin, and "original" or conceptual sin--the former is contingent upon the latter

Yeah, but sermons don't operate on the level of theoretical. They are practical theology and need to operate as such.

Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)

Yes, and if we're doing an exposition on Romans 5 we must maintian as much. But failing to consider the real needs of the congregation in favor of theoretical theology is a serious failing for any pastor.

While Job's suffering was not a consequence of his personal sin, it depended upon original sin.

Indirectly, though the point of Job seems to be that there is no direct link between a person's righteousness and their suffering. Especially since God decrees from the outset that Job is innocent, and then confirms that statement in His speech to Job. A lot of theologizing on Job tends to confuse that and instead agree with Job's friends that Job's suffering is a result of Job's sin.

3. The assertion that someone can be free from original sin, and cannot be held accountable for the sins of others (aka humanity) is Pelagianism

Nope, pelagianism is simply the statement that we can be entirely righteous from our own internal stores free of God's grace. Nuanced understandings of original sin and its role in a person's life do not reach the level of pelagianism.

 

[Fervent]

Yeah I think at the very least have more discussion surrounding these things would be great.

Yep, and it seems to me that a lot of the damage comes because a rigid understanding of "sola scriptura" has divorced the texts we study from the historical record in such a way that the dilemma becomes either reject the Bible wholesale, or embrace it uncritically.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Serious questions, because I am not a theologian:

1. While all suffering is not the consequence of our personal sin, there was no suffering in Eden correct?
2. So a distinction needs to be made between personal sin, and "original" or conceptual sin--the former is contingent upon the latter

Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)

While Job's suffering was not a consequence of his personal sin, it depended upon original sin.

3. The assertion that someone can be free from original sin, and cannot be held accountable for the sins of others (aka humanity) is Pelagianism

There is another way to look at this, actually, and doesn't by any necessity require us to apply fully and strictly to either a Pelagian view or an Augustinian view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Serious questions, because I am not a theologian:

1. While all suffering is not the consequence of our personal sin, there was no suffering in Eden correct?
2. So a distinction needs to be made between personal sin, and "original" or conceptual sin--the former is contingent upon the latter

Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)

While Job's suffering was not a consequence of his personal sin, it depended upon original sin.

3. The assertion that someone can be free from original sin, and cannot be held accountable for the sins of others (aka humanity) is Pelagianism

Gotta love that 3rd episode of the 4th season of The Chosen.

 

[Merrill]

There is another way to look at this, actually, and doesn't by any necessity require us to apply fully and strictly to either a Pelagian view or an Augustinian view.

there are certainly other views besides the Palagian or Augustinian

 

[2PhiloVoid]

there are certainly other views besides the Palagian or Augustinian

The way I'd go about it is to take philosophy and the History of Biblical Interpretation in hand, and look at various comparatives modes by which we all practice, or have historically practiced, our Hermeneutics and Exegesis of Biblical texts and by which we've derived our respective theologies. Somewhere in the mix of the process, we might find that certain aspects of the biblical texts may or may not connote what we think they do, thus not allowing anyone to firmly come down on one side or another.

Ultimately, through all of those stages of research and contemplation we may make (or that I've made over the years), I'm of the mind that Peter Enns gets closest to the interpretive problems pertaining to anyone's subscription to "Original Sin." However, this doesn't mean I place him on a prophetic pedestal and agree with everything that emerges from his mouth and keyboard.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yep, and it seems to me that a lot of the damage comes because a rigid understanding of "sola scriptura" has divorced the texts we study from the historical record in such a way that the dilemma becomes either reject the Bible wholesale, or embrace it uncritically.

You ain't kiddin! It seems to be everywhere.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I'm not sure someone just getting lost in a crowd is necessarily participating within the body in any meaningful way.

I am one of those people. When my wife and I were married and choosing a church, my smalltown farm-girl wife preferred the kind of small intimate church she grew up in. I was just coming off of an 18-year conscription as a preacher's kid with parishioners' eyes and judgment on everything I said and did. I didn't want that anymore, so I preferred a large church where I could just be another face in the crowd. When I went off to college, I gave mom two promises: (a) I will still go to church and (b) I'm never going to another potluck as long as I live. The less intense intimacy of a large church is still what I prefer. I don't go to church for the social experience, although neither am I unfriendly or stand-offish. I largely take part in worship (why I am there) and a few service opportunities where I have something to offer. I prefer to be alone with my own thoughts in church. Yet, I have taught middle school and adult Sunday School classes, been on the board and finance and investment committees, and served as Senior Warden of the Vestry. I also was the guy who made the big urn of coffee for coffee hour. But, I'm still not going to potlucks and am unlikely to show up at the monthly men's fellowship dinner. And, I still don't care to be in the small church where everyone knows everyone else's business. So, like I said. Folks want different things. It is not good or bad; it is just different.

