Why Don't More Christians Share the Gospel?

iluvatar5150 said:

I think street preaching is wildly presumptuous to the point of being insulting, and it’s also kind of lazy.

I consider myself a thoughtful, intelligent person. I’m not going to upend my entire religious worldview because of a plea from some random guy in a Walmart parking lot. That sort of decision is going come from a fair amount of thought and study and conversation with people I trust. But building that sort of trust requires a lot more difficult work than just handing out pamphlets like you would coupons to a new pizza joint. Approaching me like that about a subject so weighty communicates to me that you don’t respect the gravity of what you’re suggesting and that you don’t respect me enough to try to understand what my needs actually are.

Click to expand...

I think your comment intentionally dismisses the very means God has often used throughout history.
The apostles preached publicly. Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Noah is even described as a "preacher of righteousness." None of them first built long-term relationships with every hearer before calling people to repentance.
You say you're too intelligent to respond to a person sharing the Gospel publicly. Instead, you would only respond to another who could explain the Gospel at your level. But truth is not determined by how well you know the messenger. If a stranger warned you that a bridge ahead had collapsed, the sensible response would be to consider whether what he said was true, not dismiss him because he was a stranger.
Of course, conversations, friendships, and ongoing discipleship are valuable. But they are not the only biblical model of evangelism. Public proclamation has always been one of God's ordained means of calling people to repentance.
Finally, I'd encourage you to consider the courage it takes for someone to stand in public and speak about Christ. It's easy to call it "lazy" from the sidelines. By calling public proclamation 'lazy,' you are also describing the ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles. They all preached publicly, often to complete strangers, and endured ridicule, abuse, and rejection because they believed people needed to hear the Gospel. Even if you disagree with their method, I don't think it's fair to dismiss their motives or courage so casually.

Aussie52 said:

I totally agree. Cold Turkey evangelism is very limited. Rather we should build relationships with people and witness to them at an appropriate time as we feel led by the Spirit. It is not a matter of how many notches I can get on my Bible but being sensitive to people and the where the Holy Spirit is working in the heart of that person. Decisions are easily come by, disciples are another thing.

Click to expand...

I think you've created a false choice that the New Testament never creates.
Yes, relationships are valuable. Yes, discipleship is essential. But why speak as though public proclamation is somehow inferior or "lazy"? Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Peter preached publicly at Pentecost. Paul preached publicly in synagogues, marketplaces, lecture halls, and anywhere people would listen.
Were they insensitive? Were they lazy? Were they simply trying to get "notches on their Bible" as you say they are?

The New Testament contains both personal evangelism and public proclamation. They complement one another, they are not competitors.
What concerns me is that almost every time public evangelism is mentioned, you seem to discourage it rather than encourage it. Scripture says, "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). Public preaching has been God's ordained means of calling sinners to repentance throughout biblical history.
If someone feels called to build relationships over years, praise God. Hopefully the build relationships and also share the Gospel and do not become afraid to speak it. If someone has the courage to stand in public and proclaim Christ, praise God. We shouldn't be discouraging either. We should be encouraging every faithful proclamation of the Gospel.

I have no issue with relationship evangelism. But I do think every Christian should ask themselves this question:
If I would never proclaim Christ publicly, is it because I believe relationship evangelism is the only biblical method, or is it because I'm afraid of what people will think of me?
That's a question only each of us can answer before God.
Jesus warned, "Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
It's worth asking ourselves honestly: "am I opposing public proclamation because Scripture opposes it, or because I fear the ridicule that often comes with openly speaking for Christ?"

childeye 2 said:

Well, I'm not saying I'm correct, but the way I used Paul's expressed sentiment; in my own words -> "Even when fools preach the Gospel because of me, at least it gets preached".

Click to expand...

Well said. The Gospel has power in it and as believers we should trust this power and therefore not be ashamed to speak it publicly as some seem to be.
I heard of one person who was sharing the Gospel publicly and then a heckler started yelling out from the crowd scoffing at the preacher. The heckler scoffed and said rude tone, "You believe in God and that we have sinned against Him and that Jesus died in our place for our sins and so all who believe in Him will have eternal life!" Later a bystander went up to the preacher and said, "I heard what heckler said and I believed him."
So, the Gospel can be spoken even from a non-believer, and it still has power in it. Believers need to trust in this power and stop belittling it.

