News-Record.com

After a fair number of such encounters, I believe I have learned one immutable fact about them. They will never be pleasant conversations. Life is too blasted short to waste your time in fruitless, contentious conversations with total strangers. So now, when some person pops up on my doorstep to try and sell me a god or two, I politely say, "Sorry, not interested" and firmly close the door in his face.

I am not a religious person, but I always just smile at the people at my door and tell them 'no thanks'. They don't usually push it. Just this morning I had a guy invite me to his church. He seemed like a very nice, well meaning person, but I won't be going to his church. I won't be going to any church. I have my own beliefs that I am comfortable with, and if I have questions about other beliefs I will seek someone out who has those beliefs and ask them. If someone knocks on my door to tell me about them they're not going to get anywhere. I'm not looking for a church. HOWEVER, these people who knock on doors are just doing what they believe is right, and as long as they're not pushy and just go away when I tell them no thanks, I don't have a problem with it. Now, if they insisted on talking to me and refused to take no for an answer, then I'd get annoyed.

Different strokes for different folks.

Christians are told to spread the good news. Since you aren't likely to just waltz into their church, they may feel they have no other choice than to come to you.

What do they get out of it? Well, some may just want to pat themselves on the back. I know a lot of them who do it because they generally love their God, believe he is the way to eternal happiness, and want the world to share in that joy.
Personally, I think it takes a lot of courage to approach a complete stranger regardless of what you're 'selling'.

I agree with both of you that it just isn't a very effective way to convince people.

I absolutely loathe an unexpected knock on my door on Saturday morning. Then again, I'm just not one for people popping in whenever they feel like it. I even expect my friends and family to call first. Guess I'm kinda inflexible like that.

You want to make a real impression on people. Get to know them first. Let them see how you live your life, practice your religion and how you deal with situations. If they are interested in the God you serve, they will probably let you know.

nit; You speak my mind!

Max Roseman, just tell those who know of your door you will listen to them; IF they will listen to you FIRST! See how long they stay on your stoop then!

Shalom

I have a solution to this problem. It's worked wonders for me in the past.

Once when I was living in another town, two representatives - a man and woman in their mid-20s - of a certain religion knocked on my door, in an effort to proselytize me. Too bad for them that I already knew a little bit about this group.

I politely listened to them for about 3 or 4 minutes, and then told them that "I notice you're not wearing any jewelry."

"That's right."

"And this is because you don't believe in wearing anything that you weren't already born with."

The girl perkily said "That's right!"

"Okay then..." I said. Then dropped my pants in front of them and asked "How's this?"

They both ran away so fast that the girl almost fell out of her shoes. Never heard from them ever again.

Later my landlady asked me what did I do to them that scared them away, so I told her. She applauded me for my creativity, said I'd probably made sure they'd never come back around again and then gave me some home-made cookies as a reward :-)

Without evangelists Christianity would still be a small cult. Why would we expect members of relatively new religions like the LDS or the Reunification Church and relatively new sects and denominations like the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jehova's Witnesses to behave any differently than some early Christians (and current evangelical Christians)?

I wonder whether the letter writer belongs to a church that engages in any mission work and if so, whether he'd like his missionaries to get the same snide treatment that he provided.

I also wonder if Mr. Knight realizes that his behavior is neither funny nor legal.

A little respect goes a long way. If you are not interested in the message, a polite refusal is usually all that is necessary.

"Without evangelists Christianity would still be a small cult."

Christianity owes what success it is deemed to have not to in-your-face "evangelism" but to the example of service and humility that Christ called us to have.

"Why would we expect members of relatively new religions like the LDS or the Reunification Church and relatively new sects and denominations like the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jehova's Witnesses to behave any differently than some early Christians (and current evangelical Christians)?"

See, here's the real problem right there: too many Christians, and all of the groups that you mentioned here, are REALLY more concerned with building themselves up as mass bodies for sake of collective influence. Hence, the "evangelism" which is really more for benefit of a group of men than it is for benefit of God's glory.

To really seek God, for His sake instead of our own, means an abandonment of worldly affiliations. So far as Christians go, to follow Christ means that we make Christ our identity rather than "Baptist" or "Methodist" or "Presbyterian" or whatever. Even the name "Christian" does not have much meaning in that sense: we are either to follow Christ or we choose not to. "Christian" is merely the crude temporal nomenclature for our spiritual life.

"I also wonder if Mr. Knight realizes that his behavior is neither funny nor legal."

I've done that pants thing three times now, and haven't been arrested yet.

And *I* thought it was funny, anyway!

Mr. Knight:

The books in the New Testament that follow the Gospels starting with Acts describe an early evangelistic movement.

"The books in the New Testament that follow the Gospels starting with Acts describe an early evangelistic movement."

The difference between the evangelism then and too much evangelism now is that back then, it really *was* being done for sake of Christ alone.

A lot of evangelism today is being done in the name of Christ but really is for a sense of temporal power and affluence.

That is all that denominations are about, in the end: trying to have a sense of domination over other Christians. So it becomes that it's not enough that one merely chooses to follow Christ, but that one is also a Baptist, or a Catholic, or whatever. "Evangelism" today is about bolstering the ranks of earthly division, not building up the Kingdom of God.

Christopher:

The earliest evangelists would not have identified themselves as being Christian but rather as being Jewish. The early church emphasized a different way to worship the Jewish god. The movement went on to recruit from non-Jewish sources and became more distinctive, but the earliest followers would have thought of themselves as a more perfect branch of Judaism.

Also, it's hard to describe Paul as not being an "in-your-face" kind of guy. It's also hard to argue that a movement that went from maybe a few hundred followers at the time of Jesus' crucifixion to several million followers by the early 4th century was not active in evangelism.

A fantastic book by Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, makes a strong argument that early "Christians" recruited and grew their faith in ways that we would recognize from current cults and sects. In one of the earliest chapters, he shows that the likely initial growth rate of Christianity was similar to Mormon growth rates over the last century.

"The earliest evangelists would not have identified themselves as being Christian but rather as being Jewish."

That's a very good point.

As a history professor of mine once pointed out: at no point was Jesus a Christian. He lived as a Jew, died as a Jew, and rose again as a Jew.

CK, I have to agree with Dave on this one.

Those early Church "fathers" each has a separate and distinct group to which they appealed. Paul even wrote about some groups calling themselves; Paul, Apollos, etc. The people took on the name of the one who brought the message. They did not consider calling themselves Christian. These people (evangelists) had egos just like each of us. Who is to say that they did not "run" with those ideas?

Here is a question to ponder; Is the Church today valid in calling itself "christian," or would it be better to call itself "pauline?"

Shalom

"Here is a question to ponder; Is the Church today valid in calling itself "christian," or would it be better to call itself "pauline?""

It would suffice if the church calls itself "followers of Christ".

CK:

"Christian" actually encompasses many faiths, some of which died out. For instance, there were Gnostic communities early on.

Most western faiths would be "Pauline" but faiths like the Copts, would not be.