 

[Fervent]

I am one of those people. When my wife and I were married and choosing a church, my smalltown farm-girl wife preferred the kind of small intimate church she grew up in. I was just coming off of an 18-year conscription as a preacher's kid with parishioners' eyes and judgment on everything I said and did. I didn't want that anymore, so I preferred a large church where I could just be another face in the crowd. When I went off to college, I gave mom two promises: (a) I will still go to church and (b) I'm never going to another potluck as long as I live. The less intense intimacy of a large church is still what I prefer. I don't go to church for the social experience, although neither am I unfriendly or stand-offish. I largely take part in worship (why I am there) and a few service opportunities where I have something to offer. I prefer to be alone with my own thoughts in church. Yet, I have taught middle school and adult Sunday School classes, been on the board and finance and investment committees, and served as Senior Warden of the Vestry. I also was the guy who made the big urn of coffee for coffee hour. But, I'm still not going to potlucks and am unlikely to show up at the monthly men's fellowship dinner. And, I still don't care to be in the small church where everyone knows everyone else's business. So, like I said. Folks want different things. It is not good or bad; it is just different.

What you've described doesn't really sound like just getting lost in the crowd to me, though I understand where you're coming from because I also prefer to not engage with a lot of the more socially focused aspects of church life. But I think you've got a mistaken idea about what I mean by "house church" because I mean more like fellowship with your family, and maybe having a neighbor or two over for unstructured conversations and devotion. Still being connected to a larger group and coming together for large corporate gatherings at times, but not necessarily doing that as a regularly occurring service. It would necessarily be less ceremonial and less liturgical, but it wouldn't necessarily involve the false kinds of intimacy that often breed toxic house church environments. Which is why I tried to clarify it as having a "church is where you are" kind of mindset, rather than being a matter of institutions and governance. It's an amorphous concept that can be molded to fit the needs of a community, which sounds a lot like what your church is doing. I don't think we have to decide between gathering as a congregation and gathering in small intimate groups, but the realities of social dynamics today are that less secure social bonds tend to be preferred over regular commitments.

 

[1Tonne]

If we want to see folks come back to church - or come for the first time - we have to offer them something attractive enough to have them get out of bed, get dressed, and come join us. Church has to be relevant to them. We have to end our hypocrisy, our politicization, our Christian in-fighting, our unwelcoming attitudes, our judgmentalism, etc. We need to give them reasons to be there and stop giving them reasons not to be there. If we get them in the pews, can we not trust God to do the rest?

Once again. If believers would go out into the community and share the Bad News (the Law) with the Good News, then people would have a reason to be there. If they see that they have fallen short of God's standards and that they need a saviour, then they will see the church in a more relevant light.
We have made the church into a giant friendship group, but it is easy to get friends on the net. So, the church is becoming irrelevant. If people came not only for friendship, but to honour, worship and learn about God, then it makes the church more relevant.
Believers need to get out there and tell the lost that if they keep on sinning, then they will be under God's condemnation. But instead, most of us keep silent. And our silence then gives the unbeliever the thought that our God is not real. After all, if our God is real, and if He is going to judge everyone, it would be immoral for us not to be out there telling of the way out. Our lack of action gives the unbeliever plenty of reasons not to go to church.
I have just started going to a different bible study that 10 other people attend. Everyone who goes has been a Christian for a long time and they believe that they have a real love for God. They pray, read their bibles, and live their lives for Him daily. But I asked them, "In the last year, how many people outside the church have you spoken the Gospel to?" The combined response was only 8 people. So, in 10 years' worth of living, only 8 people have heard the Gospel. That is terrible and it is most likely very similar in most other churches. People are not hearing the Gospel.
We need to stop relying on our friendships to be the main form of evangelism. Friendship evangelism is simply a part of life. It is not taking up our cross for the sake of the Gospel.
"And said to them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

The world is not so much hardened to the gospel as it is ignorant of the gospel because the gospel is not being preached. Paul Washer

Oh, also. I believe one of the main reasons why we have so much hypocrisy, our politicization, our Christian in-fighting, our unwelcoming attitudes, and judgmentalism is because we have filled the church with people who say that they honour God, but they have never been to the foot of the cross. This has come about because we invite as many of our non-Christian friends to church and then they stay and make friends and learn to mimic a true believer without ever been born again. (Friendship evangelism once again)