Delvianna said:

Im not allowed to expand my answer, its against the site rules, so im afraid I have to keep it generic. But evangelism is definitely a lot harder today than I think it was during biblical times.

Click to expand...

Have you forgotten that people back then were killed for their testimony? Today that only really happens in Communist or Muslim countries. We are in a blessed time.

1Tonne said:

I think your comment intentionally dismisses the very means God has often used throughout history.
The apostles preached publicly. Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Noah is even described as a "preacher of righteousness." None of them first built long-term relationships with every hearer before calling people to repentance.
You say you're too intelligent to respond to "some random guy" sharing the Gospel. But truth is not determined by how well you know the messenger. If a stranger warned you that a bridge ahead had collapsed, the sensible response would be to consider whether what he said was true, not dismiss him because he was a stranger.
Of course, conversations, friendships, and ongoing discipleship are valuable. But they are not the only biblical model of evangelism. Public proclamation has always been one of God's ordained means of calling people to repentance.
Finally, I'd encourage you to consider the courage it takes for someone to stand in public and speak about Christ. It's easy to call it "lazy" from the sidelines. By calling public proclamation 'lazy,' you are also describing the ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles. They all preached publicly, often to complete strangers, and endured ridicule, abuse, and rejection because they believed people needed to hear the Gospel. Even if you disagree with their method, I don't think it's fair to dismiss their motives or courage so casually.

I think you've created a false choice that the New Testament never creates.
Yes, relationships are valuable. Yes, discipleship is essential. But why speak as though public proclamation is somehow inferior or "lazy"? Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Peter preached publicly at Pentecost. Paul preached publicly in synagogues, marketplaces, lecture halls, and anywhere people would listen.
Were they insensitive? Were they lazy? Were they simply trying to get "notches on their Bible" as you say they are?

The New Testament contains both personal evangelism and public proclamation. They complement one another, they are not competitors.
What concerns me is that almost every time public evangelism is mentioned, you seem to discourage it rather than encourage it. Scripture says, "How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). Public preaching has been God's ordained means of calling sinners to repentance throughout biblical history.
If someone feels called to build relationships over years, praise God. Hopefully the build relationships and also share the Gospel and do not become afraid to speak it. If someone has the courage to stand in public and proclaim Christ, praise God. We shouldn't be discouraging either. We should be encouraging every faithful proclamation of the Gospel.

I have no issue with relationship evangelism. But I do think every Christian should ask themselves this question:
If I would never proclaim Christ publicly, is it because I believe relationship evangelism is the only biblical method, or is it because I'm afraid of what people will think of me?
That's a question only each of us can answer before God.
Jesus warned, "Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
It's worth asking ourselves honestly: "am I opposing public proclamation because Scripture opposes it, or because I fear the ridicule that often comes with openly speaking for Christ?"

Well said. The Gospel has power in it and as believers we should trust this power and therefore not be ashamed to speak it publicly as some seem to be.
I heard of one person who was sharing the Gospel publicly and then a heckler started yelling out from the crowd scoffing at the preacher. The heckler scoffed and said rude tone, "You believe in God and that we have sinned against Him and that Jesus died in our place for our sins and so all who believe in Him will have eternal life!" Later a bystander went up to the preacher and said, "I heard what heckler said and I believed him."
So, the Gospel can be spoken even from a non-believer, and it still has power in it. Believers need to trust in this power and stop belittling it.

Have you forgotten that people back then were killed for their testimony? Today that only really happens in Communist or Muslim countries. We are in a blessed time.

Click to expand...

Harder to convert not harder to preach was my point.

Delvianna said:

Im not allowed to expand my answer, its against the site rules, so im afraid I have to keep it generic. But evangelism is definitely a lot harder today than I think it was during biblical times. At least there wasnt 5,000 different denominations for Judaism.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize; your point becomes more clear though.

Delvianna said:

Harder to convert not harder to preach was my point.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?
When I speak to hard core atheists, about 60% of the time, they will have a massive mind change. They go from believing that there is no God to believing that there is a God. Then they often say that they then need to investigate more.
But I trust in the Gospel. So, I speak the Gospel to an unbeliever and then it is God who creates the growth. I cannot make Christians.