 

[Fervent]

Once again. If believers would go out into the community and share the Bad News (the Law) with the Good News, then people would have a reason to be there. If they see that they have fallen short of God's standards and that they need a saviour, then they will see the church in a more relevant light.
We have made the church into a giant friendship group, but it is easy to get friends on the net. So, the church is becoming irrelevant. If people came not only for friendship, but to honour, worship and learn about God, then it makes the church more relevant.
Believers need to get out there and tell the lost that if they keep on sinning, then they will be under God's condemnation. But instead, most of us keep silent. And our silence then gives the unbeliever the thought that our God is not real. After all, if our God is real, and if He is going to judge everyone, it would be immoral for us not to be out there telling of the way out. Our lack of action gives the unbeliever plenty of reasons not to go to church.
I have just started going to a different bible study that 10 other people attend. Everyone who goes has been a Christian for a long time and they believe that they have a real love for God. They pray, read their bibles, and live their lives for Him daily. But I asked them, "In the last year, how many people outside the church have you spoken the Gospel to?" The combined response was only 8 people. So, in 10 years' worth of living, only 8 people have heard the Gospel. That is terrible and it is most likely very similar in most other churches. People are not hearing the Gospel.
We need to stop relying on our friendships to be the main form of evangelism. Friendship evangelism is simply a part of life. It is not taking up our cross for the sake of the Gospel.
"And said to them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

The world is not so much hardened to the gospel as it is ignorant of the gospel because the gospel is not being preached. Paul Washer

Oh, also. I believe one of the main reasons why we have so much hypocrisy, our politicization, our Christian in-fighting, our unwelcoming attitudes, and judgmentalism is because we have filled the church with people who say that they honour God, but they have never been to the foot of the cross. This has come about because we invite as many of our non-Christian friends to church and then they stay and make friends and learn to mimic a true believer without ever been born again. (Friendship evangelism once again)

I don't think it's an issue of people not being aware of the "bad news" it's that presenting it that way is often giving them the soluton to a problem that doesn't seem to be real to them. People are well aware of the bad in life, they rarely need to be reminded of it. So presenting it as a "you are a lawbreaker! Jesus fulfilled the law on your behalf!" renders it all theoretical and largely irrelevant to their life experience. So even if are receptive to the idea of it being true, it's hard to see why it would really matter.

 

[1Tonne]

I don't think it's an issue of people not being aware of the "bad news" it's that presenting it that way is often giving them the soluton to a problem that doesn't seem to be real to them. People are well aware of the bad in life, they rarely need to be reminded of it. So presenting it as a "you are a lawbreaker! Jesus fulfilled the law on your behalf!" renders it all theoretical and largely irrelevant to their life experience. So even if are receptive to the idea of it being true, it's hard to see why it would really matter.

I share the Gospel in the streets on a very regular basis. I ask people if they think that they are good people. So, if they are good enough to make it into heaven. Most say yes. So, they are not aware that they are under God's condemnation. The bible even says that on the day of Judgement, many will confess their own goodness. You are coming from a false premise that everyone understands that they are evil. This simply is not true.

By using God's Law, the 10 Commandments, people will then see the seriousness of the situation.
When we tell the lost that Jesus died on the cross without telling them why, it’s foolishness to them. It doesn’t make sense because we’re giving them the cure, without first convincing them of the disease. So, show them the law first.
Think of it like this.
A doctor has a patient in front of him who believes he is healthy because he’s young, fit and has a great physique. The doctor has seen X-rays and knows that the man has just two weeks to live. He has a cure on his desk, but should he give the patient the cure immediately, or should he first show him the X-rays? If he knows what he’s doing and cares for the well-being of the patient, he will hold back from giving him the cure. This is because the patient will understandably reject it if he believes he is healthy. Instead, the doctor should show him the X-rays and deliberately point out the poison seeping through his system. He should do this until his patient becomes deeply concerned and even fearful about his condition. Once that happens, you will only have to mention the cure and he will jump at it. He will now appreciate it and accept it—because he has been made aware of his disease. Our disease is sin.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I share the Gospel in the streets on a very regular basis. I ask people if they think that they are good people. So, if they are good enough to make it into heaven. Most say yes. So, they are not aware that they are under God's condemnation. The bible even says that on the day of Judgement, many will confess their own goodness. You are coming from a false premise that everyone understands that they are evil. This simply is not true.

By using God's Law, the 10 Commandments, people will then see the seriousness of the situation.
When we tell the lost that Jesus died on the cross without telling them why, it’s foolishness to them. It doesn’t make sense because we’re giving them the cure, without first convincing them of the disease. So, show them the law first.
Think of it like this.
A doctor has a patient in front of him who believes he is healthy because he’s young, fit and has a great physique. The doctor has seen X-rays and knows that the man has just two weeks to live. He has a cure on his desk, but should he give the patient the cure immediately, or should he first show him the X-rays? If he knows what he’s doing and cares for the well-being of the patient, he will hold back from giving him the cure. This is because the patient will understandably reject it if he believes he is healthy. Instead, the doctor should show him the X-rays and deliberately point out the poison seeping through his system. He should do this until his patient becomes deeply concerned and even fearful about his condition. Once that happens, you will only have to mention the cure and he will jump at it. He will now appreciate it and accept it—because he has been made aware of his disease. Our disease is sin.

1Tonne, since you spend a lot of time on in the public square talking to people, maybe start taking a person by person running tabulation of those you run into who are former Christians and those who are folks who have never been a Christians at any point in their lives.

It'd be interesting to see what the results are and how these two groups compare and what their responses are.

 

[1Tonne]

1Tonne, since you spend a lot of time on in the public square talking to people, maybe start taking a person by person running tabulation of those you run into who are former Christians and those who are folks who have never been a Christians at any point in their lives.

It'd be interesting to see what the results are and how these two groups compare and what their responses are.

I don't think I would survey that. But from my experience, most have never been a Christian. Most believe that there is a God, and most have heard of Jesus because we celebrate easter and they know He died on the cross for our sins. But even knowing this, they do not understand why He had to die, because they do not view their sin as bad. We have dulled down our consciences by looking at things we should not look at and we listen to things we should not listen to. Eventually, after prolonged exposure, it no longer seems bad. That is why if we mention the words "The 10 Commandments", and then we show people what God's standard is, then they will understand that they are under His condemnation. Once they know this, they then have a very big decision to make.
When doing this though, you will have many people who do not like the message. People do not like it when you point out that they are not a good person. But Jesus did this and He said that if we do it, the world will hate us as well.
So, be bold and tell people of their condemnation so that they can then start to honour God. Then, over time, instead of filling the church with people who are coming for a friendship group, we will fill the church with people who have a passion to honour God. These people who truly want to honour God, will obey Him and go and tell others of their condemnation and then the way out. Thus, growing the church with true believers.

 

[Fervent]

I share the Gospel in the streets on a very regular basis. I ask people if they think that they are good people. So, if they are good enough to make it into heaven. Most say yes. So, they are not aware that they are under God's condemnation. The bible even says that on the day of Judgement, many will confess their own goodness. You are coming from a false premise that everyone understands that they are evil. This simply is not true.

Sure, but the issue is if you're not connecting with their felt needs simply regurgitating Christian theology isn't likely to hit home and make them aware of any kind of problem. So it just looks like you're creating a problem in order to offer them a solution to that problem.

By using God's Law, the 10 Commandments, people will then see the seriousness of the situation.
When we tell the lost that Jesus died on the cross without telling them why, it’s foolishness to them. It doesn’t make sense because we’re giving them the cure, without first convincing them of the disease. So, show them the law first.
Think of it like this.
A doctor has a patient in front of him who believes he is healthy because he’s young, fit and has a great physique. The doctor has seen X-rays and knows that the man has just two weeks to live. He has a cure on his desk, but should he give the patient the cure immediately, or should he first show him the X-rays? If he knows what he’s doing and cares for the well-being of the patient, he will hold back from giving him the cure. This is because the patient will understandably reject it if he believes he is healthy. Instead, the doctor should show him the X-rays and deliberately point out the poison seeping through his system. He should do this until his patient becomes deeply concerned and even fearful about his condition. Once that happens, you will only have to mention the cure and he will jump at it. He will now appreciate it and accept it—because he has been made aware of his disease. Our disease is sin.

Most of this is true, but the issue I'm raising isn't that we don't need to bring the need to people's attention but that it has to be done in a way that is culturally sensitive. Most of the time when people are railing about the law and sin it falls on deaf ears because it's filled to the brim with Christianese and theoretical theology. It doesn't connect to their lives in any way shape or form, so rather than making them aware that they have a problem it's easy for them to ignore the problem and just think we're a bit kooky.

 

[seeking.IAM]

When doing this though, you will have many people who do not like the message. People do not like it when you point out that they are not a good person. But Jesus did this and He said that if we do it, the world will hate us as well....So, be bold and tell people of their condemnation so that they can then start to honour God...Thus, growing the church with true believers.