1Tonne said:

Well said. The Gospel has power in it and as believers we should trust this power and therefore not be ashamed to speak it publicly as some seem to be.
I heard of one person who was sharing the Gospel publicly and then a heckler started yelling out from the crowd scoffing at the preacher. The heckler scoffed and said rude tone, "You believe in God and that we have sinned against Him and that Jesus died in our place for our sins and so all who believe in Him will have eternal life!" Later a bystander went up to the preacher and said, "I heard what heckler said and I believed him."
So, the Gospel can be spoken even from a non-believer, and it still has power in it. Believers need to trust in this power and stop belittling it.

Click to expand...

How ironic, that sounds like God alright. 1 Corinthians 1, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men.

1Tonne said:

What do you mean?
When I speak to hard core atheists, about 60% of the time, they will have a massive mind change. They go from believing that there is no God to believing that there is a God. Then they often say that they then need to investigate more.
But I trust in the Gospel. So, I speak the Gospel to an unbeliever and then it is God who creates the growth. I cannot make Christians.

Click to expand...

Im not talking about atheists. They are the easiest to talk to. The context was about false gospels. So my point is, harder to convert people in general due to the false gospels. Correct the people spreading it, or believing in it. Or people from other religions who have the wrong idea due to all the false gospels being spread because there is literally over 45,000 denominations in Christianity. I cannot give examples because I will be accused of calling them not christians which is against the sites rules. So, I hope this is enough to clarify what I mean.

Delvianna said:

Im not talking about atheists. They are the easiest to talk to. The context was about false gospels. So my point is, harder to convert people in general due to the false gospels. Correct the people spreading it, or believing in it. Or people from other religions who have the wrong idea due to all the false gospels being spread because there is literally over 45,000 denominations in Christianity. I cannot give examples because I will be accused of calling them not christians which is against the sites rules. So, I hope this is enough to clarify what I mean.

Click to expand...

It's perfectly clear now. I was thinking that's what you meant, just couldn't be sure.

1Tonne said:

I think your comment intentionally dismisses the very means God has often used throughout history.
The apostles preached publicly. Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Noah is even described as a "preacher of righteousness." None of them first built long-term relationships with every hearer before calling people to repentance.

Click to expand...

Different cultures warrant different approaches. In cultures where that form of communication is well-received, go for it. But in large swaths of the US (and most of the rest of the West, I’d imagine), it’s not. In much of the US, it’s perceived as obnoxious and presumptuous and casts a pall on other Christians, who then have the added burden of shaking off that negative image.

1Tonne said:

You say you're too intelligent to respond to a person sharing the Gospel publicly. Instead, you would only respond to another who could explain the Gospel at your level. But truth is not determined by how well you know the messenger. If a stranger warned you that a bridge ahead had collapsed, the sensible response would be to consider whether what he said was true, not dismiss him because he was a stranger.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

Distilling this down to truth vs falsehood overlooks the fact that religion and interpretation of religious text is way more subjective than determining whether a bridge is out. You may believe your understanding of things is true, but you don’t know; that’s why it’s called “faith.” Trying to convert me is an exercise in trying to convince me that you know better than I do. My beef with street preaching is that it starts out with the assumption that I’m wrong, without first asking what I think about the subject.

Additionally, the person warning about the bridge doesn’t have to understand much about me in order to make that information salient to me. If I’m driving on the road, I’m going to want that information; and once I have that information, it doesn’t require much effort of me. All I have to do is turn around, whereas changing religions is potentially a huge deal. Religion is considered so central to a person’s being that we, as a society, have decided to protect it as much as immutable characteristics like skin color.

1Tonne said:

Finally, I'd encourage you to consider the courage it takes for someone to stand in public and speak about Christ. It's easy to call it "lazy" from the sidelines. By calling public proclamation 'lazy,' you are also describing the ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles. They all preached publicly, often to complete strangers, and endured ridicule, abuse, and rejection because they believed people needed to hear the Gospel. Even if you disagree with their method, I don't think it's fair to dismiss their motives or courage so casually.

Click to expand...

My accusation of laziness wasn’t a dismissal of their motives; just their methods.

I call it lazy not because it doesn’t take effort or courage, but because it doesn’t take the time to understand what it takes to appeal to people. It takes a mode of communication that’s anachronistic in our society and resurrects it “because jesus did it.” I’d have more respect for an effort that was tailored to the audience.

iluvatar5150 said:

Different cultures warrant different approaches. In cultures where that form of communication is well-received, go for it. But in large swaths of the US (and most of the rest of the West, I’d imagine), it’s not. In much of the US, it’s perceived as obnoxious and presumptuous and casts a pall on other Christians, who then have the added burden of shaking off that negative image.

Click to expand...

By that standard, Jesus and the apostles should have stopped preaching publicly, because they were often not well received either.
Jesus said, "The world hates Me because I testify that its works are evil" (John 7:7). He also said, "If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you" (John 15:18).
The Gospel has never been judged by how well the culture receives it. If cultural acceptance became the measure of whether we should proclaim Christ publicly, then much of the New Testament would never have happened.
Of course, we should preach with love, humility, and wisdom. But people finding the message offensive is not, by itself, evidence that we are proclaiming it wrongly. Sometimes the offence lies in the Gospel itself.

iluvatar5150 said:

Distilling this down to truth vs falsehood overlooks the fact that religion and interpretation of religious text is way more subjective than determining whether a bridge is out. You may believe your understanding of things is true, but you don’t know; that’s why it’s called “faith.” Trying to convert me is an exercise in trying to convince me that you know better than I do. My beef with street preaching is that it starts out with the assumption that I’m wrong, without first asking what I think about the subject.

Additionally, the person warning about the bridge doesn’t have to understand much about me in order to make that information salient to me. If I’m driving on the road, I’m going to want that information; and once I have that information, it doesn’t require much effort of me. All I have to do is turn around, whereas changing religions is potentially a huge deal. Religion is considered so central to a person’s being that we, as a society, have decided to protect it as much as immutable characteristics like skin color.

Click to expand...

I think you've changed the discussion slightly. We weren't discussing whether Christianity is true; we were discussing whether it's appropriate to proclaim it publicly.
The bridge illustration wasn't meant to prove Christianity. It was simply illustrating that we shouldn't dismiss a message because we don't know the messenger. The question should always be, "Is what they're saying true?"
I also think that, if Christianity is true, then its message is relevant to every person. Jesus preached publicly to crowds. Peter preached publicly at Pentecost. Paul preached in synagogues and marketplaces. They didn't first interview every hearer to understand their worldview before proclaiming Christ.
Of course, deeper conversations are valuable, and discipleship requires relationships. But that doesn't make public proclamation presumptuous. It simply means the Gospel is worthy of being heard by everyone, and each person can then examine it for themselves.

iluvatar5150 said:

My accusation of laziness wasn’t a dismissal of their motives; just their methods.

I call it lazy not because it doesn’t take effort or courage, but because it doesn’t take the time to understand what it takes to appeal to people. It takes a mode of communication that’s anachronistic in our society and resurrects it “because jesus did it.” I’d have more respect for an effort that was tailored to the audience.

Click to expand...

We should seek to communicate wisely and understand our audience. Paul certainly did that.
Where I disagree is calling public proclamation "lazy." The New Testament doesn't present it as a lazy method, nor does it suggest it should be abandoned when culture finds it unappealing. (In reality, you are implying that even Jesus was lazy. That is wrong)
In fact, the Gospel has almost always been counter-cultural. Jesus wasn't rejected because His communication style was outdated. He said, "The world hates Me because I testify that its works are evil." The apostles weren't imprisoned because they failed to tailor their message, they were imprisoned because they faithfully proclaimed it.
Tailoring how we communicate is wise. But tailoring whether we proclaim publicly because the culture disapproves is a very different matter. If our standard is, "Don't use methods modern culture finds offensive," then Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul would all fail that test.
The real question isn't whether the method is fashionable. It's whether it's biblical. And it sure is.