Have you had outcomes demonstrating that you have effectively grown the Church in this manner?

 

[1Tonne]

Sure, but the issue is if you're not connecting with their felt needs

What other need is higher than eternal life verses eternal death? You may think that what I am saying is just a theological idea, but God set eternity in every man's heart. We need to warn them by using the Law as Jesus did and then show them the cross.

Most of this is true, but the issue I'm raising isn't that we don't need to bring the need to people's attention but that it has to be done in a way that is culturally sensitive. Most of the time when people are railing about the law and sin it falls on deaf ears because it's filled to the brim with Christianese and theoretical theology. It doesn't connect to their lives in any way shape or form, so rather than making them aware that they have a problem it's easy for them to ignore the problem and just think we're a bit kooky.

I agree. We need to use wisdom when sharing the bad news and the good news. That is why the Holy Spirit was given to us. The Spirit gives us boldness, clarity and power to be able to go and share the Gospel to all the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8). We need to do this in love and not judgement. But true love is putting your neighbour's highest interest first. And sometimes, that may mean that we have to point out things that they do not like. There is an urgency to sharing the Gospel because we do not know when someone is going to die. It would be unloving towards our neighbours if we simply do good deeds for them and then not warn them.
This is similar to what I do on the street, and it is modelled on what Jesus did.

Have you had outcomes demonstrating that you have effectively grown the Church in this manner?

I cannot provide an answer to that question because I cannot perceive people's hearts, and I have only been engaging in this for a couple of years. However, in my interactions with individuals on the street, I have witnessed the Gospel deeply impacting them, leaving them astonished. For instance, there was an instance where an irate elderly gentleman initially reacted angrily when confronted with his sin, but upon hearing the Gospel, he became silent. His outburst had attracted bystanders' attention, making it quite a spectacle. In the end, he said "Wow. That made sense. I have never heard it like that." The Gospel had profoundly resonated with him, transforming his disposition from anger to appreciation because I took the time to tell him the message. I have numerous similar stories.
Regrettably, it is commonly stated that individuals need to encounter the Gospel an average of 6.7 times before deciding to embrace faith. Yet, there is a scarcity of individuals actively sharing the Gospel, resulting in many never hearing it even once. And when they do, it often lacks proper explanation, leading it to appear foolish to them. So, pray to the Lord that He brings workers to the harvest.

Do not get discouraged if you do not see any changes. We have been told to go and preach the Gospel to as many people as possible. That is our mission. So, you could preach the Gospel to 1000 people and if they all rejected it, then don’t worry. You were 100% successful in your mission. You are simply told to go and preach the gospel and then it is God who creates the growth.
1 Cor 3:7 “Neither the one who plants, nor the one who waters is anything, but it is God who creates the growth.”
Mark 4:26-29 “And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up daily, and the seed sprouts and grows—how, he himself does not know. The soil produces crops by itself; first the stalk, then the head, then the mature grain in the head. Now when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

We do not know how God creates the growth. We are just told to preach the Gospel and then it is up to God.

QUOTE: To evangelise, does not mean to win converts. But simply to announce the Good News irrespective of the results. John Stott

 

[Fervent]

What other need is higher than eternal life verses eternal death? You may think that what I am saying is just a theological idea, but God set eternity in every man's heart. We need to warn them by using the Law as Jesus did and then show them the cross.

Usually people are more interested in meeting the needs of their current situation, rather than worrying about what's going to happen to them after they die. It's certainly the biggest need, but few are all that concerned with it and making it the main point of the gospel seems contrary to the very practical way that Jesus conducted Himself. Focusing on what happens after we die leads to a very anemic gospel, especially when coupled with concepts like original sin and salvation by faith. All of these things are important, but people are much more likely to respond when we engage with them where they are rather than shouting at them from on high.

I agree. We need to use wisdom when sharing the bad news and the good news. That is why the Holy Spirit was given to us. The Spirit gives us boldness, clarity and power to be able to go and share the Gospel to all the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8). We need to do this in love and not judgement. But true love is putting your neighbour's highest interest first. And sometimes, that may mean that we have to point out things that they do not like. There is an urgency to sharing the Gospel because we do not know when someone is going to die. It would be unloving towards our neighbours if we simply do good deeds for them and then not warn them.
This is similar to what I do on the street, and it is modelled on what Jesus did.

There is an urgency, but do you really think God is going to run out of patience with someone who just needs a bit more time to accept the gospel? We may not know when they'll die, and there is a place for street evangelism like you seem to engage in, but there's also a need that is often more pressing for people to take the time and build meaningful human connections before lambasting the person with guilt trips.