Let me reflect back on what you have posted and what your position sounds like to me, because I think it reveals why you struggle with public proclamation.
You seem to be saying that if a street preacher is speaking, you are not obliged to listen unless they first meet your standard of intelligence or relational credibility. In other words, they must earn the right to be heard before their message is worth considering.
But that shifts the focus from the message to the messenger.
The more basic question that you should be asking yourself is not, “Do I respect this person enough to listen?” but “Is what they are saying true?”
Every worldview believes other worldviews are wrong, that is simply what truth claims involve. The issue is not whether disagreement exists, but how we respond to it.
Humility is willing to ask, “Could this be true?” Pride is more likely to say, “You are not the kind of person I need to listen to.”
If someone publicly proclaims Christ, you are absolutely free to reject the message after examining it. But dismissing it primarily because of who is speaking, rather than what is being said, shifts the evaluation away from truth and onto status. You believe that the street preacher is below you.
It may be worth asking yourself honestly whether the issue is really the method of communication, or whether it is the idea of being addressed at all by someone you have already placed beneath your level of engagement.
So, this isn't really an issue with the message or the messenger. The issue is that you do not like to be told something. That reveals something within your heart.
As a brother in Christ, I point this out in the hope that you see it and humble yourself.

1Tonne said:

So, this isn't really an issue with the message or the messenger. The issue is that you do not like to be told something.

Click to expand...

I can see why a presumptuous form of communication doesn’t bother you.

iluvatar5150 said:

I can see why a presumptuous form of communication doesn’t bother you.

Click to expand...

Whether public proclamation is "presumptuous" is really the question under discussion.
If by "presumptuous" you mean proclaiming a message without first having a relationship, then Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and the other apostles all preached presumptuously by that definition. They regularly proclaimed God's message publicly to people they had never met.
The issue isn't whether the messenger knows every hearer personally. The issue is whether God has given us a message that is to be proclaimed publicly.
So rather than discussing my personality, I'd be interested to know: do you believe Jesus and the apostles were wrong to publicly call strangers to repentance, or do you believe that method was appropriate in their day but has somehow become inappropriate now? If the latter, what biblical principle teaches that?

1Tonne said:

So rather than discussing my personality

Click to expand...

But my willingness to receive instruction is fair game… got it.

I'd be interested to know: do you believe Jesus and the apostles were wrong to publicly call strangers to repentance, or do you believe that method was appropriate in their day but has somehow become inappropriate now? If the latter, what biblical principle teaches that?

Click to expand...

What biblical principle teaches what? That you ought to communicate to your audience in a manner that will reach them rather than one they’ll find off-putting?

That would be covered under the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

iluvatar5150 said:

What biblical principle teaches what? That you ought to communicate to your audience in a manner that will reach them rather than one they’ll find off-putting?

That would be covered under the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

Click to expand...

We should love our neighbour and communicate with gentleness, respect, and wisdom.
Where we differ is this: you seem to be defining "loving" as communicating in whatever way people find least offensive. I don't think that's the biblical standard.
In fact, Leviticus 19:17–18, right before the command to "love your neighbour as yourself", says, "You shall surely rebuke your neighbour." Biblical love doesn't ignore sin simply because someone may find it offensive. Love is willing to speak the truth, even when it is difficult to hear.
Jesus loved perfectly, yet many found both Him and His message deeply offensive. He said, "The world hates Me because I testify that its works are evil." The apostles loved people enough to preach publicly, even though they were mocked, beaten, imprisoned, and told to stop.

If the message itself is offensive because it calls people to repentance, then avoiding public proclamation simply because people dislike it isn't necessarily loving, it may simply be avoiding the reproach that often comes with speaking God's truth. In a way, it is cowardice.

So, my question remains: where does Scripture teach that public proclamation to strangers is unloving, when Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and the other apostles all did it?

1Tonne said:

We should love our neighbour and communicate with gentleness, respect, and wisdom.
Where we differ is this: you seem to be defining "loving" as communicating in whatever way people find least offensive. I don't think that's the biblical standard.
In fact, Leviticus 19:17–18, right before the command to "love your neighbour as yourself", says, "You shall surely rebuke your neighbour." Biblical love doesn't ignore sin simply because someone may find it offensive. Love is willing to speak the truth, even when it is difficult to hear.
Jesus loved perfectly, yet many found both Him and His message deeply offensive. He said, "The world hates Me because I testify that its works are evil." The apostles loved people enough to preach publicly, even though they were mocked, beaten, imprisoned, and told to stop.

If the message itself is offensive because it calls people to repentance, then avoiding public proclamation simply because people dislike it isn't necessarily loving, it may simply be avoiding the reproach that often comes with speaking God's truth. In a way, it is cowardice.

Click to expand...

You keep conflating being bothered by the content with being bothered by the delivery of it. I don’t know if that’s on purpose or you truly don’t know how to separate the two, but I’ve only been commenting on the delivery. Every time you talk about the content being offensive, you miss the point.

So, my question remains: where does Scripture teach that public proclamation to strangers is unloving, when Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and the other apostles all did it?

Click to expand...

As I’ve already pointed out, it’s culture-specific. They did that in a time when that sort of thing was culturally normal or acceptable. Today, it’s, at best, strange.

Riding into town atop a donkey walking on a carpet of palm fronds would be seen as pretty odd today, too, and not have the meaning it did 2,000 years ago. Should we bring that back or should we maybe tailor our presentation for the 21st century?

I think quite often the person proclaiming the Good News is not just proclaiming the Good News but also a preferred interpretation with specific beliefs and judgements if not also a political worldview. Unless the listener already shares that bubble it is not surprising that there would be resistance.

Sharing a personal story of conversion or speaking of God’s greatness and love or our own personal encounters with Christ is quite different.

Aussie52 said:

d Taylor, the 'Free Grace Gospel' is not the answer, it has been a big part of the problem in the Church today with its 'easy believeism'.
There is nothing 'simple' in believing in Jesus. While salvation is a free gift it also 'costs' you all that you have to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
Saving faith including faithfulness to the Lord on a moment-by-moment basis. Saving faith is not just an act of the moment but an attitude of a lifetime.

Click to expand...

There is no Free Grace Gospel what Free Grace believes and teaches. Is what The Bible states for a person to believe in, to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and become a permanent born again child of God.

Which is to believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, God's free gift.

Aussie52 said:

There is nothing 'simple' in believing in Jesus. While salvation is a free gift it also 'costs' you all that you have to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

satan's loves this type of belief/thinking and uses it to blind people to God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Ministers of Satan - 2 Cor 11:14-15 - Grace Evangelical Society

iluvatar5150 said:

You keep conflating being bothered by the content with being bothered by the delivery of it. I don’t know if that’s on purpose or you truly don’t know how to separate the two, but I’ve only been commenting on the delivery. Every time you talk about the content being offensive, you miss the point.

Click to expand...

I understand the distinction, and I haven't intentionally conflated the two.
My point is that you're condemning a method that Scripture repeatedly records and commends. Jesus preached publicly. John the Baptist preached publicly. Peter preached publicly. Paul preached publicly in synagogues, marketplaces, and lecture halls.
If your objection is purely about the delivery, then my question is simple: where does Scripture teach that publicly proclaiming God's message to strangers is an unloving or inappropriate form of delivery?
Appealing to modern preferences isn't enough, because the Gospel has never been shaped by the preferences of the culture. If our standard is, "Don't communicate in ways people find off-putting," then many of the biblical prophets, Jesus Himself, and the apostles would all fail that test.

Of course we should be wise, gracious, and respectful. But wisdom is not the same as abandoning a biblical method simply because you or other people dislike it.

iluvatar5150 said:

As I’ve already pointed out, it’s culture-specific. They did that in a time when that sort of thing was culturally normal or acceptable. Today, it’s, at best, strange.

Riding into town atop a donkey walking on a carpet of palm fronds would be seen as pretty odd today, too, and not have the meaning it did 2,000 years ago. Should we bring that back or should we maybe tailor our presentation for the 21st century?

Click to expand...

I don't think those two things are comparable.
Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was a unique, symbolic fulfilment of prophecy. Public proclamation of the Gospel, however, wasn't merely a cultural custom, it was a repeated pattern of ministry throughout the New Testament.
I completely agree that we should tailor our illustrations, language, and approach to the people we're trying to reach. Paul certainly did that. But adapting our communication is different from declaring a biblical method to be "lazy," "presumptuous," or inappropriate simply because our culture finds it strange.
For example, I don't usually stand in the town square and preach to a crowd. Instead, I put on a free BBQ and use that opportunity to speak with many people about Christ. Sometimes those conversations are one-to-one, but often they become small groups where several people are listening and interacting together. That's an adaptation to my culture and circumstances. I'm not abandoning public evangelism; I'm simply using a different way of engaging those on the street.
But even doing a BBQ downtown becomes offensive to many who realise we are talking about God. Some snare and say derogatory comments. But many unbelievers who we end up talking to will tell us that what we are saying is really good. I had one person a week ago who believed in evolution and the big bang and as we spoke about sin and then judgement, he was getting defensive, so I could see he was taking offense. But, then when I told him about Jesus' great sacrifice. By the end he said that our encounter was a God ordained thing and that he would not take it lightly. So, it was offensive to him, but I still told him and he understood and was very grateful that I had the courage to show him his sin. You are condemning this form of proclamation because it makes you feel uneasy.

The New Testament gives us a variety of methods: public preaching, house-to-house ministry, conversations, reasoning in synagogues and marketplaces, and personal evangelism. We should be thankful for all of them.

What I don't see in Scripture is the idea that public proclamation becomes inappropriate because society no longer likes it. If our principle is, "Don't use methods that people find off-putting," then we'd also have to stop preaching about sin, repentance, judgment, and the exclusivity of Christ, because those truths are deeply unpopular as well.
The question isn't whether we should adapt our methods, we should. The question is whether we have the authority to condemn a method that Scripture repeatedly commends, such as you have done.

So, I keep coming back to the same question: where does Scripture teach that public proclamation has become an unloving method because culture has changed? I see commands to preach the Gospel and repeated examples of it being proclaimed publicly. I don't see Scripture telling us to abandon that because society has become less receptive.

Sadly, you seem to put more trust in your friendship bringing someone to Christ than the proclamation of the Gospel. Our friendships are good, so go and make friends, but they are not the power of God unto salvation. They only give us an opportunity to share the Gospel. We should trust the Gospel. It has the power to change the hearts of both our friends and strangers. So, do not limit the Gospel to only those you become friends with. I have seen many strangers change. In fact, every time I go out and speak publicly, I see people change.
I also think there's a principle here that's worth considering.
Sharing the Gospel with people we already know and love is a wonderful thing. We should absolutely do that.
But Jesus taught that loving only those who already love us is nothing extraordinary. "If you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" (Matt. 5:46).
If the Gospel truly is the greatest gift we can give, then why would we reserve it primarily for those already in our circle? Christ calls us to love our neighbour, not just our friends. Public evangelism is one way of showing that love to complete strangers who may never otherwise hear the message of Christ.
That's one of the reasons I value it. It's an expression of love that reaches beyond the people who are already part of my life.

d taylor said:

​

There is no Free Grace Gospel what Free Grace believes and teaches. Is what The Bible states for a person to believe in, to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and become a permanent born again child of God.

Which is to believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, God's free gift.

Click to expand...

Eternal life is free. All we need to do is believe in Jesus for Eternal Life. But, belief has actions that go with it.
If I told you that there was a land mine in the path and you did not believe me, then you would continue on the path. But if you believed me, then you would act accordingly and change direction. Likewise, those who believe that Jesus died on the cross for thier sins will also change direction. They will see their sin and run from it. Those who say that they believe, they may even be sincere, but continue on the same path will oneday, at the end of their life, walk into a land mine.

1Tonne said:

But even doing a BBQ downtown becomes offensive to many who realise we are talking about God. Some snare and say derogatory comments.

Click to expand...

Those would be objections to the content, not the delivery.

What I don't see in Scripture is the idea that public proclamation becomes inappropriate because society no longer likes it. If our principle is, "Don't use methods that people find off-putting," then we'd also have to stop preaching about sin, repentance, judgment, and the exclusivity of Christ, because those truths are deeply unpopular as well.

Click to expand...

Again, you’re conflating content with method.

So, I keep coming back to the same question: where does Scripture teach that public proclamation has become an unloving method because culture has changed? I see commands to preach the Gospel and repeated examples of it being proclaimed publicly. I don't see Scripture telling us to abandon that because society has become less receptive.

Click to expand...

This is such an odd question. Just from a purely practical perspective, why would you still advocate for it if the audience has grown less receptive to it?

But I’ve already explained this answer: it’s, essentially, a flippant treatment of a very weighty topic. By treating it flippantly, the preacher disrespects the material and disrespects the listener by not taking seriously what’s being asked of them.

On the street, how can we differentiate ourselves from prosperity gospel preachers, Christian Nationalists, and “the end is near” preaching. “Unless you believe as I believe, you are damned”.

How about more “I was lost and Christ changed my life. Would you like to hear how?”

“Something wonderful happened to me and completely changed me and it can happen to you as well.”

“Would you like a peace and joy nothing can disturb?”